A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
The most fucked up part about this is that many countries – the US included – cut funding for UNRWA after this bullshit, and apparently even the UNRWA itself just took the accusations at face value and fired some of the accused
I mean, even if it did have the 12 accused employees that were members of Hamas, I don’t see how that is a reason to defund the agency. UNRWA has thousands of employees. It sounds like an isolated thing?
I can guarantee you that there are more than 12 actual Nazis and members of the KKK in US police forces and its military, but it’s not like the whole organization gets defunded.
And now reports of children starving to death are happening.
Hamas has infiltrated US intelligence, time to bomb Langley
The US knew it was BS all along. Just like the 40 dead babies claim. Now comes the quiet "maybe we were too hasty" backtrack now that the damage has been done and the kids are dying at appropriate numbers for the ghouls in the whitehouse and their clients in the Knesset
Low confidence generally means questionable or implausible information was used, the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or significant concerns or problems with sources existed.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the intelligence report, released last week, assessed with “low confidence” that a handful of staff had participated in the attack, indicating that it considered the accusations to be credible though it could not independently confirm their veracity.
The Wall Street Journal lying about how analysts rate intelligence to help Israeli propaganda? Why I never!
For those having trouble putting 2 and 2 together, this means our intelligence analysts are calling bullshit on Israel's claims.
Relevant section from the WSJ article for anyone interested:
In the new report, which was completed last week, the U.S.’s National Intelligence Council, a group of veteran intelligence analysts, said it assessed with “low confidence” that a handful of Unrwa staffers participated in the Oct. 7 attack, those familiar with the findings said.
A low-confidence assessment indicates that the U.S. intelligence community believes the claims are plausible but cannot make a stronger assertion because it doesn’t have its own independent confirmation. The U.S. concluded the claims are “credible,” a U.S. official said.
U.S. officials said that American spy agencies haven’t traditionally focused on gathering intelligence on Gaza, and that Israel hadn’t shared the raw intelligence behind its assessments with the U.S., limiting their ability to reach clearer conclusions.
And that's where the article is lying. "Low Confidence" is the rating that's essentially the trash bin. If they believed the claims were plausible they'd at least rate it moderate.
The official that says it's credible is Jake Sullivan, he said it publicly right after Israel made their claims.
I cannot overstate how trash the WSJ is on international politics. It's heavily biased at the least.
WSJ report this article is based on:
U.S. Finds Some Israeli Claims on U.N. Staff Likely, Others Not
Interesting wording to say "israel lied and provided no evidence for their claims".
Yeah, but CIA is Hamas
"Casts doubt" in the title. Credible in the report from the CIA.
"credible reports" (but low confidence) of some employees of UNRWA participating in the attack. No evidence at all that UNRWA had partnered with Hamas or supported the attacks.
What that means is "somebody said that some people that work for UNRWA also participated in the attacks but we have found no proof either way."
They're credible because the CIA has no evidence to refute it and Israeli's equivalents didn't share the raw intelligence with them. Turns out spying on Hamas isn't something the US does a lot of. If they had evidence to refute it they'd call the reports conflicting or something similar.