• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

An illustration of media bias

Vast majority of the injured and dead have been Hezbollah members. And the civilians have been their relatives who picked up Hezbollah pagers - they did not deserve an explosion in their face, but it's not like these pagers had been indiscriminately sold to civilians. They should blame their relatives for putting them in danger.

By the way, the two 12 year old boys mentioned in the AP piece were both members of Nasrallahjugend (real name Hezbollah Scouts), their youth division. So while the targets were their terrorist fathers, they were not exactly uninvolved civilians either.
 

Attempting to stir up sympathy for terrorists hit by one of the most surgical military attacks of modern times?
Overall, the attack appeared to be remarkably successful. If there was a Nobel Prize for surgical attacks (why not, Nobel invented TNT), Mossad would have won for this.

But it did have collateral damage. Innocents were maimed. The cost of the attack likely fell within acceptable limits, but that doesn't mean we need to ignore the costs. Imagine if Israel help tend to the care of those that were caught by the attack unfairly. Imagine the value of goodwill it would provide. Of course, Hezbollah wouldn't allow that, and so we go back to going in circles.
 
That is one biased way to describe it, since some civilians were injured as well.
I know I am being biased when I remember how many civvies were killed on 7th Oct.
And we know that there is bias by the AP, if they ignored the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7th. So, can someone show me the evidence that the AP didn't publish reports on the October 7th attack or tried to minimize the attack for partisan reasons?
 
“An illustration of media bias.”

:rofl:

This is the media doing its job, and nothing biased about it, either.
 
Vast majority of the injured and dead have been Hezbollah members. And the civilians have been their relatives who picked up Hezbollah pagers - they did not deserve an explosion in their face, but it's not like these pagers had been indiscriminately sold to civilians. They should blame their relatives for putting them in danger.

By the way, the two 12 year old boys mentioned in the AP piece were both members of Nasrallahjugend (real name Hezbollah Scouts), their youth division. So while the targets were their terrorist fathers, they were not exactly uninvolved civilians either.

And we all know what sound judgements minors make.
 
Vast majority of the injured and dead have been Hezbollah members. And the civilians have been their relatives who picked up Hezbollah pagers - they did not deserve an explosion in their face, but it's not like these pagers had been indiscriminately sold to civilians. They should blame their relatives for putting them in danger.

By the way, the two 12 year old boys mentioned in the AP piece were both members of Nasrallahjugend (real name Hezbollah Scouts), their youth division. So while the targets were their terrorist fathers, they were not exactly uninvolved civilians either.

And we all know what sound judgements minors make.
Or that 12 yr olds are necessarily “involved” or intended targets.
 

Attempting to stir up sympathy for terrorists hit by one of the most surgical military attacks of modern times?
If you truly believe that these attacks were surgically precise, you are admitting that Israel intentional targeted civilians - children, no less - for political violence. The definition of terrorism, as it happens.
 

Attempting to stir up sympathy for terrorists hit by one of the most surgical military attacks of modern times?
If you truly believe that these attacks were surgically precise, you are admitting that Israel intentional targeted civilians - children, no less - for political violence. The definition of terrorism, as it happens.
That's a typical bit of strawman argument.
If you don't want to see the difference between what Loren said and your argument I can only assume it's willful blindness.
Tom
 
And Netanyahu saying there is no starvation in Gaza and no civilians are being shot.....

Reports are increasing numbers of Israelis are seeing through the government propaganda and are objecting to the war.

Of course BBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS are all biased and collude against Netanyahu....

For decades our main stream media presented only the Israeli conservative hawkish views. Now we also see issues from the Palestinian side.

I'd say the Israeli biased media is now becoming more balanced.

The standard media view was ignore what Israel did and continued to do to Palestinians from the founding and labeling all Palestinians as terrorists.

It was part of the all Arabs are terrorists and Islam phobia narrative.
 

