They have the right to defend themselves against the families of journalists… I guess? Super dangerous people, especially the little kids of course.
/s just to be sure
It IS dangerous to them!
Genocide thrives best in silence
Remember, as their own spokesperson constantly repeats, the IDF only hits "military targets"...
The news came hours after Axios reported that Secretary Antony Blinken told U.S. Jewish leaders he asked Qatar to “turn down the volume on Al Jazeera’s coverage” of the Israeli genocidal campaign in the Gaza Strip, accusing the network of being “anti-Israel.”
Well this will certainly make them more enamored of Israel. Some smart psychology there.
Extremely disappointing statement from Blinken, we shouldn't be interfering with foreign news networks accurately reporting on atrocities.
How do you know that their reporting is accurate?
Exactly, Al Jazeera is owned by the Qatari royal family, guess where the heads of Hammas have been hiding? Qatar. So there's no question Al Jazeera is a propaganda outlet at all.
However, still doesn't excuse blowing up media representatives, even propagandists.
reverse psychology only works on toddlers, when it comes to second guessing things. "you don't actually like those carrots, do you?! and those PEAS. BLECK!"
even on toddlers... you're lucky if it's 50/50 that it works. You really should just learn to not over cook the vedgies
This tells us all about the Israeli definition of "military target" used by the Israeli Spokesperson in their press conferences when he says they only bombed "military targets".
The sleazespeak of the Russians when it comes to Ukraine was disgusting, and the Israelis manage to be even worse, by a significant margin.
"Military target" must mean things that might harm their military, which includes the truth.
Serious question: What are the chances that the family is being targeted versus just being in a building they happened to bomb along with so many others? The article doesn't address that, and it's hard for me to believe that Israel would even know where this guy's family was. I would think if their intelligence was that good, then they should be able to locate some of the hostages, right? Just for context, I think both sides suck and don't care to hear any vitriol from either side. I'm really only interested in discussing if there is any evidence this was a targeted attack vs happenstance.
i think the implication is not that the reporter's family was targeted, but that israel is not taking civilian casualties serious.
The embarassing part here is Blinken telling a news agency to tone down their coverage, even though the families of employees are being murdered.
yes, Blinken made his comment before the family died. That shouldn't really change how fucked up this is.
The article very clearly accused Israel of targeting his family.
Yeah, but there's a difference between an article saying something, and something being true. This isn't exactly an unbiased source.
Yes of course and I'm posting on that article to question the claims it's making. OP stated that the implication was not that the family was targeted but if you read the article it very clearly is. I want to know if there are any supporting facts because it seems unlikely to me.
I think most of the folks posting here read it as fact that Israel specifically targeted this guy family to scare others for reporting against Israel. It's like "see!?, I told'ya !"
Did you even open the article? Just read the first paragraph.
Today, Al-Jazeera Bureau Chief Wael El-Dahdouh was reporting live in Gaza when an Israeli airstrike killed his wife and two children. Now, other journalists also fear their families could be targeted solely for them doing their job.
Have you even read my post?
It's not about whether guy's family died at all but wether his family was specifically targeted and wither the motive was to scare jurnalists.
You said "most people here read it as fact that Israel tarteted his family" I'm saying well yeah the article stated it as fact that they targeted his family I just want to know if that is likely or not because to me it seems far fetched.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It makes less sense they specifically targeted random journalist family than the version that his family was killed by being at the place that was shelled. It sad nevertheless, though.
I think it's a very fair question. I find it hard to believe they bombed a building/area for a single journalist's family. Especially if the family was in the area that Israel said to evacuate, which would raise questions on why the reporter thought leaving his family in an area explicitly labeled as dangerous was a good idea..
Pretty much zero. Also last thing Israel needs is another bad publicity ATM when the war crime accusation is hanging in the air. They would have to be plain dumps and geniuses at the same time. The guy will now report 10x more things against Israel then before and all media around the world will copy paste this article without veryficatiom to get readers. Shocking news are best for making money after all.
