I did, and even asked you to clarify whether you were talking about troops around GHF sites shooting at large groups. You said no, but then cited the exact same incident I asked you about.
No you didn’t.
You said:
While my quote was
Hint: “began to flee” is the opposite of “walking towards”.
Nobody’s saying that Hamas should have attacked Israel. But blaming Hamas for the entirety of the conflict and violence is a despicable distortion of the facts.
As the saying goes: If you want peace, work for justice. Israel has for decades insisted on unjustly dispossessing and oppressing Palestinians, and pretending that the consequent absence of peace is all the Palestinians’ fault.
Saying “don’t start a war with your oppressors when they outarm and outgun you” as your only suggested “solution” to the problem of being oppressed is nothing but callous and inhumane indifference to oppression.
Hint: if a group moves away from a dude to its left, it may be moving towards a group to the right. The dude on the left may not be able to tell if the group is “fleeing” or not from his position. And if the dudes on the right shoot at the group at that point, they aren’t shooting them “in the back”.
If the Palestinians didn’t see the mere existence of Israel outside of Gaza and the West Bank as “oppression”, they’d have made peace with Israel literally decades ago (sometimes after 73 when Palestinian nationalism replaced Pan Arabism as the motivating ideology of the anti Israeli side) and moved on by now.
More fact-free, evidence-free benefit of the doubt! Sure, doesn’t matter that the report provides no such information, you have concluded that everything is just peachy because it’s possible to invent a scenario that might excuse such a massacre.
The “report” from one disgruntled soldier? Who you claimed testified that he was ordered to shoot unarmed civilians in the back, but actually reported that someone else at an entirely different position shot at a group that was moving away from him? OK.
Please cite for this specific claim about my post. Specific words.
Motte-and-bailey fallacy - Wikipedia.
You start off with the motte here:
You continue fighting outside the motte here:
Then you drop the drawbridge but do not retreat across it here, by introducing some off ramps like “in the back (or otherwise posed no threat)”:
And then you post your link without actually sounding the retreat, until I call you on it, and suddenly the motte never existed and you’re only defending the bailey.
That’s precisely the beauty of this tactic, isn’t it?
You still didn’t cite for the specific claim you made about my words. My cite supported my original claim - that an IDF member reported witnessing or being ordered to shoot unarmed civilians in the back (in this specific case, witnessing shootings of fleeing civilians, but also in that same link, being ordered to shoot crowds of unarmed civilians who pose no threat). That’s what a plain reading of the words say (shooting those fleeing is the same as shooting in the back for those with integrity). Only with your fabricated different positions, right/left, and other made up stuff not in the link, could shooting fleeing civilians be twisted into normal, legal military action (and even then, shooting crowds of unarmed civilians is pretty frickin abnormal).
This motte and bailey stuff seems like nothing more than an attempted distraction from your inability to support your specific claim about my words. My position never changed, and a plain reading of my link supports my original claim.
That was not your original claim, though; this was:
That’s called a “motte and bailey” argument.
Yes, quite.
You’re right, I didn’t click his link. Do you know why I didn’t click his link? Because when he first said that IDF soldiers shot civilians in the back, I asked him if he was referring to this GHF incident or if he had a real cite of a time when this actually occurred, and after a lot of obfuscation, he went ahead and linked the very same GHF story I thought he was talking about.
This is another false claim you’re making about the posts. You specifically described something different than my link says.
Only if you assume that the guy giving his account was some kind of RTS eye in the sky commander who could tell why another group of soldiers at another position was shooting.
Let’s see a specific cite that you asked me if I was “referring to this GHF incident”.
I described this incident (and the other alleged GHF incidents) here:
And then again here:
I’m not assuming anything. Just reading his words, in which he says he witnessed IDF soldiers shoot fleeing civilians. You’re the one making a bunch of assumptions about positioning and other stuff.
This is not a description of the GHF incidents. Not remotely.
But I’ll note that you’re motte/baileying here. You specifically said you asked me if I was referring to the GHF incident. Now you’re backing up to something else.
You’re assuming that his words represent reality and that a guy on the ground in one location is a reliable source on why people at another location shot towards a group of people in a third location. Again, unless he’s floating a kilometer above the battlefield like an RTS commander, I don’t see how you could possibly take his word as gospel here.