The Israeli Defense Forces have published photos they say show Al Jazeera reporter Mohamed Washah engaged in Hamas terror activity.

Archive (including paywall bypass): https://archive.is/KeCzT

The Israeli Defense Forces on Sunday accused a prominent journalist– who in recent months has reported regularly for Al Jazeera from Gaza – of moonlighting as a senior Hamas commander.

The Israeli Defense Forces have published photos they say were discovered on a laptop in Gaza that show Al Jazeera journalist Mohamed Washah engaged in Hamas terrorist activities.

Neither Al Jazeera nor the Qatari government have responded to the Sun’s request for comment.

        • Flying Squid
          3•5 months ago

          Yes, expecting evidence for a specific claim is totally sealioning.

          I’m sorry that you don’t like it that the person made a claim that neither of you can back up. That’s not my fault.

          Again- this was the claim I asked to be backed up.

          According to Hamas though, the number of its dead soldiers is like three.

          You have not proved they have said that and neither have they. That article is from November 26th of last year. It is also not saying that Hamas is claiming that the total number of Hamas soldiers that were killed was four. Just four in that specific instance. And you either knew that when you pasted the article and didn’t expect me to read it or you didn’t read it yourself. Either way, you’re being highly dishonest.

          But sure, be that dishonest and accuse me of sealioning as well. Why not? Easier than just admitting that the claim is false, right?

          • @gedaliyah@lemmy.worldMEnglish
            1•5 months ago

            The claims are simple:

            1 - Hamas has not released any statistics about the total number of Hamas fighters killed.

            2 - Hamas has acknowledged a small number of specific, individual deaths

            Claiming that either of these statements are false - now that you have been presented with evidence of both - is precisely sealioning. Claiming that someone is being dishonest - in presenting evidence that does not fit a pedantic standard beyond the scope of the discussion - is precisely sealioning. For example, suggesting a source that reads “Abu Anas al-Ghandour and three others had been killed” as being semantically incompatible with “number of its dead soldiers is like three” is sealioning.

            If you would like to present any evidence of counterclaims, that is perfectly fine. Perhaps Hamas has published losses of soldiers in the time since these articles have been published. I and the rest of the world would certainly like to see those numbers.

            However, continued requests for further evidence or insistence that the evidence does not say what it says, or pedantic claims that deliberately misinterpret a statement will only be evidence of bad faith.

            • HACKthePRISONS
              2•5 months ago

              while i tend to be on your side about this, i hate that link you gave for sealioning. it smacks of twitterati circlejerking. it’s the kind of thing that shocked me when i joined mastodon: being called a “reply guy” for participating in a public conversation. casting doubt on unevidenced claims is an essential part of intellectually honest conversation.

              • @gedaliyah@lemmy.worldMEnglish
                1•5 months ago

                The original source is a comic that demonstrates it fairly well, although the current definition is a bit broader. I look out for:

                • persistent questioning that diverges from the core of a discussion
                • focusing on pedantic claims
                • demanding ever-increasing evidence
                • placing an undue burden of proof on an individual or their claims (“undue” is the key word)
                • demanding evidence of a person’s opinion
                • following someone from one conversation to another (thank goodness that rarely happens on Lemmy! On other platforms it can be terrible)
                • (of course) the illusion of civility and willingness to listen
                • HACKthePRISONS
                  1•5 months ago

                  i have often been accused of trolling, and while i do like to argue with strangers on the internet, i don’t really think of myself as a troll (most of the time). i think i’m just intellectually honest, and demand others i share space with practice intellectual honesty.

                  i will say that i have found that just avoiding interrogatives is a great help in my “crusade”. i will do everything i can to avoid answering direct questions as they are ALL TOO OFTEN bad faith, and i extend the same courtesy, almost never asking anything of my interlocutors.

                  but i feel that the entire topic of trolling is overblown and possible entirely fictional. it seems like a thought-terminating cliche or an ad hominem meant to not-deal with the substance of what is being discussed and attack the speaker.

                  i caught a 2-day ban for discussing whether people are owed genuine discussion about bad ideas under the accusation that i was trolling.

                  i’m starting to ramble and have already resisted the temptation to start over twice, so i’ll leave this just reiterating that

            • Flying Squid
              1•5 months ago

              Neither of those claims were the ones I was challenging. I have pasted the claim I was challenging that was false.

              Now you’re gaslighting me as if I hadn’t pasted it twice.