88
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
88 points (87.9% liked)
No Stupid Questions
35801 readers
1314 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is exactly what I said. They are counting the trucks that pass the border. And not accounting for trucks that are turned around inside Gaza by Israeli troops. And your news story study is from the Israeli government. Who is about as trustworthy as a murderer on trial.
Oh and the FRC take on the IPC report. But your buddy on twitter was hoping nobody would realize that was just FRC's response to one report from FEWS. I'm not at all shocked they would present that as evidence of the whole instead of what it actually was. On the IPC website you will find that the people in Gaza have not been getting enough calories since February. Which is probably why countries have been air dropping food.
IPC report link
That’s zero trucks. IDF troops can’t and don’t make aid trucks turn around once they’re in Gaza. They don’t get the chance - the aid warehouses are all just beyond the border crossing.
If an aid truck is turned back, due to the unlawful presence of dual-use items in the shipment, then it is turned around at the checkpoint, not in Gaza, and isn’t included here.
I disagree with that. The Israeli government is more credible than the Hamas government of Gaza, and in any case here’s another study proving that the UN’s conclusion of famine is based on ignoring huge amounts of aid:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4851635
But they have been - the IPC study was totally refuted by the UN’s own research. The FRC’s conclusions aren’t supported by even their own data.
Oh really? The UN's own research? I'm sure you'll be willing to share?
Something more than an abstract accusing UNRWA of being unable to count because of Israeli actions?
And finally, no. You keep dodging around it but we're talking about checkpoints inside Gaza preventing aid from being distributed.
God this is tiring. This shit is headline news for months, nearly a year now. With report after report telling the same story. And yet Zionists are always around to tell us how this one crumb of information disproves it all if you just look at it sideways and don't actually read what it says.
I am sharing it? In every post? I can’t make you read it, though.
But there are no IDF checkpoints preventing aid from being distributed. The IDF isn’t responsible for the distribution of aid; UNRWA is. And in any case that’s a new accusation; you had previously said they cut off the aid and now you’re saying they get the aid, they just can’t get it to anybody. But the logistical failures of the UNRWA aren’t anyone’s fault but theirs.
But that’s false. There isn’t “report after report” telling the same story. There’s one FRC report, with conclusions all other groups say aren’t supported by their own data, saying that famine has been “severe and imminent” even as Gazans continue to enjoy widespread access to abundant food.
You literally have nothing else, while I’ve produced source after source.
So funny story. I've gone to every link you've provided to me and none of them were a UN study.
Also a funny story, one link I provided you had multiple IPC reports. So that tells me you aren't reading my links, and that your claim of "one FRC report" is laughable.
In the same lane, you also obviously didn't click though to the news article I provided in the last comment. Or you wouldn't have said something so demonstrably false about Gazan aid being turned around. Also, again, if you're going to comment in so many places, re-read the thread real quick to make sure you haven't forgotten something important. Like the fact that I mentioned that in the last 3 comments. It's not in fact something new.
Finally, accusing UNRWA of incompetence while blocking and attacking their aid convoys has been an Israeli propaganda line for most of the past ~10 months. The fact you've gone in on that twice now is enough for me to just leave this here. You're not here in good faith.
Because you won’t read past the abstract. I can only give you the sources; I can’t make you read them.
You didn’t provide a link.
It’s not a news story about aid being turned around in Gaza. It’s a news story about aid being turned around at the Gazan border because it contains impermissible dual-use items that are forbidden in aid shipments to Gaza.
You’re correct that it’s propaganda but you’ve misattributed it. It’s Hamas propaganda.
If the paper says something the abstract doesn't then it's a bad paper or a bad abstract.
I absolutely provided a link, it's even labeled, "IPC Report Link".
And no. The news article is very clear these checkpoints are inside Gaza, not at the border. Which again is there for you and everyone else to read.
And lmao you think Hamas is what? Paying the UN to say they've been attacked by Israel? You know what don't answer that. I'm not sure why I even replied to this post since it's very obvious your only angle here is to deny all evidence of Israel's crimes. No matter how damning.
The whole point of an abstract is that it’s not the entire paper, stupid
It's a summation, science isn't into clickbait.
I continue to recommend that you read the paper past the abstract, hope that helps
I continue to live in hope you will realize victim blaming the people you blow up isn't an argument.