65 Doctors, Nurses and Paramedics: What We Saw in Gaza (Content: Graphic x-rays)

[WhiskeyGrinder]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/09/opinion/gaza-doctor-interviews.html

free link: https://archive.ph/lnts1

I worked as a trauma surgeon in Gaza from March 25 to April 8. I’ve volunteered in Ukraine and Haiti, and I grew up in Flint, Mich. I’ve seen violence and worked in conflict zones. But of the many things that stood out about working in a hospital in Gaza, one got to me: Nearly every day I was there, I saw a new young child who had been shot in the head or the chest, virtually all of whom went on to die. Thirteen in total.

At the time, I assumed this had to be the work of a particularly sadistic soldier located nearby. But after returning home, I met an emergency medicine physician who had worked in a different hospital in Gaza two months before me. “I couldn’t believe the number of kids I saw shot in the head,” I told him. To my surprise, he responded: “Yeah, me, too. Every single day.”

(snip)

An enormous amount of information about the extent of the devastation in Gaza has been gleaned from satellite data, humanitarian organizations and Gaza’s Ministry of Health. However, Israel does not allow journalists or human rights investigators into Gaza outside of a very small number of embedded reporting trips with the Israeli military, and stories from Palestinian journalists in Gaza have not been read widely enough, despite the incredible risks they take in reporting there.

(snip)
Using questions based on my own observations and my conversations with fellow doctors and nurses, I worked with Times Opinion to poll 65 health care workers about what they had seen in Gaza. Fifty-seven, including myself, were willing to share their experiences on the record. The other eight participated anonymously, either because they have family in Gaza or the West Bank, or because they fear workplace retaliation. This is what we saw.

[WhiteTara]

1. unspeakable brutality.

[LexVegas]

2. War really sucks. Hamas should be completely destroyed for starting it. nt

[AloeVera]

3. Unbelievable response.

N/T.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

7. You know, I often push back here on posts from people who say the crime scene photos of mass shootings in the U.S.

should be widely published, that seeing mangled bodies and torn up children will help sway public opinion around gun control, that having to see what guns do would make more people turn against guns. I push back because I don't believe it's true. I don't believe that seeing bullets in children will change public opinion. And it's posts like yours that remind me that I'm right.

[LexVegas]

13. The horrible reality of war has been captured on film for well over a hundred years. War has not ended. nt

[BannonsLiver]

10. +1

[DeepWinter]

53. Completely agree

[Rob H.]

4. I'm sure the IDF will conduct an internal investigation

to find those responsible for committing war crimes by deliberately targeting and killing children and hold them accountable.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

6. from the article:

Times Opinion sent questions about the experiences of these American health care workers to the Israel Defense Forces. A spokesperson for the I.D.F. responded with a statement that did not directly answer whether or not the military had investigated reports of shootings of preteen children, or if any disciplinary action had been taken against soldiers for firing at children. The statement began, “The I.D.F. is committed to mitigating civilian harm during operational activity. In that spirit, the I.D.F. makes great efforts to estimate and consider potential civilian collateral damage in its strikes. The I.D.F. is fully committed to respecting all applicable international legal obligations, including the Law of Armed Conflict.”

[Rob H.]

8. Those snipers will never face consequences

They've been deliberately targeting children for a long time now.

“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept”--General David J. Hurley, former Chief of Defence and former Governor of New South Wales

Edit: thanks for posting the photos and a link to the article. More people need to see what our tax dollars are supporting. I don't know how many, if any, minds it will change but there's always hope.

[Lonestarblue]

51. The IDF are executing children. These are not casualties caused by bombs.

[EX500rider]

72. Children are being hit by bullets in a war zone is all you can deduce

Full metal jacket sniper rounds going 2,000mph don't stop a few inches inside a body, that only happens if the bullet was aimed at something else and traveled thru walls or a car etc before striking the body.

Since both Hamas & the IDF use snipers it's most likely 50/50 whose side fired a errant round.

[Rob H.]

77. I agree

but when the response of the IDF is to promise to investigate itself and then finds that there was no wrongdoing on their part or that any casualties were accidental--which tells me they're either flat-out lying or are the most lethally incompetent fighting force on the face of the planet--it's not difficult to conclude that their government will continue to do nothing to prevent the killings.

[malaise]

5. But but but

Hamas

Coming up shortly

[BannonsLiver]

9. But but freedom fighters1!!

That is all. 🙄

[tritsofme]

12. Right right. Is it still a-ok to target random Dutch Jews for being Jewish?

Despicable.

[AloeVera]

21. Did someone on this thread target random Dutch Jews for being Jewish?f

I hope they get served the pizza.

Or did I miss a breaking news item about the targeting of Dutch Jews?

If neither of those despicable things are true, then perhaps you'd like to comment instead on the sniping and killing of random children for being Palestinian. Also despicable and the subject of the O/P.

Not only is it the subject of the O/P, there is no correlation between the two things. And one can't justify the other, can it?

Also, I'm sure you don't mean to convey that you think only one of those things is despicable.

[tritsofme]

24. I was just curious if that was still her opinion?

[iemanja]

73. The question at hand is why target children

Simply for being Palestinian. Doesn’t that disturb you?

[tritsofme]

76. That is a lie, Israel is not "targeting children"

But again, I was just curious if that person stands by her hate filled anti-Semitic remarks, I assume the answer is yes.

[Rob H.]

78. Yes, they are

‘Not a normal war’: doctors say children have been targeted by Israeli snipers in Gaza
IDF says it ‘completely rejects’ charge that its soldiers deliberately fired on any of the thousands of civilians killed in Israeli offensive

Chris McGreal
Tue 2 Apr 2024 09.00 EDT

(...)

The Canadian (Dr Fozia Alvi)’s heart sank. These were not the first children treated by Alvi who she was told were targeted by Israeli soldiers, and she knew the damage a single high-calibre bullet could do to a fragile young body.

“They were not able to talk, paraplegic. They were literally lying down as vegetables on those beds. They were not the only ones. I saw even small children with direct sniper shot wounds to the head as well as in the chest. They were not combatants, they were small children,” said Alvi.
(...)
Dr Vanita Gupta, an intensive care doctor at a New York City hospital, volunteered at Gaza’s European hospital in January. One morning, three badly wounded children arrived in quick succession. Their families told Gupta that the children had been together in the street when they came under fire and that there had been no other shooting in the area. She said no wounded adults were brought in to the hospital at the same time and from the same place.

“One child, I could see there was a shot to the head. They were doing CPR on this five- or six-year-old girl who obviously died,” said Gupta.

“There was another little girl about the same age. I saw a bullet entry wound on her head. Her father was there, crying and asking me, ‘Can you save her? She’s my only child.’”

Gupta said that a third young child also had a shot to the head and was sent for a CT scan.

“The neurosurgeon looked and said, ‘There’s no hope.’ You could see the bullet had gone through the head. I don’t know how old he was, but young,” she said.
(....)

Much, much more at the link. The IDF has also shot children holding white flags of surrender, which is a war crime.

As Israel Extends Its Genocide Into the West Bank, It Targets and Kills Children
Israel is killing scores of Palestinian children, Defense for Children International-Palestine’s Miranda Cleland says.

By Marjorie Cohn , Truthout
Published October 8, 2024
(...)
On September 9, DCIP issued a report that examined the cases of 141 children killed by Israeli forces and settlers in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, between October 7, 2023, and July 31, 2024. How did that number compare with the killing of children there before October 7?

