What’s the point of this comment? The U.S. is waging a war of aggression in violation of international law, deliberately bombing schools and drinking water facilities, and thereby committing the worst war crimes imaginable. And it’s doing all this in collaboration with the butchers in Israel, whom it protects from prosecution.
That doesn’t seem to matter to you in the slightest, since you still feel you have to stand up for the “proud troop” as an “upstanding American supporter.”
This makes me sick—the U.S. president is a serious criminal and a pedophile, this awful country is ruled by organized crime.
The point of this comment is that the BBC is not supporting the US or minimizing the deaths of Iranians in the article.
They are reporting the strike as part of the conflict not as support one way or another.
It’s important to report on this because the US has a history of kinda losing it when Americans die. Which will be used as an excuse by Trump to continue the conflict.
The US is absolutely in the wrong here and nothing said in the article or anything I said even remotely suggested otherwise.
Please take a breath to read before trying to assign a moral stance to every comment.
I hope Iran keeps kicking the US’s ass in this conflict
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.
Or maybe that’s not what they are reporting in this article since the focus is on a specific strike. Here’s another article of theirs
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy735xlv50ko
Seems to be very much against US-Israeli action
What’s the point of this comment? The U.S. is waging a war of aggression in violation of international law, deliberately bombing schools and drinking water facilities, and thereby committing the worst war crimes imaginable. And it’s doing all this in collaboration with the butchers in Israel, whom it protects from prosecution.
That doesn’t seem to matter to you in the slightest, since you still feel you have to stand up for the “proud troop” as an “upstanding American supporter.”
This makes me sick—the U.S. president is a serious criminal and a pedophile, this awful country is ruled by organized crime.
GTFO
The point of this comment is that the BBC is not supporting the US or minimizing the deaths of Iranians in the article.
They are reporting the strike as part of the conflict not as support one way or another.
It’s important to report on this because the US has a history of kinda losing it when Americans die. Which will be used as an excuse by Trump to continue the conflict.
The US is absolutely in the wrong here and nothing said in the article or anything I said even remotely suggested otherwise.
Please take a breath to read before trying to assign a moral stance to every comment.
I hope Iran keeps kicking the US’s ass in this conflict
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.
Maybe people are downvoting you for being a moron.