Attempting to stir up sympathy for terrorists hit by one of the most surgical military attacks of modern times?
If you truly believe that these attacks were surgically precise, you are admitting that Israel intentional targeted civilians - children, no less - for political violence. The definition of terrorism, as it happens.
Based on what we know, that isn't accurate for the Israeli operation. It appears the collateral damage was remarkably light for the breadth of this operation. In fact, it doesn't seem like anyone received the device that shouldn't have and the collateral damage was family or people close to them.

Terrorism is about sending those devices to random people to stoke fear within the general public. Mossad's operation didn't intend to do that and didn't seem to do it at all.
 

Attempting to stir up sympathy for terrorists hit by one of the most surgical military attacks of modern times?
If you truly believe that these attacks were surgically precise, you are admitting that Israel intentional targeted civilians - children, no less - for political violence. The definition of terrorism, as it happens.
That's a typical bit of strawman argument.
If you don't want to see the difference between what Loren said and your argument I can only assume it's willful blindness.
Tom
Loren's argument is that mentioning the harm at all is bias, which is ridiculous... unless the AP minimized the harm from the 10/7 atrocity. Which they didn't.
 

Attempting to stir up sympathy for terrorists hit by one of the most surgical military attacks of modern times?
If you truly believe that these attacks were surgically precise, you are admitting that Israel intentional targeted civilians - children, no less - for political violence. The definition of terrorism, as it happens.
That's a typical bit of strawman argument.
If you don't want to see the difference between what Loren said and your argument I can only assume it's willful blindness.
Tom
Do you deny that Loren described the operation as both surgical and successful?
 

Attempting to stir up sympathy for terrorists hit by one of the most surgical military attacks of modern times?
If you truly believe that these attacks were surgically precise, you are admitting that Israel intentional targeted civilians - children, no less - for political violence. The definition of terrorism, as it happens.
Based on what we know, that isn't accurate for the Israeli operation. It appears the collateral damage was remarkably light for the breadth of this operation. In fact, it doesn't seem like anyone received the device that shouldn't have and the collateral damage was family or people close to them.

Terrorism is about sending those devices to random people to stoke fear within the general public.
Would you describe the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon as a terrorist attack?
 

Attempting to stir up sympathy for terrorists hit by one of the most surgical military attacks of modern times?
If you truly believe that these attacks were surgically precise, you are admitting that Israel intentional targeted civilians - children, no less - for political violence. The definition of terrorism, as it happens.
Based on what we know, that isn't accurate for the Israeli operation. It appears the collateral damage was remarkably light for the breadth of this operation. In fact, it doesn't seem like anyone received the device that shouldn't have and the collateral damage was family or people close to them.

Terrorism is about sending those devices to random people to stoke fear within the general public.
Would you describe the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon as a terrorist attack?
Arguably, it'd be the military target of all military targets. However, the object being used to carry out the attack was civilian, full of civilians.
 

Attempting to stir up sympathy for terrorists hit by one of the most surgical military attacks of modern times?
If you truly believe that these attacks were surgically precise, you are admitting that Israel intentional targeted civilians - children, no less - for political violence. The definition of terrorism, as it happens.
Based on what we know, that isn't accurate for the Israeli operation. It appears the collateral damage was remarkably light for the breadth of this operation. In fact, it doesn't seem like anyone received the device that shouldn't have and the collateral damage was family or people close to them.

Terrorism is about sending those devices to random people to stoke fear within the general public.
Would you describe the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon as a terrorist attack?
Arguably, it'd be the military target of all military targets. However, the object being used to carry out the attack was civilian, full of civilians.
Ah, so if civilians are the weapon it's terrorism, even if the target is a legitimate military target. Is that correct?
 
Israel has been doing these kinds of things for decades. The more recent bombing of an Iranian wedding to kill one person.

Way back a Canadian ballistics exert Bull was helping Hussein build a super gun capable of hitting Israel. He was assented in Brussels.

Iranian scientists assassinated.

Who is a terrorist and who is a freedom freighter depends on which side you are on.

Both Israel and Hamas morally think the ends justify the means.
 
Back
Top Bottom