and starvation happening there.

Why is the default presumption that it has something to do with Israel? Is evidence not necessary to make accusations anymore?

people are dying from warmonger Netanyahu's attacks. He has openly declared he won't stop until all the Palestinians are gone from Gaza.

There's the default right there.

Israel deserves better, as do the Palestinians and the region.

And to think, once the ethnic cleansing is done, there will be lasting peace in the area does not jibe with the history of the region by any means.

a general discussion of the Gaza war.

The OP includes evidence of a false account of a specific event.

Why is the default presumption that it (the specific event covered in the OP) has something to do with Israel?

Simple question, no?

did not do that as again, I blame the warmonger Netanyahu. Again, the warmonger Netanyahu.

Israel deserves a better leader. As I noted to you before, you're too aligned with his policies to feel any empathy for the Gazans.

In my exchanges with you during the course of this war, I get your affiliation with the nation of Israel, but with the warmonger Netanyahu's policies, no. You're better than that IMO.

Netanyahu is not the subject of my response, nor is it the subject of the OP.

The false reports filling the mass media insinuate that Israel is to be blamed for the violence, despite evidence to the contrary.

In your responses, you are ignoring both of these facts, bypassing the subject and only focusing on Netanyahu.This leaves the false and unjustified default presumption of Israel's (not Netanyahu's) culpability promoted by the multitude of media reports completely unaddressed. As if this is not the issue.

It is THE issue in THIS case, and not a word about it in any of your posts.

And I will call him that every time. He himself has declared his intention to ethnic cleanse Gaza of Palestinians.

As for deflecting from the incident of today, that was not my intention. My intention is not to blame Israel, but the warmonger Netanyahu, just to clear.

You communicated your position about Netanyahu on numerous occasions. I am fully aware of it and share it. But this is not the issue at hand.

As I said, it is a deflection, regardless of what you intended it to be.

Last edited Mon Jun 2, 2025, 12:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Now let's drop this. It's getting us nowhere.

That "evidence" is laughable. No date and time-stamp, claimed location even could not be verified by Reuters.

Besides, the massacre happened away from the distribution centre - by about a thousand yards. At a roundabout. The location in that shameless video does not look like a roundabout to me.

I noted with my jaundiced eye the IDF statement that it had not fired within or "near" the distribution centre. Is near defined as less than a thousand yards?

There are many eyewitnesses describing the carnage. Scores of civilians, doctors, Red Crescent/Cross, Civil Defense and ambulance workers, people who lost family.

Are they all lying?

Why are Palestinians not believed? Surely they are not "all Hamas", though that is generally the insinuation whenever Israel does something heinous.

To deprive people of aid and food for months and then shoot at the hungry and desparate should be recognized for the horrible war-crime and unmitigated cruelty that it is.

When is it gonna be enough???

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c628n68zpj6t?page=2

But I hope that made you feel better about yourself.

A short video doesnt show much at all of what? 12 hours of daylight?. Personally I will withhold my thoughts on this absent real proof. It could easily have been hamas or the IDF or other actors. A lot of people are claiming a lot of things without having evidence. I think its best to withhold judgement until more evidence becomes available.

On the contrary, I fully expected you to come up with nothing. That's the point of the question. Not much of a proof vs no proof at all. Not much of a contest there.

And this is not based on anything you claimed.

I never said that violence happened there now did I?
That is why it is a clear strawman.

And no, you never said that violence happened there. That would have been patently ridiculous and, frankly, surprising.

No evidence is needed to maintain the presumption that no violence happened there. You can't prove a negative. Any evidence confirming that presumption would only reinforce it. Yet, you found the evidence you saw with your own eyes insufficient to maintain the presumption expected of you in the first place. You are expecting conditions to be met before you get to the starting point. It doesn't work that way.

It is on you to provide the evidence to challenge this presumption, not the other way around. Hence my question: "Where is the proof of violence happening there?" Of course, we both know it's nowhere to be found, and this is what makes my question rhetorical.

Wait... do you even know what a rhetorical question is?

I can't believe the time I am wasting on parsing the most elementary things into such tiny increments for easy digestion... and having to do the same thing a whole bunch of times, one after the other.

If as you admit "no, you never said that violence happened there" then why ask me for proof of it?
Ah it was a rhetorical question. So you asked me a question about a position that I never made knowing full well I didn't have an answer for a position I never made.
Ah Dang you got me!
And that was,,,,smart?
It is on me to provide evidence of a presumption that I had never presumed?
This is like seriously funny.
The fact that it took you hours to compose this after you deleted your previous post makes me want to see how bad that one was if you thought this was a good enough one to keep.

"That is not much in the way of proof. A short video doesnt show much at all of what? 12 hours of daylight?"

That is a position. A pretty undeniable one. Your position is to question the evidence that clearly shows absence of violence - the expected condition where violence doesn't take place. Your position being patently absurd does not erase its existence.

So I asked you a question about a position you did take knowing full well that it is so absurd, it doesn't warrant a straight response. And I never expected an answer from you. That's the nature of a rhetorical question.

Now, about rhetorical questions: their purpose is to respond to positions whose absurdity is so obvious that they do not warrant straight answers.

