The Palestinian Red Crescent said on Friday that one person was killed and 28 others were wounded in a shooting by Israeli forces at Al-Quds hospital in Gaza, the organisation said.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t make them an anti-semite, sweetie. I would call myself anti-IDF and anti-Zionist, though, and I know that propagandists on both sides like to blur the lines between those three so I’m going to let that one slide.
But let’s look at it from a pro-Israel stance for 2 seconds, like you suggest. Let’s pretend for the sake of this comment that Israel is right and Palestine is wrong. Let’s forget about price tag attacks and instead assume that every member of the IDF is capable of and wants to engage in level-headed treatment of Palestinians. Let’s assume that there was definitely a Hamas commander inside this hospital. Furthermore, let’s assume that he was high enough in their chain of command to justify attacking a hospital to kill him. We also must assume that this assumptive Hamas commander is the one who was killed and that’s why the sniper or snipers stopped firing. Let’s also assume that the last bullet the IDF sniper or snipers fired is the one that killed the assumptive Hamas commander (as opposed to the assumptive Hamas commander dying early in the salvo while the sniper or snipers continued to fire due to reasonably imperfect intel). Then, let’s assume that each of the 28 civilian casualties were injured indirectly and that they were not visually within the sniper’s or snipers’ scopes when they pulled the trigger. Finally, let’s assume that there were more than 29 shots fired-- one bullet per injury/death would statistically guarantee that civilians were targeted and we are assuming that is not the case, so the sniper or snipers must have fired more than 29 shots for our assumption to be true.
Bearing these pro-Israel assumptions in mind, let’s go back to the comment you replied to. First, they point out that the IDF is one of the best-trained and advanced military forces on the planet. Then, they point out that sniper rifles are precision weapons that are traditionally used to minimize collateral damage. Finally, they come to the conclusion that the IDF either employs terrible snipers or they were deliberately targeting children.
Their first statement doesn’t contradict our pro-Israel assumptions. Neither does their second. Their third statement does, though. The IDF can’t possibly be deliberately targeting civilians, that would be evil, and Israel isn’t evil! That must mean that the IDF employs terrible snipers-- what other explanation could there be for so many accidental casualties?
The reason why the original commenter was so upset and the reason why you’re getting so many downvotes is because we have looked at the internal logic of those assumptions and their necessary conclusions, both in this situation and in others, and seen that there are a lot of contradictions that don’t make sense if you actually pause to think about them. Is the IDF one of the most sophisticated military forces on the planet, or do they employ terrible snipers? Are Aman/Shin Bet capable of determining that there was a Hamas commander in this hospital, or are they incapable of detecting a massive offensive operation into their nation? Are Gazans going to be allowed to return home after Israel demanded their displacement, or will over 50% of all housing be destroyed by Israeli bombing?
I know, in general, how sniper rifles work, and it is explicitly mentioned in the article it was sniper fire.
You think a .338 round can make “limbs disappear”, buddy. Everything you learned about sniper rifles came from Call of Duty.
Idk if you’ve ever seen a child but yes a bullet of any sort will really fuck them up, and yes a rifle shot will blow a child’s arm off.
Fun fact: i’ve literally never played Call of Duty outside of the first one, set in WW2
So now the snipers are aiming at the children again? Pick a narrative and stick to it, buddy, I’m getting whiplash here
No, again, because the children are all alive.
Thinking isn’t hard, man. All you have to do is turn off your antisemitism for 2 seconds. You can turn it right back on afterward, even
Spend less energy trying to be quippy and more energy trying to be intelligent. Quippy doesn’t work if what you’re saying is fuckin stupid.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t make them an anti-semite, sweetie. I would call myself anti-IDF and anti-Zionist, though, and I know that propagandists on both sides like to blur the lines between those three so I’m going to let that one slide.
But let’s look at it from a pro-Israel stance for 2 seconds, like you suggest. Let’s pretend for the sake of this comment that Israel is right and Palestine is wrong. Let’s forget about price tag attacks and instead assume that every member of the IDF is capable of and wants to engage in level-headed treatment of Palestinians. Let’s assume that there was definitely a Hamas commander inside this hospital. Furthermore, let’s assume that he was high enough in their chain of command to justify attacking a hospital to kill him. We also must assume that this assumptive Hamas commander is the one who was killed and that’s why the sniper or snipers stopped firing. Let’s also assume that the last bullet the IDF sniper or snipers fired is the one that killed the assumptive Hamas commander (as opposed to the assumptive Hamas commander dying early in the salvo while the sniper or snipers continued to fire due to reasonably imperfect intel). Then, let’s assume that each of the 28 civilian casualties were injured indirectly and that they were not visually within the sniper’s or snipers’ scopes when they pulled the trigger. Finally, let’s assume that there were more than 29 shots fired-- one bullet per injury/death would statistically guarantee that civilians were targeted and we are assuming that is not the case, so the sniper or snipers must have fired more than 29 shots for our assumption to be true.
Bearing these pro-Israel assumptions in mind, let’s go back to the comment you replied to. First, they point out that the IDF is one of the best-trained and advanced military forces on the planet. Then, they point out that sniper rifles are precision weapons that are traditionally used to minimize collateral damage. Finally, they come to the conclusion that the IDF either employs terrible snipers or they were deliberately targeting children.
Their first statement doesn’t contradict our pro-Israel assumptions. Neither does their second. Their third statement does, though. The IDF can’t possibly be deliberately targeting civilians, that would be evil, and Israel isn’t evil! That must mean that the IDF employs terrible snipers-- what other explanation could there be for so many accidental casualties?
The reason why the original commenter was so upset and the reason why you’re getting so many downvotes is because we have looked at the internal logic of those assumptions and their necessary conclusions, both in this situation and in others, and seen that there are a lot of contradictions that don’t make sense if you actually pause to think about them. Is the IDF one of the most sophisticated military forces on the planet, or do they employ terrible snipers? Are Aman/Shin Bet capable of determining that there was a Hamas commander in this hospital, or are they incapable of detecting a massive offensive operation into their nation? Are Gazans going to be allowed to return home after Israel demanded their displacement, or will over 50% of all housing be destroyed by Israeli bombing?
Way too long. Didn’t read.
Again, being quippy only works if you’re not dumb.
I would take my own advice if I were you :)
There you go again lol