Okay thx. The article was straight forward. I looked for editorial. Thought I missed something. But it’s the fucking AP so I didn’t know we were questioning them now to begin with.
You realize AP News is also a first information provider for the largest news networks like NBC, ABC, CNN, and even Fox?
Pretty much all of them use AP as the primary source of the latest information because of how definitively accurate and non biased they have been and currently are.
The Associated Press (AP)[4] is an American not-for-profit news agency headquartered in New York City. Founded in 1846, it operates as a cooperative, unincorporated association, and produces news reports that are distributed to its members, major U.S. daily newspapers and radio and television broadcasters. Since the award was established in 1917, the AP has earned 58 Pulitzer Prizes, including 35 for photography. The AP is also known for its widely used AP Stylebook, its AP polls tracking NCAA sports, and its election polls and results during US elections.
By 2016, news collected by the AP was published and republished by more than 1,300 newspapers and broadcasters.[5] The AP operates 248 news bureaus in 99 countries, and publishes in English, Spanish, and Arabic.[6] It also operates the AP Radio Network, which provides twice hourly newscasts and daily sportscasts for broadcast and satellite radio and television stations. Many newspapers and broadcasters outside the United States are AP subscribers, paying a fee to use AP material without being contributing members of the cooperative. As part of their cooperative agreement with the AP, most member news organizations grant automatic permission for the AP to distribute their local news reports.
It shouldn’t be a race to be honest, but I get your point, the article is quite vague on why it thinks it’s “one of the most destructive military campaigns in history”.
Given that more than 80% of people have been displaced and in 2 and a half months almost 1% of the population died, pretty sure it's beyond it already, proportionally speaking.
Germany lost about 6 million people out of a population of 70 million, so something to the tune of 8.5% of the population over the course of six years.
In the current Gaza campaign, we're coming up on 20,000 out of a population of 2 million, so something to the tune of 1% over the course of three months. Extended to the six years of WW2, that would be 41% of the population.
Factor in non-combatant casualties, and it will be even more disproportionate.
Yeah, there were a lot of civilian deaths in ww2. But they largely at least tried to minimize the non-military casualties. That isn’t even a factor for IDF
You’ll probably never know how many of those deaths were combatants. Don’t forget that Hamas does recruit children as soon as they’re old enough to hold up a gun and pull the trigger.
If a country killed everyone you ever cared for, you lost your family, friends and home. You also nearly died and can’t go anywhere else because everything is blocked off.
You’ll feel like, you are already death. The only thing there will be in your heart is hatred and seeking revenge.
The more deaths Israel is making of Palestinians the more Hamas members they’re making.
That is due to Israel bombing everything and before claiming “but Hamas 7 October” let’s also go back to 1948 where it all started.
About 750 000 Palestinians were removed out of Palestinian land. Lots were killed. Hamas was only created in 1987 to fight against the occupation.
That is due to Israel bombing everything and before claiming “but Hamas 7 October” let’s also go back to 1948 where it all started.
Yes, 1948 when the surrounding Arab countries attacked the fledgling country of Israel. Jordan in particular displaced many people promising them they can return to their lands, then never fulfilling that promise. It was the start of lots of attempts to destroy this new country and murder all the Jews within it.
Yeah, there are no good guys in war… Just different levels of crimes and justification from the obscene, to the grey.
The Allies were responding to aggressors that had invaded and “terror bombed” dozens of countries for years, killing millions of civilians, while maintaining extremely high domestic support throughout… Doesn’t make terror bombing their civilians right, but it was more justifiable in context than anything the invaders did.
Oh, yeah, I'm not at all questioning that the Allies were the right side. Only that we definitely attempted to deliberately inflict civilian casualties in Europe and in Japan, despite the US realizing that terror bombing was ineffective and quarreling with the British over its use in Europe, while still switching to it in Japan after strategic bombing campaigns were less effective than hoped.
Don’t forget the fire bombing of Tokyo, I think they killed around 100K civilians in a city where most of the houses were made of wood and paper.
Around 100K casualties in this bombing only and over 1M became homeless. That’s next level evil along with the atomic bombs for sure. And I don’t find any justification for any of those bombings.
In Tokyo it's because the Japanese didn't have conventional factories; the people would make weapons and other things for the army in their homes, so Tokyo was basically a giant military factory. Of course whether that justifies the fire bombing is another story, but yeah that's the reason.
I mean, even taking the IDF's numbers, proportionally, the IDF has killed far more civilians than the Allies in WW2. The IDF's estimate is that they've been killing 50% civilians and 50% combatants, while in WW2 the Western Allied count was about 10% civilians in Europe, and 33% civilians in Japan. However, the wars being fought are very different, so I find that a less compelling comparison than the sheer level of destruction leveled in such a short period of time.
Add comment