So you’ve cherry-picked from the Wikipedia article, with the transparent goal of trying to persuade that this organisation is not reliable. For example, I could say the following:
From Wikipedia:
In short - the site is independent, one of the most popular news sources in Palestine. Some people have tried to connect them to Hamas, but nothing has stuck. Israel killed the director of the site in 2023.
“In 2015, the Christian Science Monitor reported that the network was run by 12 freelance correspondents and 60 volunteer field reporters…”
“The QNN states it is independent and funds itself through advertisements, and that it aims to expose the acts of the Israeli occupation.”
“QNN director Sari Mansour and freelance photographer Hassouneh Salim were killed by an Israeli airstrike on the Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza on 18 November 2023”
Now I’m not saying I’m convinced either way. But my question is why are you trying obviously to convince me one way?
I’ve cherry picked because this video has been cherrypicked, and arguing with someone who’s just repeating its a video and just take what they call it as fact.
Its like me saying “this is a video of Israel discussing and enforcing the best way to protect Palestine civilians while they protect themselves”, putting up a video of a few people in a uniform talking and expecting everything to comment back how amazing Israel is - I would expect everyone to cherry pick the issues with me doing this, especially when all I do is repeat “but its a video”.
You cherrypicked because you have an agenda to push and it is obvious. First you try to sow doubt by “just asking questions” and then “cherrypick” a wikipedia article, trying to gaslight people who literally just watched a video.
Its like people sprouting “prove God doesn’t exist” - im not the one saying this is a fact and need to back it up.
Saying that, one other poster did provide me with some pretty good insight with sources - ignoring before/after video possibilities the evidence they provided is pretty damming to Israel, and even without it they would have alot to answer for.
So you’ve cherry-picked from the Wikipedia article, with the transparent goal of trying to persuade that this organisation is not reliable. For example, I could say the following:
From Wikipedia:
In short - the site is independent, one of the most popular news sources in Palestine. Some people have tried to connect them to Hamas, but nothing has stuck. Israel killed the director of the site in 2023.
“In 2015, the Christian Science Monitor reported that the network was run by 12 freelance correspondents and 60 volunteer field reporters…”
“The QNN states it is independent and funds itself through advertisements, and that it aims to expose the acts of the Israeli occupation.”
“QNN director Sari Mansour and freelance photographer Hassouneh Salim were killed by an Israeli airstrike on the Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza on 18 November 2023”
Now I’m not saying I’m convinced either way. But my question is why are you trying obviously to convince me one way?
I’ve cherry picked because this video has been cherrypicked, and arguing with someone who’s just repeating its a video and just take what they call it as fact.
Its like me saying “this is a video of Israel discussing and enforcing the best way to protect Palestine civilians while they protect themselves”, putting up a video of a few people in a uniform talking and expecting everything to comment back how amazing Israel is - I would expect everyone to cherry pick the issues with me doing this, especially when all I do is repeat “but its a video”.
You cherrypicked because you have an agenda to push and it is obvious. First you try to sow doubt by “just asking questions” and then “cherrypick” a wikipedia article, trying to gaslight people who literally just watched a video.
Then link the full video. “They cherry pick!!!”, but bring nothing to the table to believe your statement.
Im not the one who posted the original video.
Its like people sprouting “prove God doesn’t exist” - im not the one saying this is a fact and need to back it up.
Saying that, one other poster did provide me with some pretty good insight with sources - ignoring before/after video possibilities the evidence they provided is pretty damming to Israel, and even without it they would have alot to answer for.