Knightfox

I like to research these sorts of things because it feels like these types of sources are 99% emotion and 1% rationale review. First off, I really hope that everyone on the ship is ok and that this doesn't turn into a worst case scenario.

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition as well as Quds News Network makes some mistakes in their assumptions and reporting. First they frequently refer to the 2010 blockade run that resulted in the deaths of several activists and state that they were attacked by Israel in international waters. They also state that Israel is breaking the UN Law of the Sea Convention by having the blockade. Finally, they assert that Palestine is a sovereign state and thus entitled to sovereign control over their territorial waters, the inference being that Israel doesn't have authority to blockade another sovereign nation.

The problems with this are that:

• Israel did not sign the UN Law of the Sea Convention

• Under the UN Law of the Sea Convention Israel can claim territorial waters out to 12 miles from their cost and exclusive economic zone up to 200 miles out. There is some extra context about having disputes and made agreements with neighboring nations to share overlapping EEZs but it's not important for this discussion.

• While considered international waters the UN Law of the Sea Convention gives the nation Sovereign authority to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage natural resources. This extends to the authority to protect against illegal fishing, illegal trafficking, smuggling, piracy, terrorism, and unauthorized transit.

• Whether you believe Palestine is a sovereign state or not is kind of a wash here, possession is 9/10 of the law here and the people with boats and guns make the rules not outside parties unwilling to also send boats and guns.

Going back to the 2010 flotilla, it was 70 miles off the coast of Israel (well within the EEZ). Israel told them to to submit to inspection and that they would deliver the goods to Gaza. The flotilla refused to allow inspection in the EEZ and also refused to leave. Israel attacked and took over the ship. I'm really not sure what anyone was expecting here?

Moving forward to the more recent attack on the Conscience, the ship was attacked around 14 miles off the coast of Malta (WAAAAYYY far from Israel's EEZ). This one gets weird, the Freedom Flotilla Coalition claims that the ship was attacked by missiles launched by drones, but provided no evidence as such or who was the source. What was documented is the presence of an Israeli C-130 that was in the area and operating below 5,000 feet, but the C-130 had come and gone from the area hours before the Conscience arrived or was struck. The Maltese government offered the ship assistance, but wanted to inspect the vehicle first to which the captain declined. The Maltese government insists that their airspace was not breached.

All in all the story from these people doesn't seem to completely add up. They claim they have rights under the Law of the Sea, but Israel didn't sign that agreement. They claim (correctly) that they are in international waters, but leave out that they are in the EEZ of Israel. They claim they have the right to travel without impediment, but the Law of the Sea allows a state to regulate travel in the EEZ pertaining to smuggling and unauthorized transit. Recently they claim that Israel attacked them, but provides no evidence and won't allow inspection (even by 3rd parties).

Again, I hope nobody gets hurt, I think it's disgusting that some people wish harm on these activists, but a lot of their assertions don't hold water. At the end of the day if you refuse to do what the people with guns tell you to do we have a pretty good idea what will happen. All the outrage and passive condemnation in the world don't mean shit if that's all it is.

Honest to god, when this happened I expected helicopters with machine guns overhead within 15 min. I watched the whole thing expecting to see a sudden blood bath. I had been to the White House and been told stories about how there were snipers on the roof, how crazy people had jumped the fence and been taken down. When the police barricade fell, people with tactical gear were swarming the halls of congress, and congress members were taking shelter in bunkers I was certain that we were going to see a radical military response unseen before.

Instead there was nothing. The USA died 1/20/2021.

Where is this from?

Perhaps you could find a link of the Israeli military denying this? You don’t seem happy with any amount of sources, and aren’t providing anything your self.

What do you mean I'm not providing anything? I've provided pages worth of research into the sources you provided and now you're saying I have to find other sources that prove you're wrong rather than you having to provide a good source that proves you're right? Are you sure you're not the one jerking it around here?

If the New York Times put out an article on the US military wearing similar shirts and that was untrue, I imagine there would be some statement by the US military contradicting it.

That's a really spurious argument, they didn't deny it so it must be true? Even then,

If you want to make comparisons to the New York Times we can. Here is an article by the New York Times about Sexual Abuse of Teens in JROTC programs. In the article it provides an account by 2 different named victims along with calling out their public disclosures of the instructors that assaulted them before detailing how NYT investigated 150 public disclosure requests and found 33 instructors criminally charged. It goes on to say they interviewed 13 victims from the public disclosures and includes a map to support their stance that JROTC programs target high poverty schools. At the bottom of the article NYT includes a 4 paragraph description of the methodology used to undertake the investigation and frame their findings.

I’d also ask you to count the named sources in each article - I’m not sure if you have your counts right on the number of journalists - you might also notice that the picture I provided in my last comment also cites another individual

Lets go then,

Article 1

Published 3/20/2009

Author Uri Blau

Sources: Unnamed Arab Supervisor, Unnamed Givati Soldier, Evyatar Ben-Tzedef (commenting on nonoffensive shirts he saw in the 90's), Yossi Kaufman (commenting on non offensive shirts he saw in the 90's and says he has seen such shirts rarely), Orna Sasson-Levy (commenting on how graduation shirts of any kind are used to build moral and culture), Col. Ron Levy (talking about how graduation shirts build culture).

