The Children of Gaza = More than 7000 Killed.

[xylophone]

On 1/1/2024 at 3:12 PM, Bkk Brian said:

Thought so, you have no idea and obviously know knowledge of  International Humanitarian Law

 

 IHL allows for the killing of civilians when militarily necessary, subject to the principles of distinction and proportionality. This stems from a recognition that killing is a given in wars, and it is simply unfeasible to criminalise all kinds of civilian deaths. IHL can be understood as accepting the realities of violence in war while restraining its effects. Fundamentally, as long as an attack is proportionate to the concrete and direct anticipated military gains, any incidental wounding or killing of civilians may not automatically be deemed an unlawful act, subject to individual assessment.

 

Just for some further clarification for you. Mistakes are indeed made and Israel have owned up to these, however everything is done to avoid civilian casualties and your comparison to the Holocaust remains pathetically wrong as does your claim that Israel is deliberately killing thousands of women, children and men.

 

How is the IDF Minimizing Harm to Civilians in Gaza?

https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/the-hamas-terrorist-organization/how-is-the-idf-minimizing-harm-to-civilians-in-gaza/

This seems to be one major aspect of this "war" which some posters here seem to forget – – that Hamas has been waging war against the Israeli nation for as long as I can remember (in one form or another) and the most despicable thing about this war is that Hamas deliberately hide behind civilians, uses them as cover and uses hospitals and homes in which to hide and carry out their atrocities.

 

There was one post I read a couple of days ago whereby someone was up in arms because refugee camp had been shelled – – but what they hadn't mentioned was that rockets had been fired at Israel from this very same refugee camp, by Hamas! So Hamas knows exactly what it's doing and IMO sees it as a win/win situation for them.

 

They fire upon the Israelis from the refugee camp and know full well that any returned fire will also kill Palestinian citizens, but they don't care because that's great publicity for them (anti-Israeli that is) and in addition, it probably reduces the amount of Hamas deaths, so again a win situation.

 

They are despicable terrorist organisation and should be eliminated, and all the while that the fighting is going on, the fat cat leaders are living in luxury in Qatar and Lebanon – – what a bunch of r--soles. Despicable and total elimination of them would be a gift to the world.
 

[Neeranam]

On 1/2/2024 at 4:09 PM, Hawaiian said:

As I said the choice is yours.  I also said I am not fighting a war and in no need for up to date information.  One day late is fine for me.  However, it may be important for someone in a hurry trying to validate their position on this forum.

Spot on.

[Bkk Brian]

Whatever the number of women and kids killed now is too much but believing the Hamas figures that are published daily, hook line and sinker is also too much. More than that, its wholesale fraud as evidenced by their own figures analyzed by NGO Monitor and UN Watch. 

 

BREAKING: 🇺🇳 U.N.'s official Gaza casualty count exposed as total fraud. Analysis of their figures—all taken from Hamas—shows that on multiple days they claim Israeli air strikes on Hamas targets miraculously failed to hit any men at all, only hundreds of women and children. 🧵:

 

Follow the above thread link, also referenced here in the link in the article

 

UNRWA Misinformation on 2023 Israel/Hamas War

UNRWA relies on the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health for its casualty numbers, which does not distinguish between civilians and Hamas combatants, so it is misleading for UNRWA to label all 20,000 reported casualties as “civilians.” According to the IDF, at least 8,000 Hamas terrorists have been killed as of December 23rd, 2023.

Additionally, a close review of the UN’s official Gaza casualty count reveals that, unsurprisingly, the data is being falsified. The count of children and women casualties on some days increased more than the total casualty count. It is in Hamas’ interest to inflate children and women casualty numbers, blaming Israel to incite global antisemitism and to build diplomatic pressure against IDF operations.

https://unwatch.org/unrwa-misinformation-on-2023-israel-hamas-war/

 

Full X link here with graphs  and official figures from UN in this link as well as evidence of the fraud:

https://twitter.com/Aizenberg55/status/1731753062622982386

 

[metisdead]

A post in which the quoted content had been altered contravening our Forum Rules has been removed:

 

28. You will not make changes to messages quoted from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. Do not shorten any post in a way that alters the context of the original post. Do not change the formatting of the post you are quoting.

