I think a lot of people would find that uncomfortably partisan, so news organizations tend to self-censor, unfortunately.
Again, that phrasing might make people uncomfortable. as I wrote above. I understand that, and I understand why people desire to censor it. But I don't believe it's incorrect, which is another thing entitely.
Meanwhile a cleptocratic regime is firing missiles at civlians using as launching pads hospitals, kindergartens or office buildings housing international journalists.
Weird how those journalist agencies themselves missed that.
What's the slow colonisation with settlements about? Liberation of land controlled by evil terrorists?
Also as far as Israel is concerned there is no recognised regime or other such government there. It's apparently a stateless area with stateless people to be slowly ethnically cleansed.
"Israeli PM Netanyahu defends Gaza press building bombing
Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that destroying the Jala high-rise block in Gaza on Saturday was justified."
There’s a pretty big difference between a politician (even one less flagrantly corrupt than Netanyahu) making a claim about their conduct of war and that claim being true.
The dictionary seems to use "murder" for premeditated killing. Even if you think Israelis are the devil incarnate, killing children doesn't serve their interests. You have to go pretty far into conspiracy territory to believe they secretly want those children to die, and then turn around and explain to everyone how they try to prevent those kids from dying. It certainly serves Hamas's interests more than it serves Israeli interests.
Google's dictionary returns "without emotion or pity; deliberately cruel or callous" for cold-blooded. See above. Any reasonable pro- or anti-Israel position would concede that Israelis would be happier without civilian casualties.
Not really: it's well-reported that Israeli policy reasons about Arabs primarily in demographic terms. A stated Israeli priority is to keep low the number of Arabs in its territory. It's not even a secret.
You might find this so abhorrent and morally indefensible to be unlikely, but really it's just another day in the Middle East.
No I'm not, I'm just pointing out that this sort of attitude is obviously a natural result of their stated intent.
> evil and stupid simultaneously?
Stupid is a given, considering Occam. Asymmetrical warfare in general has been "propaganda-stupid" ever since Jewish tradition popularized David and Goliath. Yet armies still routinely engage in it, because propaganda is only one dimension of a conflict. Being stupid, however, doesn't exclude being anything else.
Like I said, maybe the words make people uncomfortable. But I don't think they are untrue.
The nations can do what they want special pleading is the only argument I can see against murder but it would be an inconsistent one. Fiven the sheer number of state acts called murder completely unchallenged as such. Since WWII at least "at war" isn't an excuse for murder. While they may have called retaliatory executions for partisans war it was never called anything but murder in WW2.
You’re completely unaware of the indiscriminate aerial bombing that typified WW2, or you’re entirely dishonest.
This modified version has the trolley heading steady on course to the next station, there is nobody on the track and nothing will happen if you leave it alone. However you stand next to a lever, and if you pull the lever you will divert the trolley and it will hit 200 people (some are criminals but most aren’t). You have ample time to think it over. If the trolley passes, you still have the option to pull the lever and the next trolley will hit those 200 people. You know full well what happens if you pull the lever. You also know you will not be punished if you do.
Say you are an observer in this modified version, and you observe me pulling the lever. 200 people are now unessisary dead because of my action. Do you consider me a cold blooded murderer?
Starting this sub-thread with a debate about what makes a cold blooded murder is another way of taking the debate into arguing hypotheticals and is not a good-faith tactic. What I did here is simply taking the bait and continuing to the logical next step.