3 ms·

I'm not sure the IDF has confirmed who was killed, but even so the article goes much further than that. That it was a bad shoot, that the car was stationary, t

by 0x3f 7mo ago

I'm not sure the IDF has confirmed who was killed, but even so the article goes much further than that. That it was a bad shoot, that the car was stationary, that no warnings were given, that the family did nothing to prompt it, that the IDF weren't legitimately mistaken, that the kid's injury is from the incident, that this kid was even there, that they spent 50+ rounds, that the kid who died has special needs. And more. You can literally just read the article and extract the facts. Those are uncomfirmed save by anecdote.

JohnMakin 7mo ago
Literally read it, thanks. Glad you did too. Your original post said “unverifiable story” which seemed like the basic facts of the matter could be determined by reading said article and making inferences based on the sources provide. I trust you performed such dilligence.
- 0x3f 7mo ago
  The only agreed upon basic facts by both sides are that someone has died at the hands of the IDF. The rest (i.e. what makes up most of the claims) is pure anecdote and thus, unverifiable. I'm not sure what the issue is with saying as much.
  - mlazos 7mo ago
    Bro nothing is verifiable, you have to make a call in the end or you can just sit here and be like “oh but what about the speck of sand on the body, GOTCHA”. I used to be like you trying to poke holes in every little thing, but 1 it’s annoying to everyone and 2 you have to eventually take a stance other than “every stance is wrong” your mystical perfectly evidenced war crime is never going to exist, congrats! What do you think actually happened here? The article cites plenty of evidence, eyewitness testimony, make the call. The IDF themselves said they killed them. It’s a family, what do you think justifies that?
    - 0x3f 7mo ago
      Nothing is provable in a mathematical sense sure, but as evidence goes, anecdotes are a very weak form of it. People sensationalize and make things up all the time. It's not that high of a bar to want better evidence than that.

by 0x3f 7mo ago

JohnMakin 7mo ago

Literally read it, thanks. Glad you did too. Your original post said “unverifiable story” which seemed like the basic facts of the matter could be determined by reading said article and making inferences based on the sources provide. I trust you performed such dilligence.

0x3f 7mo ago
The only agreed upon basic facts by both sides are that someone has died at the hands of the IDF. The rest (i.e. what makes up most of the claims) is pure anecdote and thus, unverifiable. I'm not sure what the issue is with saying as much.
- mlazos 7mo ago
  Bro nothing is verifiable, you have to make a call in the end or you can just sit here and be like “oh but what about the speck of sand on the body, GOTCHA”. I used to be like you trying to poke holes in every little thing, but 1 it’s annoying to everyone and 2 you have to eventually take a stance other than “every stance is wrong” your mystical perfectly evidenced war crime is never going to exist, congrats! What do you think actually happened here? The article cites plenty of evidence, eyewitness testimony, make the call. The IDF themselves said they killed them. It’s a family, what do you think justifies that?
  - 0x3f 7mo ago
    Nothing is provable in a mathematical sense sure, but as evidence goes, anecdotes are a very weak form of it. People sensationalize and make things up all the time. It's not that high of a bar to want better evidence than that.