[ezzra]

This war would have happened If it wasn't for Iran, an arch foe and staunch enemy of Israel, ( for no apparent reasons it seems)

Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest of the paid terrorists in Iraq and Yemen, yes paid terrorists, otherwise what has Hezbollah

to do with Israel being in Lebanon unless they are being paid billions to cause troubles ?

 

So a bit about Iran, a peace loving nation here: The Norway-based Iran Human Rights group said in November that the

Islamic republic had executed more than 700 people in 2023, the highest figure in eight years.

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/iran-hangs-nine-convicted-drug-traffickers-state-media/

[Neeranam]

39 minutes ago, ezzra said:

This war would have happened If it wasn't for Iran, an arch foe and staunch enemy of Israel, ( for no apparent reasons it seems)

Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest of the paid terrorists in Iraq and Yemen, yes paid terrorists, otherwise what has Hezbollah

to do with Israel being in Lebanon unless they are being paid billions to cause troubles ?

 

So a bit about Iran, a peace loving nation here: The Norway-based Iran Human Rights group said in November that the

Islamic republic had executed more than 700 people in 2023, the highest figure in eight years.

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/iran-hangs-nine-convicted-drug-traffickers-state-media/

Off topic, nothing to do with your country killing 8,000 and rising children.

Iranians view the creation of Israel as an unjust dispossession of Palestinian land(apparent reason).

Iran has consistently opposed Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories(apparent reason).

[Bkk Brian]

What better way to bring up your children in Gaza than get them used to tunnel life as a terrorist:

 

https://twitter.com/cogatonline/status/1742571281462051002

 

[placeholder]

15 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Whatever the number of women and kids killed now is too much but believing the Hamas figures that are published daily, hook line and sinker is also too much. More than that, its wholesale fraud as evidenced by their own figures analyzed by NGO Monitor and UN Watch. 

 

BREAKING: 🇺🇳 U.N.'s official Gaza casualty count exposed as total fraud. Analysis of their figures—all taken from Hamas—shows that on multiple days they claim Israeli air strikes on Hamas targets miraculously failed to hit any men at all, only hundreds of women and children. 🧵:

 

Follow the above thread link, also referenced here in the link in the article

 

UNRWA Misinformation on 2023 Israel/Hamas War

UNRWA relies on the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health for its casualty numbers, which does not distinguish between civilians and Hamas combatants, so it is misleading for UNRWA to label all 20,000 reported casualties as “civilians.” According to the IDF, at least 8,000 Hamas terrorists have been killed as of December 23rd, 2023.

Additionally, a close review of the UN’s official Gaza casualty count reveals that, unsurprisingly, the data is being falsified. The count of children and women casualties on some days increased more than the total casualty count. It is in Hamas’ interest to inflate children and women casualty numbers, blaming Israel to incite global antisemitism and to build diplomatic pressure against IDF operations.

https://unwatch.org/unrwa-misinformation-on-2023-israel-hamas-war/

 

Full X link here with graphs  and official figures from UN in this link as well as evidence of the fraud:

https://twitter.com/Aizenberg55/status/1731753062622982386

 

First you cite COGAT as a reliable source and now your info comes from 2 organizations that are way over the top in their support for israel.

 

As for the reliability of Hamas figures. If you want a far less biased look at how the information is gathered you'll have to look up the Reuters report dated dec 9  which is an explanation of the death toll offered by the Health Authorities in Gaza. If anything it's an undercount since only bodies that make it to the hospitals are counted. There the names, age and ID card number is recorded.. And an unnamed Israeli official concurred that the figures are more or less right.

[Bkk Brian]

42 minutes ago, placeholder said:

First you cite COGAT as a reliable source and now your info comes from 2 organizations that are way over the top in their support for israel.

 

As for the reliability of Hamas figures. If you want a far less biased look at how the information is gathered you'll have to look up the Reuters report dated dec 9  which is an explanation of the death toll offered by the Health Authorities in Gaza. If anything it's an undercount since only bodies that make it to the hospitals are counted. There the names, age and ID card number is recorded.. And an unnamed Israeli official concurred that the figures are more or less right.

COGAT is bias but to insinuate its unreliable has no foundation in fact and the video I link I posted above the original source is on IDF. Now of course your going to complain that IDF is unreliable. News for you, Hamas is also bias but you swallow whole the daily death figures.

 

 

 

You seem to be confused, the Health Authorities in Gaza is Hamas. Does that report also separate out the Terrorist fighters that were killed? Thought not, well over 8,000.

 

UN WATCH is good enough for me, and it also appears its good enough for Kofi Annan and 100's of other NGO's and rights groups, it gets to something that al you've got left is a feeble attempt attacking messengers that contain facts, is it bias, of course it is, does it cite facts, yes.

 

“I deeply appreciate the valuable work performed by UN Watch. Informed and independent evaluation of the United Nations’ activities will prove a vital source as we seek to adapt the Organization to the needs of a changing world.”
— Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General

https://twitter.com/UNWatch/status/1520656596673646592

 

When are you going to provide a citation to back up your claim that:

 

"Buit as time goes by and Israel allows only a fraction of food supplies to enter Gaza, what to you think is going to happen? "

 

or

 

that the killing of the first 2 hostages did not violate their rules of engagement

Edited January 4 by Bkk Brian

[Hawaiian]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

First you cite COGAT as a reliable source and now your info comes from 2 organizations that are way over the top in their support for israel.

 

As for the reliability of Hamas figures. If you want a far less biased look at how the information is gathered you'll have to look up the Reuters report dated dec 9  which is an explanation of the death toll offered by the Health Authorities in Gaza. If anything it's an undercount since only bodies that make it to the hospitals are counted. There the names, age and ID card number is recorded.. And an unnamed Israeli official concurred that the figures are more or less right.

This is what MBFC has to say:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/un-watch/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ngo-monitor-bias/

And for the honorable and trustworthy Kofi Annan:

https://theconversation.com/kofi-annan-a-complicated-legacy-of-impressive-acheivements-and-some-profound-failures-101791

 

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Hawaiian said:

This is what MBFC has to say:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/un-watch/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ngo-monitor-bias/

And for the honorable and trustworthy Kofi Annan:

https://theconversation.com/kofi-annan-a-complicated-legacy-of-impressive-acheivements-and-some-profound-failures-101791

 

Yes UN Watch:

Failed Fact Checks
None in the Last 5 years (removed a fact check listed here because it was not a direct fact check of UN Watch)

 

NGO Monitor

Failed Fact Checks

None found by third-party fact-checkers.

 

Please lets not try to discredit Kofi.

 

[placeholder]

31 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes UN Watch:

Failed Fact Checks
None in the Last 5 years (removed a fact check listed here because it was not a direct fact check of UN Watch)

 

NGO Monitor

Failed Fact Checks

None found by third-party fact-checkers.

 

Please lets not try to discredit Kofi.

 

From the same source

UN Bias Fact Check:

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using an appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy

Overall, we rate UN Watch Right Biased based on information and political positions that favor the right and Mostly Factual due to the use of poor sources that have failed fact checks.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/un-watch/

 

 

These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information reporting that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. 

• Overall, we rate the NGO Monitor Right biased based on support for the right-wing Israeli government. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting based on the consistent promotion of pro-Israeli propaganda.https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ngo-monitor-bias/

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, placeholder said:

From the same source

UN Bias Fact Check:

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using an appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy

Overall, we rate UN Watch Right Biased based on information and political positions that favor the right and Mostly Factual due to the use of poor sources that have failed fact checks.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/un-watch/

 

 

These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information reporting that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. 

