Have you noticed the clear problem of relying on whatever "Mediabiasfactcheck" is for the sake of diagnosing the purported quality of other sources? What have they done to earn your trust on the question of who you should trust? Who watches your watchmen?
I have used a variety of such sites. They are provided for more information about various media sites. As stated before, they seem to suggest your sources are mainly right-wing, pro-Israeli and may lack credibility due to poor fact-checking and bias.
You are welcome to use other sources that call these sites out and/or question them if you wish.
And yes - you had direct access to the sources for these critiques of that fake charity. You were one click away from seeing the screenshots. From the source WE BOTH ARE USING you can plainly see Ramy Abdu idolizing the heroic martyrs of Oct. 7. Are you going to take it seriously now that I cut and pasted it for you, which counts for more than you yourself clicking on the same page we were both looking at?
ها قد حان الرحيل بعد أن كُتبت لك النجاة تسع مرات في سنوات جهادك الطويلة… لقد استطعت إعلان خبر ارتقاء شقيقتي وقطعة قلبي وأبناءها أحباب روحي، لكن والله إن هذا النعي أثقل ما خطت يداي، لرجل كان نعم الأخ الكبير والسند الذي لا مثيل له منذ سنوات عمري الأولى. أنعى إليكم قائدنا الكبير...
x.com
Please forgive my lack of Arabic, but from what I translated, he mourned the loss of this person;
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Obeida
However, where is the part about
"Their founder says Jews - excuse me, Israelis - drink blood, like some illiterate peasant from 1730..", which you stated above?
Let's go back to U.N. Special Rapporteur Alice Edwards, claiming other U.N. staff tried to bury her report on torture committed on Oct. 7th. You have a problem with her claim being published in The JC. Do you think The JC spoofed and hoaxed a claim she never said? It isn't from them, it's from her.
If it's from her, why not use a source that has arguably more credibility than the one you've used?
Likewise, when we have links and screenshots to direct quotes, what is the importance of whether they came from NGO Monitor or UN Watch unless the point is that these are spoofed quotes that were in fact never said?
See above.
Maybe Ramy "Google Ramy Abdu insatiable appetite drinking blood" Abdu canceled out Alice Edwards claim to have had her work suppressed, but then NGO Monitor cancelled out Abdu, so nobody said anything on any subject. NONE of these citations you are so eager for could be trusted - you've never heard of any of this stuff until today, and Elon Musk could have rewritten the whole internet yesterday.
I agree, I'm new to most of this. That's why I've asked for citations. However, credible sources also help. I've looked online and could find no evidence for your claims about Ramy Abdu stating that "Jews drank blood".
Again, I'm happy for you to provide evidence.
Look, PcX.... I am going to be as gracious as I can and choose to interpret this as us having extremely different learning styles. I get pulled down rabbit holes quickly, I automatically look up things I've never heard of, especially on topics that are important enough to me that (like in this case) I discuss them on my free time for years. When I see someone who repeatedly long-term year after year after year not only DOESN'T automatically do that but repeatedly demands to have any provided sources be searched-through and explained for them, it strikes me as rude. I could accept that you do not mean it to be rude, but even if done for the sake of thoroughness, I really think it would be a better use of time to try to search up unfamiliar terms and histories oneself first.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I interpret people who make claims online (without citing the source) as either unable to do so (and sometimes that's fine, at long as they admit this), unwilling to prove their point and/or unwilling to help educate others, which appears to me, at least, as somewhat rude (or in some cases, as ignorant).
I was taught at school to always provide sources (or at least personal context) for opinions (and even counterpoints as due diligence) when discussing or debating issues.
Regardless, posting the original sources and links (if correct) only helps to provide more info to back your own claims and/or provide new facts to enrich this discussion.
Thank you for your time.
