World problems/news ( Used to be Anybody concerned about Friday, then I changed it to concerned about world problems)

[Heartstrings]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

Yeah I hate how that works.  I have to do periodic "timeline cleanses" by watching cute animal videos and BTS stuff.  But I also don't want to live in a bubble.

I usually just switch to my "following" feed for a while and it helps.  But also, just because I watched one video about an event doesn't mean I want 3 more about the same event. I got all the info the first time.  Like how amazon will keep you showing you things you've already bought, like I'm just going to treat myself to an extra toilet seats or something.  

[Ausmumof3]

37 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

There's way too much going on in this thread, and I'm coming in way too late, for me to participate meaningfully on the Big Picture.

On this one small but important issue:

... I would add that the white evangelical view of the State of Israel has virtually nothing to do with concern for the well-being of actual Jews even in Israel (and exactly nothing to do with the well-being of Jews living in America).  That worldview is motivated by a vision of end-times and the necessary precursors for it (including the in-gathering of the diaspora Over There). 

It is ENTIRELY possible to hold that worldview, "support Israel" as a means of hastening the coming of the next world... and simultaneously to be quite indifferent to the well-being of Jews in this world. (Or NBD/ move on when men bearing sharpened flagpoles flying swastikas and Iron Cross swarm the Capitol to keep their guy in power.  Or actively disseminate Great Replacement Theory and and Soros tropes. And etc.) 

When "support for Israel" amounts to "hasten the Rapture at which point the Jews will be Left Behind" -- and for a segment of evangelicals, that is precisely what "support for Israel" does mean -- it is entirely consistent, ideologically, with antisemitism.

 

 

 

 

(Opposition to specific policies of a particular leader of a particular state is not antisemitism.  Any more than even very-strongly-held opposition to a particular POTUS/ particular US policies makes any of us Americans "traitors."  This should go without saying and yet, saying it. )

I think this is pretty true for many evangelicals, but not all. My theology does have Israel in bible prophecy but seeking the wellbeing of Jewish people is a part of that. And uncritically supporting Israel is not supposed to be a part of that, although some do. I think many are slightly more supportive of Israel through knowing the history of antisemitism, and what the reality is for Jews without Israel. 

[Ausmumof3]

3 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I think that kind of stuff is from them being in a hurry to get the article out.  They don't want to wait for a picture so they just plug a random one in.  You would think they would have learned to not do that by now though, they always get caught and it makes them look bad.  It bothers me more that they keep doing it, just put "image forth coming" or caption it "random picture of war as place holder"  or something more honest. 

I think this is true for mainstream news when they use stock photos. They also pick photos to make things look more dramatic for clicks - for example during fires we have had images of previous fires, fire trucks from other incidents etc. 

For the social media accounts, no. There are many that deliberately share wrong images to create a narrative. I have got to a point where I’m quick to block/unfollow fairly promptly if I’m seeing more fake than true images. (This is true on both sides of the conflict). On the plus side, I’m honing my skills at spotting AI stuff.

[KSera]

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

Yeah I hate how that works.  I have to do periodic "timeline cleanses" by watching cute animal videos and BTS stuff.  But I also don't want to live in a bubble.

I think algorithm based bubbles are a big part of the problem though--your other thread about young people speaks to this. Social media algorithms are purpose-built to construct the bubble of your choosing around you. The people I talk to with the most ability to talk about this conflict with nuance aren't getting their news from social media. Anyone who sees this as either side being completely justified is likely in a bubble.

[Heartstrings]

9 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I think this is true for mainstream news when they use stock photos. They also pick photos to make things look more dramatic for clicks - for example during fires we have had images of previous fires, fire trucks from other incidents etc. 

For the social media accounts, no. There are many that deliberately share wrong images to create a narrative. I have got to a point where I’m quick to block/unfollow fairly promptly if I’m seeing more fake than true images. (This is true on both sides of the conflict). On the plus side, I’m honing my skills at spotting AI stuff.

