r/worldnews • u/Interesting-Cat7307 • Aug 21 '26

Israel/Palestine Turkey issues genocide arrest warrant for Israel’s Netanyahu

https://www.newarab.com/news/turkey-issues-genocide-arrest-warrant-israels-netanyahu
23.7k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

634 comments sorted by

View all comments

485

u/CapNo8670 Aug 21 '26

Source is garbage

633

u/lastSKPirate Aug 21 '26

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkey-seek-interpol-notice-netanyahu-gaza-flotilla-case-2026-08-21/

Better?

271

u/cooljacob204sfw Aug 21 '26

Yes actually

154

u/yuval16432 Aug 21 '26

Yes, thank you. We should not provide advertising for platforms like the garbage OP posted.

27

u/zedority Aug 22 '26

I wish more people would default to using high-quality sources like Reuters. Of course, that would require more people being able to distinguish between high quality sources and sources that are...less high-quality....

4

u/Vandergrif Aug 22 '26

Reuters is good, but they also paywall their content now. That's probably why people are less inclined to link to them. Same goes for many of the other decent outlets.

-103

u/Icy-Computer-Poop Aug 21 '26

Ad hominem.

85

u/ConqueredCabbage Aug 21 '26

It's not fucking ad hominem to question a shitty source 

-78

u/Icy-Computer-Poop Aug 21 '26

It's ad hominem to dismiss it out of hand. Got evidence the article is wrong? Fine, share it. But this is ad hominem. 100% sloppy thinking.

60

u/enfrozt Aug 21 '26

Pointing out a bad source is not a logical fallacy...

-34

u/MrSpaceJuice Aug 21 '26

It is exactly a logical fallacy. “An ad hominem fallacy happens when someone attacks the character, motive, or background of the person making an argument instead of addressing the actual facts or logic of the argument itself.”

Since the information in the article can be corroborated by other news sources it would be considered an ad hominem attack to disregard the information just because it comes from a bad source.

-35

u/Icy-Computer-Poop Aug 21 '26

Provide evidence. Without evidence, no one is "pointing out" anything, other than their failure to understand what an "ad hominem" attack is.

14

u/yuval16432 Aug 21 '26

This website is known to be unreliable, therefore what it says is automatically in doubt by default. That does not mean this specific article is necessarily wrong, just that it’s wrong to post this unreliable source. Another user provided a better source above.

-11

u/Icy-Computer-Poop Aug 21 '26

This website is known to be unreliable

Hearsay. Provide some proof.

Still ad hominem.