← Back to context

Comment by richardfeynman

1 year ago

Nobody is asking you to be a domain expert. When it comes to almost any other issue, people ask how and demand evidence. But when it comes to Hamas's claims of a certain number of dead, nobody seems to ask "How do they calculate it? Are they looking at morgue data? Are they doing photographs of mass burial sites, as Ukraine did? What is their method?"

So people are asking you to be scientific and critical rather than to uncritically repeat the claims of a belligerent in combat.

Finally, I'm not sure if you're saying this facetiously or if you genuinely don't know what Israel is capable of, or the lengths its gone to to reduce civilian harm but Israel is not doing indiscriminate mass slaughter. That's what Hamas did on October 7.

Ok, fair. My curiosity about methodology was satisfied when I saw an interview with a UN relief director who explained the retrospective examination of past casualty reporting that had happened.

I mean completely seriously that Israeli occupation forces are engaging in deliberate mass slaughter, including widely reported upon declarations of certain zones as safe for civilians followed by the bombing of those zones (https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-01-03-2024-...).

  • The UN is unfortunately not a credible source when it comes to this issue. Hostages have been held at UN employees' houses; the UN failed to condemn the October 7 attack for months; and they denied that rape occurred for months.

    While you rely on authorities, I'll do what enlightenment thinkers do. Ask questions like "how" and "what is their method."

    • Israel has a vested interest in discrediting the UN, this does not mean that the UN is in fact not a credible source. I'll glaze over their non-condemnation (since nobody required to condemn the IDF to participate in this discourse) and I'll say that independent investigations have yet to substantiate the accusations of sexual violence and infant beheadings that the Israeli state makes. So at least on that accord, the facts are on the side of the UN denials.

      13 replies →

    • > The UN is unfortunately not a credible source when it comes to this issue

      This issue includes the second paragraph of the comment your replied to.