Friday, March 25, 2005

Target: al-Reuters!

Two classic cases of intentionally biased/distorted reports from the terrorist's mouthpiece:
"Top UN Aide Urges Israel Halt Settlement Expansion"
Our so-called Top UN Aide claims that Isreal is an impediment to peace because:
-They are (allegedly) adding some housing units outside of Jerusalem
- The West Bank barrier has had a negative inpact on the livelihoods of many Palestinians
Well... mention of the fact that Isreal is moving tens of thousands of Jews, most of them kicking and screaming, out of Gaza, huh? mention of why that freakin' wall is there in the first place? No mention of the 1,000- plus Isrealies that have been murdered by terrorists? No indication that terorist attacks in areas that are walled off have dropped to virtually nil? No, you see, to the UN, dead Jews are the sacrifice they are willing to make to appease the Palestinians. Why shouldn't they agree to have their women and children blown up so that day-laborers (including terrrorists) can make their way into Isreal? Alas, those pesky Jews have a different view. They insist on staying alive...
...and of course, no need for the UN to ask the Pallies to show any "restraint" or responsibility in the murder of civilians, right?
Now I'll admit that al-Reuters, in its last paragraph, address the issue by stating "Isreal officials say the needed to keep out suicide bombers". But "say"? It's a FACT that the wall keeps out suicide bombers! And why is this inconvenient fact relegated to the bottom of the article, and not adjacent to the UN's mouthpiece remarks?
One more from al-Reuters....
"Women, Children Die in US attack on Taliban"
Read it yourself, but if "U.S.-led forces came under intense fire as they arrived in Mohammad's village in Paktika, which borders Pakistan."; doesn't that mean that they were attacked?
And Since "Among the dead militants was a Taliban commander named Raz Mohammad, who was implicated in many of the attacks against coalition forces in southeastern Paktika province", wouldn't a headline such as "Top Taliban Commander Killed in Fighting" be more appropriate?
MOST IMPORTANTLY!!The article, despite the headline, gives no indication of who actually shot the civilians, which means most likely by careless Taliban gunfire. But why ruin a perfectly good anti-American headline?

No comments: