Anonymous wrote:It’s horrifying to see images of little kids like what was seen during famines in Africa.

if only Hamas would surrender...

It’s horrifying to see images of little kids like what was seen during famines in Africa.

Anonymous wrote:Zionists are killing again

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/23/world/gallery/photos-starvation-in-gaza-intl

What's new? We should expect this to be the daily headline. And now they'll probably do something similar to the West Bank now that they've approved its annexation

Zionists are killing again

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/23/world/gallery/photos-starvation-in-gaza-intl

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I already cancelled it due to its biased reporting of Biden, and its wholesale endorsement of Trump.

I haven't yet but strongly considered starting with this and now with Gaza.

The problem is, I can't find what I want to replace it. I have read the NYT for SO long. But may be we all need to do it.

BBC
Guardian
Le Monde if you read French

Anonymous wrote:I already cancelled it due to its biased reporting of Biden, and its wholesale endorsement of Trump.

I get the NYT for free. Otherwise I'd cancel it. The managing editor is an idiot. The stories are written at a 6th grade level. It used to be a great newspaper. Now, it's junk. I subscribe to the Guardian. At least it's written by adults.

Oh, and I cancelled WaPo when Bezos refused to endorse Harris. It's now a Fox-like newspaper. Not worth clicking on. So sorry for the reporters and editors, who were good. But that newspaper is propaganda trash too. Bezos killed it.

p.s. I got rid of Amazon Prime too. Good riddance. We made Bezos rich, and we can stop giving him our money. I realized I was paying $185 a year for "free" shipping. Ha. I'm not supporting a billionaire who supports a dictator. I shop at Costco and online retailers who have not caved to the Project 2025 crap.

Anonymous wrote:I already cancelled it due to its biased reporting of Biden, and its wholesale endorsement of Trump.

I must have missed that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of an opinion piece is to express an opinion, ideally supported with an explanation. If you'd prefer not to read opinions which differ from those you already hold, then by all means don't read them. If you're open-minded, read and reflect. You may not change your mind, or you might, but exposure to alternative perspectives is intellectually healthy; deliberately ignoring other points of view is intellectually dishonest - you don't have to agree with anyone else, but it's conducive to informed discourse to know why other people hold opinions different from your own.

What are you even talking about? Sure, healthy discourse about things like immigration, energy, and economic policies are great.

He is excusing away mass murder and starvation of a civilian population. His opinion is disgusting, vile, dehumanizing trash and shouldn't be printed in a national newspaper.

His opinion is fundamentally a lie in every way. Israel is conquering Gaza and slaughtering or removing all who live within. He thinks it's justified, so he lies about it. I don't agree that Israel should be conquering Gaza, but I'd respect the Opinion Section for sharing that view. I do not support the Opinion Editors' decision to let that trash grace the NYT's pages, though.

If you support truth, you cannot support the NYT, sadly.

An opinion is not a lie and cannot be. Facts are facts; assignment of meaning to those facts is where opinion comes in. Opining that Israel's response to Palestinian terror has been too harsh, or has been insufficiently harsh to prevent future recurrences, are opinions, not facts.

Conflating opinion with fact is where apologists for one side or the other go off the rails.

Palestinians terror? I guess you have no problem with the world blaming all jews for Israel’s genocide and other crimes against humanity?

Palestinian terror has a long history. That's a fact. Whether you think it a justified reaction to perceived grievances or not is opinion. See the difference?

DP

Israeli terror has an even longer history. And if we are counting dead bodies and those jailed or taken hostage, Israeli is by far the aggressor by multiples.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of an opinion piece is to express an opinion, ideally supported with an explanation. If you'd prefer not to read opinions which differ from those you already hold, then by all means don't read them. If you're open-minded, read and reflect. You may not change your mind, or you might, but exposure to alternative perspectives is intellectually healthy; deliberately ignoring other points of view is intellectually dishonest - you don't have to agree with anyone else, but it's conducive to informed discourse to know why other people hold opinions different from your own.

What are you even talking about? Sure, healthy discourse about things like immigration, energy, and economic policies are great.

He is excusing away mass murder and starvation of a civilian population. His opinion is disgusting, vile, dehumanizing trash and shouldn't be printed in a national newspaper.

His opinion is fundamentally a lie in every way. Israel is conquering Gaza and slaughtering or removing all who live within. He thinks it's justified, so he lies about it. I don't agree that Israel should be conquering Gaza, but I'd respect the Opinion Section for sharing that view. I do not support the Opinion Editors' decision to let that trash grace the NYT's pages, though.

If you support truth, you cannot support the NYT, sadly.

An opinion is not a lie and cannot be. Facts are facts; assignment of meaning to those facts is where opinion comes in. Opining that Israel's response to Palestinian terror has been too harsh, or has been insufficiently harsh to prevent future recurrences, are opinions, not facts.

Conflating opinion with fact is where apologists for one side or the other go off the rails.

Palestinians terror? I guess you have no problem with the world blaming all jews for Israel’s genocide and other crimes against humanity?

Palestinian terror has a long history. That's a fact. Whether you think it a justified reaction to perceived grievances or not is opinion. See the difference?

Op here. Well if anyone has looked today, I believe this is the first time the NYT included this many personal images of what it’s like up close in Gaza. And it is horrific. It looks like the images of people from camps in WW2.

