Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by JohnMakin | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

JohnMakin

> largely unverifiable story

there’s literally pictures in the article of the bodies

View on HN

A photo of some people being buried doesn't confirm or deny the validity of the claim as to how they were killed.

I have no dog in this fight, but sources actually provide evidence.

This is a journalistic article that does provide multiple sources of evidence - including multiple sources of eyewitness testimony, the facts of what happened to the car/damage to the bodies, what the IDF says happened, and the non-response by the IDF to the evidence presented here - what other evidence could possibly meet your bar here?

This doesn't seem like a good faith discussion by people that informed themselves on what this piece is saying, so I'm bowing out. Have a good one.

Merely that someone died seems to be a tiny fraction of the claims here.

The claim is that the IDF shot his family. Even the IDF does not dispute this. What are you thinking this article is saying?

I'm not sure the IDF has confirmed who was killed, but even so the article goes much further than that. That it was a bad shoot, that the car was stationary, that no warnings were given, that the family did nothing to prompt it, that the IDF weren't legitimately mistaken, that the kid's injury is from the incident, that this kid was even there, that they spent 50+ rounds, that the kid who died has special needs. And more. You can literally just read the article and extract the facts. Those are uncomfirmed save by anecdote.

Literally read it, thanks. Glad you did too. Your original post said “unverifiable story” which seemed like the basic facts of the matter could be determined by reading said article and making inferences based on the sources provide. I trust you performed such dilligence.

The only agreed upon basic facts by both sides are that someone has died at the hands of the IDF. The rest (i.e. what makes up most of the claims) is pure anecdote and thus, unverifiable. I'm not sure what the issue is with saying as much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com