I’m one of the authors of our new report, “Targeting Childhood.” We found that 20 percent of all Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces or settlers in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, since the year 2000 were killed after October 7. Israeli forces have seriously escalated their efforts to kill Palestinian children, from Gaza to the West Bank, and the data backs this up.

Were these children killed by accident, or were they specifically targeted? Were some of them killed while protesting Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza?

Ninety percent of Palestinian children killed with live ammunition fired by Israeli forces or settlers were shot in the head, torso, or in multiple areas, according to the data in our report. Shooting a child in the head or torso demonstrates a clear intent to kill. Many of these children were shot by Israeli snipers from great distances — in some cases 1,000 feet away — which also indicates they were targeted. (Emphasis added)

We documented 10 cases where Palestinian children were shot and killed by Israeli forces in October 2023, during demonstrations in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. Four of these children were shot with expanding bullets, which expand inside the body upon impact and cause massive internal bleeding. The use of expanding bullets is a war crime. (Emphasis added)

What happened to their bodies after they died? Did the Israeli forces allow medical aid to reach the injured children?

In 43 percent of cases documented in the report, Israeli forces deliberately prevented injured Palestinian children from receiving medical care by detaining and firing live ammunition toward ambulances, paramedics and civilians attempting to provide aid. In many cases, these were children who sustained gunshot wounds from Israeli soldiers to the head or chest, or sometimes multiple locations on their bodies. In some cases, Israeli drone-fired missiles struck a child, leaving them with burns and shrapnel wounds all over their body. Israeli forces fired at ambulances and paramedics, and even civilian bystanders who tried to run and offer help to the child. Israeli soldiers surrounded a wounded child just long enough to confirm they were dead. This is an act of incredible cruelty, to ensure that a child dies alone and in immense pain, bleeding out on the ground.

[AloeVera]

81. My God. Can these soldiers lead normal lives, knowing what they've done?

In 43 percent of cases documented in the report, Israeli forces deliberately prevented injured Palestinian children from receiving medical care by detaining and firing live ammunition toward ambulances, paramedics and civilians attempting to provide aid. In many cases, these were children who sustained gunshot wounds from Israeli soldiers to the head or chest, or sometimes multiple locations on their bodies. In some cases, Israeli drone-fired missiles struck a child, leaving them with burns and shrapnel wounds all over their body. Israeli forces fired at ambulances and paramedics, and even civilian bystanders who tried to run and offer help to the child. Israeli soldiers surrounded a wounded child just long enough to confirm they were dead. This is an act of incredible cruelty, to ensure that a child dies alone and in immense pain, bleeding out on the ground.

Perhaps they can. Does dehumanization explain this? Ideology? Fanaticism? Societal indoctrination and beliefs?

Clearly there is an element of state-sanction of these practices as reflected in the near-total impunity granted the soldiers in the rare cases charges are even brought.

Deradicalize Israel.

[Rob H.]

82. I think a lot of it is dehumanization

Last edited Thu Oct 17, 2024, 04:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Once a person is instilled with the idea that their opponents aren't even human, it becomes easier to kill them.

This really bothered me from the second article I posted above, too:

How does targeting children violate international law?

Targeting children with live ammunition is first and foremost a violation of their basic right to life as outlined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Israel has ratified along with nearly every other country in the world. (Emphases added by me.) It is also a violation of international humanitarian law as well as international criminal law.

Israel has an obligation as the “Occupying Power” under international humanitarian law to protect the Palestinian population living under Israeli military occupation. Yet Israeli forces overwhelmingly fail to intervene to stop or prevent settler attacks and instead protect the settlers, empowering them to perpetuate violent attacks against the Palestinian civilian population in the occupied West Bank.

Edit: imagine being a parent and witnessing that and being unable to go to your child. I can feel my own heart breaking just thinking about it.

[iemanja]

85. It is demonstrably not a lie

There is ample evidence. Watch this CBS Sunday morning segment. https://www.cbs.com/shows/video/G5gIg_iwm8ZuPSjg9uqYjBizZ_NsgDdN/

Unless, of course, you refuse to confront the truth so you can continue making excuses for the unconscionable. I, however, trust you have more integrity than that.

[sarisataka]

11. The x-rays seem odd to my eyes, however

I can freely admit I am not a skilled radiologist.

Regardless, I am 100% against targeting children.

[AloeVera]

14. X-rays provided by doctorcwho worked in Khan Younis:

These photographs of X-rays were provided by Dr. Mimi Syed, who worked in Khan Younis from Aug. 8 to Sept. 5. She said: “I had multiple pediatric patients, mostly under the age of 12, who were shot in the head or the left side of the chest. Usually, these were single shots. The patients came in either dead or critical, and died shortly after arriving.” Dr. Mimi Syed

[sarisataka]

15. I am in no position to question their provenance

it is just from the description of what doctors in the US say happens to children shot by assault weapons, these x-rays don't seem to match the descriptions we have been given.

But as I said, I am opposed to targeting children.

[AloeVera]

20. I don't understand your explanation.

The x-rays don't match descriptions given by U.S. doctors of what happens to shot children? Please elaborate. It seems a rather obscure or convoluted point.

Wondering what the point is here.

I am also opposed to targeting children, any children. I would assume everyone here is.

When it comes to valuing Palestinian childrens' lives equally, I am often reminded of the old saying the proof is in the pudding.

[sarisataka]

22. From the description of school shootings

we are told the bodies are unidentifiable, features destroyed, bodies decapitated. These x-rays show (to my eyes) nothing approaching that level of damage. When an adult male was brushed by a similar bullet people insisted it should have torn his ear off and some said that close of a miss would still be lethal.

I have not brought up the subject of the children being Palestinian, Jewish, Ukrainian, American or any other group. You last sentence seems to be somewhat accusatory.

[AloeVera]

26. A trained sniper vs a school shooter?

One-shot-to-kill from a sniper rifle vs a spray of bullets from an assault weapon?

Not a reasonable comparison.

If these were American or Israeli children, would you raise the same doubts, unreasonably comparing apples and oranges? Or would your blood boil and heart break just as it did when you heard, without any evidence presented, of the 40 decapitated Israeli babies? Even President Biden believed it.

Now we have multiple reliable sources attesting to kids being sniped and many don't believe it or say they don't or try to discredit the evidence.

The only difference is these are PALESTINIAN kids.

But if you truly doubt this is occurring, here are more articles, from different doctors. This heinous practice has been reported for months and months. No one of importance, with power and influence, seems to care. These are just PALESTINIAN kids.


https://archive.is/sZ5DV

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-02-16/rafah-gaza-hospitals-surgery-israel-bombing-ground-offensive-children?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

[sarisataka]

32. The greatest sniper in the world cannot change physics

x bullet will exit the barrel at y velocity with z energy. Single precise shot or spray and pray will make no difference.

I would raise the same issue if it was Israeli or American children. I am interested in facts whether I like them or not. I had no boiling blood over the story of 40 decapitated babies because I questioned the story and tracked down the source. It was very clear a reporter misquoted an IDF spokesman and the rest of the press ran with the wrong headline. At the time, I was disputing the story as false.

I have never questioned if these are Palestinian children as I have nothing but the doctor's word to go on. I am pointing out an apparent incongruity in the evidence.

[AloeVera]

33. Glad to hear it. I'm interested in facts too.

I don't understand how a bullet impacts and physics is not my strong suit. Though as I recall a speeding bullet when it meets resistance such as the hard cranium (?) will slow down and settle. We know bullets get lodged in bodies, don't always exit. I imagine that's especially true for the head.

