U.S. military aircraft airdrop thousands of meals into Gaza in emergency humanitarian aid operation
U.S. military aircraft airdrop thousands of meals into Gaza in emergency humanitarian aid operation
Three planes from Air Forces Central dropped 66 bundles containing about 38,000 meals into Gaza on Saturday.
"Three U.S. C-130 cargo planes dropped 66 total bundles, equating to about 38,000 pork-free meals, into the territory on Saturday morning. The bundles were split between three planes, the official said."
"The airdrop is expected to be the first of many announced by President Joe Biden on Friday. The aid will be coordinated with Jordan, which has also conducted airdrops to deliver food to Gaza."
You're viewing a single thread.
Israel says many of the dead were trampled in a chaotic crush for food aid, and its troops fired warning shots after the crowd moved toward them in a threatening way.
So we are totally uncritically accepting their narrative now, got it.
So we are totally uncritically accepting their narrative now, got it.
I dont know if you are following the current NYT drama or not but this article and its underpinnings have been forming up since the 7th.
Basically several NYT and BBC (bbc not covered in the above) stories and articles have been show to be basically plants.
Then there is the shockingly uncritical way that the US government took the Israeli report on UNRRA, that upon any inspection, has 0 evidence attached to it.
Its a total shit show. If it wasn't actual fascism on the line at the ballot box this November, I wouldn't be voting for Joe Biden, and even then, he makes it harder to stomach every week.
I live in a red state. Republicans have made me actually worry about my children's future in more ways than one. I will be lining up to vote for Democrats for the foreseeable future unless there's a truly radical candidate running D (maybe RFK Jr if he ever runs).
I hate that my choice is to vote against my children or not. I wish both parties were rational. Instead the real election is the primaries. And this year there basically wasn't one.
There are a lot more positions to vote on than the POTUS.
The more support the president has in the other branches, the more they all can do, and the
futurefewer consessions.The fact of the matter is, the Dems need majorities in both houses, and enough margin that a couple DINOs can't fuck everything up.
100% We need a majority of liberals. Or a couple of untimely deaths in the Supreme Court when Dems have the Senate.
You have to protect yourself before you can help others.
Please no RFK Jr. He may be a "radical" option in that he's literally insane, but he's a horrible option.
That's what I meant when I said there's few Dems I might not vote for. He's one of them.
I don't like how the news gives so much credence to what they say. But at least they'll usually qualify it with "Israel says" or "IDF says" so we know it's bullshit.
Edit: Oh and anything ADL. Although that one is less obviously BS for those that don't know who they are.
How is quoting someone/thing "uncritically accepting their narrative"? They're telling you what Israel said. It's up to you to believe it or not, but it's journalistic malpractice to just not report the alleged justification from one of the parties involved. What are you asking for, exactly?
Because it doesn't include the other widely reported quotes about 80% of victims being injured by gunfire not crush injuries.
Selection and omission of quotes is absolutely a form of bias.
If it isn't evidenced it's not a fact. If it's not a fact you're editorialising.
There are sometimes reasons not to evidence a statement. But a disputed statement is not something which should get included in a news article.
I mean, I'm with you that omitting context on this developing situation is inappropriate, but that's not what we were discussing. You're right, the statement is disputed, but it is a fact that it is the statement they have made. Journalists have a responsibility to report the facts to you, and that's what we currently have from one of the major parties involved. And your last take regarding disputed statements not being covered just makes no sense. Literally all political coverage would be unethical under that framework. I have a right to know the batshit insane things powerful people are saying and it's up to me to draw my own conclusions from the facts and perspectives provided.
I’m not. But that’s just gonna divorce me even more fully from the current American zeitgeist and ensure I’ll be even more completely isolated.