orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/27/85)
> Reply to Scott Plunkett on killing of 2 journalists: > Their right comes from their primary duty to complete a military mission. > What right do journalists have in wandering about--on enemy lines--and > not expect a very low probability of survival? > What right does any government have to go about killing people, whether it is an American soldier trying to get intelligence information or a CBS newsman? What right does any government have to indiscriminately kill civilians, to bomb their homes, to disrupt their families? Is it "bias" to so say that such actions are *wrong* no matter what government engages in them? > > I'm under the impression, given the nature of your article, not > to mention the subject line accusation of MURDER, that you are not so much > after answers as a confirmation of your hostility not only against the > IDF (they did it deliberately, knowing they were meddling journalists), > but also the Israeli Govt. (their whole Lebanese policy is immoral). > > This is a fair example of the bias which the net has argued about recently. > One may well have passionate resentment against the particular commanding > officer that directed the fatal shell fire, but to immediately extrapolate > this to a broadside attack on the Israeli government hints at an unspoken > bias. > There is a very good reason to blame the Israeli government for the deaths of the two newsmen and of many more deaths. These deaths came about as a result of Israel's calculated policy of vengeance against the Shi-ites and the general population of Southern Lebanon. The fact that it happened to be two newsmen killed in this particular instance only brought more public attention to what has happened to many other Lebanese civilians due to Israel's "Iron Fist" policy. That policy of vengeance and indiscriminate murder and destruction is *wrong*! It is just as *wrong* as the actions of the PLO in massacring Israeli athletes in the Olympics at Munich, and the PLO's other terrorist activities. It is *not* a question of bias- it is a question of consistent opposition to immoral violence whether practiced by enemies or friends. I ask you, which is truly the bias: the condemnation of enemies for terrorist acts while praising friends for similar acts OR the condemnation of terrorist acts of violence by whomever commits them? When talking about "bias" it is all too easy for "our side" to say the other side is wrong (but we're "not so bad" even if we feel a little uneasy defending the very actions we condemn by others), while the other side goes on to say "our side" is wrong (while their own infractions are ignored) *This* is the true bias in our current nationalistic system of war and senseless murder. tim sevener whuxl!orb