Assuming Israel is responsible, they have a lot of nerve calling anyone else a terrorist.
The IDF claims this was caused by a mid-fire of Hamas rockets. Both sides have provided the exact same amount of evidence, zero. Maybe wait before hoping back on the anti-Israel bandwagon.
If you're going to repost this random guess, at least fix your typo between copy paste.
Yes, that is exactly what was implied by the first four words of my comment. Maybe learn to read before jumping on the pro-Israel bandwagon.
Why are you pasting this exact same comment on any threads where the Israeli narrative is questioned? I'm trying to figure out if you're part of a Mossad information op, or just a naive Fox News viewer.
Because every thread is identical and is saying the same crap
Yeah, with sound on the story is quite different. I had it muted last night.
That said, the value of any photographic or video evidence has gone down for a long time, especially now with AI. Even without that, tampering with a video's sound has always been trivial.
So I'm generally skeptical of any such evidence, no matter which side it comes from. Moreso when we're talking about war, where truth is the first casualty and manipulating the public opinion is very much part of any strategy.
It's unfortunate, because real people are suffering and I'm here sitting comfortably and raising an eyebrow because I can't trust the reports about it.
Video AI is a long way from a video like that. Images? Yeah possible. Video ai? Maybe next year.
Unfortunately, USInt seems to have arrived at the conclusion that nobody was right.
Israel didn't do it, but neither did Hamas. It would seem that the bombing was carried out by an entirely different militia of Jihadi Palestinians, which if true could indicate that these were Boko Haram types that blew the thing because modern medical science is "too western"
God yeah sure bro it's just a different group of islamist terrorists look I know Israel is blitzing social media with lies but can you take that money and at least come up with something a little more believable? Like if you're going to treat us all to genocide propaganda do a better job
Do you think Hamas are the only Mujahedeen operating out of Palestine?
Bro Hamas isn't even that popular with islamists because they're shia and work so much with other shia.
That's like the entire reason they go so nuts trying to look tough all the time, because all the Sunni Mujahedeen are also active and waiting for the chance to overtake them.
Groups like the Lion Den are only disregarded because they don't have the faux-legitimacy of state Hamas does, even though they actually perform better against Israeli police and military in skirmishes.
It's always the fuckin' Bougeyeviks with these "I don' know shit about the people I'm fetishizin'" takes.
Okay you all told me that this was a hamas rocket misfire and when people pointed out the damage is inconsistent with Hamas weapons now it's the lion den that has infiltrated Gaza, brought over better munitions then misfired those munitions into a hospital that Israel has repeatedly threatened (and they lied about previously targeting hospitals) and I'm the naive one?
Nation states commit acts of war not acts of terror. If you think about it any act you would call terrorism would also be causus belli.
Any violence knowingly committed against civilians by a nation state should be considered an act of terrorism.
That is also an act of war. National militaries don't commit acts of terrorism. They commit crimes against humanity, war crimes, or the justification of war aka causus belli.
You missed the key word there which was should be.
Attacking a hospital is outright terrorism imo and has no place in war. Attack a supply depot or some other strategic point but a fucking hospital? A place dedicated to treating any human being regardless of politics, status, etc. blown up.
Dogs. The lot of them. May the toll of the war bell ring loudest and the longest among them and each of their supporters.
No I didn't miss it. These words mean things already. Terrorism is something non-state entities engage in. When nations do it they are called acts of war.
If a bunch of American burn down a bar in Canada that would be terrorism. If the US army did the same thing it would be a legal justification for Canada to declare war. That's because militaries are acting on behalf of the country while random citizens are not.
There's no reason for this to change unless you hold to the idea that somehow terrorism is worse than acts of war or war crimes which is pretty childish and ignorant.
Okay so you’re arguing pedantics. Let’s do it.
Can you find any official global sources that define terrorism vs an act of war?
I couldn’t but I only checked for a short while.
What does arguing pedantics mean? Note pedantics isn't a word.
Yes the UN codes regarding war crimes.
