"About 72 per cent of fatalities aged 13-55 are men, which is the rough age range of Hamas combatants, Mr Fox said. “We know that Hamas uses child soldiers, and these statistics show clearly that Israel is targeting fighting-aged men.”
According to the Henry Jackson Society who’s entry in Wikipedia says: While describing itself as non-partisan, its outlook has been described variously as right-wing, neoliberal, and neo-conservative
If you know that the source is tainted beyond being useful then why post it? Not intended to be a rude or combative question, just curious.
Russia lies about the total number of casualties, Ukraine lies about them, Israel lies about them and it’s safe to assume Hamas lies about them too.
Well I knew Hamas lied about the Al Ahli hospital attack near the start of the war. Said there were 500 killed by an Israel bomb but footage came from Gaza the next day of a few obliterated parked cars but with no damage to the hospital. I did hear there were about 20 people camping nearby though who were unfortunately killed.
The night of the incident Al Jazeera happened to live stream rocket attacks by PIJ (Palestinian Intifada Jihad) on Israel showing one of them misfiring to boomerang and land in the hospital vicinity.
Hamas didn’t even need to fake footage of hospital damage, Western media took their word for it. BBC was one of the very few who issued a retraction a few days later but I found all the above myself online and I am a nobody so why were they so loose with investigating and thereby inflaming tensions?
Am a leftie but lost friends by pointing the above out. I knew then that facts from either side would not matter much from here on - isn’t that why Trump was voted in? Facts mean little now to most people unfortunately when emotion is involved.
If you were really curious you might have bothered to read the actual article. You would then know that the HJS is only one commenter in a list that also includes the Telegraph, and Honest Reporting within it. All of which are rated as right-leaning biased, but at least HonestReporting gets a “mostly-factual” from MBFC. The published data being criticized is from Hamas (and always has been).
The bias is good to be aware of, but the factuality is critical. Considering a left-biased Euronews published the same report I suspect there is some truth to the core facts being discussed.
Thank you, got it. Just different thinking behind how to post those things that got me caught off guard. I was asking to avoid wasting time on something I would have to fact check.
My thinking when posting is that if I post something here I either want to know other people’s opinion on it or to be called out on it being wrong. I usually post sources I trust to be factually correct majority of time, regardless of bias. I don’t flag them for bias since it’s something that’s hard to avoid entirely. Most biased stuff I post is from financial mags that have this neoliberal vampire vibe but you have to love them for how good they are at their jobs due to all the competitiveness in the area.
I’m with you. Am just providing as much as I have gathered and hoped that others could go further. As the other comments says, it seems with looking into.
Beehaw is one of the few/only places on the Internet which can weigh up the opposing perspectives without resorting immediately to ad hominems.