According to a puzzling, if not downright racist, Reuters report:
Outraged Iranians protesting an unbelievably irresponsible crime by a German who stabbed an Iranian witness in court eighteen times are labeled “hardline.” No attempt was made in the report to justify why people outraged at the fact that a German court cannot protect its witnesses or the fact that the murderer had time to stab the witness 18 times before being subdued might be considered “hardline.”
Does this mean that in the opinion of Reuters, all Westerners who oppose violence by, say, Iranian authorities against pro-democracy demonstrators are “hardline?” Was the beautiful Neda, who allegedly put herself in the way of a Basij bullet, “hardline?” Did Hitler slaughter six million “hardline” Jews? Are Human Rights Watch analysts documenting Israeli killings of civilians in Gaza “hardline?” I suppose the victims of the military suppressing resistance to the recent coup in Honduras were also “hardline.”
No, no, no. I’m getting carried away. The truth is very simple: Western media have rules. One of the rules is that when Western regimes oppose a certain country, then the organizations and people of that country are no longer “Iranian” but “hardline Iranian;” they are no longer “Hamas” but “terrorist Hamas.” The first word, you see, is no longer an adjective but simply part of the name. If you are demonstrating against a Western crime, you are a “hardline Iranian.” Who else but a “hardliner” would go out of their way to call attention to the murder in court of a witness? Who else but a “terrorist” would go out of their way to defend their people from Israeli collective punishment than a “terrorist?”
I’m feeling very depressed. Would a reader kindly write in and encourage me…by accusing me of being “hardline?” I would take that as a great compliment.