Israeli Forces Fire at Gazans Waiting for Food Aid, Killing at Least 100, Injuring Over 760 Others
Israeli Forces Fire at Gazans Waiting for Food Aid, Killing at Least 100, Injuring Over 760 Others
Authorities in Gaza say Israeli forces have committed a massacre in Gaza City, killing at least 104 Palestinians as they waited for food aid. Gaza’s Health Ministry says over 760 people were wounded in what Hamas called an “unprecedented war crime.” According to eyewitnesses, Israeli forces opened f...
You're viewing a single thread.
Ok flame away, as clearly I’m going to be downvoted to oblivion or banned, but:
I read just now on the BBC that most of the casualties were due not to gunfire, as all the posts suggest, but to the aid Lorries driving over people in what seems like scenes of chaos and probable panic… and this is from a news outlet that leans to the left.
I’m not pro Hamas or IDF but I feel like (deserved or not), if what the Beeb say is true, then we’re allowing ourselves to get carried away here.
If someone opens fire at people in a crowded building and causes a crowd crush that kills dozens of people, do you blame the crowd or the dude who started mowing people down? Israel murdered those people by creating that situation regardless of the precise circumstances of their deaths.
And in so many more ways than that. There was a crush of people trying to "loot" food because they were starving. Which was also caused by Israel. If aid trucks were regularly coming into Gaza, they wouldn't be dealing with desperate people when they got through.
If people swarm a stadium killing hundreds in their panic do you blame the people who crushed them or the police who intervened?
There is still a timeline to work through, and the full story will take time.
Let's start with why were all these people starving and desperate for aid?
Because their ruling government decided to fuck around, with support from foreign states, and now innocent civilians have to find out.
Easy. Hamas...
Your claim that this started with the IDF firing into the crowd around the trucks is exactly what's being discussed here
could you explain to me how the anxious, starving crowd of people trying to reach aid "started" it?
Are you suggesting an anxious crowd couldn't have started trampling eachother or couldn't have caused the drivers to panic?
Are you suggesting that an anxious crowd devolving into a panic is improved by the addition of weapons fire?
If that is what happened, why would the article in the OP lie about it?
Why would you brush off these lies as unimportant?
Lie about what? Nothing in the article contradicts what I've said. Even if you buy the bit about Israel firing "warning shots" after the panic had already started, they still created this entire situation to begin with. They starved those people then tossed in some scraps and shot at them when they reacted pretty much exactly how any rational person would expect. It doesn't fucking matter if most of the bodies don't have IDF bullets lodged in them. They killed them all the same.
Above, you arrive at the suggestion that if the IDF was firing off warning shots, this could have set off a panic/stampede through the crowd and the trucks driving. but this would still mean that the IDF was largely responsible through this chain of events. Which I certainly agree with.
But the article says something completely different. It suggests the IDF waited for these victims to gather around the aid trucks and says they then opened fire on them. With artillery, drone missiles and gunfire. It mentions nothing about people being trampled or run over by trucks.
You don't see a little bit of contradiction there?
My dude I’m not arriving at any conclusion about what specifically happened. I saying even the most favorable interpretation toward Israel is damning. It doesn’t matter when or how they shot into the crowd, the only reason a starving crowd on the edge of panic existed in the first place is because Israel created it. That, for me, is enough to lay all the deaths at their feet regardless of whether they were shot, trampled, or run over.
If you’re concerned that I might be taking Israel at their word for some reason, let me assure you: I do not buy their version of events for even a second.
It's wild how you read that article and just take the Israeli claim as truth when they're contradicted by others right there in the article:
All or most of the casualties being treated at two other hospitals, Kamal Adwan and al-Awda, were said by officials there to have bullet or shrapnel wounds.
It's wild you just take those officials' claims as truth when they're contradicted by others right there in the article:
A Palestinian witness told the BBC most of those who died had been run over as lorry drivers tried to move forward.
I didn't take any of them as truth, because we don't know. We do know Israel lies, frequently and blatantly, so believing them over other sources is dumb.
Who is believing them over other sources?
The person I was replying to before you jumped in for some reason apparently without reading the context.
I read just now on the BBC that most of the casualties were due not to gunfire
Well it's actually because I read the context that made me jump in to ask the question
That poster also said
if what the Beeb say is true, then
And linked an article that has different angles on these killings. I didn't see any suggestion where he said any of the cited sources were right or wrong
The Beeb didn't say "most of the casualties were due no to gunfire". They didn't say any particular side was true. The OP just chose one side and ignored the other. They're not trusting BBC, I don't think any of us think the BBC is making up quotes, they're selecting trusting a specific source among multiple relayed by BBC.
The OP was saying: "let's also consider the other side instead of just the one before we jump to conclusions"
By the way, if you see the aerial footage it's very unlikely that most of the 100 casualties would not be from the trucks running over the crowd
You are
The Beeb.
Leans Left.
Uh...
I've lived in the UK.