Total sources that say they've seen offensive graduation shirts, 2 unnamed, Orna Sasson-Levy, and Yossi Kaufman.

Video Report 1

Published 3/23/2009

No attributed reporter.

Sources: Orna Sasson-Levy and one shirt available for purchase.

Article 2

Published 3/23/2009

No attributed author

Sources: Only references the earlier Haaretz article.

Article 3

Published 3/23/2009

No attributed author

Sources: Only references the earlier Haaretz article.

Article 4

Published 3/23/2009

No attributed author

Sources: The article lists the Associated Press as a source, but I could not find such article. All other references are for the earlier Haaretz article.

Article 5

Published 3/24/2009

Author Matti Friedman

Sources: There is a reference to "The Army" saying they wouldn't tolerate the shirts, they reference the earlier Haaretz article, and Fawzi Barhoum (Hamas Spokesperson). No sources listed saying they have seen said shirts.

Article 6

Published 4/1/2009

Author Uri Blau

Sources: None, he says "as exposed by Haaretz" in reference to his own other article and says that the IDF released a statement about not allowing soldiers to wear such a shirt, but doesn't link it.

Article 7

Published 1/2/2017

Author Shachar Atwan

Sources: Orna Sasson-Levy (commenting on the psychology of soldiers), Unnamed Female Soldier whom Oran Sasson-Levy says gave her story/information, Yoaz Hendel (commenting on the psychology of soldiers), Ofer Nordheimer Nur (commenting that the shirts show up in unexpected places), Danny Kaplan (commenting on the ramifications of such shirts on the implied fitness of the army), 2 pictures of drawings for supposed shirts and 1 picture of a shirt in the wild supplied by the Author.

Total sources that say they've seen offensive graduation shirts: 1 unnamed female soldier as told by Orna Sasson-Levy, Presumably Orna Sasson-Levy herself, and presumably Ofer Nordheimer Nur (as he says they've been seen in Gaza).

To summarize this we have: 7 articles and 1 video, 2 original authors and 1 who copied them (Uri Blau, Shachar Atwan, and Matti Friedman respectively), 3 mostly original reports (2 are by Uri), 6 news outlets but all the original reports came from Haaretz, 20 total sources (referenced people or articles) of which 8 are repeats (by my count), 2 pictures of designs for shirts, 2 pictures of shirts as displays for sale, and 1 picture of the shirts in the real world.

Of the 11 unique people referenced across all of these articles only 6 say they have seen these shirts and 3 of them are anonymous or 3rd party retellings. It took 7 articles and a news report to get the same amount of information as a single NYT article.

That's a great comparison.

Wasn't she on those topics pretty much from the beginning? I think it really just boils down to the media (and people in general) just moved on to the next story. Greta's initial appeal was that she was a kid who was effecting change and reactions. These days she's just another 20-something that shows up at protests and people upvote on social media.

A lot of people in the comments are talking about Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. as comparisons, but where they differ from Greta is that they started with protests but were able to successfully fold that into movements and action. X and King didn't just protest, they didn't just yell at the walls of the establishment and demand change. King was the leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference which organized protests, but also helped mobilize voters, lobbied congress, and helped to draft legislation. X was part of the Nation of Islam which was a particularly powerful group in the 1960's which challenged Civil Rights issues in the court system.

For a long time Greta really hasn't had much to add to the discussion on climate change other than to say stop doing what we are doing. She's not part of some powerful organization, she's not lobbying governments, she's not challenging issues in the courts, and she's not proposing solutions, she's just pointing out the problems everyone already knows exists and powerful governments are already ignoring.

No, no, no. You can't refute critical questions to the authenticity of possible propaganda just because it doesn't fit your narrative. I researched the article, the source, the commenters, the news outlet, and the journalists. I asked that you provide something more substantial than:

-The same news outlet over and over again.

-The same article over and over again.

-The same few pictures over and over again.

-The same commenters over and over again.

None of what you have provided is substantial proof or evidence, it's just the same thing repeated over and over again. It's like Peter Navarro saying he learned everything he knows from Ron Vara, his fictional alter ego.

At the end of the day what you are doing is an appeal to authority. You're saying that this news outlet said it so it must be true without looking at whether they provided substantial evidence in the first place.

EDIT: At the end of the day we have only 2 news articles, 1 news outlet, no named sources (everyone is anonymous including the guy making the shirts), 2 journalists who reference themselves and each other, 2 pictures, and 3 commenters. There is no other original source for this that I have been able to find.

This is a bit better, but it's still coming from Haaretz and the person they referenced most, Professor Orna Sasson-Levy, is the same person Al Jazeera interviewed in 2009 so it's still fairly self referential. It's the same people saying the same thing over and over again.

This article does provide pictures of drawings and a picture of a shirt being worn, but it hardly makes a firm connection to soldiers.

