212
'One of the most horrific massacres': Dozens killed in Israeli attack on Gaza 'humanitarian zone'
(www.middleeasteye.net)
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
212 points (92.4% liked)
News
23310 readers
3485 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
Is this comment also accusing me of justifying genocide? Like the others that were removed?
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:
No, not everything is propaganda... I think I'll trust NATO, thank you for your personal opinions though.
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).
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_%28philosophy%29
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/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FPerennial_sources
Statements of fact indeed :)
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-
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)
I don't dispute this.
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.
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:
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.