Read the headline of this AP piece, "Israel Kills 3 Palestinians Near Gaza Border," and you'd be likely to think that it sounds like the typical AP account of any incident involving Israel and the Territories, right?
There is little question that the headline is meant to grab the attention of the reader by implying that Israel had killed 3 Palestinian civilians - otherwise, the copy editor would've used "militants." That headline ( Israel Kills 3 Militants Near Gaza Border ) doesn't sound as "sexy" from a news perspective since shooting terrorists is expected.
To boot, the news agency has established that they're militants, not terrorists. How sensitive of them.
When you read the story, you find that these "Palestinians" were actually terrorists from Islamic Jihad on their way to carry out an attack:
Israeli troops shot and killed three militants from the Islamic Jihad group near the Israel-Gaza border on Tuesday, as soldiers conducted house-to-house searches and made arrests elsewhere in the coast strip.
The Israeli army said soldiers opened fire after spotting what they considered suspicious men walking by a fence near the Kissufim crossing, carrying large bags.Tanks also fired in the direction of the three men, the army said.
No weapons were found near the bodies, but Palestinian security officials said the three had been sent to carry out an attack.
This is very important. The liberal media does affect public opinion with the words they choose to use and the way they white wash and edit the news for you. If the media was honest in its reporting and with the pictures it printed, there would be greater support for Israel. This happens in many other cases. People who support abortion are not pro-abortion, they are pro-choice. I have brought this up many times, but this is one of the main points of my blog, so I will keep bringing up these points as I see fit.
Posts
4 comments:
I hate this PC talk too. Israel is usually dealing with terrorists, not militants.
Before you know it Osama bin Laden will be called a militant in the interests of neutrality. By not calling Muslim terrorists what they are, the media is taking sides.
Was Tim Veigh a militant? Was Eric Rudolph a militant? No, we say these people are terrorists. No one wants to call brown people terrorists because liberals will play the race card, trying to bully those that stand in their way into silence like they always do.
I offer the following interesting read from Talking Points Memo:
The past week or so has seen some renewed attention to the longstanding hawk-pundit gambit of referring to people as "Islamofascists" since the President, in what I can only understand as a sign of increasing desperation, decided to more-or-less sign on to this agenda by adopting the slightly-less-absurd formulation "Islamic fascists." The other day, Spencer Ackerman made the fundamental pragmatic argument against this -- Muslims everywhere really, really, really don't appreciate this terminology.
That aside, however, it's worth calling attention to the function of this rhetoric. "Fascist," in this context, just roughly means "bad." Add in the "Islamic" and what you come to is the conclusion that we're in a war and that the enemy in this war is Muslims who subscribe to bad ideologies...
[please read this. It is the important point.]
... This has the consequence of taking a set of institutionally and ideologically distinct actors -- Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, Iraq, Iran, Syria, al-Qaeda, the Mahdi Army, Iraqi insurgents, etc. -- and treating them as a single phenomenon. To do so would be a serious mistake. And to call it a mistake is not to deny the obvious fact that these are groups that are to some degree interrelated. There's some ideological overlap. Some of these groups are allied with each other at the moment. Some have been allied in the past. Some might ally in the future.
Nevertheless, they are different things. And the essence of sound strategy has long been to look at potentially hostile actors and try to divide them. To decide what your top priority is and focus on it. The "Islamofascism" rhetoric is part of a continuing campaign to do the reverse.
again, not understanding human nature...there is something really wrong with these people who want to blow themselves up in the middle east.
They all cite Islam over and over again....why argue a loosing issue again?
So let them blow themselves up if they want -- it's theirs to blow up.
(Argue that losing issue again, game)
Post a Comment