3 ms·

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

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 If that's not enough, the DoD's own preliminary investigation produced the outdated-targeting finding.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 9d 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 9d 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 9d 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 9d 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 9d 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.
        andriy_koval 9d ago
        > There doesn't need to be an admission of guilt to determine that the US acted in violation of international law. Its not about admission of guilt, but as I said multiple time about material evidence, which is missing in this case.
        text0404 9d ago
        No it isn't, you just refuse to read the report or any of the other links I've posted. They have a word for what you're doing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

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 9d 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 9d 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 9d 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 9d 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 9d 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.
        andriy_koval 9d ago
        > There doesn't need to be an admission of guilt to determine that the US acted in violation of international law. Its not about admission of guilt, but as I said multiple time about material evidence, which is missing in this case.
        text0404 9d ago
        No it isn't, you just refuse to read the report or any of the other links I've posted. They have a word for what you're doing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning