Yesterday evening, we posted on a CTV story (the "C" is for "Canada", ya'll) that seemed to make the word "ceasefire" a synonym for "Palestinians firing a ton of rockets at Israeli schools and hospitals - and Israelis not responding". But a quick check on Tammy Bruce shows that (a) we should've pointed out that this was an edited AP wire and (b) that Reuters was running the exact same absurdly biased and stupid equivocation. But check out who's responsible for the inexcusable and unjustifiable bias in the Reuters story. Could it be our old friend Nidal al-Mughrabi. Why yes, yes it could be:

Seriously, could we please do some sort of review of basic effing material existence here? A ceasefire does not "take hold" if there are multiple "Palestinian rocket attacks". That's not what ceasefire means, for crying. Out. Loud. That's the opposite of a ceasefire. That's "Israel not responding to Palestinian provocation"... maybe! But it's not a ceasefire, because - you see - fire hasn't ceased. It's just not what that word means.

Previously: Reuters Gives Advice: Want To Dampen Muslim Extremism? Support People Who Want To Commit Genocide, IDF Hits Reuters Vehicle - Countdown to Lunacy Begins, Reuters: Problems With North Korea Began In 2002 Under Bush