Coverage of Gaza City Invasion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably time for Ham*** to call an end to this.

Oh shut your nazi mouth. This is what israel wants - complete anihilation and death.

I mean, whoa. I am just calling for the end of the conflict. Ham** started it with their brutal attack of October 7.

What about the 85+ years of Zionist attacks and abuses BEFORE 10/7? Forgot about those decades of unending slaughter, did ya?

What about the Arab onslaught on Israel the day the state was created in 1948? Apparently, only Israeli defensive activity merits the label "genocide", rather than Palestinian determination to exterminate the country and everyone in it, demonstrated time and time again through Oct 7. Happily, the Arab states proved incompetent militarily, and the Palestinians have shown themselves equally inept.

I started this thread to discuss and raise awareness of the lack of coverage of a major operation initiated by a close ally of the United States. Regardless of where you stand in the defense vs genocide debate I think everyone agrees that an action this large taken by a close ally should receive significant attention.

Good lord a military parade in china is receiving 1000x more coverage than an actual invasion

No we don't agree.

Anyway you just want us to watch so we can finally, in your mind, come to our senses and hate Israel and rise up against it.

DP
It’s funny how you put a finger at others for having an agenda while you inadvertently reveal your own.

No...I didn't reveal an agenda of mine (I don't have one), I revealed yours...identifying propaganda doesn't mean I have propaganda of my own. In the liberal arts tradition, well-read critical thinkers do not have to and do not usually take a "side" in these sort of matters. We watch for patterns and rhetoric.

First of all, you don’t see to understand how the DP identifier works.

Second of all, your “you just want us to criticize Israel” line was the mask dropping on your supposed impartiality.

You’re not objective. You DO have a dog in the fight. Pretending you don’t is far worse than just acknowledging it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that the IDF is moving into Gaza City as I write this. I see almost no real time coverage of the invasion. What gives? Is the world just tired of the story or has Israel put a headlock on coverage?

So you see coverage somewhere? Ok then. So those who want to see it, can.

I think there should be real time coverage on:

In Trump’s Federal Work Force Cuts, Black Women Are Among the Hardest Hit

https://www.nytimes.com/2...vSdpD8RaoY

This is particularly pertinent to our are (DC metro)

But economists say that Black women are being hit especially hard by Mr. Trump’s policies, which are also rippling through the private sector as corporations have abandoned their diversity, equity and inclusion practices and related jobs, many of which were held by Black women.

The most recent labor statistics show that nationwide, Black women lost 319,000 jobs in the public and private sectors between February and July of this year, the only major female demographic to experience significant job losses during this five-month period, according to an analysis by Katica Roy, a gender economist.

Black women have a disproportionate share of government jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:20:16 here. I don't mean to say there is no footage. I have seen footage shot by medics and civilians from Gaza. I'm just wondering why the media do not rely more on citizen journalism for real-time coverage, similar to the war footage coming out of Ukraine. I guess it's a verification problem? I'm really not sure.

That would involve reporting things Hamas said as fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy moly! Almost 24 hours in to the Gaza City invasion - I’m seeing almost no coverage of the situation. The little reporting I’m seeing is from BBC and Al Jazera. I don’t see how we can have a democracy if we don’t see coverage of major events. Are US outlets being prevented from reporting?

Of course they are.

Horse is well clear of the barn at this point, now that it’s surfaced that CNN has explicit interval policies that require Israeli blessing from their Jerusalem desk to run any story that may be perceived as critical of Israel.

CNN has such restrictions in many countries. Eason Jordan admitted they were censoring their Iraq coverage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably time for Ham*** to call an end to this.

Oh shut your nazi mouth. This is what israel wants - complete anihilation and death.

I mean, whoa. I am just calling for the end of the conflict. Ham** started it with their brutal attack of October 7.

What about the 85+ years of Zionist attacks and abuses BEFORE 10/7? Forgot about those decades of unending slaughter, did ya?

