Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strongpoint]

I don’t think people are just accepting it though.

I have already seen Trudeau and Erdogan condemning the Israeli strike as if it is a proven fact.

Edit: https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1714378735854448811

For me, it is enough evidence to reasonably assume that it was a misfired rocket. I'll need a serious proof to change my mind

[martinuzz]

Israel now officially denies having bombed the hospital.
They say the hospital was hit at the same time when Hamas fired a huge missile barrage, and they blame a misfired rocket from Hamas for hitting the hospital.

Meanwhile, Russia and the UAE have asked for an emergency session of the UN security council. They blame Israel for hitting the hospital.

[hector13]

@MaxSpin: I was providing context for my view, but I’m distracted by things happening in my immediate surroundings so it was, and is, proving difficult to recall what it is I wanted to say and how much of it I’d already said. Same shit happens when I play mafia :|

Oh, no, I think I understood what you meant, I'm just saying, yeah, I get that Israel has done some shit and it's not unreasonable to expect them to continue. Just trying to clearly establish that my own view, which I could summarize as that their relative shittiness is overstated, also takes place in the same context. I doubt there's ultimately much distance between any of our positions here.

I meant to reply to this but go distracted. I don’t think you support Israel, you just asked a interesting and reasonable question that required a clarification between what I consider to be Israel’s unreasonable/excessive response to terrorists versus what appears to be Ukraine’s more measured response to what basically also amounts to terrorism, while trying to juggle a couple of other things at the same time and letting my frustration at being unable to juggle everything bleed through a bit.

You usually have a more nuanced view than you let on, whether that’s your fault or the person reading it, so I try not to make judgements of your position until you explicitly take one.

I don’t think people are just accepting it though.

I have already seen Trudeau and Erdogan condemning the Israeli strike as if it is a proven fact.

Edit: https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1714378735854448811

For me, it is enough evidence to reasonably assume that it was a misfired rocket. I'll need a serious proof to change my mind

Trudeau and Erdogan aren’t “everybody”, and regardless may have a better idea of what is going on, being national leaders getting briefed on the regular.

I don’t know about Erdogan, but Trudeau has his own issues to deal with, what with recent scandals and either wants to distract from that or otherwise get ahead of criticism for “being too slow to criticize” something.

There are peope on the ground trying to confirm what’s going on, but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable conclusion to draw that the country dropping bombs on Gaza is possibly at fault for this, just as it’s not unreasonable to conclude that the terrorist organization in charge of Gaza might be performing false flag operations, I just consider the latter to be less likely than the former.

[martinuzz]

I consider the latter to be more likely than the former.
If anything, West Bank is rioting over it now, exactly how Hamas would like to see it.

[Maximum Spin]

I meant to reply to this but go distracted. I don’t think you support Israel, you just asked a interesting and reasonable question that required a clarification between what I consider to be Israel’s unreasonable/excessive response to terrorists versus what appears to be Ukraine’s more measured response to what basically also amounts to terrorism, while trying to juggle a couple of other things at the same time and letting my frustration at being unable to juggle everything bleed through a bit.

You usually have a more nuanced view than you let on, whether that’s your fault or the person reading it, so I try not to make judgements of your position until you explicitly take one.

I feel like I may have come off as too accusatory. I didn't mean that I thought you thought I supported Israel, although I did figure you might be unsure. I didn't mean, either, to give the impression that I thought there was anything wrong with what you said... I just wanted to be clear that I'm really focusing just on the issue of "caring where their bombs fall" and not other faults.

Honestly, at least by this point, I'm starting to lose track of the conversation too, so... I dunno, if I seemed overly strident about something, it was probably unintentional.

[hector13]

Nah it’s cool. I have a tendency to overexplain things, as I’m sure you noticed.

[Strongpoint]

There are peope on the ground trying to confirm what’s going on, but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable conclusion to draw that the country dropping bombs on Gaza is possibly at fault for this, just as it’s not unreasonable to conclude that the terrorist organization in charge of Gaza might be performing false flag operations, I just consider the latter to be less likely than the former.