• Overall, we rate the NGO Monitor Right biased based on support for the right-wing Israeli government. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting based on the consistent promotion of pro-Israeli propaganda.https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ngo-monitor-bias/

WE can drill down into details of all sources for ever and a day. The fact is that its a credible source and also accepted as such on this forum:

 

The group has been praised by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan,[8][9] and the Director General of the UN Office in Geneva Sergei Ordzhonikidze has acknowledged "the valuable work of UN Watch in support of the just application of values and principles of the United Nations Charter and support for human rights for all."[10] Agence France-Presse has described UN Watch both as "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel"[11] and as a group which "champion[s] human rights worldwide".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Watch

 

You may also want to take a look at who sits on their advisory board:

https://unwatch.org/about-us/mission-history/

 

 

However deflecting, I provide links and I am still waiting for links to these claims

 

"Buit as time goes by and Israel allows only a fraction of food supplies to enter Gaza, what to you think is going to happen? "

 

or

 

that the killing of the first 2 hostages did not violate their rules of engagement

 

 

[Morch]

I don't recall that many objections to AJ......

[Hawaiian]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

From the same source

UN Bias Fact Check:

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using an appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy

Overall, we rate UN Watch Right Biased based on information and political positions that favor the right and Mostly Factual due to the use of poor sources that have failed fact checks.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/un-watch/

 

 

These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information reporting that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. 

• Overall, we rate the NGO Monitor Right biased based on support for the right-wing Israeli government. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting based on the consistent promotion of pro-Israeli propaganda.https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ngo-monitor-bias/

This is the very reason I chose to reply to your post.  As to the other poster in question, he will cherry pick a link and only acknowledge those items he feels align with his views.  Of course, he will ignore (his favorite word) anything that is counter to his point of view, which in his mind, overrides every other persons point of view. 

[Hawaiian]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

I don't recall that many objections to AJ......

You're right.  Only a few, including me.

One poster is waiting for links to two quoted statements, but fails to name the author(s) of those statements.  Could be they have chosen to ignore his request.

NOTE: He refers to the statements as "claims."

Edited January 4 by Hawaiian
Additional comment.

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

This is the very reason I chose to reply to your post.  As to the other poster in question, he will cherry pick a link and only acknowledge those items he feels align with his views.  Of course, he will ignore (his favorite word) anything that is counter to his point of view, which in his mind, overrides every other persons point of view. 

It maybe better to post to me directly when talking about. It may appear as trolling otherwise.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Hawaiian said:

You're right.  Only a few, including me.

 

I was actually aiming at @placeholder heated rejection of sources, when it suits.

 

[placeholder]

 

4 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

WE can drill down into details of all sources for ever and a day. The fact is that its a credible source and also accepted as such on this forum:

 

The group has been praised by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan,[8][9] and the Director General of the UN Office in Geneva Sergei Ordzhonikidze has acknowledged "the valuable work of UN Watch in support of the just application of values and principles of the United Nations Charter and support for human rights for all."[10] Agence France-Presse has described UN Watch both as "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel"[11] and as a group which "champion[s] human rights worldwide".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Watch

 

You may also want to take a look at who sits on their advisory board:

https://unwatch.org/about-us/mission-history/

 

 

However deflecting, I provide links and I am still waiting for links to these claims

 

"Buit as time goes by and Israel allows only a fraction of food supplies to enter Gaza, what to you think is going to happen? "

 

or

 

that the killing of the first 2 hostages did not violate their rules of engagement

 

 

Maybe you should look at the history of UN Watch a little more closely:

"After Abram died in 2000, David A. Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, was elected Chairman of UN Watch. In 2001, Harris announced that UN Watch had become a wholly owned subsidiary of the American Jewish Committee."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Watch#cite_note-UN_Watch,_AJC_Seal_Partnership-14

 

And I'm not the one who originally invoked the Bias in Media Fact Check reports. Hung by your own petard much?

 

Edited January 4 by placeholder

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

Maybe you should look at the history of UN Watch a little more closely:

"After Abram died in 2000, David A. Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, was elected Chairman of UN Watch. In 2001, Harris announced that UN Watch had become a wholly owned subsidiary of the American Jewish Committee."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Watch#cite_note-UN_Watch,_AJC_Seal_Partnership-14

 

And I'm not the one who originally invoked the Bias in Media Fact Check reports. Hung by your own petard much?

