|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
United States43538 Posts
On December 02 2025 08:40 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 08:31 KwarK wrote:
It’s not about a child soldier not posing a threat. It’s about relative threat. The risk of it turning out that they were a child soldier should be less than the risk of getting it wrong. If you were right and they were a child soldier you risk possible death but if you drone strike them without checking then you should definitely kill yourself. So although it’s not an ideal situation you still don’t drone strike them, it’s too dangerous to you. The safest thing to do is investigate. I really do think it's about whether the child soldier posed a threat. Hamas trains kids and teens and photographs them in their drills and Hamas uniforms. I don't see where you're getting at with "relative threat," like there's some relative amount of dead IDF soldiers that is acceptable on the flip side. This "you should definitely kill yourself" business makes me think it's best to leave it there. Make sure to post further news stories you see that shed light on potential investigations and clarity.
There’s absolutely an amount of dead IDF soldiers that is more acceptable than killing children. Are you nuts?
|
On December 02 2025 08:24 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 07:09 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 02 2025 06:46 dyhb wrote:On December 02 2025 03:10 Jankisa wrote:On December 02 2025 01:55 dyhb wrote:
The issue is the reporting. Hamas does use children. The IDF is not especially required to prove a negative --- that they weren't innocent -- or they bear the guilt. The story cites "two suspects 'conducted suspicious activities'" from the IDF. So I would imagine an equally partisan story condemning Hamas for using children to test the yellow line or plant IEDs or w/e: simply prioritizing the IDF's statement, and referring in passing to the uncle and Hamas medical officials denying it.
This is a propaganda war as much as it is a terrorist war. I try not to privilege a side when it's basic hearsay reporting. And the link doesn't sustain "no warning shoots[sic], not[sic] megaphone, no attempt to do anything other than shoot," which would actually color the story. Not even IDF tried to spin this in this way, so congratulations on out-spinning them! These were 8 and 11 year old boys. They were looking for firewood, they were blown up without a warning. Look at how threatening they look, of course IDF had no other recourse but tho blow them up from a drone, right? If you were the commander there, would you push this button? Would you perhaps maybe try to scare them away, maybe a few shoots in the air before sending explosive ordinance their way? On December 02 2025 02:26 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 02 2025 01:55 dyhb wrote:
The issue is the reporting. Hamas does use children. The IDF is not especially required to prove a negative --- that they weren't innocent -- or they bear the guilt. The story cites "two suspects 'conducted suspicious activities'" from the IDF. So I would imagine an equally partisan story condemning Hamas for using children to test the yellow line or plant IEDs or w/e: simply prioritizing the IDF's statement, and referring in passing to the uncle and Hamas medical officials denying it.
This is a propaganda war as much as it is a terrorist war. I try not to privilege a side when it's basic hearsay reporting. And the link doesn't sustain "no warning shoots[sic], not[sic] megaphone, no attempt to do anything other than shoot," which would actually color the story. The IDF executes prisoners now (for a while actually if we remember the ambulance) thing. Who cares what they say? I would care if they actually did something to prove that they are what they say they want to be. But we all know none of the soldiers who are involved in warcrimes will get more than a slap on the wrist, if that. Against maybe France or Spain, I'd lean more towards your same prejudices. But this is Hamas. They have child soldiers. They have a history. So when Reuters finds an uncle that says they were looking for firewood past the yellow line, I don't simply say, "It's clear that we should believe this person, since Israel is not to be trusted!" If these were sent by Hamas to scout or plant IEDs or test a particular border section for vigilance, guess what you hear? The exact same thing. So and so relative says they were doing innocent task and bloodthirsty Israeli troops shot them dead without warning. Prejudice against one side making the claims doesn't automatically elevate the other claim. Settling on needing more information is not some excuse to charge the other with wholesale belief in the Israeli story. More information is needed. If you're so prejudiced that you state as fact just one interviewee's testimony, then you're setting yourself up to be deceived by propaganda. If the Israeli record is mixed and bad on stuff like the ambulance shooting and WCK trucks, you should admit the Palestinian record is mixed on Hamas being caught in lies. My opinion is that historically both sides were awful assholes so sure, I can agree that both sides are awful assholes today as well. Not sure I would want my country to be on par with a terrorist organisation like Hamas but each to their own. As for your "child soldier" justification. You realize sane adults would never, ever shoot a kid unless it was absolutely necessary. We are talking walking up to them with a bomb. Most normal soldiers wouldn't shoot a 6/11 year old even if they had a gun as long as they weren't in immediate danger. Even if they are technically the enemy you would let them go. In this case they got hit by a drone because they crossed some arbitrary line they couldn't see. It doesn't matter if Hamas sent them there killing them is still something only a psychopath would do in that situation. The justification and context isn't in evidence! I went to the link provided and didn't see any video on (absence of) loud warnings, warning shots, or the basics of suicide bombing/guns. So I'm fine with most of your post, including the fact that the average soldier would not shoot a kid unless there was a real threat. Last of all I want to remind you that this is an argument on the lack of evidence, not something as clear-cut on trusting that it went exactly as some initial IDF or IAF initial statement. Just because Reuters found somebody that says firewood doesn't mean that should be stated as fact and proof of unlawful conduct. I doubt you disagree, but if you do, say so. Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 08:07 Jankisa wrote:On December 02 2025 06:46 dyhb wrote:On December 02 2025 03:10 Jankisa wrote:On December 02 2025 01:55 dyhb wrote:
The issue is the reporting. Hamas does use children. The IDF is not especially required to prove a negative --- that they weren't innocent -- or they bear the guilt. The story cites "two suspects 'conducted suspicious activities'" from the IDF. So I would imagine an equally partisan story condemning Hamas for using children to test the yellow line or plant IEDs or w/e: simply prioritizing the IDF's statement, and referring in passing to the uncle and Hamas medical officials denying it.
