I know why the image is highlighted. I’m saying anybody who simply trusts it is an idiot, that’s all. This is the modern internet, things like that should not be trusted due to how easy editing is.
There is some evidence, it just has not been independently verified. This is different from there being “no evidence” as you claim.
Your own image does not even say no evidence, the only one saying that is you.
You are correct, Trump does have some evidence, he has supposedly seen people saying it online. Whether the evidence is any good or not requires independent verification.
We look at specific pieces of evidence, not who is saying it.
If they cannot verify evidence for its authenticity then they have not seen evidence. Evidence is when you can verify something is true not taking israeli propaganda without checking it.
Israel is the party who blocked the UN investigation from gathering evidence. Bit wild to believe the claims of the people blocking access to the “evidence”.
We look at specific pieces of evidence, not who is saying it.
This evidence, from the press release I linked below:
Following allegations of brutal sexual violence committed during and in the aftermath of the Hamas-led terror attacks, Pramila Patten, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, led an official visit to Israel from 29 January to 14 February to gather, analyse and verify reports of sexual violence related to the 7 October attack. Due to ongoing hostilities, the Special Representative did not request to visit Gaza, where other UN entities that monitor sexual violence are operational.
“What I witnessed in Israel were scenes of unspeakable violence perpetrated with shocking brutality,” Ms. Patten recalled. Detailing her methodology, she said that her team met with families of hostages and members of communities displaced from several kibbutzim. It conducted confidential interviews with 34 individuals, including survivors and witnesses of the 7 October attacks, released hostages, first responders and health and service providers. It visited four attack sites — as well as the morgue to which the bodies of victims were transferred — and reviewed over 5,000 photographic images and some 50 hours of footage of the attacks.
“It was a catalogue of the most extreme and inhumane forms of killing, torture and other horrors,” including sexual violence, she stated. The team also found convincing information that sexual violence was committed against hostages, and has reasonable grounds to believe that such violence may still be ongoing against those in captivity. While there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred in the Nova music festival site, Route 232, and kibbutz Re’im, reported incidents of rape could not be verified in other locations. Concurrently, the team determined that at least two allegations of sexual violence in kibbutz Be’eri — widely reported in the media — were unfounded.
Patten was invited while the UN investigative envoy was blocked. Her report and cites israeli statements has no legal validity. Patten herself said this in the article you linked earlier which you hopefully read.
The UN report was published after Pattens report. If Pattens report contained evidence the UN investigative envoy would have cited it.
Once again, the UN confirmed there is no evidence.
She was the UN investigative envoy. Unless you can find me an official statement talking about a more recent one that was blocked? I haven’t seen anything about one yet.
The mission made up of Ms. Patten and nine experts – which was not investigative in nature –…
(emphasis in original news brief).
According to the actual report:
The present report is submitted to the United Nations Secretary-General pursuant to the
mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict
(SRSG-SVC), outlined by the Security Council in resolutions 1888 (2009), 1960 (2010), 2106
(2013), 2331 (2016), and 2467 (2019). This report contains the findings of the mission of Special
Representative, Ms. Pramila Patten to Israel
(emphasis added)
So, she wasn’t a no-name 3rd party, but wasn’t an investigative envoy.
I know why the image is highlighted. I’m saying anybody who simply trusts it is an idiot, that’s all. This is the modern internet, things like that should not be trusted due to how easy editing is.
There is some evidence, it just has not been independently verified. This is different from there being “no evidence” as you claim.
No the legal UN investigation found no evidence of rape they’re stating that pretty clearly. Not “some”
Trump also has evidence of immigrants eating dogs. It’s just “not independently verified.”
Your own image does not even say no evidence, the only one saying that is you.
You are correct, Trump does have some evidence, he has supposedly seen people saying it online. Whether the evidence is any good or not requires independent verification.
We look at specific pieces of evidence, not who is saying it.
If they cannot verify evidence for its authenticity then they have not seen evidence. Evidence is when you can verify something is true not taking israeli propaganda without checking it.
Israel is the party who blocked the UN investigation from gathering evidence. Bit wild to believe the claims of the people blocking access to the “evidence”.
Once again, what evidence?
This evidence, from the press release I linked below:
Following allegations of brutal sexual violence committed during and in the aftermath of the Hamas-led terror attacks, Pramila Patten, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, led an official visit to Israel from 29 January to 14 February to gather, analyse and verify reports of sexual violence related to the 7 October attack. Due to ongoing hostilities, the Special Representative did not request to visit Gaza, where other UN entities that monitor sexual violence are operational.
“What I witnessed in Israel were scenes of unspeakable violence perpetrated with shocking brutality,” Ms. Patten recalled. Detailing her methodology, she said that her team met with families of hostages and members of communities displaced from several kibbutzim. It conducted confidential interviews with 34 individuals, including survivors and witnesses of the 7 October attacks, released hostages, first responders and health and service providers. It visited four attack sites — as well as the morgue to which the bodies of victims were transferred — and reviewed over 5,000 photographic images and some 50 hours of footage of the attacks.
“It was a catalogue of the most extreme and inhumane forms of killing, torture and other horrors,” including sexual violence, she stated. The team also found convincing information that sexual violence was committed against hostages, and has reasonable grounds to believe that such violence may still be ongoing against those in captivity. While there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred in the Nova music festival site, Route 232, and kibbutz Re’im, reported incidents of rape could not be verified in other locations. Concurrently, the team determined that at least two allegations of sexual violence in kibbutz Be’eri — widely reported in the media — were unfounded.
Patten was invited while the UN investigative envoy was blocked. Her report and cites israeli statements has no legal validity. Patten herself said this in the article you linked earlier which you hopefully read.
The UN report was published after Pattens report. If Pattens report contained evidence the UN investigative envoy would have cited it.
Once again, the UN confirmed there is no evidence.
She was the UN investigative envoy. Unless you can find me an official statement talking about a more recent one that was blocked? I haven’t seen anything about one yet.
edit: And a link, please. Not some image.
No she was not.
You literally linked the article with the statement yourself. Read it. You don’t want a highlighted image right?
sadly, you’re wrong in this instance.
(emphasis in original news brief).
According to the actual report:
(emphasis added)
So, she wasn’t a no-name 3rd party, but wasn’t an investigative envoy.