An illustration of media bias

[Derec]

And how was the relevant to the actual topic of the discussion about the IDF holding Hamas accountable?

The actual topic is the bias of AP regarding the pager attacks on Hezbollah.

Hamas/Gaza is technically a derail here.

 

[Derec]

I've said numerous times there are no good guys in this war.

There are no perfect guys here. But compared to the moral abyss that is Hamas and other vassals of Tehran, they certainly are the shining city on the hill.

 

[Derec]

Do you think Derec's logic makes sense, that blowing Palestine kids into pieces convinces people to leave Hamas?

I never said anything of the sort.

 

[laughing dog]

And how was the relevant to the actual topic of the discussion about the IDF holding Hamas accountable?

The actual topic is the bias of AP regarding the pager attacks on Hezbollah.

Hamas/Gaza is technically a derail here.

Take it up with LP. He’s the one babbling about starvation photos.

 

[laughing dog]

I've said numerous times there are no good guys in this war.

There are no perfect guys here. But compared to the moral abyss that is Hamas and other vassals of Tehran, they certainly are the shining city on the hill.

The actual topic is the bias of AP regarding the pager attacks on Hezbollah.

Hamas/Gaza is technically a derail here.

 

[Politesse]

Do you think Derec's logic makes sense, that blowing Palestine kids into pieces convinces people to leave Hamas?

I never said anything of the sort.

Alright. I apologize for miscontruing you if so. Perhaps you can clarify what you did mean by Hamas being "weaker" now?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hardly. Recruitment is through the roof, and will be for decades.

[citation needed]

Are you joking? Surely you don't think blowing a kid's brains out is an effective way to convince someone not to join Hamas. What would you do if the government showed up, declared you an enemy of the state because of your political party, and shot your wife in the face? Would that pacify you or radicalize you?

You think they're given a choice??

Not really an answer to the question. Since you're jumping in, would you respond to the murder of your children by "converting" to the politics and religion of their murderer? Do you think Derec's logic makes sense, that blowing Palestine kids into pieces convinces people to leave Hamas?

It's not going to convince people to leave, but it's going to make people more reluctant to enter. At this point 10 of the top 12 people in Hamas are dead.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you unaware of how Hamas has been making fake wrongs?

Can you explain what the means and how it is relevant to the point that the IDF is holding Hamas accountable?

Remember the starvation photos? Every last one of them was actually medical, not a supply problem.

Ignoring there was no reference to starvation, you forgot to answer the 2nd part about relevance to my response that the IDF was holding Hamas accountable?

The starvation photos are an example of the fake wrongs I'm talking about.

What's starving is the Hamas pocketbook, not the people of Gaza.

And how was the relevant to the actual topic of the discussion about the IDF holding Hamas accountable?

"IDF holding Hamas accountable" is your fabrication, not anything we claimed. I'm talking about the world, not the IDF. And note that you are simply derailing from the actual topic: fake wrongs. Hamas can't find a single honest case of starvation, why should we believe any exist?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are a lot of people who think the answer is in muzzling Israel, doing nothing about Hamas.

Is anyone here saying that?

Well if you criticise, scold, complain about everything is Israel is doing or trying to do, yet barely mention Hamas then perhaps it might be true.

No one here is arguing that Hamas is the good guy. If there were, I'm sure they would be criticized, scolded, and complained about too. What is it about that that your side doesn't understand?

I've said numerous times there are no good guys in this war.

You say that, but you continue to say the only solution is for Israel to quit doing anything beyond guarding the border. Ignore the bully who is trying to kill you.

 

[laughing dog]

Are you unaware of how Hamas has been making fake wrongs?

Can you explain what the means and how it is relevant to the point that the IDF is holding Hamas accountable?

Remember the starvation photos? Every last one of them was actually medical, not a supply problem.

Ignoring there was no reference to starvation, you forgot to answer the 2nd part about relevance to my response that the IDF was holding Hamas accountable?

The starvation photos are an example of the fake wrongs I'm talking about.

What's starving is the Hamas pocketbook, not the people of Gaza.

And how was the relevant to the actual topic of the discussion about the IDF holding Hamas accountable?

