CNN’s Wolf Blitzer seemed at a lost of words at the justification being used to bomb a refugee camp in Gaza.
I hate how articles like this don’t link the actual video.
The video is in an embedded tweet.
Here’s a YouTube link I found, doesn’t have the gaza footage. https://youtu.be/hyqFFsRifFM?si=AInna89KnC3CXGIH
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/hyqFFsRifFM?si=AInna89KnC3CXGIH
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
the idf guy saying ‘thats not what we’re saying’ when that literally was what he was saying and he knows it and how he fucked up
Modern journalism: telling us rather than showing us.
Fair. It does have the news reporter tweet with the video embedded though.
Link the tweet too then.
Thanks
For real wtf
They might have added it later, I’m not sure, but the video is in the X post at the bottom of the article - I just watched it through the article.
It’s almost as if, and hear me out guys, ISRAEL ARE NOT THE GOOD GUYS HERE.
You think there’s good guys? Who? Where?
The Good Guys™ strike again!
Strike I see what you did there :)
I think he just didn’t know what else to say when he pretended they were losing sound.
Wolf sucks. The IDF guy is admitting to mass murder right in front him and everyone. No self-respecting journalist would let it slide like that.
What do you mean “Let it slide”? He repeatedly pressed the guy on the point. He cut the spokesman off when he tried to change the subject. He stayed on the point about Isreal bombing innocents for as long as he reasonably could, and refused to accept any of the evasive and weasely answers the spokesman tried to give him.
What exactly do you want here? For him to scream at the guy, call him a murderer, tell him he’s going to burn in hell? That’s not journalism, that’s self-indulgence. Wolf was doing exactly what a good journalist should do, trying to get to the truth of the story, and he only gave up when he’d gotten as far as he could from this particular avenue.
He could have questioned the certainty that a specific Hamas guy was even present in (or under, I guess) the camp in order to make the admission of guilt more specific. For example: https://twitter.com/martyrmade/status/1719572283436782057?t=UM-uSl5z89Ua4uaw0p2-xw&s=19
Other follow up questions might include “who specifically ordered the airstrike?” and “if you wanted to minimize civilian casualties, why conduct an airstrike on a refugee camp at all?”.
And those follow up questions may well have been asked, if they hadn’t lost sound on the call. But regardless of how you think you might have handled it, there was nothing wrong with the angle Wolf took here. He kept the focus squarely on the horrific nature of the decision and refused to let the guy weasel out of it.
I’m not so credulous to believe that they really lost sound, but okay.
“There was a hamas commander so we dropped a giant bomb on a refugee camp full of women and children.”
“It sounds like I’m hearing you dropped a bomb on a refugee camp full of woman and children to kill a hamas commander.”
“No. Uhh, tunnels. Complicated situation.”
Wild to watch this CNN elder short circuit because he can’t figure out how to make the narrative fit.
he didnt let it slide?
To me it seemed like he was struggling to give the IDF guy an out and make it fit the narrative.
No self respecting anybody would be called “Wolf Blitzer” like what kind of dumbass childish crap is that
deleted by creator
I’m completely certain it’s his real name. Bigg Dingus, Mann Slappem, Guy Manly
deleted by creator
Sure, like Manley Mann, or Gunn Smith. Or Shooter McMurican
💯
I genuinely feel bad for any liberals who haven’t figured out they’re basically just polite nazis. That’s gotta be a really rough realization. Spending your entire life thinking you’re doing the right thing only to suddenly have it revealed that everything you were living for was a lie.
Now for those of them that are aware what liberalism stands for and are still going? Straight to hell.
You somehow twisted this in your mind as some kind of gotcha that lets you preen in your selfish politics.
Scratch a liberal, a fascist bleeds
“How is it that we hear the loudest yelps of liberty among the riders of negroes?”
Define “liberal”. Then maybe the rest of what you said can fall in place.
Not OP but I think they meant supporters of neoliberal economic policy and somewhat progressive social policies. “Liberal” like American liberal politics. The point being that they think they have good politics because they think trans people are people and aren’t the kind of right wing fanatic we get a lot of. They’re “left” to the extent that the American political spectrum allows for without understanding what “left” actually means, without being conscious of the overarching machinations that make then think their politics are good even as they continue to feed a system that intentionally blinds them to any honest criticism.
supporters of neoliberal economic policy and somewhat progressive social policies. "
There’s nothing progressive about airstrikes on civilians. Never has been.
The somewhat progressive social policies are reserved for the domestic market. Statistically, US democrats are the party who starts wars and UK liberals always support these wars as we saw with Iraq and Afghanistan.
neoliberal economic policy
??? which means… what, exactly?
“Liberal” like American liberal politics.
??? You mean like the broad spectrum of … whom, exactly?
the definition of liberal is caring what gender someone is or isn’t…?
You haven’t begun to define the terms and ideology of what being a “liberal” means. I don’t mean to drop your sails, but you spent a lot of words saying nothing.
I again ask - define “liberal”.
You.
I wrote a long bit explaining what they really mean with reference to Phil Ochs and all the contradictions and contrarianism involved in people who use liberal as a slur, it’s not worth it though because the real answer is ‘too left = tankie, not left enough = liberal, everyone is bad and should be ignored except for me’
Liberal: White, far-right, genocidal, usually rich and supports literal nazis because their opponents are communists.
In a modern day context: Supports Ukraine because they’re white and full of nazis, supports Israel because they’re white and full of nazis.
A Russia apologist, Surprise Surprise. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you…
I fucking hate this so much. Anyone whose against nazis in Ukraine must automatically be a russia apologist. There is zero other explanation. Flat out the one case where they can flat out support nazism and then spin it like you’re the one whose problematic for calling it out.
You do realize how dangerous that is, right? Remember how Prager U called everyone they didn’t like communists and they were so universally disliked that it resulted in a huge surge in people identifying as communist? What makes you think this won’t happen here?
And that’s why they do it. It’s two fascist nations are fighting, they want you to pick a side because regardless of which one you do, they win.
These Russian sock puppets try really hard.
Pretty sure they ment left wing liberal, you’re thinking more of libertarian I think? Or are you just really deep in the chamber?
Everything he said applies more to Democrats than libertarians.
The democrats are far right?
By the standards of the rest of the world, absolutely.
Only if the rest of the world is China and Cuba. Sure they’re not very left wing but slightly right of centre is far more accurate than ‘far right’
Henry Kissinger
Not sure if it seems like the headline claims, but in my case, from what I saw, Wolf had a cutout over the satalite feed, maybe on purpose? I hate it when the video isn’t added in the article.
It’s “at a loss for words”, not “at a lost of words”.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer seemed at a loss for words at the justification being used to bomb a refugee camp in Gaza.
