Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, I wanted to find deliberately misleading headlines to demonstrate the point that partial quotes can be framed in headlines to mislead people. It's a point that we all know and I shouldn't have to demonstrate, but Liar McGee is playing dumb.
We’re not allowed to have them when we got enemies, competitors and apathetic bystanders surrounding us on all sides. Because if it’s up to the rest of the world our principles will be taken from us anyhow. That’s hardly our fault
That sort of claim has often been the beginning of a very nasty slippery slope.
EDIT: And Spain, at least, would seem to be vocally against the war, rather just not supporting it.
There is a lot more opposition than just from Spain. Even Trump best friend Meloni did not allow the US to use the airbases in Sizily for the war. And the German president Steinmeier just called it out as not just a mistake but extremely illegal and wrong even though Germany usually goes above and beyond when whitewashing Israels behavior.
But yes, Iran has few friends in Europe after helping Russia in Ukraine and violently suppressing protesters. And the Eukraine War is more important to Europeans than the Iran war due to being far closer and far larger in scale. Even in the last few weeks more people dies in the Ukraine War than in the Iran War and no end is in sight.
In the end the EU is a regional power, not a global one.
But yes, Iran has few friends in Europe after helping Russia in Ukraine and violently suppressing protesters. And the Eukraine War is more important to Europeans than the Iran war due to being far closer and far larger in scale. Even in the last few weeks more people dies in the Ukraine War than in the Iran War and no end is in sight.
In the end the EU is a regional power, not a global one.
Last edited:
I had a bout of insomnia, and so actually listened to Trump's address live, last night.
It was kind of sad. And I don't so much mean the substance, of there was nothing much there: mostly a rehash of stuff released in drips and drabs over the last few weeks, although much more emphasis was placed on Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions as justification for the attack. It was mostly sad because of how tired and inarticulate it was (transcript here).
For a start, there are the constant, overused rhetorical flourishes, already much parodied over the years ("nobody's ever seen" / "never seen before", "bigger" / "biggest", "obliterated" / "decimated", etc.). It's boring: we've heard this stuff a million times and it's just dull. It is even worse here out of volume: feeling particularly overused in this speech such that it overwhelms and trivialises what it's supposed to emphasise. And at least it could be delivered with some bombast to inject energy into it, but not even that. It's flat, lethargic, so... boring. Was Trump aiming for gravitas, or was he just a tired, old man trying to relive his glory days?
And the weird digressions (again, a trait much parodied):
I'm not sure whether Trump was aiming for gravitas, but if he was, it went badly. It critically undercuts gravitas to waste so much verbiage on vacuous hyperbole, ramblingly digress and talk like a simpleton. Or to be so petty, spiteful and trivially boastful. Or to employ logic like: "Regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders’ death." That made me think of Bart Simpson "I didn't do it, nobody saw me, can't prove anything" - not for it's logical similarity, but just as a child's confection that really is as weak and risible as it sounds.
Anyway. I swear that Trump is truly a president for the internet age, because it does such favours to him to select out snippets of his speeches for replay rather the slog through the whole, unwieldy, incoherent mess.
It was kind of sad. And I don't so much mean the substance, of there was nothing much there: mostly a rehash of stuff released in drips and drabs over the last few weeks, although much more emphasis was placed on Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions as justification for the attack. It was mostly sad because of how tired and inarticulate it was (transcript here).
For a start, there are the constant, overused rhetorical flourishes, already much parodied over the years ("nobody's ever seen" / "never seen before", "bigger" / "biggest", "obliterated" / "decimated", etc.). It's boring: we've heard this stuff a million times and it's just dull. It is even worse here out of volume: feeling particularly overused in this speech such that it overwhelms and trivialises what it's supposed to emphasise. And at least it could be delivered with some bombast to inject energy into it, but not even that. It's flat, lethargic, so... boring. Was Trump aiming for gravitas, or was he just a tired, old man trying to relive his glory days?
And the weird digressions (again, a trait much parodied):
"I did many things during my two terms in office to stop the quest for nuclear weapons by Iran. First, and perhaps most importantly, I killed General Qassem Soleimani. In my first term. He was an evil genius, brilliant person, a horrible human being, however, the father of the roadside bomb. And he lived, just horrible what he did. Iran would have been perhaps in a far better, stronger position had he lived. We would have had probably a different conversation tonight. But you know what? We’d still be winning and winning big."
