this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2025
531 points (98.4% liked)

World News

51034 readers
1805 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] perestroika@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

If you cannot provide a good source in your first post, screaming about others not believing you several posts later serves no purpose - you could have avoided that. If you want others to believe you, it's your job to convince them. Name-calling won't convince anyone.

Congratulations, I missed something - the article in "The New Arab" references the words of a medic and provides his name - dr Ghassan Abu Sittah. He is a reputable source.

This could have been your first post. Instead you posted a link to your own post on Lemmy, in which this was source no. 7 - which I, for some reason, missed.

You could have also posted a link to this article, but you have so far not done so.

Advise: learn to argue better. Drop the name-calling. Don't call a person a propagandist if they aren't. In the best case, you will stress yourself and the other person before getting to the core of information at hand. In a worse case, discussion will stop right there. Provide direct sources immediately. Prefer reputable sources. Don't provide a wall of links, but a relevant link.

You just spent 3 days to convince me that Israel could be guilty of organ harvesting. I am convinced, they could be guilty. But you could have used your time better, and could have convinced me with 30 minutes by providing direct links to relevant sources. For example, the below link might have convinced me of the plausibility of your allegations in even less time, maybe a mere 15 minutes - because it's from a reputable source (no background digging needed) and from a different period - not influenced by current events.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs

So, your claim is plausible. But don't claim to know the outcome of a particular incident if you don't know the outcome of a particular incident - people will think you're lying and ask you to prove stuff.

In reality, we don't currently know what happened to the remains of those 2 guys. What should matter more at this time - they were shot after surrendering.

[–] answersplease77@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

your advise has always been my downfall and I admit that. most people shutdown as soon as I turn hostile against them or insult them. It's because I have nothing to gain whatever they choose to believe. I aslo agree with your conclusion that it is not definitive why they brought a sketcher and took the bodies afterward. I already told you I really hope thats the case. thank you regardless whether we agree or disagree take care.