Poll: Can governments be guilty of "terrorism?"

[nicky g]

"if a family supports a would-be suicide bomber in his preparation and quest, they are at least partially guilty too. "

Whether they do or not, their house still gets bulldozed.

[nicky g]

Is this the full quote you're referring to?

"Already this week, there has been a flare-up on the border with Lebanon, in which an Israeli soldier was killed in an exchange of fire with the Lebanese group Hizbollah"

Independent article

It makes it clear who killed him; it leaves open the question of who started the skirmish - probably because it can't definitively say. If you search "A Palestinian was killed" or similar you find plenty of examples. It's simply the use of the passive voice.

Your remarks prove you know very little about the British press. The majority of papers are right-wing and largely pro-Israeli. The reason the Guardian is well-known is because it's an outstanding paper; the reason the BBC is known is because it's the best example of impartiality in the English language. Of course you don't believe that because it doesn't toe your line 100% of the time.

[MMMMMM]

The sometimes arbitrary unfairness is noted, nicky. However I still don't think destroying homes is the equivalent of premeditated murder of innocents. Also it is rather puzzling to try to come up with any other sort of deterrent at all when the bombers themselves look forward to death.

[nicky g]

"However I still don't think destroying homes is the equivalent of premeditated murder of innocents"

Nor do I. THat doesn't make it justifiable.

"Also it is rather puzzling to try to come up with any other sort of deterrent at all when the bombers themselves look forward to death."

Then how about removing the motivation; ie the occupation? - especially given this deterrent clearly doesn't work.

[MMMMMM]

"Then how about removing the motivation; ie the occupation?"

The problem here is very deep and it is related to the fact that the Palestinians (and the Arabs in general) are not truly reliable partners for peace with Israel. Their goals are still to take all of Israel back, by force if necessary. The Hamas Charter and their suicide bombings are but one manifestation of this. So when Israel cedes territries she leaves herself open to attacks from a closer vantage point, and such attacks always eventually materialize.

If the Palestinians would actually mean it when they promise no more attacks, it woulfd be one thing. But their overall political goal is still sadly and unconditionally to reclaim ALl of Israel. Until they truly, in their hearts of hearts, accept the territorial integrity of Israel, I see vitually no hope for peace. And I really don't think removing the occupation would result in the Palestinians ceasing all attacks.

[Phat Mack]

[MMMMMM]

nicky, from what I've read, I really don't think the BBC is anywhere close to being impartial. It is also funded by public tax monies, right? and therefore is automatically somewhat tied to the liberal platform of higher taxes and more government control (from which it is funded). Again, I don't see how "liberal" ever came to be so grossly distorted in this way, but that's another subject.

I guess BBC might be more unbiased than NPR in the USA, which is largely taxpayer-funded, but NPR is IMO more biased than even FOX. From what I've heard in reports and interviews, "National Palestine Radio" is not too bad a description of it when NPR covers the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

[nicky g]

"and therefore is automatically somewhat tied to the liberal platform of higher taxes and more government control (from which it is funded). "

You might as well say that a commercial channel is guaranteed to be biased in favour of neoliberalism. If you want to provide evidence that the BBC is biased , go ahead. In my opinion, not having to account to commercial sponsors guarantees a lot more independence. Fox ultimately has to do what Murdoch, who has well-known political opinions and thousands of commercial interests, tells them. The BBC has no vested interests.

[Chris Alger]

But you said the media "ignored" what he was, and now you're changing it from a quibble over "militant" versus "terrorist."

And what makes him a terrorist? Because he's a Palestinian! If he crosses the border and kills Israelis for "disobeying orders," he's a terrorist. If Israelis cross the border and kill Palestinians for "disobeying orders," and Palestinians shoot back, the Palestinians are still "terrorists." Other people have the right to defend their countries from foreign invaders (UN Charter, Art. 51). Palestinians don't, in accordance with your master race theory of Zionism.

[Chris Alger]

One could, of course, look at the evidence in the article and contrast it with other sources for credibility. What you get from the right, however, is that unless the source is the government or the government-supporting press, everything they say is "biased" and not worth considering. It's one reason right-wingers are so ignorant of the world around them.