Israel vs Hamas (4 Viewers)

DJ1BigTymer said:

Whatever dude. The Republicans have only added to the debt with every administration since Reagan and the previous administration was the worse of them all.

Click to expand...

Can you explain exactly what you are upset about? Do you not want any offset spending cuts or do you not like the cuts proposed?

MT15 said:

Click to expand...

I wonder if Rothkopf is still a foreign agent for the UAE making $50,000 a month?

MT15 said:

Click to expand...

Did the "misinformation" reporter not notice that account is clearly labeled satire?

I think it's good to show what is or isn't true in relation to wars, but considering the source is a government funded censorship arm of the BBC its probably best to be skeptical of his account overall. Maybe that's why he's picked out easily debunked posts that aren't accurate to gain people's trust.

SaintForLife said:

I don't agree with what they are proposing to cut, but I definitely agree with paying for the new spending by offset spending cuts. I'm actually surprised that it was even proposed.

Are you that upset because of any cuts being proposed to offset the spending or are you upset about the cuts they proposed?

30 trillion in debt. It's time we stopped putting everything on the credit card.

Click to expand...

Why is it that CUTS have to be on table versus INCREASING REVENUE?

Thats the crux of the issue he is proposing- we will lessen our ability to collect revenue so then we HAVE to cut spending.

Its like if a company said " ok so in order to increase revenue, lets cut our top earners and that money we were paying them is now revenue!"

SaintForLife said:

Did the "misinformation" reporter not notice that account is clearly labeled satire?

I think it's good to show what is or isn't true in relation to wars, but considering the source is a government funded censorship arm of the BBC its probably best to be skeptical of his account overall. Maybe that's why he's picked out easily debunked posts that aren't accurate to gain people's trust.

Click to expand...

Do you think everyone noticed it was satire when it went viral? I don’t think so. I think a fair number of people believed it. It isn’t wrong to point out that it isn’t true.

Do you have any comments on the rest of his posts? He isn’t picking out easily debunked posts overall, and has shown disinformation that favors both pro-Israeli and pro-Gaza points of view.

So, let‘s address the problem with your own post here.

The BBC is government funded, all parts of it, as far as I know. So the words “government funded censorship arm of the BBC” is at best disingenuous and most likely just dishonest framing. Government funded and independent are also not mutually exclusive. Do you have any proof that the UK government is influencing BBC content? If you don’t then this is just unfounded conspiratorial thinking. Which you seem to apply only to POV you don’t agree with. I wish you would apply a little skepticism to the accounts you champion, who have so many credibility issues that it’s just gob-smacking when you believe their spin.

It appears their latest campaign is to convince you that everyone and anyone who attempts to debunk disinformation is dishonest. So you should believe these accounts, and only them, that you champion unconditionally. Which is a huge red flag. Don’t ignore the red flags.

There is pressure on students right now not only in America but in European countries too. Politicians are trying to push their beliefs on our young generation. As far as I remember, student groups always stood for peace and human rights while politicians were always warmongering bastages. Students shouldn't suffer just because they want to live in a world without wars and conflicts. Isn't it the thing that all people (including politicians) want? However, the answer is, apparently, no. Recently I've read that such students are expelled due to their beliefs. And there was also a headline that Jewish businessmen said that they wouldn't hire such students. Well, it's a triumph of democracy and freedom of speech.

Kath Bennett said:

There is pressure on students right now not only in America but in European countries too. Politicians are trying to push their beliefs on our young generation. As far as I remember, student groups always stood for peace and human rights while politicians were always warmongering bastages. Students shouldn't suffer just because they want to live in a world without wars and conflicts. Isn't it the thing that all people (including politicians) want? However, the answer is, apparently, no. Recently I've read that such students are expelled due to their beliefs. And there was also a headline that Jewish businessmen said that they wouldn't hire such students. Well, it's a triumph of democracy and freedom of speech.

Click to expand...

I'll just make it clear before I jump into this. Any organization or business in the US supporting Hamas should not be certified, funded or provided safe haven in the US. There's no place for brazen antisemitism here. Likewise there's no place for anti-anygroup here.

All that said, Florida is hardly the example other states should follow.

SaintForLife said:

I wonder if Rothkopf is still a foreign agent for the UAE making $50,000 a month?

Click to expand...

Did you read any of the documents? Do you have the faintest idea what you are talking about with this post? Exactly how do you think this affects what he said in the thread I posted?

I fully realize you will not answer this. You never answer any thoughtful questions about what you post. All you do is drive-by posts without any true substance.

