First the author conflates that people like being in the EU with the idea that member states should integrate further in (as in cede power to) the EU. Starting off on a lie doesn't usually bode well for this kind of texts.
He claims that this offers opportunities to coordinate migration policies but when they do, it's wrong because he doesn't like the policy. He claims that they should stand strong in military defence against Russian aggression but when they do, he's against it because the moment the US suspended their aid they acted immediately instead of just waiting for *checks notes* the European Parliament agreeing on starting a unified EU-army.
This guy just reads like someone that wants the EU to become just like the US regarding centralization, but with his own policies instead of those inconveniently voted for by his fellow citizens.
2 points ·
They were quick to add barricades the previous time they expected a mass stampede... But it´s hard to imagine them being able to hold back a *million* determined refugees without it looking bad on tv.
I still fear that that´s what it´ll come down to though. A lot of people are never going to forgive them if they let them out
0 points ·
By itself, no
-4 points ·
More like less repairable
1 points ·
The US can do a 180 in 4 years. China: not so much
-1 points ·
You sound like a caricature account ran by the Mossad to discredit pro-Palestinian posters
-3 points ·
And can you describe what you think is wrong with that article? Does it make you question whether those 60+ dead were unrelated to the Israeli attack??
If that's the case then it's just an issue of the Guardian being written for smarter people
-1 points ·
You gave a link *accusing them* of quoting Israeli officials
You don't seem to be able to back up your accusation that they have been avoiding to use the word 'killed'. So why make it?
The Guardian is not misinforming their readers about what's happening in Gaza.
The way you're talking about this is telling me that you're too far gone to look at these things objectively
-1 points ·
Do you have any examples of the Guardian dancing around the word 'killed'? The fact you have to resort to their reporting on unrelated issues seems to suggest that's not really the case
-1 points ·
Do you have anything to back this up? I've never felt The Guardian was using euphemisms
0 points ·
If you're really interested, I can only keep recommending you read the article yourself. You'll find it explicitly states that said missiles and shells were fired by helicopters and UAV's.
But what do you need to have *explained* about it? How can this still be news to anyone?? Do you want to believe the Israeli airforce only shoots flowers and thank you notes?
2 points ·
It really only takes 5-10 minutes to read
>during the day fighter jets dropped 530 tons of bombs on Gaza
-1 points ·
The article states that the bombs were dropped over Gaza, not Israel. It also states that the airforce, in hindsight, feels they acted too careful out of fear for civilian casualties.
I've read some of the 'reasoning' from this OP in the past and I'm afraid the twist that "the Israelis just went and killed themselves" is mostly wishful thinking
3 points ·
The article claims the exact opposite, ie. that the mentioned amount of bombs was largely dropped on targets *within* Gaza.
The term 'Gaza envelope' does not appear once and looks like a fabrication
-1 points ·
With Hamas seemingly agreeing to most of Israel's terms, I think he gave them a hard 'last chance' in order to force it.