You don't have to prove with links that we did that. We were joined in it by a broad, multilateral coalition of partners.
Those who saw the raw intelligence said it was irrefutable and the problem was significantly more widespread than the 13 people directly accused, all of whom the agency immediately fired upon also seeing the intelligence.
[citation needed]
Lol wrecked
The fact that you've said this makes it obvious that you do not know enough about this story to have an opinion on it. You're not following it closely enough snd haven't done your basic homework to come into this conversation.
You can't just respond to "citation needed" with an ad hominem, my dude.
He can't defend his position, so he falls back to ol'reliable.
Literally go and Google it. This thread is filled with abject know nothing's at the peak of Mount Stupid.
You made the claim. You're expending more effort on insults than it would take to back up your claim if you weren't lying.
I don't know what you think I'm lying about. The WSJ, NYT, CBS, all had coverage and all said the same thing.
So you should have no difficulty at all providing a link.
But you would rather just sling abuse.
At this point I'm not providing links principle, and frankly the number of people who are unable to distinguish fact from opinion or draw rational inferences from credible evidence makes me want to vomit.
The claims made public by Israeli intelligence and reviewed by the publications I cited are that 12 people were involved first hand and provided material support, with their actions being described with specifics and apparently supported by cell phone data and data recovered from computers and social media accounts. It's delusional to think that Israel faked the evidence, publicized the accusations, deceived the US and a chunk of its allies to immediately pull funding. Did they trick the Secretary of State Anthony Blinken into saying the evidence was "highly credible"? Did they trick Chris Smith, Congressman from New Jersey, who was briefed as a member of Foreign Affairs, the former chair of the committee, who said the evidence against UNRWA was "irrefutable" and part of a longstanding history?
It's the largest employer in Gaza. Nothing about some of its employees being friendly to Hamas or providing material support in carrying out a terrorist attack, should surprise anyone at all. There is no credible dispute that the 12 accused were involved. The UNRWA itself doesn't even dispute that the 12 were involved as alleged, like, what does that tell you? And, this isn't even the first time this has happened.
The intelligence wasn't shared publicly to support two other claims made by IDF: that 10% of UNRWA members directly support Hamas and nearly half have close family and friends who are in Hamas. In any event, right after Israeli intelligence came to the US and presented at closed briefings, Blinken and Smith moved their respective branches of government to formally pull funding, and they did, along with a multinational coalition of partners.
My opinion is that the reports are very likely true. My factual evidence in support are the arguments I've made here and elsewhere in this thread. That's how it works. I did support my position with facts.
The fact that I haven't footnoted my post with pin cites and through cites doesn't actually mean anything I've said isn't true, nor do I have an obligation to provide such links, as there is no rational dispute as to the facts as I've laid them out right here.
Like if I'm talking about tides or seasons or something, do I need to reply with links to a flat earther who says "derrpp citation needed"? No, because it's already not a rational thing to say. If someone has followed this story at all, they know where I got the facts I've stated.
nor do I have an obligation to provide such links,
I have no obligation to believe you, and no obligation to waste my time searching for something you insist is true.
You could allegedly easily post a link that backs up your assertions, but haven't. Which means you're either lazy or lying. And a lazy person wouldn't have written multiple paragraphs of haughty obstinacy. So until I get a link, I'm confident that you're lying.
It's not ad hominem. I'm not dude's dad or teacher. He can take four seconds and Google it.
Yeah, you're just someone who doesn't know what they're talking about well enough to back it up.
Now who's making claims without evidence?
Well, I can state an opinion without evidence. Mine is based on your comments above. What you're claiming doesn't fall under the category of an opinion.
That's right they are not opinions. And you could verify them easily.
Although it was 12 people, not thirteen, and only 9 of them were fired, as two were dead. Not sure of the twelfth.
"Just google it bro" is the last resort of people with no confidence in their own statements.
And "I refuse to do even basic research needed in order to have a valid opinion" is the last resort of people with lots of confidence in their own feelings.
Still want to double down on that "irrefutable evidence"? Because it seems pretty refutable to me.
Here's a relevant story before you claim once again that everyone who disagrees with you hasn't done any research. I know I'm not your dad or anything, but I'm willing to make this selfless offer for your benefit.
Edit: just noticed this source was already provided at the very start of this thread. In other words, your entire argument was bullshit from the jump. Good to know.
Wow, you're right about Canada, I was wrong.
I've never in my life seen someone argue so hard that people should be making decisions without evidence.
I mean, who argues for less evidence? Only the insensere I would imagine.
you could verify them easily.
but the only person responsible for supporting your claims is YOU
You are the evidence big dawg, we can all see and evaluate it for ourselves. The claim was about you, you're not invisible.
it is
Did you see the raw intelligence or are we just going with Israel and their allies saying to us "trust me bro"? Seems unlikely that the UN aid agency is actually a secret Hamas organization. That's very convenient.
That's not what anyone has said.
So what have they said? Maybe you can provide links?
What am I your secretary? I wrote what they said in this thread. Some dumbo comes along and says "citation needed."
If that resonated with you, perhaps you also have not followed this story closely enough to know what you're talking about? Try adding the words "state department" or "intelligence briefing" to your Google search string. If you had followed the story closely enough, you'd already know what sources I was referencing in my initial post. Maybe you could disagree with their responses, but saying "citation needed" to the basic facts of the story instantly reveals you as unserious.
If you refuse to take the time to cite your claims, then you will be rightly dismissed. That is the nature of written discourse. It is not worth our time to attempt to research all of the inane claims made by foolish people online. Most are false or misleading and I’d rather not waste my time on a wild goose chase.
I actually thought your initial point was reasonable and maybe you could have persuaded me and others by offering some good reading. Instead you’ve just acted condescending and rude. I don’t think this is a good faith contribution to the discussion here.
I don't see it that way. I made a cogent argument and presented the basic facts of the story to support my opinion. It's as if I had said "IMO the war in Gaza is really terrible, 30,000 people are dead." And someone said "citation needed." Obviously, that person hasn't done their homework and aren't seriously participating.
The person I was originally replying to said several things that were patently false and I corrected them with a short summary of the actual facts. The one fact that I got wrong was that it was 12 UNWRA employees who directly participated in the attack, and not 13 as I originally wrote from memory.
The person didn't disagree with my opinion of the facts, or suggest it was inadequat support; just said "citation needed," which is the same as calling me a liar, as if I had just made up the facts. How is somebody going to sit here and talk about what the American government knew and did not know if they were not familiar with the statements of the Secretary of State of foreign affairs leadership on the hill? It's asinine.
I agree that it was a snarky way to ask for sources but I still think we should all make an effort to support the factual claims we make online. Otherwise it just devolves into endless back and forth contradictory statements that don’t achieve anything. I get that you feel you accurately summarized the facts, but again, there’s no way for us to verify that without comparing it to the original source. Lots of people take advantage by this by distorting a mostly true idea into something unrecognizable, and this can happen by accident as well due to faults of memory and personal biases.
This is ass backwards. UNRWA immediately fired the accused employees solely because they were worried about the potential ramifications and figured it wasn’t something worth fighting. They had and have seen zero actual evidence to back it up. Meanwhile, half the west stupidly took this as evidence that the allegations were true and pulled their future funding, while they too have seen zero actual evidence to back up Israel’s claims.
They had and have seen zero actual evidence to back it up.
How do you suppose they knew who to fire?
The IDF came to Washington and showed Congress and the IC the texts, social media messages, and cell phone location data, which was described by people briefed as "highly credible" and "irrefutable."
Anthony Blinken's State Department, Joe Biden's admin, and the foreign affairs committee immediately pulled the money. If the evidence they saw could rationally be disregarded as "stupid," which is your assessment, even though you yourself have not seen the evidence, you are suggesting what exactly, that the cell phone metadata, social media data, and text logs--which sufficed to put the US government into immediate action--were completely forged? You think the DNI and CIA Director got fooled as to the credibility of the intelligence, but not you, you know the truth? That sounds pretty insane.
Occam's Razor: largest employer in a tiny area, terrorist group is extremely popular in that area, some of the employees are accomplices and co-conspirators to that terrorist group?
