Comments by "Gaza is not Amalek" (@Ass_of_Amalek) on "Malaysian PM defends Hamas, condemns West 'hypocrisy' | DW News" video.

10:56 the guest gets annotations, but the host cites wrong figures and doesn't get corrected in the edit? wow DW, such journalism! h°m°s did not k°°l 1000 civ°l°ans, the official count is 1139 citizens and guests of i-country ki°°ed, of whom 766 were civilians, including some number of armed kib°°tz guards, and at least dozens ki°°ed by the military in its counteroffensive operations using mostly heavy weapons (a curious choice to counter even clearly identified h°st°ge situations with tank shells when infantry forces were available at the scene and the captors were attempting to negotiate), as well as aerial engagement of vehicles returning to g°za in accordance with the hann°bal directive.
14
how about letting pal°°°nians speak for themselves instead of a member of the malaysian ruling class?
8
he did. and he delineated between understanding and condoning. and no, a bad thing being understandable does not automatically make a worse thing understandable.
4
@Lukejb2Butterworth the d°°th counts are from i-country's police. another noteworthy figure is that the number of min°rs ki°°ed was 36, of whom 14 or so were due to random rocket fire, putting the percentage of min°rs among the d°°d at 3%. the percentage ki°°ed on the other side by the response is around 40%, with the total around 14,000, approaching 400 times the total who d°°d due to the h°m°s att°ck, directly or indirectly. al jaz°°ra obviously has the best coverage of this among major news networks. this channel here is obviously terrible.
3
@Sam_Guevenne I know. like I said, they are counted among the civilians. counted as non-civilians are active duty military, intelligence service members, and police. standard practice for police in w°r is to count them as civilians unless they engage in the fighting, in which case they are lawful combatants (whereas other civilians picking up arms are unlawful combatants, not protected by the geneva conventions, because those were written by states that all agreed on their disdain for non-state armed groups aka rebels). in this case they're counted as the latter since they of course did fight, there wasn't any question of them potentially staying out of it - and I'm pretty sure they weren't in on the ins°de j°b, that must have been limited to high ranking military officers and some intelligence agency and politician involvement (the only obvious people in my opinion are g°za division commander avi rosenfeld, defence minister yoav gallant, and bibi).
3
@Sam_Guevenne yes they are, since the term "ar°b" includes several populations outside of the arabian peninsula that are genetically primarily descendants of the local people from before the first ar°b m°sl°m conquests - basically the people of any nation speaking primarily ar°bic are to one degree or another considered ar°bs, including the maghreb states, egypt, sudan, and indeed pal°°°ine, whose native people of today are more closely related to those who lived there at the time of the hebr°w kingdoms than the average citizen of the col°nial state. though that really wouldn't have been necessary for them to have had a right to not be displaced and to now have a right of return.
3
@machsimillian14 my government claims I'm not allowed to agree with you...
2
DW is VERY biased in favour of i-country, slightly more so than the BBC. they just maintain an otherwise more progressive brand, which is fooling you. they actually censor and slant their reporting more in support of i. than the BBC does. they're essentially matching the fact that germany across politics and the public sphere has much less support for p. and is much less tolerant of it. this particular video is unusual, it's probably mostly a slip-up in that both the idea to have the interview and the decision to release a video of it (then probably influenced by some concern about it becoming a public embarrassment if the interview occurring and then not being released became known) were made by people who really believe in i.'s narrative to such a degree that they felt that the PM overall makes a negative impression. kind of like how i. released drone footage of the flour ma°°acre because what they see in the video are their victims looking like swarming ants and thus s°bhum°n, but then the video clips already selectively cut still turned out to be some of the most damning evidence against i..
1
yes, they are. because i-country is the col°nial state, the pal°°°inians are the displaced native people victimized by the col°nization, AND even just comparing the actions of both sides on 10/7 and since, i-country is easily literally a hundred times worse. they have already destroyed something like two thirds of homes in g°za in their effort to expell the entire pop°lation, and they have ki°°ed 30 times as many people and 400 times as many min°rs while dehousing 90% of and starving and traumatizing the entire pop°lation, who by i.'s own claims are 98% civilians.
1
@JohnFelinn francesca albanese tends to say really based sh°° for a UN official 👍
1
DW's pa°°°tine reporting is worse than BBC, it's about as bad as CNN just with the worst and the best parts removed (no open hostility advocated, but also no investigative journalism done whatsoever)
1