What about the Arab onslaught on Israel the day the state was created in 1948? Apparently, only Israeli defensive activity merits the label "genocide", rather than Palestinian determination to exterminate the country and everyone in it, demonstrated time and time again through Oct 7. Happily, the Arab states proved incompetent militarily, and the Palestinians have shown themselves equally inept.

I started this thread to discuss and raise awareness of the lack of coverage of a major operation initiated by a close ally of the United States. Regardless of where you stand in the defense vs genocide debate I think everyone agrees that an action this large taken by a close ally should receive significant attention.

Good lord a military parade in china is receiving 1000x more coverage than an actual invasion

No we don't agree.

Anyway you just want us to watch so we can finally, in your mind, come to our senses and hate Israel and rise up against it.

DP
It’s funny how you put a finger at others for having an agenda while you inadvertently reveal your own.

No...I didn't reveal an agenda of mine (I don't have one), I revealed yours...identifying propaganda doesn't mean I have propaganda of my own. In the liberal arts tradition, well-read critical thinkers do not have to and do not usually take a "side" in these sort of matters. We watch for patterns and rhetoric.

First of all, you don’t see to understand how the DP identifier works.

Second of all, your “you just want us to criticize Israel” line was the mask dropping on your supposed impartiality.

You’re not objective. You DO have a dog in the fight. Pretending you don’t is far worse than just acknowledging it.

No, it doesn't. The world isn't divided into Israel vs Palestine with every human taking a side. However, keen observers can recognize those who have taken sides and those who seek to sway others to take a side. You want us to watch, to take a side (your preferred side). If we just watch we will finally com to our sense and see how awful those people are, right? We just need to see!

[Anonymous]

Perhaps they will let CBS cover it once Bari Weiss takes over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy moly! Almost 24 hours in to the Gaza City invasion - I’m seeing almost no coverage of the situation. The little reporting I’m seeing is from BBC and Al Jazera. I don’t see how we can have a democracy if we don’t see coverage of major events. Are US outlets being prevented from reporting?

Of course they are.

Horse is well clear of the barn at this point, now that it’s surfaced that CNN has explicit interval policies that require Israeli blessing from their Jerusalem desk to run any story that may be perceived as critical of Israel.

CNN has such restrictions in many countries. Eason Jordan admitted they were censoring their Iraq coverage.

You in particular have a problem then because this seems to something of concern to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably time for Ham*** to call an end to this.

Oh shut your nazi mouth. This is what israel wants - complete anihilation and death.

I mean, whoa. I am just calling for the end of the conflict. Ham** started it with their brutal attack of October 7.

What about the 85+ years of Zionist attacks and abuses BEFORE 10/7? Forgot about those decades of unending slaughter, did ya?

What about the Arab onslaught on Israel the day the state was created in 1948? Apparently, only Israeli defensive activity merits the label "genocide", rather than Palestinian determination to exterminate the country and everyone in it, demonstrated time and time again through Oct 7. Happily, the Arab states proved incompetent militarily, and the Palestinians have shown themselves equally inept.

I started this thread to discuss and raise awareness of the lack of coverage of a major operation initiated by a close ally of the United States. Regardless of where you stand in the defense vs genocide debate I think everyone agrees that an action this large taken by a close ally should receive significant attention.

Good lord a military parade in china is receiving 1000x more coverage than an actual invasion

No we don't agree.

Anyway you just want us to watch so we can finally, in your mind, come to our senses and hate Israel and rise up against it.

DP
It’s funny how you put a finger at others for having an agenda while you inadvertently reveal your own.

No...I didn't reveal an agenda of mine (I don't have one), I revealed yours...identifying propaganda doesn't mean I have propaganda of my own. In the liberal arts tradition, well-read critical thinkers do not have to and do not usually take a "side" in these sort of matters. We watch for patterns and rhetoric.

First of all, you don’t see to understand how the DP identifier works.