This is a propaganda war as much as it is a terrorist war. I try not to privilege a side when it's basic hearsay reporting. And the link doesn't sustain "no warning shoots[sic], not[sic] megaphone, no attempt to do anything other than shoot," which would actually color the story. Not even IDF tried to spin this in this way, so congratulations on out-spinning them! These were 8 and 11 year old boys. They were looking for firewood, they were blown up without a warning. Look at how threatening they look, of course IDF had no other recourse but tho blow them up from a drone, right? If you were the commander there, would you push this button? Would you perhaps maybe try to scare them away, maybe a few shoots in the air before sending explosive ordinance their way? On December 02 2025 02:26 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 02 2025 01:55 dyhb wrote:
The issue is the reporting. Hamas does use children. The IDF is not especially required to prove a negative --- that they weren't innocent -- or they bear the guilt. The story cites "two suspects 'conducted suspicious activities'" from the IDF. So I would imagine an equally partisan story condemning Hamas for using children to test the yellow line or plant IEDs or w/e: simply prioritizing the IDF's statement, and referring in passing to the uncle and Hamas medical officials denying it.
This is a propaganda war as much as it is a terrorist war. I try not to privilege a side when it's basic hearsay reporting. And the link doesn't sustain "no warning shoots[sic], not[sic] megaphone, no attempt to do anything other than shoot," which would actually color the story. The IDF executes prisoners now (for a while actually if we remember the ambulance) thing. Who cares what they say? I would care if they actually did something to prove that they are what they say they want to be. But we all know none of the soldiers who are involved in warcrimes will get more than a slap on the wrist, if that. Against maybe France or Spain, I'd lean more towards your same prejudices. But this is Hamas. They have child soldiers. They have a history. So when Reuters finds an uncle that says they were looking for firewood past the yellow line, I don't simply say, "It's clear that we should believe this person, since Israel is not to be trusted!" If these were sent by Hamas to scout or plant IEDs or test a particular border section for vigilance, guess what you hear? The exact same thing. So and so relative says they were doing innocent task and bloodthirsty Israeli troops shot them dead without warning. Prejudice against one side making the claims doesn't automatically elevate the other claim. Settling on needing more information is not some excuse to charge the other with wholesale belief in the Israeli story. More information is needed. If you're so prejudiced that you state as fact just one interviewee's testimony, then you're setting yourself up to be deceived by propaganda. If the Israeli record is mixed and bad on stuff like the ambulance shooting and WCK trucks, you should admit the Palestinian record is mixed on Hamas being caught in lies. There is no amount of prejudice where I as a soldier pulling the trigger or a commander giving an order would think that shooting or blowing up 8 and 11 year olds was an OK thing to do, those are the facts of the story, IDF is not disputing them, it's very hard to mistake kids that age with someone who could pose a threat, there are ways to disperse them without killing them, not using them is a fucked up thing to do no matter how you look at it, in my opinion. No dispute here, so long as you admit that a bullet or bomb or grenade or IED from a child kills just like a teen or adult. The IDF could be guilty as sin in all this, and it would join cases like the ambulance convoy or WCK. I assume you are not claiming that there's an age limit above 11 to where a child soldier cannot physically pose a threat? In any case, I hope for further investigation and public accounting. Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 07:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 02 2025 06:46 dyhb wrote:On December 02 2025 03:10 Jankisa wrote:On December 02 2025 01:55 dyhb wrote:
The issue is the reporting. Hamas does use children. The IDF is not especially required to prove a negative --- that they weren't innocent -- or they bear the guilt. The story cites "two suspects 'conducted suspicious activities'" from the IDF. So I would imagine an equally partisan story condemning Hamas for using children to test the yellow line or plant IEDs or w/e: simply prioritizing the IDF's statement, and referring in passing to the uncle and Hamas medical officials denying it.
This is a propaganda war as much as it is a terrorist war. I try not to privilege a side when it's basic hearsay reporting. And the link doesn't sustain "no warning shoots[sic], not[sic] megaphone, no attempt to do anything other than shoot," which would actually color the story. Not even IDF tried to spin this in this way, so congratulations on out-spinning them! These were 8 and 11 year old boys. They were looking for firewood, they were blown up without a warning. Look at how threatening they look, of course IDF had no other recourse but tho blow them up from a drone, right? If you were the commander there, would you push this button? Would you perhaps maybe try to scare them away, maybe a few shoots in the air before sending explosive ordinance their way? On December 02 2025 02:26 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 02 2025 01:55 dyhb wrote:
The issue is the reporting. Hamas does use children. The IDF is not especially required to prove a negative --- that they weren't innocent -- or they bear the guilt. The story cites "two suspects 'conducted suspicious activities'" from the IDF. So I would imagine an equally partisan story condemning Hamas for using children to test the yellow line or plant IEDs or w/e: simply prioritizing the IDF's statement, and referring in passing to the uncle and Hamas medical officials denying it.