"IDF holding Hamas accountable" is your fabrication, not anything we claimed. I'm talking about the world, not the IDF. And note that you are simply derailing from the actual topic: fake wrongs. Hamas can't find a single honest case of starvation, why should we believe any exist?

The facts are as follows.

This started with Post #98 by Tigers with the following “Hamas has committed atrocities and so has Israel. But only Israel is being held to account for the ones they're committed.” which started the side discussion about accountability. A number of posters, including me, responded to that. No one mentioned at all.

In post #132, you decide to jump in with “Are you unaware of how Hamas has been making fake wrongs? which apparently had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion about accountability. You now admit had nothing to with accountability.

These facts indicate you are the derailer of that side discussion with your obsession over "fake" starvation.

 

[bilby]

At this point 10 of the top 12 people in Hamas are dead.

That's like the scene from The Games, where they are worried about having to take out the front few rows of seats, because doing so will cost a fortune in lost revenue, because the front rows cost the most.

John Clarke points out that they are actually removing the back few rows. The folks who paid for front row seats still get seats with nobody in front of them; The refunds go to the folks who bought the back few rows.

12 of the top 12 people in Hamas are alive; And always will be. If you shoot the top guy, everyone left alive moves up one place.

Back in the Iran-Iraq War (which at the time we called the Gulf War, before the Americans decided it didn't count if they didn't take part), there was a joke amongst the Iraqis: Why don't the Iranian Army issue condoms to their soldiers? The answer remains the same today: There's just no end to those pricks.

Every time you kill someone from Hamas, they recruit two or three new guys, and everyone moves up a notch.

Killing their top dozen commanders is only effective if those guys were far better commanders than their replacements; And it seems implausible that any Hamas commander is much good, or that even a great commander could do very much with the resources available to Hamas at this point.

 

[ZiprHead]

There are a lot of people who think the answer is in muzzling Israel, doing nothing about Hamas.

Is anyone here saying that?

Well if you criticise, scold, complain about everything is Israel is doing or trying to do, yet barely mention Hamas then perhaps it might be true.

No one here is arguing that Hamas is the good guy. If there were, I'm sure they would be criticized, scolded, and complained about too. What is it about that that your side doesn't understand?

I've said numerous times there are no good guys in this war.

You say that, but you continue to say the only solution is for Israel to quit doing anything beyond guarding the border. Ignore the bully who is trying to kill you.

When have I ever said that?

 

[Gospel]

Every one hit someone associated with Hezbollah, unfortunately in a few cases that was family members of the intended targets rather than the targets themselves.

The same can be said about landmines.

That's ridiculous.
The same cannot possibly be said of landmines.

Israel targeted a violent Muslim terrorists group. They succeeded in trashing a bunch of the violent terrorist group. A tiny handful of the terrorist's civilian compadres got trashed as well. Tragic, but predictable, results of consorting with violent Muslim supremacists. Or any violent people, like Hamas or Iran or Hezbollah or whatever.

It's nothing like landmines.
Tom

Civilian household members, especially minors, may have no choice about who they must consort with. Seems rather callous or sociopathic to imply they deserved their fate due to their unchosen living arrangements.

Making the pagers lethal weapons is a clever way of getting at one’s targets and significantly reducing possible collateral damage, especially compared to land mine use. But both involve collateral damage to civilians, just at vastly different magnitudes. Which is what I believe was unapologetic’s point.

I'd like to add that recognizing the loss of civilian lives does not mean supporting that side. It also doesn’t absolve anyone. One party puts civilians in harm’s way, while the other tries to avoid civilian casualties but cannot prevent them entirely. Acknowledging that innocent people died is not the same as absolving the group that put them in hams way or condemning those who launched the attack; it’s simply recognizing the human cost. In fact, one of the things that separates a responsible military from a terrorist group is precisely that willingness to admit civilian harm instead of pretending it doesn’t matter.

I’ve seen posts where Loren, Zoidberg, and even TomC acknowledge the civilian toll and recognize the real loss it represent, yet when someone else says the exact same thing, suddenly it’s branded antisemitic or ‘supporting Hamas.’ The only difference seems to be who’s saying it.