The difference between us is I simply believe the doctors whereas you - whether you realize it or not- start off from a position of disbelief.

[sarisataka]

39. I tend to approach everything from a war

With skepticism. Do you recall the "Israeli missile" that killed "hundreds" at the hospital. Turned out it was a terrorist missile and less than 40 were injured or killed (I don't think a final number was determined as interest quickly faded)

Isn't it interesting seeing what people will believe or disbelieve with equal evidence based on who is making the report.

As it appears these reports and x-rays have been vetted, perhaps it was the other descriptions which were exaggerated. Or maybe there is another explanation.

[AloeVera]

60. Between 100-300 were killed at al-Ahli hospital

According to U.S. intelligence. They also state the numbers are more likely to be in the lower range. Injuries would be at least double that, maybe triple, as we've seen consistently with other attacks.

Pretty close to the 500 initially reported, which btw were meant to include the injured. There was some mistranslation of an Al Jazeera report.

As for the provenance of that missile/rocket, if you are interested in facts you will find that there are opposing views to yours. Architectural Forensics, for example.

Pretty horrific human toll regardless of blame.

[EX500rider]

68. Very unlikely more then a dozen people or so were killed

The blast radius is very small, no damage on near by walls at all



What does Human Rights Watch say?

The explosion that killed and injured many civilians at al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza on October 17, 2023, resulted from an apparent rocket-propelled munition, such as those commonly used by Palestinian armed groups

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/26/gaza-findings-october-17-al-ahli-hospital-explosion

[AloeVera]

35. They're authentic.

See Post #27.

[obamanut2012]

28. It depends on the gun and the caliber

A .22 pistol or "regular" rifle to the head or chest will do what is in the Xrays. .22 can be dangerous in one way, because they often don't have the power to exit the skull, so they bounce around.

Not every weapon will be an AR-type rifle.

[sarisataka]

31. A military sniper will be using at least a 5.56mm

or more likely a 7.62.

The bullets in the x-rays are not .22LR

[iemanja]

74. Did you watch the Sunday morning segment

That I posted to you? You watch that and then try to pretend the IDF isn’t targeting children.

[sarisataka]

75. I don't need to pretend since I have never said that

if anything, my statement would be more supportive than claiming the bullets are military caliber rather than .22LR

[Beastly Boy]

17. I am in the position to question their authenticity.

See Post #16.

If they were provided by the hospital staff (which I sincerely hope they weren't), I would question their testimonies as well.

[iemanja]

67. There is ample evidence

https://www.cbs.com/shows/video/G5gIg_iwm8ZuPSjg9uqYjBizZ_NsgDdN/

[Beastly Boy]

16. Two out of three x-rays don't look authentic at all.

Compare the top and the bottom x-ray to the middle one. The middle one shows the bullet shape with no outlines, and the bullet itself shows variations in lightness consistent with how an x-ray penetrates solid objects with various densities, and it is also consistent with the tonal variations in the surrounding areas.

The top and the bottom x-rays show the bullet shapes as solid white, with no variation in the tonal values at all, and surrounded by a rather crude solid black pixelated artifact.

In fact, the pixelated artifacts shown in the top and the bottom x-rays show identical features: gaps at the tip of the bullet shape and at the base of the bullet shape in exactly the same positions. This suggests that the same shape to resemble the bullet was used for both x-rays, and neither is authentic.

What makes me qualified to make this observation? I am not an x-ray technician, but I used to be a professional with extensive experience in image editing.

If this is the extent of fact-checking on the part of the Times editors, I pity the organization that allowed this article to be published.

[MoseShrute]

18. I agree

I’m certainly no expert, but for bullets that size they didn’t penetrate very far. I’m surprised they didn’t pass all the way through.

[Beastly Boy]

19. There may be perfectly acceptable explanations why the extent of bullet penetration may not be a factor,

but there is no question about the images being crudely manipulated.

[obamanut2012]

30. They were authenticated, and there are also photographs of the bodies

[AloeVera]

36. The images are authentic.

These are real kids. They were sniped and killed. There are photographs of the kids too, but the editors thought they were too horrific for publication.

See post #27.

Excerpt from NYT editors:

Times Opinion rigorously edited this guest essay before publication, verifying the accounts and imagery through supporting photographic and video evidence and file metadata. We also vetted the doctors and nurses’ credentials, including that they had traveled to and worked in Gaza as claimed. When questions arose about the veracity of images included in the essay, we did additional work to review our previous findings. We presented the scans to a new round of multiple, independent experts in gunshot wounds, radiology and pediatric trauma, who attested to the images’ credibility. In addition, we again examined the images’ digital metadata and compared the images to video footage of their corresponding CT scans as well as photographs of the wounds of the three young children.

While our editors have photographs to corroborate the CT scan images, because of their graphic nature, we decided these photos — of children with gunshot wounds to the head or neck — were too horrific for publication. We made a similar decision for the additional 40-plus photographs and videos supplied by the doctors and nurses surveyed that depicted young children with similar gunshot wounds.

We stand behind this essay and the research underpinning it. Any implication that its images are fabricated is simply false.

[Beastly Boy]

40. I don't know what prompted this disclaimer,

Last edited Tue Oct 15, 2024, 11:56 PM - Edit history (1)

but I know a fake when I see it. It is not that difficult too see, the fake is really crude. Any school kid with elementary exposure to Photoshop can do a better job than this.

NYT editors tell me to not believe my eyes, and that the images are authentic. So do you. And my eyes tell me to not believe the NYT editors, or you.

I don't know any of NYT editors. I've had a deeply affectionate relationship with my eyes for decades.

Guess which ones I am inclined to believe.

[Beastly Boy]

23. Who is going to stop Iran from arming its terrorist proxies?

And what is the purpose, and what would be the effect of unilaterally disarming Israel?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

25. Afternoon kick

[WhiskeyGrinder]

27. FWIW: A statement from the NYT editor about the images

https://www.nytco.com/press/response-to-recent-criticisms-on-new-york-times-opinion-essay/

A recent opinion essay gathered first-hand testimonies from 65 U.S.-based health professionals who worked in Gaza over the past year, who shared more than 160 photographs and videos with Times Opinion to corroborate their detailed accounts of treating preteen children who were shot in the head or chest. Following publication, some readers questioned the accuracy of the accounts and the authenticity of three CT images shown. Those criticisms are unfounded.

Times Opinion rigorously edited this guest essay before publication, verifying the accounts and imagery through supporting photographic and video evidence and file metadata. We also vetted the doctors and nurses’ credentials, including that they had traveled to and worked in Gaza as claimed. When questions arose about the veracity of images included in the essay, we did additional work to review our previous findings. We presented the scans to a new round of multiple, independent experts in gunshot wounds, radiology and pediatric trauma, who attested to the images’ credibility. In addition, we again examined the images’ digital metadata and compared the images to video footage of their corresponding CT scans as well as photographs of the wounds of the three young children.

While our editors have photographs to corroborate the CT scan images, because of their graphic nature, we decided these photos — of children with gunshot wounds to the head or neck — were too horrific for publication. We made a similar decision for the additional 40-plus photographs and videos supplied by the doctors and nurses surveyed that depicted young children with similar gunshot wounds.

We stand behind this essay and the research underpinning it. Any implication that its images are fabricated is simply false.

