Israel - Hamas war VIII

[Craving Peaches]

40 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

That's can be a great way to burn a source.  Or they've likely just provided background. 

I didn't mean reveal the source, just say something like 'according to the expert...' They might have done so anyway, I was very tired when I read that.

[Crixus]

5 hours ago, JoannaL said:

I always liked the Guardian (often long and intelligent analyses of events) and have tolerated its pro-palestinian bias. But this new article is so vile, I almost lost my breakfast.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/07/secret-hamas-attack-orders-israel-gaza-7-october

it is a very pro Hamas article about the attack october 7 ("a precise plan") . How can they write this!!! It is praising the organisatorial success of Hamas on that day, also it is always - seemingly to see both sides- citing some Hamas bullshit like:

"Hamas equipped attackers with GoPro cameras to capture images of the attack. Some of the gruesome images recovered by Israeli investigators show sadistic mistreatment and murder. An official montage of such footage, released by Hamas, shows terrified people pleading for their lives and a pet dog being shot. " A pet dog (!!!)

I am really done. This is so not ok, what are all these terrorist supporters thinking? are they still thinking? I  cannot imagine reading the Guardian again.

 

 

 It's entirely possible to recognise that an unspeakably horrific, evil attack may also have been well-organised. Like, what a bizarre statement! Being organised, well-planned and precise isn't the exclusive domain of 'the light' - to use a recent Israeli government description. The Nazis were very well-organised. 

That you zero in on this but seem to read past the use of adjectives like 'extremist', 'violence shattered any sense of calm', 'atrocities', 'rape, torture' and more is baffling. 

No idea what is so outrageous re the statement about a pet dog being killed - if just further illustrates Hamas' barbarity. 

And labelling the Guardian as terrorist supporter is just... pretty illuminating. 

 

[kissdbyfire]

5 minutes ago, Crixus said:

It's entirely possible to recognise that an unspeakably horrific, evil attack may also have been well-organised. Like, what a bizarre statement!

Exactly. It’s mistaking reporting, statement of facts for praise. Truly bizarre statement. 

[JoannaL]

Sorry, I am really not feeling like visiting the Guardian article again.

But just  a thought: if you write an article about the Holocaust you wouldnt go about it praising the Nazi organisational skills  and effectivness.

 

Meanwhile I found in a German newspaper an article about an olderly jewish Californian, who died  by pro-palistinian protesters. I couldn't find it in the Guardian, in bbc or cnn, but the LAtimes has it:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-11-06/man-dies-after-fight-at-protest-westlake-village-israel-hamas-war

 

 

 

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

Sorry, I am really not feeling like visiting the Guardian article again.

But just  a thought: if you write an article about the Holocaust you wouldnt go about it praising the Nazi organisational skills  and effectivness.

I don't think the Guardian article is praising Hamas, but I understand your point. The article is purposefully dispassionate and matter of fact, and that in itself just seems distasteful. The first half of the article could easily be read as if it's a Brave Two Zero style military novel, but really it just feels wrong to describe those events and not really comment on the horrific nature of them. By trying to use neutral language its almost making a comment. 

One photo describes 'Palestinians transport Israeli civilians captured from Kfar Azza kibbutz into the Gaza Strip.' as if they are talking about a bunch of Uber drivers, and not a terrifying kidnapping. 

It feels like BBC style 'both sides-ism', which is in of itself a position. 

[kissdbyfire]

13 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

But just  a thought: if you write an article about the Holocaust you wouldnt go about it praising the Nazi organisational skills  and effectivness.

There is a difference between praise and a statement of fact. Acknowledgement is not endorsement. 

[Crixus]

Just now, kissdbyfire said:

There is a difference between praise and a statement of fact. Acknowledgement is not endorsement. 

Exactly. The attack had to be well-organised for it to be pulled off - how odd to find such a statement of fact controversial. There isn’t an iota of ‘praise’ in there - how is the use of adjectives I’ve pointed out above along with ‘sadistic murder’ a good thing in any universe or ‘both-sided’? 

Seems simplistic - and the result of wanting to see one’s own biases 100% validated by news reporting. 

 

 

 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

25 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

Sorry, I am really not feeling like visiting the Guardian article again.

But just  a thought: if you write an article about the Holocaust you wouldnt go about it praising the Nazi organisational skills  and effectivness.

 

Meanwhile I found in a German newspaper an article about an olderly jewish Californian, who died  by pro-palistinian protesters. I couldn't find it in the Guardian, in bbc or cnn, but the LAtimes has it:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-11-06/man-dies-after-fight-at-protest-westlake-village-israel-hamas-war

 

 

 

Always a sign of engaging in good faith to post a link, make some easily disproven claims about, and then say you're not interested in revisiting it when it's pointed out to you that your claims are bs.  

[Luzifer's right hand]

That it was well organised attack is indeed a fact. You can say the same about 9/11 without supporting the attack.

[Heartofice]

What I'd say is that style of article is pretty common and we are often used to reading them about conflicts that seem a million miles away, in a place we don't know and to people we have no connection to. I'm sure you could find numerous articles of that sort about conflicts in Africa and Asia and would think nothing of the language because we aren't close enough to it to understand the circumstances.

However the Hamas attack is still fresh, and is one of the most barbaric, violent acts I've heard about in my lifetime. Seeing it being written about from such a distance, so dispassionately, does feel odd. The authors are purposefully trying to not put judgement on anything, because that isn't their role or aim, but it's hard not to judge something so appalling. 

