From their pub:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231724001149?via%3Dihub

Drosophila Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) Model. TBI methods used for this study have been previously described [18,19]. Briefly, pretreated flies were anesthetized, placed in 2 mL screw cap tubes (10 flies/tube), and allowed to recover before being placed in the Omni Bead Ruptor-24 homogenizer (Omni International, Kennesaw, GA). Adult control and treated flies were pretreated for 3 days with different compounds before exposure to 10 mild trauma bouts (mild traumatic brain injury [mTBI] 10x, 2.1 m/s) at 1 week of age [19]. Following injury, flies were returned to vials containing treated media and maintained using standard culturing conditions. The number of dead flies was counted starting 48 h following trauma and then 3 times weekly for the remainder of the study, and the data were used to establish mortality indexes (MI) and longevity profiles. The percentage of dead flies described as weekly MI of treated cohorts after mTBI (10x) exposure for 1, 2 and 3 weeks was calculated. Data were normalized for total flies/cohort. Each condition includes between 110 and 235 flies (n = 110–235).

Bead beater sure would scramble my marbles.

https://blueviewfootwear.com/

Same people, they’ve been making biodegradable footwear for a bit now.

You could try providing high reliability sources that show something in the article is propaganda. Otherwise I think you just don’t like the article for personal reasons. And I really am losing your point about who was accusing who of the crocus attack.

Interesting opinion. Not the first time I heard of it (to be clear, Russia wasn’t accusing, it was social media users and Dugin). If you’re concerned with mbfc, this may not be the sub for you.

https://gnet-research.org/2024/04/23/moscow-attack-the-popularisation-of-far-right-conspiracy-theories-in-mainstream-media/

In the immediate aftermath of the 22 March attack on Moscow’s Crocus City Hall, social media was replete with misinformation, including conspiracy theories surrounding the affiliations of the perpetrators. Despite the terror cell Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) claiming responsibility for the mass shooting in a statement made to their Telegram and multimedia news outlet Amaq, users on 4chan and Instagram pointed to alternative culprits. In comments left on social media posts, users allude to fringe conspiracy theories popularised on 4chan, which posit that the United States and Israel are the real perpetrators of the attack, using the Islamic State as a shadowy force to carry out an orchestrated geopolitical agenda under the guise of terrorism. The idea that the CIA and Mossad either collaborated with ISKP or provided material support to the group spread from 4chan’s ‘politically incorrect’ (‘/pol/) community to mainstream social media platforms, making the pervasiveness of far-right misinformation visible to millions.

This Insight will show how social media users have made conspiratorial claims about the role of Israel and the United States in the violent attack at Crocus City Hall that killed more than 130 people.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/woodrow-wilson-international-center-for-scholars/

Overall, we rate the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Left-Center Biased based on story selection that favors science and the political left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record. (D. Van Zandt 7/10/2016) Updated (10/18/2022)

The article describes a hypothetical of Israel unilaterally ceasing fighting, not asking Hamas if that’s ok. It goes on to describe why this could be strategically beneficial.

That is not really what this article is about, this is discussing creating conditions that could change dynamics in the region, and why strategically this would be beneficial. It cites the current hostage negotiation deal that is in the works but that is not exactly the focus.

There is some hope that negotiations in Egypt on a hostage deal between Israel and Hamas will finally be achieved and produce a cease-fire of at least six weeks. But the Biden administration must not put all its eggs in that basket. Again and again, Hamas has raised hopes that a deal is imminent only to dash them. Should no deal emerge in Egypt, the Biden administration should turn to the only realistic alternative: encouraging Israel to announce a unilateral cease-fire in Gaza of four to six weeks.

Such an Israeli decision may be the only way to create the conditions for an Israeli-Saudi normalization deal to advance. Of course, a unilateral cease-fire would be controversial in Israel, both because it de-links pausing the fighting in Gaza from the release of hostages and because it may seem to concede something to Hamas for nothing in return. But a unilateral cease-fire of four to six weeks would, in fact, offer Israel many strategic benefits with few material drawbacks. And in truth, if their negotiations with Hamas fail once again, Israeli leaders will need to adopt a different approach if they hope to get hostages released while some are still alive.

Ah sorry, I didn’t realize.

Weird, appears the article is no longer up. Apologies.

Edit: it has returned.

This is… An odd standard. So am I to understand that if part of a comment is deemed partially correct (and accompanied by verifiable misinformation) this is not removed? Seems like a lack of enforcement to me, and that the comment should be corrected at the very least. But if this is traditionally how things are done here, then I suppose this is what I should expect moving forward.

Personally, this seems like a less than sneaky way to avoid the rules of the sub.

I appreciate the confirmation that the comment is promoting misinformation.

I think “propaganda machine” is an incredibly disingenuous take:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brookings-institute/

Overall, we rate Brooking Institution Left-Center biased based on donations to primarily Democratic candidates and policy advocacy that slightly favors the left. We also rate them Very High for factual reporting due to strong sourcing and a clean fact check record.

