Hilarious Palestinian Propaganda Fail

[Arctish]

Generalizing much?

No, but neither is it a one off. Here is a photo of Hamas Air Force from today.

Notice that this "unarmed and peaceful" kite has a firebomb tied to it.

Many such kites have been launched in recent days by "unarmed and peaceful" Return Marchers, with the express intent to set stuff in Israel on fire. So far, they have lit up a few fields but luckily have not landed on any dwellings.

Sorry, but in news-speak, firebombs in the hands of Palestinians are peaceful. No major news organization would risk their ability to report from Gaza by telling the truth.

What do they call drones?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sorry, but in news-speak, firebombs in the hands of Palestinians are peaceful. No major news organization would risk their ability to report from Gaza by telling the truth.

What do they call drones?

1) That's not a rebuttal at all.

2) The issue is targeting. If we randomly fired Hellfires into cities we would be condemned for war crimes. Hamas is trying to randomly drop firebombs on cities. (Rather ineffectively, so far all they have done is set some fields on fire.)

3) By normal civilian rules of engagement it would be acceptable to shoot anyone flying such a kite over one's habitation. (And by military rules of engagement, anyone flying one over your country is a valid target.) Somehow I think you would disapprove of such shooting, though.

 

[barbos]

Hamas is paying for the injured, and suddenly there are thousands and hundreds of injured people. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on here.

Israel soldiers going around and injure Palestinians hoping to bankrupt Hamas?

You're not that stupid.

Another one?

 

[Juma]

Sorry, but in news-speak, firebombs in the hands of Palestinians are peaceful. No major news organization would risk their ability to report from Gaza by telling the truth.

What do they call drones?

1) That's not a rebuttal at all.

2) The issue is targeting. If we randomly fired Hellfires into cities we would be condemned for war crimes. Hamas is trying to randomly drop firebombs on cities. (Rather ineffectively, so far all they have done is set some fields on fire.)

3) By normal civilian rules of engagement it would be acceptable to shoot anyone flying such a kite over one's habitation. (And by military rules of engagement, anyone flying one over your country is a valid target.) Somehow I think you would disapprove of such shooting, though.

How many civilians has been killed by US drones?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) That's not a rebuttal at all.

2) The issue is targeting. If we randomly fired Hellfires into cities we would be condemned for war crimes. Hamas is trying to randomly drop firebombs on cities. (Rather ineffectively, so far all they have done is set some fields on fire.)

3) By normal civilian rules of engagement it would be acceptable to shoot anyone flying such a kite over one's habitation. (And by military rules of engagement, anyone flying one over your country is a valid target.) Somehow I think you would disapprove of such shooting, though.

How many civilians has been killed by US drones?

War crimes are not measured by the number of civilian dead, but by targeting civilians. Which is why your side keeps ignoring it--because the Palestinians are the ones committing the war crimes.

 

[Jayjay]

1) That's not a rebuttal at all.

2) The issue is targeting. If we randomly fired Hellfires into cities we would be condemned for war crimes. Hamas is trying to randomly drop firebombs on cities. (Rather ineffectively, so far all they have done is set some fields on fire.)

3) By normal civilian rules of engagement it would be acceptable to shoot anyone flying such a kite over one's habitation. (And by military rules of engagement, anyone flying one over your country is a valid target.) Somehow I think you would disapprove of such shooting, though.

How many civilians has been killed by US drones?

War crimes are not measured by the number of civilian dead, but by targeting civilians. Which is why your side keeps ignoring it--because the Palestinians are the ones committing the war crimes.

Are these kites targeting civilians, or are they targeting the soldiers at the border? Sure Palestinians are targeting civilians with e.g. rockets, but that's irrelevant.

 

[Arctish]

1) That's not a rebuttal at all.

2) The issue is targeting. If we randomly fired Hellfires into cities we would be condemned for war crimes. Hamas is trying to randomly drop firebombs on cities. (Rather ineffectively, so far all they have done is set some fields on fire.)

3) By normal civilian rules of engagement it would be acceptable to shoot anyone flying such a kite over one's habitation. (And by military rules of engagement, anyone flying one over your country is a valid target.) Somehow I think you would disapprove of such shooting, though.

How many civilians has been killed by US drones?

War crimes are not measured by the number of civilian dead, but by targeting civilians. Which is why your side keeps ignoring it--because the Palestinians are the ones committing the war crimes.

What measure are you using to determine whether something is targeting civilians?

Over the years the Palestinians in Gaza have fired homemade missiles, small drones, and launched incendiary kites into Israel.

Over the same years the IDF has fired high explosive artillery and tank rounds, and dropped white phosphorus shells into Gaza neighborhoods.

If the issue is targeting, how are you making a distinction here? Is it only a war crime if the method of delivery is less technologically advanced that is current in western nations? Or should we count dead civilians instead? Perhaps we should judge it a war crime if doing it once results in a lot of dead kids, and the people responsible do it again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

War crimes are not measured by the number of civilian dead, but by targeting civilians. Which is why your side keeps ignoring it--because the Palestinians are the ones committing the war crimes.

Are these kites targeting civilians, or are they targeting the soldiers at the border? Sure Palestinians are targeting civilians with e.g. rockets, but that's irrelevant.

HAMAS never targets soldiers except when Israel invades. They much prefer civilians.

 

[Jayjay]

War crimes are not measured by the number of civilian dead, but by targeting civilians. Which is why your side keeps ignoring it--because the Palestinians are the ones committing the war crimes.

Are these kites targeting civilians, or are they targeting the soldiers at the border? Sure Palestinians are targeting civilians with e.g. rockets, but that's irrelevant.

