Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
How about from the people pulling the trigger?Nobody is disputing the fact that the hospital suffered some damage.
What IS in dispute is your unsubstantiated claim that the IDF intentionally targeted the hospital and that they committed a war-crime by doing so,to wit...
...This is a war crime and there is no reason for the Israeli's to do this, other than just being mean. It takes a really sick person, to target a hospital...
There is no credible evidence to suggest that the minor damage incurred by the hospital (a roof antenna, some cracks in a few wall-areas, some shattered windows) was attributable to anything more than blast concussion, shrapnel and debris fallout, or even an errant shell here and there.
1. how would someone inside a lightly damaged hospital building know that the munitions had been intentionally targeted against that building?...An eyewitness inside a hospital getting bombed, is a pretty credible source...
2. what makes you think your female Palestinian doctor-blogger was actually IN the hospital at the time, as you've claimed here?
Go back and read your own highly biased and subjective blogging-source again...
A View from Gaza: We Hug the Children as the Bombs Fall | Common Dreams
Hilariously, not even your own source supports your secondary claim here, about the blogger being inside the hospital as an eyewitness at the time...
Excerpts from your own blogging-source...
---------------------
"...I do not know what is going on and I can hear successive bombing. I am thinking of all the people I know tonight, especially my colleagues at the hospital..."
"...I heard they bombed the area around the European hospital east of Khan Younis in Southern Gaza... Then the hospital was directly targeted..."
"...At 4:15 am, there were explosions very close to my apartment..."
-------------------
Not exactly an eyewitness writing about her experiences INSIDE the hospital at the time of the incident, is it?
Your claim of intentional IDF targeting of a hospital and your related claim of the commission of a war-crime, are dismissed with extreme prejudice, due to...
1. lack of substantiation from an objective and credible source, and...
2. false representation of the supposed eyewitness-mode in which your subjective and incredible source was supposedly functioning...
You can always re-submit or appeal, later, if additional evidence comes to light which reliably substantiates your otherwise wild and highly partisan falsehoods illegitimately posing as legitimate claims.
That doesn't sound like people who care about international law or the Geneva Conventions.Testimony 10 – Briefings
Formal briefings covered “going off to war (and in war) no consideration of civilians was to be taken. Shoot anyone you see….this pretty much disgusted me. There was a clear feeling, and this was repeated whenever others spoke to us, that no humanitarian consideration played any role in the army at present.”
Testimony 9 – Rules of Engagement & House Demolitions
The entire infrastructure, tracks, fields, roads (were) in total ruin.” D-9 bulldozers demolished everything “in our designated area. It looked awful, like in those World War II films where nothing remained. A totally destroyed city.”
Testimony 24 – Briefings & House Demolitions
Initial briefings by commanders never mentioned “the lives of civilians (or) showing consideration to civilians.” Here it wasn’t mentioned. “Just the brutality, go in there brutally….In case of any doubt, take down houses. You don’t need confirmation for anything….”
Last edited by a moderator: