"but no, they were blocking highways practically the very next day."
... my take on that situation is:
YES, it is not only disconcerting, and distressing, and disappointing, but ... it is ALSO * * * surprising * * * that, even after the NY Times has reported honestly on certain atrocities committed by Hamas or by similar 'enemies of the truth' ...
...that there are still those -- (we might as well call them [as you did] "all the women shouting Hamas terrorist slogans" ... a good choice of words) -- who somehow manage to ignore (or not to believe) the reports of those atrocities, and who somehow manage to see Hamas as -- still! -- "the good guys", no matter what.
Why was the NYT a good choice of a voice to expose the truth about those atrocities? It probably seemed -- (at least, before!) -- to most intelligent observers, that the fact that the NYT seems to strive mightily to be "correct" in some way, on some level ...
(some would say that the NYT is kinda "politically" correct ... right?)
(perhaps in a sort of "virtue signaling" sort of way?) ...
it seemed (to some) that such [progressive] "credentials" would somehow endow their [NYT] words with some kind of magic power, to be able to "get through" to the minds and hearts of those readers who might not trust some other source of information.
The idea being that certain readers who think a certain way, might *trust* the NYT more than they would, some (um...) "other" purveyor of news and opinions; and that (hence) certain "progressive" readers would rest assured that what the NY Times says (or "prints") is in some sense "OK" for them to trust.
But no!
Don't hold your breath!
Apparently, even after the NYT came out with the information that some others had known about for some time (and that many skeptical observers had kinda "suspected", all along) ... it was STILL not good enough for some ... what does one call them? activists? or "consumers of opinion"?
As you said,
"but no, they were blocking highways practically the very next day."
It is perplexing ... and I do not know the answer. As I said -- (above) -- it is [ALSO] * * * surprising * * * .
In reply to "B." [Jan 6] ... as in,
https://www.thefp.com/p/imam-father-gaza-kidnapped-by-hamas/comment/46727984
In reply to your comment ending with
"but no, they were blocking highways practically the very next day."
... my take on that situation is:
YES, it is not only disconcerting, and distressing, and disappointing, but ... it is ALSO * * * surprising * * * that, even after the NY Times has reported honestly on certain atrocities committed by Hamas or by similar 'enemies of the truth' ...
...that there are still those -- (we might as well call them [as you did] "all the women shouting Hamas terrorist slogans" ... a good choice of words) -- who somehow manage to ignore (or not to believe) the reports of those atrocities, and who somehow manage to see Hamas as -- still! -- "the good guys", no matter what.
Why was the NYT a good choice of a voice to expose the truth about those atrocities? It probably seemed -- (at least, before!) -- to most intelligent observers, that the fact that the NYT seems to strive mightily to be "correct" in some way, on some level ...
(some would say that the NYT is kinda "politically" correct ... right?)
(perhaps in a sort of "virtue signaling" sort of way?) ...
it seemed (to some) that such [progressive] "credentials" would somehow endow their [NYT] words with some kind of magic power, to be able to "get through" to the minds and hearts of those readers who might not trust some other source of information.
The idea being that certain readers who think a certain way, might *trust* the NYT more than they would, some (um...) "other" purveyor of news and opinions; and that (hence) certain "progressive" readers would rest assured that what the NY Times says (or "prints") is in some sense "OK" for them to trust.
But no!
Don't hold your breath!
Apparently, even after the NYT came out with the information that some others had known about for some time (and that many skeptical observers had kinda "suspected", all along) ... it was STILL not good enough for some ... what does one call them? activists? or "consumers of opinion"?
As you said,
"but no, they were blocking highways practically the very next day."
It is perplexing ... and I do not know the answer. As I said -- (above) -- it is [ALSO] * * * surprising * * * .