You must log in or # to comment.
Absolutely HATE the passive voice and I do think the title is terrible and avoids blame.
But the headline isn’t TOTALLY without merit. The provided total of dead and injured weren’t solely killed by Israeli military. Apparently many were killed or injured when the aid trucks decided to get the hell out of there and ran over a bunch of Palestinians to escape.
Still 100% Israel’s fault, but it technically couldn’t say “killed by Israeli gunfire”.
“Killed in Israeli attack on aid trucks” would work.
If someone deliberately set fire to a theater and 10 people died from being trampled, you would still say they died in the arsonist’s attack, even though they didn’t die from the arsonist’s attack.
Yep, or “IDF causes muderous mayhem in unprovoked slaughter of more than 100 innocent civilians waiting for humanitarian aid.” Even a bit of alliteration, news outlets love that.
If the IDF starts firing into a crowd and mass killing people that will cause a panic.
Evidence of the IDF firing into the crowd:
I’m not sure if there are truly any deaths from crowd crushing, but if there are then all those deaths would still be the IDF’s fault.
Yes to all this. The report of the truck behavior was from Palestinian witnesses.
Do you have evidence to back up this claim? From what I’ve read, many of those run over were also riddled with bullet holes.
a Palestinian witness told the BBC that most of the people killed had been run over by trucks
From The Guardian citing AP and BBC
The hospital said it was treating more bullet wounds than truck, though. But that’s survivors
Were they dead before being run over by trucks?
The problem with war reporting is different sides giving different and bias viewpoints, try not to die first and report later, and no chance of rapid probe or investigation. So who knows, maybe they were already dead. Not too mention the bias in capitalist media. Hell, maybe the stone hearted CNN editor gives no shits about people’s lives and just thought that “chaos” buzzword would grab more clicks. I don’t know.
But when a Palestinian, who could have easily just said “IDF shot them all” to enhance their vilification, but instead says the truck killed people, my instinct is to take it as a possibility. If Israel alone claimed the trucks killed more, I’d be pure skepticism.
Or maybe in the scary as fuck situation, the witness made assumptions. Reporters can report on what they found and whoever does the analyzing will do what they do.
how about “massacre”
Doctor says 80% of the patients they received at his hospital were not crowd crushed but were shot by israel
IDF panics, massacres desperate Palestinians seeking food from aid truck.
The fella in the suit looks a bit like hitler (or is that the joke? Not sure if it’s that or the “chaotic incident” wording)
Both are part of the joke.
Goth chick is helping Hitler out by suggesting “chaotic incident” as the headline, instead of civilian massacre.
Isn’t that Abby from NCIS?
it is from a German movie, Look who’s back. If my memory does not deceive me they are setting up an e-mail account in that scene.
Edit: Yeah, I remembered correctly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylstybS6rqw
It’s been a while, but I quite liked that film
Wait ol hitlers not shopped in? I have to check this movie out, sounds funny
I totally thought it was, he almost looked more Hitler than Hitler, but then I looked up a picture of Hitler and holy fuck that dude had a huge nose.
I found the image on Slate but it’s as low quality as this one. Anyone have a higher res version?
Say what you will about the Holocaust, but it wasn’t particularly chaotic. Germany figured out how to turn genocide into a well-oiled machine.
Yes but when they invaded foreign territories their military caused chaos, just as the IDF is causing chaos when they invade Palestine.
chaotic incident = massacre
Real Upvote just for scene from Look Who’s Back. Phantom upvote for creative euphemism.
“Bummer in Gaza: Lovable IDF klutzes make another whoopsie doopsie”
What’s the movie title?
Es ist Wieder da or Look who’s back.
I liked the movie very much, although it’s not for everyone, I imagine.
It’s a great movie that’s often misunderstood.
The writer wanted the audience to laugh with Hitler, to cheer him on, to emphasis with him, to see him as this likable, but ultimately harmless person. “Oh, his suggested causes of and solutions to problems are obviously ridiculous – but what do you expect? He’s a comedian … but he kind of has a point about real issues we’re facing.”
People have forgotten that’s how Hitler was seen during his rise to power, and just like in the movie it’s only after it’s far too late that people realized what kind of person they’re enabling. The ending monologue even has Hitler straight out saying he’s happy to “play the clown” as a means to his ends.
Commenting here and adding this to the list that never seems to get shorter, maybe some day I’ll have time to indulge in catching up on my watch list.
They’re writing like this because they don’t want to commit to any interpretation of the events yet. And for a news site, I think it’s okay. I think of it like calling a perpetrator a “suspect” until proven guilty. Though not with a stringent of requirements for “conviction”.
If only the IDF didn’t literally say they did it and claimed it was “self defense” and a starving crowd desperate for food…
I know it sucks to not have them commit, but it is what it is