I have noticed for awhile that NYT photos have been strangely lacking. This is the NYT, they have access to some of the most compelling news imagery in the world, and yet many of their articles on Gaza show shots from a distance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of an opinion piece is to express an opinion, ideally supported with an explanation. If you'd prefer not to read opinions which differ from those you already hold, then by all means don't read them. If you're open-minded, read and reflect. You may not change your mind, or you might, but exposure to alternative perspectives is intellectually healthy; deliberately ignoring other points of view is intellectually dishonest - you don't have to agree with anyone else, but it's conducive to informed discourse to know why other people hold opinions different from your own.

What are you even talking about? Sure, healthy discourse about things like immigration, energy, and economic policies are great.

He is excusing away mass murder and starvation of a civilian population. His opinion is disgusting, vile, dehumanizing trash and shouldn't be printed in a national newspaper.

His opinion is fundamentally a lie in every way. Israel is conquering Gaza and slaughtering or removing all who live within. He thinks it's justified, so he lies about it. I don't agree that Israel should be conquering Gaza, but I'd respect the Opinion Section for sharing that view. I do not support the Opinion Editors' decision to let that trash grace the NYT's pages, though.

If you support truth, you cannot support the NYT, sadly.

An opinion is not a lie and cannot be. Facts are facts; assignment of meaning to those facts is where opinion comes in. Opining that Israel's response to Palestinian terror has been too harsh, or has been insufficiently harsh to prevent future recurrences, are opinions, not facts.

Conflating opinion with fact is where apologists for one side or the other go off the rails.

Palestinians terror? I guess you have no problem with the world blaming all jews for Israel’s genocide and other crimes against humanity?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of an opinion piece is to express an opinion, ideally supported with an explanation. If you'd prefer not to read opinions which differ from those you already hold, then by all means don't read them. If you're open-minded, read and reflect. You may not change your mind, or you might, but exposure to alternative perspectives is intellectually healthy; deliberately ignoring other points of view is intellectually dishonest - you don't have to agree with anyone else, but it's conducive to informed discourse to know why other people hold opinions different from your own.

What are you even talking about? Sure, healthy discourse about things like immigration, energy, and economic policies are great.

He is excusing away mass murder and starvation of a civilian population. His opinion is disgusting, vile, dehumanizing trash and shouldn't be printed in a national newspaper.

His opinion is fundamentally a lie in every way. Israel is conquering Gaza and slaughtering or removing all who live within. He thinks it's justified, so he lies about it. I don't agree that Israel should be conquering Gaza, but I'd respect the Opinion Section for sharing that view. I do not support the Opinion Editors' decision to let that trash grace the NYT's pages, though.

If you support truth, you cannot support the NYT, sadly.

An opinion is not a lie and cannot be. Facts are facts; assignment of meaning to those facts is where opinion comes in. Opining that Israel's response to Palestinian terror has been too harsh, or has been insufficiently harsh to prevent future recurrences, are opinions, not facts.

Conflating opinion with fact is where apologists for one side or the other go off the rails.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I already cancelled it due to its biased reporting of Biden, and its wholesale endorsement of Trump.

The NYT deserves this. It spent years hiding the truth from its readers, so now when it tries to tell a little bit of truth about a Democrat, it's Democratic readers can't handle it and quit.

If you think the NYT was endorsing Trump and not biased for Biden, you were disconnected from reality.

Read this and get back to me…
https://css.seas.upenn.edu/new-york-times-a-case-study-in-inconsistent-narrative-selection-and-framing-that-tends-to-favor-republicans/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I already cancelled it due to its biased reporting of Biden, and its wholesale endorsement of Trump.

I haven't yet but strongly considered starting with this and now with Gaza.

The problem is, I can't find what I want to replace it. I have read the NYT for SO long. But may be we all need to do it.

Try Apple News and the free 1440 newsletter.

Anonymous wrote:There's no genocide it's Islamic terrorism propaganda

Why don’t you try reading the words of the Israeli Holocaust scholar who was in the IDF and is now convinced that Israel is committing genocide.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/opinion/israel-gaza-holocaust-genocide-palestinians.html?searchResultPosition=15

I’m a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.
July 15, 2025

A month after the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, I believed there was evidence that the Israeli military had committed war crimes and potentially crimes against humanity in its counterattack on Gaza. But contrary to the cries of Israel’s fiercest critics, the evidence did not seem to me to rise to the crime of genocide.

By May 2024, the Israel Defense Forces had ordered about one million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah — the southernmost and last remaining relatively undamaged city of the Gaza Strip — to move to the beach area of the Mawasi, where there was little to no shelter. The army then proceeded to destroy much of Rafah, a feat mostly accomplished by August.

At that point it appeared no longer possible to deny that the pattern of I.D.F. operations was consistent with the statements denoting genocidal intent made by Israeli leaders in the days after the Hamas attack. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had promised that the enemy would pay a “huge price” for the attack and that the I.D.F. would turn parts of Gaza, where Hamas was operating, “into rubble,” and he called on “the residents of Gaza” to “leave now because we will operate forcefully everywhere.”

Mr. Netanyahu had urged his citizens to remember “what Amalek did to you,” a quote many interpreted as a reference to the demand in a biblical passage calling for the Israelites to “kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings” of their ancient enemy. Government and military officials said they were fighting “human animals” and, later, called for “total annihilation.” Nissim Vaturi, the deputy speaker of Parliament, said on X that Israel’s task must be “erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth.” Israel’s actions could be understood only as the implementation of the expressed intent to make the Gaza Strip uninhabitable for its Palestinian population. I believe the goal was — and remains today — to force the population to leave the Strip altogether or, considering that it has nowhere to go, to debilitate the enclave through bombings and severe deprivation of food, clean water, sanitation and medical aid to such an extent that it is impossible for Palestinians in Gaza to maintain or reconstitute their existence as a group.