Cooking dinner last night, I was listening to a segment on DemocracyNow!, (at the "liberal peacenik" end of the U.S. media spectrum), when a correspondent in Afghanistan described the U.S. assassination of a high-ranking Taliban leader, and whether that might create an opening for a more radical and militant leader to take his place. He opined what such a change might mean for the U.S. military command's efforts in trying to accomplish whatever are their goals with the operation, invasion and occupation.
What got my attention were the descriptions of Afghans' "sensitivity" to civilian casualties, as the interviewer Amy Goodman and the correspondent were discussing a house that had mistakenly been targeted and a bunch of children had their bodies blown apart, killing them and a few adults.
I couldn't help but wonder what would result if a reporter declared that Americans were "sensitive" to civilians being attacked on 9/11 or at Oklahoma City when a daycare was destroyed. It boggles the mind that this kind of language is used, yet as far as I can tell, it made no impression on either the reporter or the "liberal-progressive" host of the show.
People devoted to science try to be as neutral and objective as possible - in this case, I tried to identify with the victims and their families, especially since my nation's government is responsible. The description of this mass slaughter of children in terms that suggest the problem is not that a horrific crime is being committed at unconscionable economic and opportunity costs and making 100 terrorists for every successful assassination - no, this is not a main concern. According to the "liberal" media, a primary issue to focus on in the "sensitivity" of the local natives - as if this is a perceptual problem one needs to understand when dealing with unreasonable, uneducated savages. Such apparent racism and lack of empathy astounds me.