What a senseless waste of life. And I bet all of these completely avoidable and totally unnecessary tragedies make excellent recruitment propaganda for the likes of Hamas.
“I’m want to keep murdering these people, why are they fighting back?”
Hamas is less poplar in Gaza than in the West Bank, so the opposite seems to be the case.
There was a Flash video game following 9/11 that explained it perfectly.
It had a stereotypical Middle Eastern marketplace. Random civilians wandering around, and one terrorist in a bomb vest. Goal? Kill the terrorist.
Click them with the mouse, they explode, and when the blast damage touches other civilians it creates more terrorists.
What the hell is this head line! I’ve read like five times now! What does it mean!
Second paragraph of the article:
Last Saturday, she was pulled from the womb of her dead mother in the aftermath of an Israeli airstrike in Rafah, which also killed her father and her would-be 3-year-old sister. Doctors somehow managed to revive Sabreen — a shard of hope in their otherwise relentlessly bleak duties — but it was a fragile, ephemeral existence. And five days later her family received the call that she had died.
I read the article. That’s not in question. It’s just the head line is so confusing.
No, it’s not?
It doesn’t actually say that the baby died. It says the baby was saved then there was an angry funeral for the very same dead baby they saved!
In the same same breath they say the baby is alive and dead at the same time!
Stop being intentionally contrary. The headline is confusing.
The headline is confusing. And my English is better than yours.
Apparently not. The headline didn’t confuse me at all.
… was laid to rest …
I didn’t have any trouble. Unfortunately. It was heartbreaking to read.
If you have a problem understanding this headline, the problem is you, not the headline
Baby sabreen, saved from her dead mothers womb dies days later and is laid to rest at a mournful and sometimes angry funeral.
Now it’s understandable!
Super necessary comment bro.
Removed by mod
Because the kid was killed in an area the Israelis told the Palestinians to evacuate to then attacked them anyway? 🤔 Or that she was still in utero when her mom and sibling were killed in the same attack?
Or that (if I’m not mixing events in my head), only 4 of the 22 killed in that attack were even adults.
Because humans are fucking dumb and can only hold enough space in their primitive fucking brains for one tragedy at a time. A million tragedies is incomprehensible (and probably fucking should be).
Removed by mod
Depends what you mean by “view.” If you mean to quantify, then sure. If you mean to empathize, then no, I don’t believe statistics is a good framework.
Removed by mod
I respectfully disagree.
Removed by mod
What use is empathy in changing human behavior? If you’re not a bot, I don’t know what is.
That quote is commonly attributed to Stalin (though without proof, but alas)… Is that really a quote you wanna take for a walk?
Removed by mod
🥱
