bigtruckguy3500 said:
SirDippinDots said:
traxter said:
RAB91 said:
Klaus Schwab said:
SirDippinDots said:
Silent For Too Long said:
traxter said:
Silent For Too Long said:
traxter said:
fc2112 said:
Klaus Schwab said:
Well over 7,000 children murdered. Lord Have Mercy.
At least the IDF didn't bake them alive in an oven while raping their mothers.
Seriously, who would do such a thing?
Not to make excuses for Hamas or anything, but several claims about the Oct 7 attacks have been proven false. One of them was the 40 beheaded babies. The other was babies being placed in ovens and being baked.
That being said, I don't know that anything that did happens still justifies killing 7000 kids - so far. Not to mention the hundreds that have now become orphans, have lost limbs, and will be dealing with PTSD for the rest of their lives.
How do you prove something like that false?
It might be hard to confirm, but its impossible to "prove it false."
The Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, was actually the first to question it. They tried identifying all victims and missing, or something like that. And now several sites have broken down the numbers. There was one child under a year old killed. 36 under the age of 18.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/14-kids-under-10-25-people-over-80-up-to-date-breakdown-of-oct-7-victims-we-know-about/
"The final death toll from the attack is now thought to be 695 Israeli civilians, including 36 children, as well as 373 security forces and 71 foreigners, giving a total of 1,139."
Some people also think that a decent number of Israelis killed that day were from friendly fire, as the IDF started shelling the places where Hamas were hiding, and the helicopters were told to shoot any vehicle heading back to Gaza. That's why quite a few burned out and exploded vehicles were on the road to Gaza. No one has given an estimate on how many Israeli would-be hostages were in those vehicles, or how many might have gotten shelled in their Kibutz.
How does that prove the baby wasn't baked in an oven?
I've seen the eye witness testimony of the person who recovered that baby. I would say your assertion that it's been proven false is objective false.
Yeah lots of Palestinian propaganda on this board.
Nope. They have plenty of issues and I don't support their worldview/beliefs. Same goes for Israel. Both groups need to repent. Israel can start by stopping the blood shed.
How about Hamas can start by releasing all of the hostages. Until then, the deaths of the civilians is on their heads.
That's some slippery slope logic.
No it's not.
I dunno. I think it is. By that logic, if police shoot bystanders after unleashing a hail of bullets at a bad guy in a crowd, the blood of the those innocent bystanders is on the heads of the bad guy, not the police. Or, in this case, if a bad guy runs and hides in your basement, the police are justified in burning down your house to get the bad guy.
This does get messier in a war. If you indiscriminately attack an area where you think enemies are hiding, that's a problem. However, because the enemy is armed and fighting and may conceivably have support and traps, etc, a soldier does have more leeway to attack an area even if it will cause civilian casualties. The issue is whether a soldier is taking all logical precautions available to minimize noncombatant casualties. To circle it back to your theoretical situations, if the police are randomly firing at a guy was a pistol, they're clearly in the wrong. If they're burning down your house because a jaywalker is hiding in it, they're clearly wrong. If you have a terrorist cell in the basement planning to release a chemical weapon, then burning down the house may be the best way to neutralize the threat with the least amount of collateral damage.
I'm not saying Israel is justified in their actions. I think they've shown the mendacity of Bibi's government and the problems of relying on reservists for combat, but I also think the hand wringing about some of their decisions is either ignorant or disingenuous.