114

WATCH: Hamas blocks IDF fuel delivery to Gaza's Shifa Hospital (www.jpost.com)

submitted 10 months ago by mwguy@infosec.pub to c/world@lemmy.world

120 comments fedilink hide all child comments

By MAYA ZANGER-NADIS NOVEMBER 12, 2023 19:09 Updated: NOVEMBER 12, 2023 21:26

Israeli security forces delivered 300 liters of diesel fuel to Shifa Hospital in Gaza early Sunday morning and later received intelligence indicating that Hamas had intercepted the delivery, according to a Sunday night IDF statement.

...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 months ago

They are good until they aren't. Up until a month or two ago, I would have gone to bat for Al Jazeera as the closest thing you can get to an "unbiased" source on the never ending invasions of the Middle East. But right from the start of this round of Israel vs Palestine, they have very strongly been showing their side as state funded media. I still think they are incredibly valuable, but now as an alternate source to try to make sense of this mess rather than as a "reliable" source, if that makes sense.

And the BBC has already demonstrated how quickly they will bend the knee to whatever the British government wants, "when it matters".

Am I saying you should assume they are liars? No. But I would lean more toward the outlets that aren't state affiliated for something so intrinsically tied to global politics and relations.

[-] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

And the BBC has already demonstrated how quickly they will bend the knee to whatever the British government wants, “when it matters”.

Can you give an example of an investigative story where they have 'bended their knee?' are you talking about the coverage of the coronation? Overall 62% of the UK population still support the idea of Monarchy https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/

[-] satan@r.nf 3 points 10 months ago

Overall 62% of the UK population still support the idea of Monarchy

So they should appease the userbase rather than tell the truth? how the fuck is that an argument?

[-] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

It’s not an argument. I was asking for an example where the BBC had ‘bended the knee’ to the UK government, and was suggesting that the coverage of the Coronation was a bad example.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip -1 points 10 months ago

It REALLY isn't worth arguing with the Royalist crowd.

Like, I'll dick around with a tankie or a CCP shill. But the Royalists are just rabid in a way that isn't even fun. Probably a side effect of having one of the most detested Brits of the past few decades (and that is saying A LOT) as a King and having him now defend and protect the Royal Nonce at every step.

[-] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

It’s certainly worth talking about the merits of the monarchy, but that’s not the issue here. I was asking about the extent to which the BBC’s monarchy coverage had anything to do with its ability to verify footage coming from the IDF. In my opinion they are unrelated.

this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023

114 points (71.4% liked)

World News

38492 readers

3494 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.