Can you read this article for me? There were a lot of people asking israel to collect forensic evidence of those rapes four months ago when (if any rapes happened) there would be evidence. Why did that not happen?
Are you asking me to guess? Rampant, patriarchal misogyny, same answer as always because very few countries do do their due diligence when prosecuting rape. But that’s speculation, which is what it sounds like you’re asking for.
You linked three articles. How can you even quote the second article if you only posted one?
Your BBC link says “hears witness”. No evidence was observed. Same shit as from the debunked NYT article.
You are not presenting anything new. In fact your links were from when the IDF still claimed they had forensic and video evidence. Something which we now know is a lie.
In the context of the coordinated attack by Hamas and others of 7 October, the UN mission team found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred in multiple locations, including rape and gang rape in at least three locations in southern Israel.
The team also found a pattern of victims - mostly women - found fully or partially naked, bound and shot across multiple locations which “may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence”.
In some locations the mission said it could not verify reported incidents of rape.
Tell the IDF to stop faking rape claims then. They told us back in November they had mountains of forensic evidence and thousands of witnesses. And now they can’t find a single CCTV recording and they lost the forensic evidence? They can’t even find two “witnesses” which corroborate a story.
Until you find evidence it’s rather obvious these are nothing but lies to manufacture consent for the Genocide of Gaza.
A reserve warrant officer known by her first name, Avigayil, recounted finding maimed bodies, per Reuters. Multiple cases of rape were also discovered during forensic examinations.
The UN team did way more than that. It “conducted 33 meetings with Israeli representatives, examining more than 5,000 photographic images and 50 hours of video footage. It conducted 34 confidential interviews including with survivors and witnesses of the 7 October attacks, released hostages, first responders and others.”
Wrong, they “found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred in multiple locations, including rape and gang rape in at least three locations in southern Israel.”
Just repeating “Zaka” over and over won’t make evidence disappear, as much as you wish it would.
What evidence is there of Carroll’s rape besides an eyewitness account?
There are multiple eyewitness accounts of rape/murder on 10/7. Furthermore, released hostages gave firsthand accounts to the UN of rape while in captivity.
But you only accept eyewitness accounts when they fit your narrative. That’s why nobody should believe Hamas’ denials.
Based on the first-hand accounts of released hostages, the mission team received clear and convincing information that sexual violence, including rape, sexualized torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment occurred
No need, because the UN summarized it for me. Just as I believe there are 30,000 dead Gazans, even though I don’t have a list of names and proof they are dead.
No doubt you too believe there are 30,000 dead Gazans, based on someone else’s summary. Which as usual means you only believe facts that fit your narrative.
No you said firsthand witness what you just read wasn’t that. It was someone that said they “heard a rumor while in captivity.” They never witnessed it.
First hand accounts of rumors they heard. Not of rape which what you claimed.
Which in layman’s terms means “we spoke a hostage that said they heard someone say that there was rape but they never saw any rape nor were they sexually violated themselves”.
What evidence is there of Carroll’s rape besides an eyewitness account?
There are multiple eyewitness accounts of rape/murder on 10/7. Furthermore, released hostages gave firsthand accounts to the UN of rape while in captivity.
But you only accept eyewitness accounts when they fit your narrative. That’s why nobody should believe Hamas’ denials.
No released hostage has claimed to have witnesss any rape so far. Only heard stories. If I’m wrong you are welcome to link it to me so I can chance my mind
Your cognitive dissonance is so overwhelming that you can’t even accept that words have meanings.
You can spin imaginary tales if it helps you sleep. But everyone else who reads the UN report understands what they wrote. Those hostages saw rapes firsthand.
Long story short, there’s no new substantive evidence beyond what the NYT already said? And considering how badly the NYT fucked up with their recent poll, I’m even more inclined than before to doubt their story.
Thing is: There’s plenty Hamas & related groups did on Oct 7th to enrage a population - no exaggeration is necessary.
