41·
5 days agoIt’s kinda hard to call that a threat. It’s more accurate to say it’s an accusation that the guy is a terrorist.
- 0 Posts
- 161 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 5th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
1·3 months agoI just assumed he’d flee to Russia and act like a king in exile for the rest of his life. He’d probably conveniently pop up from time to time to spew some pot stirring thing that just hurts the US.
Honestly surprised he hasn’t already, I thought he would flee back in 2021.
33·4 months agoHey but both sides suck and it’s not worth voting this year.
But my claim is that the statement is false, not that they intentionally misled, so even if they were understandably confused, that still seems to be untrue.
But it isn’t inaccurate, that’s the thing. The Twitter post says, “a Photojournalist and Writer/Editor for both Al-Jazeera and the Palestinian Chronicle.” That is factually true…
claiming this some kind of intelligence community…but it’s understandable that they can’t even figure out if this guy works for al Jazeera? You’ll have to help me square this.
The group is a discord channel for people in the intelligence sector, I don’t know what you need squared about that. Take it for what it is, an early alert gossip mill by people who hear things before most other people do.
I have no need to rush to a conclusion on this. I’m just reporting what one of your links said. In your attempt to rush to a conclusion, you already were convinced of a falsehood. Maybe you should slow down too.
I haven’t rushed to any conclusions, I’ve been sharing news articles as they come out.
I can’t help but read your points as attempting to paint al Jazeera as some bad guy in this whole thing.
Whether you pay them or not, posting articles from potential terrorists isn’t a good look. The same can be said about any media group associating with terrorists, the same happened with CNN, NY Times, and Associated Press on October 7th.
How long ago was this tweet that is from some group that you claim is 10 hours ahead of the news? And we’re being critical of al Jazeera for not rushing out an article in that time?
Not sure why you’re asking me when something was posted when I shared the link to it, that’s just lazy. I never criticized Al-Jazeera for not publishing a response, I simply stated that they haven’t, and my response about that was even understanding that not much time has passed?
I think you’re the one rushing to conclusions and should slow down.
Eh, I wouldn’t say it’s false. The description of the guy comes from Al-Jazeera’s website where they say he is a reporter and photojournalist and he did write for Al-Jazeera. If Al-Jazeera is going to post his work and list his information on their website I think it’s understandable that people might think he is employed by them.
As for the attack being unverified, the other link I provided stated that the IDF confirmed that address and house (which is time stamped after the article you are referencing). Additionally, a third party who is identified as a Hamas operative in Europe was referenced as a source for these claims in both articles. I don’t know how much more confirmed you can get unless you’re holding out for Anderson Cooper to be live from the living room?
Finally, I haven’t seen anywhere that Al-Jazeera is denying he was doing anything, the only thing they appear to be denying is that he was employed by them. Even then, Al-Jazeera doesn’t seem to be making any articles about the guy, the whole thing was correspondence with representatives of Al-Jazeera, this stuff happened so recently I wouldn’t be surprised if Al-Jazeera hasn’t had time to post anything yet. For context, this information is <24 hours old, the first US article I see about it was only posted an hour ago.
Ah ok, my apologies. Yeah, there’s not much in the way of mainstream international news picking this story up. Pretty much it was just Israel saying they raided XYZ houses, these are the people they found inside. Individuals made the connection to Al-Jazeera and mainstream Israeli media picked it up, but they’ve backed off a bit once Al-Jazeera clarified.
I’d generally agree with a general dislike of Twitter supporters, but no one has really stepped up to fill in Twitters void (at least that get the same level of traction as Twitter). Paying the Twitter tax still seems to get your information out faster and farther than almost any other alternative. I think the only way Twitter is going to fully fall will be if it no longer is profitable to run, otherwise large groups will continue to use it. One positive is that people seem to be diversifying from Twitter with Lemmy, Mastadon, Reddit, or something else (I guess Discord falls in the something else).
Now if you’re just a regular person and paying for Twitter blue then I agree that you’re probably not trustworthy or at least a bit stupid.
