Israel declares war on Hamas

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by blankall

How is it murder, if there's a gunman, on what appears to be an unmarked vehicle, firing from the vehicle? Murder is intention. If the operators are under the impression, wrong or not, that they are firing on gunmen, that's not intentional.

Was this vehicle in Israel? What legal right do they have to police this aid? Did Israel ask why there is a gunman escorting the food before indiscriminately killing aid workers? Did they do any due diligence at all? What military advantage is there to blowing up aid? Did they have any confirmation Hamas fighters were there? Was this going to *snicker* help release the hostages?

But more importantly to this discussion, why are you trying to find ways to minimize what happened here, and provide reasoning and logic(not good, mind you) to explain it away? What part of your brain is saying that you need to do this, vs condemning Israel and wanting them to stop? Clearly you don't want the to stop, which ultimately puts you in the position of justifying these events. Which, as I said, is ####ing gross.

[PepsiFree]

Imagine reading a whole article where the IDF explains what happened, including the fact that all WCK workers involved were killed, why there was a gunman present, and the fact that the unit in question did this because they didn’t have the information that was just explained to you, and then asking the dead WCK workers to explain why there was a gunman present.

“Pointless debate” lol

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Was this vehicle in Israel? What legal right do they have to police this aid? Did Israel ask why there is a gunman escorting the food before indiscriminately killing aid workers? Did they do any due diligence at all? What military advantage is there to blowing up aid? Did they have any confirmation Hamas fighters were there? Was this going to *snicker* help release the hostages?

But more importantly to this discussion, why are you trying to find ways to minimize what happened here, and provide reasoning and logic(not good, mind you) to explain it away? What part of your brain is saying that you need to do this, vs condemning Israel and wanting them to stop? Clearly you don't want the to stop, which ultimately puts you in the position of justifying these events. Which, as I said, is ####ing gross.

I'm just posting the facts. There was a gunman firing from the roof of one of the vehicles prior to them being struck. If that doesn't make things less clear about why the IDF thought there was gunmen in the vehicles when they were struck...I don't know what to tell you.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by blankall

I'm just posting the facts. There was a gunman firing from the roof of one of the vehicles prior to them being struck. If that doesn't make things less clear about why the IDF thought there was gunmen in the vehicles when they were struck...I don't know what to tell you.

Careful about the "facts". Still heavily dependent upon the IDF version. You quoted:

the IDF says their drone operators spotted a gunman riding on the roof of a large aid lorry that was being escorted by the WCK team. They played those of us at the briefing a somewhat blurry video - which has not been released to the public - showing a figure holding a gun, on top of the lorry.

Why was the video not released? Is there a reason IDF would lie about this? I mean come on, you wanted to question WCK for the audacity of having its workers killed and besmirching the good name of the IDF?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Careful about the "facts". Still heavily dependent upon the IDF version. You quoted:

the IDF says their drone operators spotted a gunman riding on the roof of a large aid lorry that was being escorted by the WCK team. They played those of us at the briefing a somewhat blurry video - which has not been released to the public - showing a figure holding a gun, on top of the lorry.

Why was the video not released? Is there a reason IDF would lie about this? I mean come on, you wanted to question WCK for the audacity of having its workers killed and besmirching the good name of the IDF?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68742572

It's an independent reporter stating that he "clearly" saw a man firing an automatic weapon from the roof of one of the vehicles.

They played those of us at the briefing a somewhat blurry video - which has not been released to the public - showing a figure holding a gun, on top of the lorry. At one point the gun is fired, showing up clearly on the slowed-down black and white footage.

The WCK does not used armed escorts and has no authority to have armed escorts or to fire weapons. A militant firing from one of their vehicles is clearly relevant to the investigation into the incident. How did he get there? Who was he firing at (other Gazans)? Why did the aid convoy continue after an armed man climbed onto one of their vehicles?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

It still really isn't very relevant to the killing though (and I still think you need to show some healthy skepticism of what was shown). From the same article, the conclusions is clear:

The drone team, the army says, now working under the assumption that they are dealing with Hamas militants and not an aid convoy, had misidentified one of the aid workers as a gunman, and claimed to have seen them enter one of the three WCK cars.

No footage of this moment was provided, but the military investigation concluded that it was a "misclassification... they saw that it's a rifle but at the end of the day it was a bag".


Under the mistaken belief that one vehicle now contained a gunman, authorisation to fire a missile is sought, and granted by superior officers. At 23:09 the first vehicle is struck, two minutes later the second, and at 23:13 the third final, fatal strike is launched.

The military's conclusions are that three major failings occurred:

The first is that the coordination plan agreed between the WCK and the IDF was not distributed down to operational level
The second is that a suspicion that an armed man had entered one of the vehicles, was not enough to justify identifying it as a target
The third failing was to continue firing after the first missile had struck the first car


They massively ####ed this up. It is ok to say so.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by blankall

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68742572

It's an independent reporter stating that he "clearly" saw a man firing an automatic weapon from the roof of one of the vehicles.



