Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.) called some of his colleagues’ quickness to blame Israel for the hospital blast in Gaza “disturbing” in a statement Wednesday.

“It’s truly disturbing that Members of Congress rushed to blame Israel for the hospital tragedy in Gaza,” Fetterman said in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

  • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Both of you respond by showing your own bias. Bomb damage assessments happen all the time. There is really nothing to indicate that an Israeli bomb was used. There is all sorts of evidence that point to a rocket failure. You can leave it at that without blaming one party or another for problems. But, denial of reality is the problem.

      • norbert@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        This bomb was purportedly Islamic Jihad, not Hamas, but otherwise I don’t disagree with what you said.

      • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Actually it was probably a Islamic Jihad missile. They are another gang in Gaza. Let’s put it this way…if you were disturbed when you thought Israel was to blame, yet you shrug off when Islamic Jihad is proven to have done it…they you just might need bias confirmation.

          • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            Then you almost join my club, however, there are two other certainties. 1. Terrorism is always wrong and the brutality of Hamas on Israel was way way over the line. 2. Since that is true, there is absolutely no way a war would not result and there is no way that ideological rhetoric is going to stop it.

            • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Is property destruction allowed? Lots of people consider that terrorism but I’m not mad if someone, say, sinks an oligarch’s yacht as long as nobody gets hurt.

            • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Remember Kids:

              • When the dominant force in a conflict commits violence against civilians it is due to the “fog of war” or seen as “unavoidable collateral damage”.

              • When the minority force in a conflict commits violence against civilians it is “terrorism” or “savagery”.

              I’m not condoning the use of violence against civillians in any capacity. However, this is the way that the power brokers manipulate the emotions of the ignorant unwashed masses in their own societies to justify their own atrocities.

              Some form of this language manipulation tactic has been utilized as a catalyzing force to support the genocide of indigenous populations throughout all of human history.

              • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Actually the term Fog of War describes a basic misunderstanding of events in war.

                War has rules and killing civilians is against the rules. Doing so to freighten living populations is terrorism.

                Hope this helps.

                • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  I know what it means. What I’m saying is that concept is then used as a justification for violence against civilian populations by the dominant force in a conflict.

                  The messaging around that violence is what matters in the context of your initial statement, and the dominant force in a conflict NEVER admits that what they are doing is also very much “terrorism”, and usually on a much larger scale.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Is it biased to say “I don’t know”? Because i don’t, and I don’t really think the specifics of whose at fault here really matters compared to what I do know:

      that it’s fucked up just now, and this conflict has been brewing for a very long time.

      • Krauerking@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah.

        *I don’t know but, it seems like a bunch of innocent people are suffering and the hospital may not be able to care for them anymore and we have still blocked any new aid from arriving" is the answer I want to have but people really do want to just jump to simple solutions and simple answers.
        Welcome to humanity, pick a color and join your side and don’t care what it takes for yours to win.