The Zionists own the western media. For my news I watch RT and TRNN.
me too, I watch Al-Jazeera as well
Any dissenting voice is a legitimate target for the zionists in the propaganda war.
"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 ba
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."
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.
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.
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.
Also, the RT site you are referring to supports what I have been saying, so I don't know what you're talking about.
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.
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.
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.
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.
WOW. What an intelligent answer. Are you on crack or crystal, whatever, go back to your pipe.
Saw it on BBC. They bombed where foriegne journilists gathered
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
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
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?
does any of that surprise you?