Coverage of Gaza City Invasion
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Are we supposed to be sympathetic to this? Actions have consequences. |
Anonymous
It's not, though. CNN doesn't put every murder in the same region on the front page. Every now and then there's a front page story. There is coverage in the /world section. It's not going to be front page news every day for 2 years, when it's more of the same bombings and building takeovers. https://www.cnn.com/world |
Anonymous
Maybe you should rewind. Netanyahu, IDF, Shin Bet, Mossad, and general ilk ignored serious warnings from Field Observers, known as Spotters. All Israeli women. Their warnings preceded months before 10/7, weeks before 10/7, and on that fateful day. Then they were massacred and burned alive in their command post. |
Anonymous
With this framing, Palestinians are never ever responsible for anything that ever happens to them. Ok, you have declared any discussion then null and void. |
Anonymous
It's of no continuing interest, because it's the same story over and over again. Hostages still held, Hamas still refusing to surrender, Palestinians still refusing to renounce terrorism, and Israeli consequential retaliatory activity. The sotry Monday is the same as the story on Tuesday, and the same on Wednesday. When Hamas surrenders, that'll be something new, and newsworthy. |
Anonymous
That sure played out well for Hamas, didn't it? People cared about Oct 7 because the civilized world disapproves of terrorism as a mechanism to try to achieve political ends. That's not the sort of behavior civilized people want to see become any more frequent than it already is. The predictable retaliation by Israel is interesting not because it happened, but because this time it is essentially unlimited - Israel clearly has had enough of small but deadly regular attacks and is taking measures to put an end to them once and for all. That's the story, it's now well known, and it's not changing. Ergo, nothing new to report. |
Anonymous
Never declared that. I can always identify the spin writer and the use of trending words of the week. The truth comes from the observers /spotters. Women soldiers who survived to tell the truth, who alerted forces in the field of unusual and suspicious activity for weeks on end. Yet, their repeated warnings were ignored. Small batches of Hamas roaming around on their side of the fence for weeks. The batches grew each week. Why did Netanyahu ignore the warnings? Why was there less IDF protection on the 7th? |
Anonymous
Journalists? You mean hamas with iPhones sending video to Al Jazeera? |
Anonymous
|
The “why should we care, what do you want us to do about it, nothing has to change just because YOU want it to” Zionist descends on these discussions daily in a feeble attempt to stop Americans from talking about and caring about this conflict.
Pseudo-intellectual, with nothing constructive to add, but he insists that the efforts of actual Americans to bring awareness to this genocide are pointless and powerless. And yet he finds time every day, over and over again, to (attempt to) censor the discussion. He hoped and prayed and promised that the prior MASSIVE Gaza War threads would die down over a year ago, he gave up the “God promised us this land” lunacy a while back for the most part, and he rarely bothers with the “I’m not even _____!” false claims these days. But he’s here religiously to convince you to stop talking about it, stop caring about, and especially to get you to stop galvanizing others and increasing awareness of the systemic evil underlying Zionism. |
Anonymous
Israel controls, and has for well over a decade, access to Gaza. They do not let foreign, let alone independent, journalists in. You can't complain about the absence of something that you know you are preventing from happening. |
Anonymous
You talk as if you’re the gatekeeper of what everyone else is “really” thinking, but repeating the same accusations day after day doesn’t make them true. It doesn’t give you authority over the discussion, either. Declaring that anyone who disagrees is a “Zionist” out to shut down conversation isn’t an argument, it’s a way of dodging the fact that other perspectives exist. If you want to persuade people, you have to bring evidence and reasoning, not the same caricatures on repeat. Cleverness that is illogical isn’t convincing because once the surface wordplay is stripped away, nothing solid remains. Truth and logic are convincing because they can withstand scrutiny and apply consistently, no matter who is looking. And truth doesn’t simply mean whatever you want to be true,it’s what can be demonstrated independently of your preference. Words only carry weight when they’re backed by substance; otherwise, all the repetition in the world is just noise. |
Anonymous
You are going to have trouble reaching an American audience, even after two years of trying, as you say. We don’t follow Arab culture, in which certain communication norms can make conversations appear less linear or strictly logical to outsiders. Arab cultures are generally high-context, meaning much is conveyed through shared history, social cues, and implicit assumptions rather than step-by-step reasoning. Classical Arabic rhetoric values eloquence, metaphor, and emotional appeal, so a strong turn of phrase may carry as much weight as a logical chain of argument. Discussions also often prioritize group loyalty, honor, and consensus, so reasoning may bend toward preserving identity or cohesion rather than adhering to factual consistency. The strong oral tradition adds another layer, as arguments are woven into stories, proverbs, and anecdotes that illustrate points but don’t always map neatly onto formal logic. Finally, when dealing with sensitive subjects such as religion, politics, or family honor, direct rational debate may be avoided in favor of analogy or emotionally charged appeals to protect relationships and avoid conflict. In short, conversations may sometimes appear illogical not because they lack reasoning, but because they reflect different cultural standards of persuasion, where rhetoric, context, emotion, and identity often matter more than strict deduction. We don't like illogic here in the states, we find it insulting and a display of a lack of intelligence. |
Anonymous
Since when? |
Anonymous
| The “god promised us this land” has found ChatGPT. Lord help us! Lol |
Anonymous
Since forever? Has the Arab world's illogical argument-making helped it have fruitful progress in working with the West (us)? No. |