Post
including RT. Then instead of apologizing the spokesperson of the Prime Minister of Israel sent the RT offices telling them if they don't air pro Israel coverage they are fair game. Why is this war crime not even covered in Western media and should every journalist who says something Israel doesn't have to worry about getting blown up? So much for freedom of press or free speech.
PicturesOfABetterLife PicturesOfABetterLife 31-35, M 10 Answers Nov 25, 2012 in Politics

Your Response

Cancel

The Zionists own the western media. For my news I watch RT and TRNN.

Best Answer

I get my news from RT myself and is the only reason I ever heard about this.

Best Answer

me too, I watch Al-Jazeera as well

Best Answer

Any dissenting voice is a legitimate target for the zionists in the propaganda war.

Best Answer

Sad but it would seem to be the case.

Best Answer

"The first fact left out by The Times was that the western media had left the area a week ago, so the IDF didn’t target “the media” as The Times uncritically allowed the Hamas operative to claim.



Secondly, The New York Times somehow forgot to mention that the buildings that were hit also housed the base of four high profile terror leaders, all four of whom were killed in the strike.



Killed that day was Islamic Jihad senior commander Ramiz Harb. Also eliminated was Bahu al-Ata and Hallil Bahatini, two Islamic Jihad commanders who were in charge of the rocket barrage launched against Israel, and Taysir Jabari, a terror commander responsible for multiple attacks on Israel.



Last weekend, for instance, Palestinian propagandists and gullible western media outlets touted the death of 4-year-old Mahmoud Sadallah, supposedly killed by Israeli rockets. But it turns out that the child was actually killed by a Palestinian rocket launch that went awry falling on its own people instead of soaring into Israel killing Israeli women and children. Naturally, the truth was pushed to the back pages."

Best Answer

If that is true why did the spokesman for the Israeli PM claim nobody was killed in the strike and the only reason for the strike was to damage the Antennas to silence them and the IDF openly admitted they knew full well that there were journalists inside. The injured 8 journalists including blowing one journalist's leg clean off. If the Israeli government is saying they killed some militants and there were no casualties at the same time something is a bit off? Especially when the aid to the PM sends an email to the RT office in Moscow saying they deserved it and if they don't change their coverage they are fair game. Look a little deeper.

Best Answer

They took over a Hamas propaganda air wave and told them that they were going to attack the base, warning the people. They are unapologetic because those injured were already warned to leave and they didn't. Perhaps when they claimed there were no "casualties" they meant civilian casualties. Not sure about that e-mail, would have to look into it more, sounds like BS.

Best Answer

Even if what you say is true attacking journalists is a war crime and Israel or any nation for that matter should not get a free pass to violate the Geneva Convention when they feel like it. What next? bombing field hospitals because they are full of "terrorists" ? And one thing countries that play this game don't seem to get is once they break the rules they give everyone else justification to fight dirty too.

Best Answer

They gave them fair warning and enough time to get out, they were not targeting the journalists, as they said, they were targeting the men who were using the places attacked as sanctuaries.

Best Answer

Sorry but the facts don't bear that out. And a war crime is still a war crime even if you warn people first. Does not give you a free pass to commit war crimes. Comments for the IDF and the PM's aide don't even support your position here.

Best Answer

So they're supposed to let 4 high priority targets, two of whom organize the air strikes on civilians in Israel, live because the journalists they gave warning to didn't leave and happened to get injured? Their intent was not to attack the media, they made that clear by warning everyone what was going to happen.

Best Answer

Also, the RT site you are referring to supports what I have been saying, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Best Answer

Like I mentioned earlier when they also claim they were only destroying the antennas and that they did not so much as hurt anyone and claiming they killed 4 militants all at the same time don't you think it is odd when Israeli sources can't even make up their minds what happened? And sorry but that does not fly. You could make the same argument for bombing field hospitals, shooting down med-evac choppers and strafing ambulances. RT is one of the networks that was bombed and the Israeli PM's aide was claiming they did not hurt anyone in that strike in an interview. The same network he basically threatened if they did not alter their coverage. Also you could take out those people (assuming they ever were in the building) with a special forces team or even regular infantry are trained to clear buildings. The fact that they chose an airstrike tells me they did not give a damn who they killed regardless of the motives.

