344
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
344 points (92.0% liked)
politics
19145 readers
1672 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think it's fair criticism . At the very least walk back and reserve judgement until there's more conclusive evidence. But I think until there's better evidence, there should be more respect given to the US intelligence community. It was not long ago trump was criticized for accepting foreign intelligence over the US intelligence community. I think it's fair to criticize tlaib for this as well.
And the thing is, the blame of who bombed the hospital isn't critical to advocating for peace, criticizing unproportial Israeli response, or other pro Palestine messaging.
Here is the available evidence: https://www.npr.org/2023/10/18/1206795861/heres-the-available-evidence-of-what-happened-at-al-ahli-arab-hospital-in-gaza
This is the best I've read on the subject
I like that they claim it wasn't Israeli because of the lack of shrapnel damage to the buildings... directly under a picture of someone inspecting shrapnel damage on one of the buildings.
That's a difference between your understanding and the author - the level of shrapnel damage from an air detonated bomb would be an order of magnitude higher than shown from the hospital explosion, but that doesn't mean no shrapnel is produced by a rocket explosion or cars cooking off.
If your munition is designed to explode above the ground its designed to spread a hail of shrapnel in the detonation zone. There are plenty of pictures from ukraine showing the effects of these munitions, it turns the area into a cheese grater.
Lack of crater and a large fire are hallmarks of a conflagration vs an explosion.
The US intelligence community isn't an objective organization with a mission to inform US citizens of what's really going on in the world. Anything they release is at the direction of political actors and intended to cause some effect. They can be good at their jobs and their released information is still inherently untrustworthy.
So what is the unbiased source that investigated this faster than the US Intelligence community that was not directly involved in the current conflict?
Yes, there are blemishes on the US Intelligence's history. But a US Politician should have a little more deference you the US Intelligence Community.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/18/gaza-hospital-explosion-missile-palestine/
OSINT analysis. Independent analysts using public data very quickly determined that Israel was not to blame.
It doesn't matter if the US Intelligence community is faster, they're still not trustworthy. Within the government, hopefully intelligence is just a confidential useful tool to inform government officials, but press releases are political actions.
And frankly, US politicians (outside of the president) shouldn't be overly trusting of the intelligence community. They're heavily influenced by the executive's wants and were (under pressure) a key player in justifying the war in Iraq. That's not a small blemish, and I'm not aware of any changes that would make that impossible in the aftermath.
So you choose to trust Hamas instead.
How about this? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/18/gaza-hospital-explosion-missile-palestine
Okay, but there's no evidence here either. Just geolocation of the video which doesn't even suggest who is responsible. And some vague comments about the explosion not matching any Israeli weapon. Which is dubious to say the least, especially as the people involved specifically say they don't actually know what happened.
No, that's stupid and you haven't been reading the conversation thread.
It feels like she is too close to this, and is expressing her passion instead of allowing evidence to be presented. It's gonna look real bad if things don't pan out her way, and she's the one supporting terrorism.
How would she be supporting terrorism?, she's one of the few in Congress calling for a ceasefire and an end to the violence. Even if she's wrong and islamic jihad were responsible that doesn't mean she accidentally supported them. She said the bombing of the hospital was horrific and unless she changes her tone once she realizes Palestinians did it then this isn't supporting terrorism.
She's calling for a ceasefire while Hamas has its hostages. Hamas isn't going to give back the hostages in honor of a ceasefire. A ceasefire, even a temporary one, is a win for Hamas in that it prolongs the terror, and resolves nothing. The best-case scenario of a ceasefire is they wait two months, Hamas jerks everybody around, and then it all starts over again, except now with the babies indoctrinated two months further into Islam.
She's blaming Israel with only one piece of evidence: Hamas's accusation. Meanwhile, OSINT + Israeli intelligence made public + US Intelligence all make it clear that Israel was not at fault. She chooses to repeat Hamas's story instead of looking at the evidence. She is supporting Hamas.
She didn't just say the bombing of the hospital was horrific. She explicitly said that Israel bombed the hospital:
There's enough evidence - from third parties, not from either Hamas or the IDF or another invested party - out there that runs counter to the claim that it was an Israeli airstrike that Tlaib should have at least modified here initial statement.
But she hasn't.
I agree that she hasn't openly supported terrorism, but blaming one side for something that was very likely caused by the other side, and then completely refusing to acknowledge that once evidence to the contrary comes out is, at the very least, doing nothing to calm tensions.
War doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you add weight to one side of the scale, the other side is raised. If I have a can of Coke and a can of Pepsi, and I point to the Coke and say, "This one gave me diabetes," it doesn't matter that the Pepsi is just as bad, all that matters is that I pushed the blame on Coke.
"if", jesus fucking christ
Big if true