[obamanut2012]

29. Thank you

[AloeVera]

34. Thanks!! No surprise seeing all the aspersions cast in this thread.

From the usual suspects.

I'm now going to helpfully bring this to their direct attention.

[Rob H.]

41. Here's an article from Common Dreams published earlier today

NYT Says Photos of Children Killed by Israel in Gaza 'Too Horrific for Publication'
The New York Times' opinion editor rejected baseless claims that it published fabricated images in an essay highlighting U.S. healthcare workers' experiences in the Gaza Strip.

JAKE JOHNSON
Oct 15, 2024

The editor of The New York Times opinion section issued a forceful statement Tuesday refuting claims that it published fabricated or altered CT scan images as part of a recent essay featuring appalling firsthand accounts from U.S.-based healthcare professionals who have worked in Gaza over the past year.

Baseless attacks on the essay, which quoted dozens of healthcare workers, were spread widely by pro-Israel social media accounts following its publication on October 9.
(…)
One observer described the essay as "some of the most horrific reporting you'll read on Gaza."

Yonah Lieberman, co-founder of the American Jewish group IfNotNow, wrote in response to Kingsbury's statement, "Shame on any person or organization attempting to paint the dozens of health workers who witnessed the effects of Israel's indiscriminate attacks in Gaza as liars."

"It's disgusting," Lieberman added. "Is there no bottom?"
(….)

[Beastly Boy]

42. The first thing this statement does is call immediate attention to the incompetence of the NYT editor in

commenting on medical imaging.

The editor repeatedly refers to the images as "CT scans", while the X-ray images included in the article cannot possibly be confused for CT scans by anyone with the most cursory familiarity with medical imaging.

Leaving aside all but the images in question, the statement shows anything but rigor in authenticating them. It is noteworthy that the "additional work to review our previous findings" referred to in the statement did not catch this obvious misidentification of the types of images themselves. This being the case, it is not too difficult to imagine that the origins and the metadata related to these images were as sloppily handled as was this unforced error in describing the images, in an attempt to rebut skepticism about their authenticity, of all things.

I would even give NYT some benefit of doubt and presume that they had some evidence of something, but that they had no clue what it was or how to evaluate it. Testimonies do not authenticate x-rays. Metadata do not authenticate x-rays. Vetting doctors and nurses does not authenticate x-rays. Even attestations to the images' credibility does not authenticate x-rays, they merely attest to the possibility of the images being authentic . And certainly, experts in radiology who cannot explain the difference between x-rays and CT-scans to clueless NYT editors, do not authenticate x-rays.

It appears that the editors who made an attempt at authenticating the images had no clue about what skills are necessary to make a legitimate authentication, let alone identify unmistakable signs of digital image manipulation, which takes a whole different skill set.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

43. "The editor repeatedly refers to the images as "CT scans", while the X-ray images included in the article cannot

possibly be confused for CT scans by anyone with the most cursory familiarity with medical imaging."

People with more medical training than me have agreed that those are what's known as a CT scout image -- a quick snapshot that helps the tech determine placement and which can also aid in diagnosis. The images look like x-rays, but aren't.

[Beastly Boy]

44. Who are the people you are talking about?

Take a look at this chart and compare it to the images in the article.



See whether, after being minimally informed on the difference, you can agree with the aforementioned people who allegedly have more medical training than you.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

46. OK but "CT scout image" or "scanogram" or "CT localizer" isn't on that indeed minimally informative graphic.

The CT tech and the orthopedic nurse, though, were more informative.

[Beastly Boy]

47. If anyone was more informative than this minimally informative data, it didn't register with the author of the rebuttal.

Read the caption under the three x-rays that were included in the article:

These photographs of X-rays were provided by Dr. Mimi Syed, who worked in Khan Younis from Aug. 8 to Sept. 5. She said: “I had multiple pediatric patients, mostly under the age of 12, who were shot in the head or the left side of the chest. Usually, these were single shots. The patients came in either dead or critical, and died shortly after arriving.”

Apparently, the author of the rebuttal didn't even bother to check what she was supposed to rebut. Nor did the doctor who provided the x-rays make any comment on "CT scout image" or "scanogram" or "CT localizer". Nor can I find any CT techs or orthopedic nurses refer to "CT scout image" or "scanogram" or "CT localizer" anywhere in the article or the rebuttal.

Where is this stuff coming from, and what relevance does it have to the published X-ray images?

[Ms. Toad]

48. You do understand that a CT is merely a compilation of X-rays,

It uses a computer to combine a series of 2-D X-ray images into a 3-D depiction.

And the CT scout image, scanogram, or CT-localizer are one, or a few, of the initial (non-rotating) X-rays used to plan the full CT imaging.

It is willful blindness to insist that fact-checking failed because a more precise terminology wasn't used to identify the specific variation of X-rays depicted (a single X-ray, the first precursor X-ray to a full CT scan (scout image, scanogram, CT-localizer), or a full computer guided and compiled compilation of X-rays known as a CT scan)

[Beastly Boy]

50. It is not merely a compilation of X-rays.

Series of X-ray layers that are generated in a CT scan make up initial data points for a CT to digitally process, arrange in sequence, digitally enhance, and compose the resulting layers into a 3-dimentional model which is then interpreted for diagnostics. Each layer so produced is no longer an X-ray: it is a particularly enhanced image which, unlike X-rays, is almost never used out of the context of computed tomography.

Neither CT scout images nor CT localizer are therefore X-rays. A scanogram usually refers to a series of unenhanced X-rays, and is never used when a single x-ray will suffice, nor any single x-ray image in a scanogram, as is the case with a CT scout image and CT localizer can be legitimately presented out of the context of this process.

Bottom line: in no event can a CT scan and an X-ray be referred to interchangeably, or synonymously, or even erroneously so, unless conspicuous display of ignorance is the point. An attempt to do so is especially egregious when an image clearly labeled as "X-ray" is being referred to as "CT scan".

Now that we dispensed with the willful blindness nonsense, the questions remain: who are the mysterious characters you claim referred to the images in the article as "CT scout image" or "scanogram" or "CT localizer"?

The exception being the Times editor who wrote the rebuttal. She has been sufficiently addressed, I believe.

[Ms. Toad]

54. You started by suggesting an elementary school child with Photoshop could do a better job of creating fake images

The rebuttal addressed whether they were fake, so now you're quibbling over using the wrong word to name what they are - as if that was the main issue..

The point is that they are real images (regardless of what they are called). They were vetted initially, and the question revisited when folks like you started calling them fake. The vetting process included reviewing not only radiological images, but actual images of the bodies.

As to whether CT's are just a compilation of X-rays - we'll have to differ on that. CT's use computer-guided rotating X-rays to take a series of X-ray images which the CT scan's software compiles into a 3D image. The CT image, scanogram, or CT Localizer are the preliminary step in a CT scan, and are, in fact, still X-rays projections from various angles to ensure proper alignment of the body and the relevant organs.

I never claimed anyone referred to them as CT scout images, scanograms, or CT localizers. I'm simply pointing out that they are consistent with the initial X-ray images produced by a CT scanner before the full scan, and that building your argument that they are fake based on what someone labeled the images is akin to building a fort on a sandy ocean beach.

[Beastly Boy]

57. I am quibbling about what you are quibbling about, in response to what you are quibbling about.

It was not my choice to get into this irrelevant back and forth.

There is no grounds you can cite that would allow you to call these images "real". They are what is referred to as "doctored" (no pun intended).