 

You may want to read my post again, you've ignored it all. Including links to your claims

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

WE can drill down into details of all sources for ever and a day. The fact is that its a credible source and also accepted as such on this forum:

Fox News, among others, is also considered to be a credible source on these pages.

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Fox News, among others, is also considered to be a credible source on these pages.

Which brings us nicely back on topic after all that deflection

 

Exclusive: Hamas, Islamic Jihad accused of using child soldiers in war against Israel

EXCLUSIVE - Israel’s army recently found damning documents, video footage and photographs of Palestinian children used by two U.S.-designated terrorist organizations, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as trained fighters.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) told Fox News Digital that the material seized in Gaza's Khan Younes during the ongoing war is recent and reveals "the involvement of minors in terrorist activities." 

The IDF added that a telling example of Hamas’ exploitation of Palestinian kids was, "The transfer of explosives from place to place in Gaza by children, in vegetable bags and placing them in the Hamas ambushes."

https://www.foxnews.com/world/exclusive-hamas-islamic-jihad-accused-using-child-soldiers-war-against-israel

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

 

"Buit as time goes by and Israel allows only a fraction of food supplies to enter Gaza, what to you think is going to happen? "

 

 

 

Overly stringent checks on trucks at the Rafah crossing from Egypt into Gaza were slowing the flow of humanitarian aid to a "dribble" as hunger grows among Palestinians there, UN World Food Programme (WFP) Executive Director Cindy McCain told Reuters on Thursday.

The Rafah crossing, which is controlled by Egypt and does not border Israel, has become the main point of aid delivery since Israel imposed a "total siege" of Gaza in retaliation for an attack by Hamas from the coastal strip on 7 Oct.

https://www.tbsnews.net/hamas-israel-war/un-food-chief-criticizes-strict-rafah-crossing-checks-limiting-gaza-aid-727486

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Overly stringent checks on trucks at the Rafah crossing from Egypt into Gaza were slowing the flow of humanitarian aid to a "dribble" as hunger grows among Palestinians there, UN World Food Programme (WFP) Executive Director Cindy McCain told Reuters on Thursday.

The Rafah crossing, which is controlled by Egypt and does not border Israel, has become the main point of aid delivery since Israel imposed a "total siege" of Gaza in retaliation for an attack by Hamas from the coastal strip on 7 Oct.

https://www.tbsnews.net/hamas-israel-war/un-food-chief-criticizes-strict-rafah-crossing-checks-limiting-gaza-aid-727486

27th Oct link, yet you made the claim yesterday. That report is out of date and there are 2 openings now and plenty of aid traveling through

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Which brings us nicely back on topic after all that deflection

 

Exclusive: Hamas, Islamic Jihad accused of using child soldiers in war against Israel

EXCLUSIVE - Israel’s army recently found damning documents, video footage and photographs of Palestinian children used by two U.S.-designated terrorist organizations, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as trained fighters.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) told Fox News Digital that the material seized in Gaza's Khan Younes during the ongoing war is recent and reveals "the involvement of minors in terrorist activities." 

The IDF added that a telling example of Hamas’ exploitation of Palestinian kids was, "The transfer of explosives from place to place in Gaza by children, in vegetable bags and placing them in the Hamas ambushes."

https://www.foxnews.com/world/exclusive-hamas-islamic-jihad-accused-using-child-soldiers-war-against-israel

Which does nothing to support your claim made for the reliability of UN Watch. 

[Bkk Brian]

18 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Which does nothing to support your claim made for the reliability of UN Watch. 