Did you Google the name? Because if you had you’d realize it’s not a news organization and they don’t make news articles. OSINT stands for Open Source Intelligence, it’s basically a discord group of people in the intelligence sector posting things they have heard going on. Looking at their Twitter they seem to cover just about anything and everything, they have stuff about Ukraine, Gaza, France, UAE, Venezuela, etc. Looking for other stories it looks like they beat mainstream media to the story by about 10 hrs.
Looking into the claim itself, it seems that it originated from Israel, but Al-Jazeera’s response isn’t that the guy is innocent but rather that he never worked for them
https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-805525
Turns out that the guy had written opinion pieces for Al-Jazeera and he mainly worked for the Palestine Chronicle, which is based out of Washington state. It looks like his information was included on Al-JAzeera because he had written opinion pieces, but wasn’t actually employed by them. Take that for what you will, but it doesn’t change the narrative much.
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1799715089936761144
Purportedly one of the hostages was being held in the house of an Al-Jazeera journalist/writer/editor and several members of his family were killed while trying to prevent the hostage from being rescued.
EDIT: Turns out he wasn’t an employee of Al-Jazeera, but he wrote opinion pieces for them.
EDIT 2: New article https://www.yahoo.com/news/al-jazeera-denies-connection-journalist-194749492.html - It seems that the female hostage was not the one being held at this location, but rather the three men were. The location is an apartment building and the hostages were being held on the 3rd floor while the journalist was living on the first floor. The claim that the journalist and his family were killed comes from a European based Hamas affiliate.
EDIT 3: Another article - https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-confirms-abdallah-aljamal-was-holding-3-hostages-in-his-home-in-nuseirat-alongside-his-family/ - I don’t read Hebrew, but it looks like IDF is confirming that the journalist and his family were the ones holding the hostages, not just someone in the same building.
EDIT 4: Looks like the US media has gotten hold of the story finally, but it’s mostly NY Post and Fox news. Looks like they’re behind the times because they’re just running the Al-Jazeera angle.
Hey, I appreciate your response! I totally understand that people want to have their feelings confirmed in such a space, but that’s also why I am critical in it. In this sort of environment the discussion is almost as much emotion and feeling as it is the words actually used. A sort of slang can develop where we can understand what each other means without the words we use being truly accurate. The problem with that is that this environment is also an echo chamber, we put meaning onto things that we want it to mean because it also confirms our beliefs.
This leads to situations where it’s impossible to differentiate between radical statements and reasonable statements. A good example is the chant, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” When both extremists and normies use the saying it becomes hard to differentiate them. Another example is the Gadsden flag, on it’s own there is nothing wrong with the flag with a deep historical heritage, but when the far right started using it as a symbol any rational centrist or leftist immediately stopped using it for fear of association. Back in school I had a friend who had the flag hanging on their wall, but around 2012 they specifically stated that they had taken it down because it had been co-opted by the far right.
I don’t really like the use of the word colonizer in this context, it just doesn’t fit right with me. The definition technically fits, but colonization to me is more like an invasive species moving in and slowly overwhelming the native population. This is more akin to what we were seeing with settlers moving into the West Bank.
What’s going on in Gaza is more akin to straight up scorched earth takeover and land theft. Hell, calling it an invasion and genocide feels more accurate.
I never said I was ok with what Israel is doing, my argument was on the meaning of words. Leftists in general are really terrible about saying what they mean, because they don’t seem to know the meaning of the words they use.
The cycle seems to go like this:
- make a statement
- realize the statement doesn’t mean what they wanted to say
- double down and try to change the meaning of the words they used
I know I said we need to be clear in our language, but since we were talking about a “regime” from the beginning I didn’t think I had to continuously spell it out throughout the discussion. Yes, we’re talking about whatever regime is being referenced, but again the last guy said it wasn’t Israel.
Regime Noun
a particular government or a system or method of government:
Your comparison between China and Israel is really terrible. If we’re being super duper clear on what a regime is, it’s the system of government. Israel is a parliamentary democracy, all citizens over the age of 18 can vote. Since the regime is democratically elected it’s kinda hard to differentiate the Israeli people from their Regime. China on the other hand is a unitary one-party state, if you’re not in the party and at the right level of the party then you don’t have any voice. It’s a lot easier to separate the people of China from their government.
