news & politics:discussion

[squirrelarmy]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

he really needs to either delete that or send an update.

That means him admitting that he was wrong and we know he won’t do that. 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

That means him admitting that he was wrong and we know he won’t do that. 

This is also kind of what I mean people like him were so quick to rush out with this are then silent when it appears to not be case with no criticism of Hamas. 

[Guest]

Shocking. 

[Neil]

1 hour ago, cellar said:

I would generally agree that people from anywhere on the political spectrum are susceptible to fake news, and the conspiracy mentality that has generally (recently) been associated with the right seems to be applicable to those on the left more. So yes, I agree on that point in general.

But I still find the outrage over this particular incorrect report to be a bit strange. When I first heard the news, my first thought was that it wouldn't have been targeted, but I still did assume that was a missile sent by Israel that had gone astray, for reasons outlined in my previous post. I now have more accurate information available and am happy to accept that. In any case, it's an horrific event, but it wasn't intentionally done which is some small solace.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with my assumptions. They weren't based in anything other than what I would say is statistical probability given the information I already had available to me. Maybe other people have other reasons for believing it was Israel, but since I find my own assumptions very natural and unproblematic, I also find it more likely that other people have followed a similar thought process. 

If there is any fault or blame to assign to any of this, it is, as I originally said, the fault of "fast news," and maybe companies like the BBC shouldn't be trying to compete with online news outlets to get news our quickly. Wait until the evening news and make sure you have a fully verified story. But blaming individuals and trying to insinuate racist undertones is incredibly presumptuous and judgemental (not saying you have insinuated that, but others definitely have).

its believing what you want to believe. the best conspiracy theories identify what somone wants to believe then plays on it.

[cellar]

2 minutes ago, Neil said:

its believing what you want to believe. the best conspiracy theories identify what somone wants to believe then plays on it.

I'd like to believe none of it was happening, to be honest. Have you got any conspiracy theories in that flavour? (Actually I'm sure there are, let's not go down that rabbit hole!)

[Neil]

4 minutes ago, cellar said:

I'd like to believe none of it was happening, to be honest. Have you got any conspiracy theories in that flavour? (Actually I'm sure there are, let's not go down that rabbit hole!)

but if irt is happening you want to be able to blame someone for the worst bits.

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

I imagine there's some really bad stuff to come out about Sunak in all this!

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

This is ultimately why our lockdowns were so long, Johnson enacted them far too late.

[pink_triangle]

3 hours ago, cellar said:

 

I think to the second part of your post, the idea that the left should be guided by evidence doesn't sit with me well (the implications being that the right dont is what doesn't sit well with me - even if I don't agree with them, I'm sure they believe their thoughts and actions are based in evidence).

Also find it odd that you would vote for Corbyn twice and now have so much support for Starmer, they seem so far apart (although maybe you were just voting for Labour back then?)

The right may be guided by evidence, but I feel too often they cherrypick evidence to fit their ideology, to me this is not the approach of a boring scientist like myself. I fear the left are going down this route as well. I don’t think Starmer as PM will be rash in terms of decision making, I think he will be measured and come up with the decisions based on the information available, not just ideology.

I voted against Corbyn for labour leader (voting for Cooper and Smith) but voted for labour in the election knowing the choice of PM was an awful one. This is a situation Corbyn would have handled terribly, so lucky he isn’t there.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

The right may be guided by evidence, but I feel too often they cherrypick evidence to fit their ideology, to me this is not the approach of a boring scientist like myself. I fear the left are going down this route as well. I don’t think Starmer as PM will be rash in terms of decision making, I think he will be measured and come up with the decisions based on the information available, not just ideology.

I voted against Corbyn for labour leader (voting for Cooper and Smith) but voted for labour in the election knowing the choice of PM was an awful one. This is a situation Corbyn would have handled terribly, so lucky he isn’t there.

He might be calling for a ceasefire...which I support at this stage.

[Guest]

As bad as Corbyn is, he would've made an infinitely better PM than Johnson and would've put much better policies in place through the pandemic. Equally the worst Labour government will still be so much better and improve people's lives so much more than the best Tory government.

[pink_triangle]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

He might be calling for a ceasefire...which I support at this stage.

The 100 percent pro Palestine stance would never work in this situation. Maybe he is correct that the Israelis bombed the hospital, but I think if you are still supporting the claim you need evidence to back up your point. I think it’s fine to not be sure.

[Neil]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

He might be calling for a ceasefire...which I support at this stage.

there was a ceasefire of sorts before his 'friends launched their murderous spree.

[mattiloy]

21 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

The 100 percent pro Palestine stance would never work in this situation. Maybe he is correct that the Israelis bombed the hospital, but I think if you are still supporting the claim you need evidence to back up your point. I think it’s fine to not be sure.

Nobody in this thread as far as I can see is saying that for sure it was Israel. A few have decided it was Hamas. But most, I think Steve included, are putting attribution off due to the fog of war.

If you think that the Israeli govt or western govts are objective in their reporting you then you’re daft.

The Israeli govt are habitual liars, and as for western govts - weapons of mass destruction, partygate.. to name the big ones.

As far as I can tell the only opinions circulating other than people on opposite sides of a war, each with clear vested interests, are from three individuals parroting almost identical lines, all working for different military thinktanks funded by western governments and their allies (including israel) - but whose thinktanks have left themselves the loophole of putting it out via individuals (tweets my own views) rather than official channels.

So yeah.. it’s not very clear.

