That our media has a double standard, a bias for supporting Israel. Russia killed children in Ukraine, they say “killed”. Israel killed children in Palestine, but they won’t say that - instead, those children are just “dead”.
Very little difference in practice because the killing by IDF is implied or deducted anyway - but it’s a difference in rhetoric.
That six year old child was not “dead”, she was killed by Israel. Her relatives, whose corpses she spent her last days surrounded by, were killed by Israel.
It’s a common propaganda tactic to use slightly different terms for the same thing, depending on how the victims are viewed by a country and its media. Some people die, as if they were doomed anyway, or as if they were just statistics in a paper. Some others are killed, like actively by the hand of the enemy, which makes it tragic and sad.
It’s one of the differences between unworthy and worthy (of media coverage, or consideration by the public) victims.
I’m confused. What is this trying to say?
That the little girl just “died” and wasn’t “killed” by Israelis. “Baby killed by Russians” “baby died because we didn’t get there fast enough”
Well, the second part is true, but they couldn’t get there fast enough because the Israelis killed the EMTs too.
I‘m not sure if you interpret more into the words than there is. If you read the articles text thoroughly you’ll find a difference in those deads.
The dies-articles: „after phone calls“ , „after x days in car“, „days after cry for help“ and others. Those are all after some time.
The killed-articles: „in a air strike/ rocket attack“ which is immediately.
This sounds quite correct from a grammar point of view. Still, it’s sad for the kids and family.
I noticed the stories covering that little girl’s killing don’t implicate the IDF at all, even though we have enough evidence.
Elohim killed that girl because she worshipped Allah. /s
That our media has a double standard, a bias for supporting Israel. Russia killed children in Ukraine, they say “killed”. Israel killed children in Palestine, but they won’t say that - instead, those children are just “dead”.
Very little difference in practice because the killing by IDF is implied or deducted anyway - but it’s a difference in rhetoric.
That six year old child was not “dead”, she was killed by Israel. Her relatives, whose corpses she spent her last days surrounded by, were killed by Israel.
I would say " found dead days after" sounds better then “killed by Israeli and found days after”.
It’s a common propaganda tactic to use slightly different terms for the same thing, depending on how the victims are viewed by a country and its media. Some people die, as if they were doomed anyway, or as if they were just statistics in a paper. Some others are killed, like actively by the hand of the enemy, which makes it tragic and sad.
It’s one of the differences between unworthy and worthy (of media coverage, or consideration by the public) victims.
They’re trying to say terrorism doesn’t deserve a response and genocidal psychos like the Palestinians/Hamas are the same as Ukrainians.
And people are stupid enough to buy it.