This is a propaganda war as much as it is a terrorist war. I try not to privilege a side when it's basic hearsay reporting. And the link doesn't sustain "no warning shoots[sic], not[sic] megaphone, no attempt to do anything other than shoot," which would actually color the story. The IDF executes prisoners now (for a while actually if we remember the ambulance) thing. Who cares what they say? I would care if they actually did something to prove that they are what they say they want to be. But we all know none of the soldiers who are involved in warcrimes will get more than a slap on the wrist, if that. Against maybe France or Spain, I'd lean more towards your same prejudices. But this is Hamas. They have child soldiers. They have a history. So when Reuters finds an uncle that says they were looking for firewood past the yellow line, I don't simply say, "It's clear that we should believe this person, since Israel is not to be trusted!" If these were sent by Hamas to scout or plant IEDs or test a particular border section for vigilance, guess what you hear? The exact same thing. So and so relative says they were doing innocent task and bloodthirsty Israeli troops shot them dead without warning. Prejudice against one side making the claims doesn't automatically elevate the other claim. Settling on needing more information is not some excuse to charge the other with wholesale belief in the Israeli story. More information is needed. If you're so prejudiced that you state as fact just one interviewee's testimony, then you're setting yourself up to be deceived by propaganda. If the Israeli record is mixed and bad on stuff like the ambulance shooting and WCK trucks, you should admit the Palestinian record is mixed on Hamas being caught in lies. You are right. There is of course only one way to solve this. You should round up all the Palestinians, and put them in camps. Make them work for their freedom, and if that doesn't work, a refreshing shower will offer a final recourse. I really hope you're being extremely flippant or trolling.
Takes one to know one.
|
I haven't read the last page or two but I will caution anyone attempting to have a good discussion right now to try and avoid the 1-Liner Brigade. The amount of substantive and charitable engagement you can expect from them is very limited. Heads up.
|
United States43538 Posts
Let me pose an orange line hypothetical. Suppose there’s an orange line drawn on the ground and any time a child crosses that line you’re allowed to rape them. You don’t have to, but it’s allowed under the rules of engagement.
I posit that in that scenario it is still morally wrong to rape, for example, a 6 year old girl. Even if it is allowed. Even if she crossed the orange line. There’s an ethical requirement to not do it. Orange lines don’t somehow change that. Further I think that it told to do it by an authority figure then you should refuse. Further I think that if you do do it then you should kill yourself. That’s the right thing to do there.
Being “allowed” to kill 8 year old boys if they cross the yellow line has absolutely no impact on the morality. It’s still a very simple scenario. Yellow lines don’t make things okay.
|
One thing that seems to get little notice with these "incidents" is that the proper process for approving strikes should prevent them. IDF seems to be willing to act on poor-quality intelligence, like a soldier saying they saw armed men with known aid workers. Even if intelligence is of higher quality, it gets severely misinterpreted. People waving a white flag get identified as enemy combatants. There is also a clear lack of checks on what is being targeted and why, as scheduled humanitarian aid convoys, ambulances, aid distribution, schools, and hospitals can be targeted for minimal reasons, such as cameras. Either the processes do not actually exist, or IDF personnel willingly disregard them.
|
On December 02 2025 08:24 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 07:09 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 02 2025 06:46 dyhb wrote:On December 02 2025 03:10 Jankisa wrote:On December 02 2025 01:55 dyhb wrote:
The issue is the reporting. Hamas does use children. The IDF is not especially required to prove a negative --- that they weren't innocent -- or they bear the guilt. The story cites "two suspects 'conducted suspicious activities'" from the IDF. So I would imagine an equally partisan story condemning Hamas for using children to test the yellow line or plant IEDs or w/e: simply prioritizing the IDF's statement, and referring in passing to the uncle and Hamas medical officials denying it.
This is a propaganda war as much as it is a terrorist war. I try not to privilege a side when it's basic hearsay reporting. And the link doesn't sustain "no warning shoots[sic], not[sic] megaphone, no attempt to do anything other than shoot," which would actually color the story. Not even IDF tried to spin this in this way, so congratulations on out-spinning them! These were 8 and 11 year old boys. They were looking for firewood, they were blown up without a warning. Look at how threatening they look, of course IDF had no other recourse but tho blow them up from a drone, right? If you were the commander there, would you push this button? Would you perhaps maybe try to scare them away, maybe a few shoots in the air before sending explosive ordinance their way? On December 02 2025 02:26 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 02 2025 01:55 dyhb wrote:
The issue is the reporting. Hamas does use children. The IDF is not especially required to prove a negative --- that they weren't innocent -- or they bear the guilt. The story cites "two suspects 'conducted suspicious activities'" from the IDF. So I would imagine an equally partisan story condemning Hamas for using children to test the yellow line or plant IEDs or w/e: simply prioritizing the IDF's statement, and referring in passing to the uncle and Hamas medical officials denying it.
This is a propaganda war as much as it is a terrorist war. I try not to privilege a side when it's basic hearsay reporting. And the link doesn't sustain "no warning shoots[sic], not[sic] megaphone, no attempt to do anything other than shoot," which would actually color the story. The IDF executes prisoners now (for a while actually if we remember the ambulance) thing. Who cares what they say? I would care if they actually did something to prove that they are what they say they want to be. But we all know none of the soldiers who are involved in warcrimes will get more than a slap on the wrist, if that. Against maybe France or Spain, I'd lean more towards your same prejudices. But this is Hamas. They have child soldiers. They have a history. So when Reuters finds an uncle that says they were looking for firewood past the yellow line, I don't simply say, "It's clear that we should believe this person, since Israel is not to be trusted!" If these were sent by Hamas to scout or plant IEDs or test a particular border section for vigilance, guess what you hear? The exact same thing. So and so relative says they were doing innocent task and bloodthirsty Israeli troops shot them dead without warning. Prejudice against one side making the claims doesn't automatically elevate the other claim. Settling on needing more information is not some excuse to charge the other with wholesale belief in the Israeli story. More information is needed. If you're so prejudiced that you state as fact just one interviewee's testimony, then you're setting yourself up to be deceived by propaganda. If the Israeli record is mixed and bad on stuff like the ambulance shooting and WCK trucks, you should admit the Palestinian record is mixed on Hamas being caught in lies. My opinion is that historically both sides were awful assholes so sure, I can agree that both sides are awful assholes today as well. Not sure I would want my country to be on par with a terrorist organisation like Hamas but each to their own. As for your "child soldier" justification. You realize sane adults would never, ever shoot a kid unless it was absolutely necessary. We are talking walking up to them with a bomb. Most normal soldiers wouldn't shoot a 6/11 year old even if they had a gun as long as they weren't in immediate danger. Even if they are technically the enemy you would let them go. In this case they got hit by a drone because they crossed some arbitrary line they couldn't see. It doesn't matter if Hamas sent them there killing them is still something only a psychopath would do in that situation. The justification and context isn't in evidence! I went to the link provided and didn't see any video on (absence of) loud warnings, warning shots, or the basics of suicide bombing/guns. So I'm fine with most of your post, including the fact that the average soldier would not shoot a kid unless there was a real threat. Last of all I want to remind you that this is an argument on the lack of evidence, not something as clear-cut on trusting that it went exactly as some initial IDF or IAF initial statement. Just because Reuters found somebody that says firewood doesn't mean that should be stated as fact and proof of unlawful conduct. I doubt you disagree, but if you do, say so. Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 08:07 Jankisa wrote:On December 02 2025 06:46 dyhb wrote:On December 02 2025 03:10 Jankisa wrote:On December 02 2025 01:55 dyhb wrote:
The issue is the reporting. Hamas does use children. The IDF is not especially required to prove a negative --- that they weren't innocent -- or they bear the guilt. The story cites "two suspects 'conducted suspicious activities'" from the IDF. So I would imagine an equally partisan story condemning Hamas for using children to test the yellow line or plant IEDs or w/e: simply prioritizing the IDF's statement, and referring in passing to the uncle and Hamas medical officials denying it.
This is a propaganda war as much as it is a terrorist war. I try not to privilege a side when it's basic hearsay reporting. And the link doesn't sustain "no warning shoots[sic], not[sic] megaphone, no attempt to do anything other than shoot," which would actually color the story. Not even IDF tried to spin this in this way, so congratulations on out-spinning them! These were 8 and 11 year old boys. They were looking for firewood, they were blown up without a warning. Look at how threatening they look, of course IDF had no other recourse but tho blow them up from a drone, right? If you were the commander there, would you push this button? Would you perhaps maybe try to scare them away, maybe a few shoots in the air before sending explosive ordinance their way? On December 02 2025 02:26 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 02 2025 01:55 dyhb wrote:
The issue is the reporting. Hamas does use children. The IDF is not especially required to prove a negative --- that they weren't innocent -- or they bear the guilt. The story cites "two suspects 'conducted suspicious activities'" from the IDF. So I would imagine an equally partisan story condemning Hamas for using children to test the yellow line or plant IEDs or w/e: simply prioritizing the IDF's statement, and referring in passing to the uncle and Hamas medical officials denying it.
This is a propaganda war as much as it is a terrorist war. I try not to privilege a side when it's basic hearsay reporting. And the link doesn't sustain "no warning shoots[sic], not[sic] megaphone, no attempt to do anything other than shoot," which would actually color the story. The IDF executes prisoners now (for a while actually if we remember the ambulance) thing. Who cares what they say? I would care if they actually did something to prove that they are what they say they want to be. But we all know none of the soldiers who are involved in warcrimes will get more than a slap on the wrist, if that. Against maybe France or Spain, I'd lean more towards your same prejudices. But this is Hamas. They have child soldiers. They have a history. So when Reuters finds an uncle that says they were looking for firewood past the yellow line, I don't simply say, "It's clear that we should believe this person, since Israel is not to be trusted!" If these were sent by Hamas to scout or plant IEDs or test a particular border section for vigilance, guess what you hear? The exact same thing. So and so relative says they were doing innocent task and bloodthirsty Israeli troops shot them dead without warning. Prejudice against one side making the claims doesn't automatically elevate the other claim. Settling on needing more information is not some excuse to charge the other with wholesale belief in the Israeli story. More information is needed. If you're so prejudiced that you state as fact just one interviewee's testimony, then you're setting yourself up to be deceived by propaganda. If the Israeli record is mixed and bad on stuff like the ambulance shooting and WCK trucks, you should admit the Palestinian record is mixed on Hamas being caught in lies. There is no amount of prejudice where I as a soldier pulling the trigger or a commander giving an order would think that shooting or blowing up 8 and 11 year olds was an OK thing to do, those are the facts of the story, IDF is not disputing them, it's very hard to mistake kids that age with someone who could pose a threat, there are ways to disperse them without killing them, not using them is a fucked up thing to do no matter how you look at it, in my opinion. No dispute here, so long as you admit that a bullet or bomb or grenade or IED from a child kills just like a teen or adult. The IDF could be guilty as sin in all this, and it would join cases like the ambulance convoy or WCK. I assume you are not claiming that there's an age limit above 11 to where a child soldier cannot physically pose a threat? In any case, I hope for further investigation and public accounting. Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 07:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 02 2025 06:46 dyhb wrote:On December 02 2025 03:10 Jankisa wrote:On December 02 2025 01:55 dyhb wrote:
The issue is the reporting. Hamas does use children. The IDF is not especially required to prove a negative --- that they weren't innocent -- or they bear the guilt. The story cites "two suspects 'conducted suspicious activities'" from the IDF. So I would imagine an equally partisan story condemning Hamas for using children to test the yellow line or plant IEDs or w/e: simply prioritizing the IDF's statement, and referring in passing to the uncle and Hamas medical officials denying it.
