My original story was that a Reuters employee was arrested with suspected ties to terrorism, that a hand grenade was found in his car, and that the original Reuters report did not mention the hand grenade. Nobody has contradicted any of those points.
samclem, you are cleverly using the alleged weakness of my first Reuters episode in order to avoid responding to the second one, which is even more blatant. It may be that you can think of no way to excuse the second Reuters story, so you’re changing the subject to an attack on me.
DMC, despite your clever sarcasm, I’m afraid the joke is on you.
First of all, one unbiased article would prove nothing.
Second, there is some bias in your cited article:
You ought to know that Settler" can be a loaded word. It can can imply that the Israelis don’t have a right to live in that area.
The article provides the Palestinean POV, that it’s OK to kill these settlers, because they don’t belong there. But, the article does not give the Israeli POV, which is that the territory is part of the biblical land of Israel and that the settlements are seen as essential for Israel’s security. Nor does the article point out that existing treaties do not prohibit these settlements (IIRC).
The paragraph quoted above legitimizes the murder of these children, because they’re “settlers,” not living in Israel proper. A moment’s thought shows the dishonesty of the dichotomy. Not only have “Militants” killed many settlers, they have killed civilians throughout Israel – wherever they had a chance to do so.
The article has a kind of neutrality over the killings. Israel says they’re bad; Palestinians say they’re appropriate. I call that sort of “neutrality”*anti-Israel bias. *
If the shoe were on the other foot – if some Israeli terrorists murdered a group of Palestinian children, would you be satisfied with reporting that took no stand on whether the murders were right or wrong? I would call “neutrality” toward the mass murder of Palestinian children anti-Palestinian prejudice. Wouldn’t you?
They used the word “settler” and now they are anti-Israeli? I can find journalists that use the term on Arutz Sheva, so are they also anti-Israeli?
The same article also spoke of the three Jewish teenaged victims, which I’m sure was their way of garnering more support for their Palestinian friends. I’m surprised they didn’t use the term martyr when describing the gunman who killed them, as Reuters so often does.
I’m glad you were able to pick up on the subtle hints that meant: “We here at Reuters wish that all Jews would throw down their arms so our Palestinian heroes can drive them into the ocean.” I realize that the average reader would have likely missed them, so it’s good that someone understands the secret language of journalism and is able to call them on it.
Not really. I was cleverly using the incredibly obvious-to-anyone-of-mentally-impaired-reasoning-abilities weakness of your first post to show that your statements are biggoted towards Israel. In this case. In other cases, they are bigotted toward ultra-right wing conservative commentators on political life, morals, etc.
I didn’t change the subject. That was done by a clever dupe.
In your original post, after presenting the article as it was originally printed, you offered the following commentary:
Here’s where you set yourself up, bigtime, for the fall. You should have quit with the post. But, Noooo! You have to go making comments. And reveal how you have been duped.
You were duped into believing that, just because it was reported in an Israeli press article, and not in a Reuters article, that it was true. Wrong, dupo!
“What arrogance?” One could have been talking about your ass-kissing to the Israeli press.
You call Linnebank an asshole. Feh! He shits in your direction! :wally