The article also says, "As Danny Kaplan of the Gender Studies program at Bar-Ilan University sees it, the regular appearance in recent years of the crude T-shirts has raised doubts about the fitness of the army to rein in the phenomenon." If this is such a regular occurrence why is it so hard to provide pictures of people wearing them and associating it to the IDF?

To make things even more weird the article says, "The sexist shirts also turn up in unexpected places. “What’s amazing is that you see them on the street on foreign workers and even on Palestinians,” says Ofer Nordheimer Nur of the Women’s and Gender Studies program at Tel Aviv University. “You see all kinds of shirts with slogans such as ‘I’m in Golani’ or with semi-amusing slogans, which may have been bought at a second-hand shop or just picked up off the street. Even in Gaza, you can see shirts like these.”"

So apparently these shirts are so common place that Palestinians in Gaza are wearing them, but they're definitely coming from soldiers custom ordering them?

Applying some critical thinking some questions have to be asked. Why is it the same media outlet that is generating this and no one else? Why are the commenters the same people even 8 years later? Why is it that we can get pictures of the drawings but barely any of people wearing the shirts? How is it that the shirts are custom ordered, but also so common that they are everywhere? Why is it that Palestinians in Gaza have them? Does this not raise questions for you?

First off, my account is new because my previous instance is shutting down and I had to make a new one.

Second, this is the same slop. The article you shared is a near exact quote of the NBC, Huffpost, and CBS article. The only thing is adds is that it says,

"The army said it would not tolerate the T-shirts and would take disciplinary action against the soldiers involved, although it was not clear how many wore the shirts or how widely they were distributed."

This was published March 24, 2009, a day after the original article was published online. After that statement it then refers back to the Haaretz article and then adds quoted commentary from a Hamas spokesperson.

I doubt the IDF could search the homes of every soldier within 24 hours so this comment by the IDF sounds like a reaction to the article, not that anyone was found with the shirts. Like I said before, I researched this and found no substantial evidence, if you have some then please share it.

EDIT: you sharing the same articles referencing and copying each other is like this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI

EDIT 2: The second article, the BBC one is an almost exact rip of the original Haaretz article.

This claim about the t-shirts seems so outrageous that I had to look into it to see if there was more there. Looking into it further I found the article you screen shot from CBS news March 23, 2009, as well as an identical copy on NBC news for the same day. Neither article had a credited author, but the CBS article referenced a Haaretz Daily link (seen in your screen shot) and the NBC article referenced the Associate Press, neither website still hosts such an article.

So next I turned to the Wayback Machine where I was able to find the Haaretz article, but not the Associated Press article.

The Haaretz article amounts to some of the worst journalistic documentation I've ever seen. There's one picture of a shirt which the journalist claims was ordered by a soldier and the identities of everyone involved have been kept anonymous. From a young arab man who supervises the making of the shirts to a Givati soldier, the only source for all of this is Uri Blau who wrote the article.

Alongside this I found an Al Jazeera video where they followed up on the same story where they show a catalogue with the same image used in Uri Blau's article which claims that the shirts were ordered by soldiers. In the video they say they visited the shop but the owner refused to explain the shirts and were told to leave by police.

April 1, 2009, Uri Blau posted another article referencing himself and stating that the IDF now bans soldiers from wearing such shirts even on private time, but again provides no sources or pictures.

Honestly, this could all be true, but it's so fucking sloppy that for all we know Uri Blau made up all of this because there is no substantial proof. It's the journalistic professionalism of a tabloid.

What makes it worse is that because this slop has been out in the public long enough it's existence is actually referenced as proof. "Oh, there was an article written about this 10 years ago so this definitely happened," but the original article itself wasn't proof?

Here is an example on reddit where the OP shared the picture and story a few months ago. When asked for sources they shared a Huffpost and NBC article as separate sources which are both identical and reference the original Haaretz article.

In my own statement, when I said that 3 billion jobs could maybe support 15 billion people, I said that from the capitalist mindset. What I meant when I said that was that one high income person could have up to 4 other people that actively has access to their income to utilize. This could be one person with a spouse and 3 kids or it could be a person with 2 sets of grandparents and great grand parents. As an example this would scale with number of persons with income. IE you could have a couple with 3 kids or 1 adult and 4 grand parents. The specifics don't need to be specific, I was just trying to provide an extreme example of how far one income could go for the total world capitalist expenditure.

EDIT: To make it abundantly clear, my example was to express the extreme bounds of people with access to an income. That might be a kid on the Jersey shore with a credit card or a grand parent whom the income bringer is taking care of. Either way, there is a limited number of people that one income is actively taking care of and have access to that income. My original example was 3 billion persons with income and 15 billion persons spending the money. I think most adults can find 4 other people who spend money on their behalf by the age of 40.

It honestly is a waste for a true capitalist. Like, if you have enough money to cover all your expenses, while also having 2-3x your fun money expense, why aren't you following the capitalist ideal and doing something with it?

Start a nonprofit that suits your interests, buy a company you believe it, spin up scholarships, blow it on a do nothing project, but for fucks sake do something with it!