Arguing pedantics = conversational way of saying that you are being pedantic.
Define terrorism not war crimes, obviously. Nobody was arguing for the definition of war crimes, and just because something isn’t a formal war crime, doesn’t mean it’s not something else (which would possibly include but not limit to only terrorism)
You know what they meant.
You are still being pedantic arguing about semantics.
If you have to obscure your animus behind a veil of linguistics then you don't actually have one.
Is that a big enough vocab for you
It is still an example of terrorism, it is also a good Cassus Belli.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Except they are. Terrorists are non-state organizations.
A terrorist is someone who uses terror to enact change.
By all rights we were terrorists when we went into iraq and Afghanistan.
We went in and used fear and terror of us reaction to change things
No we were an invading army
Okay, well since you like being pedantic and hiding behind semantics here is the Oxford definition.
You can spend all day yelling at them.
I have called you out on your what i will assume is misinformation instead of disinformation.
It's your move, do you argue against the factual definition?
First you didn't not include a definition. Second, dictionaries aren't authoritative sources but rather descriptive ones. If you need that explained to you then you are ill equipped for any academic discussion.
You are right I did forget here you go.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
ter·ror·ist
noun
a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"
Similar:
bomber
arsonist
incendiary
gunman
assassin
desperado
hijacker
revolutionary
radical
guerrilla
urban guerrilla
subversive
anarchist
freedom fighter
insurrectionist
insurrectionary
adjective
unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"a terrorist organization"
Personally, I don't recognize the 1948 decision to create this nation state out of thin air, displacing an already existing nation and illegally seizing their land. So I'm cool to keep talking about it as a terrorist organization, yeah? Okay, thanks.
Don't recognize it? There are 9 million people living in it, and worldwide recognition.
Also the 48 decision was UN backed, meaning the nations of the world think otherwise.
Jeez, you can not like someone while still admitting their existence.
Why do you equate Jewish people with Israel? That's a zionist stance, not a Jewish stance. Of course Jewish people exist - but let's not be arrogant enough to define a group of people by their one common characteristic and lump them all in together into one state, yeah?
I have no issues with Jewish people. At least not with those living outside Israel - those who moved there willingly did so at the expense of their own morals (provided they already had a good home somewhere else), as they knew they are displacing an existing culture. I do have some issues with:
The creation of Israel, done by lobbying the correct people with the correct incentives (the promise of keeping Muslims in the region at bay, and of being a trade partner for the backers), without any claim on the land - you know, as opposed to the people actually fucking living there at the time
Rich people exploiting the situation of Palestine pre-1948 to get richer. Also post-1948, let's not act like selling arms to the Israeli slaughterhouse to continue their genocide on Muslims isn't profitable for some immoral fucks.
The ethnic cleansing that's been going on in Palestine over the last 70 years
Governments of the world pretending human lives don't matter and that regions of land don't belong to the people inhabiting them (and who have done so for generations).
Appealing to those governments to form your opinion. The UN doesn't recognize Taiwan. Wanna stroke their dicks for it, or can we agree some massive conglomerate of rich and powerful old cunts that trade in blood don't really constitute a proper standard of morality?
Establishing a state based on a religion. I like the division of church and state, I think it's a good thing.
And so many others that I don't have the energy to type, as this is really not a black and white subject, but it's for sure not as gray as it's being painted. It's just another government installed in a region by external influences with superior firepower, with no rhyme or reason other than making money, like so many others in the world.
At the end of the day, this is my own opinion and the world as a whole doesn't seem to agree - especially since the people in charge don't really care if others agree or not, and since it's not a hot topic or something that impacts us daily, there will never be the type of mass protests necessary to stop funding this terrorist organization. And I'll probably die with this opinion, and nothing will change. In the meanwhile, what the fuck is your excuse for buying into the propaganda and supporting the 70 years of slaughter of a group of people?
Firstly, where did I mention jews? Israel have non-jews in it. But it's a valid point, Israel is a jewish point - a home for the jews after the Holocaust - which 100% needed to happen since they're persecuted all over the world. Even if you have no problem with jews, muslim states and nazis do.
