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.
The claim is “Hamas doesn’t admit when its soldiers are killed because that would defeat their martyrdom and human shield strategy to gain western sympathy.”
It’s a negative.
That is a lie. I pasted your claim. I will paste it again:
If you can’t back up this claim, fine. I guess it also a lie.
No that’s my inference based on the lack of evidence.
The claim and the evidence is that Hamas hardly ever admits to casualties.
The evidence that Hamas doesn’t distinguish it’s fighters is the lack of evidence of Hamas admitting to its fighters being killed. I can’t prove a lack of something that doesn’t exist.
You made absolutely no indication that it was an inference. It was just a statement, as if it were fact.
You have provided no evidence.
What the fuck does this even mean?
Removed by mod
Since I’m not very well educated or experienced, please explain how the lack of something can be the same as the presence of something.
If your neighbor claimed that teenagers were racing their cars outside of his house, the absence of teenagers, cars, and tire marks, on the street would be negative evidence against his claim.
This is honestly not that complicated.
Well, I may be uneducated and inexperienced, but it seems to me that those teenagers could have just driven away and not left any tire marks. So stupid me doesn’t understand how that explains how the absence of evidence is the same as the presence of evidence.
Removed by mod
Dated 12/15 from Reuters: Hamas has not said how many of its fighters have been killed. Israel’s military has said it has killed at least 7,000.
So they didn’t say three.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/26/world/middleeast/hamas-commander-northern-gaza-killed.html
Now stop sealioning.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The original source is a comic that demonstrates it fairly well, although the current definition is a bit broader. I look out for:
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.