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!

  • GenEcon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • GenEcon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

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

        • BossDj@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year 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 killings in Gaza City copy.pdf

              • GenEcon@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year 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.