|
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
The man in the lower photo appears to be a Palestinian (possibly a resident of the area?) -- has he ever identified himself as a 'peace activist'? If he has, do his actions mean that all peace activists hit people? Let's take the example of the Republican Party preselecting a candidate who is a professed supporter of eugenics and a racist who believes in 'superior races'. Does this mean that all Republicans are white nationalists/racists and support killing off others? As for labelling all 'peace activists' 'anti-Israeli activists', is there a problem with opposing Israel when it kills Palestinians/bulldozes people's houses? Is this in any way inconsistent with a desire to see peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Finally, the bizarre 'authority figure' comment. Are you implying that because someone is a soldier, everything they do is therefore morally and ethically acceptable? If so, why? Are members of the Sudanese army (read: government death squads) acting like 'authority figures' when they exterminate entire villages? |
This is primarily an example of media bias: by definition, if you use violence to try to advance your cause, you are not a "peace activist". Yet certain circles deem any "left-wing", "anti-military" activists "peace activists".
When did I ever say all "peace activists" were "anti-Israel activists"? I said these activists were anti-Israel, and obviously hardly interested in "peace".
re: authority figure, see definition of "peace activist". If you attack them, you are not a peace activist.
I would just like some honesty in reporting. My initial post had nothing to do with whether the activists cause is justified (it is not, if you're curious ), merely that their violent tactics are whitewashed by a sympathetic world media.
|