steissd wrote:If Palestinians dress into IDF soldiers and come to Israeli cities to kill civilians, they could easily do the same thing to the journalists.
I am not claiming that IDF soldiers are greates humanists in the world, but this attack on the French TV correspondent was non-professional, therefore I cannot believe that the one that shot was really a soldier.
If the Israeli authorities really wanted to scare the foreign correspondents out to prevent their coming to the territories, the sniper fire would be used. It is more efficient, and the shooter cannot be identified by the civilians and to appear on the video tape.
there even has been an inquiry into the shooting of TF1 journalist.
Open letter to Minister of Justice
I can't see how one can call the Palestinians terrorists and not the Israelis -- makes no sense to me. When you listen to a discussion between Israeli and Palestinian representatives, it always dissolves into, But you started it! It may be a toss-up. However, my sympathies lie with those who have been displaced, who have lost their livelihoods and their land, who have fewer resources, less water, a decimated economy, and an old, increasingly fragile culture and (apparently) nowhere else to go. Perhaps it's my settler's residual guilt at what we did to the native population and this fair land. When I see others paving over and destroying their neighbors' homesteads, I want to retch.
Destroying houses is absolutely normal thing when the house of the terrorist is concerned. Or the house where the laboratory manufacturing explosives was located. No other houses are being destroyed by the IDF.
If the soldiers saw the peace activist, they would easily repel her from there by means of tear gas. Or just she could be forcefully removed and arrested for interfering into the army operation. She died because she was not seen by the bulldozer driver.
So, when the son of your neighbour kills your son you have the right to destroy his house?
Remember: an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. And its a bit prehistorian, dont you think so?
frolic wrote:"Reporters Without Borders" has registered that 46 journalists have been injured by gunfire since September 2000. As a result of investigations in the field, the organisation is in a position to say that the gunfire was of Israeli origin in most of these cases. Several of these journalists were seriously injured. Some were clearly identifiable and were at a distance from the clashes when they were hit. With few exceptions, no serious investigations have been carried out and few sanctions have been applied to those who fired the shots, even when responsibility was clear(the soldier was filmed), as in the case of TF1 correspondent Bertrand Aguirre, injured on 15 May 2001 in Ramallah.
For what its worth, frolic, I read that as validating my earlier point, and bringing up another. The journalists mentioned were apparently rather over-represented among the Palestinian participants in the melees.. A reporter standing behind Israeli troops would be expected to be at less risk from Israeli Foces than a reporter in the midst of a throng of Palestinians being addressed by The Israeli Forces. I find that telling in itself.
Again, I defend neither Israeli nor Palestinian ... but I lay the journalists woes at their own feet.
timber
I made a Google search using the allegedly shot correspondent's name (Bertrand Aguirre) as a keyword. None of the materials appearing on the issue was found on the solid and truthworthy sites, like these of NYTimes, Wahington Post, LA Times, CNN, Fox, etc. Only some European newspapers placed materials on this and different "independent" (hence, irresponsible) news sites. This shows that the information on this case is not so much unambiguous.
Independent hence irresponsible? Or independent meaning they don't have to play political games or court corporate owners?
The land I was referring to, Steissd, were those olive groves which were seized and settled and turned into apartment buildings and subdivisions.
Frolic, I do not think that you are so naive as you try to present yourself. The families of the terrorists got financial incentive from both PA and Saddam Hussein (the latter did not even consider it necessary to conceal this fact). The destruction of family house of the terrorist made such a bonus futile, and served as a disincentive.
oooh Yeah. Fox and CNN, solid and truthworthy? Come one!!!!
Right after the 9/11 attacks a memo from CNN Chairman Walter Isaacson was leaked to the newspapers saying=> we must redouble our efforts to make sure we do not seem to be simply reporting from the Taliban vantage or perspective. We must talk about how they are using civilian shields and how the Taliban have harbored the terrorists responsible for the WTC attacks
In a second memo leaked to the Post, expressed concern about reports on the bombing of Afghanistan. CNN feared that overseas correspondents might be intimidated by local opposition to the US military intervention and allow such sentiments to influence their reports.
CNN'S SECRET MEMO
Where are the proofs that the CNN secret memos are authentic and not forged by the competitors?
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030316-122657-6138r
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/17/1047749690343.html
The United States has demanded a full and immediate investigation into the death of a US peace activist who was crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer in the Gaza Strip. Twenty-three-year-old Rachel Corey was killed as she tried to prevent the destruction of Palestinian homes. Doctors said she died in the hospital from severe injuries to her skull and chest. Another peace activist claimed Corey was sitting in the path of an Israeli bulldozer whose driver saw her and yet proceeded to run her over. Peace campaigners from the International Solidarity Movement were in Rafah trying to block Israeli army efforts to tear down Palestinian buildings.
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1429_WM_B_20030316_23:00_2,00.html
The BBC link does not work. The Canadian link refers to an interview of Aguirre, therefore just his words are being trusted unilaterally. Freemedia and rfr are not renowned sources, therefore I permit myself to consider them dubious.
That's easy. Every newsfact you like is 200% true. And everything you dislike is dubious. Easy, and a bit sad.
Quote:A doctor told Israeli media that the 23-year-old woman ran in front of the bulldozer as it approached a house that it was to knock down. The woman was buried under sand and suffered head and chest injuries. She died at a hospital shortly after being taken there, the doctor said.
Wen someone deliberately runs across moving vehicle, he/she endangers his/her own life. The driver is not guilty in the suicidal attempts of Miss Corey.
There exists other comment:
http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2001/Israel_jun01/Israeljun01.html#appendix
I note too, from elsewhere on the same website as mentioned above, that many among a subset of journalists are involved in multiple incidents, and that the journalists do seem to have been in closer proximity to Palestinians than to IDF in the preponderance of the cases cited. I find that significant, too.
timber
Not every newsfact I like is true. I need evidences from the known American mainstream sources, like NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CS Monitor, CNN, Fox, and the like. These media take care fo their reputation and do not permit dubious materials to be published. I never permit myself refer to the Web sites of the israeli English-language sources, despite of my complete trust to these. I do not suppose the other A2K'ers to trust these a priori. I would like to ask Frolic to provide the mainstream American sources for verification of facts. Commentary may be provided from any source, including the Palestinian one or this of al-Qaeda. Facts can be regarded as deserving recognition only if they appear in the U.S. mainstream sources.
steissd - if you think those sources can be trusted without reserve, you are either very naive about the western media or, well, i don't know what. the sources you identify print what their sponsors will not have a problem with.
i suggest you also do some research into actions against at least a few of the media sources you identify - for their misrepresentation of the news.
Frolic
Whether the driver saw her or did not see her I do not know. However, if she decided to be a human shield than she must accept the dangers that go with. What gives her or any other foreign national the idea they have special powers or protections in a war zone. The damn fools don't belong there.
When and if, from what I just heard on the news it is immenent, bombs start falling on Iraq the same fate may befall the peace activists {human shields] there. From my view these morons will have only themselves to blame.
these morons will have only themselves to blame=> The same for the US soldiers.
