How many ignorant people are believing this lie & how many dishonest people are perpetuating it?

[Borg warner]

This could be the devastating proof that Hamas is faking its death figures

But too many won’t believe anything other than that Israel is deliberately targeting women and children
Jake Wallis Simons 16 March 2024 • The Telegraph London

One of the marks of anti-Semitism, George Orwell observed in 1945, is “an ability to believe stories that could not possibly be true”. Which brings us smartly to Hamas and how the broadcast media, aid organisations, international bodies and world leaders take its disinformation as gospel. Last week it became clear that this gullibility may have led to a crime against reality.

A new analysis of the group’s casualty statistics indicates that the rag-tag terror army may have pulled off one of the biggest propaganda coups of modern times. The figures, repeated by everyone from the White House to the BBC, are freighted with familiarity: 30,000 dead in Gaza, 70 per cent of whom are women and children. Yet it now seems overwhelmingly likely that these statistics are fabricated.

Professor Abraham Wyner, a data scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, has conducted a thorough analysis. He found that Hamas’s official civilian death toll was statistically impossible. “Most likely, the Hamas ministry settled on a daily total arbitrarily,” he wrote in an incendiary essay in Tablet. “We know this because the daily totals increase too consistently to be real. Then they assigned about 70 per cent of the total to be women and children, splitting that amount randomly from day to day. Then they in-filled the number of men as set by the predetermined total. This explains all the data observed.”

The giveaways were many. For example, the reported death toll mounted “with almost metronomical linearity”, Prof Wyner found, showing little daily variation. Obviously, this bore no resemblance to any plausible version of reality. Then there was the fact that, according to Hamas data from 29 October, 26 men came back to life; and the fact that on several days, no men were apparently killed at all, but only women. Were we really supposed to believe any of this?

In February, Hamas admitted to losing 6,000 of its fighters, representing more than 20 per cent of the total casualties reported. Given its claims that 70 per cent of the dead were women and children, there were two possible conclusions: either almost no male civilians had died, or almost all the men in Gaza were fighting for Hamas. Both were obviously absurd. Therefore, the number of women and children killed was likely grossly exaggerated. If that is the case – if, as Prof Wyner suggests, “the casualties are not overwhelmingly women and children, and the majority may be Hamas fighters” – where does that leave western outrage? Has the West fallen victim to a monstrous con?

The true ratio of civilian casualties to combatants is likely to be exceptionally low, “at most 1.4 to 1 and perhaps as low as 1 to 1”. This, Prof Wyner says, is a “successful effort to prevent unnecessary loss of life while fighting an implacable enemy that protects itself with civilians”. By rights, if the central pillar of the anti-Israel edifice has been discredited, the whole structure should come tumbling down. But don’t hold your breath. The reason why Hamas’s dodgy data is so easily believed is confirmation bias. The drip-drip of Israelophobic propaganda over the years has created a powerful tendency to view the Jewish state, Britain’s democratic ally, as a colonialist aggressor and the Palestinians – even as they butcher children – as the “freedom fighters”. Regardless of the evidence, to many people this has become second nature.

It speaks of millennia of inherited anti-Semitism. A 2012 study by economists Nico Voigtländer and Hans-Joachim Voth found that Germans from towns where Jews were blamed for the Black Death and burnt alive in the 14th century were significantly more likely to vote for the Nazis 600 years later. In his 1945 essay, Orwell recalls a “young intellectual, communist or near-communist” remarking: “No, I do not like Jews. I’ve never made any secret of that. I can’t stick them. Mind you, I’m not anti-Semitic, of course.” Depressingly little has changed.

That is the advantage enjoyed by the jihadis of Gaza. They didn’t even need to keep their strategy a secret. Everyone knows they try to get civilians killed for propaganda gains, aiming to curtail Israeli operations with international outrage. Everyone knows that their censors keep dead terrorists away from the cameras, giving the world the impression that Israel is only attacking civilians (look up former AP reporter Matti Friedman’s seminal 2014 essay, “What the media gets wrong about Israel”, for a sense of how long such games have been played). A gang that murdered and mutilated babies may also, on occasion, be tempted to lie. So much should be obvious. But all this is smoothly eclipsed when a greater narrative is at work.

It’s not that there is a lack of journalistic curiosity in large parts of the media. It’s just that, when it comes to Israel, facts are subordinated to assumptions. In February, BBC Verify quoted a World Health Organisation official: The [Hamas] ministry has “‘good capacity in data collection’ and its previous reporting has been credible and ‘well developed’”. This was the same WHO that had singled out Israel for condemnation at an international assembly largely devoted to Covid. And this was the same BBC Verify that had partly based a story on an eyewitness who had reportedly worked for an Iranian state news outlet and celebrated the deaths of Jews on social media.

It is time for us to say: J’Accuse. Just as Emile Zola laid the charge of anti-Semitism at the feet of the French establishment during the Dreyfus Affair in 1898, we must do so to the international establishment today.

[MO Fugga]

Completely untrustworthy as a civilization. 

[minderasr]

Personally I think Israel should march them all "from the river to the sea" and be done with them once and for all.

