International Hamas launches surprise attack on Israel; Israel has declared a state of war. Vol. VII

[BAM]

Sure but I doubt anyone would go on record to talk about the war right now. There's only so much we can know as of now and probably ever. But as you said it tracks with my thinking of how they're conducting the war.

Yeah, and I get why. However, journalists have an overly precious view of their profession and themselves. They are glorified gossip mongers incapable of objectivity and proper analysis. They assert things as true, and expect people to just give them the benefit of the doubt when they say, 'anonymous sources'.

This used to be effective. It's just the last few decades the mask has slipped off and now we are in a post-truth environment where half of what they write is obvious propaganda or propaganda mixed with truth. Nobody knows what to believe anymore, and the cynical political actors take advantage of this gray area.

 

[Samjj]

Hamas is not the Palestinian people and I'm sure the US has no intention of working towards a Palestinian state that would have Hamas at the helm. That doesn't mean the Palestinian people should be deprived of self determination. After all the Zionists also committed terrorist attacks in the lead up to the founding of their nation, most notably the Deir Yassin massacre, and yet that did not invalidate the Zionist project in the eyes of the West.

Anything less than a serious commitment to Palestinian self determination, whether its one state or two states, is asking for this conflict to boil over again and again and again.

Your vapid and totally empty comparisons again equivocating between the morality of the two sides.
Massacres committed by Israel surrounding the ‘48 civil war were 1) minuscule in scale in comparison to today’s attack and not state sponsored. 2) Massacres of even greater numbers with awful brutality were perpetrated by Arab militants during the same period. The whole kidnapping Jewish babies after murdering their parents was first documented during also in ‘48.

You love being an apologist for violent Islamists.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Yeah, and I get why. However, journalists have an overly precious view of their profession and themselves. They are glorified gossip mongers incapable of objectivity and proper analysis. They assert things as true, and expect people to just give them the benefit of the doubt when they say, 'anonymous sources'.

This used to be effective. It's just the last few decades the mask has slipped off and now we are in a post-truth environment where half of what they write is obvious propaganda or propaganda mixed with truth. Nobody knows what to believe anymore, and the cynical political actors take advantage of this gray area.

I think this is an overly cynical take on journalism. Journalists aren't perfect but there's value to ones that cultivate anonymous sources who can give us a peek behind the veil. Its not perfect and we'll likely never know the relevant details in full and if we do get a better picture it'd be in decades time if archives are declassified

 

[moreorless87]

What do you mean by this exactly?

Most obviously the Abraham Accords, but moving the US embassy and generally acceptance of the status quo of settlements, etc

I mean things were certainly far from rosey before that but Trump did obviously shift them and Biden did almost nothing to shift hem back in the following 4 years.

 

[BAM]

I think this is an overly cynical take on journalism. Journalists aren't perfect but there's value to ones that cultivate anonymous sources who can give us a peek behind the veil. Its not perfect and we'll likely never know the relevant details in full and if we do get a better picture it'd be in decades time if archives are declassified

Journalism's argument is primarily an appeal to authority and requires an act of faith - that they are capable of analysing the info from an objective space, have the capacity to understand it, the humility to know the limited extent of their knowledge, and the ability to correctly contextualise the information and the publication has a sufficient integrity-based oversight. A lot of that is assumed based on the editors of the publication and the reputation of the publication itself.

All you need to do is look at the Intercept vs NYT reporting on this issue. NYT does a report on mass rape by Hamas. Intercept argues that NYT did not have proper editorial oversight, did not properly source, did not fact check correctly, used Israeli info and amplified propaganda, and had bias in its reporting and used unqualified junior staff with a conflict of interest as the primary investigators. The Intercept also then used anonymous sourcing to state that there was great concern about the editorial internally at the NYT, including protest about how the article came to be, and a resignation from the project over it, including a podcast episode of The Daily.

NYT simply refuted Intercepts reports on its internal matter without elaboration and said it stood by its reporting. Intercept had no real rebuttal. The Polk Award people simply said they were standing by the NYT. Two separate appeals to authority, doubling down, a stalemate. NYT is bigger and more respected, so it wins without real challenge.

 

[Koya]

 

[Koya]

israel killed 150 people and arrested 600 inside of Al Shifa hospital... Killed at least 6 doctors... Never saw that ever. Not from the US not from Russia not from Sudan not from Saudi not from Azerbaïdjan not even from China with Uyghurs... It's unreal how boomers here give them a pass for such atrocities and are oblivious that the whole world is appalled... still not a genocide guys...

Day 168: Shifa operation marks one of largest in current war – 600 arrested, 150 terrorists killed so far

Identities of several senior captured terrorists have not yet been published

allisrael.com

 

[Koya]

I've asked this before with no answers here. If Hamas is in that hospital, does it not demonstrate that the IOF has failed as this hospital and city was cleared?

Yes they already besieged the hospital... so either their first grandiose operation was a total flop and they did nothing but kill civilians because there is 1000 Hamas inside or it's the second one where they killed civilians because they already killed their enemies in the first one... Or wait maybe it's the two where they slaughtered civilians because the goal is just ethnic cleansing...

 

[Koya]

See this post and all the likes from your "moderate" sherbros @Anewt @BAM ? That's the type of people that you're finding a middle ground with. They think they're at war with the whole Muslim world. Not only Palestinians. Not only Arabs. 2 billions he says, that's every Muslim alive. They consider themselves at war with Pakistanis, and Indonesians, and Senegalese and Sudanese and Chechens and Kazaks. But somehow we're the extremists.

Maybe you guys should listen to what they tell you and take it at face value. And see that the hypocrites who liked the post think the same. Rholk, Samjj, Devilson and others liked the post. They are just not courageous enough to tell you what they really think contrary to that guy. Maybe connect 1 and 1. Samjj is Jewish and clearly feels persecuted by Muslims at every breath he takes. Rholk slipped about agreeing with Israel annexing 3,000 acres of the West Bank one month ago.

But wait there's more:

the arrival of the messiah
prophecy is something that we lost 2500 years ago

I am very excited to live in this generation

Yep that's what I'm telling you. Now link it with :

the west bank breeds murderers and terrorist

Yeah surely those guys are against settlements and don't want to expell or kill all of Gaza AND the West Bank.

People just don't want to believe what they say while they say it and mean it. That guy and the guys that liked his first post think like that. Look how they accept every massacre, justify it and say they will condemn israel one day if one massacre is "proven true" but it's been 6 month and nothing is true. Israel only killed 35K terrorists and "collateral damage that they took huge effort to not target and even if they did it's not their fault". But hey they're not totally amoral just misunderstood.

 

[BAM]

@Koya I have my own independent rationale. I'm not looking to create a consensus. If it was a big room of us all agreeing with each other, it'd be pretty boring. If they agree or don't agree with my posts, that's fine. If they like posts I disagree with, fine. I don't post for likes or let that influence my opinion.

Personally, I find the Israeli guy interesting, because I've never spoken to an Israeli before. I don't believe he represents all of expansionist zionism, but he is a slice of the pie. Gives a view into a different perspective that may help understand an element of the conflict.

Think of it as an opportunity to test out your arguments and get a sense on how they land across a range of backgrounds, ideologies, etc.

 

[Koya]

@Koya I have my own independent rationale. I'm not looking to create a consensus. If it was a big room of us all agreeing with each other, it'd be pretty boring. If they agree or don't agree with my posts, that's fine. If they like posts I disagree with, fine. I don't post for likes or let that influence my opinion.

Personally, I find the Israeli guy interesting, because I've never spoken to an Israeli before. I don't believe he represents all of expansionist zionism, but he is a slice of the pie. Gives a view into a different perspective that may help understand an element of the conflict.

Think of it as an opportunity to test out your arguments and get a sense on how they land across a range of backgrounds, ideologies, etc.

I wasn't at all trying to tell you to get a consensus or be like, wasn't the subject at all, I was showing you only two things.

First how he's honest and all the other pro Israeli Jewish guy in the thread are gaslighting you with word salad when they betray themselves liking his Armageddon posts and second that it's what they really think : exterminate all Palestinians because it's a mission they got from God.

So when they minimize or justify massacres in the name of "context" you should remember from which prism they really look at it.

I've "tested my arguments" for months I'm done with this hypocrisy. When people care about a whole nation being destroyed call me.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Journalism's argument is primarily an appeal to authority and requires an act of faith - that they are capable of analysing the info from an objective space, have the capacity to understand it, the humility to know the limited extent of their knowledge, and the ability to correctly contextualise the information and the publication has a sufficient integrity-based oversight. A lot of that is assumed based on the editors of the publication and the reputation of the publication itself.

All you need to do is look at the Intercept vs NYT reporting on this issue. NYT does a report on mass rape by Hamas. Intercept argues that NYT did not have proper editorial oversight, did not properly source, did not fact check correctly, used Israeli info and amplified propaganda, and had bias in its reporting and used unqualified junior staff with a conflict of interest as the primary investigators. The Intercept also then used anonymous sourcing to state that there was great concern about the editorial internally at the NYT, including protest about how the article came to be, and a resignation from the project over it, including a podcast episode of The Daily.

Again journalism is not perfect but I think we can make reasonable judgements about the case made by certain outlets or journalists based on their body of work and the quality of the piece in question.

I never waded into the whole rape allegations because I was sure it happened on some level and I figured there would be enough ambiguity given the fog of war that it'd be hard to prove either way and it felt in poor taste to be excessively skeptical. In regards to the specific NYT and Intercept pieces without having looked at either I was inclined to take the NYT take over the Intercept purely because of their reputation but in fairness you seemed to make a good case for doubting the NYT piece. Now I want to go back and read the both of them.

NYT simply refuted Intercepts reports on its internal matter without elaboration and said it stood by its reporting. Intercept had no real rebuttal. The Polk Award people simply said they were standing by the NYT. Two separate appeals to authority, doubling down, a stalemate. NYT is bigger and more respected, so it wins without real challenge.

We don't have some kind of court that will determine whether one is right or wrong but reasonable people can read both sides and make a judgement call based on the relevant facts. Of course there will be disagreement but its just not possible to have an exact science on this kind of thing but that doesn't mean we should dismiss journalism out of hand.

The way you're framing it the NYT piece seems a lot less credible than I would've initially thought, I never read but just took it at face value. Now I am inclied to go read both pieces. That won't mean that I will get the perfect picture of what happened but it'd give me a better one than not reading at all.

 

[BAM]

I wasn't at all trying to tell you to get a consensus or be like, wasn't the subject at all, I was showing you only two things.

First how he's honest and all the other pro Israeli Jewish guy in the thread are gaslighting you with word salad when they betray themselves liking his Armageddon posts and second that it's what they really think : exterminate all Palestinians because it's a mission they got from God.

So when they minimize or justify massacres in the name of "context" you should remember from which prism they really look at it.

I've "tested my arguments" for months I'm done with this hypocrisy. When people care about a whole nation being destroyed call me.

tastylvr is the only one that liked the messiah post you highlighted.

the main one was the wolves pic, which is a meme shitpost. People like memes, even if they don't believe in them because they find them ironic or funny or triggering.

I tend not to overthink the like system. People have their reasons for doing things - and there can be multiple reasons for saying or doing a thing. It's not really the forum where people hold back their opinion.

I think a lot of the frustration that happens in politics, outside of this particular issue, is that people get frustrated with the style of advocacy of the opposition, especially online, and use spaces like this as a release. An opportunity to face the opposition without the placards and fist fights.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I wasn't at all trying to tell you to get a consensus or be like, wasn't the subject at all, I was showing you only two things.

First how he's honest and all the other pro Israeli Jewish guy in the thread are gaslighting you with word salad when they betray themselves liking his Armageddon posts and second that it's what they really think : exterminate all Palestinians because it's a mission they got from God.

So when they minimize or justify massacres in the name of "context" you should remember from which prism they really look at it.