This is a propaganda war as much as it is a terrorist war. I try not to privilege a side when it's basic hearsay reporting. And the link doesn't sustain "no warning shoots[sic], not[sic] megaphone, no attempt to do anything other than shoot," which would actually color the story. Not even IDF tried to spin this in this way, so congratulations on out-spinning them! These were 8 and 11 year old boys. They were looking for firewood, they were blown up without a warning. Look at how threatening they look, of course IDF had no other recourse but tho blow them up from a drone, right? If you were the commander there, would you push this button? Would you perhaps maybe try to scare them away, maybe a few shoots in the air before sending explosive ordinance their way? On December 02 2025 02:26 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 02 2025 01:55 dyhb wrote:
The issue is the reporting. Hamas does use children. The IDF is not especially required to prove a negative --- that they weren't innocent -- or they bear the guilt. The story cites "two suspects 'conducted suspicious activities'" from the IDF. So I would imagine an equally partisan story condemning Hamas for using children to test the yellow line or plant IEDs or w/e: simply prioritizing the IDF's statement, and referring in passing to the uncle and Hamas medical officials denying it.
This is a propaganda war as much as it is a terrorist war. I try not to privilege a side when it's basic hearsay reporting. And the link doesn't sustain "no warning shoots[sic], not[sic] megaphone, no attempt to do anything other than shoot," which would actually color the story. The IDF executes prisoners now (for a while actually if we remember the ambulance) thing. Who cares what they say? I would care if they actually did something to prove that they are what they say they want to be. But we all know none of the soldiers who are involved in warcrimes will get more than a slap on the wrist, if that. Against maybe France or Spain, I'd lean more towards your same prejudices. But this is Hamas. They have child soldiers. They have a history. So when Reuters finds an uncle that says they were looking for firewood past the yellow line, I don't simply say, "It's clear that we should believe this person, since Israel is not to be trusted!" If these were sent by Hamas to scout or plant IEDs or test a particular border section for vigilance, guess what you hear? The exact same thing. So and so relative says they were doing innocent task and bloodthirsty Israeli troops shot them dead without warning. Prejudice against one side making the claims doesn't automatically elevate the other claim. Settling on needing more information is not some excuse to charge the other with wholesale belief in the Israeli story. More information is needed. If you're so prejudiced that you state as fact just one interviewee's testimony, then you're setting yourself up to be deceived by propaganda. If the Israeli record is mixed and bad on stuff like the ambulance shooting and WCK trucks, you should admit the Palestinian record is mixed on Hamas being caught in lies. You are right. There is of course only one way to solve this. You should round up all the Palestinians, and put them in camps. Make them work for their freedom, and if that doesn't work, a refreshing shower will offer a final recourse. I really hope you're being extremely flippant or trolling.
Of course I disagree.
There are almost no conceivable ways that kids getting hit with a drone strike for crossing a line would be fine.
You would maybe shoot a kid pointing a gun at close range.
You wouldn't shoot him if he was 100s of meters away with a gun.
You wouldn't shoot a kid with no weapons that are next to you.
Then we have a drone strike which puts the operator on the other side of a screen miles away and these kids crossing some imaginary line probably hundreds if not thousands of meters from the nearest soldier.
It doesn't matter if they were collecting wood or whatever they were doing. Killing kids is wrong, normal adults don't do it.
If it's done it's either a psychopath or there is a culture of viewing their side as subhumans so that morals does not apply.
You think Kwark is trolling? We are discussing drone strikes on kids and executing prisoners. Israeli ministers are cheering it on. IDF does nothing about it. If the prevailing culture in the IDF is that the enemy are subhuman then camps are not that far off.
You're problem with this is that someone wrote an article and this might affect Israel negativly.
No amount of nitpicking and twisting logic and words will change that it's almost impossible to see these events as justified.
You should be afraid that this will affect Israel but the way to solve it is to call for severe punishment on the troops for as long as it takes to get that done.
|
On December 02 2025 11:15 mindjames wrote:
I haven't read the last page or two but I will caution anyone attempting to have a good discussion right now to try and avoid the 1-Liner Brigade. The amount of substantive and charitable engagement you can expect from them is very limited. Heads up.
Maybe you should have because it's pretty clear cut this time...
|
On December 02 2025 15:35 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 11:15 mindjames wrote:
I haven't read the last page or two but I will caution anyone attempting to have a good discussion right now to try and avoid the 1-Liner Brigade. The amount of substantive and charitable engagement you can expect from them is very limited. Heads up. Maybe you should have because it's pretty clear cut this time...
Nah, I think I'll wait for someone to take a literal hour to write a post, and then reply with my best zinger. I know you'll have my back when someone tries to outrageously imply that I'm trolling.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On December 02 2025 08:24 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 07:09 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 02 2025 06:46 dyhb wrote:On December 02 2025 03:10 Jankisa wrote:On December 02 2025 01:55 dyhb wrote:
The issue is the reporting. Hamas does use children. The IDF is not especially required to prove a negative --- that they weren't innocent -- or they bear the guilt. The story cites "two suspects 'conducted suspicious activities'" from the IDF. So I would imagine an equally partisan story condemning Hamas for using children to test the yellow line or plant IEDs or w/e: simply prioritizing the IDF's statement, and referring in passing to the uncle and Hamas medical officials denying it.
