Gaza - conflict, war, land, water rights, bad colonional legacies...

[BruceVC]

31 minutes ago, Malcador said:

You find it difficult to believe Hamas would want to blame Israel immediately for a lot of civilians dying ?

No, I worded it wrong. Literally Hamas said 5 minutes after the missile "Israel did it " without doing a proper investigation and people took that as the facts

 

 

[Gfted1]

Big College Donors Close Their Checkbooks Over Israel-Hamas Responses (businessinsider.com)

Stay classy.

[Malcador]

21 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

No, I worded it wrong. Literally Hamas said 5 minutes after the missile "Israel did it " without doing a proper investigation and people took that as the facts

Maybe, people are on media for reporting "Hamas claims.." as if that doesn't already make people skeptical.  I guess they should have said "Explosion in Gaza.." just to be extra clear, as everyone are morons.  Given the IAF working over Gaza, and they did hit the same hospital on Oct 14, people suspecting an Israeli strike weren't out to lunch as well.

Speaking of media my mom likes watching MSNBC, coverage was having a good wank over Biden's visit, was pretty funny.  Although I guess not really sure what the point of it was, Blinken already fluffed up Israel plenty.

[Zoraptor]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Lots of evidence now that is was Islamic Jihad responsible for the hospital tragedy  with a misfired missile.

Eh, you could drive a truck through the Israeli story. Literally. That's why you had them blaming both Hamas and PIJ. Essentially:

Hamas announced they were going to attack Haifa. This requires Fajr-5 or equivalent, due to range; about 140km. That has a lot of propellant, and a big(ish) warhead (see below for size) and would be a plausible candidate. This was too early for them to have struck the hospital though. Similarly, evidence for the missile falling posted as evidence was from after the attack (and later deleted by Israel)

PIJ launched Qassams (technically Quds-101, their version of the Qassam) at about the right time. Can't be a Fajr-5, because they are big (6.5 m long, 1 tonne weight, so not man portable) and the firing site per Israel was a cemetery. That's quick set up with no launcher, so ~2m Qassam. But a Qassam is, well, comparatively tiny. Typically 1/14th the size of a Fajr-5, and similar proportion of range, and up to 50kg total weight. It's shorter range and smaller payload than a grad rocket and it's easy to look at the damage one of those does in Ukraine or wherever, lots of options. Not even slightly comparable.

In order for their Israeli version to be accurate the missile has to be big enough to cause the damage observed, so it has to be Fajr-5. This is why you have Regev blaming Hamas and citing the claimed attack on Haifa as evidence, and IDF blaming PIJ who did not announce any such attack: it allows the two to be conflated into PIJ launching a Fajr-5. Now of course some would say that the difference is that after a failed launch the propellant is still there, and that did the damage. Well OK, in theory, but it does rather beg the question given the scale difference in damage: why bother with a warhead at all if the propellant is that destructive? Just pack the thing full of that instead, and don't bother with the warhead...

Israel does not just have two air launched munitions that make craters 7 and 9m wide they've got plenty more including some designed not to crater (to prevent collateral damage, ironically). The phone(?) intercept is almost comical. Thank goodness Israel was listening in as they said exactly what they wanted them to and handily repeated all the salient points. Shame Hamas and PIJ didn't do the same thing 11 days ago, eh?

And of course there's the plethora of other ancillary evidence: the warnings to evacuate hospitals made by Israel, Bibi's SM advisor posting it was an Israeli strike then deleting it, Netanyahu's light vs dark tweet from just after the attack. Doesn't have to be an attempt to kill hundreds either, just a 'door knocking' equivalent intended to force those demanded evacuations of hospitals gone badly wrong because in those circumstances a car park was not a low collateral location.

[Malcador]

Israel needs to hire Ukrainians on how to run the info war.