Yes, I was referring to the news organizations.  Social media stuff is a whole other ball game.  

[SKL]

12 minutes ago, KSera said:

I think algorithm based bubbles are a big part of the problem though--your other thread about young people speaks to this. Social media algorithms are purpose-built to construct the bubble of your choosing around you. The people I talk to with the most ability to talk about this conflict with nuance aren't getting their news from social media. Anyone who sees this as either side being completely justified is likely in a bubble.

I'm not "getting my news through social media" either (I read traditional news sites), but I am getting some of my in-the-moment awareness from there.

The traditional news sites are selective in what they report, as well as usually biased about how they report.  We can filter the bias, but what about the things the "news" doesn't choose to report at all?

Again, I know I can't believe what I see just because I see it.  But when I've seen a pattern of related information around the same time, then I'm aware of things I need to question and research.

[ArtHaus]

1 hour ago, Amira said:

I will not be engaging directly with this poster, but for others who are reading, I wanted to push back on this false narrative that Israel created Hamas.  There’s no question that Hamas has received money from a wide variety of sources, including Israel, and it’s possible to discuss how much Israel’s actions have influenced Hamas and its trajectory, but Israel did not “create” Hamas. That’s a huge oversimplification of Hamas’s origins.

It is not necessary or right to denigrate everything about Israel to show support for Palestinians. 

No engagement necessary. 

"Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation”- Anvar Cohen

There are many many articles and resources that document the involvement of Israel in the “creation” of Hamas. There is an easy read from the Wall Street Journal (2009) written by Andrew Higgins that gives a bit more history, and includes information on the Muslim Brotherhood. This isn’t hidden, fortunately. My oversimplification is due to time and energy. People can do their own “research”, but you won’t have to dig very deep.

This type of warfare isn’t new or unique to Israel. In 2010, Hillary Clinton admitted the US “created” ie funded, the Taliban and Al-Qaida. If it be denigration, then I will gladly include my own country in that denigration. However, it isn’t denigration on my part, just historical facts that must be considered.

Divide and Conquer is the philosophy, not only used by Israel, but the US as well. Both entities use very similar military tactics.

This is an easy thing to research for anyone who simply cares about the Truth, or is interested in gaining more understanding. Victimization of one over the other can then cease. 

No false narrative. 

 

 

[Heartstrings]

34 minutes ago, KSera said:

I think algorithm based bubbles are a big part of the problem though--your other thread about young people speaks to this. Social media algorithms are purpose-built to construct the bubble of your choosing around you. The people I talk to with the most ability to talk about this conflict with nuance aren't getting their news from social media. Anyone who sees this as either side being completely justified is likely in a bubble.

You can't really just watch or read the main stream media on this topic either, That's a very one sided view of things too.  I know not everyone uses social media the way that I do, but there are a lot of small time independent journalist covering the conflict, historians educating on the history of the conflict, with very helpful maps and graphics, native speakers translating things(I watch those with a skeptical but interested mind because I can't verify the translation).    None of that is available on CNN, or Fox, or WaPo or whatever.  You really can't throw the whole baby out with the bathwater.  You have to use discretion in who you follow and who you believe.  

Not everyone that is following mainstream sources is reading a variety of American and international sources, trying to suss out the truth from the sites with extreme bias, hitting history sites to learn more deeply on the conflict.  They just repeat whatever the Five say they should think. 

 

ETA: also the fact that so much main stream news is behind a paywall right now.  Right now NPR is pretty much my best and only source of news.  I watch 0 TV news anymore because we stream every thing.  Most of the print stuff is behind a paywall.  

Edited December 7, 2023 by Heartstrings

[Ausmumof3]

I think also media probably somewhat reflects the demographic of the population. In the UK, there is approx 6pc Muslim and 0.5pc Jewish. Globally the Muslim population is around 1.9 billion, while the Jewish population of 15 million. In Australia, it’s 3.2pc muslim, whereas the Jewish population is around 0.4. This probably has some impact on the voices and opinions we hear most (although in this forum the demographic seems to be quite different to that). Obviously there are variations of opinions within groups and religion doesn’t always equate to political affiliation, but it’s worth bearing in mind when considering the perspectives you’re hearing.

