Did someone say “by design?”
- 49 Posts
- 93 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 30th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
I’m not going to continue this with you. How absolutely absurd that you’re attempting to discredit this article due to something that happened nearly a century ago. Mbfc’s analysis of nyt now strikingly doesn’t include your aforementioned concern, perhaps your should update them with this insight and see if it moves their needle? :)
You quoted the article saying Hamas blurs the lines between civilians and combatants, and used that to compare the allies in WW2 to Hamas. You make no mention of this only involving guerilla warfare in such a narrow way, and you did not restrict your comparison to that alone in your comment. The quote (and article) clearly encompasses a wider view of the tactics in that sense, and in my opinion is not doing any justice to the comparison you’re making now.
Thank you for your concern with my reading comprehension, but based on your words, I feel my response is appropriate. Now that you have clarified your position, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not attempting to characterize the allies were fighting like Hamas as the article further elaborates, but in a much more narrow, less obvious and in my opinion less meaningful sense since I haven’t read any article criticizing Hamas simply of employing guerilla warfare in the way you’re using it, but in that this is a deliberate use of human shielding and prolonging of Palestinian suffering, as I’ve cited.
This is completely unfounded with regards to the reporting (not editorializing). You provide absolutely no evidence to support this biased opinion.
This is verging on conspiratorial misinformation, and an attempt to baselessly discredit the posted article.
The posted article is not an editorial, so I don’t understand the relevance.
Weird… I don’t share that opinion at all. And I’m not sure how this is constructive discussion.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/
Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on wording and story selection that moderately favors the left. They are considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks were on Op-Eds and not straight news reporting. (5/18/2016) Update (M. Huitsing 04/19/2022)
How insightful… I can vividly remember the allies releasing statements saying how they wanted to kill an entire group of people based solely on ethnoreligious identity…
Hamas showed off most of these approaches in an extensive eight-minute video released on its social media channels in early April.
The video appears to show fighters carrying out a multistage ambush that is said to take place in Khan Younis, in southern Gaza.
The video seems to show Hamas fighters, their faces blurred, sitting on patterned mats as they plan the attack. They use pen, paper and a digital tablet to draw simplistic maps detailing where they want to plant a set of roadside mines.
“We ask, O Lord, for the ambush to achieve its goals — let us kill your enemies, the Jews,” the narrator says.
Almost like employing guerilla warfare doesn’t simply equate Hamas to those fighting Nazis. I see many more differences between the two and their tactics. This comparison is unfounded.
Additionally, I don’t recall anyone claiming the allies used human shields during their guerilla warfare tactics…
https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/hybrid-threats-hamas-use-of-human-shields-in-gaza/87
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.” Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.
The strategic logic of human shields has two components. It is based on an awareness of Israel’s desire to minimise collateral damage, and of Western public opinion’s sensitivity towards civilian casualties. If the IDF uses lethal force and causes an increase in civilian casualties, Hamas can utilise that as a lawfare tool: it can accuse Israel of committing war crimes, which could result in the imposition of a wide array of sanctions. Alternatively, if the IDF limits its use of military force in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less susceptible to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while continuing to fight. Moreover, despite the Israeli public’s high level of support for the Israeli political and military leadership during operations, civilian casualties are one of the friction points between Israeli left-wing and right-wing supporters, with the former questioning the outcomes of the operation.
Funny enough your comparison falls flat on it’s head when confronted with:
https://www.justsecurity.org/27005/human-shields-weapon-strong/
During World War II, the Allies bombed Nazi trains carrying ammunition even though they were aware that civilian prisoners were being used to shield the trains from aerial attacks. Indeed, immediately following the war, at the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, German armed forces were accused of human shielding. In Vietnam, the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians spurred international legal debates (on the eve of the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions) about the status of civilian populations in wartime and their use as shields. And, in the 1990s, Saddam Hussein’s and Slobodan Milosevic’s use of human shields garnered considerable media attention.
There isn’t a legitimate way to equate the two, and history demonstrates the differences. You present one paragraph from the article depicting how Hamas blurs the line between combatant and civilian, and offer absolutely no evidence suggesting in the slightest that your comparisons hold any weight. I’m somehow obligated to provide sources for my claims, yet you’re not. This is not the kind of discussion I think is worthwhile in this sub, and lazy at that.
Edit: here’s a novel thought… Instead of down voting factual information, perhaps someone can do the above user’s homework and get them some sources. If I were a mod, I would view this as misinformation attempting to equate Hamas and the allies in WW2 (I’m not spending all the time to disprove every other comparison when this user is not required to back up their statements in any form). I recommend the mods discuss whether this is the kind of commentary they want in their sub, and how it may unfairly impact users who go through the work of sourcing their claims.
22·2 days agoMinimum wage has seen positive movement in 2024, granted not everywhere. And a federal would definitely help.
On January 1, 22 states will increase their minimum wages, raising pay for an estimated 9.9 million workers. In total, workers will receive $6.95 billion in additional wages from state minimum wage increases. In addition, 38 cities and counties will increase their minimum wages on January 1 above their state’s wage floors, adding to the number of workers likely to see increased earnings. In the absence of federal action, states and localities continue to take the lead in advancing fairer wage floors via legislation, ballot measures, and automatic inflation adjustments.
The source reporting on the study should lend itself to the veracity of the information. I think there’s a bit of shooting the messenger going on. I trust Reuters as a reliable source of information, and if the study were lacking I feel it would be noted. The study was published in May, so I would hope if there were holes in the report they would have surfaced by now.
This post was recently removed, citing misinformation regarding acceptance of cease fire deals between Israel and Hamas. I had sufficiently provided proof of my statements in the comments, but here is the resolution itself stating Israel had accepted in section 1. I request my comment be restored.
Including the resolution text:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2735
The Security Council,
Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Recalling all its relevant resolutions on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question,
Underscoring the importance of the ongoing diplomatic efforts by Egypt, Qatar, and the United States aimed at reaching a comprehensive ceasefire deal, consisting of three phases,
- Welcomes the new ceasefire proposal announced on May 31, which Israel accepted, calls upon Hamas to also accept it, and urges both parties to fully implement its terms without delay and without condition;
- Notes that the implementation of this proposal would enable the following outcomes to spread over three phases:
(a) Phase 1: an immediate, full, and complete ceasefire with the release of hostages including women, the elderly and the wounded, the return of the remains of some hostages who have been killed, the exchange of Palestinian prisoners, withdrawal of Israeli forces from the populated areas in Gaza, the return of Palestinian civilians to their homes and neighborhoods in all areas of Gaza, including in the north, as well as the safe and effective distribution of humanitarian assistance at scale throughout the Gaza Strip to all Palestinian civilians who need it, including housing units delivered by the international community;
(b) Phase 2: upon agreement of the parties, a permanent end to hostilities, in exchange for the release of all other hostages still in Gaza, and a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; and
© Phase 3: the start of a major multi-year reconstruction plan for Gaza and the return of the remains of any deceased hostages still in Gaza to their families;
- Underlines that the proposal says if the negotiations take longer than six weeks for phase one, the ceasefire will still continue as long as negotiations continue, and welcomes the readiness of the United States, Egypt, and Qatar to work to ensure negotiations keep going until all the agreements are reached and phase two is able to begin;
- Stresses the importance of the parties adhering to the terms of this proposal once agreed and calls upon all Member States and the United Nations to support its implementation;
- Rejects any attempt at demographic or territorial change in the Gaza Strip, including any actions that reduce the territory of Gaza;
- Reiterates its unwavering commitment to the vision of the two-State solution where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders, consistent with international law and relevant UN resolutions, and in this regard stresses the importance of unifying the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority;
- Decides to remain seized of the matter.
So would you rather respond to that article or the posted one? Because the article you’re citing was written with a humorous bent, which I thought would bring some levity. But instead I see it’s taken seriously, so I suppose it was right to go down.
And it was the CNN article for those keeping score, not Yahoo.
Well, I’m sorry to hear that. I too hope this continues to unfold in the ways we’re seeing.
True, though this is considered feeding into disinflation in the article, so it may not lead to ill effects of deflation.
U.S. consumer prices fell for the first time in four years in June amid cheaper gasoline and moderating rents, firmly putting disinflation back on track and drawing the Federal Reserve another step closer to cutting interest rates in September.
If you’re in the US, congrats yourself.
There’s recent research showing that may not be the case entirely, though that’s not to say price gouging isn’t happening in places.
Corporate price gouging has not been a primary driver of U.S. inflation, according to research published on Monday by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
While markups for motor vehicles and petroleum products did rise sharply during the 2021-2022 inflation surge, markups across the entire spectrum of U.S. goods and services have been relatively flat during the post-pandemic recovery, the bank’s latest Economic Letter showed.
“As such, rising markups have not been a main driver of the recent surge and subsequent decline in inflation during the current recovery,” wrote the bank’s research chief Sylvain Leduc and colleagues Huiyu Li and Zheng Liu.
Yes, that’s progress.
Consumer price index falls 0.1% in June
CPI increases 3.0% year-on-year
Core CPI gains 0.1%; rises 3.3% year-on-year
Weekly jobless claims fall 17,000 to 222,000
Continuing claims decline 4,000 to 1.852 million
I can say for myself, I’m certainly not apathetic towards progress.
I read your quote, along with the entire article, which is the subject of discussion. Choose a better quote next time, one that maybe expresses what you’re trying to say. What you failed to do was specify what you meant by how they’re fighting, and after reading the article (which I trust you also did) and the quote (introductory paragraph of the article) you chose to back up what you meant, I would find little reason to think that you’re referencing any other form of warfare than what is described in the article.
Goodbye, I refuse to speak to you anymore.