The only friendly fire incident widely reported by the U.S. media was this one:
How 3 Israeli hostages tried to save themselves, only to be killed by their own military
US public was not shielded at all from this? As soon as this happened that was part of the dialogue
That’s thanks to social media giving live access to the ground. It’s still important to acknowledge that all the official reports were falsified, since it just keeps adding to Israel’s crimes
Either Hamas had a lot of RPG’s or the IDF was very trigger happy with their rockets and tanks.
This was like front page news on every outlet. I don’t know what this article is talking about.
Yeah, Hamas launched a thousand plus soldiers over the border and started doing mass shootings at a bunch of public places, then shot at the first responders as they surrounded themselves with hostages as they fled. Sometimes when you do an invasion and a bunch of mass shootings of civilians, and then engage the first responders, sometimes innocent people get caught up in the firefight. That’s not called friendly fire. It’s called felony murder, for which Hamas terrorists are culpable, especially since they purposely do not wear uniforms as required by all laws of war.
I… what? Did you read it?
Enough to see the author blathering on about nothing that didn’t already have its own page on Wikipedia, enough to see the big reveal was something anyone with a web browser could have accessed.
The gripe is that sometimes Israeli police and military shoot their own people as they are being carried away by Hamas as hostages? It’s because, other than using human shields and not wearing uniforms, another of Hamas’s illegal tactics is taking hostages, military or civilian, to bargain with. I’m not an Israeli soldier but if I were I think I’d prefer the bullet, too, rather than let myself be used by terrorists as a bargaining chip, as one of their weapons.
Israel’s strategy is to deny Hamas any strategic advantage. But more importantly, and perhaps this is the part that you are missing: if a hostage gets shot during a hostage taking, the hostage taker is still legally and morally culpable for the death, regardless of who shot the hostage; it’s based on the reckless disregard for that type of harm, and the foreseeability that such harm would result.
Wikipedia is highly unreliable for current events.
Right but they still have a page for Hannibal doctrine.
So there are legs to it then lmao damnnmnmm
I take it you did not read the article. Next time do that before chiming in.