Edited December 7, 2023 by Ausmumof3

[Ausmumof3]

And to add to the above, within my own bubble I know Jewish people personally, but no Muslims well enough to discuss politics with so I’m aware that impacts/influences my opinions as well. Probably the biggest thing is to remain self-critical and try to identify when you’re believing something because it’s comfortable or agrees with your perspective, or when you feel angry and prone to deny something because it doesn’t. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily wrong but it does mean you should stop and think a minute.

[Heartstrings]

Just now, Ausmumof3 said:

And to add to the above, within my own bubble I know Jewish people personally, but no Muslims well enough to discuss politics with so I’m aware that impacts/influences my opinions as well. Probably the biggest thing is to remain self-critical and try to identify when you’re believing something because it’s comfortable or agrees with your perspective, or when you feel angry and prone to deny something because it doesn’t. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily wrong but it does mean you should stop and think a minute.

This is one place where I feel like social media helps me.  Where I live is majority white and christian, like we have no non-christian places of worship within a 2 hour drive, at least.  But I follow several Jewish and muslim creators on tik tok and have since long before Oct 7 and have been hearing their perspectives and experiences through out all of this.  I don't always agree with what they say, but it gives me an insight I'm not able to get in person.  

[Ausmumof3]

Just now, Heartstrings said:

This is one place where I feel like social media helps me.  Where I live is majority white and christian, like we have no non-christian places of worship within a 2 hour drive, at least.  But I follow several Jewish and muslim creators on tik tok and have since long before Oct 7 and have been hearing their perspectives and experiences through out all of this.  I don't always agree with what they say, but it gives me an insight I'm not able to get in person.  

Yes 100pc. I also find the comments are sometimes very enlightening about what people’s true opinion might be. (Always bearing in mind that social media probably tends toward more extreme voices, particularly when it’s anonymous).

Although DH has friends from all over and he’s much more right-leaning than me so I’m not sure if it always works 

[KSera]

40 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

ETA: also the fact that so much main stream news is behind a paywall right now.  Right now NPR is pretty much my best and only source of news.  I watch 0 TV news anymore because we stream every thing.  Most of the print stuff is behind a paywall.  

AP News is another high factual source that's not paywalled. Reuters as well. I'm not trying to tell people not to read any news on social media, just pushing back on the idea that it's a necessary part of keeping up with the news and having a broader perspective. I probably have a stronger bias against it than many, given the harm I've seen it do to people important to me, and just the way it has served to polarize people more than ever. Theoretically, perhaps people could attain a more nuanced view of things by viewing a wide range of social media. In practice, that's not at all what I see happening.

[Heartstrings]

14 minutes ago, KSera said:

and just the way it has served to polarize people more than ever

Just musing. I wonder if we would have still become this polarized even without social media.  The popular media itself is pretty polarized.  We’d still have Fox vs MSNBC, even without social media.  I wonder which has had a bigger impact. 🤔.  Or is it a downward cycle of each feeding into the other?   
 

Anyone need a thesis topic?  

[Ausmumof3]

16 minutes ago, KSera said:

AP News is another high factual source that's not paywalled. Reuters as well. I'm not trying to tell people not to read any news on social media, just pushing back on the idea that it's a necessary part of keeping up with the news and having a broader perspective. I probably have a stronger bias against it than many, given the harm I've seen it do to people important to me, and just the way it has served to polarize people more than ever. Theoretically, perhaps people could attain a more nuanced view of things by viewing a wide range of social media. In practice, that's not at all what I see happening.

I think there are some really good reasons to stick to mainstream news as well- lack of time to weed through junk, or a desire to be warned before seeing graphic images etc. I’m only explaining my own reasoning for using social media. 

