CNN’s Wolf Blitzer seemed at a lost of words at the justification being used to bomb a refugee camp in Gaza.

    • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?”.

          • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

      • mayooooo@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No self respecting anybody would be called “Wolf Blitzer” like what kind of dumbass childish crap is that

  • edric@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hate how articles like this don’t link the actual video.

  • Grapetruth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I genuinely feel bad for any liberals who haven’t figured out they’re basically just polite nazis. That’s gotta be a really rough realization. Spending your entire life thinking you’re doing the right thing only to suddenly have it revealed that everything you were living for was a lie.

    Now for those of them that are aware what liberalism stands for and are still going? Straight to hell.

    • shiveyarbles@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You somehow twisted this in your mind as some kind of gotcha that lets you preen in your selfish politics.

    • HowMany@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Define “liberal”. Then maybe the rest of what you said can fall in place.

      • A Phlaming Phoenix@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not OP but I think they meant supporters of neoliberal economic policy and somewhat progressive social policies. “Liberal” like American liberal politics. The point being that they think they have good politics because they think trans people are people and aren’t the kind of right wing fanatic we get a lot of. They’re “left” to the extent that the American political spectrum allows for without understanding what “left” actually means, without being conscious of the overarching machinations that make then think their politics are good even as they continue to feed a system that intentionally blinds them to any honest criticism.

        • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          supporters of neoliberal economic policy and somewhat progressive social policies. "

          There’s nothing progressive about airstrikes on civilians. Never has been.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            The somewhat progressive social policies are reserved for the domestic market. Statistically, US democrats are the party who starts wars and UK liberals always support these wars as we saw with Iraq and Afghanistan.

        • HowMany@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          neoliberal economic policy

          ??? which means… what, exactly?

          “Liberal” like American liberal politics.

          ??? You mean like the broad spectrum of … whom, exactly?

          the definition of liberal is caring what gender someone is or isn’t…?

          You haven’t begun to define the terms and ideology of what being a “liberal” means. I don’t mean to drop your sails, but you spent a lot of words saying nothing.

          I again ask - define “liberal”.

          • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I wrote a long bit explaining what they really mean with reference to Phil Ochs and all the contradictions and contrarianism involved in people who use liberal as a slur, it’s not worth it though because the real answer is ‘too left = tankie, not left enough = liberal, everyone is bad and should be ignored except for me’

      • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Liberal: White, far-right, genocidal, usually rich and supports literal nazis because their opponents are communists.

        In a modern day context: Supports Ukraine because they’re white and full of nazis, supports Israel because they’re white and full of nazis.

        • cobra89@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          A Russia apologist, Surprise Surprise. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you…

          • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I fucking hate this so much. Anyone whose against nazis in Ukraine must automatically be a russia apologist. There is zero other explanation. Flat out the one case where they can flat out support nazism and then spin it like you’re the one whose problematic for calling it out.

            You do realize how dangerous that is, right? Remember how Prager U called everyone they didn’t like communists and they were so universally disliked that it resulted in a huge surge in people identifying as communist? What makes you think this won’t happen here?

            And that’s why they do it. It’s two fascist nations are fighting, they want you to pick a side because regardless of which one you do, they win.

        • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Pretty sure they ment left wing liberal, you’re thinking more of libertarian I think? Or are you just really deep in the chamber?