Ignoring the war, bombing, murder, politics, etc.. Who the fuck is Blinken to tell the news how to report the news?
They have the right to defend themselves against the families of journalists… I guess? Super dangerous people, especially the little kids of course.
/s just to be sure
It IS dangerous to them!
Genocide thrives best in silence
Remember, as their own spokesperson constantly repeats, the IDF only hits "military targets"...
Well this will certainly make them more enamored of Israel. Some smart psychology there.
Extremely disappointing statement from Blinken, we shouldn't be interfering with foreign news networks accurately reporting on atrocities.
How do you know that their reporting is accurate?
Exactly, Al Jazeera is owned by the Qatari royal family, guess where the heads of Hammas have been hiding? Qatar. So there's no question Al Jazeera is a propaganda outlet at all.
However, still doesn't excuse blowing up media representatives, even propagandists.
reverse psychology only works on toddlers, when it comes to second guessing things. "you don't actually like those carrots, do you?! and those PEAS. BLECK!"
even on toddlers... you're lucky if it's 50/50 that it works. You really should just learn to not over cook the vedgies
Here’s another source for this story.
This tells us all about the Israeli definition of "military target" used by the Israeli Spokesperson in their press conferences when he says they only bombed "military targets".
The sleazespeak of the Russians when it comes to Ukraine was disgusting, and the Israelis manage to be even worse, by a significant margin.
"Military target" must mean things that might harm their military, which includes the truth.
Serious question: What are the chances that the family is being targeted versus just being in a building they happened to bomb along with so many others? The article doesn't address that, and it's hard for me to believe that Israel would even know where this guy's family was. I would think if their intelligence was that good, then they should be able to locate some of the hostages, right? Just for context, I think both sides suck and don't care to hear any vitriol from either side. I'm really only interested in discussing if there is any evidence this was a targeted attack vs happenstance.
i think the implication is not that the reporter's family was targeted, but that israel is not taking civilian casualties serious.
The embarassing part here is Blinken telling a news agency to tone down their coverage, even though the families of employees are being murdered.
yes, Blinken made his comment before the family died. That shouldn't really change how fucked up this is.
The article very clearly accused Israel of targeting his family.
Yeah, but there's a difference between an article saying something, and something being true. This isn't exactly an unbiased source.
Yes of course and I'm posting on that article to question the claims it's making. OP stated that the implication was not that the family was targeted but if you read the article it very clearly is. I want to know if there are any supporting facts because it seems unlikely to me.
I think most of the folks posting here read it as fact that Israel specifically targeted this guy family to scare others for reporting against Israel. It's like "see!?, I told'ya !"
Did you even open the article? Just read the first paragraph.
Today, Al-Jazeera Bureau Chief Wael El-Dahdouh was reporting live in Gaza when an Israeli airstrike killed his wife and two children. Now, other journalists also fear their families could be targeted solely for them doing their job.
Have you even read my post?
It's not about whether guy's family died at all but wether his family was specifically targeted and wither the motive was to scare jurnalists.
You said "most people here read it as fact that Israel tarteted his family" I'm saying well yeah the article stated it as fact that they targeted his family I just want to know if that is likely or not because to me it seems far fetched.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It makes less sense they specifically targeted random journalist family than the version that his family was killed by being at the place that was shelled. It sad nevertheless, though.
I think it's a very fair question. I find it hard to believe they bombed a building/area for a single journalist's family. Especially if the family was in the area that Israel said to evacuate, which would raise questions on why the reporter thought leaving his family in an area explicitly labeled as dangerous was a good idea..
Pretty much zero. Also last thing Israel needs is another bad publicity ATM when the war crime accusation is hanging in the air. They would have to be plain dumps and geniuses at the same time. The guy will now report 10x more things against Israel then before and all media around the world will copy paste this article without veryficatiom to get readers. Shocking news are best for making money after all.
Ignoring the war, bombing, murder, politics, etc.. Who the fuck is Blinken to tell the news how to report the news?