No "cycle of violence" - moral equivalency reporting

The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is. Winston Churchill. 

Once again we had Reuters, the BBC, NY Times and Agence France-Presse spewing the pithy, but inaccurate, term "cycle of violence" to refer to the recent butchering of an Israeli family (which included the decapitation of  a 3 month old baby girl, stabbing the heart of a 4 year old, and throat slitting of an 11 year old child) the firing of more than 70 advanced missiles at civilians over 3 days and a murderous bombing in Jerusalem. Apparently, Israel's mild response in directly targeting those in the act of committing these and other atrocities, yet leaving alone those who incite, abet and otherwise provide support and succour to the terrorists, is a contributory factor to a "cycle". 

It is morally wrong to refer to a cycle of violence when talking about deliberate attacks on the civilians. 

It's quite simple how to stop a cycle, you brake. Thus, no terrorist attacks, and there will be no need for Israel to stop terrorists and no attempts by Israel to stem the flood of missiles from Iran and its proxies to Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc., etc.  There is no equivalence between fighting evil, and the evil committing horrific acts. 

The US is still in Afghanistan, although not allowing NATO's soldiers to fight a war to win, still in Iraq and now aimlessly bombing Libya, all derived from the 9/11 attack by Saudis and Egyptian hosted by the ruling theocrats of Aghanistan, the Taliban. The US and all democracies should be fighting evil such as the Taliban, Saddam Hussein and Gadaffi Duck, and not require the blessing of the dictatorship dominated UN. A UN that voted for Hezbollah to have a seat on the Security Council, and not Canada. The cause should be freedom, and if some peoples prefer to live in pre-medieval mindsets with modern weapons, make sure that they never turn the modern weapons against democracies. 

Terrorism is actually more akin to an engine of violence. You may have the machinery, but until the fuel is provided by those who justify the  horrific acts, pay for the missiles, guns and explosives and find violent and hateful people to murder, then the engine sits quietly. The more fuel you provide, the louder the noise gets and if too much is provided, then the whole engine, and everything in and around it, gets blown apart. 

The worst offenders for revision of history and justifying terrorists as activists and militants are the BBC and New York Times. I am sick to my stomach of their reports that expressly detail Arab casualties, whilst not detailing the number included in the calculation who were confirmed terrorists hiding and firing from the midst of their supportive population. The reports only give a generalized account of Israel's casualties, all of whom were civilians. It does not mention the estimated 10,000 Israelis maimed in terror attacks and who need prothesises, psychological and medical care for all of their senselessly blighted lives. Then quotes are provided first to terrorist groups and the proven liars speaking for tyrants, and given equal, if not more credence, than those statements issued by open democracies.

It seems insane, but the BBC and New York Times practise this form of insidious perversion better than any other outlet. Imagine the BBC giving Hitler equal air time during World War II in the interests of being fair and reporting all sides. The current BBC administration would do just that, and the UK's Channel 4 actually gave over its Christmas Day message to the wannabe Hitler of our age, Iran's Ahmenijad, in place of the British Queen. Moral decline demonstrated by moral equivalency. 

The leading and biased reporting has been encapsulated in one remarkable op-ed by UK MP, Louise Bagshawe. As far as I am aware, she is Catholic, has no Jewish constituents to speak of and no history of speaking about Israel prior to this article. And yet, it is a remarkable indictment of what the BBC's coverage of  Israel and in fact, the broader Middle East, has become. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8402973/A-family-slaughtered-in-Israel-doesnt-the-BBC-care.html

It's time for reports to express the truth, and not a lazy and convenient adopted political truth. 

I hope I am wrong but I have a gut feeling that Iran are about to get a nuclear break-through of some sort very soon, because in recent years Hamas and Hezbollah have stepped up their attacks to divert attention from such advances. These attacks have not got nothing to do with "peace process" or lack thereof, because the Arab economy in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria prior to 1948) is doing really well. One has  never seen so many high-end Mercedes, BMWs and Audis, as there are being driven in that part of the world. I don't think even the dealerships have so many. 

In the Arab Israeli conflict, there can only be 2 outcomes. One, the Arabs continue their incessant attacks until they finally triumph and Israel, Jews and democracy disappear forever from the Middle East, and ultimately the world. Maybe there will be some crocodile tears in Europe, maybe not.  Depends if Europe will be speaking Arabic of Farsi by then. Alternatively, if Israel wins its war with terror, and that is a big "if" given the forces of evil arrayed against it, then both parties may move forward to a better future, and again as per Winston Churchill in a different setting, to "

move forward into broad, sunlit uplands". 

I know who I will be supporting.