Nadine, the USA was quite neutral when France conducted a terrorist attack. In fact, I'd say some of the political bosses would have enjoyed a good snigger, showing the anti-noocular Kiwis what they would get.
I don't recall any reporting which was vituperative against the French. When Stan Shaw had his head hacked off by Chechen rebels, the USA was supportive of the rebels and the reports were quite neutral. That has changed now and Chechen rebels and freedom fighters are now in the terrorist category as far as the USA is concerned.
Actually, yes, the reporters do report the facts on mass murders in NZ. David Gray went berserk and the facts were reported without vituperation that I recall. When things like that happen, the facts do tend to be reported as they happen and the murderer is given the benefit of the doubt, even when there isn't any. If anything, the criminals tend to get the support and the police have to be clean as a whistle.
It was the reporting by outside, disinterested parties which we were discussing.
Anyway, your analogy is AWOL. A murderer in New Zealand is not the same as a suicide bomber in Israel. One is a normal garden variety disturbed individual in an angry state, usually a passing state as a result of some specific events related to them personally.
The suicide bombers are part of a genocidal political conflict [on the Palestinian side, not the Jewish, which is NOT genodical despite frequent claims to the contrary] where one tribe is trying to displace another, having been displaced themselves.
I don't think you can claim that the Reuters writers were equally pleased to see another suicide bombing or Hamas leader killed. All I read was a valid commentary on the conflict. The Jews tried to stop Hamas by killing the leaders, which seems like a good idea to me. The Palestinians pay back when they can, which is not surprising to me, though I don't think there's much point in them doing that. But, each to their own. Each person does what they think is a good idea, wacky as hell though most of them seem to me.
I notice pathetic Phil Goff saying how bad the attacks were nbr.co.nz but he blithely calls it a pointless cycle of violence and retaliation as though killing Hamas leaders is the same as killing children on a bus [or children in a school as is now threatened in Russia].
<Mr Goff said, however, that: "Israel's tactics have also served only to alienate further the Palestinian people and to encourage support for extremists such as Hamas, who have claimed responsibility for these acts."
He said that, although "Israel has a right to provide security for its citizens," restraint was called for in response to the bombings.
"The hardest path of all in the fact of such provocation is to exercise restraint, but that is what is required if dialogue is to be renewed, and security assured for Israelis in the long-term," Mr Goff said.
But the JPost article rejects "dialogue" as it is frequently presented by European and other nations, like New Zealand.
"For the plain fact is that Europe's idea of friendship comes down to offering Israel simplistic platitudes about the advantages of cooperation over conflict (as if this had not occurred to us), not practical advice about how a democracy at war ought to operate," the article says.
>
I agree with the Jerusalem Post. I say pay back by killing a bunch more Hamas men. They'll be running for cover now.
I don't report neutrally because I don't pretend to be unbiased. I consider Islamic Jihad and the Palestinian arm of it to be worse than Hitler. They have the genocidal propensities with mysticism their rule. Gradually, people around the world are learning that Islamic Jihad isn't just after the Great Satan USA and the oil.
Mqurice |
