98
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
98 points (93.8% liked)
politics
19096 readers
1159 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Man, the first link contains no information other than a link to the second link with some quotes from it. Not sure why you posted the first one if you were going to post the second link, since the first one is literally about Amnesty having posted the second one.
The second link is based on a post hoc analysis of two cell phone videos, but doesn't show them. Says they "appear consistent with white phosphorous." Says nothing about any chemical tests being done. Shows photos of smoke screen weapons, probably containing small amounts of white phos, being airburst on trees. They quote a doctor who treated exactly three people for shortness of breath and pulmonary irritation, consistent with exposure to white phosphorous, or any smoke, dust, or seasonal allergens, even.
Third link talks about photos showing airbused munitions being used as smoke screens. Same sort of innuendo and conjecture.
Second and third links obviously begin with, at the very top, almost first thing on the page, solicitations for donations. Surely they benefit from the sensationalized half truths.
In actuality, WP is perfectly legal and effective for smoke screens and signal flares, and while they loosely imply it, the articles contain no allegations, let alone evidence, in any of these links, that WP was used as an illegal incendiary weapon on people, which would be a war crime.
The articles are all very careful to talk about how it was used as airburst, smoke screens and flares, and talk about how it could be used as incendiary, but none state that it was. This is the typical coverage of anything to do with Israel.
How do you fall for it so easily?
Should ban yourself for misinfo.
Edit: oh, the first article does contain one piece of additional info:
Obviously Amnesty would never describe the circumstances for why there is fighting in the first place, so only named the town.
The WaPo link makes it clear that we provided the munitions to Israel, the others are about the problematic use of those munitions by Israel.