This is a propaganda war as much as it is a terrorist war. I try not to privilege a side when it's basic hearsay reporting. And the link doesn't sustain "no warning shoots[sic], not[sic] megaphone, no attempt to do anything other than shoot," which would actually color the story. Not even IDF tried to spin this in this way, so congratulations on out-spinning them! These were 8 and 11 year old boys. They were looking for firewood, they were blown up without a warning. Look at how threatening they look, of course IDF had no other recourse but tho blow them up from a drone, right? If you were the commander there, would you push this button? Would you perhaps maybe try to scare them away, maybe a few shoots in the air before sending explosive ordinance their way? On December 02 2025 02:26 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 02 2025 01:55 dyhb wrote:
The issue is the reporting. Hamas does use children. The IDF is not especially required to prove a negative --- that they weren't innocent -- or they bear the guilt. The story cites "two suspects 'conducted suspicious activities'" from the IDF. So I would imagine an equally partisan story condemning Hamas for using children to test the yellow line or plant IEDs or w/e: simply prioritizing the IDF's statement, and referring in passing to the uncle and Hamas medical officials denying it.
This is a propaganda war as much as it is a terrorist war. I try not to privilege a side when it's basic hearsay reporting. And the link doesn't sustain "no warning shoots[sic], not[sic] megaphone, no attempt to do anything other than shoot," which would actually color the story. The IDF executes prisoners now (for a while actually if we remember the ambulance) thing. Who cares what they say? I would care if they actually did something to prove that they are what they say they want to be. But we all know none of the soldiers who are involved in warcrimes will get more than a slap on the wrist, if that. Against maybe France or Spain, I'd lean more towards your same prejudices. But this is Hamas. They have child soldiers. They have a history. So when Reuters finds an uncle that says they were looking for firewood past the yellow line, I don't simply say, "It's clear that we should believe this person, since Israel is not to be trusted!" If these were sent by Hamas to scout or plant IEDs or test a particular border section for vigilance, guess what you hear? The exact same thing. So and so relative says they were doing innocent task and bloodthirsty Israeli troops shot them dead without warning. Prejudice against one side making the claims doesn't automatically elevate the other claim. Settling on needing more information is not some excuse to charge the other with wholesale belief in the Israeli story. More information is needed. If you're so prejudiced that you state as fact just one interviewee's testimony, then you're setting yourself up to be deceived by propaganda. If the Israeli record is mixed and bad on stuff like the ambulance shooting and WCK trucks, you should admit the Palestinian record is mixed on Hamas being caught in lies. My opinion is that historically both sides were awful assholes so sure, I can agree that both sides are awful assholes today as well. Not sure I would want my country to be on par with a terrorist organisation like Hamas but each to their own. As for your "child soldier" justification. You realize sane adults would never, ever shoot a kid unless it was absolutely necessary. We are talking walking up to them with a bomb. Most normal soldiers wouldn't shoot a 6/11 year old even if they had a gun as long as they weren't in immediate danger. Even if they are technically the enemy you would let them go. In this case they got hit by a drone because they crossed some arbitrary line they couldn't see. It doesn't matter if Hamas sent them there killing them is still something only a psychopath would do in that situation. The justification and context isn't in evidence! I went to the link provided and didn't see any video on (absence of) loud warnings, warning shots, or the basics of suicide bombing/guns. So I'm fine with most of your post, including the fact that the average soldier would not shoot a kid unless there was a real threat. Last of all I want to remind you that this is an argument on the lack of evidence, not something as clear-cut on trusting that it went exactly as some initial IDF or IAF initial statement. Just because Reuters found somebody that says firewood doesn't mean that should be stated as fact and proof of unlawful conduct. I doubt you disagree, but if you do, say so. Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 08:07 Jankisa wrote:On December 02 2025 06:46 dyhb wrote:On December 02 2025 03:10 Jankisa wrote:On December 02 2025 01:55 dyhb wrote:
The issue is the reporting. Hamas does use children. The IDF is not especially required to prove a negative --- that they weren't innocent -- or they bear the guilt. The story cites "two suspects 'conducted suspicious activities'" from the IDF. So I would imagine an equally partisan story condemning Hamas for using children to test the yellow line or plant IEDs or w/e: simply prioritizing the IDF's statement, and referring in passing to the uncle and Hamas medical officials denying it.
This is a propaganda war as much as it is a terrorist war. I try not to privilege a side when it's basic hearsay reporting. And the link doesn't sustain "no warning shoots[sic], not[sic] megaphone, no attempt to do anything other than shoot," which would actually color the story. Not even IDF tried to spin this in this way, so congratulations on out-spinning them! These were 8 and 11 year old boys. They were looking for firewood, they were blown up without a warning. Look at how threatening they look, of course IDF had no other recourse but tho blow them up from a drone, right? If you were the commander there, would you push this button? Would you perhaps maybe try to scare them away, maybe a few shoots in the air before sending explosive ordinance their way? On December 02 2025 02:26 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 02 2025 01:55 dyhb wrote:
The issue is the reporting. Hamas does use children. The IDF is not especially required to prove a negative --- that they weren't innocent -- or they bear the guilt. The story cites "two suspects 'conducted suspicious activities'" from the IDF. So I would imagine an equally partisan story condemning Hamas for using children to test the yellow line or plant IEDs or w/e: simply prioritizing the IDF's statement, and referring in passing to the uncle and Hamas medical officials denying it.