Secondly, you shift all the blame of the situation on Israel, while they do have lots to blame for, so does the Palestinian leadership. They're the ones teaching hate speech in schools, promoting violence against civilians, and not looking for a peaceful resolution benefitting their people.
Thirdly, yes Israel likes being jewish and is working hard to keep being jewish, but that's their whole shtick. Does anybody blame Jordan or Egypt for being muslim by law? I certainly don't hear them as much as Israeli protestors. Which again further solidifies the need for a jewish state - there isn't a safe place for jews in this world but that state. Wanting to take that away is just wrong.
Also, I'd like you to keep in mind a simple point. How would arabs live under Israeli law (you can see examples in Israel right now - they have human rights) vs. how would jews live under Palestinian law (hint: they won't).
Yes, it's wrong keeping gaza and the west bank under military power, but tbh what else can Israel do when suicide bombers arrive every day (and get praised heavily for it). The only solution is 2 states. Now after what Hamas did, I super doubt it is an option, and probably a total occupation of the land is eminent. Extremism brings extremism, and what Hamas did will make everything worse. That attack worsened the status quo, in the worst possible direction.
The decision didn't have gold fringe, so it isn't real.
There was no existing nation. Pre-47, it was British territory and before that, it was seized from the Ottoman Empire after WW1.
Simplistic statements about historical claims to territory will never work here. Nor will "keeping score" about whose team is getting revenge for what previous massacre and who's killed the most children (what a fucking thing to have to spell out. holy shit.).
Assuming Israel is responsible, they have a lot of nerve calling anyone else a terrorist.
The IDF claims this was caused by a mid-fire of Hamas rockets. Both sides have provided the exact same amount of evidence, zero. Maybe wait before hoping back on the anti-Israel bandwagon.
If you're going to repost this random guess, at least fix your typo between copy paste.
Yes, that is exactly what was implied by the first four words of my comment. Maybe learn to read before jumping on the pro-Israel bandwagon.
Why are you pasting this exact same comment on any threads where the Israeli narrative is questioned? I'm trying to figure out if you're part of a Mossad information op, or just a naive Fox News viewer.
Because every thread is identical and is saying the same crap
Fighting fire with fire eh?
Last i saw it was the Israeli Jihad they were blaming it on.
You can't convince me that's not a Freudian slip.
Here is the video of the bombing. https://youtube.com/shorts/cCSugJpGdO4
The video doesn't show what caused the exposition.
Put the sound on and tell me without any shame that it's rockets.
If it isn't a rocket, then WTF is the sound before the explosion?
A proper missile
Oh, yeah. I thought you meant to say that it was explosives planted there.
That's the sound a
makes.
https://youtu.be/A_uwzugvv-g?si=VsHMdzOxgka0OqKo
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/A_uwzugvv-g?si=VsHMdzOxgka0OqKo
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Yeah, with sound on the story is quite different. I had it muted last night.
That said, the value of any photographic or video evidence has gone down for a long time, especially now with AI. Even without that, tampering with a video's sound has always been trivial.
So I'm generally skeptical of any such evidence, no matter which side it comes from. Moreso when we're talking about war, where truth is the first casualty and manipulating the public opinion is very much part of any strategy.
It's unfortunate, because real people are suffering and I'm here sitting comfortably and raising an eyebrow because I can't trust the reports about it.
Video AI is a long way from a video like that. Images? Yeah possible. Video ai? Maybe next year.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/shorts/cCSugJpGdO4
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Unfortunately, USInt seems to have arrived at the conclusion that nobody was right.
Israel didn't do it, but neither did Hamas. It would seem that the bombing was carried out by an entirely different militia of Jihadi Palestinians, which if true could indicate that these were Boko Haram types that blew the thing because modern medical science is "too western"
God yeah sure bro it's just a different group of islamist terrorists look I know Israel is blitzing social media with lies but can you take that money and at least come up with something a little more believable? Like if you're going to treat us all to genocide propaganda do a better job
Do you think Hamas are the only Mujahedeen operating out of Palestine?