I've "tested my arguments" for months I'm done with this hypocrisy. When people care about a whole nation being destroyed call me.

Reading too much into likes is never helpful IMO, people have all sorts of reasons for liking posts that don't necessarily amount to agreeing with the post wholeheartedly. I've liked posts I've mostly disagreed with because maybe one or two points were good, because it was funny, or because the person was making an effort to discuss the matter in good faith.

If you think some posters are exceedingly unreasonable and bad faith then you're better off ignoring them than making a stink about it I say. A broken clock is right twice a day so sometimes even those posters can drop a decent post or two here and there and if they do I might throw them a like. Doesn't mean I'm on their team or something like that.

 

[BAM]

Again journalism is not perfect but I think we can make reasonable judgements about the case made by certain outlets or journalists based on their body of work and the quality of the piece in question.

I never waded into the whole rape allegations because I was sure it happened on some level and I figured there would be enough ambiguity given the fog of war that it'd be hard to prove either way and it felt in poor taste to be excessively skeptical. In regards to the specific NYT and Intercept pieces without having looked at either I was inclined to take the NYT take over the Intercept purely because of their reputation but in fairness you seemed to make a good case for doubting the NYT piece. Now I want to go back and read the both of them.

We don't have some kind of court that will determine whether one is right or wrong but reasonable people can read both sides and make a judgement call based on the relevant facts. Of course there will be disagreement but its just not possible to have an exact science on this kind of thing but that doesn't mean we should dismiss journalism out of hand.

The way you're framing it the NYT piece seems a lot less credible than I would've initially thought, I never read but just took it at face value. Now I am inclied to go read both pieces. That won't mean that I will get the perfect picture of what happened but it'd give me a better one than not reading at all.

There are the Intercept pieces, the intercept then went on every youtube you can find to publicise it, NPR, CNN and the Nation then covered the NYT response to the piece. Then some wrote articles about the subsequent NYT leak investigation which has been alleged by the Union and furthered by other outlets to be racially targeted (ie targeting Middle Eastern NYT reporters).

I found all of it flawed. The original piece, the Intercept's piece, the follow up articles by CNN et al (that don't want to piss off the NYT), the Polk Award response (cowardly), the coverage of the racism allegation (or lack thereof) and the response of the NYT to the racism reports. Big clown show.

There were once standards in American journalism, that fell by the wayside years ago. It's all bought. From 7 years ago.


edit - especially pay attention to the tronc aspect - Sports Illustrated just got essentially liquidated for getting caught using AI articles. This clip was years ahead of the curve regarding all of this. It's all gotten worse since.

See 13:20 as well, that guy's estate owns Israel Hayom, the estate is getting Trump to do a bunch of pro-Israel interviews right now. He was a big Trump backer and GOP "kingmaker" that also backed Bibi and a one state solution, Elon (twitter), Facebook, and Bezos (Washington Post) have affected coverage as well. Billionaire controlled news and news distribution.

Israel Hayom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sheldon Adelson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Miriam Adelson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://www.israelhayom.com/2024/03/29/and-then-trump-asked-who-would-you-like-me-to-pick/

the lobbying, combined with the direct control of the publication portfolio and editorial oversight should tell you with what we're dealing with. It's structural, not really a journalist-only issue per se. It's all fucked.

 

[Chad R. Thundercock]

See this post and all the likes from your "moderate" sherbros @Anewt @BAM ? That's the type of people that you're finding a middle ground with. They think they're at war with the whole Muslim world. Not only Palestinians. Not only Arabs. 2 billions he says, that's every Muslim alive. They consider themselves at war with Pakistanis, and Indonesians, and Senegalese and Sudanese and Chechens and Kazaks. But somehow we're the extremists.

Maybe you guys should listen to what they tell you and take it at face value. And see that the hypocrites who liked the post think the same. Rholk, Samjj, Devilson and others liked the post. They are just not courageous enough to tell you what they really think contrary to that guy. Maybe connect 1 and 1. Samjj is Jewish and clearly feels persecuted by Muslims at every breath he takes. Rholk slipped about agreeing with Israel annexing 3,000 acres of the West Bank one month ago.

