Israel declares war on Hamas

[Bagor]

You're welcome. It's like most of this thread. Questioning the narrative and who is narrating.

And yes, agreement or not that should have released the mother. They should release them all. But that's not going to happen as they're thugs.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

What is this, Question Period on Parliament?

You are clearly not arguing in good faith. You want to paint one side as bad and the other as victims (as have others for both sides). So, maybe check yourself before you so aggressively check others.

I'd like to clarify something with you Mr not arguing in good faith.

Why are you implying that I'm a Hamas sympathiser? Show me where I have panted Hamas as victims with your one side other side stuff?

I have painted the innocent children, newborns and civilians of Gaza as victims in all of this. How did you arrive at your conclusion that this/they equate to Hamas. You see them as part of the same side? In your good faith mind they're one and the same?

Do clarify what you consider to be the two sides in this conflict. Israel/Hamas. Or Israel/All the people of Gaza.

Where have I even remotely implied that Hamas were victims?

Take your own advice. Check yourself and who you are and consider what your definition of the two sides in this conflict are.

[Language]

Great to see some of the hostages continuing to be released.

It seems like both Hamas and Israel are saying they would like to continue exchanging prisoners after this initial four day truce is up.

Let’s hope the calm can remain for a bit longer. Doubt there’s any diplomatic solution coming so the ground invasion to destroy Hamas will most certainly resume, with likely significant more difficult fighting as the IDF continues to move inward in northern Gaza, as well as southern Gaza towards Khan Yunis and Rafah.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[activeStick]

It appears that BBC has been caught putting out a misleading translation trying to make it seem like the lady was thanking Hamas when native speakers confirm she didn't mention Hamas once.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1728855237019234469

[Lanny_McDonald]

Weird. I thought the western media was so unbiased and never made mistakes that could possibly benefit one side of the issue?

[Language]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Weird. I thought the western media was so unbiased and never made mistakes that could possibly benefit one side of the issue?

It’s quite interesting how differing sides view the media and inherent media bias.

The BBC and New York Times were two of the worst offenders relating to the fake story of Israel bombing the hospital. There’s been many other cases where they have been proven to be either incorrect or have outright fabricated certain things (like the BBC example in the prior post).

Yet at the same time, during one of the recent Pro-Palestine rallies in New York that took a raucous turn, an angry mob was basically trying to break into the New York Times headquarters accusing them of being Pro-Israel, when many Israel supporters would say the exact opposite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s definitely weird there is so much misinformation surrounding this hospital.

Can you back up the claim that Al Shifa has full resources and the WHO closed it down regardless?

Nobody on here can confirm if either the IDF or Hamas is being truthful here. Hamas has already been caught lying about the use of the hospital multiple times. A tunnel was found. There is video of hostages in the hospital. Israel also found the bodies of two hostages in the area immediately around the hospital.

According to Hamas, the people running the hospital supposedly refused Israel's fuel, because it "was not enough". Which sounds absurd, especially if you are in a situation where you are shutting down incubators for premature babies. Running those incubators vs turning them off to get a political concession out of Israel, seems like no choice at all for a bunch of doctors to make.

What's also painfully obvious though is that Israel did not damage the hospital to the point it couldn't be used anymore, as people on here were initially stating. Israel did not "massacre" anyone inside.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

Nobody on here can confirm if either the IDF or Hamas is being truthful here. Hamas has already been caught lying about the use of the hospital multiple times. A tunnel was found. There is video of hostages in the hospital. Israel also found the bodies of two hostages in the area immediately around the hospital.

According to Hamas, the people running the hospital supposedly refused Israel's fuel, because it "was not enough". Which sounds absurd, especially if you are in a situation where you are shutting down incubators for premature babies. Running those incubators vs turning them off to get a political concession out of Israel, seems like no choice at all for a bunch of doctors to make.

What's also painfully obvious though is that Israel did not damage the hospital to the point it couldn't be used anymore, as people on here were initially stating. Israel did not "massacre" anyone inside.

I’m not arguing any of that, I’m asking you for a source on the claim that the hospital has “full resources” and the WHO decided to close it regardless.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’m not arguing any of that, I’m asking you for a source on the claim that the hospital has “full resources” and the WHO decided to close it regardless.

Do you have any proof that resources are being withheld from the hospital? It seems strange that you are the one making the accusation that resources are not being given to the hospitals, but the onus of proof has somehow been reversed.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Language

It’s quite interesting how differing sides view the media and inherent media bias.

The BBC and New York Times were two of the worst offenders relating to the fake story of Israel bombing the hospital. There’s been many other cases where they have been proven to be either incorrect or have outright fabricated certain things (like the BBC example in the prior post).

Yet at the same time, during one of the recent Pro-Palestine rallies in New York that took a raucous turn, an angry mob was basically trying to break into the New York Times headquarters accusing them of being Pro-Israel, when many Israel supporters would say the exact opposite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are still a few traditional media outlets that take a range of stances on contentious issues. This enrages people who are accustomed to tribal solidarity.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There are still a few traditional media outlets that take a range of stances on contentious issues. This enrages people who are accustomed to tribal solidarity.

