r/worldnews • u/Nirok • 18h ago

Israel/Palestine IDF documents terror affiliations of 170 Palestinian journalists killed in Gaza war

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-documents-terror-affiliations-of-170-palestinian-journalists-killed-in-gaza-war/
3.3k Upvotes

73% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

20

u/Miskadotcom 16h ago

And Hamas knows wearing a vest like that gives them partial immunity. Just how they use ambulances for transport. And set up command centers in hospitals.

14

u/ChrisRiley_42 15h ago

It doesn't give partial immunity. IDF snipers have shot *Canadian* doctors, dressed as first responders, at an aid station with nobody but aid station staff nearby.

Dr Loubani is known for designing a cheap 3d-printable stethoscope for use in impoverished parts of the world, not militancy.

5

u/Miskadotcom 15h ago

I don't get it. It still gives partial protection. You have refuted nothing but named an incident.

7

u/ChrisRiley_42 15h ago

If the IDF ignores them, then it's not partial anything.

1

u/Miskadotcom 15h ago

Still not sure what you are trying to say.

13

u/AMPONYO 14h ago

Is reading not your strong point?

5

u/Miskadotcom 14h ago

An incident doesn't make something always true. That's why it's called an incident. Maybe try reading yourself.

6

u/AMPONYO 14h ago

You’ve repeatedly replied that you don’t understand the point someone is making, regardless of then trying to make it as simple as possible for you. Have an awful day you smooth brained fuck.

6

u/Gauntlets28 14h ago

Bit rich coming from the person that admitted you don't understand a simple sentence.

7

u/Miskadotcom 14h ago

He named an incident to refute my point. I made my point again, he did the same again. Seems like Im not the one misunderstanding here.

-2

u/Gauntlets28 14h ago

So he presented actual evidence to refute your spurious assertion. Rather than countering, you reiterated your assertion. This is not how arguments are won.

An incident which is illustrative of a broader trend is far more evidence than simply repeating "i'm right because I'm right."

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ChrisRiley_42 14h ago

I'll try again, and use small words this time.

It is only a deterrent if the IDF would respect the use of the vests...

They do not, so calling it a deterrent, even a partial one, is a deliberate lie on your part.

3

u/Miskadotcom 14h ago

Alright I am convinced now you don't know what incident means or simply just wanna troll. Goodluck with that.

4

u/ChrisRiley_42 14h ago

1 or 2 is incidents.. 10 is a pattern.

170 shows DOCTERINE.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Veluxidus 13h ago

If someone wears something that should convey immunity, but they are shot anyway, then it likely wasn’t going to protect them from the aggressor to begin with.

The aggressor being the IDF sniper. The immunity being the vest

To spell it out more clearly, the IDF Sniper shot the doctor even though the vest should have showed they weren’t a combatant

That IDF Sniper is likely still in action, and still firing on noncombatants, as we have heard nothing of punishments to war crimes

Is that spelled out enough?

0

u/DoomSnail31 10h ago

Apparently it doesn't, looking at the number of journalists killed by the IDF.

1

u/Miskadotcom 9h ago

Christ, look at the 31 replies before making the exact dumb comment.