HAMAS never targets soldiers except when Israel invades. They much prefer civilians.

So you have no proof that the kites were targeting civilians? How long do you think the strings are on those kites? All the way to Tel Aviv?

 

[Derec]

So you have no proof that the kites were targeting civilians? How long do you think the strings are on those kites? All the way to Tel Aviv?

They have no tethers. They are released, and they fly over the soldiers and mostly set Israeli crop fields on fire, but sometimes they land on buildings in Israeli communities close to the border with Gaza. To pretend the purpose of these terror kites is anything but to target Israeli civilians is willful ignorance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

HAMAS never targets soldiers except when Israel invades. They much prefer civilians.

So you have no proof that the kites were targeting civilians? How long do you think the strings are on those kites? All the way to Tel Aviv?

There are towns near the border.

If the objective was to hit troops on the border they would be far more able to actually do so because they're closer. Instead, though, they fly them as far as they can then let them free to drift down. Indiscriminate firebombing in an area with no troops. War crime.

 

[Derec]

Speaking of Palestinian fails ...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Speaking of Palestinian fails ...

And note that this sort of behavior gets reported as "peaceful".

And here's how it gets defined:

https://apnews.com/c8fc52beda394c75...mbraces-'non-violence'-_-opportunism-or-shift

In a sit-in tent camp near the Gaza border with Israel, a lecturer answered questions from activists grappling with the concept of non-violent protest.

They asked what’s allowed, listing different actions. Throwing stones and holding rallies is permitted, he said. Throwing firebombs is a “maybe” and using knives a definite “no.”

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They did it again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QixP_nlYtaY

The guy on the stretcher gets up once they think they're away from the cameras.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I saw the thread title. I saw the poster. I said to myself, "Why do I have this feeling this won't be even remotely funny?"

I find the photo interesting. I have a feeling that this picture was only meant to look like it was trying to fool people, especially like Derec. The people running are SMILING for fuck sake, even if you can't see what's happening off to the side. I call bullshit. This is exactly the type of porn Derec's type likes to use to stroke it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I saw the thread title. I saw the poster. I said to myself, "Why do I have this feeling this won't be even remotely funny?"

I find the photo interesting. I have a feeling that this picture was only meant to look like it was trying to fool people, especially like Derec. The people running are SMILING for fuck sake, even if you can't see what's happening off to the side. I call bullshit. This is exactly the type of porn Derec's type likes to use to stroke it.

Anything rather than admit one fell for propaganda.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's another one:

Show

1) If you're really rescuing someone you're not going to take time out to pose for the photographer.

2) This shot is fake

Show

Look at his shoulder. Holding on like that is not consistent with his apparent limpness.

3) The photographer certainly should know the shot is fake. Everything else they report from there should also be considered fake.

 

[Jayjay]

Here's another one:

Show

1) If you're really rescuing someone you're not going to take time out to pose for the photographer.

2) This shot is fake

Show

Look at his shoulder. Holding on like that is not consistent with his apparent limpness.

3) The photographer certainly should know the shot is fake. Everything else they report from there should also be considered fake.

The photo description says "Palestinian carries an injured protester during clashes with Israeli forces near the border between the Gaza strip and Israel east of Gaza City on May 14, 2018". There is no reason to think that's false. The guy is injured, and he is being carried, and it obviously happened during said protests. Your definition of fake is too broad.

Is the guy unconscious or in mortal danger? No. He's already patched up as you can see. And sure, he's posing for a photo but that doesn't make it fake unless something false is being claimed by the photographer or the reporter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's another one:

Show

1) If you're really rescuing someone you're not going to take time out to pose for the photographer.

2) This shot is fake

Show

Look at his shoulder. Holding on like that is not consistent with his apparent limpness.

3) The photographer certainly should know the shot is fake. Everything else they report from there should also be considered fake.

The photo description says "Palestinian carries an injured protester during clashes with Israeli forces near the border between the Gaza strip and Israel east of Gaza City on May 14, 2018". There is no reason to think that's false. The guy is injured, and he is being carried, and it obviously happened during said protests. Your definition of fake is too broad.

Is the guy unconscious or in mortal danger? No. He's already patched up as you can see. And sure, he's posing for a photo but that doesn't make it fake unless something false is being claimed by the photographer or the reporter.

While the words are technically true his posture makes no sense. He's pretending to be unconscious but he's actually holding on. (And that's not a good way to carry an unconscious person, anyway.)

 

[Arctish]

Here's another one:

Show

1) If you're really rescuing someone you're not going to take time out to pose for the photographer.

2) This shot is fake

Show

Look at his shoulder. Holding on like that is not consistent with his apparent limpness.

3) The photographer certainly should know the shot is fake. Everything else they report from there should also be considered fake.

The photo description says "Palestinian carries an injured protester during clashes with Israeli forces near the border between the Gaza strip and Israel east of Gaza City on May 14, 2018". There is no reason to think that's false. The guy is injured, and he is being carried, and it obviously happened during said protests. Your definition of fake is too broad.

Is the guy unconscious or in mortal danger? No. He's already patched up as you can see. And sure, he's posing for a photo but that doesn't make it fake unless something false is being claimed by the photographer or the reporter.

While the words are technically true his posture makes no sense. He's pretending to be unconscious but he's actually holding on. (And that's not a good way to carry an unconscious person, anyway.)

You assume he's pretending to be unconscious. His head back posture might just be a momentary, transitory thing that was caught at just the right second. Or he could be in shock. Getting shot does that to people.