A US counterterrorism expert explains the dynamics between Israel, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas – and why Hezbollah presents new risks for the US and other places globally.
Ah yes, historic grievances again. The context of the article is clearly spelled out, as described previously. My discussion of the matter is pertinent to the content of the article, and I myself am not attempting to broaden context in order to force an angle the article isn’t making.
If I hit your face for 10 minutes straight and then stop 30 seconds (to take breath) and right then you hit me back, can I say “I wasn’t hiting you! You are the aggressor! I have the right to retaliate!”?
and I myself am not attempting to broaden context in order to force an angle the article isn’t making.
Why are people who defend Israel always such insufferable weasels?
You’re hiding behind an article that already takes things out of context and then you act as though it is the right thing to do to not provide any.
Of course you can’t “broaden the context”, or your entire point would fall apart. This is what Israel and its supporters do, they pick an arbitrary point in time, pretend that the conflict started then, and use that as an excuse to escalate.
I find it extremely insulting to mine and our collective intelligence when someone tries to argue otherwise. Nobody buys your victim complex anymore, have some decency and self respect and stop peddling it.
This battle of ideas on Wikipedia’s platform formed a crucial part of the encyclopaedia’s commitment to neutrality, which according to Sanger, was abandoned after 2009. In the years since, on issues ranging from Covid to Joe Biden, it has become increasingly partisan, primarily espousing an establishment viewpoint that increasingly represents “propaganda”. This, says Sanger, is why he left the site in 2007, describing it as “broken beyond repair”.
Lawrence Mark Sanger is an American Internet project developer and philosopher who co-founded Wikipedia
Ah yes, historic grievances again. The context of the article is clearly spelled out, as described previously. My discussion of the matter is pertinent to the content of the article, and I myself am not attempting to broaden context in order to force an angle the article isn’t making.
If I hit your face for 10 minutes straight and then stop 30 seconds (to take breath) and right then you hit me back, can I say “I wasn’t hiting you! You are the aggressor! I have the right to retaliate!”?
Interesting characterization.
Oh the irony.
Why are people who defend Israel always such insufferable weasels?
You’re hiding behind an article that already takes things out of context and then you act as though it is the right thing to do to not provide any.
Of course you can’t “broaden the context”, or your entire point would fall apart. This is what Israel and its supporters do, they pick an arbitrary point in time, pretend that the conflict started then, and use that as an excuse to escalate.
I find it extremely insulting to mine and our collective intelligence when someone tries to argue otherwise. Nobody buys your victim complex anymore, have some decency and self respect and stop peddling it.
You should let Wikipedia know then.
Maybe we should talk about how many people Israel pays to constantly skew reality in their favor on websites like that.
https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-social-media-opinion-hamas-war/
https://theintercept.com/2024/02/07/gaza-israel-netanyahu-propaganda-lies-palestinians/
https://electronicintifada.net/content/inside-israels-million-dollar-troll-army/27566
Til Wikipedia untrustworthy.