[HoonDing]

Wth happened to Mossad? Even their deep fakes are crap

[Gorth]

2 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Eh, you could drive a truck through the Israeli story. Literally. That's why you had them blaming both Hamas and PIJ. Essentially:

Hamas announced they were going to attack Haifa. This requires Fajr-5 or equivalent, due to range; about 140km. That has a lot of propellant, and a big(ish) warhead (see below for size) and would be a plausible candidate. This was too early for them to have struck the hospital though. Similarly, evidence for the missile falling posted as evidence was from after the attack (and later deleted by Israel)

PIJ launched Qassams (technically Quds-101, their version of the Qassam) at about the right time. Can't be a Fajr-5, because they are big (6.5 m long, 1 tonne weight, so not man portable) and the firing site per Israel was a cemetery. That's quick set up with no launcher, so ~2m Qassam. But a Qassam is, well, comparatively tiny. Typically 1/14th the size of a Fajr-5, and similar proportion of range, and up to 50kg total weight. It's shorter range and smaller payload than a grad rocket and it's easy to look at the damage one of those does in Ukraine or wherever, lots of options. Not even slightly comparable.

In order for their Israeli version to be accurate the missile has to be big enough to cause the damage observed, so it has to be Fajr-5. This is why you have Regev blaming Hamas and citing the claimed attack on Haifa as evidence, and IDF blaming PIJ who did not announce any such attack: it allows the two to be conflated into PIJ launching a Fajr-5. Now of course some would say that the difference is that after a failed launch the propellant is still there, and that did the damage. Well OK, in theory, but it does rather beg the question given the scale difference in damage: why bother with a warhead at all if the propellant is that destructive? Just pack the thing full of that instead, and don't bother with the warhead...

Israel does not just have two air launched munitions that make craters 7 and 9m wide they've got plenty more including some designed not to crater (to prevent collateral damage, ironically). The phone(?) intercept is almost comical. Thank goodness Israel was listening in as they said exactly what they wanted them to and handily repeated all the salient points. Shame Hamas and PIJ didn't do the same thing 11 days ago, eh?

And of course there's the plethora of other ancillary evidence: the warnings to evacuate hospitals made by Israel, Bibi's SM advisor posting it was an Israeli strike then deleting it, Netanyahu's light vs dark tweet from just after the attack. Doesn't have to be an attempt to kill hundreds either, just a 'door knocking' equivalent intended to force those demanded evacuations of hospitals gone badly wrong because in those circumstances a car park was not a low collateral location.

Love them or hate them, the BBC fact finders seems to lean towards the PIJ based on intercepted Hamas communications (sadly the only source of that is Israeli, so no good for unbiased fact finding) and a rocket that broke up mid air... hence a lot of fire ball happening but leaving no large impact/explosion craters (as documented by the BBC reporters on site afterwards).

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67144061

 

Edit: Tl;dr; it looks mostly like a large fuel explosion

[Zoraptor]

45 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Love them or hate them, the BBC fact finders seems to lean towards the PIJ based on intercepted Hamas communications (sadly the only source of that is Israeli, so no good for unbiased fact finding) and a rocket that broke up mid air... hence a lot of fire ball happening but leaving no large impact/explosion craters (as documented by the BBC reporters on site afterwards).

Yeah, the break up theory doesn't really work though. You run into two fundamental problems.

That the explosion is already too small, yet if it's a rocket that has broken up then, by definition, there's even less of it. You also have the question of what it's broken up into, ie, has the warhead fallen off? Has the rocket motor fallen off? And the fundamental issue which applies to every rocket based scenario: people don't really think about how rockets work. They look at numbers and think: this is plausible, based on that number. I mean, if every bit of propellant went up it'd make a big boom, wouldn't it? Yes it would! Well kind of, but that forgets that every bit of altitude or velocity gained by the rocket uses... propellant. Once it's used it can't explode or ignite on the ground. In order to get fast it has to fire its rockets for a significant period to generate either velocity or altitude, the propellant does not respawn as the rocket falls.

