World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
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.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
NYT hired an ex-IDF soldier to scourge for any allegation of rape. The statements which were made in that article have all been proven false or non-credible as their stories changed multiple times.
As this report contains no additional information or facts it seems they just copy-pasted the NYT stuff.
Uhm, wasn't this a UN specialist trip to the area to gather their own information?
She offered zero evidence.
The report does make a convincing case of the sexual violence having been happened.
You should read the report, it's much more even handed than you give it credit. It notes the issues in their findings, it does bring it all up straight away, goes after two false claims and doesn't claim to be comprehensive proof, but does make the case that from everything they could find out, sexual violence very likely happened.
And I think all such claims shouldn't be dismissed lightly. And from all we know so far, I think it's very likely sexual violence did happen.
These are the same "allegations" which NYT gave which have been fully debunked.
The fact that these are included is practically evidence that the report is filled with disproven IDF propaganda and the UN "investigator" did not in fact investigate anything.
It is highly unlikely that sexual assault happened during the attack. Sexual assault always happens after battles are over. Nobody goes on a raping spree while there's an IDF helicopter firing at them.
The fact that all the main claims have been fully debunked proves it. The only people that still buy into this myth are those that want to believe it.
I don't think your article debunks the claims made by the UN Special Representative. From your linked article
NYT reported that the sexual violence was a systematic thing employed by Hamas as a tool while the UN report is about sexual violence having occurred there.
Also the report specifically mentions some of the same claims and says they've been disproven. And how they've done their own interviews and seen the photographic evidence for other things. So it doesn't seem to be the same NYT thing you're focused on.
There was no photographic evidence nor any video evidence such as CCTV or gopro footage. Nor any forensic evidence, No evidence whatsoever. Just more completely made up Zaka-style claims
So the UN is making a wild claim that Hamas was raping corpses. (and what seems to imply chopping off penises?) Yet no forensic evidence was found. it's literally just the same shit from NYT. With the same Zaka people makes. And multiple of these statements look so made-up that the UN already says "no corpses in this condition were found".
I'm talking about this
"The mission made up of Ms. Patten and nine experts – which was not investigative in nature – conducted 33 meetings with Israeli representatives, examining more than 5,000 photographic images and 50 hours of video footage. It conducted 34 confidential interviews including with survivors and witnesses of the 7 October attacks, released hostages, first responders and others."
And the report has it like this, for example
"In the medicolegal assessment undertaken by the mission team of available photos and videos of crime scenes, a few corpses with conspicuously spread legs were observed. These postures could not be adequately explained by, for instance, “postmortem pugilistic posturing” due to burn damage. The reviewed photos and videos further revealed a minimum of twenty corpses with partially or fully exposed intimate body parts such as breasts and genitalia, resulting from the absence, displacement, or tearing of clothing. Also, at least ten distinct corpses displayed indications of bound wrists and/or tied legs."
They are not saying they have videos or photos of acts of rape but rather that they have reviewed photographic evidence such as that that strongly circumstantially suggests sexual violence. With the whole report calling for further investigation based on the photos and videos they've seen.
No. They are reporting of about an "accounts of individuals who witnessed" rape of corpses (not specifically by Hamas). As your quoted part even says, "There are further accounts of individuals who witnessed at least two incidents of rape of corpses of women".
I feel like you don't understand that they're purposefully using that careful language.
Your example is literally just Gal Abdush, The most debunked claim of all.
Why are you writing long comments before having read the debunking of the NYT article?
I've read both, that and the report. We already discussed this. But if you want to debunk a specific claim here (I guess to show the report in all parts unreliable) you should probably quote the relevant parts here so the discussion is easier to follow.
If you ctrl+f Gal Abdush in the article I linked you will find her story quite similar to your claims.
If you have any actual evidence to present I will concede my point.
The problem with this UN report here remains clear; no CCTV evidence, no forensic evidence, no people claiming they were raped. only "witness statements". You cannot seriously expect anyone to believe this.
If anything it's evidence that no rapes happened as they could not find a shred of conclusive evidence while looking for it so hard. That's why the title here contains the word "likely".
It would be a lot easier to discuss if you'd quote the relevant parts from both here and show how you feel it debunks it.
I'm genuinely not sure what your point is. I feel like you at first misunderstood the report and then what is being claimed here. After review of the available evidence (photos, videos testimonies) the UN people came away with the conclusion that very likely sexual violence was done during (or in the immediate aftermath) of the attack. And the link you provided to debunk this report seems to consider it very likely too, just not how NYT wrote about it.
I mean I think most believe sexual violence happened there and the report, the debunking you provided and really just a layman's view of the attack and knowledge about how prevalent war rape is would all speak on behalf of it very very likely to have happened. All these factors pointing at the direction of the sexual violence are hard to dismiss.
The doubtful part is what NYT claimed, that it was systematic tool used by Hamas.
The report was a two week mission and clearly states it wasn't a proper investigative one. That's why they are calling it just likely and calling for a proper and through investigation