None of the Arab states will take refugees.  I wonder why?  /s

[Lucnik]

Israel just needs to kill them all and let God sort them out. Do the rest of the world a favor. 

[MO Fugga]

6 hours ago, minderasr said:

Personally I think Israel should march them all "from the river to the sea" and be done with them once and for all.

None of the Arab states will take refugees.  I wonder why?  /s

Dunkirk their goat raping asses. I like it!

[tous]

And yet, the Jews persevere amidst some of the most horrific genocides in human history.

[El Spicoli]

Let's not forget, it is not wrong (according to Quran) for Muslims to lie to Infidels and we know MSM outlets lack credibility from the pandemic and the Pee Pee tapes.  

Many have wondered about living in End Times, well here we are.  How long before Iran has a nuke to take out Israel?  How much did Joe release back to the Iranians.  One could even logically say that this WH Admin funded 10/7.  

No one knows the day or time but many eschatology experts can make an educated guess on when Jesus returns.  The clock started when Israel gained statehood.  Soon my friends, soon.

From the land to the sea, I support Israelis, Jews, and Netanyahu.   Shalom.

[Mrs.Cicero]

None of this should surprise anyone with a thimble full of sense or who has been paying the slightest bit of attention.  
 

also, if there were that many bodies, where have they been disposing of them?  There are no mass burials on satellite imagery…

[tous]

The fake bodies are buried in the fake rubble of the fake hospitals.

Only women and children, of course.

Is Baghdad Bob still alive?

He could get a new gig.

 

[LostinTexas]

Nothing of Islam is to ever be trusted. Even their Quran promotes, lying, exploiting, and enslaving, and extorting any "Infidel" which is everyone who isn't Muslim, or even the "right" Muslim at times.

There are no innocent bystanders. They will play victim, and shoot you in the back at the first opportunity.

[tous]

Islam cannot conquer the modern world, regardless of how enthusiastic the radical believers wish that weren't so.

If it were possible, even feasible, the followers of Mohammad have had thirteen centuries  to do so, many of those years when they were at their strongest and yet -- they have failed.

Plus, like the Christian religion, Islam is fragmented by groups that swear that they know best what Allah wants and those that disagree must be shunned, or killed.

Islam can't get out of its own way much less rule the world.

That doesn't mean that evil committed in the name of Allah is not horrific, it simply means that such evil is not going to convince the rest of the world to don prayer rugs five times per day.

 

So, there.

 

 

[tous]

Something else occurred to me that is perhaps the most critical obstacle to Islam conquering the world.

How are the radicals going to convince nearly two billion Muslims that live in peace and prosperity amongst the infidel or their own kind to suddenly  pick up an AK-47 or strap homicide vests on their wives and children?

Radical religion, of any sort, only appeals to the ignorant, greedy and the lazy.

Stay stupid, don't toil, take what you refuse to earn from those that succeed.

The problem is, what do those foolish people do when the producers are all gone and there is no one left to steal from, no one left to kill?

And the leaders they so blindly followed turn their evil on them?

 

[MO Fugga]

8 hours ago, tous said:

Something else occurred to me that is perhaps the most critical obstacle to Islam conquering the world.

How are the radicals going to convince nearly two billion Muslims that live in peace and prosperity amongst the infidel or their own kind to suddenly  pick up an AK-47 or strap homicide vests on their wives and children?

Radical religion, of any sort, only appeals to the ignorant, greedy and the lazy.

Stay stupid, don't toil, take what you refuse to earn from those that succeed.

The problem is, what do those foolish people do when the producers are all gone and there is no one left to steal from, no one left to kill?

And the leaders they so blindly followed turn their evil on them?

 

Some say Sykes-Picot (carving up the middle east post-WW1) was one of the worst missteps of the 20th century.  I disagree, and firmly believe it was not only a stroke of brilliance, but absolutely necessary. 

These people can never be allowed to unite again.

[El Spicoli]

9 hours ago, tous said:

Islam cannot conquer the modern world, regardless of how enthusiastic the radical believers wish that weren't so.

If it were possible, even feasible, the followers of Mohammad have had thirteen centuries  to do so, many of those years when they were at their strongest and yet -- they have failed.

Plus, like the Christian religion, Islam is fragmented by groups that swear that they know best what Allah wants and those that disagree must be shunned, or killed.

Islam can't get out of its own way much less rule the world.

That doesn't mean that evil committed in the name of Allah is not horrific, it simply means that such evil is not going to convince the rest of the world to don prayer rugs five times per day.

 

So, there.

 

 

Very true.  It isn't Islam that will soon rule the world, it is evil.  Jonathan Cahn contends some leaders and whole cultures are under demon possession.  Kinda explains why they can't define simple biology.

Christ will come for His children and then evil will reign.  So much so that people will beg for their own deaths.  It will be good (for a lil' while) before that because a man of peace will broker a deal btw those dirty Jews and upright Muslims.  Expect Russia and China to war it out over oil in the Middle East (I am afraid e cars are not in our future leftists).

Those who ears, let them hear.  Oops my bad, those who have eyes, let them read.  A spiritual world will soon intersect with our physical world and it won't be a good thing depending on whose you are.

