Israel v Hamas

[CPFCSaturn]

How many times do I have to repeat this... If you blindly believe every 'news report' coming out of a warzone controlled by a terror group, you're not informed — you're a propaganda sponge. Yes civilians are getting injured and killed and it is heartbreaking. Some stories about how it happened will be correct, some will be false! Nobody knows the full facts for every incident. How the f*** can you tell sitting safe and sound in an office in London? In Gaza, there are no independent journalists, no press freedom, and zero fact-checking. It’s not journalism, it’s narrative warfare. Wake up. You're sounding more and more like a Hamas apologist.

It's not about believing 'every report' - it's about taking a view on the balance of them.

You're right, some will probably be bullshit, but they're obviously not all bullshit are they - that's the point.

The ex-Israeli PM, most Western governments, ex US Secretary's of State all talking about Israel committing atrocities and war crimes - are they all just doing that on a whim? Because they are Hamas apologists?

It is beyond outrageous for you to label anyone a propaganda sponge.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Not at all. The implication is that everyone has an agenda, plenty of MPS have been doctors. It doesn't mean they are liars but a they are biased in the nicest sense of the word.

How many times has the BBC had to apologise after posting a report from an unbiased journalist whose social media then revealed the opposite. It doesn't mean they were lying just that they had a position.

Like I said foreign doctors who are volunteering in Gaza are likely to by sympathetic to the Palestinian cause how far that goes is down to the individual.

Sorry, but the only way your intervention makes sense is that you are accusing them of lying - they either witnessed what they describe, or they didn't. There's no way an agenda or bias gives you a different answer to that question - it's true or false.

A journalist is completely different - they are writing extended opinion pieces which absolutely will be dictated by their own biases.

A doctor saying I treated children with sniper wounds is fact or fiction.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Let me state the obvious again....A British surgeon in Gaza focuses on saving lives not verifying casualty data. Hamas controls the health numbers.

Does a Croydon surgeon analyse casualty stats for the news or focus on surgery?

Sorry, they're so focused on saving lives they can't be aware of anything else that exists? Is that a serious point?

They don't need to 'verify casualty data' - they are telling you they are treating children and civilians with sniper wounds to the head and chest. What possible room for distortion is there within that?

 

[Glazier#1]

Thanks for a considered post with some data and less moral grandstanding. You're right that war brings human suffering and the loss of life, especially children which is devastating.

You are also correct that Israel restricts access but Hamas has a long track record of manipulating and even killing Palestinian reporters who don't toe the line. I'll say it louder to those at the back... Every camera or story goes through the Hamas filter.

The UN doesn't verify Gaza casualty figures – just repeats those from the Hamas Health Ministry. It's not verified UN data. In the 2014 conflict, analysis by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center reported that a higher percentage of the dead were militants after Hamas had initially claimed almost all were civilians.

No number is "acceptable" but there is a difference between collateral damage and war crimes. There would be less civilian deaths if Hamas did not embed themselves in schools, homes and hospitals. Hamas openly admits it doesn't build bomb shelters for the people and its hundreds of miles of underground tunnels are not to be used to protect civilians! A couple of war crimes right there.

Still waiting for a reply, sir.
What, precisely, am I very sure about?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

How is a British surgeon speaking from a hospital in Gaza not to be believed?

She's obviously so focussed on her work that she can't even accurately remember the operations she's performed - that's an entirely serious and logical argument, for sure.

Hamas must have set her up in a VR hospital and built a programme to fake the patients she was treating.

 

[Penge Eagle]

It's not about believing 'every report' - it's about taking a view on the balance of them.

You're right, some will probably be bullshit, but they're obviously not all bullshit are they - that's the point.

The ex-Israeli PM, most Western governments, ex US Secretary's of State all talking about Israel committing atrocities and war crimes - are they all just doing that on a whim? Because they are Hamas apologists?

It is beyond outrageous for you to label anyone a propaganda sponge.

We are in agreement that some news stories will probably be bullshit and some true. Good, some common ground.

If someone blindly believes unverified claims that come from Hamas-controlled media, then yes they are a propaganda sponge.

Politicians condemning Israel isn't evidence of war crimes and it's often a PR move to suit their own interests. There have been historical examples where they have been proven wrong for claims and also not apologised for it.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

We are in agreement that some news stories will probably be bullshit and some true. Good, some common ground.

If someone blindly believes unverified claims that come from Hamas-controlled media, then yes they are a propaganda sponge.

Politicians condemning Israel isn't evidence of war crimes and it's often a PR move to suit their own interests. There have been historical examples where they have been proven wrong for claims and also not apologised for it.

Ok, and what if someone doesn't blindly believe every claim and takes a view on the balance of evidence that Israel are committing atrocities, as most of the world now does?

What if someone blindly believes unverified claims that come from the IDF? What would that make them?

 

[ASCPFC]

Sorry, they're so focused on saving lives they can't be aware of anything else that exists? Is that a serious point?

They don't need to 'verify casualty data' - they are telling you they are treating children and civilians with sniper wounds to the head and chest. What possible room for distortion is there within that?