Best Answer

Stop with the slippery slope arguments, my God..They gave apt warning, there were enemies taking refuge in the center, if there were civilians still there, it was their choice to be there. The Israeli's were not suddenly dropping bombs on civilian's because they felt like it. All the sources I have read agree that there were militants killed in the attack, I don't know what you've been reading, but it certainly doesn't agree with any of the news sources as far as I can see. I don't think you understand how hard it would be to get infantry into any enemy controlled building undetected, in enemy territory, without there being some kind of alarm or casualties on your side. I'm not going to start arguing military tactics with you, they chose an airstrike because it reduces the risk of losing men on their side and because they have the technology to do so.

Best Answer

You are the one trying to justify what is a war crime. There is no dancing around that. There is no "warn people first and you can break the rules" clause. Sorry. And as for your claim of militants there is evidence that members of hamas were killed but they also have civilian members who do things like I don't journalism. Much like the Sinn Fein/IRA not every member is running around with a gun. *** for your argument of tactics committing war crimes because it is easier is not a valid strategy. I also come from a military family and know a thing or two about this so I am not pulling this out of my ***. I am sorry but any commander how decides to commit a war crime even if it is well intentioned should be ******** of their command at the very least for incompetence.

Best Answer

Your entire crutch is "this is a war crime." They were not specifically targeting civilians. No civilians were killed. While it is stated in Article 3 of the Geneva Convention that noncombatants should be protected, it can be argued that warning them was an attempt to protect them and by deciding to remain on the premises despite those attempts they were choosing to side with enemy forces and could thus be considered combatants, ora t the very least, enemies who may or may not take up arms against Israel. I never claimed EVERY member had a gun, but it is not unfeasible to assume that a majority of the members own weapons, for when they are called to defend/attack something spontaneously. I don't see how family background plays any part in your argument, you're basically just reiterating what you've said about 2-3 times prior to that sentence.

Best Answer

I mentioned my background because your previous comment seemed to imply I did not know what I was talking about. That is one hell of a stretch of logic and to my mind ranks right up there with the "I was just following orders" defense. This smacks of G W Bush inventing a new class of war prisoner so he could deny them POW rights and torture people. So if you don't have to bother figuring out who is actually a combatant does that make the schools and hospitals they run fair game too? Where does it stop? And I am sorry if you don't like the so called slippery slope argument but it is incredibly naive to thing incidents like this exist in a vacuum. I would point out I am not the only one repeating different variations of the same argument over and over again.

Best Answer

No one was claiming that we don't have to worry about people being combatants. It is not a stretch at all, if you warn people that you will be seeking out hamas members and they decide to stay in spite of that, what are you to think? I'm not justifying attacking civilians, I'm clarifying that they were not targeting civilians. I don't know what you're pointing out with this, "incredibly naive to thing incidents like this exist in a vacuum" unless you wish to shovel more words into my mouth. Great, your last sentence is basically "no you." Good to know.

Best Answer

Well your last point basically was that it did not matter if they were militants or hamas employed civilians everyone deserves a death warrant. And your justification that civilians staying behind magically changes their status to combatant is silly and a huge stretch. As for the journalist staying behind is it so ludicrous that they would be afforded protections under the rules of war? Journalists stay in warzones all the time but they don't go in expecting to be bombed. They said they knew there were civilians in the building but bombed it anyway so your argument that they were technically targeting a few people not civilians with an indiscrimate weapon is a bit of silly semantics. My point is if you play fast and loose with the rules of war what the hell stops an all out free for all where anything goes? And as for your last comment you started that and you are blaming me for pointing it out?