[Ausmumof3]

3 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Just musing. I wonder if we would have still become this polarized even without social media.  The popular media itself is pretty polarized.  We’d still have Fox vs MSNBC, even without social media.  I wonder which has had a bigger impact. 🤔.  Or is it a downward cycle of each feeding into the other?   
 

Anyone need a thesis topic?  

Changing information technology has probably always resulted in destabilisation of the norm - same with the invention of writing, or the printing press or whatever. That may or may not be a bad thing. Authoritarian governments typically try to control information flow. I’m generally a “more information is better” person but maybe there’s a tipping point as to what our brains can process.

[Ausmumof3]

https://abc7ny.com/shots-fired-outside-temple-synagogue-albany/14151951/

ALBANY, New York (WABC) -- Shots were fired outside of a temple in Albany Thursday afternoon.

A 28-year-old resident is in custody after allegedly firing one round in the parking lot of Temple Israel around 2 pm

 

 

 

[Ausmumof3]

17 hours ago, Melissa in Australia said:

Thinking of you Ausmum

we have been flooded in for a week, road only just opened last night. If we get any  more rain it will flood again. River is still lapping the road 

I would rather be flooded in any day over bushfires 

Thankfully, we seem to be getting enough rain in Adelaide and mid-north to lower the risk. Hoping other regions are as lucky.

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

Just musing. I wonder if we would have still become this polarized even without social media.  The popular media itself is pretty polarized.  We’d still have Fox vs MSNBC, even without social media.  I wonder which has had a bigger impact. 🤔.  Or is it a downward cycle of each feeding into the other?   
 

Anyone need a thesis topic?  

I think right wing talk radio also has contributed greatly for a long time. I remember many years  ago(before Trump, Covid, etc.) watching a documentary about the state of politics in WI and both long time Ds and long time Rs there primarily blamed it for how bad things had gotten in their state.

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Changing information technology has probably always resulted in destabilisation of the norm - same with the invention of writing, or the printing press or whatever. That may or may not be a bad thing. Authoritarian governments typically try to control information flow. I’m generally a “more information is better” person but maybe there’s a tipping point as to what our brains can process.

Yes, but authoritarian leaders also put out lots of propaganda and misinformation and then try to discredit any media sources that disagree with them or criticize them. And supporters of those leaders can easily live in a news bubble and only get very biased news. The amazing number of people in the US who still believe the 2020 election was “stolen” shows that these tried and true techniques of authoritarian leaders are alive and well right here in the US. And you can easily find other examples throughout the world and history.

I long for the days of my youth when we all got our news from the same limited number of sources and only disagreed what to do about it. I think the genie is out of the bottle and there’s no going back now. I honestly can’t think about it for very long without getting really depressed.

[TechWife]

4 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by TechWife
Decided not to get into it here with my limited knowledge

[Condessa]

3 hours ago, KSera said:

AP News is another high factual source that's not paywalled. Reuters as well.

I’m not sure I could classify Reuters as a “high factual source” after they called released hostages last week “Israeli soldiers” (the hostages they were referring to were older women and little girls, including a three-year-old).

Edited December 8, 2023 by Condessa

[KSera]

54 minutes ago, Condessa said:

I’m not sure I could classify Reuters as a “high factual source” after they called released hostages last week “Israeli soldiers” (the hostages they were referring to were older women and little girls, including a three-year-old).

That sounds strange. Do you have a link out of curiosity? I don’t doubt they might have made a mistake, but generally they are highly regarded and don’t fail fact checks:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/

 

eta: Your post had me curious, so I looked back through all the hostage release stories I could find on Reuters in the past 9 days, and didn't see anything like that. Each gave an update on who was released, usually stating how many women and how many children. This was the last group, I think:

Hamas frees eight hostages to Israel as talks seek to extend Gaza truce

Quote

Israel and Hamas agreed to add a seventh day of a humanitarian pause on Thursday, while Egyptian and Qatari mediators were working to negotiate a further extension of two days, Egypt's official state media agency said.

