- Apr 5, 2014
- 25,909
It doesn't take anything away from the murders, but it does tell us a lot about the media and I reference my earlier post. The media couldn't wait to publish that news- even though there was no independent confirmation. I would just wait for a group like Human Rights Watch to confirm it.That's good news. It's nice to know that they were only shooting dozens of bullets into babies, and not beheading them. Seen the Daily Telegraph (and I dare say other papers) this morning?
As for the Daily Telegraph. I have a subscription. I understand that they published a graphic picture I have chosen not to view. I would ask why they chose to publish it. Most of us are only too aware what such a scene would entail. But I know why they published it. To gather support for what is happening now.
In Palestine right now there will be suffering and vulnerable people on the brink of death. There are claims (unverified) that 400 odd children are dead as a result of the strikes. We can be sure that some will be. But these pictures would not be published in such a way as to draw attention in many parts of the press. We know why.
No innocent life is worth more than another. And if it is avoidable, and in this case the retaliation was, then they are both equally repugnant and worthy of condemnation. As I have said, there is no difference in the categorisation of cold blooded killing. An F16 and a militant's machine gun are the work of unfettered evil in equal measure.
Last edited: