But my claim is that the statement is false, not that they intentionally misled, so even if they were understandably confused, that still seems to be untrue.

But it isn’t inaccurate, that’s the thing. The Twitter post says, “a Photojournalist and Writer/Editor for both Al-Jazeera and the Palestinian Chronicle.” That is factually true…

claiming this some kind of intelligence community…but it’s understandable that they can’t even figure out if this guy works for al Jazeera? You’ll have to help me square this.

The group is a discord channel for people in the intelligence sector, I don’t know what you need squared about that. Take it for what it is, an early alert gossip mill by people who hear things before most other people do.

I have no need to rush to a conclusion on this. I’m just reporting what one of your links said. In your attempt to rush to a conclusion, you already were convinced of a falsehood. Maybe you should slow down too.

I haven’t rushed to any conclusions, I’ve been sharing news articles as they come out.

I can’t help but read your points as attempting to paint al Jazeera as some bad guy in this whole thing.

Whether you pay them or not, posting articles from potential terrorists isn’t a good look. The same can be said about any media group associating with terrorists, the same happened with CNN, NY Times, and Associated Press on October 7th.

How long ago was this tweet that is from some group that you claim is 10 hours ahead of the news? And we’re being critical of al Jazeera for not rushing out an article in that time?

Not sure why you’re asking me when something was posted when I shared the link to it, that’s just lazy. I never criticized Al-Jazeera for not publishing a response, I simply stated that they haven’t, and my response about that was even understanding that not much time has passed?

I think you’re the one rushing to conclusions and should slow down.

Eh, I wouldn’t say it’s false. The description of the guy comes from Al-Jazeera’s website where they say he is a reporter and photojournalist and he did write for Al-Jazeera. If Al-Jazeera is going to post his work and list his information on their website I think it’s understandable that people might think he is employed by them.

As for the attack being unverified, the other link I provided stated that the IDF confirmed that address and house (which is time stamped after the article you are referencing). Additionally, a third party who is identified as a Hamas operative in Europe was referenced as a source for these claims in both articles. I don’t know how much more confirmed you can get unless you’re holding out for Anderson Cooper to be live from the living room?

Finally, I haven’t seen anywhere that Al-Jazeera is denying he was doing anything, the only thing they appear to be denying is that he was employed by them. Even then, Al-Jazeera doesn’t seem to be making any articles about the guy, the whole thing was correspondence with representatives of Al-Jazeera, this stuff happened so recently I wouldn’t be surprised if Al-Jazeera hasn’t had time to post anything yet. For context, this information is <24 hours old, the first US article I see about it was only posted an hour ago.

Ah ok, my apologies. Yeah, there’s not much in the way of mainstream international news picking this story up. Pretty much it was just Israel saying they raided XYZ houses, these are the people they found inside. Individuals made the connection to Al-Jazeera and mainstream Israeli media picked it up, but they’ve backed off a bit once Al-Jazeera clarified.

I’d generally agree with a general dislike of Twitter supporters, but no one has really stepped up to fill in Twitters void (at least that get the same level of traction as Twitter). Paying the Twitter tax still seems to get your information out faster and farther than almost any other alternative. I think the only way Twitter is going to fully fall will be if it no longer is profitable to run, otherwise large groups will continue to use it. One positive is that people seem to be diversifying from Twitter with Lemmy, Mastadon, Reddit, or something else (I guess Discord falls in the something else).

Now if you’re just a regular person and paying for Twitter blue then I agree that you’re probably not trustworthy or at least a bit stupid.

Did you Google the name? Because if you had you’d realize it’s not a news organization and they don’t make news articles. OSINT stands for Open Source Intelligence, it’s basically a discord group of people in the intelligence sector posting things they have heard going on. Looking at their Twitter they seem to cover just about anything and everything, they have stuff about Ukraine, Gaza, France, UAE, Venezuela, etc. Looking for other stories it looks like they beat mainstream media to the story by about 10 hrs.

Looking into the claim itself, it seems that it originated from Israel, but Al-Jazeera’s response isn’t that the guy is innocent but rather that he never worked for them

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/al-jazeera-denies-rumor-that-hostage-was-held-at-employees-home/

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-805525

Turns out that the guy had written opinion pieces for Al-Jazeera and he mainly worked for the Palestine Chronicle, which is based out of Washington state. It looks like his information was included on Al-JAzeera because he had written opinion pieces, but wasn’t actually employed by them. Take that for what you will, but it doesn’t change the narrative much.

https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1799715089936761144

Purportedly one of the hostages was being held in the house of an Al-Jazeera journalist/writer/editor and several members of his family were killed while trying to prevent the hostage from being rescued.

EDIT: Turns out he wasn’t an employee of Al-Jazeera, but he wrote opinion pieces for them.

EDIT 2: New article https://www.yahoo.com/news/al-jazeera-denies-connection-journalist-194749492.html - It seems that the female hostage was not the one being held at this location, but rather the three men were. The location is an apartment building and the hostages were being held on the 3rd floor while the journalist was living on the first floor. The claim that the journalist and his family were killed comes from a European based Hamas affiliate.