With fewer Israeli women and children left in captivity, extending the truce could require setting new terms for the release of Israeli men, including soldiers. Thus far during the truce, Palestinian militants have freed 105 hostages and Israel has released 240 Palestinian prisoners.

This part indicates the possibility they could release Israeli soldiers in the future, but I couldn't find whatever you read that said that's who the released hostages were. Again, there's no such thing as a news source that has never made an error, but Reuters is indeed considered a very reliable news source. I'd be curious what news source someone who considers Reuters unreliable would think was more trustworty.

Edited December 8, 2023 by KSera

[Condessa]

14 minutes ago, KSera said:

That sounds strange. Do you have a link out of curiosity? I don’t doubt they might have made a mistake, but generally they are highly regarded and don’t fail fact checks:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/

It was on X/Twitter.  They deleted the post and issued a correction after they were excoriated for it, so the original isn’t up anymore, but you can see the responses and the correction.

 

[KSera]

13 minutes ago, Condessa said:

It was on X/Twitter.  They deleted the post and issued a correction after they were excoriated for it

Oh, so someone made a mistake in a Twitter post. I thought you meant they said that in their actual reporting. That's a bad mistake which they deleted and corrected as soon they were aware. That hardly erases their whole track record for fact-based reporting.

eta: this is actually a pretty good example of why I don't think it's great to rely on social media for news

Edited December 8, 2023 by KSera

[Condessa]

35 minutes ago, KSera said:

I'd be curious what news source someone who considers Reuters unreliable would think was more trustworty.

I have found them all to be lacking in one direction or another to varying degrees.  I try to find balance by sampling from a wide variety of sources across the political spectrum domestically and internationally in order to be able to compare, though lately I’ve been going to the BBC most frequently.  

[KSera]

Just now, Condessa said:

I have found them all to be lacking in one direction or another to varying degrees.  I try to find balance by sampling from a wide variety of sources across the political spectrum domestically and internationally in order to be able to compare, though lately I’ve been going to the BBC most frequently.  

I like to check BBC as well. I'd be very surprised if they never made a mistake in a social media post either though.

[Condessa]

Just now, KSera said:

I like to check BBC as well. I'd be very surprised if they never made a mistake in a social media post either though.

I’m sure all news sources have at times, but some mistakes are more easily understandable to me, and some I view as more egregious errors.  

[goldberry]

Don't know where else to ask this...is talking about abortion against board policy?  I am so upset about what has been happening with Kate Cox in Texas I'm about to explode.  

[Eos]

24 minutes ago, goldberry said:

Don't know where else to ask this...is talking about abortion against board policy?  I am so upset about what has been happening with Kate Cox in Texas I'm about to explode.  

You might do better in the Politics club, it won't get locked.

[goldberry]

14 minutes ago, Eos said:

You might do better in the Politics club, it won't get locked.

I just remember awhile back we used to talk about it on the chat board as long as people stayed civil.  That's probably an impossibility though... 😔  I saw no one had posted anything about it and wondered if it was just straight up banned now.  I'm really curious what pro-lifers think about what's happening.  I know a lot of them didn't think these things would ever happen, that it was just a scare tactic.  

[Ausmumof3]

Norwegian owned ship has been hit by Houthi cruise missiles resulting in a fire but no casualties.

Also this from Pakistan was very sad, I was unaware of the situation.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-12/pakistan-climate-change-disasters-child-malnourishment-education/103059696

At three years old, Suleman Ali is meant to weigh at least 11 kilograms. But with a dire food shortage in Pakistan, he's so malnourished he's not even 1kg.

Suleman's vomiting started during the holy celebration of Shab-e-barat, when Muslim people pray for forgiveness for anything they've done wrong.

It's supposed to bring good fortune for the year ahead, but the illness didn't abate for 10 days.