This issue is particularly polarizing as both sides see the other as inherently guilty for some kind of original sin involved with their very existence.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

Do you have any proof that resources are being withheld from the hospital? It seems strange that you are the one making the accusation that resources are not being given to the hospitals, but the onus of proof has somehow been reversed.

I didn’t make the claim that resources are being withheld from the hospital, feel free to quote where I said that. I said that I hadn’t read anything that suggested this was a simple resource issue that had been remedied nor anything that mentioned WHO choosing to close down the hospital. Maybe you’re confusing me with someone else.

You made the claim that Al Shifa now has “full resources” and that the WHO chose to close it down regardless, and I am asking you for a source on that claim. The onus of proof is on the person who made the claim, which is you, so nothing has been reversed.

So, source?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Language

It’s quite interesting how differing sides view the media and inherent media bias.

The BBC and New York Times were two of the worst offenders relating to the fake story of Israel bombing the hospital. There’s been many other cases where they have been proven to be either incorrect or have outright fabricated certain things (like the BBC example in the prior post).

Yet at the same time, during one of the recent Pro-Palestine rallies in New York that took a raucous turn, an angry mob was basically trying to break into the New York Times headquarters accusing them of being Pro-Israel, when many Israel supporters would say the exact opposite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Missed the sarcasm did you? Not surprised based on the topic.

Your comment, that's the real ironic part. BBC and NY Times have been learning very pro-Israel, just like all western media have, but they have had the audacity to question some of the information floated out there and do some actual analysis to counter propaganda. That has put them in the crosshairs of the pro-Israel set, because if you don't support them all the time you're an antisemite who is out to destroy Israel. Objectivity need not apply when you have "3,000 years of history" on your side. Amiright?

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There are still a few traditional media outlets that take a range of stances on contentious issues. This enrages people who are accustomed to tribal solidarity.

The least self-aware poster in CP history.

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Missed the sarcasm did you? Not surprised based on the topic.

Your comment, that's the real ironic part. BBC and NY Times have been learning very pro-Israel, just like all western media have, but they have had the audacity to question some of the information floated out there and do some actual analysis to counter propaganda. That has put them in the crosshairs of the pro-Israel set, because if you don't support them all the time you're an antisemite who is out to destroy Israel. Objectivity need not apply when you have "3,000 years of history" on your side. Amiright?



The least self-aware poster in CP history.

That is a pretty funny assertion from someone who told a poster (me) to watch what they post or people won’t like Jews. Seems like you are just referencing yourself in that last sentence. Your sarcastic remarks about Jewish history continue to reinforce that you are exactly what you are crying about being labeled.

The New York Times and BBC are not extremely pro-Israel like you claim. Maybe it is for someone like you who believes Al-Jazeera is an exemplary news source. I then could see why you feel the BBC and New York Times are not Pro-Palestinian enough.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Beninho

Your sarcastic remarks about Jewish history continue to reinforce that you are exactly what you are crying about being labeled.

What is that? What are you implying?

[afc wimbledon]

I seriously dont understand the point of you guys conversation at this point, just agree to disagree and move on

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So, source?

I wouldn't waste your energy.

What you have here is someone with no issues blatantly making false statements in order to pursue a chosen narrative. Or, more accurately to deny a happening.

He won't provide a source. He has zero interest in the truth
He knows what he is saying is a lie. He is just shamelessly trying to present a narrative.
What you are witnessing is someone exercising the 10th stage of genocide.

Originally Posted by blankall

The hospitals now have full resources but the WHO is choosing not to keep them open.

It was the World Health Organization. It was WHO that killed them all.

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by Bagor

What is that? What are you implying?

Lanny has made fun of Jewish history multiple times in this thread, sarcastically making comments like labeling Jewish history as fairy tales, while congruently not even understanding the difference between a religion and ethnicity, or the fact that the two can be intertwined. Continually cries about me labelling him an antisemite, not for any criticism of Israel, but for implying my posts will make people dislike Jews. Now here we are again with him accusing pro-Israel posters with lobbing assertions of antisemitism when that has not been the case.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I seriously dont understand the point of you uys conversation at this point, just agree to disagree and move on

Agree to just allow blatant lies? That what you're saying?

And just move on to the next one?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Beninho

Lanny has made fun of Jewish history multiple times in this thread, sarcastically making comments like labeling Jewish history as fairy tales, while congruently not even understanding the difference between a religion and ethnicity, or the fact that the two can be intertwined. Continually cries about me labelling him an antisemite, not for any criticism of Israel, but for implying my posts will make people dislike Jews. Now here we are again with him accusing pro-Israel posters with lobbing assertions of antisemitism when that has not been the case.

Well that's all you do. A little labeller.
So you're repeating the accusation again by saying he is "exactly what you are crying about being labeled"?