This is a rather significant move on their part. Hamas has a proclivity to quash dissent and the civilians must know what kind of risk this puts them in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Gaza_economic_protests

In July and August 2023, thousands of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip took to the streets to protest chronic power outages, poor economic conditions in the territory, and Hamas's taxation of stipends to the poor paid by Qatar. The rallies, organized by a grassroots online movement called "Alvirus Alsakher" (The mocking virus), were a rare public display of discontent against the ruling Hamas government. Hamas bars most demonstrations and public displays of discontent.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2019/03/gaza-hamas-must-end-brutal-crackdown-against-protesters-and-rights-defenders/

Hamas security forces’ violent crackdown against peaceful Palestinian protesters, activists, human rights workers – including an Amnesty International worker – and local journalists must be immediately halted and investigated, said Amnesty International.

Hundreds of protesters have been subjected to beatings, arbitrary arrest and detentions, and torture and other forms of ill-treatment since 14 March, when Palestinians took to the streets across the Gaza Strip to protest against the rising cost of living and deteriorating economic conditions under the Hamas de facto administration.

Thank you for saying this, I was a little taken back by what in my opinion seemed to be comments expressing sympathy for Hezbollah.

This is turning into harassment.

Edit: I think not engaging is the winning move with this one :)

I understand I never said what you're claiming, thanks.

I can cross out things too, but that doesn't make them true. You could cite where I said those exact things, which would make a much stronger case... Wait, could you?

But do you condemn Hamas?

Yes I did, NATO is not debunked, your sources do not dispute the reports contents. Sorry.

They are not debunked by your sources, nothing you provide proves the NATO article wrong. YouTube is not a source.

Bored, leaving.

I said nothing of the sort. Please cite where I said IDF ok :) yet another attempt to lie about my position.

It's still a fallacy, no matter how you want to slice it.

Go away.

Kamala is aborting this 78 year old baby on live television.

I mean it's not like one is the most moral army in the world and the othet is a terrorist organization fighting their oppressors. Wonder which people expect to not shoot or use human shields

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moral_equivalence

Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn't as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.

...

The "not as bad as" argument is always popular with people who know perfectly well they're doing something immoral. Being fully aware of this problem, they feel compelled to attempt to justify it, and they do so by pointing to other, usually worse, immorality. It is practically synonymous to the idea of "the lesser of two evils".

Not responding further. I'm in no way accusing anyone of justifying anything, I'm quoting the appropriate section of the article relevant to the fallacy.

The well sourced information presented in the report has not been disputed. You're audaciously prescribing intent onto me (?), accusing me of presenting this to defend NATO. I'm presenting corroborating well sourced information relevant to the article posted. Nothing you claim is substantiated, other than our shared agreement on Tasnim News.

This is unfounded opinion, and a means to discredit information critical of Hamas. Going by your chosen definition, AP news presents information and ideas meant to help inform people on a multitude of issues and is thus propaganda. Did you read the next definition Merriam Webster lists? A bit more critical and harder to apply to NATO huh?

Your answers contain a lot of "can be" and vague allegations. Nothing definite, no evidence. Playing along would be doing what I did, not finding an obtuse definition and applying your personal opinion to it. Like, here's another one:

information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Can't really apply that because the information in the report isn't misleading right? And it's not promoting a cause, it's providing strategies to countries in how to deal with human shield situations. Information, that's it.

I'm tired of this game. Gonna focus on Harris ripping Trump a new one.

And AP news is clearly guilty of this because... Oh wait I missed the evidence.

No I understand the point, it's that good news about the economy must be down played because of various unsourced opinion A, B, and C that don't dispute anything in the article but do still manage to accuse AP news of presenting information with an agenda.

This scrutiny is not applied when the reported information is in line with what the community believes. The article even discusses caveats to the good news:

The data showed that while the typical American household regained its 2019 purchasing power in 2023, it essentially experienced no rise in living standards over that time. That is a sharp difference from the preceding four years, when inflation-adjusted median incomes rose 14% from 2015 through 2019.

But that isn't enough. The whole article needs to be cast with doubt, not because contrary evidence was presented, but because users feel AP news is shilling.

Ridiculous.

Edit: It's evident that, once I posted this excerpt, it was clung to like a life raft considering how many times it was spammed, and is somehow self disproving the premise of the article. Kinda sounds like the article wasn't read completely before first (down playing) opinions were cast. But hey, who reads the article? :)

I was wondering when APnews would be suspect in this sub... turns out it's when it veers outside the accepted discourse on lemmy... or doesn't appease them enough.

Status quo, hiding the "real" picture... unreal. All of this while providing absolutely no evidence contrary to anything in the article. Quality discussion.

Apnews...?

I directly quoted the article indicating relevance. Not whataboutism at all.

False, this is reframing my argument again.

Changing my argument for your sake is not civil discussion.

I'm supposed to defend my position after you baselessly call NATO stratcom propaganda (by whatever definition)? Lol no no, let's review "burden of proof":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.

Holder of the burden

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim, especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.

