They were embedded with Hamas during the attack. They KNEW it was going to happen.
1 Like
I don’t do this often, but I need a little help understanding about something I hear on Fox, and assume it is also said on the rest of news media.
“Proportional response”: Why does that phrase seem to go unchallenged? I find it difficult to believe anyone would expect to get back no more than they dished out, or even argue for such a reaction.
I recall a required reading in high school Civics class. We read “Fail Safe” (fiction) and those who have read it, remember that the United States had an alert failure that the Airforce sent nuclear bombers to bomb Moscow and had no way of calling them back. The leaders of both countries got together and agreed that the USA would drop a nuclear bomb on New York City to appease the “accidental” bombing of Moscow. A mistake was rectified (as best as possible) with a “proportional response.” I get that. It makes logical sense.
But when someone (country) purposely attacks another country, to then ask for proportional response sounds lame. I cannot see how anyone can defend “proportional response” after the harmed country is purposely attacked by the other country.
I must say that every time I hear “proportional response” it is like screeching on a blackboard.
Am I the outlier?
1 Like
Who is they? Freelance PALESTINIAN journalists?
Many questions arise from the HonestReporting media watchdog report published earlier this week that showed several major news outlets, including the Associated Press (AP) and Reuters, had Palestinian photojournalists on the ground during the early hours of the October 7 Hamas invasion and terrorist atrocity.
1 Like
Nope. I always laugh when I hear that and think “Nope. Thats not how a beatdown works.”.
1 Like
For all I now, maybe that is how this generation going through college sees it. On the plus side, you know if you pop someone and it doesn’t knock them out, then he can’t pop you hard enough to knock you out. That makes words violence, because someone might hurt your feelings worst than you hurt their feelings.
1 Like
Man, a book that really shows the relation between the elites and the citizens. Elites kill some people in one place, so they kill some citizens in another place to make up for it.
You might want to read the article in its entirety.
Did the photojournalists who freelance for other media, like CNN and The New York Times , notify these outlets?
These were freelance Palestinian journalists.
The problem with conspiracy nuts is that they don’t understand reality and logic. People are supposed to believe that Hamas told these journalists what they were going to do and when, and then the journalists notified American news media in order to get permission? A media which these same nuts claim is controlled by Jews? The stupidity of some people makes me think we aren’t the same species.
You’re right. You never post anything stupid.
1 Like
I agree.
1 Like
Frankly, I feel that the distinction between “soldiers” and “civilians” in a war is just for people that want to make it clean when it’s not.
Why do we feel so much better if a soldier dies than if a civilian dies? I can see a distinction based on age and gender, but not soldier vs non.
I don’t feel “better” about it. I often think of the children who will grow up without their parent. There’s nothing good about that.
But usually, they (the soldier) knowingly and willingly signed up for that. I don’t feel better, but I know they made that choice for themselves.
1 Like
If I recall correctly, the authors, Burdick and Wheeler, added a nuance for drama. The President’s wife and his children were visiting New York City when the bomb was to be dropped, and it was to be done without warning. He was not to warn his family.
1 Like
I don’t think this would bother a politician at all.
Well a country is not a person, not everybody in the country purposely attacked.
Further, Netanyahu has been supporting Hamas to prevent Palestine from being recognized as a country.
I don’t get it either, is “proportional response” supposed to mean 1:1, tooth for tooth, eye for eye? Because 1:6 is also a proportion. Any two numbers will have two proportions, making them proportional. When pressed on it by Piers Morgan, Ben Shapiro said nobody wants that but he guessed a proportional response would be for Israeli troops to go into Gaza, rape, take hostages, kill indescriminately etc
I think it’s supposed to vaguely indicate that Palestinian lives matter
It’s not as bad as the term “social distancing”, which is very unhealthy - it should be physical distancing - what the heck?
I don’t know why you’re stupid, but you are. The fact you haven’t figured out I’m not stupid, or at least not as stupid as you, is what you should be concerned about.
I thought about that shortly after posting. Considering the Clintons, the book could have been a comedy.
1 Like
I don’t believe a politician would sacrifice his family and I don’t believe that the secret service would let his family remain in danger.
As far as the book, Fail Safe, goes in alignment with technology of today, it was published in 1962.
There was a secret service back then and they had telephones. I also don’t see an American politician pulling a Titus Manlius.