"Along with the very real and violent war on the ground – there is also a fierce information war. Like Tuesday’s explosion at the Gaza hospital which Hamas says killed hundreds of people.
Israel says it was a misfired Islamic Jihad rocket, which they deny. Hamas says it was an Israeli airstrike, which they deny.
But tonight Forensic Architecture, Earshot and the Ramallah based NGO Al Haq have shared new information with Channel 4 News they say casts doubt on some aspects of Israel’s account."
The evidence is presented in the video
From OPs text:
To me this sounds like an advocate for Hamas which is unnecessary because there is no good hamas. Maybe excessive hatespeech here: https://lemm.ee/post/11191373 also made me just point that out again. There is no good Hamas and no need to talk to them, negotiate with them or just even verify any of their misinformation - they are nothing but terrorists.
I’m sorry, but I will not blindly trust any kind of information, no matter if it’s from Hamas, the IDF, or the Pentagon. Why would you even mind that open source investigators are looking at this? If you are so sure that what hamas are saying is misinformation, then you should be totally happy that even more open source investigators are looking into it.
does anything you just wrote make sense?
so you will not “blindly” trust any info, right? and you are upset because there is more informatiom?
I believe you need to take a second read then. Or at least look under what post you’re even discussing.
To you, independent investigators looking into events without involving any war party is “supporting Hamas”. That’s a very, very interesting position you have there and shows a great bias. Again, how did you connect the two points? What’s wrong with having open source investigators look into these events? Why is that “supporting Hamas”?
i do not think a thousand teacher can help you comprehend text.
Ad Hominem attacks instead of answering the question. Please answer the question