No evidence of antisemitic 'gas' chant at pro-Palestinian Sydney protest, police find

Deceptichum@kbin.social to World News@lemmy.world – 181 points –
No evidence of antisemitic 'gas' chant at pro-Palestinian Sydney protest, police find
sbs.com.au

Edited footage of protesters chanting "gas the Jews" at a rally outside the Sydney Opera House in October was shared on social media, but NSW Police said an extensive investigation found no evidence of it happening.

36

You are viewing a single comment

I think you're talking about the initial Mondoweiss article which purely focused on Miral. That was bad for NYT but not nearly as extensive.

Around a week after that "Lies without proof" dropped which NUKED The New York Times article proving many key "witnesses" were lying ZAKA style. Another example:

You describe a 24-year-old accountant identified as “Sapir” as “one of the Israeli police’s key witnesses.”

Yet one of Sapir’s key claims undermines the rest of her testimony. According to the Times, “she saw three other women raped and terrorists carrying the severed heads of three more women.”

Given that no record exists of women being beheaded on October 7, why did you include this claim from Sapir? Does such an assertion not undermine her credibility and raise doubts about the rest of her testimony? And why, at minimum, did you not mention that there is no forensic evidence to support Sapir’s claim?

I urge you to read the Lies without proof article. It's damning for NYT.

That is from a source even worse than the first. They are liars and propagandists. That's the reason no one credible is reporting it. They're known for publishing propaganda, conspiracies, and fraudulent claims.

Everyone "debunking" this has a reputation for publishing lies. But you don't seem to draw any conclusions from the fact that every place you find this "proof" turns out to be a toilet. You don't believe it because they're credible people making credible claims but because they're telling you what you want to hear.

If there were credible claims they would be EVERYWHERE. It's a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist writing for the New York fucking Times. The story would be bigger than the original. Look up the Jayson Blair scandal. Dozens of news organizations were still talking about it more than a decade later.

Nice you didn't address any of the posted evidence debunking NYT. Even quoted some for you. But you quickly ignored it.

Quick dodge on that one. Result to the classic adhom.

Even people working at NYT are less in denial than you.

Their podcast gets broadcasted nationwide on radio, it's a pretty big deal if even those people are saying "yeah that rape article was fake".

Friends don't make friends fish in the sewer for truthy nugs.

You didn't post evidence. If you come across some I'd be happy to but I don't fact check propaganda. I'm not gonna spend hours of my life fact-checking some garbage written by a guy who writes for two propaganda networks for an authoritarian regime. I already know it's bullshit.

If you had any media literacy skill you would too.

Propaganda slurping isn't media literacy. NYT isn't Jesus dude. The article didn't even get verified by other staff. Only the Pullitzer Pope was allowed to manufacture consent for Genocide.

The debunking article uses official claims from the IDF themselves to show that the witnesses statements are factually false.

If you dare to read and address any of what's false in it I'll respond. This bad faith denial shtick you have going is pointless.