If i’m not mistaken, haven’t most media outlets reported that less than half the protestors at colleges are actual students of the university itself?
But yeah i saw this skit when it first aired, it was funny and had a sense of truth to it
Was there a war that didn’t result in civilian casualties? Certainly not ones I can think of. Japan killed a couple of thousands of people, both military and civilian and the war that resulted, caused in hundreds of thousands of Japanese killed by allied forces. Of course the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed over 200,000 civilians - including women and children. Yet, allied nations celebrated. In Germany, one incendiary raid on Hamburg resulted in over 300,000 casualties. Yet allied nations cheered on VE day.
What is the key difference today? It’s the constant drumbeat by the media claiming how brutal and merciless Israel is after the Palestinians started the war killing over 1000 Israeli civilians and taking all those hostages (numbers in relation to population far greater than those after the attack on Pearl Harbor). I often wonder if we would have won WWII had the media not supported our efforts. I also wonder what is the motive of today’s media in the current conflict. To me, it would be the equivalent of our media in WWII supporting the Germany and Japan.
2 Likes
Here is an interesting follow-up read Mike on how the media was controlled and shaped post nuclear bombing.
I don’t think I mind a drumbeat of a factual accounting of things. Granted the media of today
is much more prolific and almost has limitless ability to touch us on our personal phones and computers. But many of us yearn for the way things were in yesteryear on lots of things.
Interesting thread here if reported accurately… I’m pretty sure I’ve found Bibi’s opponent next election
Still want to know why I’m a coward.
My take is a one state solution is not achievable, two or however many wrongs don’t make a right, West Bank settlements are problematic and just because America favors Israel that doesn’t mean Palestinians have no right to a homeland.
Also, arguments get lost in the weeds by semantics and telling others what their position is.
Double standards are alive and well.
Maybe “coward” isn’t the right term or is too strong a term; after all, this is just a dang message board. It ain’t life or death. No one’s life, health, or safety are at stake here.
But I’d like to know why, on another other string, you weren’t willing to answer my question as to what exactly you were referring to when you referred to a “one-state” solution not being viable.
What type of “one state” solution do you mean? A one Palestinian state only solution, a one Israeli state only solution, or something else altogether, and why do you imagine any such one-state solution either isn’t viable or wouldn’t be viable, because Israel has thrived in the current one-state solution format?
Some others tried to answer that question for you, but given that they aren’t you and can’t possibly read your mind (there’s no credible scientific evidence that I am aware of to support telepathy, mind-reading, etc), I’d like to hear what you actually mean from you personally.
Anything they say may be inaccurate, given that they aren’t you and don’t speak for you.
To be fair, UCLA also banned a militant anti-Zionist from speaking at their graduation, and ultimately cancelled commencement, but still.
As a state university, and therefore, a state actor, UCLA is under strict first amendment scrutiny.
They have far less power to restrict speech on campus than a private university would.
1 Like
Choosing a speaker for commencement isn’t a freedom of speech issue is it?
It possibly is, given that UCLA is a state actor, but at the same time a) there’s no requirement that a university even have a commencement speaker at all, and b) there isn’t even a requirement that a university hold a formal commencement.
That gave UCLA a way out that wouldn’t involve violating free speech.
According to Israeli estimates, Hamas has been stealing up to 60% of the aid entering the Gaza Strip, and a Channel 12 report last week revealed that the terrorist organization has made at least $500 million in profit off humanitarian aid since the start of the war on Oct. 7.
Why?
…
Excerpt:
Pentagon Says None of Food Aid Moved Through Gaza Pier Has Made It to Palestinians
…
The pier, erected by the U.S. Army to ease the humanitarian crisis amid the Israel-Hamas war, was secured to the Gaza shoreline Thursday, and trucks began dropping off pallets of food ashore on Friday. But the United Nations reported difficulties moving the aid once it reached the shore, including an apparent ambush that reportedly turned deadly.
Pentagon spokesman Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder told reporters Tuesday that more than 569 metric tons of aid had been delivered to Gaza via the pier, called a Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore operation, or JLOTS, but that it did not appear that any of it had actually been delivered to the starving residents of Gaza.
…
Officials from the U.N. World Food Program – one of the aid groups working on the ground in Gaza – told The Associated Press that none of the 11 aid trucks that left the beach area where supplies were being stockpiled made it to a warehouse Saturday.
The group said a crowd of people gathered nearby and “commandeered” the aid, and The Associated Press reported that the scene ended with one Palestinian dead from a gunshot.
While the operation is still struggling to get aid delivered to the Palestinian people, it appears to be meeting the expectations that U.S. military officials have set for themselves and the maritime component of the operation.
On Thursday, Vice Adm. Brad Cooper, the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, told reporters that the U.S. was looking to move an “initial tranche of 500 tons in the coming days, which is pretty substantial, and then more to follow behind.”
What is less clear is who is responsible for providing security for food convoys once they leave the area of the pier. Beyond some military advisers in Israel and surveillance drones over Gaza, the U.S. military has stayed out of the war zone.
Two Navy destroyers were tasked to provide security in the waters around the U.S. aid pier.
Sonali Korde, the assistant to the administrator of USAID’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance, told reporters Thursday that “the U.N. will make security assessments” to distribute the aid.
Well I guess terrorism works. Hamas got what it wanted.
Israel should just kill all Palestinians and avoid all of this
Israel should just mandate that they become peaceful people. So easy.
Or else what
They die? By mandate?
lol
Sounds like what got Jews killed in Germany
Ridiculous comparison
3 Likes
And there’s people defending these animals.
The only reason there would be a ceasefire on Israel’s part (which they have already done since 10/7) is if the remaining hostages were freed but that will never happen because these animals have murdered all of them (which includes women and children) but Israeli women and children don’t matter.
If any other country in the world had 10/7 happen to them they’d be doing whatever they could to destroy the animals who did this (starting a war) and to do everything they could to get the hostages back alive. Would also be willing to a complete ceasefire if every hostage was released.
Hamas doesn’t (and NEVER has) wanted a ceasefire which would be in the best interest of the people of Gaza.
1 Like
Who’s defending them?
Palestinians and Hamas do not completely overlap.
Flying a Palestinian flag and advocating for a two-state solution is NOT tantamount to being pro Hamas. You know this.
Who is defending Hamas?