Bro Hamas isn't even that popular with islamists because they're shia and work so much with other shia.
That's like the entire reason they go so nuts trying to look tough all the time, because all the Sunni Mujahedeen are also active and waiting for the chance to overtake them.
Groups like the Lion Den are only disregarded because they don't have the faux-legitimacy of state Hamas does, even though they actually perform better against Israeli police and military in skirmishes.
It's always the fuckin' Bougeyeviks with these "I don' know shit about the people I'm fetishizin'" takes.
Okay you all told me that this was a hamas rocket misfire and when people pointed out the damage is inconsistent with Hamas weapons now it's the lion den that has infiltrated Gaza, brought over better munitions then misfired those munitions into a hospital that Israel has repeatedly threatened (and they lied about previously targeting hospitals) and I'm the naive one?
Nation states commit acts of war not acts of terror. If you think about it any act you would call terrorism would also be causus belli.
Any violence knowingly committed against civilians by a nation state should be considered an act of terrorism.
That is also an act of war. National militaries don't commit acts of terrorism. They commit crimes against humanity, war crimes, or the justification of war aka causus belli.
You missed the key word there which was should be.
Attacking a hospital is outright terrorism imo and has no place in war. Attack a supply depot or some other strategic point but a fucking hospital? A place dedicated to treating any human being regardless of politics, status, etc. blown up.
Dogs. The lot of them. May the toll of the war bell ring loudest and the longest among them and each of their supporters.
No I didn't miss it. These words mean things already. Terrorism is something non-state entities engage in. When nations do it they are called acts of war.
If a bunch of American burn down a bar in Canada that would be terrorism. If the US army did the same thing it would be a legal justification for Canada to declare war. That's because militaries are acting on behalf of the country while random citizens are not.
There's no reason for this to change unless you hold to the idea that somehow terrorism is worse than acts of war or war crimes which is pretty childish and ignorant.
Okay so you’re arguing pedantics. Let’s do it.
Can you find any official global sources that define terrorism vs an act of war?
I couldn’t but I only checked for a short while.
What does arguing pedantics mean? Note pedantics isn't a word.
Yes the UN codes regarding war crimes.
Arguing pedantics = conversational way of saying that you are being pedantic.
Define terrorism not war crimes, obviously. Nobody was arguing for the definition of war crimes, and just because something isn’t a formal war crime, doesn’t mean it’s not something else (which would possibly include but not limit to only terrorism)
You know what they meant.
You are still being pedantic arguing about semantics.
If you have to obscure your animus behind a veil of linguistics then you don't actually have one.
Is that a big enough vocab for you
It is still an example of terrorism, it is also a good Cassus Belli.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Except they are. Terrorists are non-state organizations.
A terrorist is someone who uses terror to enact change.
By all rights we were terrorists when we went into iraq and Afghanistan.
We went in and used fear and terror of us reaction to change things
No we were an invading army
Okay, well since you like being pedantic and hiding behind semantics here is the Oxford definition.
You can spend all day yelling at them.
I have called you out on your what i will assume is misinformation instead of disinformation.
It's your move, do you argue against the factual definition?
First you didn't not include a definition. Second, dictionaries aren't authoritative sources but rather descriptive ones. If you need that explained to you then you are ill equipped for any academic discussion.
You are right I did forget here you go.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
ter·ror·ist
noun
a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"
Similar:
bomber
arsonist
incendiary
gunman
assassin
desperado
hijacker
revolutionary
radical
guerrilla
urban guerrilla
subversive
anarchist
freedom fighter
insurrectionist
insurrectionary
adjective
unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"a terrorist organization"
Correct. There is no authority in language except French. So your pedantic arguments are also flawed. Your own argument works against you
Personally, I don't recognize the 1948 decision to create this nation state out of thin air, displacing an already existing nation and illegally seizing their land. So I'm cool to keep talking about it as a terrorist organization, yeah? Okay, thanks.
