Just because you are terrified of something, it doesn't mean it is terrorism.
If he was zero involved with doing anything, do we say a journalist has no responsibility to save lives and really only document?
That's exactly what almost all modern countries say. That's why photographers get the Pulitzer when photoing a starving child who is getting watched by a vulture. The photographer chased the vulture away but left the dying child behind to go with his waiting plane.
I
It sounds so fucked, but its just reality. Giving the kid food in that moment wont save it anyways, because it wont have a sustained food and water source. You can just decide then and there "I will adopt this kid and stop being a journalist to take care of it" but then there wouldnt be any journalists left in the world very quickly. Its the same with war photographers. Not participating in the conflict is specifically whats necessary to do you job. Without journalists doing their job there would not be a single Palestinian left alive today.
Apparently the kid survived ten more years, even though he looks close to perishing in the photo.
I do agree with you, the inaction of journalists and photographers is what makes it possible for them to get their job done to get info out of conflict zones.
About my example:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vulture_and_the_Little_Girl
then, he survived much longer than the photographer
I’m very sure it’s horrible for them to deal with too.
Well said!
The photographer of the vulture picture committed suicide a year after taking it. (4 months after getting the Pulitzer prize)
So yeah its not like these are robots who are completely unaffected by the things they see and document.
One call would have saved so many people. That is what I am trying to say.
He was there as a journalist. There were so many other people there that already called. It isn't as if he was documenting secret acts. His call wouldn't have changed anything.
Even if you believe he should have done something, did he deserve to die? His crime was inaction, he didn't actively participate. Other people were killed to get to him, in a hospital. Regardless of if journalists should or shouldn't act, Israel never claimed he did anything other than documentation.
I thought the whole action was a well kept secret and that was the reason they were so successful? In any case, to me it is not easy to say he was or was not (morally) innocent. It is a complex topic and I have not even nearly enough info.
...
I can't tell if you're a troll, or didn't pay attention at all during that time period or just utterly stupid.
It was a very well kept secret. Until, you know, it was happening. The security failure of the IDF was so massive that when Al-Aqsa flood happened it revealed to all the Gazans that they could just tear down the fences and leave.
This is one of the reasons Hamas had issues with returning some hostages. Hamas isn't the only militant entity in Gaza, and others arrested (If the IDF can kidnap thousands of women and children in the west bank with no judicial process and call it an arrest, then so too can the Palestinians) Israeli's as well. As a result, Hamas didn't have all the Israelis, at first.
tl;dr Military operations aren't secret when they're in the process of happening and anyone with two eyes can see them.
I think what Herman is saying is that it was a well kept secret except for those who knew. Was this person in on it and was there to document it? No one knows for sure.
No one knows for sure.
Is what, justification for a targeted assassination of a journalist and committing the war crime of bombing a hospital?
What is wrong with you?
Like, you respond politely offering a translation for someone that is literally trying to justify multiple war crimes by a genocidal regime without recognizing the horror of the words you're saying.
People justifying atrocities and war crimes do not need polite translations. They're genocidal fucks that are looking for the right words to excuse the unjustifiable.
Did you know about Operation Al-Aqsa Flood? No one but you knows for sure. Maybe you should have a bomb dropped on you when you're in a public place filled with civilians.
See how fucked up that is for a ROE?
And, Frankly, we do know. Aslih was a famous photojournalist before all this, and Israel's main justification is a photo of him being embraced by Yahya Sinwar. A moment that Aslih publicly spoke out against and didn't want that had professional consequences for him. Furthermore, when that is the evidence give by the government responsible for the largest slaughter of journalists in modern human history, and yet still you give them equal credence as everyone else?
They are intentionally murdering journalists because they don't want people showing evidence of their genocide. Arguing over individual instances while ignoring that fact is just carrying water for attempting to cover up genocide. Is that what you want to do with your life?
I mean you and me don’t know for sure. The “journalist” knows and possibly Israel have good evidence. If you can only believe the person was a journalist you are blind. I personally believe he may have been. But it’s possible he was part of the mob as well. Like I said I can’t know for sure and neither can you.
And apparently your reading comprehension is shit.
My last reply acknowledged that and pointed out how evil of a response that is to Israel's bombing of yet another journalist and yet another hospital.
I don't know that you're not responsible for Oct 7th. Does that mean it is okay to bomb you when you're at a hospital?
Furthermore, Israel is responsible for killing more journalists intentionally then any group in any war for the last 75 years. According to Israel, they're all terrorists. When someone obviously lies repeatedly about a subject, you should give them less credence when they make the same claim.
There is nothing hard to understand about this unless you intentionally are trying not too understand it in order to justify two war crimes.
Go ahead and feel good about the slaughter of civilians, I guess.
There's an issue with this even if you believe that would have made a difference (it wouldn't have, because as soon as it started the Israeli government was aware). Journalists must not act on what they see, because they rely on the trust of parties in both sides to do their jobs. They need to be able to embed with both groups and document the war, and if they're constantly giving away information then they won't be able to do this.
Journalists documenting wars prevents some atrocities from happening. If they aren't allowed to embed with armies, this stops. We don't want this to stop, so we have to accept journalists sometimes not acting on information that could do temporary good, because the longterm good is more important.
I can tell you’re esl so I’m guessing either Israeli or Indian because no other nationality is this barbaric and stupid
Racist much?
Neither of those are races dipshit. Theyre nationalities
Indian and Jewish aren't races? I mean race isn't real so yeah I agree. The more accurate wording would be a xenophobic bigot. Better?
Nationalities who support or commit genocide deserve it. I say the same thing about Americans
All Israeli crimes, past and present. The Israeli genocide of Gaza has a historical context behind it.