And it doesn’t actually matter. With or without it, there needs to be an immediate ceasefire.

Edited October 19, 2023 by mattiloy

[pink_triangle]

4 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Nobody in this thread as far as I can see is saying that for sure it was Israel. A few have decided it was Hamas. But most, I think Steve included, are putting attribution off due to the fog of war.

If you think that the Israeli govt or western govts are objective in their reporting you then you’re daft.

The Israeli govt are habitual liars, and as for western govts - weapons of mass destruction, partygate.. to name the big ones.

As far as I can tell the only opinions circulating other than people on opposite sides of a war, each with clear vested interests, are from three individuals parroting almost identical lines, all working for different military thinktanks funded by western governments and their allies (including israel) - but whose thinktanks have left themselves the loophole of putting it out via individuals (tweets my own views) rather than official channels.

So yeah.. it’s not very clear.

And it doesn’t actually matter. With or without it, there needs to be an immediate ceasefire.

You can add me to the not sure category, I don’t think the evidence is there at the moment to convince me. It’s possible Corbyn has seen evidence I haven’t, but at present struggle to see how he backs up his tweet. I also agree we can’t always believe everything Israel or Western governments say, neither should we automatically never believe them. 
 

We would all hope for a ceasefire, the path to one is less clear. As I have said I don’t think Sunak (or a future PM Starmer) are going to have a huge influence.

 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Nobody in this thread as far as I can see is saying that for sure it was Israel. A few have decided it was Hamas. But most, I think Steve included, are putting attribution off due to the fog of war.

If you think that the Israeli govt or western govts are objective in their reporting you then you’re daft.

The Israeli govt are habitual liars, and as for western govts - weapons of mass destruction, partygate.. to name the big ones.

As far as I can tell the only opinions circulating other than people on opposite sides of a war, each with clear vested interests, are from three individuals parroting almost identical lines, all working for different military thinktanks funded by western governments and their allies (including israel) - but whose thinktanks have left themselves the loophole of putting it out via individuals (tweets my own views) rather than official channels.

So yeah.. it’s not very clear.

And it doesn’t actually matter. With or without it, there needs to be an immediate ceasefire.

Whilst government's do lie (it isn't a new thing), they aren't terrorist organisations which is what Hamas are. Hamas launched a terrorist attack which started things off this time round. So whilst you are quick to criticise the Israeli government (and possibly rightfully so) you omit any criticism of an actual terrorist organisation. It's instances like this which could make some people think there might be some prejudice here for the far left.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Ozanne

[Neil]

for my mate frey. 🙂 

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Neil said:

for my mate frey. 🙂 

 

He did the same to me for a while too.

[fraybentos1]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

for my mate frey. 🙂 

 

Again you’re talking to me unprompted then claiming im a stalker? Bizarre behaviour. 

[mattiloy]

44 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Whilst government's do lie (it isn't a new thing), they aren't terrorist organisations which is what Hamas are.

 

It doesn’t matter. It’s true that Hamas aren’t a credible source. It’s also true that the Israeli govt aren’t a credible source. Neither has credibility and both have an interest in denying responsibility. As far as the ‘evidence’ that is publicly available right now, none of it is convincing. So that’s all there is to it.

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

So whilst you are quick to criticise the Israeli government (and possibly rightfully so) you omit any criticism of an actual terrorist organisation. It's instances like this which could make some people think there might be some prejudice here for the far left.

 

Can I ask you just on this to try to grow up and stop trying to goad and troll people. It’s obvious and boring and frankly inappropriate. You can cheer for whoever you want to in the big fun palestine vs israel battle royale of your mind, but I along with most others here are only interested in peace and the minimisation of human suffering.

[fraybentos1]

1 hour ago, Barry Fish said:

How is he stalking you ?  

He was talking drivel in a glasto thread the other day and I put him in his place and as usual he went Beserk and said I only did it cause he’s disabled? I don’t care if he’s disabled I just think he’s a moron

[fraybentos1]

2 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Can I ask you just on this to try to grow up and stop trying to goad and troll people. It’s obvious and boring and frankly inappropriate. You can cheer for whoever you want to in the big fun palestine vs israel battle royale of your mind, but I along with most others here are only interested in peace and the minimisation of human suffering.

Yeah spot on. Also notice how it’s gone from ‘I really liked Corbyn but he didn’t win so now back starmer’ to now claiming Corbyn was awful. Funny that.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

 

It doesn’t matter. It’s true that Hamas aren’t a credible source. It’s also true that the Israeli govt aren’t a credible source. Neither has credibility and both have an interest in denying responsibility. As far as the ‘evidence’ that is publicly available right now, none of it is convincing. So that’s all there is to it.

 

Can I ask you just on this to try to grow up and stop trying to goad and troll people. It’s obvious and boring and frankly inappropriate. You can cheer for whoever you want to in the big fun palestine vs israel battle royale of your mind, but I along with most others here are only interested in peace and the minimisation of human suffering.

I’m not trying to goad, I was pointing out that whilst you have rightfully pointed out the failings of the Israeli government, people like yourself spend a vast amount of time doing that but hardly any time at all on the actual terrorist organisation. It’s like the far left want people to not focus on that and solely on the ills of Israel. You seem to like to mix any criticism of Hamas in with Israel like your first paragraph which links them together, again trying to paint Israel in a bad light by association.

There is no ‘fun and games’ here, the situation is very serious and I’m surprised to see you suggest that to be honest. I’m sure most people do care about the suffering but comments like that serve no help to anyone.