• 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    At this point I’m not providing links principle, and frankly the number of people who are unable to distinguish fact from opinion or draw rational inferences from credible evidence makes me want to vomit.

    The claims made public by Israeli intelligence and reviewed by the publications I cited are that 12 people were involved first hand and provided material support, with their actions being described with specifics and apparently supported by cell phone data and data recovered from computers and social media accounts. It’s delusional to think that Israel faked the evidence, publicized the accusations, deceived the US and a chunk of its allies to immediately pull funding. Did they trick the Secretary of State Anthony Blinken into saying the evidence was “highly credible”? Did they trick Chris Smith, Congressman from New Jersey, who was briefed as a member of Foreign Affairs, the former chair of the committee, who said the evidence against UNRWA was “irrefutable” and part of a longstanding history?

    It’s the largest employer in Gaza. Nothing about some of its employees being friendly to Hamas or providing material support in carrying out a terrorist attack, should surprise anyone at all. There is no credible dispute that the 12 accused were involved. The UNRWA itself doesn’t even dispute that the 12 were involved as alleged, like, what does that tell you? And, this isn’t even the first time this has happened.

    The intelligence wasn’t shared publicly to support two other claims made by IDF: that 10% of UNRWA members directly support Hamas and nearly half have close family and friends who are in Hamas. In any event, right after Israeli intelligence came to the US and presented at closed briefings, Blinken and Smith moved their respective branches of government to formally pull funding, and they did, along with a multinational coalition of partners.

    My opinion is that the reports are very likely true. My factual evidence in support are the arguments I’ve made here and elsewhere in this thread. That’s how it works. I did support my position with facts.

    The fact that I haven’t footnoted my post with pin cites and through cites doesn’t actually mean anything I’ve said isn’t true, nor do I have an obligation to provide such links, as there is no rational dispute as to the facts as I’ve laid them out right here.

    Like if I’m talking about tides or seasons or something, do I need to reply with links to a flat earther who says “derrpp citation needed”? No, because it’s already not a rational thing to say. If someone has followed this story at all, they know where I got the facts I’ve stated.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      nor do I have an obligation to provide such links,

      I have no obligation to believe you, and no obligation to waste my time searching for something you insist is true.

      You could allegedly easily post a link that backs up your assertions, but haven’t. Which means you’re either lazy or lying. And a lazy person wouldn’t have written multiple paragraphs of haughty obstinacy. So until I get a link, I’m confident that you’re lying.