If you consider it, there could be any number of reasons for this. It could be anything from the entire Israeli army purposely targeting children, a couple of soldiers hating Palestinians, stray bullets, Hamas using children for military purposes (not necessarily soldiers but messengers/ supply people etc), accidents, stray fire from either side, executions for propaganda purposes. You can probably think of more reasons. Which sounds unlikely and which likely?
Personally I would not think the Israeli army as such, is ordering elite snipers to purposely kill children, nor would I think Hamas killing them to make a point is that likely - so what is in between?

 

[Penge Eagle]

Yes but these are specific reports by many different surgeons about specific gunshot wounds. What position would they have to have to make up such reports?

You are challenging the scepticism of these reports and implying the surgeons are trustworthy.

 

[Penge Eagle]

Ok, and what if someone doesn't blindly believe every claim and takes a view on the balance of evidence that Israel are committing atrocities, as most of the world now does?

What if someone blindly believes unverified claims that come from the IDF? What would that make them?

The balance of unverified reports? Yes, blindly believing everything from the IDF would be just as foolish. And majority does not mean proof – most of the world once believed Iraq had WMDs.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

If you consider it, there could be any number of reasons for this. It could be anything from the entire Israeli army purposely targeting children, a couple of soldiers hating Palestinians, stray bullets, Hamas using children for military purposes (not necessarily soldiers but messengers/ supply people etc), accidents, stray fire from either side, executions for propaganda purposes. You can probably think of more reasons. Which sounds unlikely and which likely?
Personally I would not think the Israeli army as such, is ordering elite snipers to purposely kill children, nor would I think Hamas killing them to make a point is that likely - so what is in between?

Yeah I don't disagree that there are a range of explanations possible - I think accidents/stray fire is not very believable given the descriptions of the wounds, but sure, happy to agree there is room for speculation on the reasons.

Why don't you think the bit in bold is likely?

 

[eaglesdare]

Sorry, they're so focused on saving lives they can't be aware of anything else that exists? Is that a serious point?

They don't need to 'verify casualty data' - they are telling you they are treating children and civilians with sniper wounds to the head and chest. What possible room for distortion is there within that?

A Croydon surgeon like one in Gaza is saving lives over analysing stats.

Hamas control over casualty figures can obscure the context of those injuries like who is targeting who.

Israel trys to lower the civilian harm while defending against Hamas attacks.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

The balance of unverified reports? Yes, blindly believing everything from the IDF would be just as foolish. And majority does not mean proof – most of the world once believed Iraq had WMDs.

Yes, the overwhelming volume of reports and video footage available - the volume of them is what progresses it from being a single unverified report which can't be given too much credence, to evidence of a trend.

You can dismiss and excuse a percentage of them, but the likelihood that they're all false is miniscule - and if you accept some of the reports are true, Israel are committing atrocities.

Can you highlight a recent example when you didn't believe the IDF?

 

[chris123]

She's obviously so focussed on her work that she can't even accurately remember the operations she's performed - that's an entirely serious and logical argument, for sure.

Hamas must have set her up in a VR hospital and built a programme to fake the patients she was treating.at

She's a plastic surgeon working for a British charity International Disaster & Emergency Aid and was featured in an article in the Sunday Times this week

 

[CPFCSaturn]

A Croydon surgeon like one in Gaza is saving lives over analysing stats.

Hamas control over casualty figures can obscure the context of those injuries like who is targeting who.

Israel trys to lower the civilian harm while defending against Hamas attacks.

1. People are not robots with a single computing function - people can do many things at once.
2. They're not "analysing stats" - they are telling you that they are regularly treating civilians and children with sniper holes in them. It is unambiguous.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

She's a plastic surgeon working for a British charity International Disaster & Emergency Aid and was featured in an article in the Sunday Times this week

Obviously she wouldn't have a clue what's going on then - so focussed on surgery she can't even remember her own name.

Or maybe she is HAMAS?

If not that, definitely hates jews.

etc. etc.

 

[eaglesdare]

1. People are not robots with a single computing function - people can do many things at once.
2. They're not "analysing stats" - they are telling you that they are regularly treating civilians and children with sniper holes in them. It is unambiguous.

Surgeons focus is on surgery not geopolitics.
sniper wounds do not tell the full story of who is shooting or why.

Israel targets threats and not civilians unlike Hamas who do not care.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Surgeons focus is on surgery not geopolitics.
sniper wounds do not tell the full story of who is shooting or why.

Israel targets threats and not civilians unlike Hamas who do not care.

I don't think even you believe what you're saying anymore - getting more and more half-cooked.

'Surgeons focus on surgery' 😆😆

 

[Glazier#1]

You are challenging the scepticism of these reports and implying the surgeons are trustworthy.

Nope: a genuine question.

 

[eaglesdare]

I don't think even you believe what you're saying anymore - getting more and more half-cooked.

'Surgeons focus on surgery' 😆😆

Laugh all you want but surgeons prioritise saving lives over playing detective 🕵🏻‍♂️