I am claiming, on good grounds which you have yet to address, that the bullet shapes in the first and third x-rays are not native to the images, and have been crudely added to them using elementary tools available for anyone who has access to digital imaging software.

It is strange that you, as well as the author of the rebuttal, would consider actual images (I presume conventional photographs taken of actual bodies) to be of any help in determining the visual integrity of an X-ray image. It is like expecting an X-ray to show the integrity of a corresponding CT scan. Enough said.

I am also convinced, on good grounds, that the person who wrote the rebuttal is neither competent nor willing, after extensive re-examination of the article (which I presume involves reading the captions under the images) to discern between a CT scan and an X-ray, our useless discourse on the matter notwithstanding.

I have made my points. They were intended for information, not to change your mind.

[Rob H.]

49. Try actually Googling images of "CT scout scan"

I can't post the image directly, but here's one.
"CT head scout image demonstrates the bullet (white arrow) in the posterior fossa, into the fourth ventricle. Schematic illustration of the bullet lodged in the fourth ventricle. Red arrow = frontal craniotomy. Yellow arrow = external ventricular drain."

Here's another one.
"CT head scout image demonstrates the migration of the bullet (white arrow) into the cerebral aqueduct. A small frontal craniotomy (red arrow) and an external ventricular drain into the right frontal horn (yellow arrow) are noted. Schematic illustration of the bullet migrating through the cerebral aqueduct."

Here's yet one more:



"Head computed tomography (CT) scout image of a patient who suffered a gunshot wound to the head."

And a fourth. CT scout image. What does your gut say?

Yet another.
Trauma--Knife Wound (CT scout)

"This soldier was stabbed in the head with a 9 inch knife while patrolling the streets of Baghdad."

And re: your comments above,

"The top and the bottom x-rays show the bullet shapes as solid white with no variation in the tonal values at all, and surrounded by a rather crude solid black pixelated artifact.

In fact, the pixelated artifacts shown in the top and the bottom x-rays show identical features: gaps at the tip of the bullet shape and at the base of the bullet shape in exactly the same positions. This suggests that the same shape to resemble the bullet was used for both x-rays, and neither is authentic."

Below is an image from 2020 taken before surgery to remove a bullet from a nine-year-old's brain. Bullets are also available in a multitude of calibers and bullets of the same caliber aren't necessarily the same length, hence the different dimensions in the photos in the OP. Typically lead bullets deform, but a full metal jacketed (FMJ) round is designed to retain its original shape with little to no deformation. Note that the Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in international warfare of "bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions" so every army in the world uses FMJ bullets.



You were saying?

"I am not an x-ray technician..."

And yet...

"...I used to be a professional with extensive experience in image editing."

I still am, and in my professional opinion you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Beastly Boy]

55. If you are posting an opinion of a professional with extensive experience in image editing,

I would love to hear your explanation of the identical pixelated artifacts of identical size, shape, and variance in the thickness around the bullet in the first and third x-ray. Note that none of the images you posted display any pixelation or lack of variation in value in the black outline, or gaps in that outline, all of which are easily observable in the published x-rays. Nor do your examples show the fill color of the bullet shapes to be as solid and absent of slightest variations as it appears in the first and third images in the article.

These peculiarities are completely absent from the second x-ray in the sequence, which supposedly came from the same source.

By all means, show me you have some idea of what you are talking about.

And don't even get me started on the caption below the images which clearly identifies them as "x-rays" and not as "CT scout" images

[Rob H.]

61. I have time and Photoshop on my side

Here are the bullets in their original positions from the first and third photos:



Here they are rotated to both be vertical:



...and here they are with the shorter round enlarged to as close as I could get to the same size and proportions as the larger one:



They are not identical and the same bullet image was not used in both photos. The bullet on the left has a noticeably smaller gap at the tip and a larger gap at the bottom left that extends higher up its left side than the one on the right, and note how much smoother the one on the left is even after enlarging it. I'm also having to guess here, but the second photo in the OP looks to have been taken from a different display; it looks as if there's a slight moiré pattern not present in the other two. According to the Google machine, the pattern might be an image artifact that sometimes shows up in computerized radiography. Edit: it might even be a photo of an actual x-ray film on a light box.

Again, I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

[AloeVera]

64. Slam-dunk. Awesome! N/T.

[Rob H.]

70. Thank you kindly :-) nt

[Beastly Boy]

79. Thank you!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19575082

[Beastly Boy]

69. So far so good.

Last edited Thu Oct 17, 2024, 09:45 AM - Edit history (1)

You only used the two most basic photoshop tools, namely rotation and image size change, and already the similarities between the two images are remarkable. The shapes and proportions you came up with, considering the low resolution of both images, are very closely matched; the rounded bottoms of the bullet shapes, technically called "boat-tailed", indicate they are both a rarer type of bullets, commonly used for target practice, as opposed to the far more common flat-based bullets commonly used in combat, a coincidence that is statistically suspicious; the gaps in the solid black pixelated artifacts around both bullets, one at the tip of the bullet and the other at its base, while not identical in size and shape (more on that later) being located in the same parts of the bullet shapes and slanted in the same directions in both images. What are the odds of all this happening in unrelated images? It would have taken considerable effort to purposely mimic all of these idiosyncrasies, all at the same time, were the two images not to share common origins.

Now, on the subject of the two images not being identical: having professed expertise in image editing, you must acknowledge that the bullet shapes, including black outlines, are of significantly lower resolution than the x-rays they appear in. This alone raises huge red flags about the integrity of the images in question.

But wait, there is more! As an expert in image editing you must know that when the size and proportions of the manipulated image changes, especially in the cases of low resolution images, the size and proportion of the individual pixels that comprise the image does not change. Instead, the algorithms used in an image editing program such as Photoshop replace the pixels in an edited image with pixels different in numbers, positions and colors to best approximate the original. In a low-resolution image especially, this algorithmic approximation cannot possibly produce completely identical duplication of the features present in the original. Merely rotating a low resolution image cannot sustain such integrity.

And it is a rather peculiar oversight for an image editing professional to not mention dozens of Photoshop filters that, in the hands of a more savvy amateur, would easily smooth out the ragged edges of an outline should the aforementioned amateur choose to do so while he edits the size of a bullet shape in one image while not doing so in the other.

So when you, as a professional, insist that the two images suspected of being manipulated are not identical due to minor imperfections in the face of major similarities, and that the same bullet image was absolutely not used in both photos, you, as a professional, are being disingenuous at best.

There is indeed a moire effect present in the second image, and it extends equally and consistently to the bullet shape and the rest of the x-ray, which makes me believe that this image is authentic. I see no such sign in the other two x-rays that would hint to their integrity.

And you have yet to address the relatively low resolution of the bullet shapes vs the rest of the two other images, or the complete absence of any shades of gray in the bullet shapes and their outlines that are evident in the rest of the two images and in the examples of the scout images you posted earlier, or even the caption in the OP identifying all three images as X-rays, and not scout images.

But kudos for owning a Photoshop license, a luxury I cannot presently afford. I guess that makes you a professional and me not having an idea of what I am talking about.

[Rob H.]

83. LOL

Last edited Fri Oct 18, 2024, 02:54 PM - Edit history (2)

And it is a rather peculiar oversight for an image editing professional to not mention dozens of Photoshop filters that, in the hands of a more savvy amateur, would easily smooth out the ragged edges of an outline should the aforementioned amateur choose to do so while he edits the size of a bullet shape in one image while not doing so in the other.

