- Apr 23, 2016
- 33,888
- 48,647
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I am not the one denying sexual assault allegations against a terrorist organisation.
Who denied there was sexual assaults?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
I am not the one denying sexual assault allegations against a terrorist organisation.
What UN report found that? And no, you went beyond anything you may or may not have read in a UN report. You go on to say "clearly Israel thought it useful to exaggerate and fabricate such stories". Is that in the UN report?
what propaganda network did you get that clipped and cherrypicked nonsense from? Apparently the experts they used in the article have come out and denounced the article for misleading their words. Nice try.It's in this Times of London report - https://archive.md/j9XSE:
View attachment 2032779
View attachment 2032771
View attachment 2032785
Israel has a long history of using racist rapist tropes against Palestinian men for their own settler-colonial purposes:
View attachment 2032778
Oh noo.. poor guy. This is what happens when you only get your news from propaganda sites and never check sources. If you did you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself so hard. Let's read the actual report:Also the UNHCR report:
View attachment 2032792
They actually found it's the IDF who use sexual violence as a regular practice:
View attachment 2032795
what propaganda network did you get that clipped and cherrypicked nonsense from? Apparently the experts they used in the article have come out and denounced the article for misleading their words. Nice try.
Now let's see the UN report that supposedly says Israel fabricated rape allegations please.
It's rare that a poster self explodes so hard that they lose two different arguments with the one cherrypicked screenshot
The Times of London didn't highlight it, its been cherrypicked and reposted on some propaganda social media probably where you saw it. The actual article doesn't refute rape happened. Those experts quoted in the article have come out against the article anyway. So one contentious article that doesn't even claim that no sexual assault happened, vs the entire body of evidence that it did. Which includes the very UN report that you stupidly linked that had also been cherrypicked.That's your refutation?
Apparently?
That's the Times of London sweetheart.
The Times of London didn't highlight it, its been cherrypicked and reposted on some propaganda social media probably where you saw it. The article doesn't refute rape happened. Those experts quoted in the article have come out against the article anyway. So one contentious article that doesn't even claim that no sexual assault happened, vs the entire body of evidence that it did. Which includes the very UN report that you stupidly linked that had also been cherrypicked.
I wonder if you know how bad this looks for you...
My favourite
At least give us a link to all these quoted sources saying they didnt' actually mean it.
Otherwise this is ignore list level posting.
This doesn't look good for you, that's why none of the anti-Israel people are backing you up on this.Yeah so they weren't misquoted, they just didn't like the article.
You've disproven nothing. You've not even addressed the facts posted.
The propagandised one is probably the one unable to address reality. Can only try and maintain the narrative they've been fed their entire lives. If there is one thing Israel has done exceptionally above all others, it's convince the world they are somehow the victims while conducting a brutal 75 year occupation.
This doesn't look good for you, that's why none of the anti-Israel people are backing you up on this.
Your best evidence that Israel fabricated rape comes from two screenshots. One of clearly cherrypicked parts of an article that is contentious and the experts used have come out and said was misleading. The other screenshot was really funny because it was clearly cherrypicked parts of a UN report that actually said that Hamas DID commit sexual assault. Your screenshot just cherry picked parts to make it seem like the report discredited reports of sexual assault. But only if you can't read I guess. The UN report did not claim Israel was fabricating rape.
The funny part was the UN report you yourself brought up also was that is also went against your claim that IDF soldiers are legitimate targets, calling out Hamas for the warcrime of killing IDF soldiers that were hors de combat and therefore not legitimate targets.
To top it off, the fact that you posted the highlighted cherrypicked screenshots from the articles instead of the articles themselves proves that you get your information from sources that are propagandising you. I don't believe you were the one that took the screenshot and removed the parts that disproved your own argument. If you did, you are really dishonest and a grifter. If you didn't, you found those screenshots somewhere, probably social media, and reposted them with zero fact checking. Which just highlights why I am so against getting all your news from social media.
Not good.
And with that summary we are done.
All rape allegations against the IDF members should be fully and thoroughly investigated and the guilty perpetrators should spend their lives in prison.Jazny, what are your thoughts on all the sexual assaults and rape perpetrated by the IDF? You never seem to mention them.
All rape allegations against the IDF members should be fully and thoroughly investigated and the guilty perpetrators should spend their lives in prison.
So they shouldn't have their homes bombed and city destroyed?All rape allegations against the IDF members should be fully and thoroughly investigated and the guilty perpetrators should spend their lives in prison.
This doesn't look good for you, that's why none of the anti-Israel people are backing you up on this.
Your best evidence that Israel fabricated rape comes from two screenshots. One of clearly cherrypicked parts of an article that is contentious and the experts used have come out and said was misleading. The other screenshot was really funny because it was cherrypicked parts of a UN report that actually said that Hamas DID commit sexual assault. Your screenshot just cherry picked parts to make it seem like the report discredited reports of sexual assault. But only if you can't read I guess. The UN report did not claim Israel was fabricating rape.
The funny part was the UN report you yourself brought up also was that is also went against your claim that IDF soldiers are legitimate targets, calling out Hamas for the warcrime of killing IDF soldiers that were hors de combat and therefore not legitimate targets. You would have known this if you actually read the primary source that the screenshot was taken from.
To top it off, the fact that you posted the highlighted cherrypicked screenshots from the articles instead of the articles themselves proves that you get your information from sources that are propagandising you. I don't believe you were the one that took the screenshot and removed the parts that disproved your own argument. If you did, you are really dishonest and a grifter. If you didn't, you found those screenshots somewhere, probably social media, and reposted them with zero fact checking. Which just highlights why I am so against getting all your news from social media.
Not good.
And with that summary we are done.
If you cherrypick anyone's statements you can mislead without needing to make up quotes. That is why the experts have called the article out and apparently. The Times are investigating it. If I said "Hamas did commit mass rape, there is tonnes of evidence of it. But Netanyahu is weaponising the tropes of Palestinians as rapists to drum up support for his war". But all that was quoted wasThese are documents - not screenshots. You seem to be of the opinion that if you read a quote or a small enough section of an article - without sufficient surrounding text - it becomes invalid or incorrect? Which part of the quoted text is inaccurate? What do you refute here, exactly?
There isn't a world where October 7th under the conditions it was committed was not a war crime even if only IDF soldiers who werent surrendering were killed. It fails many tests and would be a war crime in multiple ways, even without hors de combat. The discounting of killing Israeli security forces on October 7th as though they were all legitimate targets is pretty disgusting really.I said IDF were valid targets for an occupations resistance - the fact you say some of them weren't, means you acknowledge that.
I havent seen any evidence that Israel as a whole is deliberately killing civilians as a matter of policy. If they really wanted to, they could end this war in maybe the first 4 or 5 weeks by just killing everyone and starving them all to death. They would also lose virtually no troops.I detest Hamas targetting civilians, including defenceless troops begging for their lives. I wish with everything that it never happened. But I will also condemn Isreal's deliberate targeting of civilians, of which there has been too much evidence to credibly deny. At this point no one could ever convince me otherwise.
When you're wrong, resort to the fake moral grandstanding. It works every time I guess.
If I believed Israel were deliberately killing and genociding Gazans, I would be saying Australia should declare war on Israel immediately. All Israeli diplomats would be removed from Australia and massive sanctions applied.
If it were really happening, I imagine the US would withdraw all support completely, the surrounding Arab states would probably all declare war and start invading Israel and Gaza. Why is none of this happening? Because Israel has the best junkets and stuff? Because America bad and loves genocide?
I am so sorry you believe nonsense and have been radicalised.
There isn't a world where October 7th under the conditions it was committed was not a war crime even if only IDF soldiers who werent surrendering were killed. It fails many tests and would be a war crime in multiple ways, even without hors de combat. The discounting of killing Israeli security forces on October 7th as though they were all legitimate targets is pretty disgusting really.
I havent seen any evidence that Israel as a whole is deliberately killing civilians as a matter of policy. If they really wanted to, they could end this war in maybe the first 4 or 5 weeks by just killing everyone and starving them all to death. They would also lose virtually no troops.