This is a propaganda war as much as it is a terrorist war. I try not to privilege a side when it's basic hearsay reporting. And the link doesn't sustain "no warning shoots[sic], not[sic] megaphone, no attempt to do anything other than shoot," which would actually color the story. The IDF executes prisoners now (for a while actually if we remember the ambulance) thing. Who cares what they say? I would care if they actually did something to prove that they are what they say they want to be. But we all know none of the soldiers who are involved in warcrimes will get more than a slap on the wrist, if that. Against maybe France or Spain, I'd lean more towards your same prejudices. But this is Hamas. They have child soldiers. They have a history. So when Reuters finds an uncle that says they were looking for firewood past the yellow line, I don't simply say, "It's clear that we should believe this person, since Israel is not to be trusted!" If these were sent by Hamas to scout or plant IEDs or test a particular border section for vigilance, guess what you hear? The exact same thing. So and so relative says they were doing innocent task and bloodthirsty Israeli troops shot them dead without warning. Prejudice against one side making the claims doesn't automatically elevate the other claim. Settling on needing more information is not some excuse to charge the other with wholesale belief in the Israeli story. More information is needed. If you're so prejudiced that you state as fact just one interviewee's testimony, then you're setting yourself up to be deceived by propaganda. If the Israeli record is mixed and bad on stuff like the ambulance shooting and WCK trucks, you should admit the Palestinian record is mixed on Hamas being caught in lies. There is no amount of prejudice where I as a soldier pulling the trigger or a commander giving an order would think that shooting or blowing up 8 and 11 year olds was an OK thing to do, those are the facts of the story, IDF is not disputing them, it's very hard to mistake kids that age with someone who could pose a threat, there are ways to disperse them without killing them, not using them is a fucked up thing to do no matter how you look at it, in my opinion. No dispute here, so long as you admit that a bullet or bomb or grenade or IED from a child kills just like a teen or adult. The IDF could be guilty as sin in all this, and it would join cases like the ambulance convoy or WCK. I assume you are not claiming that there's an age limit above 11 to where a child soldier cannot physically pose a threat? In any case, I hope for further investigation and public accounting. Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 07:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 02 2025 06:46 dyhb wrote:On December 02 2025 03:10 Jankisa wrote:On December 02 2025 01:55 dyhb wrote:
The issue is the reporting. Hamas does use children. The IDF is not especially required to prove a negative --- that they weren't innocent -- or they bear the guilt. The story cites "two suspects 'conducted suspicious activities'" from the IDF. So I would imagine an equally partisan story condemning Hamas for using children to test the yellow line or plant IEDs or w/e: simply prioritizing the IDF's statement, and referring in passing to the uncle and Hamas medical officials denying it.
This is a propaganda war as much as it is a terrorist war. I try not to privilege a side when it's basic hearsay reporting. And the link doesn't sustain "no warning shoots[sic], not[sic] megaphone, no attempt to do anything other than shoot," which would actually color the story. Not even IDF tried to spin this in this way, so congratulations on out-spinning them! These were 8 and 11 year old boys. They were looking for firewood, they were blown up without a warning. Look at how threatening they look, of course IDF had no other recourse but tho blow them up from a drone, right? If you were the commander there, would you push this button? Would you perhaps maybe try to scare them away, maybe a few shoots in the air before sending explosive ordinance their way? On December 02 2025 02:26 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 02 2025 01:55 dyhb wrote:
The issue is the reporting. Hamas does use children. The IDF is not especially required to prove a negative --- that they weren't innocent -- or they bear the guilt. The story cites "two suspects 'conducted suspicious activities'" from the IDF. So I would imagine an equally partisan story condemning Hamas for using children to test the yellow line or plant IEDs or w/e: simply prioritizing the IDF's statement, and referring in passing to the uncle and Hamas medical officials denying it.
This is a propaganda war as much as it is a terrorist war. I try not to privilege a side when it's basic hearsay reporting. And the link doesn't sustain "no warning shoots[sic], not[sic] megaphone, no attempt to do anything other than shoot," which would actually color the story. The IDF executes prisoners now (for a while actually if we remember the ambulance) thing. Who cares what they say? I would care if they actually did something to prove that they are what they say they want to be. But we all know none of the soldiers who are involved in warcrimes will get more than a slap on the wrist, if that. Against maybe France or Spain, I'd lean more towards your same prejudices. But this is Hamas. They have child soldiers. They have a history. So when Reuters finds an uncle that says they were looking for firewood past the yellow line, I don't simply say, "It's clear that we should believe this person, since Israel is not to be trusted!" If these were sent by Hamas to scout or plant IEDs or test a particular border section for vigilance, guess what you hear? The exact same thing. So and so relative says they were doing innocent task and bloodthirsty Israeli troops shot them dead without warning. Prejudice against one side making the claims doesn't automatically elevate the other claim. Settling on needing more information is not some excuse to charge the other with wholesale belief in the Israeli story. More information is needed. If you're so prejudiced that you state as fact just one interviewee's testimony, then you're setting yourself up to be deceived by propaganda. If the Israeli record is mixed and bad on stuff like the ambulance shooting and WCK trucks, you should admit the Palestinian record is mixed on Hamas being caught in lies. You are right. There is of course only one way to solve this. You should round up all the Palestinians, and put them in camps. Make them work for their freedom, and if that doesn't work, a refreshing shower will offer a final recourse. I really hope you're being extremely flippant or trolling.
One isn’t always going to have all the information, nor is the burden of proof necessarily symmetric either.
If you kill someone in most any scenario, it’s generally on you to show you had a good reason to take that course of action. If it’s children you’re killing, even more so.
Asked for comment by Sky News, the IDF responded:
"Earlier today, IDF troops identified two suspects who crossed the yellow line, conducted suspicious activities on the ground, and approached IDF troops operating in the southern Gaza Strip, posing an immediate threat to them.
"Following the identification, the IAF eliminated the suspects in order to remove the threat."
