Biden reportedly raged over New York Times' coverage of Gaza hospital explosion

The problem with your statement is you can't prove either way how many of the people killed were Hamas vs Palestinians, unless of course you take the word of the Hamas terrorist. No one can provide accurate accounts for these numbers and anything is just pure speculation.

 

No one is interested in "confirming" the things that you fabricate and pretend that other people say.

 

Hamas doesn’t have a military that falls under the Geneva Convention. Rules of engagement do not apply.

 

No, not really pure speculation. Numbers may not be precise, but women & young children, for example, are not Hamas. Probably not most of the elderly, either. Also, as we can estimate Hamas's strength at around 50,000, at the start of the conflict, we can roughly gauge, as things progress into a ground campaign, how much their numbers have been diminished, and compare that to the concurrent estimate of total deaths.

There are other ways, as well, for those on the ground, to use common sense to differentiate between the family, known by all its neighbors, and found under the rubble of their home, unarmed, and Hamas fighters. For example, a United Nations Agency (the UNRWA), gave this estimate for the 2014 fighting between these two peoples:

<Google Snip>
How many Israelis died in 2014 war?

During the 50 days of hostilities lasting from 8 July until 26 August 2014,
2,251 Palestinians were killed; 1,462 of them are believed to be civilians, including 551 children and 299 women.

66 Israeli soldiers and five civilians, including one child, were also killed.

https://www.unrwa.org › 2014-gaza...
2014 Gaza conflict | UNRWA by
<End Snip>

1462 is about 65% of the 2251 total. So, unfortunately, there is precedent, here. Also note that the 850 Palestinian women and children killed, make up more than half of the total estimated civilian, "collateral," deaths.

 

Guess you don't get out much.

 

I get to this thread, anyone here saying if?

 

Wrong-- they do apply to Israel, and to any other nation's armed forces, regardless of who they are fighting against. Really remarkable, that you believe, if a country is fighting against a terrorist group, the opinion of the rest of the world is, "in that case, any country is free to slaughter civilians, at will." Apparently you do not realize that the Laws Of Armed Combat represent what sane human beings, not enflamed by the passions of war, sat down to spell out were the standards of humane warfare. These cover any & all uses of a country's military.



P.S.-- If you look back at my first post in the thread, the snip from NBC, notes that Amnesty Int'l has called for an investigation into the strike on Jabalia Refugee Camp, as a possible war crime.

 

Do you mean to say that Israelis might be just like Hamas and Hezbollah when no one is looking ?

Say it isn’t so !

 

Firstly, the claim that 100% of people agree with Biden is an argumentum ad populum fallicy.

There is no real news anymore. It is all intended as perception management with some sort of agenda. Back in the day of course you had yellow journalism, but most mainstream news was more of less objective. Take for example the Washington Post. When owned by Catherine Craham, a liberal, the paper objectively covered most news and kept opinion in the opinion section of the paper which came out on Sunday. Compare that to the pure BS put out by the Washington Post owned by Bezos. So where does anyone go for the real news? Serious question that I have no answer for. Other than people assert real news is what aligns to their opionion/views.

BTW, when something is "alleged" in the news, I assume the news is fake. Otherwise, the event would be reported using the 5Ws.

 

Apparently there is a magic book that tells us when it is OK to genocide people.

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

 

I support people being able to have their own belief structure but all too often it turns into them demanding others share in those beliefs.

The world would be a much better place if people just held their beliefs but didn’t try and force them.

 

Speculation, plain and simple. Look up the definition if you dont understand.

 

Perhaps Biden should encourage Israel and Egypt to allow reporters into Gaza instead of just taking everything Israel decrees as the gospel truth. You know, let reporters actually report.

 

How you responded? Destroy two countries that had nothing to do with 911 and cosy up to a country that was closely linked to those terrorists?

 

I had to read your whole post, to know what it was about. This was a pretty disjointed way, to begin it. As it relates to your thesis: no news organization is saying that "100% of people agree with Biden," AFAIK. Perhaps you could offer a link/snip? Or was this meant, supposedly, as the kind of thing you typically see? So then, maybe an actual quote, would be helpful, to support what already, is starting to look like it's going to be a stilted perspective?

Two incidental notes. First-- and you're not the first person I've seen this from, which is part of the reason I want to clarify this, for all readers-- the argumentum ad populum deception, is that something must be true, because so many people believe it is so. Of course, just because something might be the majority opinion, does not make whatever that opinion is, a correct one. Unless, of course, the opinion, is about people's opinions. So if a large portion of the populace, agrees with Biden's position, that fact does not mean that they don't really agree with him, which is what you are saying, when you merely call the number of people agreeing with Biden, to be a "fallicy (sic)." What I assume you must have meant, was that just because most people agree with Biden, doesn't make the view, on which they corroborate, right.

