|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
|
|
Northern Ireland25419 Posts
Look if you can’t see why saying people of a certain political persuasion only think that way because of Russian propoganda isn’t personal I don’t know what to tell you man.
Just profoundly insulting, patronising nonsense
Whatever, I’ll leave it at that and join the growing throng of people who don’t engage with you rather than foul up the thread with interpersonal bickering
|
|
|
On March 27 2024 08:06 WombaT wrote:
Aye because you see myself or Neb stanning Russia all the time on here
But you do see Salazarz and GH doing it.
As far as I can tell, there are several left-wing trains of thoughts that lead there. One is anti-capitalist, and Russia of course gets cred there. Another is anti-imperialist, where the US is like the "most imperialist" and so their support of Ukraine outweighs Russia literally doing an imperialism.
|
On March 27 2024 04:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 04:23 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 02:47 stilt wrote:On March 27 2024 00:19 JimmiC wrote:
People might start to pay attention to how many of those civilians are directly killed by Hamas as well as partial blame for all the citizens they put in harms way as they continue to use hospitals, refugee camps, schools and so on as staging areas, bases and places to fight.
Hard to say, hatred for Israel runs deep and has bene promoted on the socials for a long time. This could be the straw that breaks the Camals back but I doubt it. Aside from racism and religious fanatism, is there any reason from the continuous support of Israel ? I guess I could add the case "western supremacism" but in the end that's still a racist component. Mainstream media reliance is probably still the main one, but that is related to both racism and western supremacy. And for those who keep poo pooing me pointing out how far left and far right are becoming twins we know have the "it's Main Stream Media's" fault. Are you not a journalist? Do you not see value in the rules that MSM needs to follow compared to all the rest of the garbage out there? edit: also explains all the presumptions as fact with no sourcing. Source is either social media, to embarrassing for those not down the rabbit hole or simply made up, I mean "presumed".
"Have more Palestinians or Israelis died in war? Half of Americans don’t know, poll says"
Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article286996080.html#storylink=cpy
|
Sorry it took me a while to respond. I've been swamped at work lately.
On March 09 2024 04:02 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 15:23 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 08 2024 01:48 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2024 00:45 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 00:42 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 07 2024 23:25 Magic Powers wrote:On March 07 2024 23:15 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps are not more sacrosanct in the Geneva Conventions than hospitals. If there is military infrastructure there, it's a valid military target. Mask off. Eh. I didn't say anything about the morality of the situation in that post. You claimed that something was a war crime. I clarified that it is not necessarily a war crime based on the actual definition of war crimes. You may have "unmasked" that I have a compulsive need to correct inaccuracies, but I've mentioned that that is my MO a couple time myself. Not to be too picky, but there was a war crime, just it was Hamas putting their military assets there. The real war crime is the friends we made along the way. There’s a difference between an actual military target, and a location that military or paramilitary personnel happen to be in. Undoubtedly there have been many occasions where Hamas have used positions embedded in civilian populations and launched attacks, it’s a very well-noted tactic. Is it every single time in a conflict where tens of thousands have died? There has to be some kind of distinction here otherwise the Geneva Conventions are more toothless and functionally useless than they presently are. Can you bomb a hospital if it’s full of convalescing military personnel? I mean most people would say no and it’s against the spirit of those conventions and generally quite morally repugnant. One could make the argument that experienced military personnel who are going to recirculate into active rotation are a pretty big military asset, but I digress. I’d argue it’s basically pointless to even use the term in any non moral-intuition based sense. If proportionality is out the window, and if any area that contains Hamas members is fair game there is scarcely much point in having designated war crimes in international law. I'd argue the opposite use of the term "war crimes" makes more sense. It is a legal term defined by someone breaking certain specific international laws. Like other legal terms, it should be used where that law actually applies. If someone has moral objections, they should use moral words to describe the situation instead. It's not as if English is lacking in good words to use in that area that there is a need to use legal terms for that. (objectionable, evil, bad, unfair, wrong, immoral, etc.) Some things are immoral, but not illegal. Some things are illegal, but not immoral. If a bully makes fun of a kid at school, it doesn't have to be illegal to be called out. Meanwhile, a parent who said that that bully committed a felony would be... inaccurate. Well essentially but even attempting specificity in terminology there’s still disagreement on whether Israel has committed war crimes or not.
Sure. I wasn't entering myself into that side of the topic at the moment. Although I agree with all the things RvB said on it recently if you want to know my general stance.
You’re effectively in agreement, perhaps from a slightly different angle, I’m unsure!
