I will allow time to tell. "Independent observers and journalists" are questionably trustworthy in the best of circumstances.
Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
Sure, how about operation Desert Storm for starters. There was a singular, clear, overarching operational objective: drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, disable Iraqi warfighting capability, and secure the Iraq-Kuwait and Iraq-Saudi border. To achieve this objective, coalition forces launched a combined arms simultaneous assault across all fronts with clearly-defined and identified targets, supported by surgical strikes to eliminate infrastructure critical to the Iraqi military. The only audible to my memory called, was for UK troops to mobilize fifteen hours earlier than planned, in hopes they would be able to encircle Iraqi forces in Kuwait and force a surrender before they could retreat.
And when those objectives had been met, the military stood down and a ceasefire was negotiated. The action -- at least from the UN coalition's perspective -- was a complete success, with minimal collateral damage and casualties. As opposed to, say, what happened in Iraq twelve years later.
That is a decent example, though I think you'd have to admit is more exception than rule for war. Even that situation was spurred by Iraq invading and annexing Kuwait by force without any obvious plans for what they were doing or how they would minimize collateral damage.
This is undoubtedly not the result of Zionist influence, which when alleged at the right time of day seems like it could be an antisemitic trope, but merely an example of another European country over-correcting against antisemitism for a mix of reasons cynical and cowardly resulting precisely in the censorship of serious scholarship that is critical of Israel. Basically on accident.
I honestly don't know enough about Frances inner politics to say. In the British case we had a lot of Brits weighting in and many other people reading British news regularly. For France that is not the case. I would guess it is less about zionists and more about islamophobia and various problems with immigrants, Frances colonial past and the recent riots that were stongly associated with muslims. But i am not really sure.
Generally many EU countries have strong positions on the matter, some in favor of the Palenstinians others in favor of Israel and the reasons are often local and individual. That is why the EU as such can't act again here.
Y'think they could all be lying or mistaken. Even as footage and survivor testimony rolls in, even as literally hundreds of well-trusted outlets report it, with people on the ground. OK.
This is a level of automatic disbelief that you don't ascribe to other forces. Like, say, Russia.
It's not automatic disbelief. It's just lack of automatic belief. I'm not inclined to take at face value any information coming out about the most politicized conflict on the planet. I would absolutely do the same thing with Russia. You're not seeing me post news about alleged Russian torture camps in Ukraine, are you? It doesn't matter if I oppose Russia or not, I don't know if that's real, and I recognize the strategic value in that information spreading regardless of its accuracy and approach it with appropriate caution.
You may contrast my approach to a particular user who posts constantly about the issues of nations he opposes, but the moment someone makes a thread about Chinese hacking attempts, he declares it US military propaganda that isn't worth considering. That's automatic belief and disbelief.
Belief is not 'automatic' if it comes from countless credible and reliable sources, includes footage and survivor testimony, corroborated and open source information.
This is just war crime denial dressed up as scepticism.
I don't believe there is such a thing as a reliable source in war. Anyone with access to meaningful information also has the opportunity and incentive to manipulate it.
Sure thing. Every respected outlet and observer across the globe could all be coordinated in lying about it. Far more likely.
"My eyes tell me I'm on fire, my skin tells me I'm on fire, everyone around me is saying that I'm on fire, but I'll let time tell."
Israel-Gaza war: UK and Germany call for ‘sustainable’ ceasefire
UK foreign minister David Cameron and German counterpart Annalena Baerbock say goal must be peace lasting ‘generations’
www.theguardian.com
So, the IDF has admitted it gunned down three Israeli hostages by mistake. They've also given quite a detailed account of how it happened: the three hostages were bare-chested, one of them waving a makeshift white flag. One IDF member shouted "terrorists", and then he and the rest gunned them down.
Two died at the scene. The third fled into a building. The IDF commander for the unit arrived, ordered the unit into the building. The surviving hostage pleaded for his life in Hebrew. And they gunned him down as well.
So. How exactly can anyone continue with the pretence that Israel is actually avoiding civilian casualties, after they've had no choice but to admit this? It wasn't one guy. There was no indication of a threat from the three. Pleas were actively ignored. The commander came and just continued the action. They shoot first, civilian or not.
We're expected to believe it was a one-off divergence from standard operating procedure that also happens to be the one publicised time they killed the wrong side. It is preposterous to believe they aren't doing this all the time and the fuck up here is just who they did it to.Israel-Gaza war: UK and Germany call for ‘sustainable’ ceasefire
UK foreign minister David Cameron and German counterpart Annalena Baerbock say goal must be peace lasting ‘generations’
So, the IDF has admitted it gunned down three Israeli hostages by mistake. They've also given quite a detailed account of how it happened: the three hostages were bare-chested, one of them waving a makeshift white flag. One IDF member shouted "terrorists", and then he and the rest gunned them down.
Two died at the scene. The third fled into a building. The IDF commander for the unit arrived, ordered the unit into the building. The surviving hostage pleaded for his life in Hebrew. And they gunned him down as well.
So. How exactly can anyone continue with the pretence that Israel is actually avoiding civilian casualties, after they've had no choice but to admit this? It wasn't one guy. There was no indication of a threat from the three. Pleas were actively ignored. The commander came and just continued the action. They shoot first, civilian or not.
They surely aren't coordinated, there are many conflicting accounts being reported on most of these events.