Half of the budget that was cut was from the USA alone, about 29% of their annual, only 9 nations withdrew funding total.
You don't have to prove with links that we did that. We were joined in it by a broad, multilateral coalition of partners.
Those who saw the raw intelligence said it was irrefutable and the problem was significantly more widespread than the 13 people directly accused, all of whom the agency immediately fired upon also seeing the intelligence.
Lol wrecked
The fact that you've said this makes it obvious that you do not know enough about this story to have an opinion on it. You're not following it closely enough snd haven't done your basic homework to come into this conversation.
You can't just respond to "citation needed" with an ad hominem, my dude.
He can't defend his position, so he falls back to ol'reliable.
Literally go and Google it. This thread is filled with abject know nothing's at the peak of Mount Stupid.
You made the claim. You're expending more effort on insults than it would take to back up your claim if you weren't lying.
I don't know what you think I'm lying about. The WSJ, NYT, CBS, all had coverage and all said the same thing.
So you should have no difficulty at all providing a link.
But you would rather just sling abuse.
At this point I'm not providing links principle, and frankly the number of people who are unable to distinguish fact from opinion or draw rational inferences from credible evidence makes me want to vomit.
The claims made public by Israeli intelligence and reviewed by the publications I cited are that 12 people were involved first hand and provided material support, with their actions being described with specifics and apparently supported by cell phone data and data recovered from computers and social media accounts. It's delusional to think that Israel faked the evidence, publicized the accusations, deceived the US and a chunk of its allies to immediately pull funding. Did they trick the Secretary of State Anthony Blinken into saying the evidence was "highly credible"? Did they trick Chris Smith, Congressman from New Jersey, who was briefed as a member of Foreign Affairs, the former chair of the committee, who said the evidence against UNRWA was "irrefutable" and part of a longstanding history?
It's the largest employer in Gaza. Nothing about some of its employees being friendly to Hamas or providing material support in carrying out a terrorist attack, should surprise anyone at all. There is no credible dispute that the 12 accused were involved. The UNRWA itself doesn't even dispute that the 12 were involved as alleged, like, what does that tell you? And, this isn't even the first time this has happened.
The intelligence wasn't shared publicly to support two other claims made by IDF: that 10% of UNRWA members directly support Hamas and nearly half have close family and friends who are in Hamas. In any event, right after Israeli intelligence came to the US and presented at closed briefings, Blinken and Smith moved their respective branches of government to formally pull funding, and they did, along with a multinational coalition of partners.
My opinion is that the reports are very likely true. My factual evidence in support are the arguments I've made here and elsewhere in this thread. That's how it works. I did support my position with facts.
The fact that I haven't footnoted my post with pin cites and through cites doesn't actually mean anything I've said isn't true, nor do I have an obligation to provide such links, as there is no rational dispute as to the facts as I've laid them out right here.
Like if I'm talking about tides or seasons or something, do I need to reply with links to a flat earther who says "derrpp citation needed"? No, because it's already not a rational thing to say. If someone has followed this story at all, they know where I got the facts I've stated.
I have no obligation to believe you, and no obligation to waste my time searching for something you insist is true.
You could allegedly easily post a link that backs up your assertions, but haven't. Which means you're either lazy or lying. And a lazy person wouldn't have written multiple paragraphs of haughty obstinacy. So until I get a link, I'm confident that you're lying.
It's not ad hominem. I'm not dude's dad or teacher. He can take four seconds and Google it.
Yeah, you're just someone who doesn't know what they're talking about well enough to back it up.
Now who's making claims without evidence?
Well, I can state an opinion without evidence. Mine is based on your comments above. What you're claiming doesn't fall under the category of an opinion.
That's right they are not opinions. And you could verify them easily.
Although it was 12 people, not thirteen, and only 9 of them were fired, as two were dead. Not sure of the twelfth.
"Just google it bro" is the last resort of people with no confidence in their own statements.
And "I refuse to do even basic research needed in order to have a valid opinion" is the last resort of people with lots of confidence in their own feelings.
Still want to double down on that "irrefutable evidence"? Because it seems pretty refutable to me.
Here's a relevant story before you claim once again that everyone who disagrees with you hasn't done any research. I know I'm not your dad or anything, but I'm willing to make this selfless offer for your benefit.
