Always have been. israel is formed on stolen Palestinian land by terrorism action.
This article is an analysis of a recent global event, speculation of the probable cause, and some discussion of the broader implications. It makes perfect sense to be in world news.
You seem to have had a strong emotional reaction to the suggestion that the US might have helped Israel carry out a particular ttack on another country. We're you aware that this happens literally every day?
Isn't it world news that "Israel" attacked Lebanon twice with compromised pagers, or do articles have to come from state-approved sources to be considered news?
This is a self-promoting opinion piece boring on conspiracy theory.
What makes you say "conspiracy theory" exactly?
You didn't answer any of my questions and your hostility is more funny than anything. Do you also get this kneejerk reaction when the NYT or the Guardian publish an opinion piece calling to bomb Iran? Because these count as news, they're published in real newspapers after all!
What's the difference between an opinion section and what you deem "speculative conspiracy theories"?
As a matter of fact what's the difference between their front page news and the NYT directly quoting Bush making the case to go to war with Iraq? Weren't they also passing off speculative (Saddam was responsible for 9/11) conspiracy theories (Iraq had WMDs) as News?
Or is the problem that they are more famous than me thus their opinion is worth more than mine?
I don't know, I just find it funny that you care so much about this. It's just lemmy.
What's gonna happen if the post stays up? Probably nothing, so why are you upset
But isn't so much journalism nowadays characterised by unsubstantiated speculation? (i.e. propaganda, if not simply clickbait filler pretending analysis)
It seems to me your criticism amounts essentially to your dislike of the thesis of this piece. This can be legitimate, but not what you've argued here.
Isn't this piece an example of precisely the supposed promise of the internet, in the sense that journalism becomes democratised and anyone can publish and disseminate analysis, which can be evaluated on its merits rather than institutional validation and inertia based on opaque criteria? (I would of course argue the aggregated needs of capital, but I won't force that in)
You’re not a journalist
from reading, don't believe you (oxjox) happen to even know who CriticalResist8 is let alone who he works for or anything else and that what you want to spread as truth about him (her?) really only is your weak personal shortthought quick-response-cause-i-can-insult-someone opinion. But of course i do not "know" if that is true about you even though i happen to believe that now. how could i know?
i didn't think CR8 was a journalist either, but i wouldn't state that i knew he wasn't until i actually know that as a fact. Do you know that as a fact? Did you check his identity, papers or such?
There are appropriate places for your work. This is not the place.
please, oxjox, do not spread untrue informations or unproven guesses as truth about other people here, lemmy is not a place for such or any type of insults. thank you for not doing such again !!
Well they most certainly didn't use a separate RF transmitter. The pagers are connected and can be remote controlled that way. I heard elsewhere they also triggered the explosives by heating up the battery.
Bet on America being evil and doing every evil thing and you'll be right 99% of the time.
