naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
29416 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
1yr ago·Edited 1yr ago
They did release these (DON'T CLICK IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE MURDERED BABIES), but as far as I can tell there's no decapitation in these pics. One might have his throat slit, they've censored it so it's hard to tell. The other two are burned to the point I can't discern what body part is which (I can however confirm from personal experience that's pretty much what an incompletely-burned baby looks like).
I don't think this release was intended to address that specific claim though.
EDIT: Ok, apparently these are the same photos that the Jerusalem Post is saying confirm the decapitation story. Which makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills. They seem to do the opposite.
Considering that this indicates that the Israeli government is not shy to release gruesome photos of dead babies in general, what's the explanation for them not releasing photos of all the decapitated ones at this point?
My suspicion is that the 'beheaded babies' rumour is a deliberate op intended to portray whatever response they are planning to engage in as proportional -- there will be plenty of babies burned to a crisp in Gaza if the IDF invades. (I saw a video of a guy running through the streets with his own dead baby, who had been recovered from some rubble, already)
What's worse than blowing babies up as 'collateral damage'? Deliberately beheading them, of course -- so this is a thing that must be. By now there's been time to generate some fake photos even -- so my standard of proof for this incident is increasing daily.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
They did release these (DON'T CLICK IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE MURDERED BABIES), but as far as I can tell there's no decapitation in these pics. One might have his throat slit, they've censored it so it's hard to tell. The other two are burned to the point I can't discern what body part is which (I can however confirm from personal experience that's pretty much what an incompletely-burned baby looks like).
I don't think this release was intended to address that specific claim though.
EDIT: Ok, apparently these are the same photos that the Jerusalem Post is saying confirm the decapitation story. Which makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills. They seem to do the opposite.
Considering that this indicates that the Israeli government is not shy to release gruesome photos of dead babies in general, what's the explanation for them not releasing photos of all the decapitated ones at this point?
My suspicion is that the 'beheaded babies' rumour is a deliberate op intended to portray whatever response they are planning to engage in as proportional -- there will be plenty of babies burned to a crisp in Gaza if the IDF invades. (I saw a video of a guy running through the streets with his own dead baby, who had been recovered from some rubble, already)
What's worse than blowing babies up as 'collateral damage'? Deliberately beheading them, of course -- so this is a thing that must be. By now there's been time to generate some fake photos even -- so my standard of proof for this incident is increasing daily.
More options
Context Copy link
Link appears to be dead. "Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else."
Still works for me.
Odd. Do I need to have an account to view, maybe?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link