I was saying that someone who felt morally opposed to something should use moral language instead of legal language. I was trying to make that statement in as detached a manner as possible so it applies to everyone here, rather than weighing in with my personal feelings on who/what was good/bad/legal/illegal.
From where I’m sitting it seems many of the existing war crime statutes are either interpretative anyway, ‘disproportionate force’ would be one such concept.
...
If ‘is x a war crime?’ something that gathers a lot of variance in opinion then it’s less a specific, binary law and one dictated by moral intuition anyway, so you may as well skip discussing the law part and go straight to the moral argument as it’s so intertwined already.
Firstly, there are many war crimes that do not require interpretation. Like the law against taking non-combatant hostages or the law against having regular combat forces fight in civilian garb. There is the option to focus on the more concrete laws if you feel the more nebulous ones are too complex.
Secondly, many of the remaining laws aren't so much open to multiple opinions, as they are necessitating sufficient evidence/information. (Hence why experts often say "there may have been war crimes." I.e. depending on what the facts on the ground turn out to be after the fog of war lifts.)
Finally, any interpretations of whether these laws apply, is done by experts in international law (with consultation with military experts for things like "proportionality"). No one is seeking guidance from their spiritual leaders on if something is moral enough to consider a "war crime." It's a clear legal question with a legal answer.
There is a moral reason to have the laws, which JimmiC addressed very nicely about a dozen pages back (in short, they aren't to stop wars, they are just meant to lessen civilian suffering compared to what it would look like in a no-holds-barred type of fight), but in practice, they are laws that hold actors accountable for breaking the letter of those laws, not for otherwise being bad people.
Or rather ill-suited for the kind of asymmetric conflict that this is, and more couched in the kinds of standing army versus standing army conflict scenarios that the statutes were mostly devised to cover.
This point of yours just suggests that we should abandon considering war crimes at all for this sort of conflict.
I hear that. Although I personally feel that the exceptions written in to the Geneva Conventions themselves adequately address most of the issues at play in this conflict and we therefore shouldn't abandon them altogether.
|
|
|
On March 27 2024 10:42 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 09:51 Turbovolver wrote:On March 27 2024 08:06 WombaT wrote:
Aye because you see myself or Neb stanning Russia all the time on here But you do see Salazarz and GH doing it. If you think that not subscribing to the idea that literally everything in Russia is bad and literally every Russian is bad equates 'stanning Russia' then sure, by all means.
Look, this isn't the thread for people to take a stance on Russia so all I'll say is it's very easy to look at your posting history and see all the "Russia didn't lose X historical war as much as you think!" and "Russia's economy isn't owned!" and no actual comment on "invading a country to land grab is bad, actually" and come to some conclusions.
|
On March 27 2024 10:58 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 10:42 Salazarz wrote:On March 27 2024 09:51 Turbovolver wrote:On March 27 2024 08:06 WombaT wrote:
Aye because you see myself or Neb stanning Russia all the time on here But you do see Salazarz and GH doing it. If you think that not subscribing to the idea that literally everything in Russia is bad and literally every Russian is bad equates 'stanning Russia' then sure, by all means. Look, this isn't the thread for people to take a stance on Russia so all I'll say is it's very easy to look at your posting history and see all the "Russia didn't lose X historical war as much as you think!" and "Russia's economy isn't owned!" and no actual comment on "invading a country to land grab is bad, actually" and come to some conclusions.
Maybe you shouldn't be calling people's presumed stances on Russia in this thread if it isn't the right place to discuss it, then, especially if your presumptions are likely to be seen as offensive.
|
On March 27 2024 11:59 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 10:58 Turbovolver wrote:On March 27 2024 10:42 Salazarz wrote:On March 27 2024 09:51 Turbovolver wrote:On March 27 2024 08:06 WombaT wrote:
Aye because you see myself or Neb stanning Russia all the time on here But you do see Salazarz and GH doing it. If you think that not subscribing to the idea that literally everything in Russia is bad and literally every Russian is bad equates 'stanning Russia' then sure, by all means. Look, this isn't the thread for people to take a stance on Russia so all I'll say is it's very easy to look at your posting history and see all the "Russia didn't lose X historical war as much as you think!" and "Russia's economy isn't owned!" and no actual comment on "invading a country to land grab is bad, actually" and come to some conclusions. Maybe you shouldn't be calling people's presumed stances on Russia in this thread if it isn't the right place to discuss it, then, especially if your presumptions are likely to be seen as offensive.
I was not the one who brought up Russia here, merely joining in the conversation while also trying to be conscious about not completely derailing it. The last I will say on the topic here is that you're of course welcome to demonstrate through your posting your true position. Or don't! I sure won't or can't make you!
|
|
|
|
|
On March 27 2024 12:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 10:03 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 04:58 JimmiC wrote:On March 27 2024 04:23 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 02:47 stilt wrote:On March 27 2024 00:19 JimmiC wrote:
People might start to pay attention to how many of those civilians are directly killed by Hamas as well as partial blame for all the citizens they put in harms way as they continue to use hospitals, refugee camps, schools and so on as staging areas, bases and places to fight.
Hard to say, hatred for Israel runs deep and has bene promoted on the socials for a long time. This could be the straw that breaks the Camals back but I doubt it. Aside from racism and religious fanatism, is there any reason from the continuous support of Israel ? I guess I could add the case "western supremacism" but in the end that's still a racist component. Mainstream media reliance is probably still the main one, but that is related to both racism and western supremacy. And for those who keep poo pooing me pointing out how far left and far right are becoming twins we know have the "it's Main Stream Media's" fault. Are you not a journalist? Do you not see value in the rules that MSM needs to follow compared to all the rest of the garbage out there? edit: also explains all the presumptions as fact with no sourcing. Source is either social media, to embarrassing for those not down the rabbit hole or simply made up, I mean "presumed". "Have more Palestinians or Israelis died in war? Half of Americans don’t know, poll says" Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article286996080.html#storylink=cpy That’s a shit post. Explain what you mean so I don’t connect the dots incorrectly then you accuse me of whatever. Again are you not some sort of journalist can you not just say what you mean? I’m going to assume that you are trying to show that “main stream media” is doing a bad job of educating them. How many Americans get their news from main stream media? How many even read the news at all? What percentage even know there is a war? If I happened to guess what you were trying to get at try again. Edit: if your really are serious that you think the “msm” is not accurately reporting the casualties I can you show you tons from all over, cnn updates it daily even breaks it down by week. The accurate info is out there, it’s the opinion part that is being sold as fact on social media that is the problem.
It is an observable fact about reality that the MSM does a shit job of reporting Gaza. In this quantitative study by the Intercept, "Major U.S. newspapers disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict; used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians; and offered lopsided coverage of antisemitic acts in the U.S., while largely ignoring anti-Muslim racism in the wake of October 7."
https://theintercept.com/2024/01/09/newspapers-israel-palestine-bias-new-york-times/
The reason why this happens is in my opinion largely because of the Israeli military censor, which "every CNN journalist covering Israel and Palestine must submit their work for review by the news organization’s bureau in Jerusalem prior to publication, under a long-standing CNN policy."
https://theintercept.com/2024/01/04/cnn-israel-gaza-idf-reporting/
A good question to ask in light of the existence of this military censor would be, why wouldn't this happen? Are they shit at their job? We have circumstances in which it makes total sense that a biased coverage would develop, then we have obvious evidence of this biased coverage both in the data and in the reception of the data. I think that's very clearly a salient point, worth mentioning on top of racism and western supremacy, that causes a lot of people to still defend Israel: their cultivated ignorance of what's going on.
|
On March 27 2024 16:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 12:59 JimmiC wrote:On March 27 2024 10:03 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 04:58 JimmiC wrote:On March 27 2024 04:23 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 02:47 stilt wrote:On March 27 2024 00:19 JimmiC wrote:
People might start to pay attention to how many of those civilians are directly killed by Hamas as well as partial blame for all the citizens they put in harms way as they continue to use hospitals, refugee camps, schools and so on as staging areas, bases and places to fight.
Hard to say, hatred for Israel runs deep and has bene promoted on the socials for a long time. This could be the straw that breaks the Camals back but I doubt it. Aside from racism and religious fanatism, is there any reason from the continuous support of Israel ? I guess I could add the case "western supremacism" but in the end that's still a racist component. Mainstream media reliance is probably still the main one, but that is related to both racism and western supremacy. And for those who keep poo pooing me pointing out how far left and far right are becoming twins we know have the "it's Main Stream Media's" fault. Are you not a journalist? Do you not see value in the rules that MSM needs to follow compared to all the rest of the garbage out there? edit: also explains all the presumptions as fact with no sourcing. Source is either social media, to embarrassing for those not down the rabbit hole or simply made up, I mean "presumed". "Have more Palestinians or Israelis died in war? Half of Americans don’t know, poll says" Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article286996080.html#storylink=cpy That’s a shit post. Explain what you mean so I don’t connect the dots incorrectly then you accuse me of whatever. Again are you not some sort of journalist can you not just say what you mean? I’m going to assume that you are trying to show that “main stream media” is doing a bad job of educating them. How many Americans get their news from main stream media? How many even read the news at all? What percentage even know there is a war? If I happened to guess what you were trying to get at try again. Edit: if your really are serious that you think the “msm” is not accurately reporting the casualties I can you show you tons from all over, cnn updates it daily even breaks it down by week. The accurate info is out there, it’s the opinion part that is being sold as fact on social media that is the problem. It is an observable fact about reality that the MSM does a shit job of reporting Gaza. In this quantitative study by the Intercept, "Major U.S. newspapers disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict; used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians
Neb, don't you think the difference in language and reporting between the Israeli and the Palestinian deaths has anything to do with the nature of these deaths? There are many Palestinians who have died which all of us think is a tragedy; there is a discussion to be had about how much their deaths were caused by disproportionate use of force from the IDF and how much it is because Hamas is actively hiding among civilians (hospitals, schools etc.).
But on the other side you have the purposeful killing of as many civilians as possible in the most gruesome way possible. The difference in reporting is not because of some bias against the Palestinians; for example, if something like this happened in Tel Aviv (dead civilians paraded through the streets of Gaza cheered on by crowds of people), don't you think it would be all over the news all the time for years to come:
https://nypost.com/2023/10/07/horrifying-videos-show-hamas-terrorist-invasion-of-israel/
|
Northern Ireland25419 Posts
On March 27 2024 10:30 Cerebrate1 wrote:Sorry it took me a while to respond. I've been swamped at work lately. Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 04:02 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2024 15:23 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 08 2024 01:48 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2024 00:45 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 00:42 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 07 2024 23:25 Magic Powers wrote:On March 07 2024 23:15 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps are not more sacrosanct in the Geneva Conventions than hospitals. If there is military infrastructure there, it's a valid military target. Mask off. Eh. I didn't say anything about the morality of the situation in that post. You claimed that something was a war crime. I clarified that it is not necessarily a war crime based on the actual definition of war crimes. You may have "unmasked" that I have a compulsive need to correct inaccuracies, but I've mentioned that that is my MO a couple time myself. Not to be too picky, but there was a war crime, just it was Hamas putting their military assets there. The real war crime is the friends we made along the way. There’s a difference between an actual military target, and a location that military or paramilitary personnel happen to be in. Undoubtedly there have been many occasions where Hamas have used positions embedded in civilian populations and launched attacks, it’s a very well-noted tactic. Is it every single time in a conflict where tens of thousands have died? There has to be some kind of distinction here otherwise the Geneva Conventions are more toothless and functionally useless than they presently are. Can you bomb a hospital if it’s full of convalescing military personnel? I mean most people would say no and it’s against the spirit of those conventions and generally quite morally repugnant. One could make the argument that experienced military personnel who are going to recirculate into active rotation are a pretty big military asset, but I digress. I’d argue it’s basically pointless to even use the term in any non moral-intuition based sense. If proportionality is out the window, and if any area that contains Hamas members is fair game there is scarcely much point in having designated war crimes in international law. I'd argue the opposite use of the term "war crimes" makes more sense. It is a legal term defined by someone breaking certain specific international laws. Like other legal terms, it should be used where that law actually applies. If someone has moral objections, they should use moral words to describe the situation instead. It's not as if English is lacking in good words to use in that area that there is a need to use legal terms for that. (objectionable, evil, bad, unfair, wrong, immoral, etc.) Some things are immoral, but not illegal. Some things are illegal, but not immoral. If a bully makes fun of a kid at school, it doesn't have to be illegal to be called out. Meanwhile, a parent who said that that bully committed a felony would be... inaccurate. Well essentially but even attempting specificity in terminology there’s still disagreement on whether Israel has committed war crimes or not. Sure. I wasn't entering myself into that side of the topic at the moment. Although I agree with all the things RvB said on it recently if you want to know my general stance. Show nested quote +You’re effectively in agreement, perhaps from a slightly different angle, I’m unsure! I was saying that someone who felt morally opposed to something should use moral language instead of legal language. I was trying to make that statement in as detached a manner as possible so it applies to everyone here, rather than weighing in with my personal feelings on who/what was good/bad/legal/illegal. Show nested quote +
From where I’m sitting it seems many of the existing war crime statutes are either interpretative anyway, ‘disproportionate force’ would be one such concept.
...
If ‘is x a war crime?’ something that gathers a lot of variance in opinion then it’s less a specific, binary law and one dictated by moral intuition anyway, so you may as well skip discussing the law part and go straight to the moral argument as it’s so intertwined already.
