![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/05f69f7e-dd89-4298-98f4-56fb9b484389.jpeg)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c47230a8-134c-4dc9-89e8-75c6ea875d36.png)
‘nothing of value’ - I think purplepuppy was suggesting that people/migrants/human lives have value
‘nothing of value’ - I think purplepuppy was suggesting that people/migrants/human lives have value
Brilliant, thank you
Thank you, good detective work
Looking for a new, non-shot phone. Can anyone ID the one on the left?
I’ll refer you to unexpctedkeg’s comment
Because the cost of the app to do that isn’t $60 a year.
What a great idea! Let’s call it The Final Solution
/s
Nah, that’s taking it a bit far. The Madagascar Plan is enough, surely.
It would certainly solve all of Israel’s problems, though
Migrating a whole group of people, whatever could possibly go wrong?
The first step to stopping catastrophising is realising you’re doing it in real time, so well done
Sometimes it’s not a big difference. Using several different quotes in one article, all of which use the word ‘terrorist’ or other emotionally loaded words, is a clear indication that they think he’s a terrorist whilst technically remaining ‘neutral’ because they’re only quoting rather than forming a position
Well sure, I agree. But the BBC isn’t taking the moral high ground here. They have previously and will again use the word ‘terrorist’ to evoke an emotional response for international attacks.
It’s a decision that senior lawyers are criticising - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/11/bbc-not-calling-hamas-terrorists-ofcom-top-lawyers/
Interestingly, on their Bitsize page, they describe the Palestinian Liberation Front as a terrorist group, which is true. The mere fact that they have a page on ‘terrorism’ indicates that they don’t take a moral position against the word, just against calling Israel (and Israeli factions/allies) terrorists - https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zy7nqhv/revision/1
Bullshit. They’ve used the word ‘terrorist’ for every other attack in the past two decades (9/11, London Bridge, Manchester Arena, 7/7, etc.). Was that not ‘choosing sides’ then?
They just can’t admit that the UK fucked up and condemn Israel because the lawyers told them not to
No, it’s announcing their cowardice. They use ‘terrorist’ for any other non-Israel/Palestine attack (9/11, London Bridge, 7/7, etc) so the entire argument is invalid.
The lawyers told them not to because everyone’s scared of being called anti-semitic, that’s all
Eh, if he’s already saying it, might as well make it true