Isn’t that exactly what the comment you’re responding to is getting at? The discrepancy between the headline and the facts? So, the fact that a few U.S. troops lost their lives while their bombs blew many, many more Iranians—most of them civilians—to pieces?
Am I completely misreading this?
Edit: By the way, this is likely a news agency report that the BBC reprinted largely unchanged from a U.S. agency. That also explains why the BBC isn’t at all critical in this article. However, I can only vaguely discern that this outlet would generally be critical, which has to do with the “special” relationship between the UK and the U.S. You’ll never hear the BBC state with sufficient clarity that this war violates international law, nor that the U.S. is committing war crimes.
This is not meant to be an attack on this long-established organization. In my home country, Germany, the situation is no different, as our politicians also continue to cling to the U.S. as well.
Comment 1: The BBC is not caring about Iranian lives
My reply: Here’s an article where the BBC reports explicitly on Iranian deaths
People seem to be trying to assign a moral stance to the BBC in this article, but it’s a pretty straightforward summation of facts on a strike that occurred today. This is standard conflict reporting with no real moral stance being added.
You’ll never hear the BBC state with sufficient clarity that this war violates international law
They’ve gotten pretty damn close
Iran war shows norms of international conflicts have been overturned
Can’t find any reporting that the war is legal and completely okay.
If we want to delve more into my personal opinions, most Western nations do not want this war. I think they care more about the oil than the lives, but they still don’t want it. You are right though most will not distance themselves from the US over it. Germany and the UK particularly love the US military since its foreign bases bring a lot of revenue to local economies. I applaud Spain for being brave enough to say what needs to be said and hope the rest of the EU follows
No, I don’t think you are. The person just seems very adamant at ‘winning the argument’ so it’s going to take all kinds of twists and turns and become a convoluted mess
In this case, it seems like the user has a whole bunch of smurf accounts to make their point … just look at the downvotes. If you’re not sure what a comment means, you wouldn’t just downvote it right away, would you? Anyway, that’s how I see it, but yeah, maybe after all these years I’m still misunderstanding this metric.
There’s no problem here, since we’re all on the same page. It just looks that way because of the downvote train that you’re still continuing many hours after the fact, instead of explaining how this misunderstanding might have arisen. The comment we’re talking about here doesn’t say anything like what you’re making out to be a given. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, but no one seems willing to bother explaining it. Instead, there are just downvotes and “sufficient” answers that have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. But hey, that’s just how social media is, and that’s exactly why the pedophile billionaires are winning…
Their tactic is to get like-minded people to tear each other apart: This is a good example of that on a very small scale.
Isn’t that exactly what the comment you’re responding to is getting at? The discrepancy between the headline and the facts? So, the fact that a few U.S. troops lost their lives while their bombs blew many, many more Iranians—most of them civilians—to pieces?
Am I completely misreading this?
Edit: By the way, this is likely a news agency report that the BBC reprinted largely unchanged from a U.S. agency. That also explains why the BBC isn’t at all critical in this article. However, I can only vaguely discern that this outlet would generally be critical, which has to do with the “special” relationship between the UK and the U.S. You’ll never hear the BBC state with sufficient clarity that this war violates international law, nor that the U.S. is committing war crimes.
This is not meant to be an attack on this long-established organization. In my home country, Germany, the situation is no different, as our politicians also continue to cling to the U.S. as well.
Comment 1: The BBC is not caring about Iranian lives
My reply: Here’s an article where the BBC reports explicitly on Iranian deaths
People seem to be trying to assign a moral stance to the BBC in this article, but it’s a pretty straightforward summation of facts on a strike that occurred today. This is standard conflict reporting with no real moral stance being added.
They’ve gotten pretty damn close
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gjv02g54ko
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy91x2n29nlo
Can’t find any reporting that the war is legal and completely okay.
If we want to delve more into my personal opinions, most Western nations do not want this war. I think they care more about the oil than the lives, but they still don’t want it. You are right though most will not distance themselves from the US over it. Germany and the UK particularly love the US military since its foreign bases bring a lot of revenue to local economies. I applaud Spain for being brave enough to say what needs to be said and hope the rest of the EU follows
No, I don’t think you are. The person just seems very adamant at ‘winning the argument’ so it’s going to take all kinds of twists and turns and become a convoluted mess
In this case, it seems like the user has a whole bunch of smurf accounts to make their point … just look at the downvotes. If you’re not sure what a comment means, you wouldn’t just downvote it right away, would you? Anyway, that’s how I see it, but yeah, maybe after all these years I’m still misunderstanding this metric.
Are you both illiterate? arrow74’s comment was very clear and they even explained it in very simple terms.
Yes.
And here you are: having a fit even though you don’t understand their comment.
Where does all this hatred and mindless conformity come from, which makes social media platforms so hostile?
Presumably because you have an interest in ensuring that there can be no civilized exchange…
I like your attempt at making it my problem haha.
There’s no problem here, since we’re all on the same page. It just looks that way because of the downvote train that you’re still continuing many hours after the fact, instead of explaining how this misunderstanding might have arisen. The comment we’re talking about here doesn’t say anything like what you’re making out to be a given. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, but no one seems willing to bother explaining it. Instead, there are just downvotes and “sufficient” answers that have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. But hey, that’s just how social media is, and that’s exactly why the pedophile billionaires are winning…
Their tactic is to get like-minded people to tear each other apart: This is a good example of that on a very small scale.
Maybe people are downvoting you for being a moron.