Massive Israeli strike on 'humanitarian zone' tents kills at least 40
www.middleeasteye.net
Israel says it hit a Hamas command centre in al-Mawasi, though Palestinian survivors tell MEE there were no fighters in the area

Israeli air strikes on a so-called “humanitarian zone” in southern Gaza’s al-Mawasi killed at least 40 people on Tuesday, according to health authorities in the enclave.

The strikes targeted at least 20 tents sheltering displaced Palestinians in the coastal area near the city of Khan Younis.

Eyewitnesses told AFP that at least five rockets fell in the area, with emergency services saying the strikes created craters up to nine metres deep.

  • fukhueson@lemmy.world
    316·
    2 months ago

    My properly sourced information is not invalidated by anything you said. It actually cited multiple highly reliable sources.

    Also it’s whataboutism :) anyone noticing a pattern here? Blindly discredit anything critical of Hamas?

    Goodbye!

    Edit: there’s nothing “propaganda” about NATO. This ought to be a red flag… And yes, this report confirms more than your sources do, posting incomplete assessments of Hamas’ use of human shields does not discredit NATO, sorry.

    Edit 2: how hilarious is it that NATO stratcom is accused of being a propaganda outlet when the original post is from MEE?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Eye

    Middle East Eye (MEE) is a UK-based news website founded in 2014 that covers the Middle East and North Africa. It is reportedly funded by the government of Qatar.

    Organisation

    Middle East Eye was launched in London in April 2014. It is not transparent about its ownership. It is formally owned by a company called M.E.E. Limited with a single director Jamal Bessasso; Bessasso is not specified as the owner. Its editor-in-chief is David Hearst, a former foreign lead writer for The Guardian. It employs about 20 full-time staff in London as of 2017.

    According to its critics, Middle East Eye began forming in London in 2013 as the Islamist influence of Al Jazeera began to wane; several Al Jazeera journalists subsequently joined the project. Jonathan Powell, a senior executive at Al Jazeera, was a consultant ahead of its launch and registered the website’s domain names. Bassasso, a Kuwait-born Palestinian living in London, was the sole director of Middle East Eye’s parent company, M.E.E. Limited. Bassasso was a former director for the Hamas-controlled Al-Quds TV. David Hearst denied that Bessasso was the owner of the news site but refrained from divulging the real owner.

    According to Ilan Berman and Sultan Sooud Al-Qassemi, Middle East Eye is backed by Qatar. The governments of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain accuse MEE of pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias and receiving Qatari funding. They have demanded MEE be shut down following the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar. MEE has denied the accusations, saying that it is an independent news site, not funded by any country or movement.

    Is this comment also accusing me of justifying genocide? Like the others that were removed?

    • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
      131·
      2 months ago

      there’s nothing “propaganda” about NATO

      You can’t be serious. Everyone does propaganda, propaganda is everywhere. Just because you happen to agree with NATO propaganda doesn’t mean it isn’t propaganda. Your original comment is propaganda, the responses to it are propaganda, this entire comment section is full of propaganda. Anyone disseminating information reflecting the views or interests of any doctrine or cause is engaging in propaganda.

      Edit: Always has been

      • fukhueson@lemmy.world
        17·
        2 months ago

        No, not everything is propaganda… I think I’ll trust NATO, thank you for your personal opinions though.

        • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
          41·
          2 months ago

          Unless you disagree with the meaning of the word propaganda then everything I said is a statement of fact, not a personal opinion. What do you mean when you say propaganda (and don’t just give examples, actually define it).

          • fukhueson@lemmy.world
            16·
            2 months ago

            I’m supposed to defend my position after you baselessly call NATO stratcom propaganda (by whatever definition)? Lol no no, let’s review “burden of proof”:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

            Holder of the burden

            When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim, especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens’s razor, which declares that “what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.” Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” – which is known as the Sagan standard.

            So, let’s discuss your evidence that NATO stratcom is propaganda. I’d love to see these “facts.”

            For example: I can point to evidence that Tasnim News is propaganda.

            https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tasnim-news-agency/

            Analysis / Bias

            Tasnim has strong links with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and according to The Guardian the US accuses the IRGC of terror mainly because of its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas, organizations that the US and EU have both designated as terrorist groups.

