Is it OK for NYT, CNN and squad members to report misinformation

[Dill]

(10-26-2023, 10:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't trust Biden, you do.  Hence your sudden reversal is interesting.  Everyone has an agenda, but Hamas' stated agenda is the utter destruction of an entire nation of people.  Let me know when Israel or the US has such a stated agenda.

 I see, Nazi comparisons are fine when Dill makes them, but comparisons to N. Korea or Iran are clearly Fox News inspired indoctrination.  You have no idea how much I'm enjoying every post you're making here.  It's like a how to guide to illustrate your own hypocrisy and bigotry.

LOL, you literally just said it "contributes to the distrust of Hamas"?!?  As if anyone with a brain ever trusted a terrorist organization that engages in wanton rape and murder and needed to be exposed as untrustworthy?!?  Oh man, I could not have scripted your downfall any better if I had written it myself.  You're literally defending terrorists from being "distrusted".  Exposing yourself as a literal apologist for terrorists after all these years, it's really quite fascinating.

I don't "trust" anyone. I gather information and compare and contrast using the historical record available. I don't let labels think
for me--not even regarding claims by NK and Iran. You've translated that superficial practice from the domestic to international sphere now.
People can both condemn Hamas' "stated agenda" and Israel's unstated (at least that of the Sharon and Netanyahu governments), to
deny a two-state solution and incrementally appropriate what remains of Palestinian land. Your demand is apparently that only one of
these goals be condemned or even recognized.

You should specify which "fine" Nazi comparisons you are referring to; Otherwise that is just more innuendo.
I'm definitely NOT closing out actual fleshed-out fact-based comparisons to NK or Iran or anyone. I'm just saying you don't get to
let labels argue for you.  Iran as "the head of the snake" and the real cause of current conflict is, yes, a Fox News construction. 
It's based on a one-sided conception of causes to the conflict, and part of a general noise about Hamas that drowns out any
questions about how 2.2 million Palestinians came to be trapped on a narrow strip of land surrounded by fences and Israeli guns,
and why the US is supporting that containment and the sabotage of the peace process.

You cannot help projecting a lot into the texts of people who disagree with you, but the last paragraph above is maybe a
record for the number of erroneous conclusions compacted into such small space.  Yes, the initial reporting on Hamas
has, in my view, backfired, rendering them more untrustworthy to people following the conflict--that means people in the
ME who have found them more trustworthy than the IDF. That's a description, not a defense. Many of those people would happily
ask why you find a country which engages in wanton destruction of Palestinian homes and lives is trustworthy. You would know
this if you did not censor your own news intake.

Defining me as an "apologist for terrorism" is just an attempt to close out principled research process before reaching conclusions. It's a demand that people start with your conclusion, and then select facts and moral perspectives which fit it. By your definition, anyone who stands on International Human Rights Law in this conflict is an apologist for terrorism. You cannot make a case against this law nor can you argue from facts, hence the pretense of "enjoying" my "downfall" as a substitute.