[kissdbyfire]

10 minutes ago, Crixus said:

Exactly. The attack had to be well-organised for it to be pulled off - how odd to find such a statement of fact controversial. There isn’t an iota of ‘praise’ in there - how is the use of adjectives I’ve pointed out above along with ‘sadistic murder’ a good thing in any universe or ‘both-sided’? 

Seems simplistic - and the result of wanting to see one’s own biases 100% validated by news reporting. 

 

5 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Always a sign of engaging in good faith to post a link, make some easily disproven claims about, and then say you're not interested in revisiting it when it's pointed out to you that your claims are bs.  

It gets complicated when reporting events w/o an inflammatory tone is taken for a position in favour of one side or the other, and then the readers’ own biases inform their assessment of what they’ve read. 
I suppose it’s a consequence of the flame-throwing & bombastic way the world seems to “function” nowadays, permeating everything, from news reporting to social media and more. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

What I don't get is that they say near the start:

But then we don't see much of the stuff from 'intelligence officials or experts'? Like, wouldn't it have been appropriate to include that after the bit you mentioned?

If you're cynical you could argue it was leading and/or trying to frame a narrative. 

I thought the article was mostly fine and a lot of the recap was accurate. For example as others have said, there's nothing inaccurate in saying it was a well executed attack. Hamas was surprised at how well it went. I just wanted to point out that one failing I saw was reporting what someone said and then not mentioning it's an obvious lie. Not to make this about the US, but part of the reason Trump won is because journalists would often just report what he said. There was a shift after some time outside of the right wing media to report what he said and then point out what he was saying was easy to disprove. I just wish they had done it with some of the quotes in the article. I could have cited more, but those two seemed like obvious ones to highlight. And likewise, when the Israeli government is clearly lying their quotes should be published and flagged that what they're saying is bullshit. 

Edited November 7, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[JoannaL]

ok, in good faith ,  I tried to read the article again (was difficult) .

1. Hamas is never described as terrorists

2. it is written praising the success and committment of Hamas ( A deadly cascade, a precise plan, 1000 % committed)

3. Hamas can explain lengthly their side : like killing only  pet dogs,  that "criminals"  not them killed all the children , that it was a preemptive strike

and this is seen as as much fact than the other side. So there is also the other side which says differnt but it is always a 50: 50 thing: this can be true or that can be true .

so after reading this article the reader  may think that it is not known exactly what happened , but surly the Hamas are very dedicated guys.

 

 

[Craving Peaches]

9 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

1. Hamas is never described as terrorists

The attack is called a 'terrorist attack', very early on in the article.

11 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

it is written praising the success and committment of Hamas ( A deadly cascade

How is 'deadly cascade' praise? It is a comment on how damaging the attack was. Same with precise - if a judge describes the action taken to murder someone as precise, is he praising the murderer? I doubt it. It is an observation on precision.

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, JoannaL said:

I couldn't find it in the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/07/jewish-man-dies-after-altercation-at-california-israel-palestine-protests

[JoannaL]

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/07/jewish-man-dies-after-altercation-at-california-israel-palestine-protests

thank you

[JoannaL]

here an example what I mean with the vile 50:50 technique:

"Hamas has blamed much of the violence on civilians – and atrocities including rape and torture – on “criminals” who followed its attackers. The Israel Defence Forces released an interview with a captured attacker who said the “mission was to kill … anyone we saw”. "

 

so Hamas says it was criminals  while the IDF says (in an interview with a captured attacker- insinuating that this is not reliable) it was Hamas.

Whom to believe? this is a deeply sinister and evil way to muddle facts which are absolutly well known and documented.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, JoannaL said:

Sorry, I am really not feeling like visiting the Guardian article again.

But just  a thought: if you write an article about the Holocaust you wouldnt go about it praising the Nazi organisational skills  and effectivness.

The auschwitz memorial account routinely does basically that. It doesn't praise it (and neither does this article) so much as it describes it.

Because the truth matters, and it matters to understand how that was premeditated, calculated mass murder. Just like October 7th was.

[Denvek]

6 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

here an example what I mean with the vile 50:50 technique:

"Hamas has blamed much of the violence on civilians – and atrocities including rape and torture – on “criminals” who followed its attackers. The Israel Defence Forces released an interview with a captured attacker who said the “mission was to kill … anyone we saw”. "

 

so Hamas says it was criminals  while the IDF says (in an interview with a captured attacker- insinuating that this is not reliable) it was Hamas.

Whom to believe? this is a deeply sinister and evil way to muddle facts which are absolutly well known and documented.

The insinuation I read into that was that it was the Hamas officials who weren't reliable, not the IDF.

[Gorn]

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The auschwitz memorial account routinely does basically that. It doesn't praise it (and neither does this article) so much as it describes it.

Because the truth matters, and it matters to understand how that was premeditated, calculated mass murder. Just like October 7th was.

Words that you use to describe the truth do matter.

See the article in the thread above: "Jewish man dies after altercation at California Israel-Palestine protests". To someone who casually browses the article title, the implication is that he died of some unrelated health issue.

An equally truthful way to write the article would be "Jewish man was killed at California Israel-Palestine protests", and the choice of words used by the news organization betrays its bias.