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.

  • idkwhatimdoing
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t think anyone cares about how accurate they are because after almost a week they’re too easy to fake.

      • idkwhatimdoing
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • idkwhatimdoing
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The narrative is confirmed by the videos and evidence, not by the documents. I don’t really understand your argument.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • idkwhatimdoing
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  A lot of the “facts” turn out to be unsubstantiated, like the ‘40 beheaded babies’ story. We absolutely don’t have the facts.