Well, I prefer official statements of actual countries to claims of known terrorist organizations. If in the early 2000s Al Qaeda said one thing and the US government said another, few in the West would believe Al Qaeda. But 2020s are way crazier

And my problem is not that people assume that it might have been an Israeli bomb, it is plausible. My problem is that it is treated as a fact by far too many "reputable" entities, up to the heads of the state of NATO countries.

We now have more than statements and claims. We have videos that strongly indicate that it was a misfire of a Palestinian rocket. A weapon designed to kill random civilians killed random civilians. (Luckily I think it is far less than the claimed 500.)

I still expect that the version of the Israeli airstrike will be far more popular across the world.

[Strongpoint]

https://twitter.com/qudsn/status/1714521896723636575

"Destroyed hospital with 500 dead."

Yeah, these lies would be laughable if people didn't believe them

[Duuvian]

The Voice referendum, as tabled, was an incredibly misbegotten terrible idea that would do nothing to support indigenous communities (which is why many opposed it). It didn't really have much of a chance.

Well, I actually just went to look and it appeared to be this only:

    Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

    129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

    In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

        There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
        The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
        The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

That's the misbegotten terrible idea: there's absolutely no plan. The government asked the people to authorize some hypothetical future arrangement TBD. This is exactly the problem indigenous communities had with it: they don't, quite reasonably in my opinion, trust the government to actually constitute this body which has no binding limitations whatsoever in a way to actually represent their interests, and not, say... form a panel of pale-looking bureaucrats to brownwash the government's already-planned agenda through a mirage of support from "aboriginal voices", like they already do with white academics trading on a supposed indigenous great-grandmother.

It's almost a mocking affront to the whole concept of a referendum. "Do you agree with the statement that we should have at least one law?" - and if voters choose yes, the government decides for itself what law to implement.

The entire rest of your post is totally irrelevant to this. Yes, some people said crazy things, like happens every time any law with any media coverage passes anywhere. You have zero evidence that any of this actually affected a single vote. (Although that one near the end was especially funny to me... "she didn't say that voters were racist and stupid, just that they have opinions based in racism and stupidity! Totally different!")

ETA: I mean... think of it like this. If the proposal did not include the name, and just said that there shall be a body that may make representations to Parliament, to be constituted by the Parliament... would you support this? It's like an exploratory committee to consider the formation of further committees. There's no indication whatsoever that it has any purpose. Supporters are just getting duped by the name, which implies a purpose... but has no legal meaning. Anything that has an actual practical effect is just TBD. Why would anyone vote for that?

That kind of body has been common in the internet regulation bills at least, which are the most recent bills I've been paying attention to. They are to be formed after the bill is law, and then further set policy. That's even more than advising. This leads me to believe it's extremely common. As to to indiginous support, I had read of an organization that were in opposition due to the lack of sweeping change, but even incremental steps are positive and possibly necessary in an environment of big money politics, such as buying botfarms, so I think they were wrong to reject the first offer as getting the second will now be much, much longer if ever. Also the article I read months ago suggested most of the organizations were in support.

The idea that what I said has no impact only rings true if absolutely nothing whatsoever can move the average voter. That's ridiculous. The average voter is extremely vulnerable to being bombarded by absolute nonsense. If they weren't, people wouldn't pay for bots or organize trolling rings to harass internet communities.

EDIT: As to the hospital bombing, I'm waiting to see the evidence. I will say that the leadership of Israel does not have a good track record here. They will want to provide access to the evidence to concerned countries and entities. To the US I'd advise honesty. If it was Israeli then it may be a good idea for the individual operators (or a commander who ordered it if that is so) to be charged with a crime if it was not an equiptment failure of the explicable nature. This is because emotions are extreme right now, and if it was Israeli (waiting on the evidence) then such penalties may be a way to help curb merely theoretical self-destructive to foreign policy loose cannons.

