from what point of view was the video taken? Near the hospital?

Somehow the single most powerful rocket fired from Gaza ever, that could destroy whole buildings, misfired and hit one of the few hospitals in Gaza. — ssu

Has this been documented? I read that Israel showed then deleted a video showing an apparent missile strike when it was found to have been timestamped after the strike.

I mean it’s the most thoroughly dreadful crime whoever is responsible but the ramifications of it being an Israeli strike are truly horrendous.

Besides it doesn't matter if the rocket came from Hamas or IDF.
It would be Israeli's fault anyways right? So let's not distract our selves
and keep passionately chanting all together "Israel caca!"

Edit: sorry, I forgot... and "Great Satan Amerikah caca"!
Re-edit: sorry, I also forgot... "Allahu Akbar!"

rom what point of view was the video taken? Near the hospital? — flannel jesus

WSJ reported this.

Including others, with similar video...


But behold, we will soon get the truth from the IDF and proof of how evil the "human animals" are in Gaza. :smile:

Biden can happily come to Israel and give them the unwavering support the country needs. (Plus more weapons)

"Double standard" anybody? — neomac

Who has the double standard?

But behold, we will soon get the truth from the IDF and proof of how evil the "human animals" are in Gaza. :smile: — ssu

So you are sure that it was IDF?

you can answer as you like. Give your best shot.

Let's be careful what we say in this thread. The whole issue is highly inflammatory, and there's not a lot of point in fanning the flames, as if there's not enough people doing that already. What I'm interested in is factual claims about the source of this atrocity. The Israel Foreign Ministry video is in Arabic, so it tells me nothing. Let's see if anything more definite comes to light.

Giving in a few moments a media conference about "what actually happened"? Yes, I'm sure about that.

And if WSJ reported a video that wasn't the hospital bombing, I'm definitely sure that there will be an outcry in the US if such a prestigious newspaper as WSJ would be spreading Hamas propaganda and anti-semitic vitriol.

The whole issue is highly inflammatory, and there's not a lot of point in fanning the flames, as if there's not enough people doing that already. — Wayfarer

Wasn't Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters killing every Israeli they could find and reach already highly inflammatory? Correction, they did take some prisoners to act as shields, hence they didn't kill everybody.

And of the Hospital attack, as there's obviously now spinmeisters around and it's highly political (after the condemnation of Arab countries), you simply have to wait for some time before the thing is going to be accurate. Remember for example the shooting down of the Malesian airliner over Eastern Ukraine? Took a little bit of time, but was very accurately documented.

As I've said, the rapid Israeli media response to this is ,at least in my opinion, because of Joe Biden's visit.

And if WSJ reported a video that wasn't the hospital bombing, I'm definitely sure that there will be an outcry in the US if such a prestigious newspaper as WSJ would be spreading Hamas propaganda and anti-semitic vitriol. — ssu

But the WSJ video doesn't take position wrt whom is to blame. And its footage of the blast doesn't tell me much about whom cause the blast.

Wasn't Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters killing every Israeli they could find and reach already highly inflammatory? — ssu

Of course it is. Do you think my recommendation to 'avoid inflammatory language' amounts to propaganda? Considering the amount of vitriol already sorrounding this issue, I'm simply advising moderation in speech.

I was genuinely confused as to who you meant! Sorry, maybe it's obvious.

If that audio is real, they sure did a good job at making it sound extremely fake. :lol:

Coming out with these sorts of audio recordings less than a day after the incident I find pretty suspect to begin with, and smells like damage control to me.

Had the Israelis been innocent in all of this, they would have likely kept calm and waited for a proper investigation. But since they are probably not innocent, they felt a strong pressure to claim the narrative before their enemies run away with it and denying it is no longer credible.

The reaction on the side of the Palestinians seems a lot more genuine - anger, disbelief.

I know which story I find the more plausible one. Killing 500 with a single rocket doesn't sound like the sort of damage Hamas weaponry is capable of (as rightly pointed out). Sounds more like the effect of large Israeli ordnance.

Anyway, in today's day and age it's best to reserve judgement.

Somehow the single most powerful rocket fired from Gaza ever, that could destroy whole buildings, misfired and hit one of the few hospitals in Gaza. — ssu

What cite do you have to support this claim?

You're arguing impossibility, meaning Palestine couldn't have done this because their arsenal isn't capable of doing it.

I've not seen any articles where the Palestinians have even asserted that.

But the video doesn't take position wrt whom is to blame. And its footage of the blast doesn't tell me much about whom cause the blast. — neomac

The noise that ingoing and out going artillery makes is different. And then the fireball seems to be rather big. There's ample videos that show the difference between air to ground ordnance and "Katjusha" rocket fire, that basically Hamas has. To me that looks like ordnance from an aircraft. And it surely doesn't look like a small rocket that they in Gaza use.

Do you think my recommendation to 'avoid inflammatory language' amounts to propaganda? — Wayfarer

Of course not.

Considering the amount of vitriol already sorrounding this issue, I'm simply advising moderation in speech. — Wayfarer

I would question why the vitriol over just one attack, and not the war itself.

You're arguing impossibility, meaning Palestine couldn't have done this because their arsenal isn't capable of doing it. — Hanover

Yeah, that's why I find the most likely cause that Israel bombed the hospital and they are now rapidly making a media blitz (as @Tzeentch note they otherwise wouldn't do) to counter the public and diplomatic outrage as their most precious supporter, the US president, is coming to Israel just today.

Just seems to me the most likely case here.

I was sarcastic when I asked that question.
For many "double standard" and Western hypocrisy are a big issue. To me not necessarily.
Accusations of double standards make sense to me if we all are playing by the same rules. Yet I doubt this is the case when the West confronts the Rest. Concerning the current crisis, if there are no Arabs/Palestinians' public protests against Hamas while there are Jews publicly protesting against Netanyahou, then either there is a double standard in condemning violence (to many, even in this thread, "double standard" accusations hold only against the West, of course), or we do not play by the same rules (in this case "double standard" accusations are rather weak to me).

The noise that ingoing and out going artillery makes is different. — ssu

It would be interesting if you could illustrate the different noise between "ingoing" and "outgoing" artillery through comparable videos.

The noise that ingoing and out going artillery makes is different. And then the fireball seems to be rather big. — ssu

Can't the fireball be rather big due to the amount fuel, since it was a parking spot?

Just seems to me the most likely case here. — ssu

Except you provided an empirical argument for why it was the Israelis (i.e. Palestine lacked the rocket power) and now you're backtracking to theorizing (i.e. Israel needs to maintain its moral position for US support, so this is spin control).

These are entirely different arguments.

The counter theory is that Hamas cannot win this war militarily, they have no moral high ground since their invasion of the kibbutz, so they hope to politically turn the tides in their favor by showing Israeli brutality and their own suffering by causing their own death and blaming it on Israel.

This is to say that Hamas scores far more points if it was Israel that bombed the hospital, so much so that it could sway political support in their favor.

Israel gains nothing in such an attack.

Israel gains nothing in such an attack. — Hanover

...And then also lie about it with "extremely fake" sounding audios according to the most authoritative infowar experts on Earth. Anyway, in today's day and age it's best to reserve judgement.

And then also lie about it with "extremely fake" audios according to the most authoritative infowar experts on earth. Anyway, in today's day and age it's best to reserve judgement. — neomac

Again, you're pointing to authoritive empirical evidence that doesn't exist.

Again, you're pointing to authoritive empirical evidence that doesn't exist. — Hanover

I never called it (the audio) "authoritative". Nor affirmed my commitment to it. Taken in another sense, your claim sounds even contradictory.

It would be interesting if you could illustrate the different noise between "ingoing" and "outgoing" artillery through comparable videos. — neomac

Aahh.. a bit difficult as videos usually taken are with hand held devices that don't have good sound recording. But

Here's incoming. As the cameraman is taking cover, it's basically an audio tape.


Here's "outgoing" :roll: , you can notice the difference best at 1:51. The shrieking is different, it going away.

Oh I get it (the Doppler Effect, if I remember correctly), more high pitched when it's in-coming and more low pitched when out-going. Like with racing cars. Thanks for the effort.
But assuming you are right about the pitch, how do you know that the video recording was taken with Gaza in the back or Israel in the back?

I don't see why you would expect the sound of the missile to be different. I understand that incoming and outgoing missiles sound different, but from the point of view of someone near the hospital, that missile would be "incoming" regardless of if it said "courtesy of HAMAS" written on it or "IDF", right? It was "incoming" either way, regardless of its source

I see you're asking the same sort of question

The doppler sound indicates a passing projectile, incoming then outgoing. The time delay, if the locations of the target and video were known would give a clue to the direction of the projectile. The size of the explosion does not necessarily suggest anything. Hamas has explosives big enough if that was their intent.

I never called it (the audio) "authoritative". Nor affirmed my commitment to it. Taken in another sense, your claim sounds even contradictory. — neomac

You indicated

And then also lie about it with "extremely fake" audios according to the most authoritative infowar experts on earth. Anyway, in today's day and age it's best to reserve judgement. — neomac

Your position was that there was authoritative evidence disproving the legitimacy of the evidence submitted by Israel in questioning the cause of the explosion.

This is to say, both you and @ssu throw out accusations that the Israeli account is preposterous, but then when asked for some sort of cite, nothing is provided.

Then others play junior pyrotechnics experts and offer opinions as to what they think the videos show, as if such analysis does anything other to reveal confirmation bias.

You indicated

And then also lie about it with "extremely fake" audios according to the most authoritative infowar experts on earth. Anyway, in today's day and age it's best to reserve judgement. — neomac


Your position was that there was authoritative evidence disproving the legitimacy of the evidence submitted by Israel in questioning the cause of the explosion. — Hanover

Dude, you are misfiring objections against me. That comment of mine was meant to be sarcastic. Scroll up to see "the most authoritative infowar experts on earth" suggesting that audio was "extremely fake".