(What Israel really needs to do is show that a lot fewer people died than the number claimed, if they can do that then you can also scale down the explosion size etc and put it down to dark making it look larger. Difficult though, since the hospital was run by the Anglican Church/ Episcopalians and you thus have to convince people that they're lying about it, not just Hamas. As it stands the failed rocket is utterly incompatible with the number of victims)

[Malcador]

7 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

Big College Donors Close Their Checkbooks Over Israel-Hamas Responses (businessinsider.com)

Stay classy.

https://www.theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-because-it-seems-like-yo-1850922505

[Gromnir]

once you embrace a narrative, it is tough to change your pov. is another reason to wait before becoming invested in a particular explanation.

‘Stunned and sickened.’ Wexner Foundation cuts ties with Harvard over ‘tiptoeing’ on Hamas

“Harvard’s leaders were indeed tiptoeing, equivocating, and we, like former Harvard President Larry Summers cannot ‘fathom the administration’s failure to disassociate the university and condemn the statement’ swiftly issued by 34 student groups holding Israel entirely responsible for the violent terror attack on its own citizens,” the Wexner Foundation letter reads. “That should not have been that hard.”

...

not that it is particular relevant from our pov, but while "34 student groups" sounds like many, it ain't, and there is comical overlap 'tween the groups. 

African American Resistance Organization
Bengali Association of Students at Harvard College
Harvard Act on a Dream
Harvard Arab Medical and Dental Student Association
Harvard Chan Muslim Student Association
Harvard Chan Students for Health Equity and Justice in Palestine
Harvard College Pakistan Student Association
Harvard Divinity School Muslim Association
Harvard Middle Eastern and North African Law Student Association
Harvard Graduate School of Education Islamic Society
Harvard Graduate Students for Palestine
Harvard Islamic Society
Harvard Law School Justice for Palestine
Harvard Divinity School Students for Justice in Palestine
Harvard Jews for Liberation
Harvard Kennedy School Bangladesh Caucus
Harvard Kennedy School Muslim Caucus
Harvard Kennedy School Muslim Women’s Caucus
Harvard Kennedy School Palestine Caucus
Harvard Muslim Law School Association
Harvard Pakistan Forum
Harvard Prison Divest Coalition
Harvard South Asian Law Students Association
Harvard South Asians for Forward-Thinking Advocacy and Research
Harvard TPS Coalition
Harvard Undergraduate Arab Women's Collective
Harvard Undergraduate Ghungroo
Harvard Undergraduate Muslim Women’s Medical Alliance
Harvard Undergraduate Nepali Students Association
Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee
Middle East and North African Graduate School of Design Student Society
Neighbor Program Cambridge
Sikhs and Companions of Harvard Undergraduates Society of Arab Students

our understanding is the nepali students association withdrew their signature, so were only 33 groups protesting. additional, the harvard protest letter were posted over the weekend and by monday there were at least one harvard counter protest letter which garnered more than two thousand signatures. maybe, just maybe, this is tempest in a teacup material? 

a person donating money has zero obligation to continue funding a university whose values do not align with theirs. heck, if harvard changed their colors from crimson, ink and white to emerald and orange, we would not begrudge a philanthropist from deciding harvard no longer deserved millions in free money. sure, we would see a color change rationale for ending donations as kinda petty (even recognizing how vulgar is an emerald and orange color scheme,) but is not as if the contributor owes anything to the university. likewise, am suspecting we would not be shocked if at least a few people current donating money to byu became reluctant to do so if dozens o' student groups protested the misogyny and pedophilia o' john smith w/o any pushback from the university. even so, as a general proposition, the silence from universities regarding student protests o' israel following the hamas attack and kidnappings doesn't bother us and am thinking the taciturn approach is the right move.

personal opinion: a university is in the business o' teaching students how to learn, but it should be reluctant to tell those who matriculate what to think.

yeah, if students engage in violence, or verbal attack individuals based on race, color, religion, national origin or gender identity (am not sure what is the proper identifier in 2023... and am not being flippant when we says so; am genuine uncertain,) then am thinking a university should step in and condemn clear wrongs o' their students. the byu situation we imagined earlier is a bit murkier for us, but we get it if a religious university decides to take a more vocal stand when defending the reputation o' their prophet. most other situations? well, what is the point o' a university if not to have students expand their world view and perhaps even challenge the dominant paradigm?

is a gross oversimplifications, and there will be exceptions, but we do no believe a university should criticize students for speaking their minds. harvard, penn and other schools remaining silent after a small number o' students declared they were more outraged by israel's treatment o' arabs living in the west bank and gaza than they were by hamas' recent attack were to us understandable even if you think it were the wrong choice. we would hope those who believe in a university's capabilities and mission such that they donate millions o' dollars to the school's endowment would be reluctant to stop funding 'cause o' silence regarding students peaceful expressing their opinions. but again, a person could and should donate money to causes in which they believe and if folks no longer believe in harvard and penn 'cause a few university student groups failed to recognize that criticizing israel immediate after the hamas mass attacks and kidnappings was poor timed and less than wise, then am not begrudging the withholding o' donations... even if we disagree with the angry philanthropist's judgement.

just our opinion.

HA! Good Fun! 

 

[Malcador]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-vetoes-un-security-council-action-israel-gaza-2023-10-18/

I thought for sure this one would have avoided the veto

Edited October 19, 2023 by Malcador

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

once you embrace a narrative, it is tough to change your pov. is another reason to wait before becoming invested in a particular explanation.

‘Stunned and sickened.’ Wexner Foundation cuts ties with Harvard over ‘tiptoeing’ on Hamas

“Harvard’s leaders were indeed tiptoeing, equivocating, and we, like former Harvard President Larry Summers cannot ‘fathom the administration’s failure to disassociate the university and condemn the statement’ swiftly issued by 34 student groups holding Israel entirely responsible for the violent terror attack on its own citizens,” the Wexner Foundation letter reads. “That should not have been that hard.”

...

not that it is particular relevant from our pov, but while "34 student groups" sounds like many, it ain't, and there is comical overlap 'tween the groups. 

African American Resistance Organization
Bengali Association of Students at Harvard College
Harvard Act on a Dream
Harvard Arab Medical and Dental Student Association
Harvard Chan Muslim Student Association
Harvard Chan Students for Health Equity and Justice in Palestine
Harvard College Pakistan Student Association
Harvard Divinity School Muslim Association
Harvard Middle Eastern and North African Law Student Association
Harvard Graduate School of Education Islamic Society
Harvard Graduate Students for Palestine
Harvard Islamic Society
Harvard Law School Justice for Palestine
Harvard Divinity School Students for Justice in Palestine
Harvard Jews for Liberation
Harvard Kennedy School Bangladesh Caucus
Harvard Kennedy School Muslim Caucus
Harvard Kennedy School Muslim Women’s Caucus
Harvard Kennedy School Palestine Caucus
Harvard Muslim Law School Association
Harvard Pakistan Forum
Harvard Prison Divest Coalition
Harvard South Asian Law Students Association
Harvard South Asians for Forward-Thinking Advocacy and Research
Harvard TPS Coalition
Harvard Undergraduate Arab Women's Collective
Harvard Undergraduate Ghungroo
Harvard Undergraduate Muslim Women’s Medical Alliance
Harvard Undergraduate Nepali Students Association
Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee
Middle East and North African Graduate School of Design Student Society
Neighbor Program Cambridge
Sikhs and Companions of Harvard Undergraduates Society of Arab Students

our understanding is the nepali students association withdrew their signature, so were only 33 groups protesting. additional, the harvard protest letter were posted over the weekend and by monday there were at least one harvard counter protest letter which garnered more than two thousand signatures. maybe, just maybe, this is tempest in a teacup material? 

