3 ms·

Something to keep in mind when listening to "first hand accounts" like this is that even if they're honest statements, everybody is subject to the fog of war an

Something to keep in mind when listening to "first hand accounts" like this is that even if they're honest statements, everybody is subject to the fog of war and skewed statistics. An example that came up a few months ago was a surgeon in a Gaza hospital making the honest statement to BBC journalists that he had seen dozens of children coming into the hospital near death with a "single shot" to a vital organ. He claimed they were purposefully "sniped" by IDF soldiers because in his mind it was "impossible" that they were all so accurately shot precisely once. What he didn't see coming into his O/R were the children with multiple gunshot wounds... because they died. Conversely, a grazing wound from shrapnel is too minor to go to his well equipped hospital, because the hospital is overloaded and taking only the severely wounded. So he saw just the filtered subset of injuries that were very severe but just barely survivable, giving him the false impression that the IDF was going out of its way to snipe children with a single well-placed shot. (This isn't some random anecdote either, there were long articles circulating around the international media!) From the surgeon's point of view, he saw only a subset of what's going on, and he drew a conclusion that wasn't actually supported by the evidence. The problem is that his point of view supported a popular narrative, was amplified, and nobody bothered to verify statistics because.. sss... that's hard in a war zone. I'm not advocating for either side and support neither. I'm just recommending reading all articles related to the war with a critical eye.

SirSavary 1y ago
> What he didn't see coming into his O/R were the children with multiple gunshot wounds... because they died. Conversely, a grazing wound from shrapnel is too minor to go to his well equipped hospital, because the hospital is overloaded and taking only the severely wounded. So he saw just the filtered subset of injuries that were very severe but just barely survivable, giving him the false impression that the IDF was going out of its way to snipe children with a single well-placed shot. (This isn't some random anecdote either, there were long articles circulating around the international media!) Do you have a source for this?
- jiggawatts 1y ago
  Apologies, it was The Guardian not the BBC: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestini... The logic underpinning my comment is the Survivorship Bias: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias The source for that is the “pretraining” we all share: children generally don’t survive multiple gunshot wounds from military battle rifles. One… maybe, but not two or three to the chest… or anywhere really. I mean, you can debate that point if you choose, but you’d have to make a convincing argument that children are more likely to cling to life with more gunshot wounds.
dubyah 1y ago
There's a group signed letter by 99 American volunteer medical professionals stating: Specifically, every one of us who worked in an emergency, intensive care, or surgical setting treated pre-teen children who were shot in the head or chest on a regular or even a daily basis. https://www.gazahealthcareletters.org/usa-letter-oct-2-2024 https://www.gazahealthcareletters.org/usa-letter-oct-2-2024
- jahewson 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - dubyah 1y ago
    They're medical professionals. Not IDF soldiers. [1] 65 doctors, many of whom signed the letter previously mentioned, also signed an opinion essay on the NY Times. There are CT scans in the article. [2] The NY Times Opinion editor even chimed in to state they saw corroborating said images, consulted independent experts to attest the credibility of said images, and ultimately decided the 40+ photos & videos of children with gunshots to the head and neck were too horrific for publication.[3] [1] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2025/4/16/israeli-soldiers-filmed-themselves-destroying-gaza-see-the-video-evidence https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2025/4/16/israeli-so... [2] https://archive.is/w8q7a https://archive.is/w8q7a [3] https://archive.is/1fkOp https://archive.is/1fkOp
    - jiggawatts 1y ago
      Note that my original argument isn’t that children weren’t being shot — they clearly are — I’m saying that the doctors were making the claim that they were being “sniped” by “single shots”. The basis for the claim was that they saw few if any kids with multiple gunshot wounds. Yes… because those kids died and hence there is no point taking them to a hospital. They go to a morgue. They’re not lying about the facts, probably, I’m just saying that their facts don’t support their conclusions.
    - jahewson 1y ago
      There’s still zero evidence to support their claims. Publishing an editorial saying “trust me bro” doesn’t enhance their veracity. It is physically impossible for a rifle round moving at high velocity to cause the minimal injuries shown in those x-rays. Such injuries are consistent only with indirect fire, such as a round fired into the air falling back down and striking some distant innocent on the head at low velocity. What’s shocking is that the NYT won’t admit they fell for a hoax but instead are claiming they have ironclad evidence of genocide yet they are just… sitting on it because it’s gruesome for their readers to see? If that’s true then it is a staggering moral failure akin to being an accessory to the crime. Fortunately thats’s not the case because it’s a hoax.
asdefghyk 1y ago
This is quite suspicious. Needs to be further investigated? Conversely there are allegations of child solders down to 10 years old.

SirSavary 1y ago

> What he didn't see coming into his O/R were the children with multiple gunshot wounds... because they died. Conversely, a grazing wound from shrapnel is too minor to go to his well equipped hospital, because the hospital is overloaded and taking only the severely wounded. So he saw just the filtered subset of injuries that were very severe but just barely survivable, giving him the false impression that the IDF was going out of its way to snipe children with a single well-placed shot. (This isn't some random anecdote either, there were long articles circulating around the international media!) Do you have a source for this?

jiggawatts 1y ago
Apologies, it was The Guardian not the BBC: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestini... The logic underpinning my comment is the Survivorship Bias: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias The source for that is the “pretraining” we all share: children generally don’t survive multiple gunshot wounds from military battle rifles. One… maybe, but not two or three to the chest… or anywhere really. I mean, you can debate that point if you choose, but you’d have to make a convincing argument that children are more likely to cling to life with more gunshot wounds.

dubyah 1y ago

There's a group signed letter by 99 American volunteer medical professionals stating: Specifically, every one of us who worked in an emergency, intensive care, or surgical setting treated pre-teen children who were shot in the head or chest on a regular or even a daily basis. https://www.gazahealthcareletters.org/usa-letter-oct-2-2024 https://www.gazahealthcareletters.org/usa-letter-oct-2-2024

jahewson 1y ago
[flagged]
- dubyah 1y ago
  They're medical professionals. Not IDF soldiers. [1] 65 doctors, many of whom signed the letter previously mentioned, also signed an opinion essay on the NY Times. There are CT scans in the article. [2] The NY Times Opinion editor even chimed in to state they saw corroborating said images, consulted independent experts to attest the credibility of said images, and ultimately decided the 40+ photos & videos of children with gunshots to the head and neck were too horrific for publication.[3] [1] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2025/4/16/israeli-soldiers-filmed-themselves-destroying-gaza-see-the-video-evidence https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2025/4/16/israeli-so... [2] https://archive.is/w8q7a https://archive.is/w8q7a [3] https://archive.is/1fkOp https://archive.is/1fkOp
  - jiggawatts 1y ago
    Note that my original argument isn’t that children weren’t being shot — they clearly are — I’m saying that the doctors were making the claim that they were being “sniped” by “single shots”. The basis for the claim was that they saw few if any kids with multiple gunshot wounds. Yes… because those kids died and hence there is no point taking them to a hospital. They go to a morgue. They’re not lying about the facts, probably, I’m just saying that their facts don’t support their conclusions.
  - jahewson 1y ago
    There’s still zero evidence to support their claims. Publishing an editorial saying “trust me bro” doesn’t enhance their veracity. It is physically impossible for a rifle round moving at high velocity to cause the minimal injuries shown in those x-rays. Such injuries are consistent only with indirect fire, such as a round fired into the air falling back down and striking some distant innocent on the head at low velocity. What’s shocking is that the NYT won’t admit they fell for a hoax but instead are claiming they have ironclad evidence of genocide yet they are just… sitting on it because it’s gruesome for their readers to see? If that’s true then it is a staggering moral failure akin to being an accessory to the crime. Fortunately thats’s not the case because it’s a hoax.

asdefghyk 1y ago

This is quite suspicious. Needs to be further investigated? Conversely there are allegations of child solders down to 10 years old.