The context is the HD video footage of the IDF drone striking obvious unarmed civilians.
Where’s the context showing these people were enemy combatants deserving a death sentence by drone strike? Do you always take the “guilty until proven innocent” line, or is this a race thing?
The context is the HD video footage of the IDF drone striking obvious unarmed civilians.
No. It shows a drone strike against four persons that are at the time of the strike unarmed, as far as this can be seen on the defenetly not “HD” video.
Where’s the context showing these people were enemy combatants deserving a death sentence by drone strike?
It’s not in this video. That’s what the words “there is no context” were pointing too.
Do you always take the “guilty until proven innocent” line, or is this a race thing?
I take the “I don’t have enoth context to judge the footage shown here” line. This is independent of the nation or race shown in the footage.
I’m not saying that the video could not show unarmed civilians beeing shot. But since there is not entoth information avaible I reserve the right to stay critical and not blindly trust the framing that the article puts on it.
By all means, tell me what their position is. Failing that, what’s the charitable assumption to make here?
As far as I can see, the likely options are:
They support the genocide
They don’t care about the rule of law
The former is more common in this context, but it’s both weird and worthless of you to insert yourself into the conversation to defend someone’s positions that (unless you can confidently answer this question) you don’t understand. Just like that, you’ve derailed the conversation into this irrelevant shit - what was your complaint again? Oh…
Yep, there is no context for this and heavy framing in the article. I agree with both of your Disclamers, but this is just propaganda.
The context is the HD video footage of the IDF drone striking obvious unarmed civilians.
Where’s the context showing these people were enemy combatants deserving a death sentence by drone strike? Do you always take the “guilty until proven innocent” line, or is this a race thing?
No. It shows a drone strike against four persons that are at the time of the strike unarmed, as far as this can be seen on the defenetly not “HD” video.
It’s not in this video. That’s what the words “there is no context” were pointing too.
I take the “I don’t have enoth context to judge the footage shown here” line. This is independent of the nation or race shown in the footage.
I’m not saying that the video could not show unarmed civilians beeing shot. But since there is not entoth information avaible I reserve the right to stay critical and not blindly trust the framing that the article puts on it.
And this is how you turn a conversation into a pile of shit.
By pointing to evidence to back my claim and asking for consistent standards and something vaguely resembling the rule of law?
How do you propose we make the conversation better?
You’re implying racism when there might be none in order to bolster your weak argument.
By all means, tell me what their position is. Failing that, what’s the charitable assumption to make here?
As far as I can see, the likely options are:
They support the genocide
They don’t care about the rule of law
The former is more common in this context, but it’s both weird and worthless of you to insert yourself into the conversation to defend someone’s positions that (unless you can confidently answer this question) you don’t understand. Just like that, you’ve derailed the conversation into this irrelevant shit - what was your complaint again? Oh…
You can’t see very far then.
I don’t agree with your position, so you’re probably racist. Good day.
You forgot that alternative explanation you insist exists, champ.
Okay keyboard activist