Jump to content

Israel, Palestine and Iran


Swerbs

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Yep - it's a strange one - the source I saw (I think on Twitter) on the smaller number didn't seem anything that would make sense so I didn't really pay it much mind - but the figures did seem to be established quite quickly.

Incidentally, the WHO have said that they count 59 separate attacks on healthcare services in Gaza by Israel since October 7th. 

 

You are putting up a lot of circumstantial evidence (Israel has done it before, the tape they promoted is likely fake etc) but the first hand evidence (the videos of the event, the analysis of the aftermath) points to a Hamas rocket. 

There were a lot of people camping out in that park next to the carpark and there is a video online of the aftermath of that campsite if you can stomach it.

It seems like it was an accident and no one intended to attack the carpark but a rocket misfired (which happens a lot), luckily the hospital itself was not affected and is still being used. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an observation but why if you are the innocent party do you need to put out tweets that imply you were behind it, and fake audio evidence to imply you weren't behind it. I mean, it's almost as though they don't actually know if they were behind it - and that just paints a picture of an army and a government in chaos.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Just an observation but why if you are the innocent party do you need to put out tweets that imply you were behind it, and fake audio evidence to imply you weren't behind it. I mean, it's almost as though they don't actually know if they were behind it - and that just paints a picture of an army and a government in chaos.

As i understand that audio i not proven that it is fake. They actually say that this analysis cannot categorically state that the audible dialogues are fake. They say its two independent recordings and that they have been edited by some software or tool they added effects and they made to appear that its one recording. They say that its been so much edited that you cant use it as evidence.

What does that mean?

They probably have original unedited recordings to provide in courts or other serious parties. This version was edited specifically for media was altered for better hearing removed background noises and better consumption for people and media. And that actually might be standard practice i would think so.

There is special kind of stupid to just fake the audio recording and evidence and i dont think they are so stupid.

Edited by Tumblerseven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Just an observation but why if you are the innocent party do you need to put out tweets that imply you were behind it, and fake audio evidence to imply you weren't behind it. I mean, it's almost as though they don't actually know if they were behind it - and that just paints a picture of an army and a government in chaos.

The tweet was just some guy who admitted afterwards he didn’t know what he was talking about. 

The audio, I am in no position to be able to tell if it’s fake or not but let’s say it is fake and was produced by an Israeli fanboy (or even fabricated by Israel themselves). All across the Arab world there were riots outside Israeli and US embassies for something likely done by Hamas. They would have been desperate to change the narrative and releasing this audio might have helped calm things back down again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Just an observation but why if you are the innocent party do you need to put out tweets that imply you were behind it, and fake audio evidence to imply you weren't behind it. I mean, it's almost as though they don't actually know if they were behind it - and that just paints a picture of an army and a government in chaos.

Just as with Russia in Ukraine somethings put into the public domain are for the domestic audience (wrong word but you know what I mean), some for the opposition and some for the international.

We wiped out a shit load of Palestinians would resonate well with some at home, especially after the Hamas incursion. When it was realised that resonates badly on other fronts it gets deleted but as we all know, it’s too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LondonLax said:

You are putting up a lot of circumstantial evidence (Israel has done it before, the tape they promoted is likely fake etc) but the first hand evidence (the videos of the event, the analysis of the aftermath) points to a Hamas rocket.

The only evidence is circumstantial,  first hand evidence is yet to prove conclusive either way, it's just as easy to say that the videos and analysis of the aftermath don't point to a Hamas rocket. When a news outlet as conservative as the BBC isn't yet prepared to commit to this being a Hamas accident, then I think it's fair to keep at the very least an open mind and more sensibly a fair chunk of cynicism.

For me, until there's some sort of independent evidence, I still think it's likely that the people who have been bombing hospitals every day, who threatened to bomb this hospital, then warned the people there that they would bomb this hospital, then briefly (however tenuously) took credit for bombing this hospital, probably bombed this hospital. I might obviously be wrong on that - but having the right people say it ain't so isn't the same as actual independently reviewed evidence.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

The only evidence is circumstantial,  first hand evidence is yet to prove conclusive either way, it's just as easy to say that the videos and analysis of the aftermath don't point to a Hamas rocket. When a news outlet as conservative as the BBC isn't yet prepared to commit to this being a Hamas accident, then I think it's fair to keep at the very least an open mind and more sensibly a fair chunk of cynicism.