Second of all, your “you just want us to criticize Israel” line was the mask dropping on your supposed impartiality.

You’re not objective. You DO have a dog in the fight. Pretending you don’t is far worse than just acknowledging it.

No, it doesn't. The world isn't divided into Israel vs Palestine with every human taking a side. However, keen observers can recognize those who have taken sides and those who seek to sway others to take a side. You want us to watch, to take a side (your preferred side). If we just watch we will finally com to our sense and see how awful those people are, right? We just need to see!

At times, there are absolutes in life. The fact that you don’t acknowledge that Israelis are awful people is proof that you have an agenda. Otherwise, are we to understand it that you think those who don’t condemn the Nazi atrocities of the last century don’t have an agenda, and are not awful human beings?

Holocaust denial is totally acceptable because those individuals “won’t be forced to take sides”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably time for Ham*** to call an end to this.

Oh shut your nazi mouth. This is what israel wants - complete anihilation and death.

I mean, whoa. I am just calling for the end of the conflict. Ham** started it with their brutal attack of October 7.

What about the 85+ years of Zionist attacks and abuses BEFORE 10/7? Forgot about those decades of unending slaughter, did ya?

What about the Arab onslaught on Israel the day the state was created in 1948? Apparently, only Israeli defensive activity merits the label "genocide", rather than Palestinian determination to exterminate the country and everyone in it, demonstrated time and time again through Oct 7. Happily, the Arab states proved incompetent militarily, and the Palestinians have shown themselves equally inept.

I started this thread to discuss and raise awareness of the lack of coverage of a major operation initiated by a close ally of the United States. Regardless of where you stand in the defense vs genocide debate I think everyone agrees that an action this large taken by a close ally should receive significant attention.

Good lord a military parade in china is receiving 1000x more coverage than an actual invasion

No we don't agree.

Anyway you just want us to watch so we can finally, in your mind, come to our senses and hate Israel and rise up against it.

DP
It’s funny how you put a finger at others for having an agenda while you inadvertently reveal your own.

No...I didn't reveal an agenda of mine (I don't have one), I revealed yours...identifying propaganda doesn't mean I have propaganda of my own. In the liberal arts tradition, well-read critical thinkers do not have to and do not usually take a "side" in these sort of matters. We watch for patterns and rhetoric.

First of all, you don’t see to understand how the DP identifier works.

Second of all, your “you just want us to criticize Israel” line was the mask dropping on your supposed impartiality.

You’re not objective. You DO have a dog in the fight. Pretending you don’t is far worse than just acknowledging it.

No, it doesn't. The world isn't divided into Israel vs Palestine with every human taking a side. However, keen observers can recognize those who have taken sides and those who seek to sway others to take a side. You want us to watch, to take a side (your preferred side). If we just watch we will finally com to our sense and see how awful those people are, right? We just need to see!

At times, there are absolutes in life. The fact that you don’t acknowledge that Israelis are awful people is proof that you have an agenda. Otherwise, are we to understand it that you think those who don’t condemn the Nazi atrocities of the last century don’t have an agenda, and are not awful human beings?

Holocaust denial is totally acceptable because those individuals “won’t be forced to take sides”?

No, the fact that you say this means you have an agenda. I haven't said anything about anyone other than that you have an agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably time for Ham*** to call an end to this.

Oh shut your nazi mouth. This is what israel wants - complete anihilation and death.

I mean, whoa. I am just calling for the end of the conflict. Ham** started it with their brutal attack of October 7.

What about the 85+ years of Zionist attacks and abuses BEFORE 10/7? Forgot about those decades of unending slaughter, did ya?

What about the Arab onslaught on Israel the day the state was created in 1948? Apparently, only Israeli defensive activity merits the label "genocide", rather than Palestinian determination to exterminate the country and everyone in it, demonstrated time and time again through Oct 7. Happily, the Arab states proved incompetent militarily, and the Palestinians have shown themselves equally inept.

