Featured Post
Free The Hostages! Bring Them Home!
(this is a featured post and will stay at the top for the foreseeable future.. scroll down for new posts) -------------------------------...
Oct 30, 2014
the terrorist or suspected terrorist who shot Yehuda Glick
Some of the news websites are saying that Israel security services have found and killed (in a firefight) the suspected terrorist who shot Yehuda Glick last night.
I don't understand the headline, and I assume it is the attempt at politically correctness of the relevant media that caused them to write it like that.
If the guy is only a suspected terrorist, he should not have been killed. If he was killed "unintentionally", as a result of resisting arrest and starting a firefight, that should be pointed out. The headlines makes it sound like he was killed because of his involvment, but he was only suspected. Suspected terrorists should not be killed, though I don't have a problem with actual terrorists being killed.
If he was the terrorist, and he was positively identified and there were eyewitnesses to the shooting so I'll go out on a limb and say that the identification was relatively easy, he should not be called a suspected terrorist. He was a terrorist.
So was he a terrorist or a suspected terrorist? was he killed because of what he did, because of what he was suspected to have done, or because he started a firefight?
It might only be semantics, but the story needs to be told correctly.
I don't understand the headline, and I assume it is the attempt at politically correctness of the relevant media that caused them to write it like that.
If the guy is only a suspected terrorist, he should not have been killed. If he was killed "unintentionally", as a result of resisting arrest and starting a firefight, that should be pointed out. The headlines makes it sound like he was killed because of his involvment, but he was only suspected. Suspected terrorists should not be killed, though I don't have a problem with actual terrorists being killed.
If he was the terrorist, and he was positively identified and there were eyewitnesses to the shooting so I'll go out on a limb and say that the identification was relatively easy, he should not be called a suspected terrorist. He was a terrorist.
So was he a terrorist or a suspected terrorist? was he killed because of what he did, because of what he was suspected to have done, or because he started a firefight?
It might only be semantics, but the story needs to be told correctly.
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
Labels:
Har Habayit,
terror
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts
Well at least it's not the AP's low standards.
ReplyDeleteYour post appears on Go! לך לך! Weekly International Jewish Blog Carnival, Havel Havelim.
ReplyDeletePlease visit the blog carnival, check out the other posts, comment and share. It would also be appreciated if you'd mention Havel Havelim on your blog.
Thanks for blogging!
Shavua Tov
"Suspected" because he didn't make it to a trial.
ReplyDeleteThey killed him because when they came to arrest him, he chose to shoot it out with them. Theoretically, he might not be guilty of the attempt on Glick's life (may Hashem send him a complete and speedy healing!). Since he chose to shoot it out with the police and Shabak, he's likely guilty of something; but maybe not this.
+1 to Mordechai's comment.
ReplyDeleteThe semantics are indeed 'important' in our politically correct torani world of innocent until proven guilty world. In the same span of a week, a terrorist was 'put down' in the Canadian Parliament. No questions asked, no standoff 'put your weapon down and come out with your hands up'.
There is a danger in becoming a rapid gang of field judges, but I believe that things need to be pushed to the limit sometimes.