• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    63
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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”.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      832 months ago

      “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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        33
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

    • @LinkerbaanOP
      link
      English
      272 months ago

      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:

      NSFL (gore+death)

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      92 months ago

      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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            82 months ago

            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.

    • @LinkerbaanOP
      link
      English
      0
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Update from AP:

      Doctor says 80% of the patients they received at his hospital were not crowd crushed but were shot by israel

  • jan teli
    link
    English
    292 months ago

    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)

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    212 months ago

    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.

    • @Wilzax
      link
      English
      92 months ago

      Yes but when they invaded foreign territories their military caused chaos, just as the IDF is causing chaos when they invade Palestine.

  • @phoneymouse
    link
    English
    172 months ago

    chaotic incident = massacre

  • FauxPseudo
    link
    English
    142 months ago

    Real Upvote just for scene from Look Who’s Back. Phantom upvote for creative euphemism.

  • @BenLeMan
    link
    English
    112 months ago

    “Bummer in Gaza: Lovable IDF klutzes make another whoopsie doopsie”

    • @zombaya01
      link
      English
      12
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Es ist Wieder da or Look who’s back.

      I liked the movie very much, although it’s not for everyone, I imagine.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

        • @Donjuanme
          link
          English
          42 months ago

          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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -82 months ago

    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”.

    • @LinkerbaanOP
      link
      English
      122 months ago

      If only the IDF didn’t literally say they did it and claimed it was “self defense” and a starving crowd desperate for food…