The context is the HD video footage of the IDF drone striking obvious unarmed civilians.
Where's the context showing these people were enemy combatants deserving a death sentence by drone strike? Do you always take the "guilty until proven innocent" line, or is this a race thing?
And this is how you turn a conversation into a pile of shit.
By pointing to evidence to back my claim and asking for consistent standards and something vaguely resembling the rule of law?
How do you propose we make the conversation better?
You're implying racism when there might be none in order to bolster your weak argument.
By all means, tell me what their position is. Failing that, what's the charitable assumption to make here?
As far as I can see, the likely options are:
They support the genocide
They don't care about the rule of law
The former is more common in this context, but it's both weird and worthless of you to insert yourself into the conversation to defend someone's positions that (unless you can confidently answer this question) you don't understand. Just like that, you've derailed the conversation into this irrelevant shit - what was your complaint again? Oh...
As far as I can see, the likely options are:
You can't see very far then.
I don't agree with your position, so you're probably racist. Good day.
You forgot that alternative explanation you insist exists, champ.
Okay keyboard activist
Are you implying keyboard activism when there might be none in order to bolster your weak argument?
Trot on, you weird hypocritical defender of genocide deniers.
Quote where they denied genocide.
I'm not defending them. I'm pointing out your shit reasoning.
Are you 15 years old and trying to sound edgy and trendy? Are all your friends keyboard activists and you're feeling peer-pressured into typing nonsense?
Yep, there is no context for this and heavy framing in the article. I agree with both of your Disclamers, but this is just propaganda.
Dismissing HD footage of people that are clearly civilians being bombed, as propaganda.
You've presumably seen my evidence at this point - where's the evidence justifying the execution of these people? Or is it Hamas (and a death sentence) until proven innocent?
You keep using that word 'evidence', but you are absolutely clueless what it means.
I could tell you that those men are russian soldiers about to rape another child in Ukraine, and would have as much merit as that clip shared on twitter.
There's no proof of time, location, intention, identity etc. etc.
This is facebook-mom levels of nonsense.
'HD footage', you're even parroting the nonsense terms you learned from your peers.
Talking about 'until proven innocent', why are you automatically assuming the Israeli is at fault here? Where's the trial? Are you an anti-semite? Is this a race thing (again)?
You have no fucking clue who the targets were, how long have they been under surveillance, what they were doing, where they were going. This video is literally rage bait for facebook moms and teen-keyboard-activists. Share it so people think you're cool.
A video CAN work as evidence, but it has to bo supported by a million other things. Saying otherwise dismisses all the hard work people are actually doing ivestigating each and every single warcrime and potential warcrime.
I can make a video of you torturing a puppy with a "I can't believe..." headline in 30minutes if you want. But it wouldn't be proof, nor evidence that it's you, that it's now, etc.
Jesus, thanks for making me spell it out for you...
Again, clearly civilians - we'll need evidence to the contrary - particularly when 60%-70% of the Palestinians killed have been children. Guess they were Hamas too, right?
The context is the HD video footage of the IDF drone striking obvious unarmed civilians.
Where's the context showing these people were enemy combatants deserving a death sentence by drone strike? Do you always take the "guilty until proven innocent" line, or is this a race thing?
And this is how you turn a conversation into a pile of shit.
By pointing to evidence to back my claim and asking for consistent standards and something vaguely resembling the rule of law?
How do you propose we make the conversation better?
You're implying racism when there might be none in order to bolster your weak argument.
By all means, tell me what their position is. Failing that, what's the charitable assumption to make here?
As far as I can see, the likely options are:
They support the genocide
They don't care about the rule of law
The former is more common in this context, but it's both weird and worthless of you to insert yourself into the conversation to defend someone's positions that (unless you can confidently answer this question) you don't understand. Just like that, you've derailed the conversation into this irrelevant shit - what was your complaint again? Oh...
You can't see very far then.
I don't agree with your position, so you're probably racist. Good day.
You forgot that alternative explanation you insist exists, champ.
Okay keyboard activist
Are you implying keyboard activism when there might be none in order to bolster your weak argument?
Trot on, you weird hypocritical defender of genocide deniers.
Quote where they denied genocide.
I'm not defending them. I'm pointing out your shit reasoning.
Are you 15 years old and trying to sound edgy and trendy? Are all your friends keyboard activists and you're feeling peer-pressured into typing nonsense?
Dismissing HD footage of people that are clearly civilians being bombed, as propaganda.
You've presumably seen my evidence at this point - where's the evidence justifying the execution of these people? Or is it Hamas (and a death sentence) until proven innocent?
You keep using that word 'evidence', but you are absolutely clueless what it means.
I could tell you that those men are russian soldiers about to rape another child in Ukraine, and would have as much merit as that clip shared on twitter.
There's no proof of time, location, intention, identity etc. etc.
This is facebook-mom levels of nonsense.
'HD footage', you're even parroting the nonsense terms you learned from your peers.
Talking about 'until proven innocent', why are you automatically assuming the Israeli is at fault here? Where's the trial? Are you an anti-semite? Is this a race thing (again)?
You have no fucking clue who the targets were, how long have they been under surveillance, what they were doing, where they were going. This video is literally rage bait for facebook moms and teen-keyboard-activists. Share it so people think you're cool.
A video CAN work as evidence, but it has to bo supported by a million other things. Saying otherwise dismisses all the hard work people are actually doing ivestigating each and every single warcrime and potential warcrime.
I can make a video of you torturing a puppy with a "I can't believe..." headline in 30minutes if you want. But it wouldn't be proof, nor evidence that it's you, that it's now, etc.
Jesus, thanks for making me spell it out for you...
So I'll throw you a bone - here's the most Israel-friendly source possible - The Times of Israel reporting on the IDF admitting it was them..
Again, clearly civilians - we'll need evidence to the contrary - particularly when 60%-70% of the Palestinians killed have been children. Guess they were Hamas too, right?