Sadly doesn’t prove they’re Israeli plants, as the other user had noted below. I’m sure you know what you are and aren’t responding to. My source from Stanford paints a different picture qualitatively (and quantitatively, and is newer), but that’s a personal interpretation of the sources.

So by not entirely wrong, you’re saying something is wrong?

ITT: what do we want the article to say?

If I were you, I would nuke it so users don’t see how poor of moderation this is receiving. Characterizing this as sea lioning when I’ve asked for the same evidence to support the same claim throughout this whole thread is a mark on you. You absolutely have given zero evidence towards your claim about what the article says, again, you have to CHANGE THE WORDS so it fits your point. That is lying. You are lying.

If only you could quote the article with a single iota of evidence to support your claim without changing the words (remember how you lied about the title? And everything that you claim it says?), then that would be productive. Instead, you draw conclusions from other sources that also don’t support the claims (imperative, right to respond), not even backing up the lies with quotes from the article.

This isn’t hard. If the article says something, you can quote it directly. If it doesn’t, I guess the alternative to facts is to lie.

Edit: also lol. “Subtext”… You meant to say, “things that don’t appear in the article” right?

Please cite from the article (not “inferences” or other unfounded “context”) the IMPERATIVE that you claim the article makes. As you claim: must, need. Because you are lying. And I am reporting your comments because you are lying about the article, saying that the original users claim about “without consequence” is somehow factually supported in the article itself.

Then, please cite from the article (not “inferences” or other unfounded “context”) how they believe Iran is not allowed to retaliate.

Both of these claims require sources, and since the claim is being made about the article itself, you should be able to quote it directly. Not twist words in the title to fit your personal opinion. Your inability to do that is all I need to know that your claims are without merit, and further regurgitation of the same personal opinions does not get you closer to the original point (which was talking about the source, btw).

Edit: and I do recognize you as a mod (this entire time I knew that, surprise), which should be despicable considering you cannot back your claim.

And I’m disproving you with the ENTIRE article (but I’m right, not you). See why you need a citation from the article? As long as you’re using “your opinion™” and not the article to defend your point, the claim remains unproven. Burden of proof is on you, the one making the claim.

Edit: and I think further lying about wording in the article is incredibly shady, especially when it’s the title. I would like you to address that, otherwise users may think it’s alright to lie about the contents of an article as an argumentative tactic.

The authors of the article believe that the US and Israel must respond to Iran. That’s directly stated in the headline.

The headline: Iran is trying to create a new normal with its attack. Here’s how Israel and the US should respond.

Again, objectively false. You even correct yourself in the next paragraph:

To that end, they outline exactly how they believe Israel and the US should respond to Iran.

And then, crown jewel:

The reason they believe they must respond to Iran is because Iran is not allowed to defend itself.

Massive citation needed. If you are inferring from the article, please cite the relevant sections from the Atlantic council article (which you have so far been unable to do).

We know this because if they believed Iran WAS allowed to defend itself, they wouldn’t be asserting that the US and Israel need to respond.

I don’t “know” whatever it is you know, this is presupposition as there is nothing in the article stating a “need” which you again choose to insert over what the article claims. Further, your hot take on what would and wouldn’t happen would benefit from sources.

It’s what the ENTIRE article is saying.

I don’t think you read past the headline. I’ve also italicized words you inject on your own to form opinions you (unfoundedly) claim the article to have.

Reading comprehension… Look how far we’ve come from “without consequence” to this…

Edit: here is why your arguments fail:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Burden of proof (philosophy)

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.

You, and everyone else, have failed to bring forth evidence supporting the article’s position you claim (from the article itself, mind you), even going to such lengths as to change words in the title of all places. You should be ashamed of how poorly you argued this.

I’m understanding you are unable to back up your claim with factual information from the article. Even what you wrote requires editorialization to meet what you claim. The title makes no mention of rights to attack, and I can see you as well are unsuccessfully trying to defend the idea that the atlantic council holds these views, or that they’re even represented in the article.

Perhaps your point would find a better home with the user claiming they’re “batshit insane” since they both assume the exact same level of evidence.

As ignored again, this is being levied against the Atlantic council publication. None of the implications (uncited) indict the Atlantic council of feeling like the US/Israel can act militarily without consequence, nor support that there was any notion of there being no rights to respond. This is unsourced opinion that is used to bad mouth the Atlantic council publication.

If you can claim “context” without a citation then my “context” is just as good (and trumps yours). See why we need sources for our claims? Because this is not substantive discussion. It’s aimed to dissuade readers from going through the information in the article, claiming the Atlantic council is “batshit insane” to cite another user.

Edit: I’m claiming that the article states the US and Israel have reason to understand Iran’s retaliation (I cite this article). Now, that’s all the proof you need right? Are both of our statements equally factual?