a person donating money has zero obligation to continue funding a university whose values do not align with theirs. heck, if harvard changed their colors from crimson, ink and white to emerald and orange, we would not begrudge a philanthropist from deciding harvard no longer deserved millions in free money. sure, we would see a color change rationale for ending donations as kinda petty (even recognizing how vulgar is an emerald and orange color scheme,) but is not as if the contributor owes anything to the university. likewise, am suspecting we would not be shocked if at least a few people current donating money to byu became reluctant to do so if dozens o' student groups protested the misogyny and pedophilia o' john smith w/o any pushback from the university. even so, as a general proposition, the silence from universities regarding student protests o' israel following the hamas attack and kidnappings doesn't bother us and am thinking the taciturn approach is the right move.

personal opinion: a university is in the business o' teaching students how to learn, but it should be reluctant to tell those who matriculate what to think.

yeah, if students engage in violence, or verbal attack individuals based on race, color, religion, national origin or gender identity (am not sure what is the proper identifier in 2023... and am not being flippant when we says so; am genuine uncertain,) then am thinking a university should step in and condemn clear wrongs o' their students. the byu situation we imagined earlier is a bit murkier for us, but we get it if a religious university decides to take a more vocal stand when defending the reputation o' their prophet. most other situations? well, what is the point o' a university if not to have students expand their world view and perhaps even challenge the dominant paradigm?

is a gross oversimplifications, and there will be exceptions, but we do no believe a university should criticize students for speaking their minds. harvard, penn and other schools remaining silent after a small number o' students declared they were more outraged by israel's treatment o' arabs living in the west bank and gaza than they were by hamas' recent attack were to us understandable even if you think it were the wrong choice. we would hope those who believe in a university's capabilities and mission such that they donate millions o' dollars to the school's endowment would be reluctant to stop funding 'cause o' silence regarding students peaceful expressing their opinions. but again, a person could and should donate money to causes in which they believe and if folks no longer believe in harvard and penn 'cause a few university student groups failed to recognize that criticizing israel immediate after the hamas mass attacks and kidnappings was poor timed and less than wise, then am not begrudging the withholding o' donations... even if we disagree with the angry philanthropist's judgement.

just our opinion.

HA! Good Fun! 

 

The only group missing from the list of the 33 University protests is 

CRT for  Palestinian Arab Students 

I agree with some of what  you saying but the issue is the University  should have unequivocally  condemned the students groups support for the attack by Hamas, its not the same as stopping the various groups from saying  what they said  because that's part of freedom of speech 

And failing to do that like they did I can completely understand American Jews from pulling their funding. These same American Jews have never had an issue with these groups and what they said until now and they always funded the universities. But this goes to far and the universities have a responsible to publicly say they don't support what these groups are saying

I would have done the same thing if I was a funder considering the reality and brutality of the attack 

Students are entitled to say what they want but the university also needs to consider its funders and how they feel about the perception these statements and protests create. Its not ike any other attack on Israel outside of the 4-5 Arab vs Israeli wars 

 

 

 

[BruceVC]

9 hours ago, Malcador said:

Maybe, people are on media for reporting "Hamas claims.." as if that doesn't already make people skeptical.  I guess they should have said "Explosion in Gaza.." just to be extra clear, as everyone are morons.  Given the IAF working over Gaza, and they did hit the same hospital on Oct 14, people suspecting an Israeli strike weren't out to lunch as well.its 

Speaking of media my mom likes watching MSNBC, coverage was having a good wank over Biden's visit, was pretty funny.  Although I guess not really sure what the point of it was, Blinken already fluffed up Israel plenty.