But wait there's more:


Yep that's what I'm telling you. Now link it with :



Yeah surely those guys are against settlements and don't want to expell or kill all of Gaza AND the West Bank.

People just don't want to believe what they say while they say it and mean it. That guy and the guys that liked his first post think like that. Look how they accept every massacre, justify it and say they will condemn israel one day if one massacre is "proven true" but it's been 6 month and nothing is true. Israel only killed 35K terrorists and "collateral damage that they took huge effort to not target and even if they did it's not their fault". But hey they're not totally amoral just misunderstood.

Oh quit your babbling, you crybaby. I'm at war against Islamic supremacy. "Moderate" Muslims like you sure love to play the victim but conveniently ignore the actual persecution of non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries. Hypocrite. Your whining has no effect on me.

 

[Samjj]

See this post and all the likes from your "moderate" sherbros @Anewt @BAM ? That's the type of people that you're finding a middle ground with. They think they're at war with the whole Muslim world. Not only Palestinians. Not only Arabs. 2 billions he says, that's every Muslim alive. They consider themselves at war with Pakistanis, and Indonesians, and Senegalese and Sudanese and Chechens and Kazaks. But somehow we're the extremists.

Maybe you guys should listen to what they tell you and take it at face value. And see that the hypocrites who liked the post think the same. Rholk, Samjj, Devilson and others liked the post. They are just not courageous enough to tell you what they really think contrary to that guy. Maybe connect 1 and 1. Samjj is Jewish and clearly feels persecuted by Muslims at every breath he takes. Rholk slipped about agreeing with Israel annexing 3,000 acres of the West Bank one month ago.

But wait there's more:


Yep that's what I'm telling you. Now link it with :



Yeah surely those guys are against settlements and don't want to expell or kill all of Gaza AND the West Bank.

People just don't want to believe what they say while they say it and mean it. That guy and the guys that liked his first post think like that. Look how they accept every massacre, justify it and say they will condemn israel one day if one massacre is "proven true" but it's been 6 month and nothing is true. Israel only killed 35K terrorists and "collateral damage that they took huge effort to not target and even if they did it's not their fault". But hey they're not totally amoral just misunderstood.

I definitely don't feel persecuted today by Muslims. (But hey, globally Muslims are the largest source of anti-semitism today, so not so far off.)
I just don't buy into apologist historical narratives of Islam or believe in fairytales about how Jews really wanted to live in Arab majority states until evil Zionism ruined that perfect relationship, which is a narrative that you and your congregation like to promote.

Islamic extremism is a troubling global issue and large scale immigration from Muslim majority countries into the West, and particulalry Europe, threatens to undermine the Western liberal values which make those societies great.
You yourself are an American Muslim and Arabic speaker, I presume that you are a first generation immigrant - you seem to have a lot of anti-Western sentiment.

 

[SammyPops]

Yes they already besieged the hospital... so either their first grandiose operation was a total flop and they did nothing but kill civilians because there is 1000 Hamas inside or it's the second one where they killed civilians because they already killed their enemies in the first one... Or wait maybe it's the two where they slaughtered civilians because the goal is just ethnic cleansing...

and if this is happening all over gaza, the IOF has failed badly and its too bad b/c civilians are paying the price.

 

[Samjj]

I wasn't at all trying to tell you to get a consensus or be like, wasn't the subject at all, I was showing you only two things.

First how he's honest and all the other pro Israeli Jewish guy in the thread are gaslighting you with word salad when they betray themselves liking his Armageddon posts and second that it's what they really think : exterminate all Palestinians because it's a mission they got from God.

So when they minimize or justify massacres in the name of "context" you should remember from which prism they really look at it.

I've "tested my arguments" for months I'm done with this hypocrisy. When people care about a whole nation being destroyed call me.

You have gone off the deep-deep-end if you think everyone supporting Israel in this conflict believes this.

You seem to be totally incapable of articulating any grievances as experienced by Israel, if you deem them legitimate or not.

 

[sangreporsangre]

"Western Values"