Gaza says Israel's strikes on refugee camp kill more than 195 people
Gaza says Israel's strikes on refugee camp kill more than 195 people
U.N. human rights officials said Israel's strikes on the Jabalia refugee camp could be war crimes.
- Hamas-run government says Israeli strikes on Jabalia refugee camp in Gaza killed at least 195 Palestinians, with concerns raised by the UN that these could constitute war crimes.
- Evacuation of foreign nationals from Gaza is underway, with 320 already crossed into Egypt; about 7,500 are expected to leave within two weeks.
- The strikes targeted Hamas military leaders and infrastructure, with Israel’s campaign responding to Hamas' cross-border attacks from Oct. 7.
- U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is set to visit Israel and Jordan to discuss the conflict and the need to minimize civilian casualties.
Media Bias Fact Check (Reuters):
Overall, we rate Reuters Least Biased based on objective reporting and Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information with minimal bias and a clean fact check record.
You're viewing part of a thread.
On the night of the explosion, the Hamas-run Gazan health ministry put the toll at 500 or more dead, which it later changed to “hundreds.”
Yeah that's the "western media just running with it" part. It really was a mis-translation by al jazeera, the guy said "casualties". As in wounded or killed. It was way too early to actually have an accurate assessment (as should be obvious by the round number).
I'll repeat it here since you seem like you missed reading it.
It was a doctor being interviewed by al-jazeera. Even then it was a mis-translation of what he said that western media just ran with and never fact checked.
Then like a dipshit you post me a link to a story by a western media outlet...
seriously..
A journalist for the Atlantic, New York magazine, Wired, and other outlets did a write up about it.
https://www.silentlunch.net/p/did-the-entire-media-industry-misquote
You can literally watch the video and translate it online.
Broski- you are trusting one guy over a credible news organization. And you cite “silent lunch”.
Isnt this scraping the bottom?? Do you have any credible sources?
Please explain what you think the following means? "A journalist for the Atlantic, New York magazine, Wired, and other outlets"
Never heard of substack either apparently. /smh
Broski- If you were SO sure it was bs why didn't you go to the video from al-jazeera and run his interview through a translator? You can do this all yourself, DON'T take my word or the word of the journalist reporting it...
do it for yourself before you look like more of a dumbass.We all know you won't because it goes against your narrative and you would rather believe a lie that reaffirms your biases and bigotry.
Having read the supplied article, the author has no information except that kills might be mistranslated. Not to get into the weeds, but it doesn’t dispute the source, nor does it offer more credible information.
And as a rule of thumb- a single dude publishing a substack doesn’t deserve more credibility than a long time news source. Not that the article supplies and information that might be argued- the whole point is that he didn’t get any information.
Called it.
Not sure what you mean?
I read the article and it didn’t say what you said it says.
You have repeatedly demonstrated your inability to read and understand words multiple times in just this comment thread.
And continued to do it here once again.
You can’t articulate your argument. That’s on you, bud.
I have multiple times had to have the EXACT words from a prior comment quoted for you to potentially comprehend anything. I'm calling into question your ability to asses that article whatsoever as you have demonstrated your lack of ability over and over. That’s on you, bud.
Kindly piss off of you can't follow along.
Don’t be an ass. Your claim was I was spreading misinformation because hamas never said that 500 people died, and was a product of western media. This isn’t what your article argues, rather that dead might have been mistranslated from injured. The core thrust of my argument remains the same- data supplied by Hamas is suspect, at best.
Again, if you’re able, explain your argument.