 

[Hyacinth]

On 12/7/2023 at 9:07 PM, Frances said:

Yes, but authoritarian leaders also put out lots of propaganda and misinformation and then try to discredit any media sources that disagree with them or criticize them. And supporters of those leaders can easily live in a news bubble and only get very biased news. The amazing number of people in the US who still believe the 2020 election was “stolen” shows that these tried and true techniques of authoritarian leaders are alive and well right here in the US. 

Yes! Another example is the  coordinated effort of Fauci and Collins and other NIH officials to discredit the Great Barrington Declaration. At a time when scientific dialogue was most needed, they shut it down.

I’ve always had a skeptical bent, and I fight against cynicism. But ugh! It’s hard these days!

When I read news stories, I try to be thoughtful.
1. Don’t believe the headline. It often doesn’t match the actual story.

2. If I’m interested in the topic, read the same story from another source. It’s often telling how one article will refer to a group as, for example, “democrats,” and another article will refer to the same group as “far-left liberals.” Those semantics are stupid but effective at priming the reader’s reaction. (And both sides do it.)

3. Ask: “Who benefits from this narrative?” “Who are they painting as the villain and why? What is the other side’s take? Are both sides framing the other side’s argument honestly?” (Almost never.) “If I follow the money, where does that lead?” “Who gains power if this is true, if this policy passes, if this person is cancelled, if this position is amplified, etc.?”

It’s exhausting. I understand why people check out of social media platforms, news in general, and politics altogether. 

Edited December 12, 2023 by Hyacinth

[KSera]

45 minutes ago, Hyacinth said:

Yes! Another example is the  coordinated effort of Fauci and Collins and other NIH officials to discredit the Great Barrington Declaration. At a time when scientific dialogue was most needed, they shut it down.

Scientists discrediting something that is clearly wrong is part of what they are supposed to do. The Great Barrington Declaration received TONS of press (all the while that people complained that Press was shutting it down). Kind of like the way the declaration itself was arguing against lockdowns at a time when people weren’t locked down. 

[Ausmumof3]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-12/islamist-militants-attack-pakistani-army-base-camp/103221022

[Hyacinth]

23 minutes ago, KSera said:

Scientists discrediting something that is clearly wrong is part of what they are supposed to do. The Great Barrington Declaration received TONS of press (all the while that people complained that Press was shutting it down). Kind of like the way the declaration itself was arguing against lockdowns at a time when people weren’t locked down. 

This probably isn’t the time or place to rehash the NIH vs the GBD. Suffice to say I disagree with your assessment that the declaration was “clearly wrong,” that it’s the government’s role to silence other scientists without dialogue or good faith engagement, that the GBD received “TONS” of unbiased press, and that many many many kids weren’t locked out of schools at the time.

My point was simply to agree with Frances that it’s worth paying attention and questioning when government officials/politicians/people in power try to frame/promote/silence certain stories or viewpoints. 

Edited December 12, 2023 by Hyacinth

[Ausmumof3]

7 hours ago, Hyacinth said:

This probably isn’t the time or place to rehash the NIH vs the GBD. Suffice to say I disagree with your assessment that the declaration was “clearly wrong,” that it’s the government’s role to silence other scientists without dialogue or good faith engagement, that the GBD received “TONS” of unbiased press, and that many many many kids weren’t locked out of schools at the time.

My point was simply to agree with Frances that it’s worth paying attention and questioning when government officials/politicians/people in power try to frame/promote/silence certain stories or viewpoints. 

GBD was promoted by think tank groups with significant power and influence and opposed by scientists with limited power so it’s an interesting example. But probably better for another thread.

[Hyacinth]

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

GBD was promoted by think tank groups with significant power and influence and opposed by scientists with limited power so it’s an interesting example. But probably better for another thread.

If you think Fauci had limited power and influence during COVID, then we really are living in different worlds.

The Twitter Files confirmed the suppression. 

I’ll bow out here and let someone else have the last word on this particular example. 

[Happy2BaMom]

2 hours ago, Hyacinth said:

If you think Fauci had limited power and influence during COVID, then we really are living in different worlds.

