Ok, they didn't behead babies. They just burned them and slaughtered them.

[boston bean]

Pictures have been released. This somehow makes it less horrific in some mind considering the pushback on the beheading stories.

Bring it on saying it’s propaganda. It only shows one to have more sympathy for what they defend as ‘innocent Palestinians’. When in reality it helps to shield HAMAS.



Live in reality people.

[dalton99a]

1. They just butchered them ISIS style

In Kfar Aza, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) was going house to house, collecting the dead in body bags and loading them onto a truck. The IDF told CNN that women, children, toddlers and elderly were “brutally butchered in an ISIS way of action.”

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/10/middleeast/israel-kibbutzim-kfar-aza-beeri-urim-hamas-attack-intl/index.html

[honest.abe]

2. I know. Its absurd that just because Hamas stopped short of beheading babies changes anything.

[boston bean]

5. The offense taken to it, when we all know the other gruesome acts they perpetrated.

Like a wrong story or confusion about beheading becomes the clarion call to call into question Israel’s veracity.

It is very telling indeed. They did grasp and cling to it.

[honest.abe]

11. Indeed. Most of us were already freaked out by the atrocities even before we heard about the babies.

The other stuff was more than enough to totally convince me that Hamas needs to be taken out.

[Voltaire2]

18. Well it does matter what the facts are.

Headlines like ‘Hamas Beheaded Babies’ make it impossible to have rational discussions about the situation in Gaza.

[honest.abe]

21. If those were the only atrocities then yes.

In this case the already verified horrific atrocities are completely enough to have a "rational discussion".

[boston bean]

22. They can't seem to grasp.

I don’t want to attribute anything negative, but there are no good responses that are provided.

[madaboutharry]

3. There have been credible sources about dismemberment.

Lt. Col Jonathan Conricus told Anderson Cooper there is forensic evidence of dismemberment.

Maybe you could change your title, no one is saying it didn't happen. They are clarifying about having seen photos.

[Kennah]

12. I think the OP intended for :sarcasm: tag in the title, but it doesn't work there

[madaboutharry]

15. Ok, I didn't know smilies don't show up in titles.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Who cares how they did it? They killed people.

[redqueen]

7. It's to gin up outrage

It's lurid and sensationalistic and I would have thought we all understood why that's not a good thing but I guess not.

[usonian]

10. They are playing to their "base"

People were cheering atrocities.

Sound familiar?

Got Alex Jones?

[boston bean]

23. There was already quite enough outrage, would you not agree?

But is burning them and slicing them up is a better take?

[brooklynite]

6. Jerusalem Post....

Link to tweet

[Freethinker65]

8. And the statement that they did, was clarified there were reports of, but no absolute verification

*no absolute verification yet.

The Biden administration issued the correction.

Trump would have doubled down, as he did with the Sharpied hurricane projection map, or outright continued to lie even if knowing there is/was no evidence to back up what he says.

[Maru Kitteh]

9. Raping women to death? Burning children alive? Not that bad according to DSA and other

Hamas enablers. Those boys with machetes butchering people alive? They're just having some economic anxiety. We need to hold their hands and ask about their feelings.

[sarisataka]

14. The DSA rally literally cheered a mass shooting

I have engaged with several posters regarding the mass shooting by Hamas; only one has able to condemn it.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

13. There's no moral distinction when it comes to killing babies. There is a distinction when it comes

to propaganda value, however, and it's deeply important to be aware of it.

[sarisataka]

16. Have you also noticed

When propaganda is shown to be substantially though not entirely true that becomes new propaganda?

Example from history- the "Huns" bayoneting babies was incorrect, for the most part. That the story was wrong allows the Rape of Belgium to be locked deep in the closet of history, like it never happened.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium

Props for using the word propaganda correctly

[The Magistrate]

20. Quite True, Sir

And what was done in Belgium the Germans admitted casually. There's an odd aside in the official biography of the ace Richtofen, where he recounts the hospitality given his cavalry unit in a Belgian monastery in the early days of the war. Returning there months later as an airman, he inquires about the place, and is told the monks had been hanged. This was a work widely circulated, even in the Allied powers.

[Voltaire2]

19. So Israel is likely 'killing babies' right now.

Are you sure there is no moral distinction?

[boston bean]

25. Hamas living amongst them are complicit.

Where is your outrage at HAMAS?

BEFORE I listen to another word, I need to hear the outrage about as to what Hamas is doing to its own people.

Can you do it?

[redqueen]

27. Why is there a demand for this? I assume that EVERYONE on this board

is outraged by what Hamas has done.

Am I wrong to do so? I don't think so.

[boston bean]

28. When making Israel the aggressor, I think that ye, you do, and must,

Condemn Hamas loud and clear in your posts.

Otherwise it appears as an attack on Israel only.

