Israel says it hit a Hamas command centre in al-Mawasi, without providing evidence

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.

  • @Schmoo@slrpnk.net
    5•3 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
      -7•3 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
        5•3 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•3 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
          -7•3 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.