Don't recognize it? There are 9 million people living in it, and worldwide recognition. Also the 48 decision was UN backed, meaning the nations of the world think otherwise. Jeez, you can not like someone while still admitting their existence.
Why do you equate Jewish people with Israel? That's a zionist stance, not a Jewish stance. Of course Jewish people exist - but let's not be arrogant enough to define a group of people by their one common characteristic and lump them all in together into one state, yeah?
I have no issues with Jewish people. At least not with those living outside Israel - those who moved there willingly did so at the expense of their own morals (provided they already had a good home somewhere else), as they knew they are displacing an existing culture. I do have some issues with:
The creation of Israel, done by lobbying the correct people with the correct incentives (the promise of keeping Muslims in the region at bay, and of being a trade partner for the backers), without any claim on the land - you know, as opposed to the people actually fucking living there at the time
Rich people exploiting the situation of Palestine pre-1948 to get richer. Also post-1948, let's not act like selling arms to the Israeli slaughterhouse to continue their genocide on Muslims isn't profitable for some immoral fucks.
The ethnic cleansing that's been going on in Palestine over the last 70 years
Governments of the world pretending human lives don't matter and that regions of land don't belong to the people inhabiting them (and who have done so for generations).
Appealing to those governments to form your opinion. The UN doesn't recognize Taiwan. Wanna stroke their dicks for it, or can we agree some massive conglomerate of rich and powerful old cunts that trade in blood don't really constitute a proper standard of morality?
Establishing a state based on a religion. I like the division of church and state, I think it's a good thing.
And so many others that I don't have the energy to type, as this is really not a black and white subject, but it's for sure not as gray as it's being painted. It's just another government installed in a region by external influences with superior firepower, with no rhyme or reason other than making money, like so many others in the world.
At the end of the day, this is my own opinion and the world as a whole doesn't seem to agree - especially since the people in charge don't really care if others agree or not, and since it's not a hot topic or something that impacts us daily, there will never be the type of mass protests necessary to stop funding this terrorist organization. And I'll probably die with this opinion, and nothing will change. In the meanwhile, what the fuck is your excuse for buying into the propaganda and supporting the 70 years of slaughter of a group of people?
Firstly, where did I mention jews? Israel have non-jews in it. But it's a valid point, Israel is a jewish point - a home for the jews after the Holocaust - which 100% needed to happen since they're persecuted all over the world. Even if you have no problem with jews, muslim states and nazis do.
Secondly, you shift all the blame of the situation on Israel, while they do have lots to blame for, so does the Palestinian leadership. They're the ones teaching hate speech in schools, promoting violence against civilians, and not looking for a peaceful resolution benefitting their people.
Thirdly, yes Israel likes being jewish and is working hard to keep being jewish, but that's their whole shtick. Does anybody blame Jordan or Egypt for being muslim by law? I certainly don't hear them as much as Israeli protestors. Which again further solidifies the need for a jewish state - there isn't a safe place for jews in this world but that state. Wanting to take that away is just wrong.
Also, I'd like you to keep in mind a simple point. How would arabs live under Israeli law (you can see examples in Israel right now - they have human rights) vs. how would jews live under Palestinian law (hint: they won't). Yes, it's wrong keeping gaza and the west bank under military power, but tbh what else can Israel do when suicide bombers arrive every day (and get praised heavily for it). The only solution is 2 states. Now after what Hamas did, I super doubt it is an option, and probably a total occupation of the land is eminent. Extremism brings extremism, and what Hamas did will make everything worse. That attack worsened the status quo, in the worst possible direction.
The decision didn't have gold fringe, so it isn't real.
There was no existing nation. Pre-47, it was British territory and before that, it was seized from the Ottoman Empire after WW1.
Simplistic statements about historical claims to territory will never work here. Nor will "keeping score" about whose team is getting revenge for what previous massacre and who's killed the most children (what a fucking thing to have to spell out. holy shit.).