Malc, what !!!!! Please tell me you joking, you cannot allow your mom to watch MSNBC, its a radical left and socialist propaganda station. Dont let her become manipulated 

Im just joking, all media houses have there good sides and its counterproductive and pointless to tell anyone what they can or cant watch 

Its interesting with the Biden visit and all the  media attention but its also  understandable considering only the US can influence Israel and the US still carries massive influence in the ME

Ironic how people say the US is biased towards Israel but it was Arab countries and groups who cancelled meeting Biden when he was trying to mediate after the allegations of the hospital attack 

The US definitely cant play a constructive role in finding a peaceful solution to this latest violence if people cancel meetings 

 

 

[Zoraptor]

4 hours ago, Gromnir said:

once you embrace a narrative, it is tough to change your pov. is another reason to wait before becoming invested in a particular explanation.

No, it's really easy. You just say it wasn't actually your narrative, it was someone else's and in any case you were just repeating it for the sake of academic discussion. Then they're wrong, they jumped to conclusions and you can keep your ego intact, which is after all the important thing. See "Russia will be bankrupt in 6 months" in 2014 for how that works.

Or you can admit you're wrong- when you are wrong- and not be worried about the crushing ignominy of it all because... there isn't any crushing ignominy.

[BruceVC]

22 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

No, it's really easy. You just say it wasn't actually your narrative, it was someone else's and in any case you were just repeating it for the sake of academic discussion. Then they're wrong, they jumped to conclusions and you can keep your ego intact, which is after all the important thing. See "Russia will be bankrupt in 6 months" in 2014 for how that works.

Or you can admit you're wrong- when you are wrong- and not be worried about the crushing ignominy of it all because... there isn't any crushing ignominy.

Thats true, you just  say someone else said it and I repeated it. You cant argue with that logic 

But then can we ever say " this is what I think about current  geopolitical situation x or y " because isn't  it always going to be someone else's view ?

This doesnt apply to things like historical  outcomes and events but it would apply to views  for ongoing events like the hospital tragedy 

[Gfted1]

Freedom of speech, its cool right up until it hurts your buttock.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Gfted1 said:

Freedom of speech, its cool right up until it hurts your buttock.

Have you evee been burthurt because of freedom of speech, I dont think I have but I have been wrong because of freedom of speech based on what I thought was true 

[Malcador]

8 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Ironic how people say the US is biased towards Israel but it was Arab countries and groups who cancelled meeting Biden when he was trying to mediate after the allegations of the hospital attack 

US isn't really a fair mediator being a solid ally to Israel, though. And makes sense, given the rage that explosion provoked

[BruceVC]

9 minutes ago, Malcador said:

US isn't really a fair mediator being a solid ally to Israel, though. And makes sense, given the rage that explosion provoked

But the much of the anti-US rhetoric is around things like " the US wants eternal war  in the ME " and there is a  constant expectation that the US needs to help find peace in the conflict

But  if countries wont meet with the US there is no chance of it  playing any role and particularly this latest violence, the US is the only country that Israel will respond to. And Biden went to the ME now to meet with various parties and help find an immediate solution like getting aid through and opening of the Egypt  border

So I dont see how it helps by refusing to meet Biden ?

[Gfted1]

35 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Have you evee been burthurt because of freedom of speech, I dont think I have but I have been wrong because of freedom of speech based on what I thought was true 

I probably have but nothing springs immediately into my mind. And now Im gonna play the whatabout card...could you imagine the pants crapping that would happen if any ethnic group other than the jews, did the same thing to any other ethnic group?

[BruceVC]

11 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

I probably have but nothing springs immediately into my mind. And now Im gonna play the whatabout card...could you imagine the pants crapping that would happen if any ethnic group other than the jews, did the same thing to any other ethnic group?

Interesting, can you give me an example of what you mean? And go into details if you dont mind as far as its similar the Israeli vs Palestinian conflict, I just need to understand context?

[Gfted1]

Well, imagine donors refusing monies because a university allowed the students to gather in solidarity of <whatever is the flavor of the day> (BLM, CRT, OPP, etc.).

