4 ms·
Yes. Because no one there has a smart phone. Because they actually killed the journalist. /s Of the course the obvious explanation is the correct one, the bui
by Zhenya 5y ago
Yes.
Because no one there has a smart phone. Because they actually killed the journalist. /s
Of the course the obvious explanation is the correct one, the building housed military targets (Hamas operations etc) and it was destroyed.
- gokhan 5y agoIDF couldn't provide any evidence of Hamas' existence in that building, it was all over the media yesterday. https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1394287848950427649 https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1394287848950427649
- LeoNatan25 5y agoIDF provided the evidence to US intelligence, and apparently that hasn’t made its way to the US state department yet.
- sschueller 5y agoThat is absolutely ridiculous. The US state department is on top of things. There is no way they do not have this information if it exists.
- LeoNatan25 5y agoMore info was sent: https://www.ynetnews.com/article/SJA7sEZYd https://www.ynetnews.com/article/SJA7sEZYd "Blinken: U.S. received more info on Gaza tower bombing American top diplomat says he cannot comment on further information received through intelligence channels on the destruction of the building that housed Associated Press, Al Jazeera offices"
- yuvalr1 5y agoI wouldn't say IDF couldn't provide. Classified evidence takes time to compile when being passed to foreign countries. If this was truly a Hamas operations office, it changes the whole picture.
- cnlevy 5y agoThe postman was late. It doesn't mean there's no evidence https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1394631387265777666 https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1394631387265777666
- guerrilla 5y agoI'm thinking as democracies we should not rely on secret evidence. I'll buy it when it's public, until then the burden of proof remains on them. It's okay not to kmow.
- mslm 5y agoThere needs to be an independent investigation, as top AP people have said. The world won't at this point believe any "evidence" because the criminal claims they have it.
- M277 5y agoI don't understand. AP claims to have been using the building for years, and they didn't know that there were Hamas operations with them? Not only that, but what is your proof to call it the correct explanation?
- runarberg 5y agoDon‘t discount a conspiracy just because the conspirators are incompetent. In fact, the opposite is usually true. Your average conspiracy usually has multiple layers of incompetents. If a conspiracy looks flawless, it is usually because there is no conspiracy. Targetting a news organization might be a multi-purpose action, including to limit the amount of photos from the area. The fact that this action has resulted in even worse optics then the photos would have provided, and the fact that people on the ground are still a source of visual evidence for the destruction does not mean that there is no conspiracy, just that they are bad at it. Given the absence of evidence of any Hamas activity in that tower, and given the clear motive improve the optics of IDF, I would say that both explanations hold at least the same ground.