Underscoring the point about media bias against Israel is the headline news today about the deaths of 40 Palestinian civillians who were sheltering in a UN school which was hit by Israeli fire.
The headline screamed "More Than 40 Killed In UN School", but a little way down was a quote from a UN spokeperson who said "troops fired mortars at the premises after gunmen mortared their positions from inside al-Fakhora school ".
Why didn't the headline read "Hamas Human Shields Killed"?
I'm personally saddened that 40 innocents died in that attack, and in the end, it will do little for long term peace and stability, but do you blame the Israelis, or do you blame Hamas for putting fighters in what should have been a neutral safe zone.
So here's another two hypothetical questions...
First, let's say you're a Hamas commander and you want to maximise the effectiveness of your Jihad warriors. Do you put them a) hidden away in buildings, or b) in a UN compound that harbours civillians.
The answer is "b". While "a" might offer you short term protection, once the position is identified, those Jihadists are going to meet their virgins in heaven. In choosing "b", you offer them some protection to allow them to maximise their effect, and if the position is hit, you can capitalise on the bad PR it will generate for the pig Jew infidels. You're not worried about civillian casualties because there's a place in heaven for those who are killed (though you haven't been clear on what the mothers and children are going to do with their 72 virgins each, but that's for another post, I guess).
Second, let's say you're an Israeli field commander, and you identify Jihadists firing on your troops. Do you a) let them go, or b) eliminate them. If you said "a", it's time you went to another blog because opinions expressed here will probably offend.
No comments:
Post a Comment