Firstly, there are many war crimes that do not require interpretation. Like the law against taking non-combatant hostages or the law against having regular combat forces fight in civilian garb. There is the option to focus on the more concrete laws if you feel the more nebulous ones are too complex. Secondly, many of the remaining laws aren't so much open to multiple opinions, as they are necessitating sufficient evidence/information. (Hence why experts often say "there may have been war crimes." I.e. depending on what the facts on the ground turn out to be after the fog of war lifts.) Finally, any interpretations of whether these laws apply, is done by experts in international law (with consultation with military experts for things like "proportionality"). No one is seeking guidance from their spiritual leaders on if something is moral enough to consider a "war crime." It's a clear legal question with a legal answer. There is a moral reason to have the laws, which JimmiC addressed very nicely about a dozen pages back (in short, they aren't to stop wars, they are just meant to lessen civilian suffering compared to what it would look like in a no-holds-barred type of fight), but in practice, they are laws that hold actors accountable for breaking the letter of those laws, not for otherwise being bad people. Show nested quote +
Or rather ill-suited for the kind of asymmetric conflict that this is, and more couched in the kinds of standing army versus standing army conflict scenarios that the statutes were mostly devised to cover.
This point of yours just suggests that we should abandon considering war crimes at all for this sort of conflict. I hear that. Although I personally feel that the exceptions written in to the Geneva Conventions themselves adequately address most of the issues at play in this conflict and we therefore shouldn't abandon them altogether.
No worries, appreciate the response. Can’t really disagree with any of that.
The laws do of course exist for good reason, albeit I guess they suffer from an observation/enforcement issue as you mention. In general, not specifically with reference to this conflict.
|
On March 27 2024 17:40 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 16:40 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 12:59 JimmiC wrote:On March 27 2024 10:03 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 04:58 JimmiC wrote:On March 27 2024 04:23 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 02:47 stilt wrote:On March 27 2024 00:19 JimmiC wrote:
People might start to pay attention to how many of those civilians are directly killed by Hamas as well as partial blame for all the citizens they put in harms way as they continue to use hospitals, refugee camps, schools and so on as staging areas, bases and places to fight.
Hard to say, hatred for Israel runs deep and has bene promoted on the socials for a long time. This could be the straw that breaks the Camals back but I doubt it. Aside from racism and religious fanatism, is there any reason from the continuous support of Israel ? I guess I could add the case "western supremacism" but in the end that's still a racist component. Mainstream media reliance is probably still the main one, but that is related to both racism and western supremacy. And for those who keep poo pooing me pointing out how far left and far right are becoming twins we know have the "it's Main Stream Media's" fault. Are you not a journalist? Do you not see value in the rules that MSM needs to follow compared to all the rest of the garbage out there? edit: also explains all the presumptions as fact with no sourcing. Source is either social media, to embarrassing for those not down the rabbit hole or simply made up, I mean "presumed". "Have more Palestinians or Israelis died in war? Half of Americans don’t know, poll says" Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article286996080.html#storylink=cpy That’s a shit post. Explain what you mean so I don’t connect the dots incorrectly then you accuse me of whatever. Again are you not some sort of journalist can you not just say what you mean? I’m going to assume that you are trying to show that “main stream media” is doing a bad job of educating them. How many Americans get their news from main stream media? How many even read the news at all? What percentage even know there is a war? If I happened to guess what you were trying to get at try again. Edit: if your really are serious that you think the “msm” is not accurately reporting the casualties I can you show you tons from all over, cnn updates it daily even breaks it down by week. The accurate info is out there, it’s the opinion part that is being sold as fact on social media that is the problem. It is an observable fact about reality that the MSM does a shit job of reporting Gaza. In this quantitative study by the Intercept, "Major U.S. newspapers disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict; used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians Neb, don't you think the difference in language and reporting between the Israeli and the Palestinian deaths has anything to do with the nature of these deaths? There are many Palestinians who have died which all of us think is a tragedy; there is a discussion to be had about how much their deaths were caused by disproportionate use of force from the IDF and how much it is because Hamas is actively hiding among civilians (hospitals, schools etc.). But on the other side you have the purposeful killing of as many civilians as possible in the most gruesome way possible. The difference in reporting is not because of some bias against the Palestinians; for example, if something like this happened in Tel Aviv (dead civilians paraded through the streets of Gaza cheered on by crowds of people), don't you think it would be all over the news all the time for years to come: https://nypost.com/2023/10/07/horrifying-videos-show-hamas-terrorist-invasion-of-israel/
I would contend that what you're doing here is agreeing with the bias, describing why the bias makes sense to you, as opposed to arguing against the bias' existence. If Hamas had access to the IDF artillery and was using it to bomb military targets in Tel-Aviv, I am absolutely certain that neither the mainstream media nor you would shy away from calling it horrific, or a slaughter. Nor should they, by the way, it is fucking horrific.
