It's OK to kill journalists

under threat of more violence and in response to an act of war by its neighbour.

What would you suggest they did?
Gaza is an occupied zone.
You can't declare war on an occupting military power in your country.
You are already at war, under the subjugation of the occupying millitary.
It's a fight for your own freedom. :rolleyes:
 
Q1 there is no such policy, so no
Q2 reporting in war zones comes with risk
Q3 many innocent people are killed in wars, some choose to go in to a war zone, some have no choice
Q4 Yes and I also think people should take care not to put themselves in the line of fire

there we go another 4 of your questions answered to zero of mine.
Q1 Would any country publicise such a policy? :rolleyes:
Q2 Explain how the Gaza war zone has become so dangerous for the press.
Q3 And some are told to go to safe zones, then they'r killed in those safe zones.
Q4 By not reporting on the conduct of Israel in Gaza.? That would be convenient, and justify the (not publicised) policy of targetting journalists.
 
Do you think a journalist places himself in danger of being killed, if he shares a vehicle with Hamas Combatants who are engaged in an active mission? Or do you think the vehicle is blown up because it has journalists in it.
What evidence do you have for this claim?
Or is it more imagined media articles?
 
Last edited:
What is your evidence of this claim?
Well I bet it won't be "Mark Regev said so."

Motorbiking must have somehow gained access to secret Israeli army files.

Let 's hope they weren't tampered with, like the example I showed earlier.

But how would motorbiking know?
 
The fact that journalists may or may well have been targeted ?? Does not make it deliberate government policy
When individual IDF fighhters own up to it. IDF excuse them as scared raw recruits.
No doubt they get a severe talking to. (But not for killing innocent civilians)
So if it's not official government policy, it's of little consequence if it happens.
Israel doesn't condone it, but they don't condemn it either.
 
Journalists are not embedded in the Hamas organisation as they are with the IDF.

Why can you not admit Israel is deliberately targeting them - are you blind to the news or just read the stuff you want to hear?
Perhaps they've got helicoptors. :rolleyes:
 
.
because its disputed and I don't believe there are no pro Hamas journalists, embedded in the organisation. The fact is (as shown here) almost everyone has an opinion on who is be being more barbaric than the other. It stands to reason that both are pushing propaganda through the media of their choosing.
An IDF aircraft identified and struck a terrorist who operated an aircraft that posed a threat to IDF troops.
"We are aware of the reports that during the strike, two other suspects who were in the same vehicle as the terrorist were also hit."
Must have been a helicoptor. :rolleyes:
 
Journalists are not embedded in the Hamas organisation as they are with the IDF.

But that would mean motorbiking thinks its OK to kill Israeli journalists.

That's a bit of a shock.

He hasn't thought this through.
 
"It took just one mention of the more than 11,000 Palestinians killed in Israel’s war on Gaza - a number that has since risen to 14,000 - for senior Netanyahu adviser Mark Regev to revert to the line that these are "Hamas numbers".
He also had no 'numbers' to offer in counter argument. Yet he disputed Hamas figures. :rolleyes:

He's the Israeli version of 'comical Ali' from the Iraq war.
 
The US also has history of targetting journalists during the Iraq war.
They bombed the AL Jazeera building and targetted the hotel where the nmajority of press were housed.

At that time the Iraq war held the record for the most journalists killed.
 
Silly Johnny You're not in Gaza now. You can't kill or throw people off buildings
who say things you don't like, or declare them un-islamic and size their families
The throwing of people off buildings for having a termination was an obvious lie. It was soundly disproved.
Ireland has more sever penalties than Palestine for unauthorised abortions.

But thast doesn't deter you from repeating it ad nauseum. :rolleyes:

You're an habitual liar, Bod..
 
Back
Top