A fair amount of the Blumenthal/Mate video is speculative. example: at 7:32, they show a photo of some burned cars, and start musing, there were some Israeli tanks and Apache helicopters in the area, umm, they don't know what happened. That's not an isolated example.
A fair amount of the Blumenthal/Mate video is speculative. example: at 7:32, they show a photo of some burned cars, and start musing, there were some Israeli tanks and Apache helicopters in the area, umm, they don't know what happened. That's not an isolated example.
They ridicule the story of the woman being raped and simultaneously stabbed in the back, and of the woman whose breast was cut off. Their commentary is, Hamas is supposed to capture prisoners and get back into Gaza... how do they have time to rape someone.., and the breast being cut off is ridiculous on its face, etc. They nitpick about the story referring to one of the attackers as "a terrorist, instead of Hamas." Sorry Robert, but B&M are on really thin ice here. They have no knowledge of what the attackers instructions were, or what their frame of mind was. They questioned why a witness would not want to have her name reported. To me that's not at all hard to understand. They couldn't help but invoke the "R" word (rayciss) while yammering their stream of consciousness. Their commentary here made it clear, they had their minds made up they're going to debunk the story, no matter the merits.
They are strongest when they can talk about lists of victims and how they died, contrasting against the more lurid claims in the NYT story.
It's a little strong to say there's considerable evidence, as you put it, the NYT story has no evidence of its own to backup the story. Maybe more accurate to say evidence is lacking all around.
I'm certainly not invested in the NYT, although I've pointed to this story numerous times in this substack. At one time I was an NYT subscriber. I'm an extreme conservative, and, reading their reporting, it reached a point for me where they didn't have any credibility. I wrote a lot of comments to their online forum- few were published. This was years before they promoted their Trump-Russia collusion hoax.
I do appreciate your bringing this to my attention. It's another data point to add to the mix.
I watched the video, and will take it onboard.
A fair amount of the Blumenthal/Mate video is speculative. example: at 7:32, they show a photo of some burned cars, and start musing, there were some Israeli tanks and Apache helicopters in the area, umm, they don't know what happened. That's not an isolated example.
They ridicule the story of the woman being raped and simultaneously stabbed in the back, and of the woman whose breast was cut off. Their commentary is, Hamas is supposed to capture prisoners and get back into Gaza... how do they have time to rape someone.., and the breast being cut off is ridiculous on its face, etc. They nitpick about the story referring to one of the attackers as "a terrorist, instead of Hamas." Sorry Robert, but B&M are on really thin ice here. They have no knowledge of what the attackers instructions were, or what their frame of mind was. They questioned why a witness would not want to have her name reported. To me that's not at all hard to understand. They couldn't help but invoke the "R" word (rayciss) while yammering their stream of consciousness. Their commentary here made it clear, they had their minds made up they're going to debunk the story, no matter the merits.
They are strongest when they can talk about lists of victims and how they died, contrasting against the more lurid claims in the NYT story.
It's a little strong to say there's considerable evidence, as you put it, the NYT story has no evidence of its own to backup the story. Maybe more accurate to say evidence is lacking all around.
I'm certainly not invested in the NYT, although I've pointed to this story numerous times in this substack. At one time I was an NYT subscriber. I'm an extreme conservative, and, reading their reporting, it reached a point for me where they didn't have any credibility. I wrote a lot of comments to their online forum- few were published. This was years before they promoted their Trump-Russia collusion hoax.
I do appreciate your bringing this to my attention. It's another data point to add to the mix.