I logged on to the Huffington Post's Israel section this morning and was greeted by this headline (click to zoom):
"Israeli Air Strike Kills 3 in Gaza", it reads. 3 what? Three innocent Gazans, just minding their own business? Those goddamn Israelis! Then I clicked on the article.
Oh, so they are just "suspected gunmen." We all know what that means. The evil Zionists are just claiming they are gunmen, but us enlightened HP readers know all about their lies and can see right through them. But then I read the body of the article:
Once we read this, we learn that both Israel and Palestinian witnesses stated that militants/gunmen were killed in the airstrike. So what exactly is "suspected" about them? What doubt is there? The NY Times didn't have any doubts for their article on the airstrike:
The original Reuters article that the Huffington Post simply copied didn't have any headlined doubts either:
So where is the Huffington Post's doubts coming from, exactly? Reuters and the NY Times were pretty confident the people Israel killed were militants, and so were the Palestinian witnesses on the ground.
My guess is that while the Huffington Post is pretty darn sure the Gazans taken out were terrorists, why admit that when they could plant seeds of doubt in their readership's minds? Simply reporting the facts doesn't help their anti-Israel agenda, so why do it? Reporting facts doesn't let you get comments like these:
Another day, another subtle push against Israel.