The WCK does not used armed escorts and has no authority to have armed escorts or to fire weapons. A militant firing from one of their vehicles is clearly relevant to the investigation into the incident. How did he get there? Who was he firing at (other Gazans)? Why did the aid convoy continue after an armed man climbed onto one of their vehicles?

And most importantly, why did Israel decide it needed to be blown up to rescue the hostages? What intelligence led them to that?


Also hilarious that you point out they have no authority to have an armed escort. This is the point you can step back and recognize how ridiculous that comment is, as you try to analyze what authority Israel has to blow them up real good.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by blankall

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68742572

It's an independent reporter stating that he "clearly" saw a man firing an automatic weapon from the roof of one of the vehicles.



The WCK does not used armed escorts and has no authority to have armed escorts or to fire weapons. A militant firing from one of their vehicles is clearly relevant to the investigation into the incident. How did he get there? Who was he firing at (other Gazans)? Why did the aid convoy continue after an armed man climbed onto one of their vehicles?

You are embarrassing yourself by not only defending this but latching onto to one journalists interpretation of a black and white video. Then you want to question the charity as to why? All those present are dead dude. Because Israel bombed 3 separate vehicles, minutes apart and km's apart... Be better.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

It still really isn't very relevant to the killing though (and I still think you need to show some healthy skepticism of what was shown). From the same article, the conclusions is clear:

The drone team, the army says, now working under the assumption that they are dealing with Hamas militants and not an aid convoy, had misidentified one of the aid workers as a gunman, and claimed to have seen them enter one of the three WCK cars.

No footage of this moment was provided, but the military investigation concluded that it was a "misclassification... they saw that it's a rifle but at the end of the day it was a bag".

Under the mistaken belief that one vehicle now contained a gunman, authorisation to fire a missile is sought, and granted by superior officers. At 23:09 the first vehicle is struck, two minutes later the second, and at 23:13 the third final, fatal strike is launched.

The military's conclusions are that three major failings occurred:

The first is that the coordination plan agreed between the WCK and the IDF was not distributed down to operational level
The second is that a suspicion that an armed man had entered one of the vehicles, was not enough to justify identifying it as a target
The third failing was to continue firing after the first missile had struck the first car

A gunman firing from the roofs of one of the vehicles clearly is relevant as to the strike occurred.

No one dispute most of the rest of your points. There were failings, including that the operator thought the gunman got into the vehicle, which he didn't.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

The WCK does not used armed escorts and has no authority to have armed escorts or to fire weapons. A militant firing from one of their vehicles is clearly relevant to the investigation into the incident. How did he get there? Who was he firing at (other Gazans)? Why did the aid convoy continue after an armed man climbed onto one of their vehicles?

Why are you being so stupid about this? The IDF already made this clear:

“Retired Maj Gen Yoav Har-Even described how the IDF's drone operators mistook an aid worker carrying a bag for a gunman, and then targeted one of the World Central Kitchen vehicles with a missile.”

“The IDF's investigation concluded that the army unit involved had believed the vehicles they were tracking from the sky had been taken over by Hamas gunmen, and that they were not aware of the coordination procedures put in place between the military and World Central Kitchen for that evening.”

“ The military's conclusions are that three major failings occurred:
- The first is that the coordination plan agreed between the WCK and the IDF was not distributed down to operational level
- The second is that a suspicion that an armed man had entered one of the vehicles, was not enough to justify identifying it as a target
- The third failing was to continue firing after the first missile had struck the first car”

There were never any militants. There was never even a gunman in the vehicles that were struck. The vehicle WITH gunmen, which went a different direction, wasn’t targeted.

The gunmen, as explained IN THE ARTICLE, were part of THE COORDINATION PROCEDURES BETWEEN THE MILITARY AND THE WCK.

Jesus. The lengths you go to are insane.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by blankall

A gunman firing from the roofs of one of the vehicles clearly is relevant as to the strike occurred.

No one dispute most of the rest of your points. There were failings, including that the operator thought the gunman got into the vehicle, which he didn't.

Given that they didn't strike that vehicle, it isn't really. The sequence of events based on current information was:

1) IDF spots a gunman riding on an aid truck. They try to contact the WCF to see if it's theirs, but cannot.

2) They track the convoy with that truck to an aid warehouse, but don't fire on it because of it's proximity to an aid facility.

3) IDF then spots a guy with a bag leave the aid warehouse and get into a totally different vehicle; they claim it was misidentified as a gun, which may or may not be true.

4) IDF strikes that vehicle, killing several people.

5)2 people surive that strike and get into another car to get to safety. IDF strikes that.

6) Survivors from the 2nd strike then get into a 3rd vehicle to try to get to safety and the IDF strikes that too, killing everyone.

