Edited footage of protesters chanting “gas the Jews” at a rally outside the Sydney Opera House in October was shared on social media, but NSW Police said an extensive investigation found no evidence of it happening.
Edited footage of protesters chanting “gas the Jews” at a rally outside the Sydney Opera House in October was shared on social media, but NSW Police said an extensive investigation found no evidence of it happening.
Are you calling The Intercept toilet news?
New York Times was using ZAKA as evidence, The guys who made up the 40 beheaded babies.
Go read the original article debunking NYT. It’s not some random with wild claims. Everything is backed up with links and videos. “Screams without proof”.
More and more reporters are coming out right now backing it up.
I’m calling the propaganda outlet I’m not naming a toilet. Are you even reading my posts?
The 40 beheaded babies claim is a long-debunked myth and a claim never made by either the Israeli government or the IDF. It began and spread on social media.
That Intercept article is hyperbolic and editorializes like crazy. The Daily “going to press” on a single episode with something that could be proven untrue after further investigation is nothing like Caliphate except for it being a podcast. Caliphate was a feature 12-episode documentary series that had serious reporting errors. Comparing those two things is NY Post-level tabloid reporting. It was reasonable for them not to record it but the Times’ follow-up report says that they confirmed their initial reporting and debunked the propaganda article. The only issue left in that article is one witness – and, again, they interviewed 150 people for that investigation – who later said that he couldn’t be sure if it was Hamas or non-Hamas Palestinians who committed sex crimes because civilians crossed over after the military collapsed. He didn’t change his story about what he saw. That doesn’t dramatically change the reporting, let alone “debunk” it.
I literally just told you why that article is bullshit in the last post. The family that is the focus of that article disputes the article. They DO NOT renounce the article. They DO NOT believe that they were misled. Miral Alter wrote a post because she was confused and wanted to protect her sister. She quickly took it down, a detail the article omitted when they published it anyway. They didn’t contact her to find out why she had removed it because they didn’t care if they were misrepresenting her. She’s upset that they used her to construct a false narrative about sexual violence. In spite of this, they haven’t issued a correction or retraction. The headline and subheading of that article are both the polar opposite of the truth. But they don’t care. The point was constructing that false narrative, not telling the truth. That’s why they have a terrible reputation. That’s why the article was removed whenever it was posted. It’s garbage.
I think you’re talking about the initial Mondoweiss article which purely focused on Miral. That was bad for NYT but not nearly as extensive.
Around a week after that “Lies without proof” dropped which NUKED The New York Times article proving many key “witnesses” were lying ZAKA style. Another example:
I urge you to read the Lies without proof article. It’s damning for NYT.
That is from a source even worse than the first. They are liars and propagandists. That’s the reason no one credible is reporting it. They’re known for publishing propaganda, conspiracies, and fraudulent claims.
Everyone “debunking” this has a reputation for publishing lies. But you don’t seem to draw any conclusions from the fact that every place you find this “proof” turns out to be a toilet. You don’t believe it because they’re credible people making credible claims but because they’re telling you what you want to hear.
If there were credible claims they would be EVERYWHERE. It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist writing for the New York fucking Times. The story would be bigger than the original. Look up the Jayson Blair scandal. Dozens of news organizations were still talking about it more than a decade later.
Nice you didn’t address any of the posted evidence debunking NYT. Even quoted some for you. But you quickly ignored it.
Quick dodge on that one. Result to the classic adhom.
Even people working at NYT are less in denial than you.
Their podcast gets broadcasted nationwide on radio, it’s a pretty big deal if even those people are saying “yeah that rape article was fake”.
Friends don’t make friends fish in the sewer for truthy nugs.
You didn’t post evidence. If you come across some I’d be happy to but I don’t fact check propaganda. I’m not gonna spend hours of my life fact-checking some garbage written by a guy who writes for two propaganda networks for an authoritarian regime. I already know it’s bullshit.
If you had any media literacy skill you would too.
Propaganda slurping isn’t media literacy. NYT isn’t Jesus dude. The article didn’t even get verified by other staff. Only the Pullitzer Pope was allowed to manufacture consent for Genocide.
The debunking article uses official claims from the IDF themselves to show that the witnesses statements are factually false.
If you dare to read and address any of what’s false in it I’ll respond. This bad faith denial shtick you have going is pointless.