You’re nice for engaging in good faith.

It’s a bit funny that people who seem to think they are the politics, Marx, and communism understanders don’t even seem to understand basic Marxism that I picked up in an intro to political philosophy class, which covered Marx for all of about two weeks.

You wouldn’t be here without us

You think this organization’s judgement is some objective algorithm and doesn’t contain its own subjective biases?

I’m sorry but this isn’t “world news” to me. Random drunken tragedies are hardly something useful to keep me informed on what is happening in the world.

No, you see:

1. I was drunk when I replied because I do have a social life
2. Mocking you wasn’t part of my argument. I made that in the first paragraph (about context and similarly). I just mocked you because I didn’t like you. As you know, Professor Logician, an insult being included in an argument doesn’t necessarily make the argument an ad hominem.

The original user didn’t reply to my disagreement like a maladjusted prick, unlike you. So they got a civil disagreement back.

Unlike them, I do hope you get “attacked” by a 5 year old with a water gun this summer. 🤓

Because your analogy is ignoring both the volume of water involved and the context that surrounds both actions, one being actual bullying.

There is a world of difference in the psychological impact of a bullied child being soaked with a bucket of water by their peers and strangers being squirt with water guns by locals as a form of protest.

In the former, I would be dealing with peers and the feelings of social exclusion that come from bullying and unacceptance. People in my peer group would likely have been there pointing and laughing. There would be fear of having to run into my bullies on a daily basis who would be specifically targeting me as a single individual for no other reason but aggression or to assert dominance or whatever reasons a bully would have. The bullying period would likely have no definite end in sight.

In the later, I would at worst feel a bit of embarrassment and maybe some annoyance. Maybe I’d worry about running into the protestors again. But then my trip would end and I would be home. The protesters also are unlikely to be following me and my family around as specific people to harass and will instead be protesting generally.

And yeah this just comes off as Internet debate stuff to me. I said “it’s water” instead of specifically “it was a water gun squirt”. “hmm, having you ever considered tidal waves though. Water can be violent”. Wow. Thanks.

And again, my response was to demean the overdramatic use of the word “attacked”.

If someone jumped out of a bush and squirt you with a water gun a few times then ran away, would you call emergency services and tell them you were “attacked” by someone? If so, you really think that would be a good use of your local police force’s time and wouldn’t be exaggerating the situation?

It’s incredibly soft to describe being shot at with a water gun as “attacked”. Sorry. I hope a 5 year old doesn’t “attack” any of y’all this summer.

The point is idiotic and ignores all context between the two acts. It literally does compare the two acts or it’s irrelevant to bring up. That’s what an analogy does.

Except for dumb as shit Internet debater assholes who base their usernames on mid tier novelists, I guess.

Yes a kid being bullied by their peers in a school with a bucket of water is the same as adult tourists in a foreign city being squirt as a protest against rampant overtourism. Why didn’t I see the overt similarities. It’s definitely more than just the use of water

This analogy is a ridiculous false equivalence.

The people who have power will care if tourism dropped because tourists are made literally uncomfortable by local protests and that becomes known to potential travelers

They do campaign against their governments. They’ve now gotten international news coverage for confronting tourists, an action that could cause many to pause when considering visiting the city. The people who run the city will notice that and so will potential future tourists.

Sounds like it could be potentially impactful to me.

They do and have. Why are y’all in here acting like the Catalonian activists aren’t also running local campaigns against their regional and national governments?

Attacking tourists

It’s water

Kinda seems like we should just listen to the French then

Exactly.

Imagine thinking it’s wise to ignore the factors that led to the rise of fascism and believe there’s nothing useful to learn from them.

That’s what Al Jazeera’s claim was. Irrelevance and lack of causal link between the two explosions. Previously, the videos were being used to determine a link and to show a “misfire” leading to the explosion at the hospital, such as in this AP analysis. Now the OSINT groups seem to be saying it is unlikely the munition/rocket can be seen on video.

Now, the narrative is pivoting to a lack of munitions material proving Israeli munitions were used, crater analysis, and arguments about whether or not an air burst explosion could have been involved.

deleted by creator

It’s definitely suspicious that there are no munitions remnants available for analysis. You would think there would be something. If there is anything, independent investigators need to be given access. Otherwise, the perception of impropriety will color peoples’ analyses.

But the idea this has been “concluded” doesn’t seem correct either.

As stated in this article, Al Jazeera, Channel 4, and Forensic Architecture reached conclusions that the air explosion shows the rocket was intercepted and destroyed, not misfired, and there is no causal link between the air explosion and ground explosion at the hospital.

The AP analysis argued against this, but did in fact note this was a possibility. I believe the CNN and others use the same arguments and resources as preliminary OSINT analyses.

Now, GeoConfirmed and other OSINT accounts (Oliver Alexander) are backtracking from their early hypotheses and concluding the Al Jazeera claim is in fact the likely scenario, arguing that the intercepted explosion is too far away from the hospital to be connected. They still think a rocket is the “likely” cause, however.

I wonder if we will ever know what happened for sure, but there is definitely more to this story.

The other strikes they point out are not at the hospital but “in the area”. I guess they are listing a chain of events and noting that Israeli strikes were occurring in the area around the time of the incident.

Everything else about their analysis has to do with potential interception.

GeoConfirmed just posted this, arguing that the rocket was intercepted and the mid air explosion too far away to be related to the hospital.

It looks like a lot of the OSINT crowd are now parroting the Al Jazeera claim if I am reading this correctly

From what I saw, Al Jazeera shows multiple explosions from Israeli air strikes “targeting the area near the hospital” around the time before the explosion, rockets being fired from Gaza and then intercepted by the Iron Dome, and then concludes their footage shows the rocket in question being intercepted (due to similarities with the other captured interceptions) and “complete destroyed” based on their analysis and video.

They conclude there is no evidence that the explosion of said rocket is tied to the explosion at the hospital, and in fact, they seem to say that rocket was “completely destroyed” when intercepted.

The only thing I’m seeing from the AP here to contradict that conclusion is one person basically saying “uh typically rockets aren’t intercepted above Gaza” but noting it’s technically not impossible. Otherwise, AP is saying the rocket in question and the explosion are tied.

I guess it depends on whether Al Jazeera actually captured those rockets being intercepted. I’m not sure what else it would be unless now there’s an argument that all those rockets on their video feed also malfunctioned or are something else.