By all means might Trump cite ordering the execution of Soleimani to his credit. The rest just feels like the ramblings of a slightly confused, elderly man losing the thread of his thoughts. Stick to the point!
"It’s very important that we keep this conflict in perspective. American involvement in World War I lasted one year, seven months and five days. World War II lasted for three years, eight months and 25 days. The Korean War lasted for three years, one month and two days. The Vietnam War lasted for 19 years, five months and 29 days. Iraq went on for eight years, eight months and 28 days. We are in this military operation, so powerful, so brilliant against one of the most powerful countries for 32 days."
This is clearly planned, as those numbers need memorising, but who on earth thought this section was a good idea? The comparisons are embarrassing gibberish if subjected to even superficial scrutiny, but to leave that aside it's just poor oratory. Use of repetition for emphasis can be very catchy and powerful (e.g. "We will fight them on the beaches..."), but this is too long, complex and dull. My mind was mentally sighing to itself "get to the point, man" before he even got to Vietnam, never mind having to wait through Iraq as well.
By all means might Trump cite ordering the execution of Soleimani to his credit. The rest just feels like the ramblings of a slightly confused, elderly man losing the thread of his thoughts. Stick to the point!
"It’s very important that we keep this conflict in perspective. American involvement in World War I lasted one year, seven months and five days. World War II lasted for three years, eight months and 25 days. The Korean War lasted for three years, one month and two days. The Vietnam War lasted for 19 years, five months and 29 days. Iraq went on for eight years, eight months and 28 days. We are in this military operation, so powerful, so brilliant against one of the most powerful countries for 32 days."
This is clearly planned, as those numbers need memorising, but who on earth thought this section was a good idea? The comparisons are embarrassing gibberish if subjected to even superficial scrutiny, but to leave that aside it's just poor oratory. Use of repetition for emphasis can be very catchy and powerful (e.g. "We will fight them on the beaches..."), but this is too long, complex and dull. My mind was mentally sighing to itself "get to the point, man" before he even got to Vietnam, never mind having to wait through Iraq as well.
I'm not sure whether Trump was aiming for gravitas, but if he was, it went badly. It critically undercuts gravitas to waste so much verbiage on vacuous hyperbole, ramblingly digress and talk like a simpleton. Or to be so petty, spiteful and trivially boastful. Or to employ logic like: "Regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders’ death." That made me think of Bart Simpson "I didn't do it, nobody saw me, can't prove anything" - not for it's logical similarity, but just as a child's confection that really is as weak and risible as it sounds.
Anyway. I swear that Trump is truly a president for the internet age, because it does such favours to him to select out snippets of his speeches for replay rather the slog through the whole, unwieldy, incoherent mess.
And that might have some virtue, if you could be bothered holding your own president to account for his egregious lies, bullshit, fraud, ignorance and vagueness. Or yourself, for your repeated misrepresentation and selective interpretation of other people on this forum.
As you repeatedly do not, it smacks of nothing but you indulging in self-serving, partisan horseshit.
If the president of the USA cannot take the time to express himself and the policies he inflicts on the world in a clear and coherent way, you've got no business complaining because a media outlet interprets his vague babble differently from the way you'd like.
The Guardian changed their headline:
Brent crude hits $116 a barrel as Trump threatens to ‘blow up’ Iran’s oilwells and export hub
Investors nervous over escalation of Middle East conflict as US president says he wants to ‘take the oil in Iran’
www.theguardian.com
When Silvanus was responding, it said:
"Brent Crude hits $116 a barrel after Trump says he wants to 'take the oil in Iran'.
It now says:
"Brent crude hits $116 a barrel as Trump threatens to ‘blow up’ Iran’s oilwells and export hub"
Could be. But right now we're at a point where we owe the rest of the world absolutely nothing and one could argue thinking otherwise is what got Europe in this isolation to begin with.
