Brandon9000 wrote:
No such luck. The difference is immense morally between the kind of accidental civilian deaths which have occurred in all wars, and the deliberate targetting of non-combatants by the Palestinians. If you know of a case in which the Israeli military, acting according to orders, deliberately tried to kill non-combatants, you need only post it.
Yet again. 'Accidental civilian deaths'. It sounds so nice in the press, but it's still the plain fact that civilian, non-combatant people were killed by weapons deployed by the enemy. By deploying those weapons, they made a simple, concious choice.
They choose to deploy a mode of attack which can lead to civilian deaths. Especially nowadays there are alternatives. SMART weaponry, or even special op teams.
But this is acceptable. Why? PR. Now more then ever people know the value of good or bad press. And governments more then others. Every conflict is not just fought on the battlefield, it's being fought on every major newsstation and newspaper. So the moment civilians die, we see both sides start press action. When country A attacks headquarters of country B, and civilians die, we see B issuing press statements in wich the civilian deaths are often exaggerated, whereas country A will state that the mission was a succes with the deaths of innocent bystanders held to an 'acceptable' minimum.
We need to be aware of this double war. News from the warzone is NOT objective. A good claim can be made that no news is objective, but news items from war zones are especially suspect of being subjective.
Naj.