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.

  • @fukhueson@lemmy.world
    -35•3 months ago

    https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

    Hamas is an Islamist militant group based in the Gaza Strip, which has been designated by the US, the EU and other countries as a terrorist group. Hamas has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. Although the definition of human shields is not consistent among states and inter-governmental organisations, the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) states the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.”1

    Hamas relies on the Israeli government’s aim to minimise collateral damage, and is also aware of the West‘s sensitivity towards civilian casualties. Hamas’ use of human shields is therefore likely aimed at minimising their own vulnerabilities by limiting the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) freedom of action. It is also aimed at gaining diplomatic and public opinion-related leverage, by presenting Israel and the IDF as an aggressor that indiscriminately strikes civilians.2

    Hamas’ most common uses of human shields include:

    Firing rockets, artillery, and mortars from or in proximity to heavily populated civilian areas, often from or near facilities which should be protected according to the Geneva Convention (e.g. schools, hospitals, or mosques).

    Locating military or security-related infrastructures such as HQs, bases, armouries, access routes, lathes,3 or defensive positions within or in proximity to civilian areas.

    Protecting terrorists’ houses and military facilities, or rescuing terrorists who were besieged or warned by the IDF.4

    Combating the IDF from or in proximity to residential and commercial areas, including using civilians for intelligence gathering missions.

    By engaging in these acts, Hamas employs a win-win scenario: if indeed the IDF uses kinetic power, and the number of civilian causalities surges, Hamas can use that as a weapon in the lawfare5 it conducts. It would be able to accuse the IDF (and Israel) of committing war crimes, which in turn could result in the imposition of a wide array of sanctions. On the other hand, if the IDF limits its use of military power in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less vulnerable to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while continuing to fight.

    Hamas’ growing strategic distress in the face of recent geopolitical developments will probably push the organisation towards a more pragmatic strategy in the near future. However, the movement is simultaneously preparing itself for yet another round of armed conflict with Israel. If this indeed happens, and in light of the success of the human shield practice, there is every reason to believe Hamas will continue resorting to the use of civilians as human shields.

    Edit: FTA, since people think this is whataboutism :)

    The Israeli army said it attacked a Hamas command centre “disguised in the humanitarian area in Khan Younis” and that “many steps were taken to reduce the chance of harming civilians, including the use of precision weaponry, aerial surveillance and additional intelligence information”.

    Edit 2: ITT Hamas? You mean Israel? If not obvious by this point, the effort is to discredit/downplay anything critical of Hamas, turn discussion about Hamas activities into whataboutisms towards Israel, and reframe arguments against Hamas activities as a defense of genocide. Rinse, repeat in every thread about this conflict. Kinda boring after a while.

        • @sidekickplayah@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          14•3 months ago

          But they are, that is the situation we are in. At every point we can say Hamas is a piece of shit group for using human shields, but that’s not gonna change the situation. You keep saying that Hamas isn’t getting enough criticism, but I think bombardment by the IDF is criticism enough. The whole ask is, stop shooting through the human shields to kill the bad guys. Even here there is doubt that there even was Hamas hiding with civilians to begin with. We are just giving Israel loads and loads of money, but we can’t even get a more definitive answer than “we said so”? At this point I can only think that, even if by some chance Israel really isn’t commiting a genocide, the end result will be indistinguishable from it. Palestine and it’s people will be erased physically or culturally and we are allowing it to happen, and any pointing that out is met with “Hamas is the one using them as shields” or “Hamas started it”. Hamas is unconscionable. Israel isn’t, or atleast they say they aren’t.

              • @prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                2•3 months ago

                Yeah. There’s a reason you haven’t heard about it.

                You can search for it yourself. Or look at another comment I made either in this thread or another where I linked to several sources about it.

                This is a religious ethnostate with compulsory military service where they indoctrinate every single one of their citizens to believe that Palestinians are subhuman. And I mean this quite literally, they have completely dehumanized the Palestinian people in ever sense of the word.

                And when you don’t see them as people, they can become useful meat shields.

          • @fukhueson@lemmy.world
            -10•3 months ago

            Ignoring your comment since you’re misrepresenting my argument. No need to address anything you said, this is simply an attempt to reframe my concern that criticism of Hamas is met with whataboutism.

            Just look at the soap box this user takes advantage of when I say no one should use human shields. “Yea Hamas does it, but Israel???”

