4 ms·

> has a lifetime of experience and credentials to be able to make these determinations [1] This sounds like extreme hand-waving to me.

text0404 9d ago
I'm sorry you feel that way. Feel free to refute the substance of what I've said.
- andriy_koval 9d ago
  burden of proof is on one making statement, especially if he is passively-aggressively toxic. Productive discussion would be if you go read that report before bringing it here, and tell what material evidence they have for that specific incident? US picked some target through some classified protocol, what evidence states that there was some reckless in process?
  - text0404 9d ago
    We're discussing the article that summarizes the report's findings, but sure. Please refer to the report [1] and read the following sections (they are too long to paste here): - II (full section) - IV.B.1 (full section) - IV.B.2.88-89 - IV.B.2.95-96 - V.B (full section) The report itself attributes its sources. If that's not enough, the DoD's own preliminary investigation produced the outdated-targeting finding. Pre-strike imagery of the school is public. [1] https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session63/advance-versions/a-hrc-63-61-auv-ffmi.pdf https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies...
    - andriy_koval 9d ago
      So, you didn't read it yourself since can't summarize material findings in 3 sentences (what I asked instead of your "go read yourself" suggestions which are obviously to be ignored)?
      - text0404 8d ago
        This has to be a troll. You're literally replying in a comment thread where I've already summarized the material findings that you're asking for (it's from the article we're discussing). I then pasted links to the raw text of the report that support the summary but you refuse to read it, asking me again for a summary which I already posted? I've provided everything you've asked for; do you actually have a point or are you just trying to start a flamewar?
        andriy_koval 8d ago
        > I've already summarized the material findings I asked about material evidence(I mentioned word "evidence" multiple times), not "findings", which is loaded term
        text0404 8d ago
        That evidence is once again in the report which I linked and the statements of the DoD and Hegseth himself. If you want aerial imagery or the full text of the interviews, you'll have to obtain it yourself because it wasn't included in the advance version of the report. I have a question for you: how do you know the moon is not made of cheese? What evidence do you have?
        andriy_koval 8d ago
        > the interviews those interviews are opinions not evidence, to my knowledge there was no public statements of anyone directly involved into the target selection process in that case
        text0404 8d ago
        There doesn't need to be an admission of guilt to determine that the US acted in violation of international law. If you'd like to learn more about the methodology, feel free to read the article or the report.

text0404 9d ago

I'm sorry you feel that way. Feel free to refute the substance of what I've said.

andriy_koval 9d ago
burden of proof is on one making statement, especially if he is passively-aggressively toxic. Productive discussion would be if you go read that report before bringing it here, and tell what material evidence they have for that specific incident? US picked some target through some classified protocol, what evidence states that there was some reckless in process?
- text0404 9d ago
  We're discussing the article that summarizes the report's findings, but sure. Please refer to the report [1] and read the following sections (they are too long to paste here): - II (full section) - IV.B.1 (full section) - IV.B.2.88-89 - IV.B.2.95-96 - V.B (full section) The report itself attributes its sources. If that's not enough, the DoD's own preliminary investigation produced the outdated-targeting finding. Pre-strike imagery of the school is public. [1] https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session63/advance-versions/a-hrc-63-61-auv-ffmi.pdf https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies...
  - andriy_koval 9d ago
    So, you didn't read it yourself since can't summarize material findings in 3 sentences (what I asked instead of your "go read yourself" suggestions which are obviously to be ignored)?
    - text0404 8d ago
      This has to be a troll. You're literally replying in a comment thread where I've already summarized the material findings that you're asking for (it's from the article we're discussing). I then pasted links to the raw text of the report that support the summary but you refuse to read it, asking me again for a summary which I already posted? I've provided everything you've asked for; do you actually have a point or are you just trying to start a flamewar?
      - andriy_koval 8d ago
        > I've already summarized the material findings I asked about material evidence(I mentioned word "evidence" multiple times), not "findings", which is loaded term
        text0404 8d ago
        That evidence is once again in the report which I linked and the statements of the DoD and Hegseth himself. If you want aerial imagery or the full text of the interviews, you'll have to obtain it yourself because it wasn't included in the advance version of the report. I have a question for you: how do you know the moon is not made of cheese? What evidence do you have?
        andriy_koval 8d ago
        > the interviews those interviews are opinions not evidence, to my knowledge there was no public statements of anyone directly involved into the target selection process in that case
        text0404 8d ago
        There doesn't need to be an admission of guilt to determine that the US acted in violation of international law. If you'd like to learn more about the methodology, feel free to read the article or the report.