From the guy who pushes all sorts of lies and anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.There is a history of disinformation and we need to be careful, that's all.
...
From the guy who pushes all sorts of lies and anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.There is a history of disinformation and we need to be careful, that's all.
...
Um, have you not repeatedly claimed your opinions as fact despite having no access to that data?Because our opinions on Isrseli actions are uninformed with no access to data they actually used. ...
You trust every report hamas' government makes. I'm pretty sure they're on the ICC docket too.Why should anyone trust an army that is in the process of being charged with genocide and extermination?
Wait, you're lying again? What a surprise.Yes, UNIFIL troops that are there to keep Israel and Hezbollah from fiighting.
...
An assumption on your part.Targeting ...
I have? When?Um, have you not repeatedly claimed your opinions as fact despite having no access to that data?
I agree. That also means Israel cannot turn around and complain that they dont get the benefit of the doubt.According to what international standard? or do you think the world has the obligation to make sure they inform you of every action?
If the ICC chooses to investigate and take it serious, they will request Israel to share their targeting process,
Accepted. They probably do.Um, did you read the article because it clearly says that the IDF assessed the damage and the report actually relies on that IDF imagery. The article is clearly being critical of the information used to approve the strike and does not claim there wasn't an assessment of the impact as you claimed.
Are you saying your opinion is shaped by your access to that data?Um, have you not repeatedly claimed your opinions as fact despite having no access to that data?
I trust the UN, WFP, MSF, Amnesty, HRW and other reports.You trust every report hamas' government makes. I'm pretty sure they're on the ICC docket too.
Your assumption is based on unfounded claims by a genocidal army but even so you back targeting hospitals and schools.An assumption on your part.
And as has been previously detailed, Hamas using those sites for military purposes is a war crime and negates the protected status.
'The IDF said' is not enough.An assumption on your part.
And as has been previously detailed, Hamas using those sites for military purposes is a war crime and negates the protected status.
The Lancet published a letter that argues that Israel has likely killed 300,000 Palestinians.Accepted. They probably do.
What I now recollect, is that the spokesperson said that Israel does not account for or is not aware of Hamas casualty counts after an operation.
So they dont really know how many of those casualties are actual civilians vs Hamas.
To recap, this conversation was in the context of proportionality so the civilian vs Hamas deaths is what we were talking about.
Here is one clip:
But some random tweet is obviously enough for you.'The IDF said' is not enough.
...
Every post where you said Israel "targeted" civilians when you've admitted you don't know what information Israel was acting on.I have? When?
Yet you just demanded Israel make public all the information they used to approve their strikes.I agree. That also means Israel cannot turn around and complain that they dont get the benefit of the doubt.
Because that is the only way they can prove the allegations against them are wrong.Yet you just demanded Israel make public all the information they used to approve their strikes.