            • @sidekickplayah@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              8•3 months ago

              Tell me what criticism of Hamas accomplishes then. They went and killed a thousand innocent Israelis, they hide among civilians, resulting in said civilians deaths. What now? Do I get a gold star for pointing out the terrorists? Do the dead get to cheer that their death meant another Hamas militant died (or didn’t in the case of this article)?Are the living supposed to feel grateful to Israel that their family and friends are dead, needless to say hateful towards Hamas for hiding amongst them? What is the goal here? What are me, and the dozens of other people here, missing that only you seem to see?

              • @sidekickplayah@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                3•3 months ago

                Tell me what criticism of Hamas accomplishes then. They went and killed a thousand innocent Israelis, they hide among civilians, resulting in said civilians deaths. What now? Do I get a gold star for pointing out the terrorists? Do the dead get to cheer that their death meant another Hamas militant died (or didn’t in the case of this article)?Are the living supposed to feel grateful to Israel that their family and friends are dead, needless to say hateful towards Hamas for hiding amongst them? What is the goal here? What are me, and the dozens of other people here, missing that only you seem to see? And again I will point it out, this entire thread started when you saw an article takling about Israel’s recent mistake, and said “But why isn’t anyome criticising Hamas?”

              • @fukhueson@lemmy.world
                -6•3 months ago

                An argument expressing the futility of criticizing Hamas while attempting to redirect criticism towards Israel… Now that’s funny.

                Edit: lol like I need to entertain these whataboutisms… Demanding answers…

        • @prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          5•3 months ago

          either side

          Uh huh. Yet all of your comments are clearly supportive of the IDF’s actions, and we know for a fact that the IDF uses civilians (often children) as human shields:

          https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-human-shields

          https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-08-13/ty-article-magazine/.premium/idf-uses-gazan-civilians-as-human-shields-to-inspect-potentially-booby-trapped-tunnels/00000191-4c84-d7fd-a7f5-7db6b99e0000

          https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/14/israeli-forces-in-gaza-use-civilians-as-human-shields-against-possible-booby-traps

          https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/israeli-armys-use-palestinian-civilians-human-shields-has-been-documented-large-scale

              • @sidekickplayah@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                5•3 months ago

                At this point I’ve just kind of realized that there is no argument to be had with them. Not that their stubborn, but genuinely. It’s not that they can’t be critical of Hamas that they’re arguing, but that their criticism is responded to by “whataboutism” (so says them). Which isn’t even an argument so much as a statement? Like I guess yea, if you say so? But the original article is talking about a bombing in a civilian safe-zone that may not even have killed Hamas militants, so criticism of Israel is expected, even in replies of criticism if Hamas. If anything they are just complaining about the way they were responded to, which I don’t even know what the response they want is? I’ve concurred with said criticism, but that doesn’t seem to be it either? I genuinely don’t know what there is to say, or what they want if it’s not agreement with their criticism. Maybe that the criticism should be unchallenged? But again this is a thread about IDF bombs killing civilians in a “safe zone”. Either way I don’t think it’s worth your time, as they can’t even commit to ending conversations that aren’t “worth their time.”

    • @kandoh@reddthat.com
      25•3 months ago

      How would Israel operate differently if Hamas was hiding in Tel Aviv and using those citizens as their human shields?

      • @Threeme2189@lemmy.world
        -2•3 months ago

        That’s a hostage situation, or breaking and entering (and maybe blackmail), depending on if the citizens in question are different ones from Tel Aviv or the original ones from The Gaza strip. It’s an entirely different situation.

        • @prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          3•3 months ago

          depending on if the citizens in question are different ones from Tel Aviv or the original ones from The Gaza strip.

          But I thought they all had the same rights?

            • @prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              0•3 months ago

              The cheat code here is indoctrinating your soldiers (serving compulsorily) to the point that they equate “Palestinian” with “terrorist.”

              A religious ethnostate where every single citizen is required to serve in the military. A military that brainwashes them into believing that Palestinians are literally subhuman. And I mean literally in the classic sense. These are not humans in their eyes.

              Which means that every school and hospital in the area is “harboring terrorists” because there are Palestinians there. How convenient for them.

      • @fukhueson@lemmy.world
        -23•3 months ago

        Ah yes, hypotheticals we’d never have to consider. What if Hamas actually cared about Palestinians?

        Am I doing it right? :)

        • @kandoh@reddthat.com
          25•3 months ago

          You’ve clearly gotten the point from my hypothetical and don’t like the conclusion you yourself have reached ;)

          Enjoy speedrunning post-9/11 US neoconservatism

              • @fukhueson@lemmy.world
                -16•3 months ago

                In my opinion way more productive than silly hypotheticals (and how poor arguments should be responded to, in kind)

                Man it would be great if someone (anyone) could disprove what I’m posting, instead of throwing accusations of genocide or… Memeing…

                Edit: lol at the insistence of hypotheticals being some “gotcha.”

