Thorgal

I didn't post the 32% figure. Democratic voting requires to understand a minimum of a political program. A political program includes legal, social, religious, education, political, economic, etc. improvements, read promises. Once you accept the majority of a political program you can go to vote. There's no license to kill for Israel to all Palestinians (Gaza+West Bank) once the election has been won by the majority of votes. Some people voted for Hamas without intent of supporting the military branch. After all it's a religious branch originating from the Muslim Brotherhood. Why asking this Palestinian subjective question and figure to me after realizing that the previous over-exaggerated numbers and target group (kids included) were false.

I think that Jewish religious context of rules and traditions changes in times of war. https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/01-27-12/#:~:text=Specifically%2C a milĥemet mitzva completely,war has no Shabbat limitations.

Last Palestinian elections were from 2006 (+/- 3.600.000 population). Palestinian 2023 demographics are +/- 50% of its population (+/- 5.300.000) is younger than 18 years old (minimum voting age). If you're not obliged to vote, this means that only a certain proportion is represented, but not all. The Palestinians who voted Hamas (long time ago) where with +/- 2.000.000 less at election times. The kids -18y (trend of +/- 50% of population for 2006 and 2023) old can't vote. Not all Palestinians in Gaza + West Bank who voted Hamas in 2006 want to do any harm to Israeli population. Only estimated +/- 40.000 Gazans are Hamas soldiers/militants. Thus, the figure of Hamas supporters that want to "eradicate Israel" today is much lower than +/- 1.728.000 and might be higher and even lower today than +/- 40.000.

OK for me LOL.

Depends if you want to understand my point : Yasmin Porat provided a genuine live Israeli Radio broadcast in which she provided her findings of the Hamas attacks and the military intervention of the IDF. The Israeli National radio narrative of Y. Porat was actually more pro-Hamas. The updated BBC narrative of Y. Porat is more pro-Israel. No problem for me if you can't (or don't want to) make the difference between both.

Mainstream media outlets were all invited in an IDF military base and they could see (some of) the available footages that were available from the 7th October attacks through security cams, dashcams, GoPro's, etc. It was not allowed for the international press inside the room to film during the presentation. So it's possible that the mainstream media of let's say 80 to 90% is more connected to the agenda of the Israeli government. The other 10 to 20% more independent and alternative news outlets can be completely the contrary of what the mainstream war propaganda dictates. I watch both to make my unbiased opinion, and yes I have sometimes surprises beyond expectations. Quote from source : After watching the atrocities committed by Hamas, foreign journalists must recalibrate the media narrative to align with what they understand is the truth right now. https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hkvtcxwz6

I stop reading if I see 2 sentences with 5 times "you", but I'm looking forward to see more content based critics in the future. Thanks.

I didnt judge the messenger, only the content of her witnessing...LOL

More updated news of this "content" is available now on non-English news outlets. I can't post them or they will be reported + deleted. Even some "witness" in Israel declare that Hamas used flame throwers on 7th of October attacks... Again (LOL), just try to comment the content that I've posted not the messenger.

No problem. Your 0,3% was also wrong.

Only in your imagination Morch. LOL You can't back up those false intentions that I want to minimize Hamas attacks and casting a doubt on casuality. I only wanted to mention that more Israeli civilian witnesses are coming up with the same stories of Yasmin Porat. Again, don't blame or politicize the messenger. Just discuss the content. LOL

You requested to back up which I did. Yasmin Porat witnessed on Israel National Radio on a Middle East Eye footage her experience from the Hamas attacks and the friendly fire of IDF/Israeli security forces. Israel National Radio footage has been dismissed/rejected because it has been distributed by Middle East Eye ? LOL There are no Al Jazeera reporters in the footage : it's only a copy of the genuine Israel National Radio available online and taken over by many news outlets. LOL All this to avoid to back up/answer that Israeli friendly fire with tanks and helicopters resulted in higher Israeli causalities...

My quote : "Some 300 to 400 victims were IDF or Israeli police personnel. There's also Israeli friendly fire from IDF/IAF to Israeli civilians with Merkava tanks and Apache helicopters." Yasmin Porat witnessed on Israel National Radio her experience from the Hamas attacks and the friendly fire of IDF/Israeli security forces. The 300 to 400 victims of the 1.200 (before 1.400) victims were IDF or Israeli police personnel. Yasmin Porat is not one of the 300 to 400...