So you think we're dealing with Schroedinger's Palestinian Photoshop User--someone simultaneously too clumsy and unskilled to make anything but the crudest Photoshop edits but also experienced enough to know that there are filters that can be used to make their edits look more authentic? Remember, we're talking about what you think the mysterious "they" actually did, not what they could have done.

So when you, as a professional, insist that the two images suspected of being manipulated are not identical due to minor imperfections in the face of major similarities, and that the same bullet image was absolutely not used in both photos, you, as a professional, are being disingenuous at best.

LOL, you think "completely different" = "minor imperfections" with "major similarities." They are not the same bullet image, regardless of how much you might hope otherwise. Even a casual glance should tell you that. You don't want to see it because your arguments depend on you not being able to.

There is indeed a moire effect present in the second image, and it extends equally and consistently to the bullet shape and the rest of the x-ray, which makes me believe that this image is authentic. I see no such sign in the other two x-rays that would hint to their integrity.

If it's an image artifact, that moire pattern is a bad thing in computerized radiography and generally to be avoided and prevented at all costs because in can obscure important details in the image. Whether it's operator skill or a properly-calibrated scanner, that's probably why the first and third photos don't have them.

Before you try to drag this further into the weeds, it has to be mentioned that the author of the article spoke to dozens of medical professionals who worked in Gaza. He's seen the photos of slain children that correspond with these images, and in at least one case he mentioned in an interview he treated the actual child. He literally worked in Gaza hospitals and treated children with these kinds of wounds. You say you don't believe them and if you can't be convinced by eyewitness testimony, then just admit that nothing will convince you and perpetuating arguments about photos and captions are attempts to deflect from the actual issue: the IDF is murdering children.

---

Edited to add:

The shapes and proportions you came up with, considering the low resolution of both images, are very closely matched; the rounded bottoms of the bullet shapes, technically called "boat-tailed", indicate they are both a rarer type of bullets, commonly used for target practice, as opposed to the far more common flat-based bullets commonly used in combat, a coincidence that is statistically suspicious....

You're destroying your own argument re: bullet shapes. Boat-tailed bullets are shaped the way they are because the shape creates less drag as it travels through the air, giving it both a flatter trajectory and a lower likelihood of being deflected by the wind, in addition to its superior momentum giving it greater penetrating power. That's one of the reasons it's used by military and law-enforcement snipers.

[Beastly Boy]

86. Funny indeed.

No, I am thinking we are dealing with elementary Photoshop functions not being taken into account by professed Photoshop experts. The reference is to a hypothetical person (not necessarily Palestinian, and not necessarily the same person) who may know how to use these tools or may not. But an image editing professional should definitely know of the extent of these Photoshop capabilities, as the citation you chose from my post clearly states.

And no, I certainly don't think that "completely different" = "minor imperfections" with "major similarities." I think that the two images are not completely different by any stretch of imagination. They have minute differences, whose likely nature rooted in the basic principles of image editing I explained in some detail, and major similarities, as I stated, which betray their common origins.

Nor did I ever comment on the quality or medical usefulness of any of the three images: I only commented on their respective authenticity from the standpoint of a former image editing professional.

And if you have nothing else to add that will shed any more light to your claimed expertise, let's drag this further into the weeds of the subject I didn't raise, shall we? I never questioned the author's extensive contacts with the Gazan medical personnel, or his own medical credentials.

I questioned his journalistic credentials, as well as the ethics of the NYT opinion editor whose rebuttal I responded to. Certainly, referring to and accepting doctored images for publication does not speak well of either. Nor does it speak well of the physician who provided these images to be published. These are the three people I don't believe. I remain open-minded to the accounts of other people mentioned in the article, even though, in light of the aforementioned images of dubious integrity, I am more skeptical of how accurately the other people had been quoted.

What you made clear in this post, however, is your motivation behind dragging the questionable authenticity of the x-ray images into the weeds of minutia of image editing: you had neither the grounds nor, it appears, the standing to claim these images were undoctored, you wanted to defend the authenticity of these images for no other reason than to create a strawman argument: IDF is murdering children.

And now you made your motives pellucidly clear.

It is quite likely that IDF soldiers killed, even murdered children in Gaza, as is the case in every war. It is also likely that at least some of these children were killed by Hamas terrorists, but your goal in debating the forensic evidence in question was not to legitimately inquire into its merits (or lack thereof) , your goal was to blame Israel for "murdering children".

This is not going to fly with me, thank you.

[Rob H.]

92. C'mon, man

What you made clear in this post, however, is your motivation behind dragging the questionable authenticity of the x-ray images into the weeds of minutia of image editing: you had neither the grounds nor, it appears, the standing to claim these images were undoctored, you wanted to defend the authenticity of these images for no other reason than to create a strawman argument: IDF is murdering children.

Seriously? You’re the one who’s been dragging this discussion into the weeds this entire time by arguing about things like captions (of all things, as if that would invalidate the photos with which they appear) and you’re the one who initially brought up the photos here, here, and here before I ever commented. I made the very quick images to show what the bullets originally looked like and how they differed even when one was distorted and overlaid on the other, not to make them look identical because making them look the same was never the point. I don’t know why you seem to think otherwise

And look at the two articles I posted above—saying the IDF is murdering children isn’t a strawman argument, it’s a fact. Look at the second linked article—they even killed a child who was waving a white flag, which is also a war crime. There are plenty of other articles about the IDF deliberately killing children, too. Google is your friend.

And no, I certainly don't think that "completely different" = "minor imperfections" with "major similarities." I think that the two images are not completely different by any stretch of imagination. They have minute differences, whose likely nature rooted in the basic principles of image editing I explained in some detail, and major similarities, as I stated, which betray their common origins.

I showed them literally side by side and they’re obviously not sourced from the same image. Again, we're talking about what you think the mysterious "they" actually did, as shown in the photos accompanying the article, not what they could have done.

I questioned his journalistic credentials, as well as the ethics of the NYT opinion editor whose rebuttal I responded to. Certainly, referring to and accepting doctored images for publication does not speak well of either. Nor does it speak well of the physician who provided these images to be published. These are the three people I don't believe. I remain open-minded to the accounts of other people mentioned in the article….

The doctor who wrote the article said in an interview he treated a little girl who had brain matter leaking out of a forehead bullet wound, which also makes him an eyewitness and that one of the x-rays backs it up, so it sounds as if you’re saying all the eyewitnesses are to be believed with a single exception.

And they can publish photos once they’ve been vetted for authenticity, which they were by doctors and radiologists, and once they have permission from the person or persons who took them, which was obviously given.

——

I’d also like to post this bit of the post to which you’re responding; it was a late edit (and has been corrected for my own grammar), so you may not have seen it. This part makes it especially difficult to take what you wrote seriously because it makes me really suspicious that you’re just regurgitating whatever Photoshop information you found on Google.

The shapes and proportions you came up with, considering the low resolution of both images, are very closely matched; the rounded bottoms of the bullet shapes, technically called "boat-tailed", indicate they are both a rarer type of bullets, commonly used for target practice, as opposed to the far more common flat-based bullets commonly used in combat, a coincidence that is statistically suspicious....

You're destroying your own argument re: bullet shapes. Boat-tailed bullets are shaped the way they are because the shape creates less drag as they travel through the air, giving them both a flatter trajectory and a lower likelihood of being deflected by the wind, in addition to their superior momentum giving it greater penetrating power over longer distances. Those are the reasons they’re used by military and law-enforcement snipers.

