Israel Just Live-Blogged a Gaza Bombing | Hacker News Reader

Israel Just Live-Blogged a Gaza Bombing

motherboard.vice.com

15 pointsseanmb15 comments

What I don't get is that the article says 9 were killed and 40 injured, but from watching the video, it looks like a targeted attack at one vehicle that could have had collateral damage, but I don't see anyone near the vehicle in the image.

Assuming the vehicle was full, that's ~5 dead. What about the 4 other deaths and the 40 injuries?

Well, who said the video captures the whole of the attack?

Now, slightly off-topic, but I don't like words like "collateral damage".

It's not a building demolition we're talking about, in this context collateral damage is newspeak for "innocent bystanders murdered".

If someone did an attack on some target in the US, even a deplorable one (like some bloodthirsty third world dictator living there to avoid prosecution in his country), would anyone in the media dare to speak about innocent nearby people killed as "collateral damage"?

It's equally bad, and very racist to use this word exclusively in the case of third world, middle-eastern, etc people.

Actually yes. Innocent bystanders killed in targeted attack of some foreign national or just regular criminal are often referred to as "collateral damage" in CIA, FBI, and Police reports.

Do you have any example where innocent american bystanders, in american soil, are referred to as "collateral damage" in "CIA, FBI, and Police reports"?

http://bit.ly/TKxLAw

LOL. Check how every one of those links is invalid...

One is from Malawi.

Two refer to a report comparing "collateral damage" in balistic tests (in gelatin used for the testing, not people).

Another is from people outraged at the police risking people to be "collateral damage", another one is a freetype font with the same name, etc etc.

Actually, I'm not a fan of the word myself, but it's habit and it's a term only two words long that everyone is familiar with so it's convenient.

It's so well known a term among people that it doesn't even do a good job of masking or downplaying what it actually means anymore.

At first I thought it was a fake account, then I saw the verified account logo. Scary stuff.

Bombing? Lets be frank, this was a targeted assassination by a nation state.

Say all you want about Ahmed Jabari but his modus operandi was a direct result of a life of occupation and subjugation. You don't go into prison at the age of 22 and come out 13 years later a happy individual. I mean it was only 6 years ago that Hamas was democratically elected in a process considered fair and transparant, only for the elections to be found null and void by those (US/Israel et al) outside of Gaza!

What occupation? where was he being "occupied"?

His land was being occupied -- and with deplorable tactics at that.

care to expand? who was doing the occupation? what were the "tactics". please provide reputable (meaning not random websites, government websites are okay as long as they're not from involved parties, ie Hamas' website is not considered reputable) sources while you're at it.

How are these for reputable sources?

The United Nations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resoluti...

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories

US State Dept: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18278.htm

Israeli soldiers: http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/

1. wikipedia =/= reputable 2. Look at the contents of all those "resolutions" and you come to realize that none of them stand or are unbiased. 2a. A lot of those Resolutions are contradictory and self referential. anything else?

>1. wikipedia =/= reputable 2. Look at the contents of all those "resolutions" and you come to realize that none of them stand or are unbiased. 2a. A lot of those Resolutions are contradictory and self referential. anything else?

Yes, the UN is "biased" and "does not stand", Wikipedia is not "reputable". Conveniently sidestepping the US State Dept and Israeli soldiers accounts too.

May I suggest that it's not the UN who is "biased" but you?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com