And then there's a chicken and egg question that arises from it, was it always your view that this difference in coverage makes sense, or did the way the media reports them shape your perception of this difference? It's difficult to answer.
Another factor that is definitely worth mentioning in the creation of this bias is that a lot of people have trouble empathizing with others, and it's much easier for Europeans to see themselves as victims of terrorism than it is to see themselves as victims of a colonizing force. This may or may not apply to you, I wouldn't know.
|
On March 27 2024 17:40 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 16:40 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 12:59 JimmiC wrote:On March 27 2024 10:03 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 04:58 JimmiC wrote:On March 27 2024 04:23 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 02:47 stilt wrote:On March 27 2024 00:19 JimmiC wrote:
People might start to pay attention to how many of those civilians are directly killed by Hamas as well as partial blame for all the citizens they put in harms way as they continue to use hospitals, refugee camps, schools and so on as staging areas, bases and places to fight.
Hard to say, hatred for Israel runs deep and has bene promoted on the socials for a long time. This could be the straw that breaks the Camals back but I doubt it. Aside from racism and religious fanatism, is there any reason from the continuous support of Israel ? I guess I could add the case "western supremacism" but in the end that's still a racist component. Mainstream media reliance is probably still the main one, but that is related to both racism and western supremacy. And for those who keep poo pooing me pointing out how far left and far right are becoming twins we know have the "it's Main Stream Media's" fault. Are you not a journalist? Do you not see value in the rules that MSM needs to follow compared to all the rest of the garbage out there? edit: also explains all the presumptions as fact with no sourcing. Source is either social media, to embarrassing for those not down the rabbit hole or simply made up, I mean "presumed". "Have more Palestinians or Israelis died in war? Half of Americans don’t know, poll says" Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article286996080.html#storylink=cpy That’s a shit post. Explain what you mean so I don’t connect the dots incorrectly then you accuse me of whatever. Again are you not some sort of journalist can you not just say what you mean? I’m going to assume that you are trying to show that “main stream media” is doing a bad job of educating them. How many Americans get their news from main stream media? How many even read the news at all? What percentage even know there is a war? If I happened to guess what you were trying to get at try again. Edit: if your really are serious that you think the “msm” is not accurately reporting the casualties I can you show you tons from all over, cnn updates it daily even breaks it down by week. The accurate info is out there, it’s the opinion part that is being sold as fact on social media that is the problem. It is an observable fact about reality that the MSM does a shit job of reporting Gaza. In this quantitative study by the Intercept, "Major U.S. newspapers disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict; used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians But on the other side you have the purposeful killing of as many civilians as possible in the most gruesome way possible. The difference in reporting is not because of some bias against the Palestinians; for example, if something like this happened in Tel Aviv (dead civilians paraded through the streets of Gaza cheered on by crowds of people), don't you think it would be all over the news all the time for years to come: https://nypost.com/2023/10/07/horrifying-videos-show-hamas-terrorist-invasion-of-israel/
I find this argument to be dangerously close to agitprop to be honest.
We are encouraged not to think about the horror of being bombed because it never happens around us. Killing a child by dropping a bomb on their house so they have to lie there for a day slowly getting crushed to death while their parents lie dead a few feet away shouldn't be judged better or worse than what Hamas were doing beheading people or whatever other awful ways they decided to come up with to kill people.
The sheer volume of Palestinians killed in this way is utterly, utterly horrific, so the 'nature of the deaths' argument just doesn't fly with me.
This applies double when you consider that IDF soldiers have been purposely destroying any medical equipment they find in hospitals so that there is no way of treating the badly wounded, who have no choice but to just die slowly now.
|
On March 27 2024 18:19 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 17:40 Elroi wrote:On March 27 2024 16:40 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 12:59 JimmiC wrote:On March 27 2024 10:03 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 04:58 JimmiC wrote:On March 27 2024 04:23 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 02:47 stilt wrote:On March 27 2024 00:19 JimmiC wrote:
People might start to pay attention to how many of those civilians are directly killed by Hamas as well as partial blame for all the citizens they put in harms way as they continue to use hospitals, refugee camps, schools and so on as staging areas, bases and places to fight.