>>In addition, boat-tailed bullets aren’t a “rarer” type. Ask any hunter who hunts larger game like deer and they’ll tell you that they’re valued for their accuracy over longer distances. They’re also used for competitive precision shooting, which also makes them useful for, say it with me, snipers.

[Beastly Boy]

94. May I remind you that my initial post was not addressed to you, and that you CHOSE

Last edited Sat Oct 19, 2024, 05:38 PM - Edit history (1)

to respond to it, telling me that I don't know what I am talking about, an accusation that you repeated a number of times but failed, when challenged again and again (the caption under the x-rays being one of several instances of your disregard for the content of the article), to substantiate with any semblance of expertise on the subject.

Did you really expect me to give you a pass on all this? Well, if you did, you know better now.

With that in mind, let's see if you can do any better with your latest response, shall we?

When I referred to a strawman argument, I was referring to YOU, not any articles, which may or may not contain strawman arguments, but either way are separate and aside from what I was talking about:

What you made clear in this post, however, is your motivation behind dragging the questionable authenticity of the x-ray images into the weeds of minutia of image editing: you had neither the grounds nor, it appears, the standing to claim these images were undoctored; you wanted to defend the authenticity of these images for no other reason than to create a strawman argument: IDF is murdering children.

The reference to any articles or anything that has not been stated by you is a transparent deflection, but keep trying.

Certainly, the doctor who published the article, and the doctor who submitted the x-rays suspected of being manipulated, and the editor who approved the opinion piece for publication, can all put their reputations on the line. That doesn't mean that their integrity in doing so will not be questioned, and not just by me. It doesn't matter whether or not the doctor was talking about the same case depicted in the published x-rays - he was not talking about the x-rays themselves.

And, I am afraid, your comments on the boat-tailed bullets betrays your extent of expertise on the subject as being far behind your expertise in Photoshop. While the bullets do, indeed, improve long-distance accuracy, which is the reason why they are used in competitive target practice and less so in hunting, they are a terrible choice for combat snipers in IDF. Firstly, because they are not part of standard NATO ammunition that is being used by IDF (not being standard makes them rare vs the far more common flat-bottom NATO standard), and are therefore would not be commonly available to IDF snipers. Secondly, the difference in performance between the two will wreak havoc on the precision targeting gear snipers use to calculate and adjust their aim, the gear that is specifically fitted for use with Nato flat-tailed ordinances. This is the reason why you will most often find boat-tailed bullets being used in applications that do not permit the use of computer-assisted shooting, such as target shooting, or hunting, where such expensive computer assistance is not warranted.

Ok, let's make a deal, then: I will say snipers with you, if you then say hardly ever use boat-tailed bullets with me.

Deal?

[Rob H.]

95. "(Boat-tailed bullets...)"

Last edited Tue Oct 22, 2024, 06:10 PM - Edit history (2)

are a terrible choice for combat snipers in IDF. Firstly, because they are not part of standard NATO ammunition that is being used by IDF (not being standard makes them rare vs the far more common flat-bottom NATO standard), and are therefore would not be commonly available to IDF snipers.

Really? You should be sure to let any IDF counter snipers in Gaza who’ve been using their stndard-issued IDF modernized M24s chambered in 7.62 x 51mm NATO since 2021 that they’re not actually using them because they don’t have ammunition for them. Be sure to tell them their bullets are a terrible choice to use in the field while you’re at it. I’m sure they’d love to hear it.

7.62 x 51mm NATO:



Notice anything about their shapes?

Sniper and designated marksman rifles

Specialized loadings were created for 7.62×51mm NATO-chambered sniper rifles. They used heavier and more aerodynamic bullets that had a higher ballistic coefficient than standard ball rounds, meaning they shed velocity at longer ranges more gradually. Maintaining velocity is important for accurate long-range shots because dropping from supersonic to transonic speeds disturbs the flight of the bullet and adversely affects accuracy. The standard M80 ball round weighs 147 gr and from an M14 rifle and M60 machine gun has a muzzle velocity 200 ft/s (61 m/s) faster than the M118LR 175 gr sniping round. However, the M80 drops to subsonic velocity around 900 m (984 yd), while the initially slower M118LR is supersonic out to 1,000 m (1,094 yd) due to its low-drag bullet.

Huh. As vehemently as you defend the IDF, one would think you’d know more about the equipment they use. Guess not.

[AloeVera]

56. Thank you. Well-done.

It all boils down to attempting to erase these children's existence and deny their suffering, doesn't it? We know why.

I will hold my tongue on what I think of that.

[Rob H.]

59. You're very welcome

I appreciate the complement, too, and we do know why.

[obamanut2012]

52. It is a SCOUT SCAN

Good lord.

[Beastly Boy]

62. .

&t=1s

[DSandra]

37. The only way I see this conflict stopping is if someone could hold both sides apart...

and essentially get each side to admit each other's right to exist, hold their feet to the fire, and get both sides to draw up a two state solution (that is fair) and agree to it. Hamas also has to be dissolved. WAY too much baggage on both sides for them to do it on their own.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

38. "One 4-year-old girl with major burns to her body was completely dissociated. She was staring out into space, humming

a lullaby to herself. Not crying, but shaking and in utter shock.”

-- Dr. Mimi Syed Emergency medicine doctor, 44 years old, Olympia, Wash.

[WDLAL]

45. If these are deliberate acts and not collateral casualties, I hope that those responsible are found and punished.

ANYONE who targets attacks on children, deliberately puts them in danger of becoming collateral casualties or abducts them should be found and punished.

[Nanjeanne]

58. An interview with Dr. Feroze Sidhwa, the trauma surgeon from Flint, Michigan who wrote the article.

https://www.democracynow.org/2024/10/16/gaza_doctor]

For those who have sworn off Democracy Now - I don't expect you to view this and no need to tell me you won't. I already know it!

For those who are interested please watch as it's really important - and disturbing. And heartbreaking - especially when the interview continues with Rajaa Musleh, the country representative in Gaza of MedGlobal, a medical humanitarian aid group who previously worked as a nurse at Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. It was impossible for me to hold back the tears watching and listening to her, as she tried also to hold back the tears.

Her words:

I’m here in Chicago just to send my people’s message: We need ceasefire now. We need ceasefire now. Enough is enough. More than one year, and the people inside Gaza are suffering from and taste many types of death. Enough is enough. Three hundred sixty-five days, and the people inside Gaza taste all kind of death.

I’m witness the horrible of this war. I’m witness four wars before, and this war is completely different, the death everywhere, the suffering everywhere. The people just eat one time. They save the food for the children. And the children are suffering from malnutrition inside Gaza.

My message for the whole world: We are human beings. We are not numbers. We have the right to receive healthcare inside Gaza. We have the right to raise up our children. We have the right to return back our lives, our dignity. We have the right to rebuild our universities, our schools. We are human beings, and we are not numbers.

[AloeVera]

63. Reads like an excerpt from "How to Genocide 101- Special Edition: Success Stories from a Genocide Foretold"

Introduction:
Most people believe genocide is killing through violent means a majority of a genocided population. Nothing could be further from the truth. A lesser-known means of genocide is destroying the conditions necessary to sustain life. It's not as immediate and won't let you showcase your military prowess or test your shiny new military toys, but it's far more effective in the long-run. Creating trauma is is another effective genocide tactic - it impacts the young mostly, the future hope of a people. No better way to destroy a society than to destroy their young.

