826

UN Human Rights Office - OPT: Unlawful killings in Gaza City (reliefweb.int)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by snek@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

325 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Note:

I swapped the original article at the request of a mod to from a source deemed more reliable, but to avoid confusion when reading the comment section prior to this edit, here is the link to the original article. I chose the Relief Web source listed by some who commented. Cheers!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 65 points 10 months ago

The UN added, “While in control of the building and the civilians sheltering there, the IDF allegedly separated the men from the women and children, and then shot and killed at least 11 of the men, mostly aged in their late 20’s and early 30’s, in front of their family members.” The UN continued, “The IDF then allegedly ordered the women and children into a room, and either shot at them or threw a grenade into the room, reportedly seriously injuring some of them, including an infant and a child. OHCHR has confirmed the killings at Al Awda building.”

[+] GenEcon@lemm.ee -44 points 10 months ago

Funny, how you alter the source to make it seem more clear than it is. So here is the part you altered, as reported by the OHCHR:

'OHCHR has confirmed the killings at Al Awdabuilding, although the details and circumstances of the killings are still under verification.'

[-] BossDj@lemm.ee 38 points 10 months ago

Just so you're clear, the person you replied to directly quoted the article word for word

[+] GenEcon@lemm.ee -35 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The articles miss quoted then, and should therefore should be considered heavily biased.

[-] BossDj@lemm.ee 33 points 10 months ago

Cool. But you went full tilt accusation at that guy. Like FULL tilt. Just trying to throw some humble your way.

[+] GenEcon@lemm.ee -23 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Maybe he should double check if the source he quotes is trustworthy. BTW: he hasn't corrected his made-up quote.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

There was no made-up quote. The quote was from the article, which left the end off a sentence, saying that the circumstances are under investigation, although the killings have been confirmed. So we have survivors accusing the IDF of slaughtering these people and we have the bodies, but it has not definitively been proven that the people were killed in the way the survivors claim. People can make of that what they will. I'm not trying to twist anything.

Here is the report (PDF):

https://reliefweb.int/attachments/e429c0e7-9da4-4d50-9c4d-d367e91aea12/unlawful%20killings%20in%20Gaza%20City%20copy.pdf

[+] GenEcon@lemm.ee -16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The correct way to to cite it would be: 'OHCHR has confirmed the killings at Al Awdabuilding [...].'

Its simply wrong to not do it. Especially cutting of the sentence at a ','.

And the last time a crime against humanity was still under investigation – where it was obvious that a rocket hit a hospital, but the exact circumstances where still unclear – it was later confirmed that Hamas hit the hospital.

[-] BossDj@lemm.ee 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

OP 100% correctly cited the article. The quote ended there IN THE ARTICLE he was quoting from.

So maybe the article should have included that extra bit. However, my point is you're being a complete asshole and were wrong in your first post that accused him of altering the quote. You keep doubling down and moving the goalpost as to why you attacked him in the first place. Now, you've decided that he should have done more research.

The kinder, more conversational behavior would have been along the lines of "Sorry I accused you of changing the quote, which you didn't do. I was wrong. However, that quote sucks because..." And he might have said "oh damn, good catch. I still disagree though because..." And we could talk and not be shitty.

[-] snek@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I mean at this point, these people basically want the whole report quoted in the article 🤣

[-] snek@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

although the details and circumstances of the killings

Sorry but please read this again. The killings are confirmed, the exact details are under investigation. We have several witnesses attesting to the crimes and a pile of bodies riddled with IDF bullets. The killings are confirmed.

Also when you write articles, you can't include every detail for brevity. They provided the direct link to the report so you are able to read it yourself.

this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023

826 points (95.2% liked)

World News

38965 readers

1953 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.

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.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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.