Hard to say, hatred for Israel runs deep and has bene promoted on the socials for a long time. This could be the straw that breaks the Camals back but I doubt it. Aside from racism and religious fanatism, is there any reason from the continuous support of Israel ? I guess I could add the case "western supremacism" but in the end that's still a racist component. Mainstream media reliance is probably still the main one, but that is related to both racism and western supremacy. And for those who keep poo pooing me pointing out how far left and far right are becoming twins we know have the "it's Main Stream Media's" fault. Are you not a journalist? Do you not see value in the rules that MSM needs to follow compared to all the rest of the garbage out there? edit: also explains all the presumptions as fact with no sourcing. Source is either social media, to embarrassing for those not down the rabbit hole or simply made up, I mean "presumed". "Have more Palestinians or Israelis died in war? Half of Americans don’t know, poll says" Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article286996080.html#storylink=cpy That’s a shit post. Explain what you mean so I don’t connect the dots incorrectly then you accuse me of whatever. Again are you not some sort of journalist can you not just say what you mean? I’m going to assume that you are trying to show that “main stream media” is doing a bad job of educating them. How many Americans get their news from main stream media? How many even read the news at all? What percentage even know there is a war? If I happened to guess what you were trying to get at try again. Edit: if your really are serious that you think the “msm” is not accurately reporting the casualties I can you show you tons from all over, cnn updates it daily even breaks it down by week. The accurate info is out there, it’s the opinion part that is being sold as fact on social media that is the problem. It is an observable fact about reality that the MSM does a shit job of reporting Gaza. In this quantitative study by the Intercept, "Major U.S. newspapers disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict; used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians Neb, don't you think the difference in language and reporting between the Israeli and the Palestinian deaths has anything to do with the nature of these deaths? There are many Palestinians who have died which all of us think is a tragedy; there is a discussion to be had about how much their deaths were caused by disproportionate use of force from the IDF and how much it is because Hamas is actively hiding among civilians (hospitals, schools etc.). But on the other side you have the purposeful killing of as many civilians as possible in the most gruesome way possible. The difference in reporting is not because of some bias against the Palestinians; for example, if something like this happened in Tel Aviv (dead civilians paraded through the streets of Gaza cheered on by crowds of people), don't you think it would be all over the news all the time for years to come: https://nypost.com/2023/10/07/horrifying-videos-show-hamas-terrorist-invasion-of-israel/ I would contend that what you're doing here is agreeing with the bias, describing why the bias makes sense to you, as opposed to arguing against the bias' existence. If Hamas had access to the IDF artillery and was using it to bomb military targets in Tel-Aviv, I am absolutely certain that neither the mainstream media nor you would shy away from calling it horrific, or a slaughter. Nor should they, by the way, it is fucking horrific. And then there's a chicken and egg question that arises from it, was it always your view that this difference in coverage makes sense, or did the way the media reports them shape your perception of this difference? It's difficult to answer. Another factor that is definitely worth mentioning in the creation of this bias is that a lot of people have trouble empathizing with others, and it's much easier for Europeans to see themselves as victims of terrorism than it is to see themselves as victims of a colonizing force. This may or may not apply to you, I wouldn't know.
I am not sure what your argument is other than doubling down on the claim that the media are biased against Palestinians and the usual postcolonial hermeneutics of suspicion.
My claim was that if the media are reporting on the Israeli deaths on Oct 7 differently than the Palestinian deaths it's not necessarily because of media bias. If civilians die in a strike against Hamas fighters it's qualitatively different from if they are targeted on purpose. If Israeli soldiers behaved like the Hamas soldiers (ie, targeting civilians on purpose) the reporting would also be completely different.
And I asked you a counterfactual question: if Israeli soldiers raped and killed young Palestinian women, on orders by their commanders, took the bodies and paraded them through the streets where the civilian population cheered them on - do you think the media would treat that differently from the Oct 7 attack? I don't think so.
|
On March 27 2024 20:11 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 18:19 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 17:40 Elroi wrote:On March 27 2024 16:40 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 12:59 JimmiC wrote:On March 27 2024 10:03 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 04:58 JimmiC wrote:On March 27 2024 04:23 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 02:47 stilt wrote:On March 27 2024 00:19 JimmiC wrote:
People might start to pay attention to how many of those civilians are directly killed by Hamas as well as partial blame for all the citizens they put in harms way as they continue to use hospitals, refugee camps, schools and so on as staging areas, bases and places to fight.
