You shouldn’t have an issue finding a real news source instead of some random shit podcast then right?
Except it’s not some random shit podcast: Breaking Points. Your position also implies that only corporate or state-owned/funded news is real news.
Where is the article?
Being available on Rumble is a pretty bad look.
A real news source like the New York Times, you mean?
The Intercept: “Between the Hammer and the Anvil” The Story Behind the New York Times October 7 Exposé
Israel promised it had extraordinary amounts of eyewitness testimony. “Investigators have gathered ‘tens of thousands’ of testimonies of sexual violence committed by Hamas on Oct. 7, according to the Israeli police, including at the site of a music festival that was attacked,” Schwartz, Gettleman, and Stella reported on December 4. Those testimonies never materialized.
“It doesn’t make any sense,” said Abdush’s sister, that in a short timespan “they raped her, slaughtered her, and burned her?” Speaking about the rape allegation, her brother-in-law said: “The media invented it.”
“There is nothing,” Schwartz said she was told. “There was no collection of evidence from the scene.”
Vanity Fair: New York Times Launches Leak Investigation Over Report on Its Israel-Gaza Coverage Management has questioned staffers, including Daily producers, after The Intercept revealed internal debate over a yet-to-air episode on Hamas weaponizing sexual violence. Such a probe is highly unusual, say staffers, one of whom dubbed it a “witch hunt.”
Yeah, so post it. What even is reading comprehension.
What indeed: I just showed you an example of what a “real” news source—the realest by liberal standards—has fabricated in support of this genocide.
Fuck Israel.
For context, this massacre is bigger than Dier Yassin. These people just casually outdid the poster child of IDF massacres.
Al-Shifa hospital in the news, from real news sources:
Israeli troops exit Gaza’s Shifa Hospital, leaving rubble and bodies
As Israel withdraws from raid on Shifa Hospital, accounts from military and witnesses differ wildly
I feel like ‘Historic Massacre’ is maybe not the best phrasing to use. Are we still doing phrasing?
“Historic” seems pretty accurate for a hospital massacre and war crime.
I feel like ‘Historic’ has a positive connotation, but I am willing to concede that may just be in my head
The Holocaust was historic. Dropping two atomic bombs on Japan cities was historic.
Historic means it has an important part of history, not that it was necessarily good.
