Wednesday, October 18, 2023

Here, let me rephrase that for you.


No, no, too wordy ... let me tighten that up for you:

"Canadian political leaders still too fucking scared to criticize Israel for bombing a hospital."

There ... much better.


Anonymous said...

So 10 days after the Hamas attack, the CBC still refuses to mention what Israel has been doing since? The CBC's relationship with truth and impartiality is strange indeed.
If the truth puts you on one side of the argument, you aren’t allowed to articulate it. It'll still take a lot of convincing, but I'm starting to think Poilievre may have a point in defunding the corpse.

Anonymous said...

I've actually been hearing reasonably balanced levels of commentary on CBC - certainly to a greater degree than other other media.

Anonymous said...

Do your homework. It was a misfired Palestinian rocket.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 2:56 pm: Neither narrative has been confirmed yet, so instead of commenting on others' "homework" like a teenage twitter addict, you might consider shutting up until actual, verified, third party forensic and tracking data is confirmed. Just a thought.

I suggest this because you see oblivious to the basic crisis communications management strategy we're seeing here. Let me educate you.

When Palestinian American journalists Shireen Abu Akleh was shot and killed last year when reporting on West Bank demonstrations, Israeli officials immediately announced she had been killed by Palestinian fire, and that IDF forces "do not target civilians."

The bullet that killed her was retrieved and proved forensically to have been fired by an IDF rifle. The Israeli response was that they didn't accept the forensic identification, but that if it WAS correct, it was probably because some Palestinian gunman had snatched up an IDF rifle and shot the journalist, because "IDF forces do not target civilians."

Normally the story would have died there. However, the journalist was an American citizen, and the US government insisted on conducting their own forensic analysis, which determined, almost a year later, that Shireen Abu Akleh had been shot by an Israeli soldier.

Israel has so far not acknowledged that finding, nor the accompanying recommendations.

In such cases, the issue is not "truth". The strategy is to put out a plausible explanation that exonerates the accused in the eyes of their supporters, and then to defend that explanation until the issue is forgotten.

This satisfied true believers like yourself, who simply seize on the proferred explanation as "fact". More adult analysts wait for the data.

Anonymous said...

I'm inclined to trust bellingcat's cautious findings;

I like Biden's comment:
"Based on what I've seen, it appears as though it was done by the other team, not you," Biden said while seated with Netanyahu. "But there's a lot of people out there not sure, so we've got to overcome a lot of things."


Anonymous said...

Given the forensic and surveillance tech available, I suggest waiting until there's an actual analysis performed. At this point, partisans are cherrypicking "evidence" and drawing conclusions that support their ideological bent.

Purple library guy said...

And how is this analysis going to be performed? Hamas won't let US/Israeli analysts in, both because they won't let in USians or Israelis in at all and because they would, reasonably enough, not trust such analysts to tell the truth. Israel won't let in anyone else, and nobody would believe any analysis allowed by Hamas. So where is this impartial analysis supposed to come from?

Anonymous said...

I was inclined to blame Israel, but bellingcat's suggestions seem plausible: a piece of the rocket landing in the parking lot and killing people who were sleeping there because nowhere else seemed safe?
I mean it's easy to believe Israel would choose to bomb a hospital, but it's possible that they did not do so on this specific occasion.