Does this explanation put my question into a proper perspective for you? No?

Jeez...

And don't judge me by your standards. Don't presume I spend hours of non-response to your posts in search of a better response. I have a life, you know. And believe it or not, it is filled petty little nothings that take precedence to paying attention to your posts.

Which reminds me: I have to go out and watch my grass grow now. Good bye.

Nothing more nothing less as much as you want to claim.

In lieu of repeating myself, refer to Post 18 for the rest.

That your evidence is not much does not equal "Your position is to question the evidence that clearly shows absence of violence - the expected condition where violence doesn't take place" I didnt question the evidence at all now did I? I never said it was fake or anything did I? It was simply that it was not enough to come to any conclusion.

They're adamantly opposed to ANY Palestinian receiving aid, because they don't give one fuck about the Palestinians beyond how they can use them to further their war against Israel. They're already on record for threatening Palestinians who do go to the aid distribution sites.

If the video evidence can verify that there was no gunfire during the distribution period, the other option is that Hamas soldiers were waiting to gun down the crowd afterwards to send a message to other civilians: starve or get shot.

The attack happened at 4 in the morning, about a km from the aid centre, after they had been instructed to wait until 6 a.m. and began to line up. So any video evidence of the aid centre itself is irrelevant obfuscation.

Further, this happened in a "secured" military zone. There were tanks, drones and IDF soldiers watching.

How could Hamas attack in the middle of all that IDF military presence? Why would the IDF, with all their surveillance, not notice people with AK-47s? They would have, which would beg another queestion in the unlikely scenario indeed it was Hamas. Why was it allowed to happen? I don't think you want to go there.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jun/01/palestinians-killed-food-distribution-gaza-strip-israel-middle-east-crisis-live



The nearest naval ship was 4 miles away, and this "eye witness" had absolutely no way of seeing an Israeli ship from his location 🤦

And then distributed food to thousands all day, as shown in video, as people walked over dead bodies to get to the distribution area a km away?

That sounds more plausible to you?

And, how could Hamas attack? You mean, other than dressing as civilians and hiding AK's under their clothes, like they've been doing for years?

First of all, the IDF doesn't give away food. Not a morsel of bread. Never has.

Now I understand it is not their responsibility to feed people but it IS their responsibility to ensure aid is allowed to be given by humanitarian agencies.

I try to imagine how I would feel if I were an IDF soldier, well-fed, ordering about and shooting at people that I know haven't had a meal in days. Or watching emaciated children fetching dirty water and carrying the heavy load with their thin arms. I couldn't stomach it. I guess I'd flunk out of the IDF.

There is no date and time-stamp on that video -odd, isn't it? - and it's location has not been confirmed. But if you think there is nothing strange about all that, go ahead.

Yes, starving people are more likely to step over dead bodies to get to food than you and I. But it's not likely they would have had to do so, hours after the event. Even if the video is of the same day and location.

So Hamas snuck into a military zone that was already declared "secure"? Pretty lax of the IDF. With AK- 47s hidden under their clothes? I'm trying to visualize that and I just can't see it. But I don't know much about GD guns, wish they were never invented.

I guess we could argue back and forth all day about which side did it. We'll never find out the truth, that's all I know. There are no foreign press or observers allowed into Gaza and the local ones are mostly dead now. The IDF will "investigate" and then exonerate itself. This time there were no foreign aid workers murdered, only Palestinians.

that you know haven't had a meal in days never crosses your mind. Not once.

And THAT is the problem that is being pointed out to you again and again, to no avail.

Your imagination could use some improvements.

but that the IDF denies anything happened is suspect. There was footage of someone shooting, so people definitely were killed. Claiming nothing happened is a lie. So why did the IDF lie if they had no involvement? That's the odd part.

The rest don't identify the shooter/s.
https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=297&q=reuters+headline+shooting+food+gaza&cvid=c7580259be424bf681f282029978cb2f&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQABhAMgYIAhAAGEAyBggDEAAYQDIGCAQQABhAMgYIBRAAGEAyBggGEAAYQDIGCAcQABhAMgYICBAAGEDSAQkxMDk0N2owajGoAgCwAgA&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=HCTS

(I saw WaPo through a Bing search).

Interestingly, the IDF YouTube channel is claiming Hamas did the shooting. Suddenly they no longer deny that anything happened.

A logical response for the Israeli government would have been to say: We're not aware of a shooting at the distribution center, but the IDF were definitely not involved. Why wouldn't they say that instead of claiming nothing happened?

The witnesses may well be mistaken about the identity of the shooters but given the fact that the IDF is the one who shoots at them on a daily basis, it's a logical assumption.

The rollout a week ago was a debacle.

More Hamas propaganda.

Or the 500 give or take wounded.

Or the fact that less than maybe 10% of the population got fed. The rest are still starving.

It went great, otherwise.

Without citing Hamas.

You attempted to rebut the accurate claim it was a debacle. By your own admission they were shot. Shooting starving aid-seekers by the dozens qualifies as a debacle by any standards.

Could have been Hamas wanting to push more anti Jewish propaganda.

