Note:
I swapped the original article at the request of a mod to from a source deemed more reliable, but to avoid confusion when reading the comment section prior to this edit, here is the link to the original article. I chose the Relief Web source listed by some who commented. Cheers!
Funny, how you alter the source to make it seem more clear than it is. So here is the part you altered, as reported by the OHCHR:
‘OHCHR has confirmed the killings at Al Awdabuilding, although the details and circumstances of the killings are still under verification.’
Just so you’re clear, the person you replied to directly quoted the article word for word
The articles miss quoted then, and should therefore should be considered heavily biased.
Cool. But you went full tilt accusation at that guy. Like FULL tilt. Just trying to throw some humble your way.
Maybe he should double check if the source he quotes is trustworthy. BTW: he hasn’t corrected his made-up quote.
There was no made-up quote. The quote was from the article, which left the end off a sentence, saying that the circumstances are under investigation, although the killings have been confirmed. So we have survivors accusing the IDF of slaughtering these people and we have the bodies, but it has not definitively been proven that the people were killed in the way the survivors claim. People can make of that what they will. I’m not trying to twist anything.
Here is the report (PDF):
https://reliefweb.int/attachments/e429c0e7-9da4-4d50-9c4d-d367e91aea12/unlawful killings in Gaza City copy.pdf
The correct way to to cite it would be: ‘OHCHR has confirmed the killings at Al Awdabuilding […].’
Its simply wrong to not do it. Especially cutting of the sentence at a ‘,’.
And the last time a crime against humanity was still under investigation – where it was obvious that a rocket hit a hospital, but the exact circumstances where still unclear – it was later confirmed that Hamas hit the hospital.
OP 100% correctly cited the article. The quote ended there IN THE ARTICLE he was quoting from.
So maybe the article should have included that extra bit. However, my point is you’re being a complete asshole and were wrong in your first post that accused him of altering the quote. You keep doubling down and moving the goalpost as to why you attacked him in the first place. Now, you’ve decided that he should have done more research.
The kinder, more conversational behavior would have been along the lines of “Sorry I accused you of changing the quote, which you didn’t do. I was wrong. However, that quote sucks because…” And he might have said “oh damn, good catch. I still disagree though because…” And we could talk and not be shitty.
Sorry but please read this again. The killings are confirmed, the exact details are under investigation. We have several witnesses attesting to the crimes and a pile of bodies riddled with IDF bullets. The killings are confirmed.
Also when you write articles, you can’t include every detail for brevity. They provided the direct link to the report so you are able to read it yourself.
Killings are confirmed, but no one knows why and how.
No one? “No one” except for the survivors of it.
And the killers, obviously. Both parties directly involved, so their recountings have to be investigated.
So not no one.