I started this thread to discuss and raise awareness of the lack of coverage of a major operation initiated by a close ally of the United States. Regardless of where you stand in the defense vs genocide debate I think everyone agrees that an action this large taken by a close ally should receive significant attention.

Good lord a military parade in china is receiving 1000x more coverage than an actual invasion

No we don't agree.

Anyway you just want us to watch so we can finally, in your mind, come to our senses and hate Israel and rise up against it.

DP
It’s funny how you put a finger at others for having an agenda while you inadvertently reveal your own.

No...I didn't reveal an agenda of mine (I don't have one), I revealed yours...identifying propaganda doesn't mean I have propaganda of my own. In the liberal arts tradition, well-read critical thinkers do not have to and do not usually take a "side" in these sort of matters. We watch for patterns and rhetoric.

First of all, you don’t see to understand how the DP identifier works.

Second of all, your “you just want us to criticize Israel” line was the mask dropping on your supposed impartiality.

You’re not objective. You DO have a dog in the fight. Pretending you don’t is far worse than just acknowledging it.

No, it doesn't. The world isn't divided into Israel vs Palestine with every human taking a side. However, keen observers can recognize those who have taken sides and those who seek to sway others to take a side. You want us to watch, to take a side (your preferred side). If we just watch we will finally com to our sense and see how awful those people are, right? We just need to see!

At times, there are absolutes in life. The fact that you don’t acknowledge that Israelis are awful people is proof that you have an agenda. Otherwise, are we to understand it that you think those who don’t condemn the Nazi atrocities of the last century don’t have an agenda, and are not awful human beings?

Holocaust denial is totally acceptable because those individuals “won’t be forced to take sides”?

That statement is **nonsensical** because it rests on a **flawed argument structure**:

1. **Begging the question / circular reasoning**

* It assumes, without proving, that *“Israelis are awful people”* is an established fact.
* From there, it treats any failure to accept that assumption as “proof” of bias.
* In other words, the conclusion (“you have an agenda”) is baked into the premise (“Israelis are awful”), making it a circular claim.

2. **False test of neutrality**

* It frames agreement with the speaker’s negative view as the *only valid* or *unbiased* position.
* Disagreement is automatically redefined as “agenda-driven,” which invalidates the possibility of genuine neutrality or different reasoning.

3. **Non sequitur**

* Even if someone doesn’t accept a blanket negative generalization, it does not logically follow that they “have an agenda.” People can reject the premise for other reasons—like valuing nuance, rejecting stereotyping, or having access to different evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably time for Ham*** to call an end to this.

Oh shut your nazi mouth. This is what israel wants - complete anihilation and death.

I mean, whoa. I am just calling for the end of the conflict. Ham** started it with their brutal attack of October 7.

What about the 85+ years of Zionist attacks and abuses BEFORE 10/7? Forgot about those decades of unending slaughter, did ya?

What about the Arab onslaught on Israel the day the state was created in 1948? Apparently, only Israeli defensive activity merits the label "genocide", rather than Palestinian determination to exterminate the country and everyone in it, demonstrated time and time again through Oct 7. Happily, the Arab states proved incompetent militarily, and the Palestinians have shown themselves equally inept.

I started this thread to discuss and raise awareness of the lack of coverage of a major operation initiated by a close ally of the United States. Regardless of where you stand in the defense vs genocide debate I think everyone agrees that an action this large taken by a close ally should receive significant attention.

Good lord a military parade in china is receiving 1000x more coverage than an actual invasion

No we don't agree.

Anyway you just want us to watch so we can finally, in your mind, come to our senses and hate Israel and rise up against it.

DP
It’s funny how you put a finger at others for having an agenda while you inadvertently reveal your own.

No...I didn't reveal an agenda of mine (I don't have one), I revealed yours...identifying propaganda doesn't mean I have propaganda of my own. In the liberal arts tradition, well-read critical thinkers do not have to and do not usually take a "side" in these sort of matters. We watch for patterns and rhetoric.