Your eagerness to buy into that message is noted.

I'm sure it was Hamas.

IDF says it didn't happen and there is footage of masked hamas terrorists firing into crowds.

Proof that any shrapnel came from a tank round and not a Hamas ied?

You can google it.

Last edited Thu Jun 5, 2025, 05:15 PM - Edit history (1)

"The majority suffered from gunshot or shrapnel wounds"

No "Sniped in the head and chest". No "Died from tank shrapnel".
https://www.icrc.org/en/statement/israel-and-occupied-territories-red-cross-field-hospital-unprecedented-influx-war-wounded-gaza

FYI, shrapnel is a metal fragment of an explosive device. Such as an RPG, a grenade or an improvised explosive device. It can also result from a defective rifle or a beeper rigged with explosives blowing up.

The red cross hasn't said anything other than it received patients, and it wouldn't be able to identify who shot them.

The statements about the IDF came from the Hamas health ministry.

See Post 64.

And your argument is solely on the idea that Hamas couldn't have a weapon that has been present in Gaza for nearly 2 years, minimum?

Are they like Thors hammer?

Do you think Hamas has been using Israel's tanks without anyone noticing?

"Weapons experts said the rate of gunfire heard in the footage, as well as images of bullets retrieved from victims, were consistent with machine guns used by the Israeli military that can be mounted on tanks."

Something heard in the footage being used as a determinant of consistency with certain weapons that could hypothetically be attached to a tank is word salad, not evidence.

BiBi is killing innocents by the tens of thousands, yet every new crime has the same posters minimizing or defending it. It's disturbing, children are being blown to bits and burned alive, children are being starved to death, how sick do you have to be to rush to dispute every single incident on details? The fog of war is real, some of these atrocities are not as severe as initially reported while some others are much more severe than initial reports. Hamas is evil, BiBi's government is evil, 1300 innocent Israelis suffered from Hamas's unspeakable atrocities and 50,000 to 100,000 innocent Palestinians have been butchered in Gaza in the response, civilized and moral people should be outraged and saddened by both, but only 1 of the two slaughters is ongoing right now.

The clear goal now is full and total ethnic cleansing of Gaza until it can be bulldozed and the land sold off to BiBi's and Trump's rich buddies to develop into resorts. There is no defense of this, as there was no defense of Hamas's crimes either.

Which part of the post do you consider to be a defense of war crimes?

Mmm...kay, if you say so.

Who take everything Hamas says as gospel. They won't hear of anything else, even when it has video evidence to support it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Humanitarian_Foundation

The GHF..... has the backing of the Trump administration and the Israeli government. It has been criticized by the United Nations and humanitarian groups for politicizing aid distribution.

Is that not true?

A number of notable news sources say the same including the UN, BBC, NYT, Reuters, Haaretz. Al Jazeera, and The Times of Israel etc. Also, the article I posted said that numerous humanitarian groups are also protesting the slaughter.

The only deniers of the incident are the IDF and the GHF itself.

ground on which the food distribution center stands is made of sand. Also true, but trivial.

It' does nothing to address the event reported in the OP.

I would guess that the victims and survivors would also be interested.

Likwise, I find it very relevant that the surface recorded by this camera is made of sand.

To each his own.

And I will bet you a seven dollar bill that hungry people don't particularly care about who feeds them. Only the people with full stomachs have the luxury of entertaining such trivial distinctions.

No surprise.

The denial almost worked but the truth almost always comes out. However of course doubts have been cast and the damage has been done. The damage will aid in plausible deniability the next time it happens - and it will. So this inhumane crime will go on.

In addition it should be noted that the Red Cross and the UK-based Medical Aid for Palestinians, many victims suffered direct hits to the head and chest or SHRAPNEL wounds.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/04/middleeast/israel-military-gaza-aid-shooting-intl-invs

It hurts the heart to think about how well-fed and armed soldiers can do this to defenceless, starving human beings.

CNN adds nothing to previously reached conclusions, yet claims to "shed fresh light on how the pursuit of aid turned chaotic and then dangerous"

And what do they "shed"? Unidentified eyewitnesses with no apparent basis to their claims. Israeli forces operating "in the area". No shit, it's a friggin war zone! How far from the shooting was that area? Crickets. Multiple geolocated videos identify the site of the gunfire, which was already identified previously, but no source of the gunfire. Witnesses seeing gunfire emanating from the tanks, but no signs of tanks in the area that CNN could find. Unidentified weapons experts, apparently not present at the scene, finding the sounds they hear and the bullets they see to be "consistent with" but not traced to, certain weapons.

And then, in contradiction to their sensationalized header, the punchline: "However, CNN’s review of audiovisual material sheds fresh light on how the pursuit of aid turned chaotic and then dangerous, on the actions of Israeli forces and the consequences of the new aid mechanism", after presenting an article's full of nothing but unsubstantiated speculations which shed no fresh light on anything, and not a single action of Israeli forces tied to the consequences of the new aid mechanism.

What a friggin incompetent and lazy excuse for investigative journalism!

And this garbage is being accepted by CNN editors for print. Disgraceful!