EDIT 3: Another article - https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-confirms-abdallah-aljamal-was-holding-3-hostages-in-his-home-in-nuseirat-alongside-his-family/ - I don’t read Hebrew, but it looks like IDF is confirming that the journalist and his family were the ones holding the hostages, not just someone in the same building.

EDIT 4: Looks like the US media has gotten hold of the story finally, but it’s mostly NY Post and Fox news. Looks like they’re behind the times because they’re just running the Al-Jazeera angle.

Hey, I appreciate your response! I totally understand that people want to have their feelings confirmed in such a space, but that’s also why I am critical in it. In this sort of environment the discussion is almost as much emotion and feeling as it is the words actually used. A sort of slang can develop where we can understand what each other means without the words we use being truly accurate. The problem with that is that this environment is also an echo chamber, we put meaning onto things that we want it to mean because it also confirms our beliefs.

This leads to situations where it’s impossible to differentiate between radical statements and reasonable statements. A good example is the chant, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” When both extremists and normies use the saying it becomes hard to differentiate them. Another example is the Gadsden flag, on it’s own there is nothing wrong with the flag with a deep historical heritage, but when the far right started using it as a symbol any rational centrist or leftist immediately stopped using it for fear of association. Back in school I had a friend who had the flag hanging on their wall, but around 2012 they specifically stated that they had taken it down because it had been co-opted by the far right.

I don’t really like the use of the word colonizer in this context, it just doesn’t fit right with me. The definition technically fits, but colonization to me is more like an invasive species moving in and slowly overwhelming the native population. This is more akin to what we were seeing with settlers moving into the West Bank.

What’s going on in Gaza is more akin to straight up scorched earth takeover and land theft. Hell, calling it an invasion and genocide feels more accurate.

I never said I was ok with what Israel is doing, my argument was on the meaning of words. Leftists in general are really terrible about saying what they mean, because they don’t seem to know the meaning of the words they use.

The cycle seems to go like this:

• make a statement
• realize the statement doesn’t mean what they wanted to say
• double down and try to change the meaning of the words they used

I know I said we need to be clear in our language, but since we were talking about a “regime” from the beginning I didn’t think I had to continuously spell it out throughout the discussion. Yes, we’re talking about whatever regime is being referenced, but again the last guy said it wasn’t Israel.

Regime Noun

a particular government or a system or method of government:

Your comparison between China and Israel is really terrible. If we’re being super duper clear on what a regime is, it’s the system of government. Israel is a parliamentary democracy, all citizens over the age of 18 can vote. Since the regime is democratically elected it’s kinda hard to differentiate the Israeli people from their Regime. China on the other hand is a unitary one-party state, if you’re not in the party and at the right level of the party then you don’t have any voice. It’s a lot easier to separate the people of China from their government.

Well that can’t be what he thinks, I listed that as an option in my original response

Except this guy specifically said he hopes the current Israel is dismantled. At best they could be hoping that Israel changes into a better government, but I don’t think that’s their meaning.

But he clearly said

No where does that say dismantling Israel.

So what entity which has colonized Palestine for 76 years, but isn’t the current Israel does he mean?

EDIT: Words have meaning, if the words you use don’t mean what you mean, then admit that you used the wrong words and be more clear or else people must assume you mean what you say. Coming in after the OP and attributing meaning that they didn’t give doesn’t suddenly change what they said. A reminder, the original post was;

Hopefully this is a step toward dismantling the brutal apartheid regime that has colonised Palestine for 76 years."

that has colonised Palestine for 76 years.

So who are they talking about then?

No one said that, dipshit.

Dismantle verb

To get rid of a system or organization, usually over a period of time:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/dismantle

Basically everyone wants either two-states based on 1967 borders or Israel to give Palestinians equal rights and create a single, secular democracy

Except this guy specifically said he hopes the current Israel is dismantled. At best they could be hoping that Israel changes into a better government, but I don’t think that’s their meaning.

Eh, a quick Google search said that Tesla wasn’t profitable for 17 years and survived due to government subsidies and investor funding. After that they’ve been making ~$15 billion per year and sold around 1.3 million cars worldwide per year.

In contrast Toyota sold 10.3 million vehicles and made $61 billion in profit.

As with their 17 years of unprofitable business they are currently more proportionally profitable, but a big portion of that is Musk fanboys and limited supply. If they actually started selling more cars they probably wouldn’t be as proportionally profitable.

Additionally, Tesla is supposedly becoming less profitable due to several factors including not making a new model in 10 years, reports that they fraudulently marketed features (being sneaky with how range is calculated so that the true range is way less than advertised), and Elon’s antics hurting sales. Elon’s antics are a big deal, some people who wanted Teslas before don’t want them anymore because they don’t want to be associated with him (like flying a Gadsden Flag in the mid 2000s vs now).