First of all, you don’t see to understand how the DP identifier works.

Second of all, your “you just want us to criticize Israel” line was the mask dropping on your supposed impartiality.

You’re not objective. You DO have a dog in the fight. Pretending you don’t is far worse than just acknowledging it.

No, it doesn't. The world isn't divided into Israel vs Palestine with every human taking a side. However, keen observers can recognize those who have taken sides and those who seek to sway others to take a side. You want us to watch, to take a side (your preferred side). If we just watch we will finally com to our sense and see how awful those people are, right? We just need to see!

At times, there are absolutes in life. The fact that you don’t acknowledge that Israelis are awful people is proof that you have an agenda. Otherwise, are we to understand it that you think those who don’t condemn the Nazi atrocities of the last century don’t have an agenda, and are not awful human beings?

Holocaust denial is totally acceptable because those individuals “won’t be forced to take sides”?

That statement is **nonsensical** because it rests on a **flawed argument structure**:

1. **Begging the question / circular reasoning**

* It assumes, without proving, that *“Israelis are awful people”* is an established fact.
* From there, it treats any failure to accept that assumption as “proof” of bias.
* In other words, the conclusion (“you have an agenda”) is baked into the premise (“Israelis are awful”), making it a circular claim.

2. **False test of neutrality**

* It frames agreement with the speaker’s negative view as the *only valid* or *unbiased* position.
* Disagreement is automatically redefined as “agenda-driven,” which invalidates the possibility of genuine neutrality or different reasoning.

3. **Non sequitur**

* Even if someone doesn’t accept a blanket negative generalization, it does not logically follow that they “have an agenda.” People can reject the premise for other reasons—like valuing nuance, rejecting stereotyping, or having access to different evidence.

The pseudo-intellectualism does little to mitigate your genocide denial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably time for Ham*** to call an end to this.

Oh shut your nazi mouth. This is what israel wants - complete anihilation and death.

I mean, whoa. I am just calling for the end of the conflict. Ham** started it with their brutal attack of October 7.

What about the 85+ years of Zionist attacks and abuses BEFORE 10/7? Forgot about those decades of unending slaughter, did ya?

What about the Arab onslaught on Israel the day the state was created in 1948? Apparently, only Israeli defensive activity merits the label "genocide", rather than Palestinian determination to exterminate the country and everyone in it, demonstrated time and time again through Oct 7. Happily, the Arab states proved incompetent militarily, and the Palestinians have shown themselves equally inept.

I started this thread to discuss and raise awareness of the lack of coverage of a major operation initiated by a close ally of the United States. Regardless of where you stand in the defense vs genocide debate I think everyone agrees that an action this large taken by a close ally should receive significant attention.

Good lord a military parade in china is receiving 1000x more coverage than an actual invasion

No we don't agree.

Anyway you just want us to watch so we can finally, in your mind, come to our senses and hate Israel and rise up against it.

DP
It’s funny how you put a finger at others for having an agenda while you inadvertently reveal your own.

No...I didn't reveal an agenda of mine (I don't have one), I revealed yours...identifying propaganda doesn't mean I have propaganda of my own. In the liberal arts tradition, well-read critical thinkers do not have to and do not usually take a "side" in these sort of matters. We watch for patterns and rhetoric.

First of all, you don’t see to understand how the DP identifier works.

Second of all, your “you just want us to criticize Israel” line was the mask dropping on your supposed impartiality.

You’re not objective. You DO have a dog in the fight. Pretending you don’t is far worse than just acknowledging it.

No, it doesn't. The world isn't divided into Israel vs Palestine with every human taking a side. However, keen observers can recognize those who have taken sides and those who seek to sway others to take a side. You want us to watch, to take a side (your preferred side). If we just watch we will finally com to our sense and see how awful those people are, right? We just need to see!