Hard to say, hatred for Israel runs deep and has bene promoted on the socials for a long time. This could be the straw that breaks the Camals back but I doubt it. Aside from racism and religious fanatism, is there any reason from the continuous support of Israel ? I guess I could add the case "western supremacism" but in the end that's still a racist component. Mainstream media reliance is probably still the main one, but that is related to both racism and western supremacy. And for those who keep poo pooing me pointing out how far left and far right are becoming twins we know have the "it's Main Stream Media's" fault. Are you not a journalist? Do you not see value in the rules that MSM needs to follow compared to all the rest of the garbage out there? edit: also explains all the presumptions as fact with no sourcing. Source is either social media, to embarrassing for those not down the rabbit hole or simply made up, I mean "presumed". "Have more Palestinians or Israelis died in war? Half of Americans don’t know, poll says" Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article286996080.html#storylink=cpy That’s a shit post. Explain what you mean so I don’t connect the dots incorrectly then you accuse me of whatever. Again are you not some sort of journalist can you not just say what you mean? I’m going to assume that you are trying to show that “main stream media” is doing a bad job of educating them. How many Americans get their news from main stream media? How many even read the news at all? What percentage even know there is a war? If I happened to guess what you were trying to get at try again. Edit: if your really are serious that you think the “msm” is not accurately reporting the casualties I can you show you tons from all over, cnn updates it daily even breaks it down by week. The accurate info is out there, it’s the opinion part that is being sold as fact on social media that is the problem. It is an observable fact about reality that the MSM does a shit job of reporting Gaza. In this quantitative study by the Intercept, "Major U.S. newspapers disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict; used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians Neb, don't you think the difference in language and reporting between the Israeli and the Palestinian deaths has anything to do with the nature of these deaths? There are many Palestinians who have died which all of us think is a tragedy; there is a discussion to be had about how much their deaths were caused by disproportionate use of force from the IDF and how much it is because Hamas is actively hiding among civilians (hospitals, schools etc.). But on the other side you have the purposeful killing of as many civilians as possible in the most gruesome way possible. The difference in reporting is not because of some bias against the Palestinians; for example, if something like this happened in Tel Aviv (dead civilians paraded through the streets of Gaza cheered on by crowds of people), don't you think it would be all over the news all the time for years to come: https://nypost.com/2023/10/07/horrifying-videos-show-hamas-terrorist-invasion-of-israel/ I would contend that what you're doing here is agreeing with the bias, describing why the bias makes sense to you, as opposed to arguing against the bias' existence. If Hamas had access to the IDF artillery and was using it to bomb military targets in Tel-Aviv, I am absolutely certain that neither the mainstream media nor you would shy away from calling it horrific, or a slaughter. Nor should they, by the way, it is fucking horrific. And then there's a chicken and egg question that arises from it, was it always your view that this difference in coverage makes sense, or did the way the media reports them shape your perception of this difference? It's difficult to answer. Another factor that is definitely worth mentioning in the creation of this bias is that a lot of people have trouble empathizing with others, and it's much easier for Europeans to see themselves as victims of terrorism than it is to see themselves as victims of a colonizing force. This may or may not apply to you, I wouldn't know. I am not sure what your argument is other than doubling down on the claim that the media are biased against Palestinians and the usual postcolonial hermeneutics of suspicion. My claim was that if the media are reporting on the Israeli deaths on Oct 7 differently than the Palestinian deaths it's not necessarily because of media bias. If civilians die in a strike against Hamas fighters it's qualitatively different from if they are targeted on purpose. If Israeli soldiers behaved like the Hamas soldiers (ie, targeting civilians on purpose) the reporting would also be completely different. And I asked you a counterfactual question: if Israeli soldiers raped and killed young Palestinian women, on orders by their commanders, took the bodies and paraded them through the streets where the civilian population cheered them on - do you think the media would treat that differently from the Oct 7 attack? I don't think so.
Genuine question, have you paid attention to this trend Pre-Oct 7th or is your argument that the framing is what is only due to recent trends?
Cerebrate, glad to hear, though ideally they wouldnt have stated it at all.
|
Personally I can't say how biased the general media landscape is because I focus my research on the most reputable news outlets, and they're trying to be quite balanced. But I've also seen plenty of outlets that adjust their use of language and emphasis of reporting according to their bias. If an overall pro-Israel bias is prevalent, then I think that should be considered a problem. There are plenty of reports of Palestinian families being wiped out, and I've yet to see an apparent military purpose for that. Israel's administration always responds by calling everything a valid military target, but it's fairly clear to me they're using far too broad of a brush for that claim, and I'm also completely convinced that the IDF is actively creating the circumstances that dramatically increase the likelihood of civilians getting killed.
I've said since late October that the claim of "minimizing civilian casualties" is strictly false. Their actual policy is to "not absolutely maximize civilian casualties", which is nowhere near the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
