Quote:
Originally Posted by Zevo
My position is some in here have an obvious bias as who should be believed and are only calling out one side. The fact that anyone gives more credence to a terrorist organization like Hamas is ####ing brutal and I'm not just talking about civilian deaths.
Israel bombed a hospital, total carnage, 500+ dead (as reported by Hamas), there was outrage. Wait, what? It was a terrorist rocket and far less dead...crickets.
From the same article Pepsi posted:
"But an outlier is the ministry’s death toll from an explosion at al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza City in mid-October.
There were conflicting accusations of who was responsible, with Hamas officials blaming an Israeli airstrike and Israel saying it was caused by a an errant rocket launched by Palestinian militants. U.S. and French intelligence services also concluded it was likely caused by a misfired rocket. An AP analysis of video, photos and satellite imagery, as well as consultation with experts, showed the cause was likely a rocket launched from Palestinian territory that misfired and crashed. However, a definitive conclusion couldn’t be reached.
There have also been conflicting accounts of the explosion’s death toll. Within an hour, Gaza’s ministry reported 500 Palestinians killed, then lowered that to 471 the next day. Israel says the ministry inflated the toll. American intelligence agencies estimate 100 to 300 people killed, but haven’t said how they arrived at the numbers.
The confusion has called into question the ministry’s credibility in the Hamas-ruled territory"
|
Who is giving “more credence” to Hamas on an issue by issue basis? Who is saying Hamas should be believed in general?
I’m interested in what you took from that article, as it kind of flies in the face of your position. It both shows that the numbers coming from the ministry have historically been trustworthy, and cites an event where those numbers have been called into question (while quoting multiple people with different perspectives around those numbers). Is that a “double standard” to you? Or would you say the article is pretty fair, and maybe your view might be too heavily biased?