At times, there are absolutes in life. The fact that you don’t acknowledge that Israelis are awful people is proof that you have an agenda. Otherwise, are we to understand it that you think those who don’t condemn the Nazi atrocities of the last century don’t have an agenda, and are not awful human beings?

Holocaust denial is totally acceptable because those individuals “won’t be forced to take sides”?

That statement is **nonsensical** because it rests on a **flawed argument structure**:

1. **Begging the question / circular reasoning**

* It assumes, without proving, that *“Israelis are awful people”* is an established fact.
* From there, it treats any failure to accept that assumption as “proof” of bias.
* In other words, the conclusion (“you have an agenda”) is baked into the premise (“Israelis are awful”), making it a circular claim.

2. **False test of neutrality**

* It frames agreement with the speaker’s negative view as the *only valid* or *unbiased* position.
* Disagreement is automatically redefined as “agenda-driven,” which invalidates the possibility of genuine neutrality or different reasoning.

3. **Non sequitur**

* Even if someone doesn’t accept a blanket negative generalization, it does not logically follow that they “have an agenda.” People can reject the premise for other reasons—like valuing nuance, rejecting stereotyping, or having access to different evidence.

The pseudo-intellectualism does little to mitigate your genocide denial.

Continues to expose himself…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably time for Ham*** to call an end to this.

Oh shut your nazi mouth. This is what israel wants - complete anihilation and death.

I mean, whoa. I am just calling for the end of the conflict. Ham** started it with their brutal attack of October 7.

What about the 85+ years of Zionist attacks and abuses BEFORE 10/7? Forgot about those decades of unending slaughter, did ya?

What about the Arab onslaught on Israel the day the state was created in 1948? Apparently, only Israeli defensive activity merits the label "genocide", rather than Palestinian determination to exterminate the country and everyone in it, demonstrated time and time again through Oct 7. Happily, the Arab states proved incompetent militarily, and the Palestinians have shown themselves equally inept.

I started this thread to discuss and raise awareness of the lack of coverage of a major operation initiated by a close ally of the United States. Regardless of where you stand in the defense vs genocide debate I think everyone agrees that an action this large taken by a close ally should receive significant attention.

Good lord a military parade in china is receiving 1000x more coverage than an actual invasion

No we don't agree.

Anyway you just want us to watch so we can finally, in your mind, come to our senses and hate Israel and rise up against it.

DP
It’s funny how you put a finger at others for having an agenda while you inadvertently reveal your own.

No...I didn't reveal an agenda of mine (I don't have one), I revealed yours...identifying propaganda doesn't mean I have propaganda of my own. In the liberal arts tradition, well-read critical thinkers do not have to and do not usually take a "side" in these sort of matters. We watch for patterns and rhetoric.

First of all, you don’t see to understand how the DP identifier works.

Second of all, your “you just want us to criticize Israel” line was the mask dropping on your supposed impartiality.

You’re not objective. You DO have a dog in the fight. Pretending you don’t is far worse than just acknowledging it.

No, it doesn't. The world isn't divided into Israel vs Palestine with every human taking a side. However, keen observers can recognize those who have taken sides and those who seek to sway others to take a side. You want us to watch, to take a side (your preferred side). If we just watch we will finally com to our sense and see how awful those people are, right? We just need to see!

At times, there are absolutes in life. The fact that you don’t acknowledge that Israelis are awful people is proof that you have an agenda. Otherwise, are we to understand it that you think those who don’t condemn the Nazi atrocities of the last century don’t have an agenda, and are not awful human beings?

Holocaust denial is totally acceptable because those individuals “won’t be forced to take sides”?

That statement is **nonsensical** because it rests on a **flawed argument structure**:

1. **Begging the question / circular reasoning**

* It assumes, without proving, that *“Israelis are awful people”* is an established fact.
* From there, it treats any failure to accept that assumption as “proof” of bias.
* In other words, the conclusion (“you have an agenda”) is baked into the premise (“Israelis are awful”), making it a circular claim.