[LostinTexas]

The Crusades, no matter how dimly they are painted by history and everyone else, were to drive back radical Islam. Not so much to conquer, England did that later by "colonizing". The fight isn't new. They just keep coming. They were on the European continent, ruling Italy and other places on and near the Mediterranean until what I consider rather recently. 1600's?

[MO Fugga]

4 hours ago, LostinTexas said:

The Crusades, no matter how dimly they are painted by history and everyone else, were to drive back radical Islam. Not so much to conquer, England did that later by "colonizing". The fight isn't new. They just keep coming. They were on the European continent, ruling Italy and other places on and near the Mediterranean until what I consider rather recently. 1600's?

Until the Portuguese and Dutch fucked them by using the sea routes around Africa. They've never really recovered. 

[Lucnik]

Someone explain to me the 72 virgin thing.  What happens when a man has used them all up? Does he get another 72 or is he just SOL? Do they recycle into another 72?  I’d be out in less than a year.  This has always baffled me. 

[railfancwb]

16 hours ago, MO Fugga said:

Until the Portuguese and Dutch fucked them by using the sea routes around Africa. They've never really recovered. 

Believe Poland stopped their land advance. 

[El Spicoli]

Just listened to a bit of Levin before pulling in for a margarita (it's been a long day). Levin believes Joe made a deal with Iran.  No reporting of nuke capabilities until after the election.  He bases that on Iran watering down something related to their nuke warhead. That and the fact that Joe and Schumer hardly ever utter the word, Iran.   Add on all the disrespect Joe and the left is giving Netanyahu.  To be fair, Levin is Jewish and I am half Jewish.  I believe Levin, he is always spot on 

[El Spicoli]

12 hours ago, Lucnik said:

Someone explain to me the 72 virgin thing.  What happens when a man has used them all up? Does he get another 72 or is he just SOL? Do they recycle into another 72?  I’d be out in less than a year.  This has always baffled me. 

A suicide bomber dies and goes to heaven.  He is met by George Washington who proceeds to beat the crap out of him.  He is then passed to James Madison who proceeds to beat the crap out of him.  The bomber yells "wait, I'm supposed to be met with 72 virgins."  Madison replies, "wrong, it is 72 Virginians.  

[tous]

1 hour ago, El Spicoli said:

No reporting of nuke capabilities until after the election. 

Do we think that the ayatollahs understand MAD? (mutually assured destruction.)

If one nuclear weapon detonates in Tel Aviv sent from Terhan, twenty will land in Iran from Israel.

An evil enemy will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over the ashes.

Sun Tzu

 

And wouldn't a nuclear exchange sort of kill a lot of Palestinians?

Sending that many Muslims to paradise would put a strain on the virgin inventory.

 

[El Spicoli]

1 hour ago, tous said:

Do we think that the ayatollahs understand MAD? (mutually assured destruction.)

If one nuclear weapon detonates in Tel Aviv sent from Terhan, twenty will land in Iran from Israel.

An evil enemy will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over the ashes.

Sun Tzu

 

And wouldn't a nuclear exchange sort of kill a lot of Palestinians?

Sending that many Muslims to paradise would put a strain on the virgin inventory.

 

What if I told you WWIII starts when Israel pre-emptively bombs Iran?  We aren't too far off.  Get you affairs in order.

[Borg warner]

1 hour ago, tous said:

Do we think that the ayatollahs understand MAD? (mutually assured destruction.)

If one nuclear weapon detonates in Tel Aviv sent from Terhan, twenty will land in Iran from Israel.

An evil enemy will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over the ashes.

Sun Tzu

 

And wouldn't a nuclear exchange sort of kill a lot of Palestinians?

Sending that many Muslims to paradise would put a strain on the virgin inventory.

 

"And wouldn't a nuclear exchange sort of kill a lot of Palestinians?"

Good Point, but while that might bother civilized people who value human life, these people are not civilized and don't feel protective of women and children, and don't give a rat's ass about their Muslim brothers and sisters or otherwise they'd be welcoming them to live along side them in their own countries.

[tous]

If Israel had the means to destroy or drastically postpone Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions, I suggest that they would have done so by now, no?

They certainly wouldn't fear condemnation by the rest of the world, including the United States, that has made no secret of their animosity to the Jewish state for the last 50 years.

I think Iran's nuclear program is all bullshit.

I'll believe they have a weapon when they test one, not before.

 

[janice6]

3 hours ago, Borg warner said:

"And wouldn't a nuclear exchange sort of kill a lot of Palestinians?"

Good Point, but while that might bother civilized people who value human life, these people are not civilized and don't feel protective of women and children, and don't give a rat's ass about their Muslim brothers and sisters or otherwise they'd be welcoming them to live along side them in their own countries.

The Muslim believes that if you kill an Muslim in order to kill Infidels, the Muslim will go to heaven and his 72 Virgins, you have done him/her a favor.  So there is no penalty for Muslims killing Muslims in the process of killing Infidels.

Muslims just can't kill Muslims unless they are of the "wrong sect".