Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

[flagged]


This bit is also important in my opinion:

> Once again, we are faced with the suggestion that not only are the IDF murderous maniacs, but they also have the worst aim on the planet. The monstrous IDF are such terrible shots that they fire heavy machine guns, mortars, and grenade launchers at crowds of tens of thousands, yet manage to wound no more than 1 to 5 Gazans at a time.

The following quote seems consistent with much of the journalism I’ve read about the conflict for years. It makes you become a bit cynical of the news outlets when you repeatedly see things like this https://x.com/washingtonpost/status/1929961283593367559 Peoples first impressions often last the longest.

> Later, Haaretz quotes an officer saying the intent behind the live fire was crowd control, not carnage. However, it buries this clarification so deeply that it becomes effectively irrelevant. The reader has already been presented with the moral horror headline, and that’s what will endure.

> The author admits they don’t know who is shooting at civilians near these aid distribution centres. Still, rather than consider the possibility that, for example, Hamas might be involved, the article shifts with the loaded line:


“Fire at unarmed crowds” and “fire towards crowds” is the same thing, what sort of semantic ping pong is this? Also propaganda =/= bad. All media is propaganda, in some languages the word “propaganda” has the same semantic meaning as the English word “advertisement”. This comment is war crime apologia.


There is a difference between shooting people and firing warning shots.


Sure there is, but we’re not talking about firing “warning shots” at armed combatants, we’re talking about unarmed civilians, most of whom are minors. If you are sympathetic to the idea that these aid sites need to be heavily guarded, then you need to ask yourself why this level of force is necessary, because the explanation the IDF and Israeli officials are giving makes no sense. Can you imagine if we fired “warning shots” towards the homeless for lining up too early for the food bank?


How do warning shots kill over 50 people in a day?


War zone in a dense urban areas where combatants aren’t identified by uniform and are integrated in the civilian population.


So, not warning shots but targeted fire? And is there any evidence of those combatants, amongst all the body cams and drone footage? To be clear, I mean actual combatants, not the IDF definition of "any man of fighting age"(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Alon_Shamriz,_Yot...)


Helpful context: https://x.com/peligrietzer/status/1938979993666695207

"both the English and Hebrew are the only usage-standard constructions for when the verb is shooting and the object is a crowd"

"you can read the Hebrew Wikipedia page about, like, 2017 Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock and see that is says Paddock 'ירה לעבר' the crowd"


The Hebrew version had also distanced itself from what would be considered Journalism. But with no real field reporting from Gaza, that's the info you can get, and you have to guesstimate the reality from there.


and there would be field reporting if the IDF didn't go around executing any journalist they find (including child "journalists" merely posting on social media)


Other outlets (including NPR) independently verified the story.


[flagged]


Exactly. Clear astroturfing to hide war crimes is not going unnoticed anymore.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: