No one was using these clearly unarmed and surrendering hostages as human shields. You cannot use “accidental friendly fire” as an excuse for their murder.
Honest question; what incentive would the IDF have to knowingly kill escaped Israeli hostages? To me it only makes sense as a case of being far too willing to shoot first and ask questions later. That’s a problem, especially in such a dense urban environment, but it still is “accidental friendly fire” and not deliberate premeditated murder as your comment suggests.
The flipside is that we imagine that they knew the 3 Israeli hostages were trying to get back to friendly forces and decided to kill them anyway for… reasons, I guess? Nevermind that it’s hell on morale and obviously a PR disaster.
I don’t know, I just can’t make this pencil out as anything other than a tragic fuckup born of terrible discipline. If it tells us anything, it’s that the IDF are obviously trigger happy and not being at all careful, but again, that’s very different from the narrative being pushed by most people in this thread.
When your enemy does such things as common practice, it raises the probability that this will happen. Are you intentionally pretending to misunderstand to present a false narrative, or do you really not get it?
It becomes more and more apparent as time goes on.
Hamas tunnels existed under some infrastructure, better destroy all the infrastructure!
Hamas pretended to be journalists to spy, better kill all the journalists!
Hamas uses human shields, better kill all the human shields!
Hell, non-terrorist countries make their military buildings look like regular infrastructure frequently and embed intelligence gathering personnel with protected people like journalists to spy. The third one just sounds like propaganda against Hamas anyway since desperate people sacrificing themselves to defend their people would be seen as noble by anyone who agreed that they should be able to defend their people.
My favorite was when an IDF propaganda guy on a cable news network (CNN or something I can’t remember) just casually dropped that the tunnels under a hospital that the IDF points to all the time as proof that Hamas is pure evil were actually built by the IDF at some point.
The news anchor wasn’t trying to be pro-Palestinian but they were so totally confused they couldn’t help but be like…. wait what?
I’m not sure why no one has clearly mentioned this in the news articles about Israel lying to reporters about evidence for the tunnels. But every modern urban area is riddled with tunnels. Saying they’re harboring bad guys is just an excuse to blow up everything.
But isn’t the thing you are saying what Israel’s government wants you to say? How is that any different? Israel is the side of killing children everyday. Their leader is not a good and honest man like he pretends to be but I wish he was. Just before this didn’t he strip checks and balances that were meant to keep him in line? You can love Israel and not like their leadership. I think he is a dangerous man and should go.
Bibi and other members of Likud are war criminals. Don’t look to me to defend them. I want to see them prosecuted for the many war crimes prior to October.
Feel free.to check my comment history, I don’t waver on this.
Saying Israel is the side of killing children, though, is a talking point written by Hamas. And yes, they are responsible for many deaths by design to outrage people in the hopes of sparking a wider war. Hiding behind the children they have gotten killed is actually a war crim itself, co-location.
Careful parroting Hamas talking points.No sane person wants to kill children. Which is how you know Hamas is insane and must be eliminated. .
Bold of you to assume Likud are sane. They’re dealing with “human animals”, remember? They are happy to kill Palestinian children.
To the main point: there is no excuse for this murder of surrendering civilians. Even if your enemy has the specific tactic of sending its combatants in shirtless and waving a white flag (Hamas don’t) then you still aren’t allowed to kill them, because people still need to be able to surrender.
This is what I keep saying. Making up a story that’s countered by the facts won’t change the facts.
It’s not trolling to inject facts and reason to hateful propaganda and false narratives. But when that is inconvenient to the lies, I can understand why pretending that’s the case is the next step down.
To avoid personal attacks like yours, in possible violation of the rules, I’ll just leave it there.
My “personal attacks” are direct criticisms of your behaviour. I’m not calling you names, I’m calling you out for what you’re doing.
This article is about IDF soldiers killing hostages. Your reponse was:
Friendly fire happens in war, especially with an enemy who uses civilians as shields and seeks to maximize civilian deaths for PR.
My reply was that these hostages did everything they could to demonstrate they weren’t hostile, yet they were still executed by soliders. That is a war crime. There is no excusing that as friendly fire. Even if they weren’t hostages, the IDF should not have executed them, and doing so was the crime of murder regardless of their affiliation.
That isn’t the war crime of IDF leaders or of Bibi, that is the war crime of the soldiers that committed the act, and their commanding officers. The leaders only have a superfluous responsibility, easily obfuscated by varied interpretations of terminology. In other words, if you pass it off up the chain of command you end up with no one being responsible.
The thing happened. The person who did it is 100% responsible. The person in charge of the person who did it is also responsible, to some lesser degree. The person in charge of the military is also responsible, maybe not as much as the person who did it but perhaps more than their immediate commander, given the type of propaganda the person in charge passed down.
I think you’re trying to pass up responsibility to those that won’t face any of it, in an effort to exonerate those who are actually responsible on the ground.
My argument is that everyone involved is responsible and all of them should be held suitably to account.
No one was using these clearly unarmed and surrendering hostages as human shields. You cannot use “accidental friendly fire” as an excuse for their murder.
