Israel v Hamas

[CPFCSaturn]

Guardian journalist with Iraqi parents - say not more.

Obviously the data presented can be completely overlooked then.

 

[Spindle]

Sure:

“Data scientists Dana Najjar and Jan Lietava, who analyzed a total of six hundred articles and four thousand live-feed posts on the BBC website between October 7 and December 2, establishing a “systematic disparity in how Palestinian and Israeli deaths are treated.”

The report, published by Guardianjournalist Mona Chalabi, recorded that the broadcaster used terms such as “massacre,” “murder,” and “slaughter” almost exclusively in connection with the deaths of Israelis, while being more likely to use words like “killed” or “died” in conjunction with the deaths of Palestinians. The BBC was also much more likely to use familial nouns such as “mother,” “grandmother,” “daughter,” and “father” in reference to Israeli people than to their Palestinian counterparts.
“

Well that's correct use of language. Israelis were slaughtered, massacred, murdered on Oct 7 in close quarters rounding up and butchering.

Then it's a war, and our language doesn't use that in a war, we use "killed" and "died".

Are you seriously suggesting that its correct vernacular to say, for example

"1200 random Israeli civilians died today after meeting with Hamas terrorists"

And

"Israeli jets bombed an apartment block today murdering a mix of Hamas members and other Palestinians, it was a massacre".

You think this is how we actually use our language? Do you not know the meanings of words?

 

[Spindle]

Yes, as the whole world was on October 7th.

That’s a fundamental difference between the two positions here: those opposed to what Israel are doing are happy to condemn anyone involved in war crimes and atrocities (barring a few extremist idiots). Those supportive of Israel are evidently not.

And yet those in favour of the atrocities are the very same people consistently trying to claim a moral high ground - it’s a very strange phenomena.

Indiana and Steeley.....

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Yes, as the whole world was on October 7th.

That’s a fundamental difference between the two positions here: those opposed to what Israel are doing are happy to condemn anyone involved in war crimes and atrocities (barring a few extremist idiots). Those supportive of Israel are evidently not.

And yet those in favour of the atrocities are the very same people consistently trying to claim a moral high ground - it’s a very strange phenomena.

I can condemn the deaths of civilians if you like. It would be similar to expressing my regret about German or Japanese civilians in WW2.
Would you have preferred we had been bombed into surrender instead?

It's a fundamental question. Because ultimately we all have to pick a side, regardless of our aversion to killing.

 

[Penge Eagle]

Again, the extension of this logic is that any western state can commit whatever atrocity they chose to on any Muslim country, because 'good guys'.

I can't believe it's made as a serious point.

Yes it has its flaws. But can you name a better civilisation than the West?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Well that's correct use of language. Israelis were slaughtered, massacred, murdered on Oct 7 in close quarters rounding up and butchering.

Then it's a war, and our language doesn't use that in a war, we use "killed" and "died".

Are you seriously suggesting that its correct vernacular to say, for example

"1200 random Israeli civilians died today after meeting with Hamas terrorists"

And

"Israeli jets bombed an apartment block today murdering a mix of Hamas members and other Palestinians, it was a massacre".

You think this is how we actually use our language? Do you not know the meanings of words?

Its the correct use of language for someone who clearly does not view Palestinian and Israeli life as equal, absolutely.

As evidenced by the data, the BBC have consistently made reference to Palestinians ‘dying’ with no mention of who killed them or how they died.

I’ll also include a graph on the volume of coverage Israeli vs Palestinian deaths have received, despite the overwhelming majority of victims of this conflict being Palestinian.

You asked for evidence of bias - I have very clearly provided it.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

It has its flaws. But can you name a better civilisation than the West?

Probably not - does that mean I have to support every conceivable action a western government might take?

Do you think that’s sound logic?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I can condemn the deaths of civilians if you like. It would be similar to expressing my regret about German or Japanese civilians in WW2.
Would you have preferred we had been bombed into surrender instead?

It's a fundamental question. Because ultimately we all have to pick a side, regardless of our aversion to killing.

No, we don’t.