2. **False test of neutrality**

* It frames agreement with the speaker’s negative view as the *only valid* or *unbiased* position.
* Disagreement is automatically redefined as “agenda-driven,” which invalidates the possibility of genuine neutrality or different reasoning.

3. **Non sequitur**

* Even if someone doesn’t accept a blanket negative generalization, it does not logically follow that they “have an agenda.” People can reject the premise for other reasons—like valuing nuance, rejecting stereotyping, or having access to different evidence.

The pseudo-intellectualism does little to mitigate your genocide denial.

Continues to expose himself…

I never suggested that I don’t have an agenda. I’m stone cold sober in my assessment of the situation, and unapologetic about my views.

The point here is that you seek to convince others that YOU don’t have an agenda - when it’s clear as day that you do. You’re a Zionist - a garden variety, dime-a-dozen Zionist, in fact, who presents with the same pseudo-intellectual delusions that we see from many Zionists. You suffer from a false belief that your agenda isn’t detectable by others. News flash: It is.

[Anonymous]

The Gaza City invasion continues and intensifies. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/liveblog/2025/9/4/live-hamas-says-ready-for-truce-deal-as-israel-pounds-gaza-city-overnight

But very little coverage that I’ve seen from from any major American news outlet. 1000’s of stories about Powerball though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably time for Ham*** to call an end to this.

Oh shut your nazi mouth. This is what israel wants - complete anihilation and death.

I mean, whoa. I am just calling for the end of the conflict. Ham** started it with their brutal attack of October 7.

What about the 85+ years of Zionist attacks and abuses BEFORE 10/7? Forgot about those decades of unending slaughter, did ya?

What about the Arab onslaught on Israel the day the state was created in 1948? Apparently, only Israeli defensive activity merits the label "genocide", rather than Palestinian determination to exterminate the country and everyone in it, demonstrated time and time again through Oct 7. Happily, the Arab states proved incompetent militarily, and the Palestinians have shown themselves equally inept.

I started this thread to discuss and raise awareness of the lack of coverage of a major operation initiated by a close ally of the United States. Regardless of where you stand in the defense vs genocide debate I think everyone agrees that an action this large taken by a close ally should receive significant attention.

Good lord a military parade in china is receiving 1000x more coverage than an actual invasion

No we don't agree.

Anyway you just want us to watch so we can finally, in your mind, come to our senses and hate Israel and rise up against it.

DP
It’s funny how you put a finger at others for having an agenda while you inadvertently reveal your own.

No...I didn't reveal an agenda of mine (I don't have one), I revealed yours...identifying propaganda doesn't mean I have propaganda of my own. In the liberal arts tradition, well-read critical thinkers do not have to and do not usually take a "side" in these sort of matters. We watch for patterns and rhetoric.

First of all, you don’t see to understand how the DP identifier works.

Second of all, your “you just want us to criticize Israel” line was the mask dropping on your supposed impartiality.

You’re not objective. You DO have a dog in the fight. Pretending you don’t is far worse than just acknowledging it.

No, it doesn't. The world isn't divided into Israel vs Palestine with every human taking a side. However, keen observers can recognize those who have taken sides and those who seek to sway others to take a side. You want us to watch, to take a side (your preferred side). If we just watch we will finally com to our sense and see how awful those people are, right? We just need to see!

At times, there are absolutes in life. The fact that you don’t acknowledge that Israelis are awful people is proof that you have an agenda. Otherwise, are we to understand it that you think those who don’t condemn the Nazi atrocities of the last century don’t have an agenda, and are not awful human beings?

Holocaust denial is totally acceptable because those individuals “won’t be forced to take sides”?

First, "not condemning" isn't "denial".

Second, if "Israelis are awful people" a whole nation with no individual variation, then what the Nazis did weren't atrocities, any more than what God did for Noah. What exactly are you trying to say?