            Although the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) don’t openly affiliate themselves with any political parties, the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran (ABADGARAN) is widely viewed as a political front for the Revolutionary Guards and they are described as “Iran’s neocons”, therefore we rate the political stance of Tasnim as right-wing bias.

            Reporters without Borders has reported Iran as “One of the most oppressive countries” According to the Reporters without Borders 2023 report, Iran ranks 177 out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index.

            The content of headlines and articles use loaded words pertaining to national news such as “Battle against Daesh Still Continuing in Cultural, Ideological Fields: Iran’s Shamkhani” However, they poorly source their articles, heavily quoting without sourcing or providing links to the original source. In general, they promote pro-state propaganda and anti-west conspiracies.

            Overall, we rate Tasnim News Questionable based on the promotion of state propaganda and conspiracy theories as well as the use of poor sources. (M. Huitsing 12/04/2017) Updated (07/08/2023)

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FPerennial_sources

            Tasnim News Agency was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to being an IRGC-controlled outlet that disseminates state propaganda and conspiracy theories.

            Deprecated: There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source. The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliable secondary sources are still preferred. An edit filter, 869 (hist · log), may be in place to warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Edits that trigger the filter are tagged.

            Statements of fact indeed :)

            • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
              51·
              2 months ago

              Alright, I’ll play along.

              Claim:

              The document titled hamas human shields released by NATO Strategic Communications is propaganda.

              Argument:

              Merriam-Webster defines propaganda as-

              the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

              Let’s break that down. To determine whether the NATO StratCom document hamas human shields meets the criteria for propaganda we need to answer the following:

              Q: Does the item in question contain ideas, information, or rumor?

              A: Without having to verify any claims you can still confidently state that the document contains at least one if not all of these. Statements of opinion can be classified as ideas, and statement of fact can be considered either information or rumor depending upon the amount and veracity of supporting evidence.

              Q: Was the item in question spread for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person?

              A: By posting the document on a public forum for the purpose of defending NATO’s actions, you yourself fulfilled this criteria. Prior to that, NATO StratCom also fulfilled it, as they have an implicit interest in defending the actions of NATO (which this document serves to do)

              For example: I can point to evidence that Tasnim News is propaganda.

              I don’t dispute this.

              • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
                2·
                2 months ago

                Nice breakdown. I’ve spent some time here and there watching this clown throw themselves bodily side to side to avoid getting the point. Any time someone corners them, they reply with some variation of “I’m bored now, not responding anymore”.

                I think they’re just a pretty proficient troll. For their sake, I hope I’m right as one depressing alternative is this is actually who they are.

              • fukhueson@lemmy.world
                17·
                2 months ago

                The well sourced information presented in the report has not been disputed. You’re audaciously prescribing intent onto me (?), accusing me of presenting this to defend NATO. I’m presenting corroborating well sourced information relevant to the article posted. Nothing you claim is substantiated, other than our shared agreement on Tasnim News.

                This is unfounded opinion, and a means to discredit information critical of Hamas. Going by your chosen definition, AP news presents information and ideas meant to help inform people on a multitude of issues and is thus propaganda. Did you read the next definition Merriam Webster lists? A bit more critical and harder to apply to NATO huh?

                Your answers contain a lot of “can be” and vague allegations. Nothing definite, no evidence. Playing along would be doing what I did, not finding an obtuse definition and applying your personal opinion to it. Like, here’s another one:

                information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

                Can’t really apply that because the information in the report isn’t misleading right? And it’s not promoting a cause, it’s providing strategies to countries in how to deal with human shield situations. Information, that’s it.

                I’m tired of this game. Gonna focus on Harris ripping Trump a new one.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      31·
      2 months ago

      Person provides an incredibly detailed, well sourced comment and you don’t even address a single point from it. Huh.

    • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
      31·
      2 months ago

      I did debunk your quoted paragraphs about human shields and provided sources. Here is a video that details the situation if you prefer

      • fukhueson@lemmy.world
        16·
        2 months ago

        They are not debunked by your sources, nothing you provide proves the NATO article wrong. YouTube is not a source.

        Bored, leaving.

        • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
          31·
          2 months ago

          Lol got it, you didn’t read a single source. If you did you’d recognize which sources the video was referencing

          • fukhueson@lemmy.world
            14·
            2 months ago

            Yes I did, NATO is not debunked, your sources do not dispute the reports contents. Sorry.