Israel-Hamas Thread II

[Philip_B]

Intolerance is an ugly thing.

and quite possibly unchristian! ... for God so loved the world...

 

[civilwarbuff]

It's the most despicable and shameful position to take. And you keep doubling down on it...

And you keep ignoring the truth of it......

 

[Carl Emerson]

It's blazingly obvious that the article was updated after I posted it.

But considering what the article is saying...

the proportion of civilian deaths was higher than the average proportion of civilian deaths from the Second World War to the 90s

...I can see why you'd rather complain about which version is current than address what it actually says.

The NYT get's its info. from Hamas...

There is a war... - for truth.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It seems you can't even follow your own arguments. And you want me to help you?

Your problem then....far as I am concerned you just make stuff up and hope we go off on a wild goose chase. Do your searches to back up your claims; I won't do them for you.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Intolerance is an ugly thing.

Spoken like an expert in that field of endeavor......

 

[Bradskii]

The NYT get's its info. from Hamas...

There is a war... - for truth.

Someone else who didn't read the article. Which was not from the NYT.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Someone else who didn't read the article. Which was not from the NYT.

Follow the link within the article...

 

[Bradskii]

Follow the link within the article...

You'll have to give it to me. I see no links to the NYT in that Guardian article.

 

[wing2000]

The NYT get's its info. from Hamas...

There is a war... - for truth.

All the press relies on Hamas for information....informatiion, such as casualties, cannot be independently confirmed. That doesn't mean the NYT's or any other news organization, is a mouthpiece for Hamas.

 

[Vanellus]

This article on the New York Times claims the war is being fought on social media and Hamas have operated editorial control.

New York Times FINALLY admits that Hamas controlled ‘news’ coming out of Gaza

It’s got to be a difficult thing to admit that Hamas was essentially functioning as a defacto editorial board Op-ed.

www.israelnationalnews.com

The article sometimes calls the New York Times "The Times". The Times is a British newspaper based in London. If the article can't even get that right ... Also Israel is once spelt "Isreal". I doubt this is the Israeli newspaper of record but may well be popular in the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

 

[Bradskii]

The article sometimes calls the New York Times "The Times". The Times is a British newspaper based in London.

It confused me as well. I'd expect the New York Times to be referred to as the NYT and The Times as....well, The Times. But to be fair, even the NYT refers to itself sometimes as 'the Times'.

But that article is...well, junk. It reads like it was written by one of the more illiterate members of some random forum trying to deny the death toll.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Someone else who didn't read the article. Which was not from the NYT.

If you read your article from the Guardian, it links back to Haaretz which states its figures come from the NYTimes who admit they get data from Hamas.

 

[Carl Emerson]

The article sometimes calls the New York Times "The Times". The Times is a British newspaper based in London. If the article can't even get that right ... Also Israel is once spelt "Isreal". I doubt this is the Israeli newspaper of record but may well be popular in the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Hardly - this article is from Israel National News - Arutz Sheva, author K Walter

We better be referring to the article by name as readers will likely be confused.

 

[Vanellus]

Hardly - this article is from Israel National News - Arutz Sheva, author K Walter

I know "The paper is distributed free to over 150,000 homes" Who in their right mind would pay for such a mistake ridden politically biased rag: the poor man's Daily Mail?

Arutz Sheva - Wikipedia

Arutz Sheva sees itself as a counterbalance to " 'negative thinking' and 'post-Zionist' attitudes."[12] It has been identified with the Israeli settlement movement.

Well we certainly don't want any negative thinking do we!

Editorially, they promote a strong pro-Israeli Zionist bias. Further, they report favorably on Prime Minister Netanyahu; Netanyahu sounds off on Bennett: ‘Too soft on Iran’. Finally, Arutz Sheva was found by Reuters to have used a deepfake photo for one of their journalists.

Failed Fact Checks​

• Twitter has banned users from displaying the Star of David in their profile pictures. – Mostly False
• Natural immunity is far superior to COVID-19 vaccines – Misleading
• 80% Of Serious COVID Cases In Israel ARE among Fully Vaccinated, says Dr. Yaakov Jerris. – False

Overall, we rate Arutz Sheva Right-Center biased based on editorial positions that align with the right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to two failed fact checks and deceptive practices through a fake photo. (D. Van Zandt 7/25/2017) Updated (11/20/2023)

Arutz Sheva (Israel National News) - Bias and Credibility

Maybe you should look elsewhere for reliable news!

 

[Carl Emerson]

I know "The paper is distributed free to over 150,000 homes" Who in their right mind would pay for such a mistake ridden politically biased rag: the poor man's Daily Mail?

Please explain where you quote comes from - we have dialogue on two different articles and there is potential confusion.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I know "The paper is distributed free to over 150,000 homes" Who in their right mind would pay for such a mistake ridden politically biased rag: the poor man's Daily Mail?

Arutz Sheva - Wikipedia


Well we certainly don't want any negative thinking do we!


Arutz Sheva (Israel National News) - Bias and Credibility

Maybe you should look elsewhere for reliable news!

Actually I find it very useful...

You don't half hide your bias I notice...

 

[Vanellus]

Actually I find it very useful...

You don't half hide you bias I notice...

and you don't mind casting unsupported aspersions as evidenced above.

 

[civilwarbuff]

All the hamas supporters and Israel haters can skip this one. It would just burst your bubble.

 

[o_mlly]

But no-one needs to post links of gun carrying children ...

When some claim that all children are innocent then yes, one does.

The appeal to the death of children as an argument against Israel's prosecution of the war is a red herring fallacy.

Surely, you know by now that there is no moral categorical difference between an innocent 12 year old and an innocent 95 year old. Nor is there a moral difference in targeting a 12 year old soldier or a 95 year old soldier who is engaged in doing harm.

The only side that benefits by pushing biased and unverified articles purporting the death count of innocent persons in the conflict is Hamas. Some on this thread have been taken in by Hamas' propaganda.

So it has been pointed out that very many children are among the dead. Surely no-one would suggest that they are somehow involved. Surely no-one would be callous enough to imply that maybe the children aren't all innocent. Surely nobody would stoop so low to claim that 12 year olds might be involved. Surely we wouldn't have pictures of little girls with automatic weapons posted.

By now we must presume that these are the false arguments of an emotional basket case. We regret all the innocent lives lost in war, not just the children (however you define "children"). Try to be rational.

The only category of people in the conflict that may not be targeted is as follows:
Those not engaged in doing harm.

The only category people in the conflict that may unintentionally be killed is as follows:
Those innocent persons present at a legitimate military target where their number is foreseen as disproportionate (less than) to the military advantage gained.

Nothing new here. But you continue to ignore reason and push the false idea that age is a moral distinction in determining innocence in a just war.

 

[o_mlly]

It's blazingly obvious that the article was updated after I posted it.

Nope.

From the article:
"This article was amended on 9 December 2023."

And from your post:

• Sunday Dec. 17, 2023 at 4:29 PM

No other country in the world has gone to the extent Israel has to avoid civilian casualties in such a situation.

You're just making things up now: Civilians make up 61% of Gaza deaths from airstrikes, Israeli study finds