Jump to content

Hamas attacking Israel


Sabrefan1

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Chicken. said:

 

Found this interesting too;

image.thumb.png.3c99228a0ce188fae0efadae413c8842.png

 

Interesting how some “not so news worthy” sites try to make this appear like something totally different. It’s sad how some in the free world are so easily duped by propaganda. 
 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Interesting how some “not so news worthy” sites try to make this appear like something totally different. It’s sad how some in the free world are so easily duped by propaganda. 
 

Yeah i read the original story. Not sure how i feel about it. On one hand I understand the dangers that Israeli players would be in at the event and the issues protecting them would cause, on the other hand i hate that they are being lumped into the same group as Russia and Belarus when they should not be.

  • Like 1
  • Vintage 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Yoshiyoshi said:

Yeah i read the original story. Not sure how i feel about it. On one hand I understand the dangers that Israeli players would be in at the event and the issues protecting them would cause, on the other hand i hate that they are being lumped into the same group as Russia and Belarus when they should not be.

We only need to remember 1972. Terrorists, like Hamas and those who support them, have no limits to the terrible things they will do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Optimist Prime said:

My point was and is: Even your 'very good source for unbiased reporting' (identical to our CBC, your ABC) is just a programming director, producer and news anchor deciding what is going on the air and what angle of that news item you see. There is no oversight tribunal by any stretch..there are really no standards they must adhere to. News is a product that is sold, just like any other capitalist venture. There is no news that isn't biased. The varying degree of bias involved may be worse or better, and some news hits an individual exactly in that individuals 'lane' or from the same perspective, which then we say is "unbiased" because we agree with it. 

That is all. Carry on. the CBC is great, so is the ABC, but they are still biased to the perspectives of the people running them. See Fox and CNN. 

Anywho, just speaking in broad strokes: even the best news agencies have bias in them. Cheers.

 

I beg to differ.

 

For starters the ABC is taxpayer funded.

They don't have any advertisers to answer to.

Ergo they don't sell anything.

It's actually against their charter.

 

While SBS is only partially taxpayer funded, both these organisations are cited as airing balanced and impartial reporting. 

 

I am more cynical than the next man however I trust these sources of news. 

 

My " lane " is the truth.

At my age I have learnt how to decipher the truth, as I have already explained.

 

Both are classed as High for factual reporting, with the ABC being an actual fact checker.

 

They are the 2 most trusted sources of news in this country.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/abc-news-australia/

 

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/special-broadcasting-service-sbs/

 

This article gives a breakdown of figures in regards to news sources that are trusted and by whom in Australia.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jun/14/most-australians-recognise-abc-and-sbs-as-important-to-society

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Interesting how some “not so news worthy” sites try to make this appear like something totally different. It’s sad how some in the free world are so easily duped by propaganda. 
 

 

The ability to think critically.

 

https://rebeccarijsdijk.medium.com/nurturing-the-art-of-critical-thinking-48978320292b

 

Lots a great points in that article, one that pertains to this forum

 

" Respectful discussions with individuals holding diverse viewpoints sharpen our ability to articulate our thoughts, defend our positions with evidence and consider alternative perspectives with openness. These intellectual exchanges foster growth and understanding. "

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

 

I beg to differ.

 

For starters the ABC is taxpayer funded.

They don't have any advertisers to answer to.

Ergo they don't sell anything.

It's actually against their charter.

 

While SBS is only partially taxpayer funded, both these organisations are cited as airing balanced and impartial reporting. 

 

I am more cynical than the next man however I trust these sources of news. 

 

My " lane " is the truth.

At my age I have learnt how to decipher the truth, as I have already explained.

 

Both are classed as High for factual reporting, with the ABC being an actual fact checker.

 

They are the 2 most trusted sources of news in this country.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/abc-news-australia/

 

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/special-broadcasting-service-sbs/

 

This article gives a breakdown of figures in regards to news sources that are trusted and by whom in Australia.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jun/14/most-australians-recognise-abc-and-sbs-as-important-to-society

 

 

 

 

I think you are not catching my drift, it's all good . Every media source is inherently biased, even if just a Lil tich, that sall. I believe the CBC is as good as your ABC, I just know even the very best of them have some inherent bias, even if that bias is to aim directly at the average viewer.

I am not that invested to the idea though, let's say for posterity you are correct. Have a good night.

  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

I think you are not catching my drift, it's all good . Every media source is inherently biased, even if just a Lil tich, that sall. I believe the CBC is as good as your ABC, I just know even the very best of them have some inherent bias, even if that bias is to aim directly at the average viewer.