Why would they oppose humanitarian aid to Gaza?

MT15 said:

Do you think everyone noticed it was satire when it went viral? I don’t think so. I think a fair number of people believed it. It isn’t wrong to point out that it isn’t true.

Do you have any comments on the rest of his posts? He isn’t picking out easily debunked posts overall, and has shown disinformation that favors both pro-Israeli and pro-Gaza points of view.

So, let‘s address the problem with your own post here.

The BBC is government funded, all parts of it, as far as I know. So the words “government funded censorship arm of the BBC” is at best disingenuous and most likely just dishonest framing. Government funded and independent are also not mutually exclusive. Do you have any proof that the UK government is influencing BBC content? If you don’t then this is just unfounded conspiratorial thinking. Which you seem to apply only to POV you don’t agree with. I wish you would apply a little skepticism to the accounts you champion, who have so many credibility issues that it’s just gob-smacking when you believe their spin.

It appears their latest campaign is to convince you that everyone and anyone who attempts to debunk disinformation is dishonest. So you should believe these accounts, and only them, that you champion unconditionally. Which is a huge red flag. Don’t ignore the red flags.

Click to expand...

I don't have any issues with the other posts of his you posted, but I'm noticing a disturbing trend that you seem to be okay with. Many of the so called disinformation reporters have connections and/or are funded by governments.

I feel like a broken record, but why on the world would we be looking to governments, who are some of the biggest purveyors of disinformation, to tell us what's true of false and what we should believe and ignore? I truly don't understand why the left feels the government needs to be the arbiter of what is true what's not.

Do you have any proof that the British government doesn't influence BBC content?

If anyone assumed Verify would be scrutinising the long track record of the BBC and the rest of the UK’s establishment media in misleading audiences, they look set to be sorely disappointed. Even Spring’s job title connects disinformation specifically to social media rather than to the so-called “legacy media” to which she belongs.

Spring airily dismissed as “trolling” those on social media who pointed out that the BBC had itself peddled plenty of disinformation: from echoing the deceptions about WMD that justified Britain’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 to amplifying the evidence-free and highly politicised claims of antisemitism in the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn that turned its socialist leader into a pariah.

For that reason if no other, there are good grounds to believe that BBC Verify will soon become central to the very disinformation problem it claims to be seeking to stamp out.

'Ministry of Truth'

It is worth remembering that it was the BBC’s all-too-real Ministry of Information, where George Orwell worked during World War Two, that became the model for the fictional “Ministry of Truth” in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The Ministry of Truth’s slogan ran: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

A state broadcaster telling the public that it has special insights into truth - and anyone who disagrees is dangerously promoting “disinformation” - has a long and ugly pedigree.

Far from prioritising “independence” as it proclaims, the BBC was originally set up as a vehicle for promoting British establishment interests, as its founder confided in a diary entry in 1926 concerning that year’s General Strike. Lord Reith wrote of the British government: “They know they can trust us not to be really impartial.”

In 2009, a former director general of the BBC, Greg Dyke, suggested nothing had changed eight decades on. He argued that BBC news coverage was part of a Westminster “conspiracy” designed to keep a failing British political system from being subjected to “radical change” - a characterisation that was even harder to dismiss after Corbyn became Labour leader six years later.

The BBC also appears to have secretly colluded with the British government in its information warfare campaigns abroad.

A batch of leaked documents, published by the Grayzone website in 2021, showed that the BBC had joined efforts, in the words of the Foreign Office, to “weaken the Russian state’s influence on its near neighbours”. How does that square with BBC claims of impartiality in covering the subsequent war in Ukraine?

As journalist Glenn Greenwald observed, the very idea of bestowing the title of “disinformation expert” on a journalist is “a fraud, a scam” meant to falsely impart a scientific basis to their highly partisan role. Greenwald added: “If you can convince the public that this is a real expertise, then you can justify censorship.”

MT15 said:

Did you read any of the documents? Do you have the faintest idea what you are talking about with this post? Exactly how do you think this affects what he said in the thread I posted?

I fully realize you will not answer this. You never answer any thoughtful questions about what you post. All you do is drive-by posts without any true substance.

Click to expand...

I was just wondering if you were aware that the guy you posted was/is literally a paid foreign agent for the UAE. Is that someone who should be expected to have a neutral opinion or are his opinions influenced by the work he does for the UAE.

Just as I said in my previous post about these misinformation reporters having links or being funded by governments, many of the people you and others here post who talk about Ukraine, Russia, Isreal, Hamas, etc also have connections and/or get funding from governments through think tanks. They are basically government cutouts.