This is quite interesting, I’d assumed just from initial reportage that it was a case of some drone operator somewhere shooting first and asking questions later. In which case, perhaps monstrous, perhaps tragic human error. A hazard in employing drones, or air power in general is identification, and it may not be malicious. I think that’s a wider issue, and is not remotely unique to the IDF, and likely is going to just get worse as we enter the drone warfare era, but that’s by-the-by for this thread’s remit.
But the IDF’s own statement rather contradicts what I’d assumed to have been the case. These kids were apparently within some kind of proximity to troops on the ground and were approaching them. Said troops then called in the drone strike.
Which then begs the question, how were they identified as a threat by troops on the ground, but not identified as well, children? And very obviously children, we’re not talking teens.
And what do the following constitute?:
‘…conducted suspicious activities on the ground’
‘approached IDF troops… posing an immediate threat to them’
That explanation is like, way worse right? Rather than operator error from a drone floating way up in the sky, it’s troops on the ground who made this call. And made said call claiming they presented a threat.
But by virtue of it being troops on the ground, presumably within reasonable proximity, and presumably multiple pairs of eyes, you add a whole suite of layers for both de-escalation, as well as reducing the chances of misidentifying a threat.
Kids apparently approach IDF forces. Ya can’t shout out ‘go home kid, ya ain’t sposed to be here!’ Or fire warning shots, or anything like that? Any de-escalation whatsoever?
The IDF is getting caught in a web of lies here, I believe, and one we see it more frequently doing these days IMO.
Why do I think they’re lying? Because if these kids were presenting a threat, or at least looked like they were, would they not have some kind of exonerating footage or evidence to show that was the case, and this was either justified, or a tragic chain of misunderstandings?
There’s a pretty clear pattern with the IDF in contemporary times in this regard. As distinct to other Western militaries. Hey when you’re dead, you’re dead, equally aggravating regardless of circumstances. But the IDF seem way more reluctant to admit it’s a case of human error or collateral damage than others. I mean the Gulf War was a while ago now, as was Afghanistan, but when we fucked up over there it was frequently parsed as such. And not like ‘oh that wedding was a legitimate target’ or whatever.
I’m not sure the IDF’s statements are really for my benefit, or that of the other denizens of the thread and the wider international audience, perhaps they’re primarily targeted domestically I guess. I’m guessing despite the sizeable cohort of Israelis similarly outraged as I, that at least some of this messaging plays well for some?
|
On December 02 2025 17:46 mindjames wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 15:35 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 02 2025 11:15 mindjames wrote:
I haven't read the last page or two but I will caution anyone attempting to have a good discussion right now to try and avoid the 1-Liner Brigade. The amount of substantive and charitable engagement you can expect from them is very limited. Heads up. Maybe you should have because it's pretty clear cut this time... Nah, I think I'll wait for someone to take a literal hour to write a post, and then reply with my best zinger. I know you'll have my back when someone tries to outrageously imply that I'm trolling.
As always I will call it as I see it. I don't have sides in this mess I just like to call out bullshit when I see it.
The post in question is a retarded argument for killing kids. If it's not outrage trolling on purpose then it's by ignorance.
Everyone is aware of KwarK being a one-line asshole at times, doesn't mean other people can't be trolls as well.
|
Damn yeah let me do a bunch of long posts about how killing children with a drone because they crossed an imaginary line is bad, I'm sure the people who weren't convinced by one-liners will change their minds now.
|
Yeah bro I'm sure what the guy meant is that he really likes it when kids die as long as they're brown.
|
On December 02 2025 23:55 mindjames wrote:
Yeah bro I'm sure what the guy meant is that he really likes it when kids die as long as they're brown.
Oh no that obviously can't be a sign of racism, to show signs of racism you have to do something much worse than that, like compare a group of fascists to another group of fascists.
|
On December 02 2025 23:55 mindjames wrote:
Yeah bro I'm sure what the guy meant is that he really likes it when kids die as long as they're brown.
You should read the rage baiters posts before agreeing with him. You don’t want to end up ignorant to what your defending, otherwise you end up like what you are mad at.
|
On December 02 2025 23:55 mindjames wrote:
Yeah bro I'm sure what the guy meant is that he really likes it when kids die as long as they're brown.
He probably doesn't like kids getting killed but the main issue is the reporting on it.
And since it's the IDF killing them it could be OK and we should get more facts before saying it's bad (but not from the media).
That was unambiguously the message of the posts.
Meanwhile everyone else thinks the main issue is IDF killing kids in the first place and have a hard time seeing any circumstances that would make it OK in this case.
Note that even the posters that normally don't respond when children are collateral damage from Israeli airstrikes (which just happened in Syria btw) think this is fucked.
|
On December 03 2025 00:33 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 23:55 mindjames wrote:
Yeah bro I'm sure what the guy meant is that he really likes it when kids die as long as they're brown. You should read the rage baiters posts before agreeing with him. You don’t want to end up ignorant to what your defending, otherwise you end up like what you are mad at.
Relax, guy. I'm only a few zingers away from solving the middle east.
|
I guess fuck me for pointing at a terrible thing that happened and asking questions if the person defending that would do it too...
I guess also fuck anyone who shares the reaction to this since all of us are "trolling" or "rage-baiting" or "not solving the Middle east".
Very cool and normal reactions towards people who don't like hearing about children being blown up and are enraged by it.
|
United States43538 Posts
Don’t kill children really ought not to be controversial.
|
Truly. If only those damned Zionists didn't love killing children so much!
|
On December 03 2025 02:04 KwarK wrote:
Don’t kill children really ought not to be controversial.
That's how I feel about "Don't materially support genocide", turns out we're wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://e3.365dm.com/25/11/1600x900/skynews-gaza-israel-palestine_7095647.jpg?20251129172930)