I am not that invested to the idea though, let's say for posterity you are correct. Have a good night.

 

As those media fact checks state, both those news services have a slight to moderate liberal bias. 

This is in regards to the words, 

" They often publish factual information using loaded words "

 

So in essence we are both correct in our assessment.

 

The news presented is factual, however some presenters are trying to influence an audience by appeals to emotion and stereotypes.

 

I am certain that you have the ability to think critically about the information that is presented to you. 

 

I have certainly have biases, truth, justice and the golden rule, you don't want to be fucked with, don't fuck with others.  

 

That's what makes the situation in Israel/ Palestine hard for people to maintain an unbiased opinion on, both sides are fucking with each other.

 

However to me it's pretty obvious to me, a large number of Palestinians are paying the price, for the actions of a small percentage of their population. 

 

As always I hope the Prime family is happy and healthy.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ilunga said:

 

I beg to differ.

 

For starters the ABC is taxpayer funded.

They don't have any advertisers to answer to.

Ergo they don't sell anything.

It's actually against their charter.

 

While SBS is only partially taxpayer funded, both these organisations are cited as airing balanced and impartial reporting. 

 

I am more cynical than the next man however I trust these sources of news. 

 

My " lane " is the truth.

At my age I have learnt how to decipher the truth, as I have already explained.

 

Both are classed as High for factual reporting, with the ABC being an actual fact checker.

 

They are the 2 most trusted sources of news in this country.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/abc-news-australia/

 

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/special-broadcasting-service-sbs/

 

This article gives a breakdown of figures in regards to news sources that are trusted and by whom in Australia.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jun/14/most-australians-recognise-abc-and-sbs-as-important-to-society

 

 

 

 


Sorry, bud, but you don’t have monopoly on “truth”. Almost everything in this world has different points of view. You can’t claim that your view is the only “true” one.

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RomanPer said:


Sorry, bud, but you don’t have monopoly on “truth”. Almost everything in this world has different points of view. You can’t claim that your view is the only “true” one.

 

No one has perfect knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would 100% be terrorism if someone bombed a sporting event for any reason, wether Israel was commiting genocide or not.

 

But if you subscribe to the view that Israel is commiting genocide then organizers shouldn't allow Israel to play at all.

Edited by Super19
Deleted the quoted post
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Super19 said:

It would 100% be terrorism if someone bombed a sporting event for any reason, wether Israel was commiting genocide or not.

 

But if you subscribe to the view that Israel is commiting genocide then organizers shouldn't allow Israel to play at all.

 

What if only people who are against Israel in the first place hold that view? Should we still ban them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Super19 said:

It would 100% be terrorism if someone bombed a sporting event for any reason, wether Israel was commiting genocide or not.

 

But if you subscribe to the view that Israel is commiting genocide then organizers shouldn't allow Israel to play at all.

But that’s not what the IIHF is doing. We saw a post with the reasoning. Anyway, once the terrorists (Hamas) are eliminated by the IDF then Gaza will be built up. 
How long do you think it will take for the hatred programmed by Hamas into the young school aged Gaza people to be erased? IMHAO it’s at least one generation. So 20 years? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RomanPer said:


Sorry, bud, but you don’t have monopoly on “truth”. Almost everything in this world has different points of view. You can’t claim that your view is the only “true” one.

 

Where did I state I have a monopoly on truth ?

I didn't.

 

Where did I state that my view is the only " true "one 

I didn't.

 

I am simply a truth seeker.  

 

I suggest that you apply the words I quoted from the critical thinking article to me.

 

As regards to all the BS that happens between countries, I have no biases.

Why, because I consider myself one of 8 billion plus people that share this planet.

I just happen to be born and live on a continent called Australia.

 

I am the first to call out injustice in the society I live, such as invasion day, otherwise known as Australia Day, just under 2 weeks away.

Our indigenous citizens, that have been here for over 60,000 years and counting, have asked us to change the day and yet we, as a society, refuse to.

 

 

As I have stated before, nationalism is one of the biggest, causes of conflict on this planet.

 

FUCK NATIONALISM

FUCK MILITARISM 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

What if only people who are against Israel in the first place hold that view? Should we still ban them?

That's a choice people make in the present and they either end up being on the right or wrong side of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

 

Where did I state I have a monopoly on truth ?

I didn't.

 

Where did I state that my view is the only " true "one 

I didn't.