Jeez, get it back on topic and back to this again. Its was not intended to support any claims, pure deflection on your part. You've stretched that to death, provided plenty of evidence of its facts and reliability, all you've done is criticize it based on it being pro Israel, so what? Its reliable and credit worthy. Better remain on topic 

Edited January 4 by Bkk Brian

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

 

that the killing of the first 2 hostages did not violate their rules of engagement

 

 

"The Chief of Staff determined that the hits on the hostages could have been prevented,” the investigation results read. “Alongside this, the Chief of Staff clarified that there was no malice in the event, and the soldiers carried out the right action to the best of their understanding of the event at that moment.”

https://archive.ph/Ao8Px#selection-427.0-427.74

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/29/hostages-killed-idf-investigation/

So the killing of the 3 hostages by the soldiers was a right action because it was carried out according to the best of their understanding..

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

"The Chief of Staff determined that the hits on the hostages could have been prevented,” the investigation results read. “Alongside this, the Chief of Staff clarified that there was no malice in the event, and the soldiers carried out the right action to the best of their understanding of the event at that moment.”

https://archive.ph/Ao8Px#selection-427.0-427.74

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/29/hostages-killed-idf-investigation/

So the killing of the 3 hostages by the soldiers was a right action because it was carried out according to the best of their understanding..

Your claim, your link does not support that claim,

 

In the latest report from the IDF it was noted that the killing of the first 2 hostages did not violate their rules of engagement. In other words, it's OK to kill 3 half naked men carrying a white flag. Maybe that does comport with international law?

 

Simply not true:

 

"In publishing the results of its final probe into the issue, the IDF said that despite the soldiers clearly violating the rules of engagement – by firing on persons who presented no immediate danger and were waving a white flag – the enormous complexity of the circumstances led to no immediate punishment.

 

IDF sources suggested that once the war was over it was possible that disciplinary or other action might theoretically be taken against some of the soldiers involved, but in the meantime the soldiers are being left to continue to fight in the field."

 

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-779923

 

Edited January 4 by Bkk Brian

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Your claim, your link does not support that claim,

 

In the latest report from the IDF it was noted that the killing of the first 2 hostages did not violate their rules of engagement. In other words, it's OK to kill 3 half naked men carrying a white flag. Maybe that does comport with international law?

 

Simply not true:

 

"In publishing the results of its final probe into the issue, the IDF said that despite the soldiers clearly violating the rules of engagement – by firing on persons who presented no immediate danger and were waving a white flag – the enormous complexity of the circumstances led to no immediate punishment.

 

IDF sources suggested that once the war was over it was possible that disciplinary or other action might theoretically be taken against some of the soldiers involved, but in the meantime the soldiers are being left to continue to fight in the field."

 

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-779923

 

You did everything but address the comment from the IDF about the right action, The IDF also explained that the third hostage was shot because the shooter didn't hear the order not to shoot because there as some loud noise going on in their vicinity. Why would they need to hear an order if there were the rules of engagement that prohibited this? 

"Commanders declared a cease-fire to try to identify the third person, who called out for help minutes later. Another cease-fire was ordered and the person “came out of a structure toward the force,” the IDF said. But two soldiers who had not heard the order to hold their fire “due to noise from a nearby tank” shot and killed the third person."

https://archive.ph/Ao8Px#selection-759.0-759.345

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You did everything but address the comment from the IDF about the right action, The IDF also explained that the third hostage was shot because the shooter didn't hear the order not to shoot because there as some loud noise going on in their vicinity. Why would they need to hear an order if there were the rules of engagement that prohibited this? 

"Commanders declared a cease-fire to try to identify the third person, who called out for help minutes later. Another cease-fire was ordered and the person “came out of a structure toward the force,” the IDF said. But two soldiers who had not heard the order to hold their fire “due to noise from a nearby tank” shot and killed the third person."

https://archive.ph/Ao8Px#selection-759.0-759.345

I have no need to address anything more than I did when I first responded, that was you made up claim that "the IDF it was noted that the killing of the first 2 hostages did not violate their rules of engagement"

 

When the fact is that it clearly did, what do you find difficult to understand about that?

 

IDF said that despite the soldiers clearly violating the rules of engagement 

 

Perhaps you need to read the linked article I posted

 

 

 

 

Edited January 4 by Bkk Brian