This BBC copy is a masterclass in propaganda
Israel kills a Palestinian journalist working with Al Jazeera.
The first paragraph says Al Jazeera describes it as a "deliberate and targeted crime".
Ninth paragraph quotes IDF confirming it was a targeted attack.
Why frame it as an allegation in the lede when it is a fact?
"A fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas has been in place for six months."
When innocents and journalists are repeatedly killed despite a ceasefire, it's called a ceasefire violation, not fragile ceasefire.
"The war was triggered by the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, when about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage."
No mention or context of decades long illegal occupation by Israel, and the persecution of Palestinians long before October 7.
"Israel responded by launching a military campaign in Gaza, during which more than 72,310 people have been killed."
The framing justifies the 72,310 deaths as collateral damage rather than a genocide.
While describing Suzan Khalil, a Lebanese journalist killed by Israel, the copy says she worked with Al Manar, a channel affiliated with the armed group Hezbollah.
If The Atlantic magazine's journalists are killed, would the BBC identify them as journalists working for a magazine edited by a former IDF prison guard?
Good time to remember the BBC's own staff -- 100 of them -- has accused their outlet of pro Israel coverage.
It's very revealing how none of the demands for peace with Iran include social reforms for women... and yet, a massive bulk of anti-Iranian coverage in the US revolved around this issue for years... almost as if women's rights are used as a cudgel to manufacture consent for war
Colonialism will never die don’t let anyone fool you. Imagine China trying to claim the English Channel… Unfathomable to westerners but when they do it it’s a normal Wednesday
Libya negotiated.
Let's be precise about what happened to Libya.
In 2003, Muammar Gaddafi made a strategic decision to abandon his weapons programs, open his country to international inspectors, and normalize relations with the West.
He paid reparations for Lockerbie.
He dismantled his nuclear program.
He cooperated with Western intelligence against Al-Qaeda.
He did everything that was asked of him.
He negotiated. He complied. He normalized.
In 2011, NATO bombed Libya for seven months.
His own military turned against him with Western backing.
He was captured in a drainage pipe.
A mob sodomized him with a bayonet while Western officials watched via satellite feed.
Hillary Clinton laughed about it on camera.
"We came, we saw, he died."
The man who gave up his deterrent in exchange for promises of security and normalization died in a drainage pipe while the people who made him those promises laughed at the footage of him being sodomized with a bayonet.
And Libya, which had the highest GDP per capita in Africa, free healthcare, free education, housing subsidies, and a functioning welfare state, became a failed state with open slave markets within three years.
This is what negotiated security guarantees look like.
This is the documented outcome.
Not a fringe case. Not a misunderstanding.
The most complete, unambiguous illustration possible of what your weapons are worth the moment you give them up.
The lesson is not complicated.
The only deterrent is a deterrent you still possess.
The moment you negotiate it away, you have nothing left to negotiate with.
The Kanye West comparison remains the best description to show this imbalance.
He is a black man with a severe documented mental health condition and when he made antisemitic statements, the world collectively decided that his illness did not grant him a pass to spread hate. World leaders made statements, he was ostracised from a lot of his business deals, he lost millions of dollars.
The "nuance" of his severe bipolar disorder was set aside in favour of the outrage from the Jewish community. Yet, when the roles are shifted and the perpetrator is a white man with a neurological condition, the "nuance" suddenly becomes the entire story.
If an institution's first reflex is to explain away a slur rather than address the harm it caused, they aren't being inclusive, they are choosing to prioritize the social comfort of the person who spoke over the fundamental dignity of the people who were targeted.
Look at how quickly people(mostly white) online rushed in to explain that he has Tourette's. Before anyone had even finished processing what happened, the conversation had already shifted to defending the speaker. It’s not that the condition isn't real or relevant. It's that the instinct to protect the speaker seemed to arrive faster than the instinct to acknowledge the harm.
Once it comes to black people, the emotional burden is by default, expected to flip. So that the people who heard the slur are now expected to demonstrate empathy before their own reaction is even treated as legitimate.
None of this requires denying the reality of Tourette's or pretending the outburst was intentional. A neurological condition can explain why something happened without erasing what it felt like to hear it. Both truths can sit together. A fair response has to acknowledge that even with a lack of intent, the reality of the harm is still there. Aggressively writing a 10 page thesis on Tourette's to shut down conversations doesn't do anyone any favours.
really disturbing how little people seem to be reacting to the human trafficking concentration camps. a congresswoman showed up to try to inspect one of them and ICE attacked her and are trying to put her in prison for 17 years about it. yall are the germans that "didnt know"
Don’t get me wrong I knew it would be different when white people started to die but it’s genuinely infuriating to see how much they don’t care about Black people.