Both accurate.The Guardian changed their headline:
Brent crude hits $116 a barrel as Trump threatens to ‘blow up’ Iran’s oilwells and export hub
Investors nervous over escalation of Middle East conflict as US president says he wants to ‘take the oil in Iran’
When Silvanus was responding, it said:
"Brent Crude hits $116 a barrel after Trump says he wants to 'take the oil in Iran'.
It now says:
"Brent crude hits $116 a barrel as Trump threatens to ‘blow up’ Iran’s oilwells and export hub"
You'd have to ask them, but updating headlines is pretty routine when a situation is developing and we're getting rapid-fire, often contradictory statements from the same figure.
He said he'd take the oil on Sunday. It was on Monday he said instead he'd destroy all oil wells and electric plants. They took a moment to catch up with the most recent insane babble, and updated the headline in line with it.
He still said take the oil.
Silvanus speculated that control of oil could have been a motivation for Trump's attack on Iran.
Did Trump say his preference would be to take Iran's oil? Yes.
Has Trump got prior history of claiming control/ownership of another country's oil (e.g. Venezuela)? Yes.
Does the USA have an iffy wider history involving control of oil states (e.g. Iran, Venezuela, Iraq)? Yes.
QED.
And for some godforsaken reason you have spun this into some complaint that a newspaper accurately reported what the president said. Apart from being a profoundly fucking weird and pointless thing to do, it's just not addressing Silvanus's reasoning.
* * *
As to the change in headline, thanks to the Internet Wayback Machine, you can check old and new versions. The Guardian didn't just change the headline, it changed much of the article. The initial version was largely based on the FT source, as Silvanus referenced. Then later information came out (Trump social media posts, additional expert commentary) and an update to the article was published with that extra incorporated, plus a title change to reflect the new information.
Secondly, the article in its simplest essence is "Oil price rises because Trump threatens more conflict". Whether Trump was threatening conflict by seizing Iran's oil (which he did definitely do) or by blowing up its wells and refineries (which he did definitely do), in either case it threatens reduced oil supply and so increased oil price. Thus on balance, both earlier and later versions of the article are broadly fair and reasonable in saying so.
You describe the Guardian as "evil" over what is in truth your error due to your own prejudice and confirmation bias.
It's not about developing, nor is it my prejudice. News editors are J. Jonah Jameson.
Journalists don't get to decide their headlines, the editors/publishers make the headlines, and they pick the salacious option to get people's attention. In the current world, this is especially true about any topic that gets traction easily on Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook. They push out their salacious, misleading headlines to social media, get millions of clicks, which brings in the revenue that is their job. Headlines rarely come from investigators and journalists, they come from the people whose job is to make the reporting sell.
And then once the news cycle cycles, they can update headlines or stories for accuracy, cause the initial click bait rush is over.
All of this is insubstantial speculation about their motives for some pretty routine reporting of factual events.
The headline was accurate to begin with. It then changed in the midst of a developing situation, to reflect statements that came later. None of this is particularly suspicious or salacious; it prompted your ire because the President's own (moronic) words made himself look bad.
((It's also very funny to make a character argument the smoking gun here. Is that how we're to judge the actors' motives? The President's own character is one of a deceitful, thuggish mob-boss, utterly untrustworthy, insulting and brutish towards anyone with whom he interacts. But there you want to give the unfailing benefit of every doubt!)).
Last edited:
That was a dark humor joke.
That being said if Iran were smart they would target US companies that the median US citizen doesn't like. UHC, Facebook, and EA for example. However the moment they do a mass shooting that involves a death of a child, Americans would ask for a ground invasion. The Stalin quote does apply here. Yes countries have non-universal morality. Myself against my brother, our brother against our cousin, both against other families etc.
They target companies in reach. Particularly tech companies investing billions in datacenters right next to the Iran border. Because they are easy to hit, have a lot of expensive equippment in it that can't be moved fast and not all that many civillian workers. Perfect targets to inflict pain on the US wealthy elite.
How are they supposed to hit EA when EA has only locations in the Americas ?
Locations in the US right now...
Saudi Arabia's public investment fund to own almost all of EA under buyout plan, report says
Saudi Arabia's public investment fund would own 93.4% of video game giant EA under a buyout plan, according to the Wall Street Journal.
www.latimes.com