                • @kandoh@reddthat.com
                  11•3 months ago

                  Sure, if you’d like to actually engage I’d be happy to walk you through what everyone’s problem with how the IDF is operating.

                  We expect Israel to treat the life of every Palestinian civilian the same way they would treat an Israeli civilian.

                  It’s that simple.

                  Hamas is the bad guy, they’re bad because they kill innocent people to achieve their objectives.

                  For Israel to be the good guy, they need to not kill innocent people to achieve their objectives. They can’t say ‘we had no choice, Hamas forced us to kill those civilians or we wouldn’t be able to achieve our objectives’.

                  • @fukhueson@lemmy.world
                    -13•3 months ago

                    And you disproved what I posted… Where? Because I’m trusting this wasn’t just a springboard to talk about the IDF when I’m discussing what Hamas is doing right?

                    Because that’d be whataboutism…

                    Maybe try addressing what I wrote, not what you want to engage in, which for you is discussing the IDF and not Hamas.

      • @fukhueson@lemmy.world
        -22•3 months ago

        Blatant whataboutism :)

        Edit: How easy would it be for them to say that both might be true? Very. But if they said that Hamas would lose credibility, and bring into question the whole “freedom fighter” schtick. Can’t address it, must focus on allegations of genocide and accusing others of defending genocide if anyone brings up something critical of Hamas (please peruse their comment history), thereby derailing any discussion on the matter.

        See? It’s that easy.

          • @fukhueson@lemmy.world
            -20•3 months ago

            In fitting behavior, I could ask for evidence those Hamas military figures were elsewhere. However, I’m confident subsequent reviews of this event and others like it will uncover the truth, and perhaps we’ll get another extensive report on the matter (did you read my link?).

            I think we both know that lies travel faster than evidence, don’t we?

            Don’t really care about the reply, I got what I wanted.

              • @fukhueson@lemmy.world
                -11•3 months ago

                Sorry I thought you read your article:

                The military alleged that the strike targeted Hamas leaders, including Samer Ismail Hader Abudaqa, whom they identified as the head of the Palestinian movement’s aerial unit; Osama Tabash, who it called the head of surveillance and targets in Hamas’s intelligence division; and Ayman Mabhouh, another senior official.

                Won’t be continuing this conversation, especially if this is the level of discussion I should expect.

                • @fukhueson@lemmy.world
                  -10•3 months ago

                  https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-cia-award-for-excellence-in-journalism

                  The CIA Award for Excellence in Journalism is a tongue-in-cheek name and slang expression for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) allegedly killing off journalists who uncover too much public-sensitive information. Referencing the suspicious suicide of investigative journalist Gary Webb and the murder of activist Fred Hampton, the joke and catchphrase achieved prominence online following a viral 2020 tweet.

                  I think this is an unjust indictment of the mods, and unproductive.

              • @fukhueson@lemmy.world
                -12•3 months ago

                Yea I was addressing content directly discussed in the article. I was replied to with things unrelated to Hamas’ military use of civilian infrastructure, in an effort to derail conversation on the matter.

                Also you don’t know what whataboutism is, clearly.

                  • @fukhueson@lemmy.world
                    -9•3 months ago

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

                    Whataboutism or whataboutery is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation.

                    I bring up information relevant to the article. I’m responded to with a counter accusation instead of a rebuttal of the provided evidence. I won’t be replying to you anymore, this is a waste of my time.

    • @Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
      19•3 months ago

      Nice propaganda to justify Israel’s ethnic cleansing and targeting of civilians. That article is full of misinformation and not backed up by independent investigations.

      Security

      Israel does justify the settlements and military bases in the West Bank in the name of Security. However, the reality of the settlements on-the-ground has been the cause of violent resistance and a significant obstacle to peace, as it has been for decades.

      This type of settlement, where the native population gets ‘Transferred’ to make room for the settlers, is a long standing practice. See: The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948, the Transfer Committee, and the JNF which led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate, before the mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948: Plan Dalet, Declassified Massacres of 1948, and Details of Plan C (May 1946) and Plan D (March 1948) . Further, declassified Israeli documents show that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were deliberately planned before being executed in 1967: Haaretz, Forward; while the peace process was exploited to continue de-facto annexation of the West Bank via Settlements (Oslo Accord Sources: MEE, NYT, Haaretz, AJ). The settlements are maintained through a violent apartheid that routinely employs violence towards Palestinians and denies human rights like water access, civil rights, etc. This kind of control gives rise to violent resistance to the Apartheid occupation, jeopardizing the safety of Israeli civilians.

      The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.

      • Avi Shlaim

      How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution

      ‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe

      State violence – official and otherwise – is part and parcel of Israel’s apartheid regime, which aims to create a Jewish-only space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The regime treats land as a resource designed to serve the Jewish public, and accordingly uses it almost exclusively to develop and expand existing Jewish residential communities and to build new ones. At the same time, the regime fragments Palestinian space, dispossesses Palestinians of their land and relegates them to living in small, over-populated enclaves.

      The apartheid regime is based on organized, systemic violence against Palestinians, which is carried out by numerous agents: the government, the military, the Civil Administration, the Supreme Court, the Israel Police, the Israel Security Agency, the Israel Prison Service, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and others. Settlers are another item on this list, and the state incorporates their violence into its own official acts of violence. Settler violence sometimes precedes instances of official violence by Israeli authorities, and at other times is incorporated into them. Like state violence, settler violence is organized, institutionalized, well-equipped and implemented in order to achieve a defined strategic goal.

      Civilian Deaths and Human Shields:

      Israel does deliberately targets civilian areas. From in general with the Dahiya Doctrine to multiple systems deployed in Gaza to do so: ‘A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza, Lavender, and Where’s Daddy. When it comes to Israeli Soldiers and Civilians, there is also the use of the Hannibal Directive, which was also used on Oct 7th.

      Hundreds of Genocide Scholars have described this ethnic cleansing campaign as genocide because of the deliberate targeting of children/civilians and expressed intent by Israeli officials: “A Textbook Case of Genocide”: Israeli Holocaust Scholar Raz Segal Decries Israel’s Assault on Gaza, 800+ Legal Scholars Say Israel May Be Perpetrating ‘Crime of Genocide’ in Gaza , Law for Palestine Releases Database with 500+ Instances of Israeli Incitement to Genocide – Continuously Updated.

      On the subject of Human Shields, there are some independent reports for past conflicts of Hamas jeopardizing the safety of civilians via Rocket fire in dense urban areas, two instances during Oct 7th, but no independent verification since then so far. None of which absolve Israel of the crime of targeting civilians under international law:

      Intentionally utilizing the presence of civilians or other protected persons to render certain areas immune from military attack is prohibited under international law. Amnesty International was not able to establish whether or not the fighters’ presence in the camps was intended to shield themselves from military attacks. However, under international humanitarian law, even if one party uses “human shields”, or is otherwise unlawfully endangering civilians, this does not absolve the opposing party from complying with its obligations to distinguish between military objectives and civilians or civilian objects, to refrain from carrying out indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks, and to take all feasible precautions to spare civilians and civilian objects.

      Additionally, there is extensive independent verification of Israel using Palestinians as Human Shields: IDF uses Human Shields, including Children (2013 Report), and in the latest war Israel “Systematically” Uses Gaza Children as Human Shields, Rights Group Finds

      • @fukhueson@lemmy.world
        -17•3 months ago

        My properly sourced information is not invalidated by anything you said. It actually cited multiple highly reliable sources.

        Also it’s whataboutism :) anyone noticing a pattern here? Blindly discredit anything critical of Hamas?

        Goodbye!

        Edit: there’s nothing “propaganda” about NATO. This ought to be a red flag… And yes, this report confirms more than your sources do, posting incomplete assessments of Hamas’ use of human shields does not discredit NATO, sorry.

        Edit 2: how hilarious is it that NATO stratcom is accused of being a propaganda outlet when the original post is from MEE?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Eye

        Middle East Eye (MEE) is a UK-based news website founded in 2014 that covers the Middle East and North Africa. It is reportedly funded by the government of Qatar.

        Organisation

        Middle East Eye was launched in London in April 2014. It is not transparent about its ownership. It is formally owned by a company called M.E.E. Limited with a single director Jamal Bessasso; Bessasso is not specified as the owner. Its editor-in-chief is David Hearst, a former foreign lead writer for The Guardian. It employs about 20 full-time staff in London as of 2017.

        According to its critics, Middle East Eye began forming in London in 2013 as the Islamist influence of Al Jazeera began to wane; several Al Jazeera journalists subsequently joined the project. Jonathan Powell, a senior executive at Al Jazeera, was a consultant ahead of its launch and registered the website’s domain names. Bassasso, a Kuwait-born Palestinian living in London, was the sole director of Middle East Eye’s parent company, M.E.E. Limited. Bassasso was a former director for the Hamas-controlled Al-Quds TV. David Hearst denied that Bessasso was the owner of the news site but refrained from divulging the real owner.

        According to Ilan Berman and Sultan Sooud Al-Qassemi, Middle East Eye is backed by Qatar. The governments of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain accuse MEE of pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias and receiving Qatari funding. They have demanded MEE be shut down following the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar. MEE has denied the accusations, saying that it is an independent news site, not funded by any country or movement.

        Is this comment also accusing me of justifying genocide? Like the others that were removed?

        • @Schmoo@slrpnk.net
          13•3 months ago

          there’s nothing “propaganda” about NATO

          You can’t be serious. Everyone does propaganda, propaganda is everywhere. Just because you happen to agree with NATO propaganda doesn’t mean it isn’t propaganda. Your original comment is propaganda, the responses to it are propaganda, this entire comment section is full of propaganda. Anyone disseminating information reflecting the views or interests of any doctrine or cause is engaging in propaganda.

          Edit: Always has been

          • @fukhueson@lemmy.world
            -8•3 months ago

            No, not everything is propaganda… I think I’ll trust NATO, thank you for your personal opinions though.

            • @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.

          • @fukhueson@lemmy.world
            -5•3 months ago

            They are not debunked by your sources, nothing you provide proves the NATO article wrong. YouTube is not a source.

            Bored, leaving.

        • @prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          2•3 months ago

          Person provides an incredibly detailed, well sourced comment and you don’t even address a single point from it. Huh.

    • @Deceptichum@quokk.auEnglish
      9•3 months ago

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/14/israeli-forces-in-gaza-use-civilians-as-human-shields-against-possible-booby-traps

      Israel routinely uses children as human shields.

      But hey let’s write huge paragraphs about why Hamas are so horrible for doing it, and than complain about whataboutism when it’s shown that the people actively engaged in a genocide are doing the thing they accuse the victims of as justification for slaughtering them.

    • @goferking0
      3•3 months ago

      I mean it’s not like one is the most moral army in the world and the othet is a terrorist organization fighting their oppressors. Wonder which people expect to not shoot or use human shields

      • @fukhueson@lemmy.world
        -9•3 months ago

        I mean it’s not like one is the most moral army in the world and the othet is a terrorist organization fighting their oppressors. Wonder which people expect to not shoot or use human shields

        https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moral_equivalence

        Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn’t as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.

        …

        The “not as bad as” argument is always popular with people who know perfectly well they’re doing something immoral. Being fully aware of this problem, they feel compelled to attempt to justify it, and they do so by pointing to other, usually worse, immorality. It is practically synonymous to the idea of “the lesser of two evils”.

        Not responding further. I’m in no way accusing anyone of justifying anything, I’m quoting the appropriate section of the article relevant to the fallacy.

        • @goferking0
          8•3 months ago

          It’s how they describe themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_of_arms

          The soldier shall make use of his weaponry and power only for the fulfillment of the mission and solely to the extent required; he will maintain his humanity even in combat. The soldier shall not employ his weaponry and power in order to harm non-combatants or prisoners of war, and shall do all he can to avoid harming their lives, body, honor and property. — Spirit of the Israel Defense Forces

          Not responding further. I’m in no way accusing anyone of justifying anything, I’m quoting the appropriate section of the article relevant to the fallacy.

          No shit, all you’ve done is say hamas bad so idf okay then get upset when everyone points out that’s not an argument.

          Even here you’ve done nothing but try to take the moral high ground in an area you clearly need to educate yourself more on.

          • @fukhueson@lemmy.world
            -7•3 months ago

            I said nothing of the sort. Please cite where I said IDF ok :) yet another attempt to lie about my position.

            It’s still a fallacy, no matter how you want to slice it.

            Go away.

      • @fukhueson@lemmy.world
        -2•3 months ago

        I can cross out things too, but that doesn’t make them true. You could cite where I said those exact things, which would make a much stronger case… Wait, could you?

        • @prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          3•3 months ago

          Cite where you said what things? I literally copy/pasted part of your comment and swapped the nouns around. I never claimed you said the modified quote, my point was that what you said is literally the exact opposite of reality.

          Don’t waste your time, bud. I know you’ve probably got a quota to hit, but you’ll just be wasting it on me.

            • @prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              3•3 months ago

              Why would you take offense if you didn’t understand the implication?

              Go whine to a mod that you’re being “harassed” because I sent sources you didn’t like.

              • @goferking0
                2•3 months ago

                I wonder how many they’ve gotten banned from this thread, while somehow still not getting banned themselves

                • @Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
                  3•3 months ago

                  I don’t understand why the mods are removing responses to that guy either. It would be helpful to still have the removed comment visible, like under a spoiler or something and an explanation why by the mod

                  • @goferking0
                    3•3 months ago

                    Ones I saw were civility. Because they were calling out the person being a genocide apologist/denial.