We've compiled anecdotal success stories from a recent genocide. Do not let yourself be disturbed by these stories others might consider heartbreaking or evidence of unspeakable cruelty. Keep foremost in your mind that these are success stories from a genocide foretold (and ignored).

Step by Step Guide:
Deprive the populace of water/food to the point of malnutrition/starvation, especially of the young and vulnerable. Obstructing/withholding baby formula is highly recommended.
Destroy all water and sanitation infrastructure.
Do not let the hospitals receive much medical equipment, supplies, fuel, soap - if any.
Destroy at least 80% of all hospitals and medical facilities. Threaten the rest, periodically bomb or shell tent encampments on hospital grounds and ER rooms, maternity wards etc. to drive your point home that hospitals are not a safe place.
Bomb a school that was about to reveive the second dose of polio vaccine to be distributed to kids. This one is especially canny, if you can convince the gullibles there were terrorrists hiding in the school.
Traumatize kids and adults, but especially kids, by constant aerial assaults, killings by drones, tank shelling, repeated evacuation orders and witnessing of family members' deaths.

Success Stories:

“Starved mothers would report to the I.C.U. begging for formula to feed their newborn children. Newborn babies only a few hours or days old would present to the hospital severely dehydrated, infected and hypothermic. Many babies died from these conditions which were 100 percent preventable deaths.”

"I worked in a neonatal I.C.U. Several infants died every day due to lack of medical supplies and appropriate nutrition. We had to make tough decisions about which very sick baby would be on the ventilator due to lack of equipment. I saw a family bringing in their dead 3-day-old infant who had been living in a tent.”

“Every day, desperate families stopped by pleading for just a single can of formula to feed their starving newborns. Sadly, with supplies severly limited, we were often unable to meet their urgent needs.”

"Malnutrition was widespread. It was common to see patients reminiscent of Nazi concentration camps with skeletal features.”

“Nearly all new children admitted during my time died. Almost all of these deaths would not have happened if we had proper nutrition, infection control abilities (as simple as soap and hand sanitizer) and adequate supplies.”

“Nearly all the children that I cared for suffered from severe malnutrition. This resulted in difficulty healing from surgery and high infection rates. The mortality rate for injured children that I cared for was nearly 80 percent.”

“We did not have P.P.E., including gloves, alcohol, gowns and soap. Flies were everywhere, transfering resistant bacteria and infections among patients. Patients who survived trauma died from infection.”

“If it wasn’t for the medical supplies that we brought in with us, there would have been none to use. Both the excessive morbidity and mortality attributed to just the lack of soap and proper sterilization was immeasurable.”

“Children who lost limbs and could not run or play specifically said they wished they had died, and some wanted to kill themselves.”

"...I saw children who had witnessed many family members be killed in front of them. They all expressed the wish to be dead and join their families. I saw preteen and teenage children who had evidence of self-harm such as cutting on their forearms.”


Of course by using these tactics, you may open yourself to charges of having knowledge of the consequences of your actions, or in another words you may be found to be guilty of knowledge-based genocidal intent. But you will have your PR people, lawyers and politicians take care of that.

End of Excerpt

[Xolodno]

65. No one would like my view.

And as religious as I am and being a pacifist, I don't see any other way out.

[iemanja]

66. Here is a video from CBS' Sunday Morning on this very topic

https://www.cbs.com/shows/video/G5gIg_iwm8ZuPSjg9uqYjBizZ_NsgDdN/

I've posted this several times and the defenders of Netanyahu's war refuse to watch it. They have chosen to ignore the truth. It's time to stop making excuses for--and willfully ignoring-- this sort of inhumanity. Defending Israel does not require or excuse targeting children. Hamas did not "make" the IDF kill children. They choose to do it because they see, and are encouraged to see by their government, Palestinian children as subhuman.

[EX500rider]

71. Only way a full metal jacket military sniper round going 2,000mph stops a few inches inside a body..

Last edited Thu Oct 17, 2024, 08:35 AM - Edit history (1)

....is if it was aimed at something else and passed thru walls or a car etc before hitting the victim.

Since both Hamas & the IDF use snipers it's most likely 50/50 whose side fired a errant round.
(oh no, can't be those scrupulous followers of the Laws of War Hamas, said no one ever)

[Bonx]

84. These are faker than fake.

[Rob H.]

87. Israel Keeps Shooting KIDS In The Head - And Its Cheerleaders Are Smearing Medics With The Evidence

Posted 4 hours ago. “Cheerleaders” is far too mild a word.

?si=UgIgCZHZ8qkq173H

[AloeVera]

88. "What depraved moral gutter are you in when you are trying to spread denial of the mass murder of little children?"

Indeed.

[Rob H.]

89. Exactly

Last edited Thu Oct 17, 2024, 09:42 PM - Edit history (1)

It seems like something an utter sociopath would do.

[Beastly Boy]

90. I am an Israel cheerleader. I am smearing forgers, publishers and defenders of artificialy manipulated content

Last edited Fri Oct 18, 2024, 09:13 AM - Edit history (1)

who insist on its legitimacy.

Does questioning their journalistic integrity constitute a smear of medics with the evidence? How many medics? What kind of evidence? How many cheerleaders of Israel would you put in this category and why would the forgers, publishers and defenders of doctored content not deserve to be smeared?

By questioning the journalistic integrity of a handful of people, did I become one of Israel's cheerleaders who are smearing medics with the evidence? And what does "smearing medics with the evidence" mean? Is it smearing medics who have evidence, or using evidence to smear medics?

And what proportion of Israel keeps shooting kids in the head?

I am just struggling to count all the fallacies that went into your header without missing any.

[Rob H.]

91. Dude. It's literally the title of the video as shown on YouTube

If you think it was directed at you personally, that’s on you.

[Beastly Boy]

93. You literally posted the video and its title. You added a comment to it: "Cheerleaders" is far too mild a word.

Shortly after a previous lengthy exchange with you on the subject, you decided to respond to the OP with it. You had a reason to do so, and I have a reason to believe it has to do with the aforementioned exchange. Hence my questions.

The video you posted extensively covers the Times article which includes evidence of suspicious nature I addressed previously, and it unequivocally defends all the content included in the article, as you did. While the video makes no mention of me, your choice to post it after the aforementioned lengthy exchange makes it personal. I therefore phrased my reply accordingly.

I am asking your opinion on the subject in light of this exchange, which is not at all an unreasonable thing to do.

But if you disavow any connection between your post and the back and forth that took place earlier (which, frankly, I find hard to believe) let me rephrase my post so it addresses the video directly:

I am an Israel cheerleader You may consider some people like me to be Israeli cheerleaders. I am They, like myself, are smearing forgers, publishers and defenders of artificially manipulated content who insist on its legitimacy.

Does questioning their journalistic integrity constitute a smear of medics with the evidence? How many medics? What kind of evidence? How many cheerleaders of Israel would you put fall in this category and why would the forgers, publishers and defenders of doctored content not deserve to be smeared?

By questioning the journalistic integrity of a handful of people, did I does one become one of Israel's cheerleaders who are smearing medics with the evidence? And what does "smearing medics with the evidence" mean? Is it smearing medics who have evidence, or using evidence to smear medics?

And what proportion of Israel keeps shooting kids in the head?

I am just struggling to count all the fallacies that went into your header the header of the video you posted without missing any.

This is, of course, is a mere formality, but you insisted... Remember, it was you who posted the video and the comment that signifies your full endorsement of its content.