Maps and documents recovered from the bodies of Hamas attackers reveal a coordinated plan to target children and take hostages inside an Israeli village near Gaza.
Maps and documents recovered from the bodies of Hamas attackers reveal a coordinated plan to target children and take hostages inside an Israeli village near Gaza.
The article literally says that the plans match the tactics and movements seen/recorded in the raid of this kibbutz and others. Dumb for them to bring the documents with? Yes. Still the exact way it happened? Also yes.
Dude, someone could just write the plans after the attack happened so they matched what happened…
Proof?
Oh sure just let me call up my buddies in the IDF and Mossad, give me a minute /s
Or maybe, someone fabricated these documents by literally just writing down the tactics and movements they saw.
Certainly possible. In either case then though, the documents are an accurate record of Hamas’s plan and execution. Their provenance may be disputed, but a lot of people are acting like the accuracy is, too.
I don’t think anyone cares about how accurate they are because after almost a week they’re too easy to fake.
What does this even mean? People don’t care if it’s true because it’s easy to lie? Doesn’t that just make the truth more important?
People don’t think it’s true because it’s easy to lie. There’s no way to know these documents were made by Hamas, and they’d be very easy to fake now that they’ve had almost a week to tell us what they think Hamas’s strategy and tactics were. Now their narrative is “confirmed”.
Very useful.
The narrative is confirmed by the videos and evidence, not by the documents. I don’t really understand your argument.
Videos and evidence can be arranged and presented in a way to create a narrative. That doesn’t make the narrative true.
Give me enough footage and evidence and I can “prove” Bush did 9/11. I just need to discard or downplay all the footage and evidence that is inconvenient, and overemphasize the footage and evidence that supports my narrative.
This isn’t about proving a conspiracy or particular people’s involvement, though. It’s about what happened on the ground. Who was killed, by whom, where? Those are facts, independent of interpretation or agenda. The nature of the documents can be disputed, but the content of them sorta can’t be, given that it’s just what happened.
It’s the difference between gathering videos to suggest it was Bush vs gathering videos to just show that, yes, the twin towers were hit. One is subject to both record and agenda, and the other is just historical record.