Sami

Are you sure it was previously deleted stuff? I thought the same thing had happened to me but it was due to subreddits being private at the time of deletion then later coming out of private (some weeks or months later) preventing those then privated posts/comments from being deleted. I think running another automated tool again should do the trick at this point.

Like clockwork

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/radio-free-asia/

This what scores you high credibility: “a less direct propaganda approach” for state sponsored media that is not critical of its sponsor

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

And this is what scores you mixed credibility: “exhibits significant bias against Israel” for state sponsored media that is not critical of its sponsor (updated in Oct 2023 naturally)

Now every article published by Radio Free Asia is deemed more credible than those published by Al Jazeera despite the former literally being called a former propaganda arm of the state in their own assessment. Yes, good is not the enemy of perfect but this is clearly an ideological decision in both instances.

CNN also scores as Mostly Factual based on “due to two failed fact checks in the last five years” one being a single reporter’s statement and the other being about Greenland’s ice sheets. That doesn’t seem like a fair assessment to me

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/

So based on this I am supposed to conclude that Radio Free Asia is the most credible source out of the three at a glance.

Yeah, I’m not saying all their work is worthless and I know they’re good enough for the most extreme sources of misinformation but to paint entire publications as not reliable based on the assessment of couple laypeople with an inherently narrow worldview (at least a very American-centric one) is the opposite of avoiding bias in my opinion.

How do you verify who these people are? For all you know it’s just a bunch of fake names on a page.

I’m not talking about their source of funding but their qualifications in making claims with such broad implications. It looks like the pet project of some guy and couple faceless names who do not even claim any meaningful professional or academic experience.

Here’s an example from your link:

Jim resides in Shreveport, Louisiana with his two boys and is currently working toward pursuing a degree in Psychology/Addiction. Jim is a registered independent voter that tends to lean conservative on most issues.

Media Bias Fact Check, LLC is a Limited Liability Company owned solely by Dave Van Zandt. He also makes all final editing and publishing decisions.

Yeah, looks great to me.

That’s literally what the other source being added called Groundnews attempts to do.

Have you looked into who runs Media Bias Fact Check? It’s pretty much as opaque as it gets for a website that claim to have an authoritative list of biases for hundreds of websites. Just because it’s a meta source does not make it any more credible than any other random website.

That’s just introducing 2 more sources of bias

Fighting Hezballah in an attempt to destroy them or deal significant damage is practically mutually assurred destruction. There’s no real way they could wage the same type of warfare in Lebanon without incurring crippling damage to their infrastructure and a very high civilian death toll on both sides due to Hezb’s vast missile stockpiles and resources.

That attack is not justification for reckless escalation against the world’s most powerful non-state militia. There’s not much the Lebanese government can do to influence what would unfold and Hezb’s overall message since the start has been that hostilities in north are tied to hostilities in Gaza and will end once those end.

To me it does not seem like Hezb’s MO unless it was accidental and even then they’ve claimed responsibility for accidents in the past and there are miscellaneous militant groups that have launched missiles at Israel from Lebanon. Regardless of what you think of them, they generally act rationally from a military perspective. Either way, it’s rich for Israel to act appaled by this regardless of its perpetrators given that they struck a school killing a few dozen people in Gaza that same day.

So both of those words are spelled sabaya when anglicized and while I will admit I was not familiar with the soft s variant because it’s antiquated (and still not necessarily sexual in meaning even if that one is debatable), it doesn’t sound like the man in the video who is supposed to have said that even said either of those words to me. I genuinely can’t even make out what the word he said is.

Why is this the subject of debate nearly 8 months after the fact?

Pretty much yes. (Ma)demoiselle vs madame are also used due to french influence over the region for singular use but sabaya is what you would use for a group of younger women with neswein being the alternative for older/married women.

This is just straight up racist propaganda. No other way to describe it

sabaya is straightforwardly associated with what we moderns call rape

Absolutely factually incorrect. Sabaya is the plural of sabiye which means young woman/girl. The masculine form is sabi which means boy or shab for young man (not exactly symmetric like use of guy vs girl in english). Zero sexual connotation and used in everyday language in levantine arabic.

Yes the US establishment is mostly in favor of Israel’s actions. That is the problem. If you think the US can actually “lose” Israel then I don’t know what to tell you. They have very, very few allies without US backing.

The same roads they can use to let in aid trucks without any of these theatrics. Should the UN officials also “approach their news diet more rationally”? Please realize that outside of your western bubble you are completely isolated in your viewpoints on the ongoing ethnic cleansing.

Sorry, but you’ve fallen for the propaganda if you actually think Israel has to allow the United States to do anything given the power dynamics. The reason this is performative is that everyone acknowledges (including ex Israeli high ranking military leadership) that this war cannot be fought without explicit US support at all times. If not for the offensive weapon supplies then for the defensive iron dome re-supply. They have held and continue to hold complete leverage over Israel and can end this tomorrow if the US administration so chose. You don’t have to have to the same viewpoint as I do but at the very least you have to acknowledge the power dynamics at play.

A crucial part of warfighting? They are building a port purportedly to feed the people that their closest ally is deliberately starving by denying aid that Israelis have engineered to be necessary for their subsistence.

Do you think the ships will not be docking in Israel and that nothing will be transported by land through crossings? The same crossing that Israel uses to move their armed forces, weaponry and supplies through on a daily basis. Somehow those crossings will be completely off limits for the same US military that helps Israel coordinate a lot of their military operations and logistics.

I don’t understand how you can fail to see the absurdity of this situation. It’s been 7 weeks since they announced their plans and so far no construction has begun and a ship has had to return to the US due to a fire. Even if they do get something built, there will still be the need to operate and deliver the aid from the pier to the interior of the enclave with… trucks.

I’m talking about the logistics of physically bringing in the building materials

How do you get the materials in to build a pier? That should answer your questions if they are in good faith.