You don't get it--you want to believe that Israel's targeting is indiscriminate but the fact that they hit combatants a very disproportionate amount of the time says it's not.They were being hunted.The missiles that hit those four men.I don't know what you mean by "Those," but let's hear it. I bet it's pretty much still squibs, if not in form, then in function.
The question is, how does the twit cited by Zipr know that they were "civilians"?
We observe unarmed persons. Don't we naturally assert innocence as a default unless proven otherwise? Isn't that what you always say but then go back on? Why are you putting a burden there to PROVE THEY ARE INNOCENT!!?
That is a faith-based implication and circular reasonong. Perhaps they are being watched, not hunted. If, however, they were hunted, you assume legitimately. This faith-based assumption, then, allows you to later conclude it was a legitimate killing.
Don't you naturally assume there's a reason for that? Consider the Hamas tactics are to use pre-placed weapons, shoot, and then go back to pretending to be civilians it strongly suggests that this is just more of the same.
No, it doesn't. Hamas is a small fraction of the population and ALL of Gaza is currently a war zone. You can't claim a very small probability is probable.
Thus one's first assumption in a case like this is that these guys were observed shooting.