Does that not concern you enough to be skeptical of their opinions?

From 2018:

How do we decide what a terrorist organization is?

Does being associated with a recognized state make a group immune from being a terrorist organization no matter what they do?



I agree with Jessica. The IDF is a terrorist organization.

SaintForLife said:

I was just wondering if you were aware that the guy you posted was/is literally a paid foreign agent for the UAE. Is that someone who should be expected to have a neutral opinion or are his opinions influenced by the work he does for the UAE.

Just as I said in my previous post about these misinformation reporters having links or being funded by governments, many of the people you and others here post who talk about Ukraine, Russia, Isreal, Hamas, etc also have connections and/or get funding from governments through think tanks. They are basically government cutouts.

Does that not concern you enough to be skeptical of their opinions?

From 2018:

Click to expand...

So the contract with the UAE is very specific. Did you read it?

Does it bother you that your sources are categorically lying about Rothkopf? His group that has a contract with UAE does NOT lobby for UAE. Yet he labels him a lobbyist. It’s totally dishonest and it’s not the first time this has happened with your sources.

Does it not bother you that you are reading a bunch of people and taking their word about other people that they are constantly trying to discredit without doing any reading at all to see if what they say is actually true? Ask yourself this: what kind of person tries to convince people that everyone else is lying and they are the only source of truth?

Yet, you take whatever your sources say at face value. It should be noted that whatever Rothkopf’s company does for UAE, which I will show you in a minute, doesn’t affect his personal opinion on the war. That you would even introduce this is just exceedingly tangential. It has nothing to do with anything he posted in that thread that I am sure you didn’t even read.

Here is what the contract that TRG has with UAE covers, this is from their government filing:


Here is exactly what they do for UAE:

Welp, I didn’t want to believe it, but at least one person posting horrible terroristic threats online was a Cornell student.

Here is the latest on the war.​

Seriously injured Palestinians began arriving by ambulance in Egypt on Wednesday, Egyptian state TV and a local medical official said, as the Rafah border crossing opened for the first such crossings since the start of the war between Hamas and Israel.

Hundreds of foreign passport holders were also moving through checkpoints at the border crossing as part of a deal negotiated among Israel, Egypt, Hamas, the United States and Qatar. Egypt was set to receive hundreds of people on Wednesday, according to Western diplomats in Cairo and Jerusalem and the Gaza authorities.

efil4 said:

Why is it that CUTS have to be on table versus INCREASING REVENUE?

Thats the crux of the issue he is proposing- we will lessen our ability to collect revenue so then we HAVE to cut spending.

Its like if a company said " ok so in order to increase revenue, lets cut our top earners and that money we were paying them is now revenue!"

Click to expand...

Conservatives don't even engage on this topic in any real way. They would have to explain why only the very wealthy deserve permanent tax cuts. Do they seriously believe income inequality isn't an issue? How many more decades should we wait until trickle down economics is considered wrong? You would have to start with that, and having to engage on the fundamental points of the debate is beyond them.

The nicest way I can say this is: Conservative voters are not very evolved thinkers on the "WHY" behind their own ideology.

Democrats are going to make a very compelling argument. That massive amounts of wealth in the hands of the few is an issue. The idea that taxing extreme wealth is a public good. This is not an extreme idea, nor is it new. A great anecdote to this, Elon has the money to buy Twitter, and burn it to the ground. Would good was accomplished by Elon having so much money he could blow 40+ billion of it?

Not that I care or want to wade back into this deadweight issue, but this article, written by 3 Israeli, captures what I have tried to express, most inarticulately. It details how we got here, and the only reasonable path forward for Israel; if they are to remain liberally democratic. I encourage everyone to read this from start to finish. How we arrived to this catastrophic moment isn’t difficult to understand based on Israel’s policy (note this is not referring to the convoluted mutual hate that is the source of the problem).

Obama when he was president was asked why he isn’t doing much about Israel and Palestine. I don’t remember the details but he referred to the time when fdr was asked a similar question about a difficult issue. Fdr’s response was, “make me”. So Obama answered, “make me”. Considering the political power wielded by the Israeli lobby, aipac in particular, Obama understood that there wasn’t much political will to entertain this topic. And I believe this same sentiment drove the Biden admin on their current path (before 10/7), which was to continue what trump started: normalize Arab relations without considering the Palestinian needs. Really, they probably relied on Israel’s ic who probably told them all was fine with the Palestinians based on Netanyahu’s relationship with Hamas.

And speaking of Netanyahu: