This is a major escalation that could greatly expand the war and drag hezbollah deeper into the war, which was already involved in skirmishes with Israel in Lebanese regions that Israel occupies.

Note: the verbiage of the article is minimizing the focus on Israel, and they spend half the article justifying the attack as “not an attack on Israel” an effort to minimize how much of an escalation this is.

  • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
    OP
    64·
    1 year ago

    The article is full of speculation, opinions and commentary instead of merely presenting facts.

    • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
      43·
      1 year ago

      I’ve just reread it, and I still don’t see any speculation. They do quote certain sources, but name the sources so you can judge for yourself if they’re telling the truth or not. Again, not hyperbole, but direct quotes

      If you reject Reuters and Associated Press as sources, you’ll end up far more ill-informed, not less, and you’d be incredibly ignorant to dismiss them as biased

      • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
        OP
        2·
        1 year ago

        It looks like the article was updated since I last read it, with the headline changed and a lot more information added, so maybe my claim is not true anymore. But I will tell you what bothered me about it initially anyways.

        “whoever did it, it must be clear: That this was not an attack on the Lebanese state.”

        “Whoever did this did a surgical strike against the Hamas leadership,” Regev said in the interview.

        Those lines are heavily speculative commententary rather than “facts”, aiming to downplay how much of an escalation this is. Those lines are found very high up in the 5th paragraph. It’s the first commentary after saying that Israel refused to comment, and originally there was much less details presented.

        Moreover, the article’s headline (now changed) was something along the lines of “deputy Hamas chief killed in Beirut by blast”. This verbiage has now been changed to “Israeli drone kills deputy Hamas chief”, which is much better. The original is downplaying Israel’s role.

      • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
        OP
        21·
        1 year ago

        One last comment, pointing out biases in Reuters does not mean I ignore them. Every source is biased one way or another, and I still read them (refer to the very post you’re commenting on), albeit with skepticism, carefully scanning for the facts and evidence.

    • clgohEnglish
      23·
      1 year ago

      What speculation, opinion or commentary is there in the article?