Elon’s antics don’t stop there, he’s also hurt the investor’s opinion as well. A big reason Tesla’s stock was so high is because people were buying them and not selling them. This caused their price to stay super high, but when Elon bought Twitter he sold a ton of stock. The price was at an all time high over $400 per share, his selling cratered it to ~$115, and is currently around $165. Investors don’t like it when the owner of a company single handedly tanks their investment so the owner can make a bad investment, even more so when the writing on the wall says he’ll sell even more of the stock to fund the bad investment.

The example is the Telluride though? That’s the whole point. Of course any sane person would pick a cheaper car. For that matter why would you ever buy a brand new car?

I definitely agree, but I went with the option which would have the lowest monthly payment. On the other end local rates have a 36 month loan at 6.75%, but that’s $1,800 per month.

I just Googled and the 2024 Telluride has an MSRP of ~$55,000 in my area, used 2023 models are about ~$45,000.

Looking at an auto loan calculator, that’s between $700 and $900 per month with a 96 month 9% auto loan.

Point is, if you can afford the car you’re probably not worrying about the subscription except on principle. If you can afford the car and have principle concerns you’d probably buy a different car.

The demographic you’re referring to is a portion of conservatives that’s hard to specifically categorize, some of them are libertarians that hate government involvement while some are MAGA followers that can’t think for themselves. The portion that dislikes free healthcare because of evil communism is also the group that thought the ACA and Obamacare are different things. When the Republicans tried to kill the ACA a few years ago it had majority support from conservatives until it whiplashed the opposite way, there were interviews on TV where people were complaining about Obamacare and saying that th Republican ACA was a great plan, the interviewer would then tell them they’re the same and they didn’t believe it. This campaign of embarrassing people probably actually saved the ACA.

The real reason Conservatives dislike free healthcare is a misguided belief that the government is inefficient or incapable. In reality Medicare is far more cost efficient than the majority of private insurance. Likewise reports that you have to wait in free healthcare countries really don’t matter because we have to wait for healthcare too, both systems are triage based. If you have a broken leg you might have to wait at the ER, but if you’re having a heart attack you’re going to get immediate care. If you try to schedule a routine dental visit you may have to wait several weeks, but if you had an accident and knocked out all your teeth you’re likely going to the front of the line.

https://youtu.be/sx2scvIFGjE?si=2jGK8Bqwiu7S0GSh

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/upshot/one-third-dont-know-obamacare-and-affordable-care-act-are-the-same.html

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/yoyj63/why_are_conservatives_against_universal/

That’s the second room that you can lease out, 50 Sqft for $1200 per month.

It’s not a set number for the US either, we have Family Medical Leave (FMLA). When they say you have sick days it’s referring to paid sick leave by your job. If you’re sick you can be out for sick leave for quite a long time and the jobs can’t do anything against you, they just don’t have to pay you. If you’re so sick that you’re on FMLA for a long time you’ll probably qualify for Short Term Disability which you might also supplement with Short Term disability insurance.

It’s only common for government jobs and isn’t universal there either. Many government jobs in the US receive multiple different types of leave concurrently. So for example you might accrue 12 hrs of vacation leave per month, 8 hrs of sick leave, and have a floating holiday of 8 hrs per year. If you reach a certain cap (say 100 hrs) the vacation leave rolls over into sick leave.

If you quit your job they have to pay out the vacation leave but not sick leave.

The result is that many government employees, with long careers, historically have tons of sick leave they aren’t using (as in several hundred hours). When someone has a life event it’s not uncommon for coworkers to donate some of their leave to the person (think having a baby or a cancer diagnosis).

You can of course take more leave then you have sick days with FMLA, but they will be unpaid (by your job, you may qualify for something like short term disability, idk). Sick leave that you have when you become eligible for pension retirement typically can apply to your retirement (potentially allowing you to retire earlier), but you still have to qualify for retirement first.

If you’re 3 years from retiring and you can’t qualify for early retirement with your leave, then you might have hundreds of hours you’re not going to be able to use.

Of the responses I have gotten I feel like you have the closest response to the truth. Having good cops comes down to trust. If we had a police force of non-opportunistic saints who will go through anything to do the right thing then we might have something which meets the public’s expectation of the police. Short of that they are people who put their own lives and well being above that of the public. Police aren’t out there to save you, they aren’t really out there to stop crimes. They are out there to charge people with committing crimes. I feel like some understanding should be out there for the public though, police aren’t there to save you, they are there to charge people for having committed a crime. Ideally they will stop a crime as it is occurring or by their presence prevent a crime from occurring, but if you think the Police are there to save you then you’re wrong.

That’s the average scenario. That’s the Uvalde cop looking on as a school shooting occurs. The idea of a cop running into a school shooting is the “BEST” scenario.

Unfortunately the norm for police is far less than that, because the pay doesn’t incentivize better people to want to be police. It comes down to those the factors: pay, work life balance, and danger. Pick 2 of 3, low danger, high wages, or good work life balance.