• Zaktor
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s wild how you read that article and just take the Israeli claim as truth when they’re contradicted by others right there in the article:

    All or most of the casualties being treated at two other hospitals, Kamal Adwan and al-Awda, were said by officials there to have bullet or shrapnel wounds.

    • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s wild you just take those officials’ claims as truth when they’re contradicted by others right there in the article:

      A Palestinian witness told the BBC most of those who died had been run over as lorry drivers tried to move forward.

      • Zaktor
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I didn’t take any of them as truth, because we don’t know. We do know Israel lies, frequently and blatantly, so believing them over other sources is dumb.

          • Zaktor
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            The person I was replying to before you jumped in for some reason apparently without reading the context.

            I read just now on the BBC that most of the casualties were due not to gunfire

            • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              9 months ago

              Well it’s actually because I read the context that made me jump in to ask the question

              That poster also said

              if what the Beeb say is true, then

              And linked an article that has different angles on these killings. I didn’t see any suggestion where he said any of the cited sources were right or wrong

              • Zaktor
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                The Beeb didn’t say “most of the casualties were due no to gunfire”. They didn’t say any particular side was true. The OP just chose one side and ignored the other. They’re not trusting BBC, I don’t think any of us think the BBC is making up quotes, they’re selecting trusting a specific source among multiple relayed by BBC.

                • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  The OP was saying: “let’s also consider the other side instead of just the one before we jump to conclusions”

                  By the way, if you see the aerial footage it’s very unlikely that most of the 100 casualties would not be from the trucks running over the crowd