this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
111 points (97.4% liked)

Palestine

930 readers
196 users here now

A community for everything related to Palestine and the occupation currently underway by the occupying force known as Israel.

Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. Existence is resistance for Palestinians.

Please refer to Israel as Occupied Palestine, or occupied territories. The IDF is a fascist and ethnonationalist occupying force. Israelis are settlers. We understand however that the imperial narrative (which tries to legitimise Israel) is internalised in the imperial core and slip-ups are naturally expected.

We always take the sides of Palestine and Palestinians and are unapologetic about it. Israel is an occupying power whose "defence force"'s (note the contradiction) sole purpose for existing is to push Palestinians out so they can resettle their rightful land. If you have anything positive to say about Israel we do not care.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml
AYJANIBRAHIMOV@lemmygrad.ml
stink@lemmygrad.ml
111
CNN wrote a piece on the NYT scandal, and twice reiterates that there is definitely a lot of evidence for the mass rape hoax, then links back to its own and Guardian's copy-paste jobs of the same hoax (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 7 months ago by yogthos@lemmygrad.ml to c/palestine@lemmygrad.ml
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/01/media/ny-times-stands-by-reporting-hamas/index.html

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AmarkuntheGatherer@lemmygrad.ml 29 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Here's a super fun exercise anyone can do with a bit of free time. If ever you read an article regurgitating some claim of an atrocity by any western enemy, follow the links to the claim. It won't be much of a rabbit hole. In general, for a 4 yol claim (so the October 7 tales may not fit exactly) you'll be linked to a 2 week old article, which will link a 6 month old one, which will link a 2 yo one, which send you to:

  1. Wikipedia, which will have already been re-written citing a 1 yo article
  2. A UN transcript, HRW article, or something equally worthless of someone repeating the claim
  3. The best approximation of an original source

That last one is extremely rare, but it's always magnificent. You find out stuff like how the 1-3 million interned Uyghurs claim comes from a pseudo-study that remotely talked to 8 people and nothing else.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 27 points 7 months ago

reminds me of the whole citogenesis xkcd, except it's done intentionally in practice

[–] Franfran2424@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Generally, the sources are always "government agency or news source repeated local news source/western study"

And the original source deep down is always literally propaganda if not made up.

Case in point, How ALL global agencies have the size of Yemen wrong because they use old references before the 2000s border agreement. Or wrong sources from before unification https://youtu.be/WNR2namiS9o

[–] TankieReplyBot@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: