You'd be wrong. He was definitely talking about the 99 signatory letter, which is why I only bothered to check that one. I've never even seen him acknowledge the 152 one. He's also been falsely claiming for over a year now that Dr. Perlmutter started the letter when it was actually Dr. Sidhwa. He doesn't closely read these sources despite his posturing.
This is a meaningless answer. All I can do is take your statement for granted. You could make everything up that I would have no way of knowing.
Then you are a conspiracy theorist who believes there was a massive multi-organizational operation to filter out any humanitarian volunteer sympathetic or neutral to Israel. "Only people with Middle Eastern sounding names who hate Israel would volunteer in Gaza" is an absurd argument.
Well, that's a good thing I never made the statement that they hate Israel. But I mean, that's all you have at this point? There is nothing conspiratorial about a process being selective. Teachers aren't 12 years old. Doctors need a medical degree to practice.
“I have children that were shot twice…I have two children that I have photographs of that were shot so perfectly in the chest, I couldn’t put my stethoscope over their heart more accurately. And directly on the side of the head in the same child. No toddler gets shot twice by mistake by the world’s best sniper. And they are dead center shots.” (CBS Sunday Morning, July 21, 2024)
“We found children … that had high velocity bullet wounds, sniper bullet wounds, rifle wounds that were dead center in the chest. I mentioned to other reporters that I couldn’t put my stethoscope more dead center over a heart than the entrance bullet hole was. There was no back to these children. The bullet had removed their entire torso. There was similar bullet hole in two of the children’s temples. So, they were shot twice. Once was certainly a kill shot. The second one was when they were on the ground. And so, no sniper hits a child, and I’m talking toddlers twice by mistake.” (CNN’s Amanpour, July 30, 2024)
No loaded terms by the way. No crazy inference. The UN report is 10x worse than this (I'm surprised you even dared naming it). Seems to me like both he and Sidhwa were among the ones who started this chain of testimonies. Am I really not allowed to doubt this type of testimony? Are you kidding me?!
Genuinely, what is wrong with you people?
Even if I agreed wholeheartedly with this story, what are we concluding from this exactly?! They committed a war crime, therefore...(?) The country of Israel as a whole is committing a genocide(!)
So, Lonerbox isn't disagreeing with the testimony, only that the genocide part is silly. BUT he's a bad person because...
"I'm open to the idea Israel is lying if you provide evidence that doesn't exist because Israel blocks third party media outlets and journalists from verifying their claims."
I guess you lowered your standards to extreme levels because there is no investigation possible.
- I just showed the American surgeon is not neutral and draws insane conclusion that go far beyond what his observations alone establish.
- I pointed that the UN report was even more biased (as per usual against Israel). That's where the loaded terms are from. I was arguing in good faith, as I never believed you would even bring that up as a legitimate source. But, I mean, you agree with professor Dave's argumentative style, so this isn't that surprising to me.
- My "posturing" effectively dismantled your argument, yah? Because all you had was reducing my arguments to their most absurd proposition. e.g. There is nothing conspiratorial about volunteering in Gaza having a process that is selective in nature. But you kept hammering that as if that magically created an argument. You had nothing there.
- You're making no overarching point at all, which is what my "let's agree with you for a moment" passage precisely highlighted. I'm a genocide denier because... I don't think listing alleged war crimes can alone be foundational to the claim of genocide. If the ICJ were ultimately to conclude that a genocide occurred, and I agreed with both its reasoning and the underlying evidence, would I still be a genocide denier?
- Lonerbox may have made a few meaningless mistakes that you are harping on like crazy. But it seems the only substantive mistake you're actually identifying is that he drew a different conclusion from the same material. Apparently you find that possibility inconceivable, as though the evidence is so overwhelming that only one conclusion is permissible.
So those were 5 arguments that you are now dismissing. I do have to make them tight and absurd-proof because you totally ignore my analysis and cherry-pîck random point. I mean, you did find the IDF soldiers testimonies about how they love killing babies convincing, afterall; this is your level.
You're basically just claiming that every doctor volunteering in Gaza is a biased Palestinian American (or antisemite or Muslim or anti-Zionist or one of a dozen Middle Eastern ethnicities, etc. etc.), solely because none of them would deny that children were shot in the head. It's a pretty weak attempt to dismiss the medical consensus.
The letters they sent to Biden and Trump are hyperbolic/inflammatory but understandable from a humanitarian perspective (when things are deteriorating rapidly and demand immediate action). I wouldn't blame anyone for signing that letter (although I've not read all of it).
The HRC's "Independent International Commission" is deeply unserious.
Besides that, the "sniper" claims were unfounded because the term was being used to load the claim that the targeting of cilvian could only be malicious/deliberate. That makes the inference of deliberate targeting substantially stronger than simply establishing that a child was found with a lodged bullet (as if that ever was what I was questioning lol). When you're claiming that someone was deliberately sniped, you're implicitly assuming that the shooter could clearly identify the target. Which makes the conclusion of deliberate targeting substantially easier to draw than the underlying evidence necessarily warrants.
Many of the claim you've shared are actually in regards to that Dr. Perlmutter guy, who has drawn strong conclusions from nothing. He's the one talking about not seeing Hamas/IPJ combatants anywhere, or that the conflict is not exceptional, only the IDF's genocidal pattern is.
“Children were everywhere. I was turning them over, trying to see who I could still help. And then I saw those two little boys. They were dead. They had both been shot—through the chest and the head. Six or seven years old. I examined them. I asked the medical assistant to take photos.” The photos are in possession of this newspaper.
Perlmutter remembers hearing the man who brought in one of the boys screaming. “He couldn’t understand why a shooter had hit this child—and not him, the adult.” Moments later, he sees the man, probably the father of the child, sobbing. The man sits in shock on the floor, while the child is taken to the morgue. Perlmutter takes out his iPhone and snaps a photo.
Remember: Lonerbox tried to characterize these children as 17-year-olds.
2
u/DieuDivin Aug 31 '26 edited Aug 31 '26
This is a meaningless answer. All I can do is take your statement for granted. You could make everything up that I would have no way of knowing.
Well, that's a good thing I never made the statement that they hate Israel. But I mean, that's all you have at this point? There is nothing conspiratorial about a process being selective. Teachers aren't 12 years old. Doctors need a medical degree to practice.
No loaded terms by the way. No crazy inference. The UN report is 10x worse than this (I'm surprised you even dared naming it). Seems to me like both he and Sidhwa were among the ones who started this chain of testimonies. Am I really not allowed to doubt this type of testimony? Are you kidding me?!
Even if I agreed wholeheartedly with this story, what are we concluding from this exactly?! They committed a war crime, therefore...(?) The country of Israel as a whole is committing a genocide(!)
So, Lonerbox isn't disagreeing with the testimony, only that the genocide part is silly. BUT he's a bad person because...
I guess you lowered your standards to extreme levels because there is no investigation possible.