I’ve read both, that and the report. We already discussed this. But if you want to debunk a specific claim here (I guess to show the report in all parts unreliable) you should probably quote the relevant parts here so the discussion is easier to follow.
If you ctrl+f Gal Abdush in the article I linked you will find her story quite similar to your claims.
If you have any actual evidence to present I will concede my point.
The problem with this UN report here remains clear; no CCTV evidence, no forensic evidence, no people claiming they were raped. only “witness statements”. You cannot seriously expect anyone to believe this.
If anything it’s evidence that no rapes happened as they could not find a shred of conclusive evidence while looking for it so hard. That’s why the title here contains the word “likely”.
If you ctrl+f Gal Abdush in the article I linked you will find her story quite similar to your claims.
It would be a lot easier to discuss if you’d quote the relevant parts from both here and show how you feel it debunks it.
If you have any actual evidence to present I will concede my point.
I’m genuinely not sure what your point is. I feel like you at first misunderstood the report and then what is being claimed here. After review of the available evidence (photos, videos testimonies) the UN people came away with the conclusion that very likely sexual violence was done during (or in the immediate aftermath) of the attack. And the link you provided to debunk this report seems to consider it very likely too, just not how NYT wrote about it.
The problem with this UN report here remains clear; no CCTV evidence, no forensic evidence, no people claiming they were raped. only “witness statements”. You cannot seriously expect anyone to believe this.
I mean I think most believe sexual violence happened there and the report, the debunking you provided and really just a layman’s view of the attack and knowledge about how prevalent war rape is would all speak on behalf of it very very likely to have happened. All these factors pointing at the direction of the sexual violence are hard to dismiss.
The doubtful part is what NYT claimed, that it was systematic tool used by Hamas.
If anything it’s evidence that no rapes happened as they could not find a shred of conclusive evidence while looking for it so hard. That’s why the title here contains the word “likely”.
The report was a two week mission and clearly states it wasn’t a proper investigative one. That’s why they are calling it just likely and calling for a proper and through investigation
Your example is literally just Gal Abdush, The most debunked claim of all.
Why are you writing long comments before having read the debunking of the NYT article?
I’ve read both, that and the report. We already discussed this. But if you want to debunk a specific claim here (I guess to show the report in all parts unreliable) you should probably quote the relevant parts here so the discussion is easier to follow.
If you ctrl+f Gal Abdush in the article I linked you will find her story quite similar to your claims.
If you have any actual evidence to present I will concede my point.
The problem with this UN report here remains clear; no CCTV evidence, no forensic evidence, no people claiming they were raped. only “witness statements”. You cannot seriously expect anyone to believe this.
If anything it’s evidence that no rapes happened as they could not find a shred of conclusive evidence while looking for it so hard. That’s why the title here contains the word “likely”.
It would be a lot easier to discuss if you’d quote the relevant parts from both here and show how you feel it debunks it.
I’m genuinely not sure what your point is. I feel like you at first misunderstood the report and then what is being claimed here. After review of the available evidence (photos, videos testimonies) the UN people came away with the conclusion that very likely sexual violence was done during (or in the immediate aftermath) of the attack. And the link you provided to debunk this report seems to consider it very likely too, just not how NYT wrote about it.
I mean I think most believe sexual violence happened there and the report, the debunking you provided and really just a layman’s view of the attack and knowledge about how prevalent war rape is would all speak on behalf of it very very likely to have happened. All these factors pointing at the direction of the sexual violence are hard to dismiss.
The doubtful part is what NYT claimed, that it was systematic tool used by Hamas.
The report was a two week mission and clearly states it wasn’t a proper investigative one. That’s why they are calling it just likely and calling for a proper and through investigation