[flagged]
I don't know why you brought comments into it, the most common reading of "posts" is "submissions", not "submissions and comments".
There is an ENORMOUS "defend Israel online" industry, usually using all Jewish people as human shields for the middle eastern regime. Emissary, RiseApp, Report It, to name a few.
The relevant question is how some skew the private mass media here.
It's not whataboutism, unless somehow Pearl Harbor is whataboutism to Nuking Hiroshima. Sometimes things have direct cause and effect, even if it's inconvenient to your argument.
Wouldn't that technically be a whataboutism? As far as I've seen it used, "whataboutism" usually means that there is a cause and effect that is inconvenient to someone's argument. Whatever a whataboutism is in the popular parlance, it isn't a logical or factual error.
Anyway, the key point here is it'd be really helpful to understand exactly what magic the Israelis used to get the US into this war. It has to be the most bizarre promise-not-kept of any US president in decades. Nobody seriously thought this sort of escapade could end well and although Trump is pretty vague he seemed clear enough in understanding that lying the US public into wars was a legacy killer. It looks like it'll re-cripple the Republicans in the same way the last Bush administration did.
Trump is extremely easy to manipulate. Tell Trump that his legacy will be great and he will listen to you over all of his advisors (NSA, CIA, etc. etc.). The intelligence agencies are useless because the narcissist only cares about himself.
It's been the same thing with every foreign affairs issue for over a decade now. Trump just agrees with the people who butter him up.
Epstein blackmail, that’s been pretty obvious no?
I usually avoid these discussions because I struggle to see good sides in the conflict (maybe the children?) and most will "whatabout" their way through a century of history...
... but with proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas (and affiliated), Houthis, etc, funded and armed by Iran, I'm not sure if the "who started the war" question is that clear-cut.
Exporting the Islamic Revolution of Iran is a strategy in Iran's foreign policy that believes in exporting the teachings of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 to achieve similar results in Islamic and even non-Islamic countries.
Incidentally, Israel's relationship with Iran was surprisingly good before the Revolution.
I'm not going to defend religious fanatics of any kind, especially when there are way too many on both sides that would wipe the other side if they had their way (as seen in the last 100 years of the region), but I think anyone with a very black and white view of the situation doesn't fully understand it.
According to Iran, the proxies are part of their forward defence strategy. Maybe you think that's needed, but that's not what I'm arguing.
Unless you consider that attacking a country known for strong reactions (and over-reactions) is a good strategy for those on the receiving end of said reaction, you can't think of the proxies as organizations that exist to protect the poor civilians.
Speaking of which...
If you want to include proxies then you'd have to include all who support the proxies, and also include the USA on the other side, including NATO. So is that the point you wish to make here? China would also have to be included on Iran's side by the way.
> I'm not sure if the "who started the war" question is that clear-cut.
I think it is clear-cut. They refer to Israel and the USA bombing Iran. That's very clear.
If you want to go back to history then we have more actors. But it is clear that they refer to the recent start of the war. Right now the USA is still at war against Iran too; that Israel is permanently at war with Iran is also true.
In this case, it's also pretty clear cut. The hostilities happened after we decapitated Iran's regime and started bombing their bases/infrastructure and even a girl's school.
I don't mean this in a bad way, but your start date for the hostilities is very american-centric. Israel and Iran were attacking each other in 2024 and 2025, for example. The "Twelve-Day War" was in June 2025, but the war only started when the US got involved and hit the girl's school? That doesn't make sense to me.
Reality: Multiple surprise attacks launched by Israel, including killing Irans diplomatic negotiators while actively negotiating.
We can argue if it's right to do that while negotiations are going on, but that's a different question.
And that's why I wrote this:
> most will "whatabout" their way through a century of history
Every action is a reply to something, and it keeps going. It never ends. Everyone has a different start date to whatever is happening.
> I think it is clear-cut. They refer to Israel and the USA bombing Iran. That's very clear.
But Israel and Iran were attacking and launching missiles at each other in 2025.
I mean, if one thinks that everything orbits around the US and a war only starts when they get involved, then sure... but there was a war going on before February 2026.
Do you call this clear? I don't.
This mess, for a lack of a better word, was a thing before I was born and I wouldn't be surprised if it still was a thing by the time I'm dead (assuming I live a long life). Every single action has a justification going all the way back.
For example, Hezbollah is, according to Iran, part of their "forward defence" doctrine. When they're told to attack a technically superior opponent known to often overreact with force, you know what will happen to those on the receiving end, and you also know that some in Israel will take the opportunity to push their agenda. We can talk about morality, but in the real world these orgs are not there just to protect the people.
Perhaps I'm wrong to focus too much on the practical side of things, but to only care about morality? That doesn't work.
The oversimplification is a problem though. From the early days (WW1, Turkey losing control of the area) to the Zionist movement and the support it received after WW2 because of what happened, to the Soviet Union being their main backer and then their switch to Arab countries and the US backing of Israel, the different wars where Israel was the underdog, to the different peace attempts and the attempts from some on both sides to destroy it, to the current day. Then you have a strong religious aspect, which throws a lot of rationality out of the window. Not to mention the external aspect where you have a handful of countries supporting their side and often not in the best interest of the local people.
But maybe you're right and this all very simple. Maybe many generations were too dumb to see it. I personally wouldn't mind if you came up with a plan to fix it! Good luck :-)
Only Israel can conduct a “genocide” that results in a population increase.
There are different forms of bias, like active/passive voice, how Palestinians "die" whereas Israelis are "killed" and even multiple instances of Israeli soldiers being "abducted" or even "kidnapped" from a tank. But there's also what media outlets don't report on, such as the use of the Hannibal doctrine on October 7. I can't find a report on this on the NYT. Because there was no independent investigation, it's unclear how many Israelis were killed by the IDF and very little Western reporting on it, such as the eyewitness accounts of Yasmin Porat [1].
Israeli hasbara is pervasive so yes, this is entirely relevant context when there's a report of 100 ChatGPT articles allegedly originating from Iran.
[1]: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-06/ty-article/.p...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-cov...
https://x.com/StopArabHate/status/1806450091399745608
It's not credible.
You still aren't providing any evidence to suggest why the article is invalid.
The entire article is couched in terms like this, showing it's what the company is claiming. How exactly would you push back against internal data a company is using?
Once again, should they just not report on it?
"Proof" isn't the baseline for reporting on things.
Jeff Bezos quotes Sam Altman. No, no one needs to show anything. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. One billionaire says another billionaire said is not proof and not evidence.
What exactly would meet your standard of proof?
Once again, they quote an editor of one of the outlets that ran these stories. The entire article falls apart if the fake journalist is actually a real journalist; this makes it very easy to confirm.
The United States government is at war with Iran. Sam Altman and Jeff Bezos both have significant interests in pleasing the U.S. government. It would be shocking if they weren't pushing propaganda for the U.S. government.
This isn't news. It's "Iran bad" snarling, badly disguised as journalism.
I suspect you don't hold other news stories to the same standards We have a claim from a company and the media is reporting on it.
And I suspect you're engaging in ad hominems. :-)
Trustworthy sources and actual evidence are two things I like before even considering things at face value. This has neither.
To quote Marine Major General Smedley Butler, War Is A Racket. [1]
Direct harm yes, especially if you're an American. Indirect harm? The Iranian-backed Houthi rebels have screwed up shipping toward Europe here for a loooong time.
Heck they had YouTube adverts on kids channels after Oct 7th pushing bad Israeli hasbara.
How exactly is ByteDance an Israeli company?
but I believe they are a joint UAE and US company, not Israeli