The Twitter Files confirmed the suppression. 

I’ll bow out here and let someone else have the last word on this particular example. 

She didn't mention Fauci, and she doesn't live in the US, so why are you bringing him up?

And other countries didn't follow Fauci (Covid-19 was a *worldwide* pandemic, other countries have their own public health systems and leaders, and the rest of the world is not as obsessed with the US as much as the US likes to think they are), so, yes, by definition, he had limited power & influence.

Re: the Twitter Files....that would be your opinion. There was a lot of nuance and context in those Files that were conveniently overlooked by those eager for confirmation bias.

[Condessa]

Hamas calls for violence against Americans and Britons. 
“We need violent acts against American and British interests everywhere as well as the interests of all the countries that support the occupation.”

https://www.the-express.com/news/world-news/121242/hamas-threaten-usa-uk-israel

[YaelAldrich]

4 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Hamas calls for violence against Americans and Britons. 
“We need violent acts against American and British interests everywhere as well as the interests of all the countries that support the occupation.”

https://www.the-express.com/news/world-news/121242/hamas-threaten-usa-uk-israel

So, we are circling back around to the very beginning of this thread

[EmmaNZ]

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/13/politics/intelligence-assessment-dumb-bombs-israel-gaza/index.html

Nearly half of 29000 bombs 😞

 

[Ausmumof3]

https://gcaptain.com/shipping-giants-pause-red-sea-voyages-dealing-blow-to-global-trade/
 

A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S, the world’s second-largest owner of container ships, said in a statement on Friday that it has instructed its vessels heading for the southern entrance of the Red Sea to pause their voyages. Its vessel Maersk Gibraltar was attacked.

Shortly after Maersk’s announcement, Germany’s Hapag-Lloyd AG announced a halt until Monday, “then will decide for the period after.”

“Following the near-miss incident involving Maersk Gibraltar yesterday and yet another attack on a container vessel today, we have instructed all Maersk vessels in the area bound to pass through the Bab al-Mandab Strait to pause their journey until further notice,” Maersk said.

[Ausmumof3]

Three of the hostages have been killed by IDF who misidentified them as a threat 

[Heartstrings]

13 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Three of the hostages have been killed by IDF who misidentified them as a threat 

Reuters is reporting that the IDF is saying the hostages were holding white flags but they decided it was a trick. 

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-hostages-killed-mistakenly-gaza-were-holding-white-flag-official-says-2023-12-16/

The incident happened in an area of intense combat where Hamas militants operate in civilian attire and use deception tactics, the official said.

They're all without shirts and they have a stick with a white cloth on it. The soldier feels threatened and opens fire. He declares that they're terrorists, they (forces) open fire, two are killed immediately," said the military official.

The third hostage was wounded and retreated into a nearby building where he called for help in Hebrew, the official said.

Immediately the battalion commander issues a ceasefire order, but again there's another burst of fire towards the third figure and he also dies," said the official. "This was against our rules of engagement," he added

 

 

 

[SKL]

I'm curious why they are calling them hostages vs. POWs.

[Condessa]

39 minutes ago, SKL said:

I'm curious why they are calling them hostages vs. POWs.

Prisoners of war are members of the military taken prisoner by the enemy during war time.  These were civilians taken from their homes during peace.

[EmmaNZ]

7 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Prisoners of war are members of the military taken prisoner by the enemy during war time.  These were civilians taken from their homes during peace.

A news article dated 5th October 2023, which I have linked here so that we can have a think about how we define peace.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/5/israeli-troops-kill-two-palestinians-in-occupied-west-bank-clash

[Condessa]

1 hour ago, EmmaNZ said:

A news article dated 5th October 2023, which I have linked here so that we can have a think about how we define peace.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/5/israeli-troops-kill-two-palestinians-in-occupied-west-bank-clash

Perhaps “during a time with no declared state of war” would be precise.  

[Ausmumof3]

61 migrants died in shipwreck off the coast of Libya 😞