[Maximum Spin]

That kind of body has been common in the internet regulation bills at least, which are the most recent bills I've been paying attention to. They are to be formed after the bill is law, and then further set policy. That's even more than advising. This leads me to believe it's extremely common. As to to indiginous support, I had read of an organization that were in opposition due to the lack of sweeping change, but even incremental steps are positive and possibly necessary in an environment of big money politics, such as buying botfarms, so I think they were wrong to reject the first offer as getting the second will now be much, much longer if ever. Also the article I read months ago suggested most of the organizations were in support.

Okay but you get that this is a problem, right? If the enabling law is just "give power to a committee TBD", that's fundamentally undemocratic. Doubly so as a referendum, since that amounts to the government asking the voters for a blank check. It's an incredibly stupid idea which people are duped into supporting by a combination of misinformation (eg, being told 'this committee would do X' when the committee has no actual mandate to do X) and ignorance.
Like I said, this is not a positive incremental step, it's a negative step in a sundress. It actively lets the government ignore the needs of actual indigenous communities by giving the imprimatur of "indigenous voices" to whatever the committee says. This is already a problem in Australian politics and this referendum only makes it worse.

The idea that what I said has no impact only rings true if absolutely nothing whatsoever can move the average voter. That's ridiculous. The average voter is extremely vulnerable to being bombarded by absolute nonsense. If they weren't, people wouldn't pay for bots or organize trolling rings to harass internet communities.

It's not about whether voters are vulnerable to it - although do you have any actual proof of this statement? - but that mistaken or misinformed criticisms don't detract from the reality of the actual important valid criticism.

[martinuzz]

President Biden has said in a press conference with Netanyahu that 'it looks like the explosion at Al-Ahli Arabi hospital was caused by the other team, and not by you'.
With this he supports Israel's claim that the hospital was not struck by an Israeli missile, but by a stray rocket fired from Gaza itself.

In the same press conference, Biden made the remark that 'Hamas has commited acts of terror that make Isis look more rational than them'.
He added that we must keep in mind that Hamas does not represent all Palestinians, and that they have caused them nothing but suffering.

I wonder if all the pro-Palestinian protestors that were protesting at Israeli embassies all over the world last evening will go protest against Hamas as well, if it turns out to be true that they bombed the hospital.

[dragdeler]

Didn't the defence minister self congratulate before deleting the tweet?  idk I'm not active on twitter

[Strongpoint]

I wonder if all the pro-Palestinian protestors that were protesting at Israeli embassies all over the world last evening will go protest against Hamas as well, if it turns out to be true that they bombed the hospital.

I wonder if any of "reputable" media and NGOs will apologize for the misinformation or at least stop treating HAMAS as a reliable source.

[Frumple]

Eh... the big problem they have is that Israel/the IDF isn't a reliable source, either, and both major parties to this conflict have a history of, well, murdering reporters in Gaza.

The way major media's handling things is as dogshit as ever, but for what little it's worth they're pretty firmly up the proverbial shit creek when it comes to information reliability right now. Chances of them actually trying to act responsibly or otherwise mitigate that issue is probably somewhere in the negatives, unfortunately

E: Like, I'd feel for the difficulties major media faces in reporting on events like what we're talking about... if they showed like any goddamn interest in engaging with those difficulties instead of throwing out sometimes literally riot inducing clickbait horseshit. But it really is an astoundingly difficult task to report on an active conflict, any active conflict, even when one or both sides don't have a long and storied history of deception, with any degree of reliability or accuracy. There's staggeringly few things as confusing or difficult to report on even with the best of effort and faith (nevermind major news reporting's complete lack of those, bah).

[Maximum Spin]

I wonder if any of "reputable" media and NGOs will apologize for the misinformation or at least stop treating HAMAS as a reliable source.

As I see it, the core problem is that Qatar's actual state-run propaganda outlet somehow got a reputation for being a serious major news source which western sources (even the BBC) reprint without checking, on the excuse that "they're only propaganda when it's about Qatar"... as if the Qatari government somehow never developed the technology of having opinions on foreign affairs. I think this came about because, about 20 years ago, they were saying the things people wanted to hear about the evil American empire, and nobody back then was worried about the fact that they were doing it purely out of a desire to actively carry water for Iran and, by extension, Russia.