However, there ISN’T enough to justify a genocide … especially since Israelis have been torturing Palestinians for decades.
Israel needs to de-humanize the locals to the point where the population can justify an ethnic cleansing. Hence: Ridiculous accusations of using breasts as foot-balls and mass rape.
I mean I suppose there are a few ways you could read this.
One is that the NYT article was inaccurate - it wouldn't be the first time that fake news around this conflict has travelled halfway around the world before the truth has had its breakfast.
But another interpretation is that tight-knit communities don't want the full horror of the final moments of these girls and women to be so publicly exposed to the world. The article points out that the NYT article effectively identified the individuals and that can't have been a helpful experience for their surviving families and friends.
Probably because some people tend to pick user names that identify them in some way. Take me for example, I have a few names I go by but this username is definitely helpful in identifying me. I use it on the other place, a couple of emails, discord, telegram, etc. I don’t feel the need to be as anon as possible (no shade on those who do) so I main this one. I have a few others that I have been known to use and those are mainly for things that I don’t want easily connected back to me.
You shouldn’t be forced to be anonymous. If you want to pick the same username, you should be able to. But even so, there’s still a required number at the end. So unless your username elsewhere ends in 2 digits and isn’t already taken, then you can’t pick it anyway
It’s not about forcing anyone to be anonymous. I’m not OP here but I kind of agree. Maybe signal should default to a randomized one with a blurb about safety, anonymity, etc but let you create your own if you want.
Again. My personal view isn’t to force random usernames on people but to maybe educate them on this stuff. Also, there are legit reasons why you should have non identifying usernames even if it’s not how the world should work. There are enough nutters out there who may recognize something in someones name that links them to someone they know offline and people are nucking futz. I can tell you stories I’ve heard from my clients that you would believe but don’t want to.
Oh and for the numbers, that can be even more identifying because people tend to use numbers that mean something to them. I have a variation on this name that includes my birth year in 2 digits. If I was posting things online that close family might have a problem with, it wouldn’t be hard to do to the math and identify me that way.
guessing it would mean that people wont be using the same username as they do on every other account. So if doodlebop69 can’t be traced from signal they could go to google and find the same doodlebop69 to grab their information from
Iirc from the last time this article or similar was posted, it’s about how warrants are issued. It’s the username versus phone number not username versus or and/or other data points. Anything more than that I am still unclear about.
They don’t track username history and don’t have a server side list of plaintext usernames, and others can’t find your phone number from the username alone. That makes it harder to confirm which account is yours.
The idea is that you change or remove your username after someone else starts a conversation with you, so the username can no longer be used to subpoena your account details.
Put another way, signal is able to provide those 2 pieces of information to law enforcement based on a phone number. This helps you to prevent law enforcement having a phone number to ask signal to look up in the first place, assuming you change your username every time you hand it out.
They also hash the usernames that they store on your account which means law enforcement can’t ask what usernames are being used, only being able to ask for specific usernames which are currently in use.
I understand that right now LEA can serve up a subpoena and give Signal a username and get a phone number, but they can’t give them a phone number and get a username.
Is it also possible for Signal to keep track of past usernames/associated hashes for a particular phone number?
(For comparison, Signal could record IP addresses, but we trust they don’t due to unsealed cases. Could they keep a username history?)
Yes it entirely depends on whether they store previously used usernames along with the date range it was in use (to tell apart multiple people who used the same username at different times)
We’ll have to see if any unsealed cases in the future support that they don’t keep those records like how they don’t keep IP logs, but personally their track record is enough for me to have confidence in the feature, especially since my “threat model” is primarily opportunistic hackers or spearphishers at most, not police or state / nation state level actors.
During a closed-door meeting last week, Professor Ester Fuchs, who is one of the chairs of the task force, invoked a Supreme Court justice’s famous line about pornography: “I know it when I see it.”
Since 2019, the FBI has used five “threat categories” to describe domestic terrorism: Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremism, Anti-Government or Anti-Authority Violent Extremism (AGAAVE), Animal Rights or Environmental Violent Extremism, Abortion-Related Violent Extremism, and “All Other Domestic Terrorism Threats,” which is defined as “furtherance of political and/or social agendas which are not otherwise exclusively defined under one of the other threat categories.”
“Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremism” used to just be “Black Identity Extremism” until somebody told them they were making their racism a little too obvious.
Behind the scenes though, according to congressional testimony reported here for the first time, the FBI maintains a program specifically for combatting anarchists, called the Anarchist Extremism Program. In Senate testimony, the FBI says that it had increased its targeting of anarchist “violent extremists” across the country by using both human and technical sources to spy on them. Since the nationwide protests after the death of George Floyd in 2020, the bureau has tasked field offices to tap confidential informants to develop better intelligence about anarchists.
In 2021, the FBI more than doubled its domestic terrorism caseload; and Wray told Congress that arrests of what the bureau calls “anarchist violent extremists” were more numerous in 2020-2021 (the months around January 6) than in the three previous years combined.
An internal FBI threat advisory obtained by The Intercept defines Anarchist Violent Extremists as individuals “who consider capitalism and centralized government to be unnecessary and oppressive,” and “oppose economic globalization; political, economic, and social hierarchies based on class, religion, race, gender, or private ownership of capital; and external forms of authority represented by centralized government, the military, and law enforcement.”
This is what they’re doing instead of going after Republican political corruption, Libs of TikTok and other right wing extremists, police brutality, etc.
Although we have massive amounts of example of police extremism, including shooting people in cold blood with no consequences, the FBI goes after the people responding to the police violence.
The while AGAAVE acronym even existing to label people who don’t like being treated like shit by authority is depressing.
There is some statistical sleight of hand happening here, I think. This category includes both fascists and similar ideologies, along with anarchists. They then use this stat to imply that there have been many cases relating to anarchism, when most of the incidents I know of were right-wing in nature.
As a reminder, the FBI was built to kill anarchists and they’ve been doing unconditional shit to hunt anarchists since before they were the FBI.
The FBI will do anything to avoid fighting actual terrorism like the Klan and all the Nazi groups that have infiltrated the police and military. Nazis infiltrating the military literally tried to build s dirty bomb and the FBI is still more interesting in people protesting against police brutality.
I wouldn’t say trigger a witch hunt since one has been ongoing, albeit with some breaks (such as the all hands on deck for insurrectionaries after Jan 6th).
Even the most pacifist vegan-anarchist orgs that simply feed the needy and unhoused get surveilled under suspicion of ecoterrorism. www.muckrock.com/…/fbi-files-food-not-bombs/
Hopefully other mutual aid organizations don’t catch the extremist label for being made by and composed of anarchists, but that might be too optimistic
Whereas right wing nutjobs just shoot up schools and pizza huts, lefties tend to blockade the correct institutions which cause harm. For example Occupy Wall Street. Which is a big no-no.
So this isn’t about actual gamers, this about bad actors looking for chuds to recruit through games, which is not a new concept. It used to be chat rooms, and then forums, then social media, now games (as many have social features).
I mean the US military, among others, have been using gaming to recruit people already.
Officially, the military does not recruit anyone under age 17. In this case, “recruit” means the formal process of signing a legally binding agreement to enlist. The military does, however, advertise to and interact directly with minors for the purposes of military recruitment.
I was in the Australian airforce cadets from 12 until 18 at which point i went to join the airforce but got am apprenticeship at the same time that paid more.
Someone tried recruiting my sister and a couple of her Special Olympics teammates into the Marines in Rec Room. I got on my sister’s mic and told the dude to fuck off and to stop preying on obviously vulnerable people. He was so pushy with his recruitment, that he was making my sister uncomfortable. She asked him to stop and he didn’t. After telling the dude off, I advised my sister and her teammates to try a different game for a bit. It was disgusting to see this dude try to get people with intellectual disabilities to literally throw their lives away for a country that’s constantly fucking them over.
theintercept.com
Oldest