Honest question; what incentive would the IDF have to knowingly kill escaped Israeli hostages? To me it only makes sense as a case of being far too willing to shoot first and ask questions later. That’s a problem, especially in such a dense urban environment, but it still is “accidental friendly fire” and not deliberate premeditated murder as your comment suggests.
The flipside is that we imagine that they knew the 3 Israeli hostages were trying to get back to friendly forces and decided to kill them anyway for… reasons, I guess? Nevermind that it’s hell on morale and obviously a PR disaster.
I don’t know, I just can’t make this pencil out as anything other than a tragic fuckup born of terrible discipline. If it tells us anything, it’s that the IDF are obviously trigger happy and not being at all careful, but again, that’s very different from the narrative being pushed by most people in this thread.
When your enemy does such things as common practice, it raises the probability that this will happen. Are you intentionally pretending to misunderstand to present a false narrative, or do you really not get it?
I think the IDF uses this as an excuse to kill anyone
It becomes more and more apparent as time goes on.
Hamas tunnels existed under some infrastructure, better destroy all the infrastructure!
Hamas pretended to be journalists to spy, better kill all the journalists!
Hamas uses human shields, better kill all the human shields!
Hell, non-terrorist countries make their military buildings look like regular infrastructure frequently and embed intelligence gathering personnel with protected people like journalists to spy. The third one just sounds like propaganda against Hamas anyway since desperate people sacrificing themselves to defend their people would be seen as noble by anyone who agreed that they should be able to defend their people.
My favorite was when an IDF propaganda guy on a cable news network (CNN or something I can’t remember) just casually dropped that the tunnels under a hospital that the IDF points to all the time as proof that Hamas is pure evil were actually built by the IDF at some point.
The news anchor wasn’t trying to be pro-Palestinian but they were so totally confused they couldn’t help but be like…. wait what?
I’m not sure why no one has clearly mentioned this in the news articles about Israel lying to reporters about evidence for the tunnels. But every modern urban area is riddled with tunnels. Saying they’re harboring bad guys is just an excuse to blow up everything.
That’s just an excuse for murder you should stop making that excuse for them. It’s not ok
Exactly what Hamas wants you to say. They appreciate your support.
But isn’t the thing you are saying what Israel’s government wants you to say? How is that any different? Israel is the side of killing children everyday. Their leader is not a good and honest man like he pretends to be but I wish he was. Just before this didn’t he strip checks and balances that were meant to keep him in line? You can love Israel and not like their leadership. I think he is a dangerous man and should go.
Bibi and other members of Likud are war criminals. Don’t look to me to defend them. I want to see them prosecuted for the many war crimes prior to October.
Feel free.to check my comment history, I don’t waver on this.
Saying Israel is the side of killing children, though, is a talking point written by Hamas. And yes, they are responsible for many deaths by design to outrage people in the hopes of sparking a wider war. Hiding behind the children they have gotten killed is actually a war crim itself, co-location.
Careful parroting Hamas talking points.No sane person wants to kill children. Which is how you know Hamas is insane and must be eliminated. .
Bold of you to assume Likud are sane. They’re dealing with “human animals”, remember? They are happy to kill Palestinian children.
To the main point: there is no excuse for this murder of surrendering civilians. Even if your enemy has the specific tactic of sending its combatants in shirtless and waving a white flag (Hamas don’t) then you still aren’t allowed to kill them, because people still need to be able to surrender.
As I’ve said many times, I don’t defend or support Likud. They were war criminals before the October attack.
Are you able to read, by chance?
Throwing mud at people first, accusing them of doing the very thing you always do.
Your narratives are clearly false upon the first reading of them, your only goal is to be inciteful and troll people.
Frankly, all of your comments are in breach of instance rules, from what I can see.
This is what I keep saying. Making up a story that’s countered by the facts won’t change the facts.
It’s not trolling to inject facts and reason to hateful propaganda and false narratives. But when that is inconvenient to the lies, I can understand why pretending that’s the case is the next step down.
To avoid personal attacks like yours, in possible violation of the rules, I’ll just leave it there.
My “personal attacks” are direct criticisms of your behaviour. I’m not calling you names, I’m calling you out for what you’re doing.
This article is about IDF soldiers killing hostages. Your reponse was:
My reply was that these hostages did everything they could to demonstrate they weren’t hostile, yet they were still executed by soliders. That is a war crime. There is no excusing that as friendly fire. Even if they weren’t hostages, the IDF should not have executed them, and doing so was the crime of murder regardless of their affiliation.
That isn’t the war crime of IDF leaders or of Bibi, that is the war crime of the soldiers that committed the act, and their commanding officers. The leaders only have a superfluous responsibility, easily obfuscated by varied interpretations of terminology. In other words, if you pass it off up the chain of command you end up with no one being responsible.
The thing happened. The person who did it is 100% responsible. The person in charge of the person who did it is also responsible, to some lesser degree. The person in charge of the military is also responsible, maybe not as much as the person who did it but perhaps more than their immediate commander, given the type of propaganda the person in charge passed down.
I think you’re trying to pass up responsibility to those that won’t face any of it, in an effort to exonerate those who are actually responsible on the ground.
My argument is that everyone involved is responsible and all of them should be held suitably to account.
🤮