 

I am simply a truth seeker.  

 

I suggest that you apply the words I quoted from the critical thinking article to me.

 

As regards to all the BS that happens between countries, I have no biases.

Why, because I consider myself one of 8 billion plus people that share this planet.

I just happen to be born and live on a continent called Australia.

 

I am the first to call out injustice in the society I live, such as invasion day, otherwise known as Australia Day, just under 2 weeks away.

Our indigenous citizens, that have been here for over 60,000 years and counting, have asked us to change the day and yet we, as a society, refuse to.

 

 

As I have stated before, nationalism is one of the biggest, causes of conflict on this planet.

 

FUCK NATIONALISM

FUCK MILITARISM 


Just reacting to your phrase “My “lane” is the truth”. Many times truth is in the eye of a beholder.

  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Super19 said:

That's a choice people make in the present and they either end up being on the right or wrong side of history.

 

Is that important to the current conflict, guessing how future historians might view things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

 

Where did I state I have a monopoly on truth ?

I didn't.

 

Where did I state that my view is the only " true "one 

I didn't.

 

I am simply a truth seeker.  

 

I suggest that you apply the words I quoted from the critical thinking article to me.

 

As regards to all the BS that happens between countries, I have no biases.

Why, because I consider myself one of 8 billion plus people that share this planet.

I just happen to be born and live on a continent called Australia.

 

I am the first to call out injustice in the society I live, such as invasion day, otherwise known as Australia Day, just under 2 weeks away.

Our indigenous citizens, that have been here for over 60,000 years and counting, have asked us to change the day and yet we, as a society, refuse to.

 

 

As I have stated before, nationalism is one of the biggest, causes of conflict on this planet.

 

FUCK NATIONALISM

FUCK MILITARISM 

If only all people were as kind and thoughtful as you are @llunga.

But the reality is Hamas isn’t like that. 

  • Like 1
  • Huggy Bear 2
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RomanPer said:


Just reacting to your phrase “My “lane” is the truth”. Many times truth is in the eye of a beholder.

 

Words have meanings.

 

The definition of the world truth 

 

"That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. "

 

As I have always stated I love facts.

I also like to live in reality.  

 

So unless you are Kellyanne Conway and believe in alternative facts, truth is not in the eye of the beholder.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alflives said:

If only all people were as kind and thoughtful as you are @llunga.

But the reality is Hamas isn’t like that. 

 

What the events of the last 6 years of my life has taught me, has only reinforced what I already knew.

 

All you can take to the grave with you is knowing you have been true to yourself.

 

Even though the person I once loved with all my heart, has totally broken mine, has committed child abuse on our son, Parental Alienation, I refuse to hold anger in my heart.

I will continue to treat her the way I wish to be treated myself because that is being true to who I am.

 

We can't let the people who don't think like we do, take our humanity away from us.

  • Huggy Bear 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

 

Words have meanings.

 

The definition of the world truth 

 

"That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. "

 

As I have always stated I love facts.

I also like to live in reality.  

 

So unless you are Kellyanne Conway and believe in alternative facts, truth is not in the eye of the beholder.

 

 


Im definitely not her 🙂 

  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RomanPer said:


Im definitely not her 🙂 

 

I know you aren't brother. 

 

She was just the person who came up with that term, alternative facts.

 

We seem to live in a world were those type of " facts " find fertile breeding grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Is that important to the current conflict, guessing how future historians might view things?

It's important to make the decisions now, based upon truth justice morality and humanity - not based upon what future historians might say.

 

There's a quiz gaining some popularity on Twitter right now:

 

From the quizmaker: 

 

  • "Many people find the idea of comparing Zionists and Nazis not just innaccurate but downright offensive, I thought I might do a fun quiz."
  • "Read the quotes and try to guess if they are said by a prominent Zionist or a prominent Nazi. Quote with your score."

 

  • "Guys, CRUCIAL bit of context that I must re-emphasize. The point of this quiz wasn't to claim that Zionism and Nazism are 100% same.
  • Just that there are enough parallels between how the leaders of 2 movement have behaved that the comparisons should be open to discussion."
  • "Because right now, mere mention of saying what Israel is doing/saying and what Nazis did and said gets you banned, deplatformed, sued, fired, cancelled and what not.

    Should we not even DISCUSS the parallels when only 40 out of 40,000 people got all 20/20 right?"

 

 

You can find the quiz linked in the tweet below.

 

  • ThereItIs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...