I am going to take a shot in the dark, & guess that you'd had gun regulations, or the banning of AR-15s in mind, when you'd written this? Regardless of what had motivated the statement, it is unclear what this has to do with your main idea, which you announce with the line, about there no longer being any "real"-- that is, unbiased-- news.

(The second incidental note, is that the correct spelling, is "fallacy"-- and the fact that most people spell it that way, does not discredit that this is the right way to spell it).

We cannot "compare" the current, purported BS, coming under Bezos' ownership of the paper, with the reporting under previous management-- since you provide no examples, to compare. I could, at random, pick out any recent WAPO article, and any other from, say, a decade or two ago; but I highly doubt, that is going to support your thesis-- or I would probably already believe the same thing as you, which I don't.

Therefore, you never present a real "argument." All you are doing, is called praedicans ad chorum or, for those who don't typically speak in Latin, "preaching to the choir."

 

They are not necessarily verified numbers, but nor are they sheer speculation. They are reasonable guesses, from a factual basis. Not to be taken as exact, but good enough, for a rough estimate.

Apparently it is you, who needs improve his understanding of the variations in potential meaning, for that word, or for the general idea, of making an educated guess. The U.N. organization did research, to come up with their figures-- they didn't just pull the numbers out of thin air.

 

Not thinking about guns. Just thinking about how fake the news is.

The 100% argument was made by the OP, i.e., 100% agree with Biden about certain news coverage and I reject popularity based arguments. An argument stands on reason and logic. Not popularity.

Since the OP addressed Biden's disappointment with American news, my point was simply there is no real news. I think it is all fake to a certain degree, both conservative and liberal. To a large degree the conservative v. liberal dichotomy is fake IMHO. My comment about the Washington Post was an anecdotal observation going back to the 60s and 70s. I grew up in Washington DC and read Washington Newspapers for a long time. So the comment on the WP reflects my experience.

Perhaps I did a poor job of making my point which was that in our current times news functions to manage perception and not report the 5Ws, i.e. the truth of anything. As far as war coverage what I want to read is accounts written by on the scene war correspondants telling us what they are observing. People like the Vietnam War era Peter Arnett and the like. Do we have that sort of reporting now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Arnett

If my writing was viewed as poor, let's just call it stream of consciousness. lol

 

Of course, there are still war correspondents. A cameraman for one such news team, was just killed by an Israeli missile, on the Lebanon side of the border; there had also been other news teams, on the scene. Quite a few journalists have been killed this year (and not only this year) in Gaza, covering that story before the October 7 attack. Of course, many of these are not American, or necessarily even European journalists-- which is indicative of less interest by Western, and moreso American news agencies, in the Palestinian situation, tied together with less interest by the American public-- in a chicken and the egg scenario.

Now, that interest is up, Israel is restricting access to Gaza. Nevertheless, I heard an eyewitnesses report today from MSNBC's Richard Engel, who is always covering Mid East stories, so not infrequently in war zones, and dangerous situations. He was once even taken hostage. Likewise, there have been loads of reporters, I've seen, broadcasting from Ukraine. Ali Velshi is just one, who is an MSNBC host, but who has done at least one, if not more stints, over in Ukraine. So I don't know why you'd have the impression that these no longer exist.

Google journalists killed this year, and you will find them where is the most action. Oh, I just thought of another, high profile, crime journalist, who was shot in the head, in the open, in the Netherlands, in 2021-- Peter R.DeVries-- for his reporting on the illegal drug business, that has turned frighteningly out of control, over there.

You seem to have misunderstood: Oldyoungin was simply saying that he, personally, was in complete ("100 percent") agreement with Biden, in this particular instance.

 

Some people did something right?

Where's Osama bin laden today?

 

And Afghanistan is on the other side of the planet from the U.S. It's a 2 hour drive from Gaza to the middle of Israel. People expecting Israel not to respond can't be taken seriously.

 

The leftist strategy is to condemn Israel for its response and provide support for the Hamas human shield strategy. Biden says he wants a pause in the Israeli response until all of the hostages are released. Biden probably doesn’t have the mental capacity to know what he’s saying, but the reality of that call for a pause is playing into the hands of Hamas.

 

So what does the "Rules of War" say about a military force using it's citizens as human shields?

 

It amazes me that anyone wants to stand in condemnation of Israel as that establishes a validation and support for Hamas.

Hamas and their kind throughout the middle east are guilty of inhumane behavior to their people, let alone the fact that they want to eliminate the entirety of the Jewish people from the planet. But they are okay, right?

You can't be against Israel and be silent on Hamas without that being a vote of full support for Hamas.

 

The rightist strategy is to bomb the hell out of Gaza without any regard to how many civilians are killed.

 

Good luck with supporting the Hamas, Nazi terrorists. You have lots of friends on our college campuses.

Why didn’t you go after the Egyptian Government which won’t allow the innocent people shelter in their country until the Israeli operation is over?