A Boring Dystopia

Yup, kind of like when we torture people and they call it 'enhanced interrogation'.

Give something a sanitized term and people will run with it.

IDK, NYT has it's issues but I don't see anything wrong with their headline on this. They're pretty explicit (possibly even skeptical given the other coverage of this...) that that's what israel is calling these strikes. What else should they have said?

Oh wait hang on, "Israel assures west that IDF are 'working closely' with amrrican appointed DEI council to ensure no demographic group is unfairly left out of genocidal campaign". They probably could have gone with that. Fucking hell, the only thing that makes my blood boil more than this ~~limpwristed~~ edit: wrist slap-y journalistic coverage is the literal cauldron of blood the IDF keeps scooting out of frame every time biden facetimes them...

Nyt and Guardian seem fine, (in)directly quoting the idf.

The strikes - whether you agree with them or not and regardless of your political posture - are genuinely seen as militarily preemptive. Israel apparently expected a large Hezbollah attack and tried to get in there first. They “preempted” any such attack. The Guardian employs actual speech marks - so it’s not an opinion but a quote. Newspapers can report what people say, even if the editorial policy is contrary to what gets reported. Linguistically the headli(n)es are correct. (I haven’t taken sides in the Israel-Gaza conflict as I know both sides are currently led by scum who have no qualms about slaughtering innocent people for their own personal gain and have no interest in any meaningful peace.)

The tnyt title looks accurate to me: it says Israel is striking Lebanon AND that Israel is casting these strikes as pre-emptive.

The title is not saying that tnyt believes that the strikes are actually pre-emptive, instead it's reporting that Israel claims that the strikes are pre-emptive. Which is accurate, since Israel does in fact claim that.

The Guardian is clearly quoting. Judging an article by its title is like judging a book by its cover: clearly misguided.

I never saw "pre-emptive" as an absolving term. You just decided to strike first: it's relatively free from any connotations of propriety in my mind.

While I acknowledge that the MBFC does have some right wing bias, I think it serves its purpose. Aka to flag literal propaganda “news” sites.

The titles are literally accurate in the image. Israel is (unethically) launching preemptive strikes.

If you look at the .ml news communities that don’t use MBFC you will see that way too many news stories are from literally Russia Today, Southern China Morning Post, and other extremely biased to a very particular agenda publications.

I think people are trying to tie MBFC to being Zionist just so the bot will be dropped and it will be easier for them to normalize things like Russia Today outside of .ml spaces.

it has been said many times before, but, remember the USS Liberty

The rocket attacks Hezbollah did launch shortly afterwards lends a lot of credibility to Israel's claim it was preemptive.

"Pre-emptive" and "self-defense" are objectively true here. Hezbollah initiated its current conflict with Israel and continues to launch attacks; Israel is fighting defensively and destruction of Hezbollah assets prevents future attacks on Israel.

(You might believe that Hezbollah is justified in attacking Israel, but it's still the attacker and Israel is still the defender.)

fuck hamas

Is a 'massive strike' bigger or smaller than a 'large-scale attack'?