yeah, invasions are normal under war. That’s how they work.
I guess i’m mostly just confused why we care about the clarification here, 90% of war is getting a one up on your enemy, either via readiness, attrition, or technological advantage.
The point here is that Israel is invading, but the Times was too compromised to call it an invasion. Usually when someone says “sends troops” to another country it’s to help after an earthquake or flood or fire or something. When someone invades with troops it’s called an invasion. The Times has a long history of unreasonably downplaying the violent actions of the Israeli government specifically, while using plain straightforward language in other conflicts, which demonstrates bias.
invasion colloquially would be considered a more official declaration of war, idk if israel has acknowledged this, and if lebanon hasn’t acknowledged this at all themselves, than i feel like calling it a literal invasion is probably a little bit presumptuous here.
Is the headline factually wrong?
Usually when someone says “sends troops” to another country it’s to help after an earthquake or flood or fire or something.
idk about this one chief, isn’t it usually “sends aid” or “send aid” do you have any examples of this?
like to be clear here, you’re claiming that the NYT title is biased, but then proposing an equally biased term to replace it. I would rather the title just be neutral. The headlines are useless anyway.
Can you clarify your question? The point here is that this is clearly an invasion by any definition.
yeah, invasions are normal under war. That’s how they work.
I guess i’m mostly just confused why we care about the clarification here, 90% of war is getting a one up on your enemy, either via readiness, attrition, or technological advantage.
The point here is that Israel is invading, but the Times was too compromised to call it an invasion. Usually when someone says “sends troops” to another country it’s to help after an earthquake or flood or fire or something. When someone invades with troops it’s called an invasion. The Times has a long history of unreasonably downplaying the violent actions of the Israeli government specifically, while using plain straightforward language in other conflicts, which demonstrates bias.
invasion colloquially would be considered a more official declaration of war, idk if israel has acknowledged this, and if lebanon hasn’t acknowledged this at all themselves, than i feel like calling it a literal invasion is probably a little bit presumptuous here.
Is the headline factually wrong?
idk about this one chief, isn’t it usually “sends aid” or “send aid” do you have any examples of this?
like to be clear here, you’re claiming that the NYT title is biased, but then proposing an equally biased term to replace it. I would rather the title just be neutral. The headlines are useless anyway.
edit: removed a weird bit.
Lebanon is urging the international community to recognize it as an invasion: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/01/nx-s1-5134606/lebanon-israel-invasion-hezbollah-international-support