The IDF and the Israeli government need to be exterminated.
Photo and IDF statement on Gaza incident
I would be wary of that particular website, which has a stated pro-Israel bias.
I'd be less wary of that website than Al aljazeera :shy:
Here is an updated article:
ah the IDf exhonrates itself, there's a suprise.
Film was to be released asap.
and then this:
10 killed as terrorists use human shields
It seems the truth will come out in the surveillence tapes, let's see how many media sites put up corrections if the IDF is telling the truth....I'm betting few to none (as usual).
Why? What's wrong with Al Jazeera?
Al Jazeera IS NOT Subject to Censorship
Al Jazeera show graphic images of the reality of war and conflict.
ie. What happens when an Apache Attack helicopter blows an infant to bits.
That is what is wrong with Al Jazeera (Westerners can't stomach blood and guts). An example is the beheading of the American worker in Iraq. What pussies. Thats nothing compared to "Daisy-cutters" and "Improved Napalm". That beheading was daytime television, rated G, compared to the scale of violence and horror caused by USA/Israeli weaponary.
I think some people have a reflexive bias against anything with "Al" in the title. It says a lot about them.
You can usually tell a guy who knows NOTHING about a subject, by the way he can't even spell it.
I'd bet he has NEVER even sussed the mighty Al Jazeera out.
It's not a FOX Monopoly, so Rupert can't control it's Agenda.
That is one of the things I realy like about Al Jazeera: they provide a LOT of pictures of the scene, for evidence.
Question for Adam.
When a period of weeks or months go by without any killing over there, and then there is an incident in which people are killed, is it your impression that the perpetrators are usually Palestinians, or are they usually Israelis?
Usually, not always. Excuse me if If I make a typo on a name that I rarely, if ever type
I hope you dont make that assumption about me :) My comment was really just a counter to the assumption that mediabackspin is biased, just because a group generally agrees with Israel does not mean its facts are wrong. If people can have a reflexive bias against something with "Al" in the name, then people can also have a reflexive bias against something that seems pro-Israel ;)
I simply look at the reported numbers of civilian deaths. The IDF has killed more Palestinian civilians than the Palestinian extremists have killed Israeli civilians.
As I said, Mediabackspin has a STATED pro-Israel bias. My opinion does not factor into that. It's there for all to see.
bias makes it sound like theres some unfairnes in their opinions/facts. From what I can find on their site, they dont seem to call themselves bias.
This is their about clause:
HonestReporting is a fast-action website dedicated to ensuring that Israel receives fair media coverage. We scrutinize the worldwide media for anti-Israel bias, then alert and enable subscribers to respond directly to the news agency concerned. HonestReporting has over 55,000 subscribers worldwide, and is growing daily.
the fact is, there is a report about the IDF having killed civilians OR it being the result of a palestinian mine detonating. Adam choose to believe it was the IDF without proof. Bias proven.
What good does it do to say, "The Israelis are the bad guys," or "The Palestinians are the bad guys"?
Actually I provided links to sites with pictures of the damage.
Like this: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8C83A57F-FA38-41FE-970E-D9E65A762853.htm
Check the link on the right, where it says "In Pictures".
Separate names with a comma.