No, it doesn’t. A whole bunch of journalists with cameras were killed in this attack. Even if we take the Israeli army’s claim at face value and assume they really were targeting a Hamas camera, and also ignore whether or not that makes reasonable grounds for bombing a hospital, it only means that Reuters has a journalist in the same place just like several other news outlets did
claim at face value and assume they really were targeting a Hamas camera, and also ignore whether or not that makes reasonable grounds for bombing a hospital
“Even if we take Adolf Hitler’s claim at face value and assume they really were ridding Germany of criminals, and also ignore whether or not that makes reasonable grounds for gassing millions”
Why would we take that at face value?! This is the important claim!
So what if it “only” means that Reuters has a journalist camera in the same place and it was some other reputable news outlet that they’re calling Hamas?
No, not even a person. Israel said it was a camera that had been placed there, nobody was holding it.
Their argument is that they were justified in killing 20 people and bombing a hospital to destroy a singular camera. I’m sure they changed their story as they discovered that the press knew the names of the people killed so they couldn’t just use the first people they pretended to have hit (they released names and photos of 6 people they say were the target and said they were Hamas, just that these people who were indeed killed didn’t get killed anywhere near the hospital).
Fair enough. Although they won’t see my reply, in the context of their comment, my argument is that although I think accurate reporting matters, it is essentially moot whether it was actually one camera or 15 journalists physically present. Both are unjustifiable and serve to distract from the actually important part that is bombing a hospital without even so much as a “Hamas tunnels” excuse, which the UN claims is a protected civilian object under international law and probably is a war crime.
Yeah, I think that is the extraordinary part. They’re not even saying that they were bombing the hospital to kill terrorists or take out a base, but to take out a single camera that could “track army movement”. Israel is clearly not even trying to keep the facade up.
Also wonder how many other cases there have been of Israel bombing two places and saying that people dead from one place justified the other when international press wasn’t around. Seemed practiced.
Bad take. Why do you think Israel has earned even a shred of the benefit of the doubt that “Hamas” was the real target, and not journalists or just the hospital in general?
I don’t. It’m talking about how Reuters’ headline does not say what the post says it does and saying that even if we gave Israel the benefit of the doubt in order to make the most likely situation for the Reuters headline to say what the post says it does, it still doesn’t say that
No, it doesn’t. A whole bunch of journalists with cameras were killed in this attack. Even if we take the Israeli army’s claim at face value and assume they really were targeting a Hamas camera, and also ignore whether or not that makes reasonable grounds for bombing a hospital, it only means that Reuters has a journalist in the same place just like several other news outlets did
Why would we take that at face value?! This is the important claim!
So what if it “only” means that Reuters has a
journalistcamera in the same place and it was some other reputable news outlet that they’re calling Hamas?No, not even a person. Israel said it was a camera that had been placed there, nobody was holding it.
Their argument is that they were justified in killing 20 people and bombing a hospital to destroy a singular camera. I’m sure they changed their story as they discovered that the press knew the names of the people killed so they couldn’t just use the first people they pretended to have hit (they released names and photos of 6 people they say were the target and said they were Hamas, just that these people who were indeed killed didn’t get killed anywhere near the hospital).
Fair enough. Although they won’t see my reply, in the context of their comment, my argument is that although I think accurate reporting matters, it is essentially moot whether it was actually one camera or 15 journalists physically present. Both are unjustifiable and serve to distract from the actually important part that
is bombing a hospital without even so much as a “Hamas tunnels” excuse, which the UN claims is a protected civilian object under international law and probably is a war crime.
Yeah, I think that is the extraordinary part. They’re not even saying that they were bombing the hospital to kill terrorists or take out a base, but to take out a single camera that could “track army movement”. Israel is clearly not even trying to keep the facade up.
Also wonder how many other cases there have been of Israel bombing two places and saying that people dead from one place justified the other when international press wasn’t around. Seemed practiced.
Wow go fuck yourself you sniveling genocide apologist. This is the kindest thing I can say to you without breaking site rules.
Bad take. Why do you think Israel has earned even a shred of the benefit of the doubt that “Hamas” was the real target, and not journalists or just the hospital in general?
I don’t. It’m talking about how Reuters’ headline does not say what the post says it does and saying that even if we gave Israel the benefit of the doubt in order to make the most likely situation for the Reuters headline to say what the post says it does, it still doesn’t say that
deleted by creator