So the guy with the gun on top of the aid vehicle may have been why they were tracking it all, but he had nothing really to do with them striking 3 separate vehicles that had just left an aid facility. They never claimed it was the same person getting into the vehicle, nor did they even provide footage of the bag they claim they mistook to be a gun.

Based on the evidence, it sounds like a trigger happy army that has little to no regard towards preventing collateral damage. They see a guy with a bag get into a car from what they knew was an aid warehouse where some other guy had had a gun earlier on, and that's enough to justify blowing up 3 separate vehicles.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I understand indiscriminate murder and starvation of a people is wrong, no matter what you pretend the justification is. Are you OK with this continuing, if the hostages are dead?

Yes Fuzz, I'm perfectly okay with it.

That is how pathetic your argument has become, to think that people are okay with what is going on because you can't actually retort with anything other than, that.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blankall

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68742572



Not so surprisingly, not as clear cut as you are making it out to be. Actual gunman shooting from the roof of one of the vehicles, who are driving at night where the markings cannot be seen.

Horrible and tragic incident. Far from purposeful targeting of aid workers. I would like to see an explanation from WCK as to why there was a gunman firing from the roof of one of their vehicles.

Careful, the mob has already decided the truth, and this isn't it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

It still really isn't very relevant to the killing though (and I still think you need to show some healthy skepticism of what was shown). From the same article, the conclusions is clear:

The drone team, the army says, now working under the assumption that they are dealing with Hamas militants and not an aid convoy, had misidentified one of the aid workers as a gunman, and claimed to have seen them enter one of the three WCK cars.

No footage of this moment was provided, but the military investigation concluded that it was a "misclassification... they saw that it's a rifle but at the end of the day it was a bag".


Under the mistaken belief that one vehicle now contained a gunman, authorisation to fire a missile is sought, and granted by superior officers. At 23:09 the first vehicle is struck, two minutes later the second, and at 23:13 the third final, fatal strike is launched.

The military's conclusions are that three major failings occurred:

The first is that the coordination plan agreed between the WCK and the IDF was not distributed down to operational level
The second is that a suspicion that an armed man had entered one of the vehicles, was not enough to justify identifying it as a target
The third failing was to continue firing after the first missile had struck the first car


They massively ####ed this up. It is ok to say so.

Well yeah.

But didn't you just miss the 3 pages of 'they did it intentionally?'

I mean which is it? They ####ed this up, or they did it intentionally?

Of course the outrage is quite something, especially from governments & leaders who have had zero issue killing innocent civilians for decades in the Middle East.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Azure

Careful, the mob has already decided the truth, and this isn't it.

The "mob" succinctly put out all of the facts and made a conclusion based on those facts. What world do you live in?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Leondros

The "mob" succinctly put out all of the facts and made a conclusion based on those facts. What world do you live in?

I'm old enough to remember two decades of civilian killing by all the governments outraged about it now and how they justified it even if it was completely accidental.

Or they didn't justify it other than to say they screwed up.

But I also don't remember anyone ever saying 'it was intentional.'

Because it is war.

Also why its imperative that perhaps instead of just sitting around waving their hands and making a big fuss for 2-3 days, the countries around Israel & the US should maybe think about actually doing something?

[afc wimbledon]

The fact that they have fired 2 officers and Israel is generally grovelingly saying they will do better in future tends to completely debunk any talk of gunmen

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm old enough to remember two decades of civilian killing by all the governments outraged about it now and how they justified it even if it was completely accidental.

Or they didn't justify it other than to say they screwed up.

But I also don't remember anyone ever saying 'it was intentional.'

Because it is war.

Also why its imperative that perhaps instead of just sitting around waving their hands and making a big fuss for 2-3 days, the countries around Israel & the US should maybe think about actually doing something?

In terms of doing something I want to see those countries you are referring to continue to put pressure on Israel and hold them accountable for the humanitarian crisis they are responsible for. Why should the countries around Palestine be responsible for cleaning up Israel's mess? Proximity and geography do not put the onus on those nations. In addition, I want to see Western democratic companies take it a step further and withhold military sales and financial support until certain conditions - mainly maintaining a cease fire and ensuring the people of Palestine are not dying due to famine and disease.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well yeah.

But didn't you just miss the 3 pages of 'they did it intentionally?'

I mean which is it? They ####ed this up, or they did it intentionally?

Of course the outrage is quite something, especially from governments & leaders who have had zero issue killing innocent civilians for decades in the Middle East.

They intentionally fired on those vehicles. It wasn't a random "accident".
The reason they targeted those vehicles was a combination of not following their own rules and ####ing up. Not sure what you are going on about the outrage. It is fully justifiable.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes Fuzz, I'm perfectly okay with it.

That is how pathetic your argument has become, to think that people are okay with what is going on because you can't actually retort with anything other than, that.

This is the mind that shamelessly and pathetically claims that it is is Hamas that is preventing aid getting to the starving people of Gaza.