(although we should be careful not to be tricked into thinking all militants, including those giving orders, are religious extremists - reportedly Hamas’ campaign on the 7th was ordered to take hostages and not kill civilians, and that the IDF basically implemented the Hannibal Doctrine against it’s own civilians leading to significant friendly fire casualties [even as reported by an Israeli who was held hostage and later interviewed on Israeli news]; you can see how murky the waters get in a propaganda war).
Can you share some of the reporting behind this use of ‘reportedly’. I have never seen this reported before though I am admittedly not reading everything.
Disclaimer: Regardless of how much is true or false, this article is what I would call propaganda. (Sometimes that’s all you have to work with.) I’m not sharing it under the pretenses that it is accurate or unbiased.
It’s difficult to tell if you believe it or not because you’ve referenced it within a larger point about how much confusion there is, but it seems like you believe it enough to repeat it. If so, what about the article makes you believe it or not?
I don’t think it is a matter of belief or lack of belief. I think the transcript given is exemplary for the kind of evidence that supports the Hamas’ narrative that their actions are being misportrayed. Much like the evidence for bombing of civilians and obstruction of aid efforts. However, that does not mean that Hamas’ narrative is true/not wildly exaggerated. The same is true in regards to the POTUS being duped by unsubstantiated reports of beheaded babies - it fuels the narrative that there is a propaganda campaign smearing Palestinians, whether or not that narrative is true.
On the other side of the partisanship divide you have verifiable evidence of hostage taking, indiscriminate rocket attacks, instances of murder of civilians, and other things that lend support to the narrative that Hamas is comprised entirely of illogical religious extremists.
We need to understand that we are looking at a field full of rational actors if we want to find resolution. We can’t drink our own koolaid and act as if narrative is truth, because the narratives do not align. Both narratives have evidence that support them, but fundamentally real events are occurring and those events are then being assigned to each narrative as convenient. And we cannot find the truth by simply piecing together true events from each narrative, because that leaves the story of the events that weren’t convenient to either party untold. This is the tightrope we must walk if we want to beneficially contribute to discussions imo. I mention the report because it contrasts many of our narratives, which have evidence supporting them; and yet we have transcript of an involved party from a side not expected to be sympathetic to to its opposition, that suddenly makes the situation look more complicated than initial reports (edit: for example I had originally been under the impression that they had taken the hostages to initiate a standoff/firefight). Rational actors are complicated and that’s the reality we have to deal with if we don’t want to just add more fuel to the fire.
Thank for taking the time to write these thoughts. I found them very insightful and thought-provoking. I asked some pretty mundane questions and you have rewarded me with high effort responses a lot to think about.
Thanks for the feedback. I understood why there might be a lot of curiosity behind your questions, and I wanted to convey my somewhat complicated thoughts earnestly. I was ready to be trolled to oblivion, but I didn’t want to just jump ahead and make an assumption about who was asking what questions and why. I’m glad I made that choice because you have participated in good faith, and it was helpful for me to write out these thoughts for my own inspection.
Can you share some of the reporting behind this use of ‘reportedly’. I have never seen this reported before though I am admittedly not reading everything.
Yeah let me dig it up…
Here we go
Disclaimer: Regardless of how much is true or false, this article is what I would call propaganda. (Sometimes that’s all you have to work with.) I’m not sharing it under the pretenses that it is accurate or unbiased.
It’s difficult to tell if you believe it or not because you’ve referenced it within a larger point about how much confusion there is, but it seems like you believe it enough to repeat it. If so, what about the article makes you believe it or not?
I don’t think it is a matter of belief or lack of belief. I think the transcript given is exemplary for the kind of evidence that supports the Hamas’ narrative that their actions are being misportrayed. Much like the evidence for bombing of civilians and obstruction of aid efforts. However, that does not mean that Hamas’ narrative is true/not wildly exaggerated. The same is true in regards to the POTUS being duped by unsubstantiated reports of beheaded babies - it fuels the narrative that there is a propaganda campaign smearing Palestinians, whether or not that narrative is true.
On the other side of the partisanship divide you have verifiable evidence of hostage taking, indiscriminate rocket attacks, instances of murder of civilians, and other things that lend support to the narrative that Hamas is comprised entirely of illogical religious extremists.
We need to understand that we are looking at a field full of rational actors if we want to find resolution. We can’t drink our own koolaid and act as if narrative is truth, because the narratives do not align. Both narratives have evidence that support them, but fundamentally real events are occurring and those events are then being assigned to each narrative as convenient. And we cannot find the truth by simply piecing together true events from each narrative, because that leaves the story of the events that weren’t convenient to either party untold. This is the tightrope we must walk if we want to beneficially contribute to discussions imo. I mention the report because it contrasts many of our narratives, which have evidence supporting them; and yet we have transcript of an involved party from a side not expected to be sympathetic to to its opposition, that suddenly makes the situation look more complicated than initial reports (edit: for example I had originally been under the impression that they had taken the hostages to initiate a standoff/firefight). Rational actors are complicated and that’s the reality we have to deal with if we don’t want to just add more fuel to the fire.
Thank for taking the time to write these thoughts. I found them very insightful and thought-provoking. I asked some pretty mundane questions and you have rewarded me with high effort responses a lot to think about.
Thanks for the feedback. I understood why there might be a lot of curiosity behind your questions, and I wanted to convey my somewhat complicated thoughts earnestly. I was ready to be trolled to oblivion, but I didn’t want to just jump ahead and make an assumption about who was asking what questions and why. I’m glad I made that choice because you have participated in good faith, and it was helpful for me to write out these thoughts for my own inspection.