[Malcador]

16 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But the much of the anti-US rhetoric is around things like " the US wants eternal war  in the ME " and there is a  constant expectation that the US needs to help find peace in the conflict

But  if countries wont meet with the US there is no chance of it  playing any role and particularly this latest violence, the US is the only country that Israel will respond to. And Biden went to the ME now to meet with various parties and help find an immediate solution like getting aid through and opening of the Egypt  border

So I dont see how it helps by refusing to meet Biden ?

Avoids enraging their people further. If you're mad about Gaza, having the US president freshing from fluffing Bibi visit isn't going to enhance your calm.  Besides any real work is done by lower level people, I think, before hand.

But at least some aid will get in, conditional on Hamas not seizing it. Which will be observed and proven by Israel or the US I suppose.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/19/gaza-aid-rafah-crossing-joe-biden-israel-egypt-agreement

[BruceVC]

22 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Well, imagine donors refusing monies because a university allowed the students to gather in solidarity of <whatever is the flavor of the day> (BLM, CRT, OPP, etc.).

0kay, you talking about the funding at the university. Now I understand, I thought you were talking about the ongoing violence in Gaza

[Gromnir]

7 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

No, it's really easy. You just say it wasn't actually your narrative, it was someone else's and in any case you were just repeating it for the sake of academic discussion. Then they're wrong, they jumped to conclusions and you can keep your ego intact, which is after all the important thing. See "Russia will be bankrupt in 6 months" in 2014 for how that works.

Or you can admit you're wrong- when you are wrong- and not be worried about the crushing ignominy of it all because... there isn't any crushing ignominy.

 

sounds familiar. so sorta like blaming an obvious error about police actions at uvalde on initial washington post info even after more contemporaneous and full video coverage o' the event were available? oh, wait, that ain't really the same, is it?

we can go down the lists and is not gonna be helpful. you can misrepresent from 2014 and we can show receipts from numerous and far more recent. but even if it were a tit-for-tat situation, such revelations would only further cement the obvious. the more examples there are o' Gromnir and zor being wrong about facts uncertain, the more such works to support the proposition that waiting is your best option.

selective quote also don't help you 'cause as we noted, being wrong is not the problem. just as a rando example, lots o' people were wrong about the russian invasion o' ukraine, but not all o' em made fools o' themselves by lambasting the media for banging the drums o' war and other such nonsense. as if that ever made sense. never saw any western media encouraging war but perhaps it happened in rare ultra hawkish sources. regardless, were not the reporter's narrative but rather they were accurate quoting sources which claimed russians were preparing for an actual invasion... which is kinda what reporters is s'posed to do, right? even if there were no invasion, the reporters woulda' had nothing to apologize for. 'cause would be stoopid to suggest accurate quoting and reporting o' the views o' arguable experts were deserving criticism. who would do that?

oh, right. 

if the facts surrounding an event is unclear, it is best to wait for info before getting up on a soap box and criticizing police, world leaders, media or fellow posters based on those uncertain facts, 'cause even if is no way to svengali your way out o' a russia invasion having happened, what makes you look bad (yet again) is the pontification based on error.

wait for clarification of facts is good advice 99.9% o' the time. why somebody would argue against such a proposition is curious.

edit:

"“There’s just been this massive sort of pressure to get videos out there, get your take, get your analysis, and it’s like a perfect storm for chaos,” Kolina Koltai, a senior researcher at open source intelligence (OSINT) news outlet Bellingcat, tells WIRED."

https://www.wired.com/story/al-ahli-baptist-hospital-explosion-disinformation-osint/

"“I think one of the most disturbing aspects of studying disinfo is when you realize that even fact-checking has become weaponized,” Orr wrote on X. “Most people don’t care about the truth about the hospital being bombed; they just care about finding a truth to use against the other side.”"

people with genuine expertise ain't sure. wait is reasonable given the lack of certainty.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited October 19, 2023 by Gromnir