For me, until there's some sort of independent evidence, I still think it's likely that the people who have been bombing hospitals every day, who threatened to bomb this hospital, then warned the people there that they would bomb this hospital, then briefly (however tenuously) took credit for bombing this hospital, probably bombed this hospital. I might obviously be wrong on that - but having the right people say it ain't so isn't the same as actual independently reviewed evidence.

 

They didn’t bomb the hospital though. The hospital is fine. 

If Israel are trying to destroy that hospital they have had plenty of time to follow up with a more accurate and larger bomb. 

Edited by LondonLax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the odds on a hospital that has previously been attacked, has been told it will be attacked, then being the landing site for a piece of rocket that has blown off course? That bit of rocket could have hit anywhere in a massive built up area. The odds on it hitting that hospital are insane. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

The UN had already reported that hospital had previously been hit by an Israeli bomb and it had killed people.

The same day the UN reported a school being used as a shelter was hit by an Israeli bomb and killed people.

Israel told the civilian population to move south, and bombed the south.

Hamas have murdered and kidnapped civilians.

Ain’t nobody coming out of this shit show proven to be the innocent party. 

There are not many willing to make a case that either side are an innocent party.

In this thread we do have a couple of people who are 100% supportive of one side or the other but most of us are just trying to filter out the noise to try and understand what is going on. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Jareth said:

What are the odds on a hospital that has previously been attacked, has been told it will be attacked, then being the landing site for a piece of rocket that has blown off course? That bit of rocket could have hit anywhere in a massive built up area. The odds on it hitting that hospital are insane. 

It hit the parking area outside, as per the pictures from both sides. The emotive language used to describe this particular incident is not a trust-enforcing exercise by Hamas and their base in the West.

If IDF wanted this hospital gone they’d done it easily, like with many other buildings. Hamas rockets have proven unstable, inaccurate and dumb. Israel’s bombing isn’t inaccurate at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Anybody think the mass murder of civilians or the mass punishment of civilians will lead to any war crimes prosecutions?

Israel, the US and likely Hamas as well doesn't recognize the war tribunal or their right to prosecute their citizens.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

It hit the parking area outside, as per the pictures from both sides. The emotive language used to describe this particular incident is not a trust-enforcing exercise by Hamas and their base in the West.

If IDF wanted this hospital gone they’d done it easily, like with many other buildings. Hamas rockets have proven unstable, inaccurate and dumb. Israel’s bombing isn’t inaccurate at all.

Not getting this differentiation between a hospital building and a hospital car park - both had people in, desperate folks are going to places they think are least likely to be bombed. The odds still inform me that it is far less likely to be a tragic accident. Each to their own of course. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Not getting this differentiation between a hospital building and a hospital car park - both had people in, desperate folks are going to places they think are least likely to be bombed. The odds still inform me that it is far less likely to be a tragic accident. Each to their own of course. 

The point is, what would be the military value to the Israeli army for bombing a half dozen cars in a carpark? If they thought Hamas were operating out of the hospital it seems they missed their target but they haven’t followed up with a more accurate strike on the Hospital. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Not getting this differentiation between a hospital building and a hospital car park - both had people in, desperate folks are going to places they think are least likely to be bombed. The odds still inform me that it is far less likely to be a tragic accident. Each to their own of course. 

A worthy argument of course, but again Israel’s bombing since about 1970 has been very accurate. What value does a car park have to a country that is so accurate with their bombs that they hit the load bearers on massive 10story buildings from 5 sides at the same time?

Hamas meanwhile is using mlrs systems that are known to combust and hit as many Palestinians as Israelis. I don’t see Israel missing if they wanted to hit the hospital, personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Not getting this differentiation between a hospital building and a hospital car park - both had people in, desperate folks are going to places they think are least likely to be bombed. The odds still inform me that it is far less likely to be a tragic accident. Each to their own of course. 

"I didn't bomb your house, I bombed your garage (that had people in it). Get it right."

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pongo Waring said:

Be careful out there 

 

FWIW, while it's being handled by counter terrorism, and it's reported that he's an asylum seeker, I can't find any other source for the claim he was killed due to any reason relating to Gaza, nor that he arrived in the UK in a dinghy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â