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
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (03/28/85)
> = Tim Sevener, who writes... > 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? In case you haven't noticed, (or just didn't wait for the dust to settle) CBS has bought in to the Israeli version of what happened. Coming roaring out of the gate charging the Israelis with murder under these conditions seems to me a fair example of bias. The Israelis are fighting a war against a variety of groups seeking to first throw them out of Lebanon and then destroy Israel as a nation. It is not like Israeli guerillas snaeak into Beirut and blow up buses crammed full of civilians, or deliberately shell Lebanese villages that are known to have no military installations. In any war, civilians will always get the short end of the stick. But I do think it bias to condemn the Israelis, who have at least on one occasion dropped leaflets on coastal towns warning civilians to take refuge on the beaches because they are going to raid the towns, and not their opponents, who pride themselves on deliberately going out of their way to slaughter innocents. > > 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). Agreed. > 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? Equating the events in Lebanon with the PLO's slaughter of Israeli Olympic athletes is ridiculous. I don't think I can agree with your definition of "terrorist acts." With all these newsmen covering the war, how many stories have you seen of Israelis mowing down helpless civilians or delibarately torching villages home only to civilians and not held by their enemies? None, because the censorship is so heavy?? Come off it! Stories like that would get out somehow; they are too big to keep a lid on. As near as I can tell, Israel is currently a nation fighting for its life. The economy is in a shambles and the latest military moves a failure, leaving the north open to attacks from enemies. I think that Israel has a right to exist to defend itself against its enemies. That doesn't include deliberately killing innocent civilians, but I think the Israelis should be allowed to defend themselves when attacked. "Bias" is a word that applies here, but it applies to those who seize this opportunity to grind their axes without waiting for all the details to unfold, and to those who take single isolated incidents out of context, ignoring the long history of conflict that had led to the Israelis feeling they had to invade Lebanon in the first place. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom