any honest speaker is well aware of what they are engaged in.
this is also not an establishment of Hamas having a history of deliberately using rape as a tool of war as is alleged. you hear plenty about knife attacks, shootings, and suicide bombings, though-- though not so much suicide bombing more recently. Will you elucidate this pattern of behavior, or is it just that you think killing is bad and raping is bad so if they do one bad thing they probably do another? That would be awfully tenuous.
It's not exactly 'insisting on reliability'-- there's simply zero actual evidence of the massive hoax you're alleging.
grant all your assumptions because they don't truly matter to the point and realize that you're still talking about wartime epistemology and the atrocity propaganda of a state that is engaged in mass murder using stuff like this as justification for that mass murder and you have enough reason to suspend judgment. by that reasoning alone.
you shouldn't even need to probe at the weakness of anonymous accusations or the fact that it's not substantial enough to be a
massive hoax as there is very little actually presented. nor that we do know of a variety of other hoaxes and lies targeted at demonizing Palestinians. or the fact that witness testimony is occurring inside a genocidal fascist climate in which people are encouraged to help the government demonize Palestinians. Or that much of the supposed evidence comes from discredited institutions or individuals (i.e. they invented other hoaxes like 'fighters cut open the belly of a pregnant woman' or '40 beheaded babies' or 'baked a baby in an oven' etc. That last one actually seems to have happened, but it was 1948 and Zionist terrorists that did it to a Palestinian child named Abdel Rauf in Deir Yassin). Or is circumstantial. Or was apparently thrown away in the rush to bury the dead. Or the fact that some of the allegations of rape have been denied by other Israeli witnesses (e.g. at Kibbutz Be'eri). We also needn't bother talking about how Israel has stopped UN agencies from investigating the matter, instead only allowing Pramila Patten's mission that stresses in its report and press release that it is
not investigative in nature and that verification, attribution, and an assessment of scale was outside of its remit; the UN report seems to establish a prima facie case-- there is a case to answer/defend, not the kind of proper verdict that you seem to desire for some reason.
All of this should be unnecessary to consider because it should be enough that you can decline to voice support for a premise that is being weaponized to justify the slaughter of Palestinians with the (material if sometimes not rhetorical) support of both of our governments irrespective of how plausible that premise sounds to you. You can reserve judgment rather than rushing to it. Or at the very least you can stop bothering me about my abysmal failure to agree with and amplify whatever atrocity propaganda has excited you most recently.
At least you've now exchanged insinuation for honest accusation: a gigantic conspiratorial hoax, without a single drip of evidence. All to protect the reputation of a group of far-right genocidal theocrats, they who massacred the Palestinian socialists with whom they purported to share power.
aside from all the other hoaxes and-- just see above. And still, where is the urgency in rendering judgment? I'd get it if you're some genocidal Zionist eager for liebensraum, but you're putatively on the side of Palestinians, so why be so eager to affirm atrocity propaganda aimed at dehumanizing them and justifying reprisal? It is baffling. Having an ax to grind against Hamas is no excuse for this-- and as far as I know, you're not Palestinian, so it's a bit weird apart from that to be so invested in their internal politics. Do you support Israel's military campaign insofar as it has killed members of Hamas (but not everything else)? Is that it? I just don't see why you think this is a matter that must be decided at this moment. There are pretty obvious reasonable doubts apart from the fact that what you are affirming is being weaponized to promote a catastrophic slaughter. I assume you disagree with
that, but that just makes your conviction all the more confusing.
If I were uncharitable I'd suggest that you're just looking for something to disagree with me about. Your comments referring to other states lend some support to that theory, but I will dismiss it for now. As an aside, those comments are intensely weird given that I don't typically rely on the work of journalists living in those states anyway-- Ivan Katchanovski is a Ukrainian living in Canada, for example; maybe it's a little bit odd that Chrystia Freeland hasn't gotten some neo-Nazis to murder him. Probably not, though. But enough about other matters.
The senator is writing a book about his mental health. That’s hard to celebrate while he shrugs off the suffering of millions
www.theguardian.com
As someone who is neurodivergent, Fetterman is a sociopath. It's not his bipolar leading him to do this, it's his obsession with power.
It's possible the head injury has some part in the particulars of how he's expressed himself lately, but he also has a history of supporting Zionism that wasn't obvious to me before now. But others were aware. He's a real piece of work. In retrospect it may have been a mistake to overlook certain indicators that he might be a bit racist, though they did seem kind of circumstantial. Not that what I think about him has ever had any material effect on anything.
