Silverseren @ Silverseren @kbin.social

Posts

184

Comments

854

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's not necessarily new information, just that the NYT has conglomerated everything we already knew into a single article.

But it's been pretty well known that Netanyahu and Israel were responsible for Hamas existing and being funded in the first place, in order to undermine the Palestinian Authority that was actually making progress toward a two state solution, which Israel really hasn't been in support of for decades, but had to pretend they supported to stay the "good guys".

I mean, with the vast majority of inter-departmental emails, no, one can't be bothered, because it's pointless busywork communication.

I'm less worried about their social media activities and more with their active working with and paying off of Republicans to side with them over the past decade. And their working together to push all of the human rights rollbacks that conservatives have been rolling out on the state level in the past few years.

What? No, that's literally the opposite of what I said. Our democracy is fundamentally compromised and Russia has played a major role in that.

Any war with Russia is our war, as they've been actively trying to harm democracy across the world, including buying off our major politicians in this country.

Not the entirety of the article, no, just one of the relevant parts

So now you're trying to change the topic entirely. Is this just a gish-gallop attempt to justify you being okay with supporting Israel murdering thousands of civilians?

The fact that OP doesn't agree with that is really disturbing.

So what you're claiming is that the only populations in the world that can be supported are those who are pro-LGBT?

The plight of Tibetans and Uighurs, gotta ignore those. The horrific conditions of the people of North Korea that their government is continually subjecting them to, who cares about that, right?

Unlike security assistance to Ukraine, where the US details types of weapons and capabilities, the shipments to Israel have been far more discreet, with the Defense Department rarely acknowledging or announcing what types of weapons or equipment it is sending.

It's this fact of trying to coverup what exactly is being given that shows how they know what they're doing is wrong.

Those secondary sources often aren't reliable as well. It depends on the source and its history of accuracy in reporting. There's plenty of newspapers that have been determined to not be a reliable source, including any tabloids.

It's also rather inaccurate. One can use a primary source like the DOT for information to add to an article. It's just that a primary source like that doesn't contribute to general notability and importance of the subject matter. The subject needs to be shown to have relevance that has been covered in other forms than just primary sources.

The use of primary sources has long been restricted to minimal usage, since primary means any form of self-published claim. And that sort of source shouldn't contribute to any form of notability.

"Then on the other hand you can find an article on every Pokemon on Wikipedia."

You're rather out of date with that claim. Once upon a time, like a decade or more ago, this was true. But when the notability requirements became stricter, the vast majority of Pokemon articles were removed and redirected to list articles. There are currently only 28 articles on individual Pokemon, out of a possible 1021.

I remember this controversy. The highway editors in question were super opposed to any form of referencing requirements for these highway articles that all other Wikipedia articles have to adhere to and wanted individual articles on the most minute small road routes.

When the editing community at large suggested having broader higher level articles that combined these much less notable articles into a bigger article that was more properly referenced and better showcased a level of importance, the highway editors...well, to put it bluntly, had a hissy fit.

Government buildings would make up most of the major and largest buildings in Gaza.

This was already well known within a week of October 7th and was reported on extensively then. But continually bringing it up in this long drawn out process seems like an attempt to downplay or deflect from the ongoing atrocities being committed by Israel.

The issue is then any and every building can be justified as being a "Hamas building" just because they were the group in charge.

But that just means any and all infrastructure, since Hamas is the group in control.

It's basically admitting to wanting to completely destroy any form of livelihood that exists for Palestinians as a people.

And this wasn't from bombing or shelling or anything like that. The IDF went in and set up physical explosive charges to demolish the building.

What could even be the excuse for doing something like this?