So, let's discuss your evidence that NATO stratcom is propaganda. I'd love to see these "facts."

For example: I can point to evidence that Tasnim News is propaganda.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tasnim-news-agency/

Analysis / Bias

Tasnim has strong links with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and according to The Guardian the US accuses the IRGC of terror mainly because of its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas, organizations that the US and EU have both designated as terrorist groups.

Although the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) don’t openly affiliate themselves with any political parties, the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran (ABADGARAN) is widely viewed as a political front for the Revolutionary Guards and they are described as “Iran’s neocons”, therefore we rate the political stance of Tasnim as right-wing bias.

Reporters without Borders has reported Iran as “One of the most oppressive countries” According to the Reporters without Borders 2023 report, Iran ranks 177 out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index.

The content of headlines and articles use loaded words pertaining to national news such as “Battle against Daesh Still Continuing in Cultural, Ideological Fields: Iran’s Shamkhani” However, they poorly source their articles, heavily quoting without sourcing or providing links to the original source. In general, they promote pro-state propaganda and anti-west conspiracies.

Overall, we rate Tasnim News Questionable based on the promotion of state propaganda and conspiracy theories as well as the use of poor sources. (M. Huitsing 12/04/2017) Updated (07/08/2023)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FPerennial_sources

Tasnim News Agency was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to being an IRGC-controlled outlet that disseminates state propaganda and conspiracy theories.

Deprecated: There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source. The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliable secondary sources are still preferred. An edit filter, 869 (hist · log), may be in place to warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Edits that trigger the filter are tagged.

Statements of fact indeed :)

No, not everything is propaganda... I think I'll trust NATO, thank you for your personal opinions though.

I directly quoted the article indicating relevance.

Yes, goodbye :)

Posting something critical of Hamas is not justification for anything, it's just critical of Hamas. Baselessly accusing me of anything more is unfounded, telling, and confirms my previous concern.

Goodbye.

Thank you for confirming what I edited into my original comment.

My comment is relevant to the article. Your comment in reply to me is whataboutism by definition.

Yes, no doubt left as far as how criticism of Hamas gets received.

Mmk

Edit: downplaying the quite evident problem here where if you are critical of Hamas your argument is shut down with whataboutism and accusations of justifying genocide.

Ignoring your comment since you're misrepresenting my argument. No need to address anything you said, this is simply an attempt to reframe my concern that criticism of Hamas is met with whataboutism.

Just look at the soap box this user takes advantage of when I say no one should use human shields. "Yea Hamas does it, but Israel???"

I'm really done with you now, you are simply wasting my time trying to distract from discussion.

There's proof it's a mistake? Also, misrepresenting my argument. It's getting more and more clear what's going on here...

Also, I think you meant to reply to me, not yourself?

An argument expressing the futility of criticizing Hamas while attempting to redirect criticism towards Israel... Now that's funny.

Edit: lol like I need to entertain these whataboutisms... Demanding answers...

And you disproved what I posted... Where? Because I'm trusting this wasn't just a springboard to talk about the IDF when I'm discussing what Hamas is doing right?

Because that'd be whataboutism...

Maybe try addressing what I wrote, not what you want to engage in, which for you is discussing the IDF and not Hamas.

Ignoring your comment since you're misrepresenting my argument. No need to address anything you said, this is simply an attempt to reframe my concern that criticism of Hamas is met with whataboutism.

Just look at the soap box this user takes advantage of when I say no one should use human shields. "Yea Hamas does it, but Israel???"

I don't think you understand what a hypothetical is.

I won't respond to anything else you posted.

Wait until you find out that no one should be using human shields to begin with :) either side.

In my opinion way more productive than silly hypotheticals (and how poor arguments should be responded to, in kind)

Man it would be great if someone (anyone) could disprove what I'm posting, instead of throwing accusations of genocide or... Memeing...

Edit: lol at the insistence of hypotheticals being some "gotcha."

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-cia-award-for-excellence-in-journalism

The CIA Award for Excellence in Journalism is a tongue-in-cheek name and slang expression for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) allegedly killing off journalists who uncover too much public-sensitive information. Referencing the suspicious suicide of investigative journalist Gary Webb and the murder of activist Fred Hampton, the joke and catchphrase achieved prominence online following a viral 2020 tweet.

I think this is an unjust indictment of the mods, and unproductive.

Weird

Edit: appreciating the admission they weren't even trying to have a discussion.

Weird conclusion, speaking for yourself?

Sorry I thought you read your article:

The military alleged that the strike targeted Hamas leaders, including Samer Ismail Hader Abudaqa, whom they identified as the head of the Palestinian movement's aerial unit; Osama Tabash, who it called the head of surveillance and targets in Hamas’s intelligence division; and Ayman Mabhouh, another senior official.

Won't be continuing this conversation, especially if this is the level of discussion I should expect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism or whataboutery is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation.

I bring up information relevant to the article. I'm responded to with a counter accusation instead of a rebuttal of the provided evidence. I won't be replying to you anymore, this is a waste of my time.