Best Answer

If a civilian is warned to leave otherwise he will be considered an enemy, and he doesn't leave, what should he be considered? An innocent bystander? I'm not saying attack civilians is right, but again, they were warned to leave and they didn't and again, none of them died nor were the specifically targeted. Your response seems to be as if you're taking what I said and applying it to people breaking down a door and gunning everyone in a room down regardless of whether they are armed or not. My remark applies specifically to this scenario, as you can't pick and choose targets with an airstrike nor can you magically know whether people remained behind or not. What would your solution be? Let the 4 high value targets skip away to blow more innocent people up? Journalists go into warzones all the time, correct. Guess what? In the case of the al-qaeda, they target journalists when they see them. If you're going into a warzone as a journalists I am fairly certain you don't expect to walk through a battlefield with a shining coat of armor on deflecting the bullets. You expect to be treated as a target, because that is what you'll be treated as. They know the risks, they agreed to stay IN SPITE OF being warned, they should be held accountable for their decisions, instead of being let free because it -may- go against the Geneva Convention. I can't believe you're assuming that they went in with the hopes to blow up civilians because they dropped an airstrike on a place they gave warning to. It's not exactly part of Israel's track record to blow up innocent indiscriminately like it is that of the Hamas. No one is saying you can play fast and loose with the rules of war, I am saying that the people there chose to be there and by doing so chose to subject themselves to something they knew was coming. My last remark pointed out what you have been essentially saying over and over again without regard for what I have said. You keep going back to "rules of war" while claiming my statements are silly.

Best Answer

Like it or not not leaving does not magically make you a combatant. And they have made statement that they knew damn well there were journalists still in the building. And when you use an indiscriminate weapon instead of a precision approach then yes I see it as the same as kicking in the door and machine gunning anything that moves or more appropriately throwing a hand grenade into a crowd when you are gunning for one person and the only reason more people were not killed or injured is dumb luck. Second you are immediately assuming those killed were fighters which may or may not be the case. But if a high value target is in a field hospital you don't bomb the hospital even if you know they are there. Why is the don't shoot at journalists rule more loose? And your comment about holding them accountable for their decisions bit sounds like blaming the victim. And they should not be set free because it goes against the Geneva Convention? Then we might as well ditch the convention entirely if we apply when and to whoever we choose. Laws are not applied or dropped on a case by case basis. And if you think Israel has not gone after civilians you need to do some research. Look up IDF two for one tshirts or firing white phosphorous in residential areas. But even if it was not deliberate intent does not matter when the rules of war have been violated. A Canadian soldier who shot a mortally wounded taliban fighter to put him out of his misery but he was still court martialed and was dishonourably discharged because he still broke the rules even though he had good intentions. As for your comment on Al Qaeda killing journalists that really does not help your case. Israel is an army of a nation state and is held to a certain standard that does not apply to criminals like al qaeda. How is giving this a pass not playing fast and loose with the rules?

Best Answer
13 More Responses

**** Israel

Best Answer

WOW. What an intelligent answer. Are you on crack or crystal, whatever, go back to your pipe.

Best Answer

Ad hominem attacks like that show even less maturity and a complete waste of intellect.
Pot meet kettle.

Best Answer

Saw it on BBC. They bombed where foriegne journilists gathered

Best Answer

Well kudos to the BBC for growing a spine.

Best Answer

The Brits are beginning to report much differently these days. It takes a while to tell people all about whats going on and not just some of whats going on

Best Answer

That is good news. Pun intended.

Best Answer

Boxer, what they have done till now and still do, as do most other mainstream media like fox news, add a tiny sprinkle of opposition view. Small snippets, shown late at night mostly when viewer numbers are on there lowest. And thats just there to say they not biased

Best Answer

based on your previous comment I am guessing you consider anything not a press release for the Israeli government "anti Israel." Has it occured to you that if there is something that something negative to report about Israel likes say war crimes that maybe that is the problem not the people bringing it to light? And if you look up the definition of Semitic you will realize how ridiculous that second comment was. Arabs are Semites too genius.

Best Answer
2 More Responses

it's all propaganda now and news has turned into entertainment. theres no more indepth reporting or investigtive journalism. i called into a radio show they were doing on weather and global warming- they had a guy on who studied climate change for the last 20 years i asked what he thought about chemtrails and if it was affecting the weather. i was rushed off the air so quick my head spun- he changed the subject didn't answer the question and I was hung up on! Now if they really wanted accurate reports wouldn't they have WANTED this specialist to answer the question?

Best Answer

Sad but true for the most part. I don't buy the chemtrails thing based on my own research but it certainly does not mean you don't have the right to question things. That was definitely not handled well.

Best Answer

does any of that surprise you?

Best Answer

The bombing, not at all. The media blackout this side of the Atlantic does. I did not realize a country halfway around the world could dictate media coverage here.

Best Answer

Related Questions