Edit: Forgot to add how this ties into media bias. At the end of the day, media outlets are for-profit enterprises and always have been. They cater to the biases of their audiences because that’s what sells. What’s odd is that with so much consolidation in ownership, many of the same companies are essentially selling to both sides of those biases at once.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are a lot of people who think the answer is in muzzling Israel, doing nothing about Hamas.

Is anyone here saying that?

Well if you criticise, scold, complain about everything is Israel is doing or trying to do, yet barely mention Hamas then perhaps it might be true.

No one here is arguing that Hamas is the good guy. If there were, I'm sure they would be criticized, scolded, and complained about too. What is it about that that your side doesn't understand?

I've said numerous times there are no good guys in this war.

You say that, but you continue to say the only solution is for Israel to quit doing anything beyond guarding the border. Ignore the bully who is trying to kill you.

You seem quite at peace with arming the bullies in the US.

 

[bilby]

At the end of the day, media outlets are for-profit enterprises and always have been. They cater to the biases of their audiences because that’s what sells. What’s odd is that with so much consolidation in ownership, many of the same companies are essentially selling to both sides of those biases at once.

That's not odd, it's just your basic abandonment of any pretence at morality, in favour of making money. It's a foundational principle of the United States of America.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The facts are as follows.

This started with Post #98 by Tigers with the following “Hamas has committed atrocities and so has Israel. But only Israel is being held to account for the ones they're committed.” which started the side discussion about accountability. A number of posters, including me, responded to that. No one mentioned at all.

In post #132, you decide to jump in with “Are you unaware of how Hamas has been making fake wrongs? which apparently had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion about accountability. You now admit had nothing to with accountability.

These facts indicate you are the derailer of that side discussion with your obsession over "fake" starvation.

I'm saying the world should hold Hamas accountable. You made the unsupported jump to "IDF".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You say that, but you continue to say the only solution is for Israel to quit doing anything beyond guarding the border. Ignore the bully who is trying to kill you.

When have I ever said that?

Your "answer" is always to stop Israel to break the cycle.

 

[laughing dog]

The facts are as follows.

This started with Post #98 by Tigers with the following “Hamas has committed atrocities and so has Israel. But only Israel is being held to account for the ones they're committed.” which started the side discussion about accountability. A number of posters, including me, responded to that. No one mentioned at all.

In post #132, you decide to jump in with “Are you unaware of how Hamas has been making fake wrongs? which apparently had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion about accountability. You now admit had nothing to with accountability.

These facts indicate you are the derailer of that side discussion with your obsession over "fake" starvation.

I'm saying the world should hold Hamas accountable. You made the unsupported jump to "IDF".

Nope. Attempting to destroy Hamas is holding them accountable. Duh.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'd like to add that recognizing the loss of civilian lives does not mean supporting that side. It also doesn’t absolve anyone. One party puts civilians in harm’s way, while the other tries to avoid civilian casualties but cannot prevent them entirely. Acknowledging that innocent people died is not the same as absolving the group that put them in hams way or condemning those who launched the attack; it’s simply recognizing the human cost. In fact, one of the things that separates a responsible military from a terrorist group is precisely that willingness to admit civilian harm instead of pretending it doesn’t matter.

I’ve seen posts where Loren, Zoidberg, and even TomC acknowledge the civilian toll and recognize the real loss it represent, yet when someone else says the exact same thing, suddenly it’s branded antisemitic or ‘supporting Hamas.’ The only difference seems to be who’s saying it.

Context: We recognize the civilian death toll but object to it being used as a club to beat Israel with.

Edit: Forgot to add how this ties into media bias. At the end of the day, media outlets are for-profit enterprises and always have been. They cater to the biases of their audiences because that’s what sells. What’s odd is that with so much consolidation in ownership, many of the same companies are essentially selling to both sides of those biases at once.

Exactly. Extremely biased towards what the readership wants to see. Same self-reinforcing we see with social media and just as bad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You say that, but you continue to say the only solution is for Israel to quit doing anything beyond guarding the border. Ignore the bully who is trying to kill you.

You seem quite at peace with arming the bullies in the US.

1) Bullies rarely use guns to bully.

2) The reality is guns are an equalizer. Strong vs weak, certain to prevail. Strong vs weak with guns in the picture, much riskier for the bully.