• DaBabyAteMaDingo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    So everything I’m reading/seeing says there’s some facts on this matter:

    1. The IDF said this was a suspected militant injured in a firefight
    2. The IDF gave this person to the Red Crescent
    3. Israel said they’re "looking into this matter and will deal with this accordingly

    The speculation is that they were using him as a human shield. I, and everyone else for that matter, don’t know this for absolute certainty. We can both agree that this is a rather crude way of transporting an injured person at best or a deliberate war crime at worst. Your opinion about the placement is mere speculation and kind of stupid if I’m being honest.

    I’ll be back later to edit this comment when more facts come out and they charge (or not) this individual(s) with war crimes. I wish I could say the same about the other side and the people that support them.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Every time the facts come out, it’s worse than the reality.

      Everyone on the genoside jumped on the mutilated babies thing without a shred of proof with nary a comment when it was shown to be utter bullshit, but apparently an actual video showing a war crime doesn’t constitute facts in some people’s heads.

      • DaBabyAteMaDingo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Let’s be real the only side that’s concerned about facts is Israel. There are people that make stupid claims and then are corrected oftentimes by Israel themselves. This is absolutely not true for Hams or any other militant group.

        Please explain to me how this video is proof it’s a war crime. Please provide the case document that explicitly states this IDFs intent. Why can’t you just wait for more information instead of doing this dumb dance every time?