Edit: just noticed this source was already provided at the very start of this thread. In other words, your entire argument was bullshit from the jump. Good to know.
Wow, you're right about Canada, I was wrong.
I've never in my life seen someone argue so hard that people should be making decisions without evidence.
I mean, who argues for less evidence? Only the insensere I would imagine.
but the only person responsible for supporting your claims is YOU
You are the evidence big dawg, we can all see and evaluate it for ourselves. The claim was about you, you're not invisible.
it is
Did you see the raw intelligence or are we just going with Israel and their allies saying to us "trust me bro"? Seems unlikely that the UN aid agency is actually a secret Hamas organization. That's very convenient.
That's not what anyone has said.
So what have they said? Maybe you can provide links?
What am I your secretary? I wrote what they said in this thread. Some dumbo comes along and says "citation needed."
If that resonated with you, perhaps you also have not followed this story closely enough to know what you're talking about? Try adding the words "state department" or "intelligence briefing" to your Google search string. If you had followed the story closely enough, you'd already know what sources I was referencing in my initial post. Maybe you could disagree with their responses, but saying "citation needed" to the basic facts of the story instantly reveals you as unserious.
If you refuse to take the time to cite your claims, then you will be rightly dismissed. That is the nature of written discourse. It is not worth our time to attempt to research all of the inane claims made by foolish people online. Most are false or misleading and I’d rather not waste my time on a wild goose chase.
I actually thought your initial point was reasonable and maybe you could have persuaded me and others by offering some good reading. Instead you’ve just acted condescending and rude. I don’t think this is a good faith contribution to the discussion here.
I don't see it that way. I made a cogent argument and presented the basic facts of the story to support my opinion. It's as if I had said "IMO the war in Gaza is really terrible, 30,000 people are dead." And someone said "citation needed." Obviously, that person hasn't done their homework and aren't seriously participating.
The person I was originally replying to said several things that were patently false and I corrected them with a short summary of the actual facts. The one fact that I got wrong was that it was 12 UNWRA employees who directly participated in the attack, and not 13 as I originally wrote from memory.
The person didn't disagree with my opinion of the facts, or suggest it was inadequat support; just said "citation needed," which is the same as calling me a liar, as if I had just made up the facts. How is somebody going to sit here and talk about what the American government knew and did not know if they were not familiar with the statements of the Secretary of State of foreign affairs leadership on the hill? It's asinine.
I agree that it was a snarky way to ask for sources but I still think we should all make an effort to support the factual claims we make online. Otherwise it just devolves into endless back and forth contradictory statements that don’t achieve anything. I get that you feel you accurately summarized the facts, but again, there’s no way for us to verify that without comparing it to the original source. Lots of people take advantage by this by distorting a mostly true idea into something unrecognizable, and this can happen by accident as well due to faults of memory and personal biases.
This is ass backwards. UNRWA immediately fired the accused employees solely because they were worried about the potential ramifications and figured it wasn’t something worth fighting. They had and have seen zero actual evidence to back it up. Meanwhile, half the west stupidly took this as evidence that the allegations were true and pulled their future funding, while they too have seen zero actual evidence to back up Israel’s claims.
How do you suppose they knew who to fire?
The IDF came to Washington and showed Congress and the IC the texts, social media messages, and cell phone location data, which was described by people briefed as "highly credible" and "irrefutable."
Anthony Blinken's State Department, Joe Biden's admin, and the foreign affairs committee immediately pulled the money. If the evidence they saw could rationally be disregarded as "stupid," which is your assessment, even though you yourself have not seen the evidence, you are suggesting what exactly, that the cell phone metadata, social media data, and text logs--which sufficed to put the US government into immediate action--were completely forged? You think the DNI and CIA Director got fooled as to the credibility of the intelligence, but not you, you know the truth? That sounds pretty insane.
Occam's Razor: largest employer in a tiny area, terrorist group is extremely popular in that area, some of the employees are accomplices and co-conspirators to that terrorist group?
Half of the budget that was cut was from the USA alone, about 29% of their annual, only 9 nations withdrew funding total.