One of them : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTQcjyhPOIk&t=46s

Some 300 to 400 victims were IDF or Israeli police personnel. There's also Israeli friendly fire from IDF/IAF to Israeli civilians with Merkava tanks and Apache helicopters.

Group talk becomes group therapy within a split second and similar to Olympics, they don't want to win (wisdom) , only participating is extremely vital and important for their daily self-sustaining properties...

Problem is that some make a sport (in group or alone) to get others suspended. The new software auto-generates all input from report buttons from many through algorithms and the software does the rest... I'm not sure if you can make me...let's say...a xxx...without me knowing it... As per post from George : "Please ignore toxic or flaming posts, use the report button instead, is my advise. If toxic members gets reported by many, the algorithm takes care of the rest 😎 I assure you!"

The "created" unconformity of the messenger will be repeated until he leaves the topic and repeated onto another topic... It's all for a "created" good cause to get these posters out because they "create" serious harm...

That's a typical example of : 1. devaluating the original message of a poster 2. continuing repeated persecution on divers topics through guilt tripping and stalking 3. impersonating the AN authority by repeating to adhere to the rules, moderator warning, etc...to legalize the future report function and to generate a virtual warning

Another typical example : The group will kick in to repeat the smear campaign through wat we call in psychology : "flying monkeys" https://en.wikipedia-on-ipfs.org/wiki/Flying_monkeys_(popular_psychology)

That's a typical example of : 1. devaluating the original message of a poster 2. continuing repeated persecution on divers topics through guilt tripping and stalking 3. impersonating the AN authority by repeating to adhere to the rules, moderator warning, etc...to legalize the future report function and to generate a virtual warning

Your reply confirms a specific part my previous post : "Problem that I have with AN is that public bullying is at a much higher frequency than TV. This bullying includes (and not limited to) : targeting alone or in group of an individual, gaslighting, harassment, name calling, racism, stalking, threatening, framing to get suspended, etc. Just watch the last 10 pages of “Israel is at War” topic to have an impression."

1. Correct, but that's rather a model of the 80's that has been replaced with total quality management. Your suppliers, workers, all third parties have to be implemented in your total quality plan to create quality assurance. And yes, I did a core well hidden Ishikawa to be honest before posting my top 10. 2. Customer satisfaction is not re-evaluating the concept of used emoji's.

A certain healthy favoritism is always acceptable and can be seen as a good marker in all sorts of relationships. But I think that TV moderation was going too far to mutate/transform this favoritism to offensive and defensive cronyism. It started to develop in such way that argumentations of posters were unconditionally backed by some of the moderation. Posts could be removed or modified and posters could be suspended for multiple times. This was part of the informal ruling on TV. I also understood that the high quantity of members at a certain time also allowed some of TV moderators to exaggerate in these informal ruling that made (many) posters quit TV. Please check out online debates or complaints available of many who left TV and you will see that overall TV critics is not per se on the content that was available, but more on the treatment or injustice that happened for those who highlight the TV cronyism. Being a neutral moderator is very difficult and, in some cases, even impossible. Many of us are also not the most polite, elegant or eloquent posters on TV/AN. But they’re also needed to boost or generate more “click-traffic”. Problem that I have with AN is that public bullying is at a much higher frequency than TV. This bullying includes (and not limited to) : targeting alone or in group of an individual, gaslighting, harassment, name calling, racism, stalking, threatening, framing to get suspended, etc. Just watch the last 10 pages of “Israel is at War” topic to have an impression. Again, this works both ways: it generates a lot of “click-traffic” but some members can/should not be able to carry these personal attacks for a long time. So my top 10 of reasons why people leave (and some stay) : - Cronyism: some posters are over-protected by moderation - Cronyism: some posters feel injustice and misunderstood - Cronyism: in some cases: POTY election - Unfair suspension and/or banning - Limited (political) international news - Bullying in person or in group by other posters - Low variety in posters with same interests or taste: for instance : no much (expat) women - Bad/unclear transition from TV to AN - There’s no sign of quality management and customer satisfaction process - Little or no criticism to moderation is allowed

I've talked about the evidence that is irrefutable. I didn't say that the editor or news channel is irrefutable. Try harder.