Again, you got anything to say about what HAMAS is doing to it own innocent Palestinians?

[redqueen]

29. No, I won't bark when anyone says speak.

It is shocking to see this kind of behavior on DU.

This black and white thinking is what we used to associate with freepers 'if you're not with us you're with the terrorists!'

I will not play that game.

[boston bean]

30. Oh shock shock shock away.

I am not the one black and white thinking here.

Look in the mirror.

[North Shore Chicago]

40. 5

[Voltaire2]

37. What part of the post you responded to supported Hamas or

condemned Israel?

I asked if there is a moral distinction between Hamas killing babies and Israel killing babies. I don’t really see any, but I’m willing to listen.

[boston bean]

38. Isreal is not killing babies in an act of terrorism.

I don’t know about you but I do find a difference there. Many here believe Israel is terroristic.

So when comparing the action, I do see it a bit different.

Do I like it no. Do I wish it were not so, yes.

But at least Israel drops leaflets and warns what buildings they are targeting HAMAS. They aren’t out there targeting innocent children and women and butchering them, raping them and murdering them.

Yes, it is bad innocents are likely to die, but this response is in reaction to a terror attack.

They have been for over a decade living with this group firing rockets and exist only to kill Jews. That is what their reason for existence is.

Also, why is HAMAS, not being blamed for using these innocents as shields? They are evil motherfyckers who don’t care one whit about their own children and wives. Or any of the people they are suppose to protect.

So, yeah it all sucks, but there are degrees to this evil.

[Voltaire2]

41. Mere nuance.

Anyone attempting to justify slaughtering innocent men women and children is on dubious ethical grounds.

Absent an absurd trolley scenario, slaughtering innocent people is wrong.

I’m against war, executions, criminalization of existence, and make exceptions only for immediate self defense.

It’s all wrong. It doesn’t become right because my side just took a hit.

[boston bean]

43. We ain't living in that world. I expect freedom, justice, protection

at least from my country. I wish the same for all. But it ain’t like that.

[ripcord]

32. So give us your solution so Israel doesn't have to live under a terrorist threat from Hamas

[Voltaire2]

36. I don't have a solution.

Once upon a time, many decades ago, there was an opportunity for a peaceful resolution. That time has long passed.

So instead we will continue to have slaughter responded to by more slaughter.

[GaYellowDawg]

39. There is.

There's a difference between targeting a building with a bomb and walking up to an infant in a car seat and shooting her in the head. The former doesn't intentionally target a baby. The latter does. That's moral distinction enough for me.

[Voltaire2]

42. So the imperium with its air superiority

is free from moral obligations when blowing up innocent people because they can’t be certain who is going to be mutilated by their anti-personnel explosives?

Ok. Yeah that is an interesting ethical point.

[GaYellowDawg]

44. While we're whatabouting...

What about the terrorists who kill thousands and then hide amongst civilians when a nation consumed with grief and rage retaliates? I guess their role in the deaths of innocents should just be ignored. Interesting ethical point you make in return.

In addition to your implication that intent is irrelevant to ethics, that is.

[Silent Type]

17. Not a lot of difference between beheading and blowing heads off. No way to avoid latter at this

point, but there ain't much difference.

[maxsolomon]

24. High-caliber bullets will dismember a small body.

Beheading implies use of an edge weapon.

In terms of Terrorist acts, I think there's a difference - one is more barbaric (and intended to be so).

In practical terms, you're correct.

[boston bean]

26. I think blowing a babies brains out is as bad as beheading one. As is burning them alive.

But YMMV.

[maxsolomon]

31. The issue is proximity.

It's easier to kill from a distance. Bombing is pushing a button, and you don't see the results. Pulling a trigger on an automatic rifle is easier than stabbing. Stabbing is more visceral, literally.

The argument as to the moral equivalence of murder methods is what DU is arguing about this entire week.

[Silent Type]

33. Killing is killing, whether done from a recliner pushing buttons or swingin a machete.

[maxsolomon]

34. I get that moral position, and I tend to agree.

But in terms of what horrifies more, I disagree.

It is human nature to be more horrified by a visceral killing of an innocent child - a beheading versus a drone strike.

In practical terms, Americans have accepted remote killing of innocent children done in our name for decades, and still do.

[Silent Type]

35. Yes bombs are easier for the killer, but I'm looking at if from the victims/family's point of view.

Plus, bombs kill hundreds/thousands.

[Jirel]

45. Exactly.

The pictures of babies killed by shelling is no less horrific. I am disturbed by the intellectual dishonesty of condemning the slaughter of any innocent - child or elder, man or woman - “more” than another, based on the relative proximity of the killer to the dead. Once upon a time we didn’t have the “clean” convenience of missiles or drones, and now, their use in war crimes seems to be more accepted than the use of a thrown grenade or a hail of bullets or a bayonet.