Well that can’t be what he thinks, I listed that as an option in my original response
Except this guy specifically said he hopes the current Israel is dismantled. At best they could be hoping that Israel changes into a better government, but I don’t think that’s their meaning.
But he clearly said
No where does that say dismantling Israel.
So what entity which has colonized Palestine for 76 years, but isn’t the current Israel does he mean?
EDIT: Words have meaning, if the words you use don’t mean what you mean, then admit that you used the wrong words and be more clear or else people must assume you mean what you say. Coming in after the OP and attributing meaning that they didn’t give doesn’t suddenly change what they said. A reminder, the original post was;
Hopefully this is a step toward dismantling the brutal apartheid regime that has colonised Palestine for 76 years."
that has colonised Palestine for 76 years.
So who are they talking about then?
No one said that, dipshit.
Dismantle verb
To get rid of a system or organization, usually over a period of time:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/dismantle
Basically everyone wants either two-states based on 1967 borders or Israel to give Palestinians equal rights and create a single, secular democracy
Except this guy specifically said he hopes the current Israel is dismantled. At best they could be hoping that Israel changes into a better government, but I don’t think that’s their meaning.
This is known as a red herring fallacy, the fact that it fused her labia doesn’t change the nature of the situation, nor does it increase the gravity of the situation.
“She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin.”
Additionanally:
“According to a 2007 report, McDonald’s had not reduced the temperature of its coffee, serving it at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C), relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future injury and liability (though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee). However, in 2013 the New York Times reported that it had lowered its service temperature to 170–180 °F (77–82 °C). The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C).”
So not only did it not change the temperature at which most major brands serve coffee, the temperature that was proposed as reasonable by the defense attorneys was also still hot enough to cause third degree burns. I get that she might want them to pay for damages, but she literally dumped it on herself, the reason she was so seriously hurt was because she was 79 years old. If you’re buying hot coffee that’s freshly brewed then it should be obvious it’s hot enough to seriously burn you. If it’s over 150 F then you will get major significant burns.
As to the idea that they had been warned:
“Other documents obtained from McDonald’s showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald’s coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.”
McDonalds purportedly sells more than 50 million cups of coffee per year, over 10 years that was 500 million cups of coffee. 0.00014% is hardly a “warning.”
You can get third degree burns from touching water which is 150 degree F for around 2 seconds. Most coffee world wide is served between 160 and 180 F.
In that case the water was supposedly served at 190 F while competitors coffees were served at 160 F. The lawyers in that suit claimed that if the coffee had been in the 160 range it would have taken up to 20 seconds to get third degree burns. We now know that even at 160 F she would have gotten the same burns within 5 seconds.
What exactly is your point?
Why do you think a business should be compelled to sell something at any given price? I mean sure, you can burn them in the court of public opinion, but it’s another thing when you say that government regulation should dictate the cost of a coffee beverage. I think that’s where most people are landing in this, they agree it’s stupid for Starbucks to do such a petty thing, but when it comes to lawsuits involving ADA regulations it crosses a line for reasonable response.
It’s almost like the lawsuit for hot coffee where the person argued they didn’t know the coffee was hot
Most farming is subsidized, the debate then is which one is subsidized more. A bit of a specious argument at the end of the day.
I think arguments about who has a claim aren’t the real question here. Recency vs historic rights to a region aren’t enough and really never have been. The whole argument comes down to who has the power to hold the region and any arguments to the contrary are naive. Israel has the power, Palestinian’s didn’t want to play ball, so Israel took the ball home. A large part of Israel being able to hold the region has come down to geopolitics and capitalism. A lot of companies have headquarters and branches in Israel which makes a lot of money. Hamas, like the Taliban, are not expected to be good for big business. On top of that, Israel is friendly and cooperative with western allies and is one of the few such in the region. The west is not going to trade a friendly but harshly conservative Israel for an unfriendly and even more conservative Hamas.
You can talk all day about who deserves what, who has rights to what, and what the moral thing to do is. At the end of the day the world is going to follow the Golden Rule, “He who has the gold makes the rules.”