Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

europeancorrespondent.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 377 posts

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#261

Post by burnte »

8note wrote: post #253
burnte wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can understand most of what our conservative party does but I do not understand their obsession with Israel. I feel the nation should be supported and deserves to exist, but that they're doing a lot of inhumane things right now and saying that in the USA right now gets you called an antisemite incredibly fast.

you put it right here: > I feel the nation should be supported and deserves to exist this is to say, you believe that israel should be supported in what it does, and that the inhumane stuff deserves to happen. you arent in conflict with the conservative party. if you said the same about nazi germany - that the nation should be supported and deserves to exist, that would be a very explicit support for the genocide. th…

> you put it right here: > > I feel the nation should be supported and deserves to exist > this is to say, you believe that Israel should be supported in what it does, and that the inhumane stuff deserves to happen.

Except you purposefully cut off where I said they're doing inhumane things that are not defense. I DO support their right to exist, but not their tactics. They're slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people for every terrorist they get.

> you arent in conflict with the conservative party.

I assure you, I am. In most ways.

> if you said the same about nazi germany - that the nation should be supported and deserves to exist, that would be a very explicit support for the genocide.

Does Germany have a right to exist? Yes. Did Germany have a right to exist in 1918 and in 1939? Yes. Did it have the right to start two major wars and slaughter tens of millions? No.

You CAN support someone's right to exist without also supporting EVERYTHING they might ever do. That's a ridiculously extreme statement.

> the government is doing the things you want it to

Again, no, it's not. You ignored half of what I said and then decided supporting existence equals supporting genocide.

I regret this reply already, this was not a serious attempt at a conversation on your part.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#262

Post by NopIdoN »

gspr wrote: post #79
Aerroon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you get trespassed then wouldn't the police get involved?

They weren't trespassing, they were invited! Aside: why do Americans always talk about trespassing as something that is done to the trespasser? Isn't trespassing the act itself? If I plant myself in your livingroom uninvited, then surely I am trespassing . Why do so many people instead say that I "get trespassed"?

the trespasser got trespasserized* by the trespassee, who was trespassed against when the trespasser did a trespass on them

* trespasserified

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#264

Post by godwinson__4-8 »

greenleafone7 wrote: post #141

What is weird in all of this is why is the US obsessed with israel so much exactly! Was it a random choice; did they had a random number generator pick it? Why are they not going to such lengths for other random countries in the opposite side of the world for example? And if an official's number one priority is not the people that pay him and have granted him his power, should he be in that position? The US is turnin…

The answer: Evangelical Christians

The same reliable voting block that thinks the current president is basically the second coming despite the fact he is an obvious nihilist. They are obsessed with Israel for similarly delusional reasons. I have few things in agreement with Tucker Carlson. But the way he made Mike Huckabee or Ted Cruz squirm on basic questions about Israel was delightful. These people are motivated by little more than blind faith which resembles a cult to any thinking person. Couple this with American anti-democratic compromises (connecticut compromise which allows sparsely populated, evangelical states to get outsize representation) and you have your answer. These small states are also easier to control. AIPAC actually doesn't spend that much money. It turns out to buy a Senator in the middle of nowhere is pretty cheap, and a great ROI. A Senator from Arkansas has the same voting power as a Senator from New York. Of course, for the time being New York is also bought and paid for. That may be changing. Part of the reason primaries in NYC have gotten so much attention in the last month is because of what it portends for a potential primary against Chuck Schumer. While he is not an evangelical, he is a beneficiary of AIPAC.

Since he's not an evangelical and is capable of critical thought he did call for new elections in Israel in a somewhat notable speech in 2024. It was notable as a public criticism of Netanyahu even if it was pretty mild. People of Chuck Schumer's generation who are not evangelicals still have a bias towards Israel because of post WWII guilt. America essentially inherited the power, but also the responsibility of the terminated British empire in WWII's wake. Unlike young progressive Jews who are perfectly capable of recognizing two things can be true - a state can both be Jewish and genocidal - older Americans have a bias to buying into the fiction that Israel is some uniquely vulnerable nation that needs protecting because they have parents that were around to know America largely sat on its hands during the genocide against the Jews in WWII. Americans did not want to get involved until after Pearl Harbor, and even then, anti-semitism was not exactly out of the American mainstream. And there was a time where in the Middle East, Israel was not the obvious regional superpower that it is today. So the American intelligentsia was also largely behind Israel, even if for very different reasons than evangelicals.

But even these Chuck Schumer types have basically been forced to come to terms with the fact that the current Israeli leadership is extremely far right, and frankly, pretty much as nuts (if not more) as people like Mike Huckabee. That's why again, the real answer is the evangelicals. As with Trump, they don't care if a president or a nation careens off course. They believe they are doing what their invisible friend wants. You can't really argue with that type of crazy.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#266

Post by magenta4 »

elric wrote: post #87
elil17 wrote: post #6

For additional context, tensions are already high surrounding the US ambassador after he directly insulted multiple Belgian politicians and also attempted to interfere with local criminal judicial proceedings.

For context: he's accused Belgium of being anti-semitic because a couple of Orthodox Jewish mohels are being prosecuted for practicing illicit medicine (i.e. performing ritual circumcision without a medical license). The investigation started after a complaint was filed by a rabbi, so it's hard to chalk this up to anti-semitisim, but that's modern day US diplomacy for you.

[flagged]

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#267

Post by dimitrios1 »

flohofwoe wrote: post #55
dimitrios1 wrote: post #26

"Belgian police willingly comply with U.S. ambassador's request, and Belgian police stopped your reporting" FTFY > a foreign ambassador had Belgian police remove us Belgian police removed us . FTFY again. The article is making a good point, especially the hilarious irony of all the private companies, and US being complicit in limiting press freedom. But it also fails to recognize the agency and complicitness of the B…

Did you actually read the article? The Belgian police got the information that the person would be an 'active threat' which is just absolutely bizarre and explains the somewhat 'hasty' reaction of the police to quickly remove that person from the event before asking further questions. After they realized their mistake they apologized but of course at that point the journalist wasn't allowed back in. The ambassador es…

Yes.

I quoted something from deep in the article.

Did you read my entire comment, and assume the least bit of positive intent?

I acknowledged the main points the article brought up. I highlighted a glaring discrepancy, from my point of view.

When police act unjustly, hastily, or rash, in my country, it gets at least equal weight (typically more). We don't just focus entirely on the person or party who triggered the reaction.

Anyways, the reason I commented anything at all was, as someone who values true unbiased and objective journalism, something we need now more than ever, this is clearly falling short of their stated goals -- from their editorial policy:

"Doing journalism means taking responsibility for the public. We are aware of our biases and strive not for artificial objectivity but fairness."

Seems like a complete lack of awareness of the strong Anti-american bias, and a lack of taking responsibility for the Belgian public.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#269

Post by dylan604 »

chmod775 wrote: post #163
dylan604 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it makes a huge amount of difference exactly because of what you stated. A pardon absolves one of the sin as if it didn't happen, legally. It however does not wipe the knowledge from people's mind as if it were the gadget from Men In Black. So, adding the bit just adds to the depravity

> A pardon absolves one of the sin as if it didn't happen, legally. This is incorrect. A pardon is not an expungement. The conviction remains a usable historical fact and could still be referenced in later legal procedings. Exact ramifications vary between innocence-based pardons, rehabilitiation-based pardons, and pure discretionary clemency.

I think you're missing the point. If you are a felon, there is baggage that comes with it which varies depending on the state. Some felons can no longer vote or legally own a firearm. Some felons find it hard to find a place to rent. Unless of course, you've been pardoned.

I also even stipulated that people could not be made to forget about it. Yet, you then reiterate that after telling me I was incorrect.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#270

Post by thinkingtoilet »

iso1631 wrote: post #56
thinkingtoilet wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter? Should they have been kicked out of an event they were invited to for asking a reasonable question? Why are you asking about a news organization and not an extremely fragile man-baby who can't take a tough question?

Many blogs will omit key facts. For example you could write "I was booted out for asking a question" when in actual fact you'd broken in with some wire cutters and then proceeded to pour champagne over all the soft furnishings. A credible reporter for a credible outlet writing a credible article won't, whether that's the Washignton Post, the Daily Telegraph, or Le Monde, or if it's BBC, RTL, Al Jazzera. So it's alway…

There is literally a video linked in the source. How about you read the article next time.
Post reply on HN