Unless you’re so far down the rabbit hole you think this is the latest escalation in an Islamic crusade to take over the West, we really don’t.

There is no world war, we are not under attack nor under threat from a power with plans for expansion - suggesting this is like World War 2 is outright nonsense.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Probably not - does that mean I have to support every conceivable action a western government might take?

Do you think that’s sound logic?

You don't have to like or approve of it, but support is different.

You could file this under the greater good. You could say, I deplore what is happening in Palestine, but I know that Islamists would kill every single Jew and destroy the West in a heart beat if it could.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

No, we don’t.

Unless you’re so far down the rabbit hole you think this is the latest escalation in an Islamic crusade to take over the West, we really don’t.

There is no world war, we are not under attack nor under threat from a power with plans for expansion - suggesting this is like World War 2 is outright nonsense.

It's just a question of timing. I'm doing it now, whereas you might wait till you can feel the cold steel of a sword on your neck before you wonder if you might have made a mistake.

I think that's foresight v blindness.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

You don't have to like or approve of it, but support is different.

You could file this under the greater good. You could say, I deplore what is happening in Palestine, but I know that Islamists would kill every single Jew and destroy the West in a heart beat if it could.

Again, the extension of this logic is that any Muslim in the world is fair game to be assaulted, murdered or raped by any Westerner, because ‘greater good’.

 

[Penge Eagle]

Probably not - does that mean I have to support every conceivable action a western government might take?

Do you think that’s sound logic?

Of course not - criticism is a Western value. If you hate the Israeli government that much - which in itself is very strange bearing in mind you're not a citizen - then its people can democratically elect someone else. That can't be said for every country in the world.

And I would say from your posts (and correct me if I'm wrong), you have criticised Israel far more than Hamas. This does not make sense to me.

Christians, Jews and Muslims live far better lives in a Western society such as Israel.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

It's just a question of timing. I'm doing it now, whereas you might wait till you can feel the cold steel of a sword on your neck before you wonder if you might have made a mistake.

I think that's foresight v blindness.

If your entire argument is underpinned by the idea that I might feel a sword on my neck one day as a result of an Islamic takeover of Britain… I’d be confident to say it’s a terrible argument.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Again, the extension of this logic is that any Muslim in the world is fair game to be assaulted, murdered or raped by any Westerner, because ‘greater good’.

We are talking about Islamists using Palestine as a tool to attack Israel.

'Muslims' aren't doing that as a whole.

 

[Penge Eagle]

Again, the extension of this logic is that any Muslim in the world is fair game to be assaulted, murdered or raped by any Westerner, because ‘greater good’.

Note he said "Islamist".

 

[indianapalace85]

No you wouldn't.

No, I would. It's called being balanced, something you people are incapable of learning.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

If your entire argument is underpinned by the idea that I might feel a sword on my neck one day as a result of an Islamic takeover of Britain… I’d be confident to say it’s a terrible argument.

If you believe that Islam is a benevolent religion and that the meek among its followers ultimately make the decisions, then it would explain why you think that.

Ask Sikhs and Hindus or Christians in Africa if they share your opinion.

 

[indianapalace85]

Probably not - does that mean I have to support every conceivable action a western government might take?

Do you think that’s sound logic?

There's nothing logical about these people defending murdering Palestinians.

Their argument is getting weaker every hour.

They believe only what they want to believe, fail to even be opening to a balanced viewpoint.
Even if I say I'm open to the other side's story (against my better judgement) I would still so - but am just told I'm a liar anyway.

They don't even want me to see the other side, when they offer it. They are truly laughable.

They fail to see anything past October 7th and use that as the justification for BS, propaganda and murder.

 

[indianapalace85]

Of course not - criticism is a Western value. If you hate the Israeli government that much - which in itself is very strange bearing in mind you're not a citizen - then its people can democratically elect someone else. That can't be said for every country in the world.

Your one-dimensional thinking process is not conducive to a proper debate.

So now we have to be a citizen of Israel to not like a government?

What is this tosh?

 

[georgenorman]

Obviously the data presented can be completely overlooked then.

More or less, yes.