The BBC themselves have some years ago published a study by Nottingham University that showed that the BBC favored whatever party was in Government an the time.
The UK Government is currently in the hands of the Brexit faction of the Tories, who are Far-Right populists.
Anybody who thinks the BBC is Left has to be so far to the Right that they're Fascists of the worse kind, which kinda makes sense given that such people are the ones justifying the actions of the Genocidal Fascist Government of Israel.
When you're supporting a far right authoritarian genocide...
Pretty much everything "leans left" compared to your own views...
Have you seen much of Jeremy Bowen at all?
In the UK zeitgeist, it’s at least relatively left wing.
Edit: on this specific topic. Not the Toryshambles.
Came here with similar response. Ill join you in the downvotes.
Democracynow.org is horrific for half stories and bias. I went through Al Jazeera and a few points.
-
Israel did open fire on the civilians. Their response and reasoning is that the trucks were being swarmed and the drivers who did kill some by being run over were Hamas drivers. People were likely killed in stampead prior to opening fire, and in the ensuring panic afterwards.
-
Hamas is claiming they were deliberate shots at chest level.
-
the fog of war in this conflict is horrible, and its exponentially worse because of propaganda, poor reporting and uneducated masses having a voice.
...so the guys driving the fucking aid trucks were Hamas? And Hamas was purposefully using the aid trucks to run over its own people? So Israel started firing at the drivers of the aid trucks but miraculously missed every shot, and them gunning down dozens of civilians was an oopsie?
You believe that? Cuz that's really fucking stupid.
You know why there was a mob of people? Because there is no food in Gaza. At all. People are subsisting on grains used for animal food, anything with calories. People are desperate when they are starving to death. And Israel, the fucking monsters, engineered this situation by only letting a couple trucks here and there trickle in while hundreds of aid trucks wait at the border, unallowed to enter.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/rTrMBI5fvfA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Not quite - you are also confusing what one side said the other was.
The very early days, brief timeline
-
aid trucks went in. Israel says drivers were Hamas.
-
aid trucks were swarmed, people killed in the crush.
-
Israel opened fire to protect trucks, Hamas claimed shots fired deliberately at chest level.
-
people killed in panic stampede, people run over by panicked truck drivers, I haven't seen any comments that people were killed by gunfire (haven't seen, not saying it didn't happen.
-
i will also ignore any references from MEE or Democracynow, along with any blatantly supporting Israel or Gaza without balance.
Can you point us to a source for "Israel says drivers were Hamas"?
(As they were escorting the convoy, it seems unlikely to me that they were allowing the trucks to be driven by the armed wing of Hamas. Perhaps the unarmed administrative part or Egyptians sounds much more realistic)
I cant find the direct link - it was the breaking news link in Al Jazeera around 6 hours ago that has now been changed as news develops. I also suspect that statement has since been recanted as none of their new stories mention it, nor does the improvethenews.org story.
I doubt Israel was escorting it, but with Hamas stealing aid supplies for the war effort I also wouldn't be surprised (opinion only, don't take that as fact). I also doubt that Hamas armed forces were driving, but Hamas is also the Palestine government so could be technically correct if they were government workers???
Times of Israel article has them as 'private contractors', Egyptian drivers seem the most logical
I can't see where Al Jazeera came up with that claim then
It may sound like I'm supporting Israel in this thread, but I'm supporting balanced arguements and anti propaganda. I would trust Times of Israel to be as biased as MEE or Democracynow (that is incredibly biased and half the story).
Sure, they're a sockpuppet for Israel. But still, their claim sounds a lot more plausible than AJ suggesting 'Hamas' was driving
If you say anything other than what the hivemind is saying- you’re always going to be accused of being “anti-something.”
I once tried telling people that Biden is not physically committing genocide anywhere and that Israel isn’t enabled entirely as a result of Biden and would be doing it with or without his involvement- and was harassed for hours over it.
They seriously think that Biden is the mastermind of the whole operation.
Doubt is the origin of wisdom.
You’re a rare breed man. Thanks for staying true to the facts, regardless of the results of them. Non-bias is impossible to find nowadays.
-
It’s impossible to argue with manufactured outrage. They already ate and digested the rhetoric and nothing will change their minds.
[SEE BELOW]
What I'm reading Israel is saying:
They did not fire on the civilians (around the trucks)
Their tanks fired warning shots to disperse the crowd (implying aimed away from the civilians)
Nothing about the drivers being Hamas (as in: if they were escorted there, I don't think they would consider the drivers a threat, as that's what's being suggested by this wording)
A nearby incident (how near? Probably very near) where civilians came towards their checkpoint, didn't stop after warning shots, and then they started shooting to kill
Do you have a link to the article you read? I went through the Al Jazeera one and it didn't mention this.
It's at the start of this comment thread we're both replying to
-
Well tbf you're not supposed to want to find out about the details of these headlines
Just upvote downvote along with the flow, maybe post something about how horrible things are, and wait for the next one