I hate how articles like this don't link the actual video.
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
232 points (90.8% liked)
World News
32328 readers
706 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The video is in an embedded tweet.
Here's a YouTube link I found, doesn't have the gaza footage. https://youtu.be/hyqFFsRifFM?si=AInna89KnC3CXGIH
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/hyqFFsRifFM?si=AInna89KnC3CXGIH
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
the idf guy saying 'thats not what we're saying' when that literally was what he was saying and he knows it and how he fucked up
Modern journalism: telling us rather than showing us.
Fair. It does have the news reporter tweet with the video embedded though.
Link the tweet too then.
For real wtf
They might have added it later, I’m not sure, but the video is in the X post at the bottom of the article - I just watched it through the article.
It’s almost as if, and hear me out guys, ISRAEL ARE NOT THE GOOD GUYS HERE.
You think there's good guys? Who? Where?
The civilians of Gaza, clearly and inarguably. They have been living for decades under aerial surveillance, need IDF permits to even visit a hospital outside Gaza, which is often necessary as the hospitals within Gaza have been under supplied for years. They also had the Israeli army only allow food imports sufficient to keep the population just above starvation levels. And the whole time, armed Israeli “civilians” have been forcibly evicting Palestinians from their homes in land to which Israel has no claim under international law.
To argue that a violent reaction to that kind of life makes anyone morally blameworthy is callous, bigoted, inhumane, and plainly wrong. If you think that, honestly, I am sorry for you.
The Good Guys™ strike again!
Strike I see what you did there :)
I think he just didn't know what else to say when he pretended they were losing sound.
Wolf sucks. The IDF guy is admitting to mass murder right in front him and everyone. No self-respecting journalist would let it slide like that.
What do you mean "Let it slide"? He repeatedly pressed the guy on the point. He cut the spokesman off when he tried to change the subject. He stayed on the point about Isreal bombing innocents for as long as he reasonably could, and refused to accept any of the evasive and weasely answers the spokesman tried to give him.
What exactly do you want here? For him to scream at the guy, call him a murderer, tell him he's going to burn in hell? That's not journalism, that's self-indulgence. Wolf was doing exactly what a good journalist should do, trying to get to the truth of the story, and he only gave up when he'd gotten as far as he could from this particular avenue.
He could have questioned the certainty that a specific Hamas guy was even present in (or under, I guess) the camp in order to make the admission of guilt more specific. For example: https://twitter.com/martyrmade/status/1719572283436782057?t=UM-uSl5z89Ua4uaw0p2-xw&s=19
Other follow up questions might include "who specifically ordered the airstrike?" and "if you wanted to minimize civilian casualties, why conduct an airstrike on a refugee camp at all?".
And those follow up questions may well have been asked, if they hadn't lost sound on the call. But regardless of how you think you might have handled it, there was nothing wrong with the angle Wolf took here. He kept the focus squarely on the horrific nature of the decision and refused to let the guy weasel out of it.
I'm not so credulous to believe that they really lost sound, but okay.
Cool. Enjoy your tinfoil hat bud.
"There was a hamas commander so we dropped a giant bomb on a refugee camp full of women and children."
"It sounds like I'm hearing you dropped a bomb on a refugee camp full of woman and children to kill a hamas commander."
"No. Uhh, tunnels. Complicated situation."
Wild to watch this CNN elder short circuit because he can't figure out how to make the narrative fit.
he didnt let it slide?
To me it seemed like he was struggling to give the IDF guy an out and make it fit the narrative.
Not sure if it seems like the headline claims, but in my case, from what I saw, Wolf had a cutout over the satalite feed, maybe on purpose? I hate it when the video isn't added in the article.
It's "at a loss for words", not "at a lost of words".
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer seemed at a loss for words at the justification being used to bomb a refugee camp in Gaza.