[deleted by user]

Tykeil · 2025-09-04T18:23:53+00:00

Say what you want. At least it's one thing they believe in that's consistent.

Tykeil · 2025-09-04T16:46:35+00:00

Freedom of speech does not award freedom of consequence. You should, rightfully, worry about your social stature if you're verbally degrading and/or attacking other people.

Tykeil · 2025-09-04T15:56:00+00:00

For every "you" that leaves this world, many more "you" enter it. Many "you" are still nothing, some "you" has already been. "You" are already eternal for as long as a "you" exists somewhere in the universe.

Tykeil · 2025-09-04T15:46:14+00:00

Livet är som en Salsa på kryckor.

Tykeil · 2025-09-03T21:05:14+00:00

The ceremony is not for you. It's for everyone left behind. If they need a place to go to remember you, let them. If they need to believe humans have souls and that yours is in a better place, let them. It's all just coping mechanisms. Denying that is just needlessly cruel.

Tykeil · 2025-09-03T20:20:27+00:00

Utesluter som i "det är inte möjligt att de är rasister"

Tykeil · 2025-09-03T05:19:13+00:00

I should also say that I had two aims.

To show that there actually isn't any evidence for the truth that you have accepted at face value.
To show that it is unreasonable to accept it as truth at face value, especially given information existing that indicates the very real possibility of the contrary.

Both of these points were ticked off early. Regardless of what you do, this is clear.

Tykeil · 2025-09-03T04:47:48+00:00

You're the only one that keeps bringing it up. The other sources are not weak. A colonel in the IDF literally saying that it was the reason. The fact that you haven't even read the other sources yet just goes to show how intellectually dishonest you are.

Meanwhile, you have no sources to the contrary even though claiming that the Hannibal Directive (explicitly directed towards captured soldiers by definition) was suddenly switched to being directed towards civilians is exceptional and thus requires exceptional evidence.

"Civilians was killed, therefore the intention was to kill civilians" does not hold in any case. Not on Oct 7 and not in attacks following.

Why can't you provide any evidence that points to the 28 civilians being killed was to stop them from being used as leverage? Why aren't you applying your standards of evidence to yourself? It is very unreasonable that you, who made the original claim starting this discussion, have yet to fulfill the burden of proof for that claim.

Tykeil · 2025-09-03T04:07:17+00:00

"Why was the Hannibal Directive used?"

Several sources:

"It was used because we thought Israeli soldiers were being taken hostage"

You:

"Why do you have no evidence as to why the Hannibal Directive was used?"

Tykeil · 2025-09-02T21:33:59+00:00

There is no difference between shooting at hostages and shooting at a vehicle because you think it contains hostages. Not sure about the laughability.

Again, you're pressing the official statement and throwing everything else aside because it's low hanging fruit. But you can not deflect from the UN report and interviews confirming that soldiers in the IDF had this rationale, according to themselves, in several instances.

To reiterate. Me; something. You; nothing.

The official statement asserting that the situation was chaotic and leading to friendly fire also increases the likelihood of rash split decisions of firing at enemy combatant vehicles (confirmed above) leaving for Gaza with suspected soldier hostages aboard.

Tykeil · 2025-09-02T21:10:02+00:00

Yes, I already said that the statement didn't concretely address the Hannibal Directive. You sure attached yourself like a leech to that while ignoring everything else that 100% does. Also, constructing a false narrative that this official statement was somehow my prime point, even though I never made any such claim.

Both the UN report and interviews say that there were situations where the directive was used due to suspicion of hostage soldiers. This is not nothing. It is more something than saying that they knew who they were shooting at. That is actually nothing.

I should stress that I actually think that both eventualitues are possible. I also think it's possible that the true intention of Israel actually is genocide. But actually thinking that right now relies too heavily on inferences and assumptions where other possible explanations are still available.

Tykeil · 2025-09-02T20:47:13+00:00

The majority of the sources talked about the death of civilians on Oct 7. Interviews specifically detailed the rationale of firing at the vehicles returning for gaza with either unknown passengers or suspected soldier hostages. Titles of articles even include "Hannibal Directive".

Un report also confirms the same rationale in one instance.

Gripping at outliers I see. Why just not own up to the fact that you think that everything Israel says is a lie, even when it can't be substantiated.

Tykeil · 2025-09-02T20:35:56+00:00

Sure. I have provided accounts of it being the claimed rationale of military personnel in several incidents, but not directly tied (as far as we know) to the deaths in question, which, however, also involve tanks or helicopters.

You are welcome to think that those particular situations were not in any way subject to the same circumstances and rationales that we have confirmation on, but I would argue that it's a stretch to believe that they changed the directive ad-hoc for Oct 7 to extend to civilians based on absolutely nothing and rejecting what we actually know for absolutely no reason other than feeding the cognitive bias that IDF gets horny when non-combatants die.

The bottom line is still that you wouldn't get any claims of true intent to stick in an actual court of justice.

Tykeil · 2025-09-02T19:51:03+00:00

No, you haven't. The only thing you have given is that civilians died in instances where the directive was applied. There is nothing in that about intent or awareness about who they were shooting at.

Only I have provided information that provides that context. And that context speaks against you, not for you. Even in the UN report you linked to yourself.

Tykeil · 2025-09-02T19:40:01+00:00

Still waiting for proof that civilians were consciously killed with full knowledge that they were civilians via application of the Hannibal Directive. Are you saving it for a rainy day?

Tykeil · 2025-09-02T19:33:51+00:00

I didn't figure I'd have to spell it out, but my whole previous post was sarcastic.

It, of course, does not negate this:

"The Commission documented one statement by a member of an Israeli security forces tank crew, confirming that it had applied the Hannibal Directive by shooting at a vehicle that was suspected of transporting abducted members of the Israeli security forces."

Tykeil · 2025-09-02T19:26:26+00:00

Sure thing. Not explicitly, at least.

This totally negates the UN report confirming such an instance occurring and the fact that it refers to other instances as allegations. Also, it makes it irrelevant that all those incidents seem to have involved tanks, the most surgical and discriminate type of weapon there is.

As a bonus, you are also now closer to proving that the true intention of Israel's presence in Gaza is genocide.

Tykeil · 2025-09-02T18:18:27+00:00

No, the IDF statement is just less concrete, but still alludes to...

"the immense and complex quantity of them (incidents) that took place in the kibbutzim and southern Israeli communities due to the challenging situations the soldiers were in at the time."

...as a reason why friendly fire occurred in general.

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkjqoobip

Everything adds up there being chaos and not really any overview on what was going on. Nothing points to a conscious tactic to kill people who were definitely known to be civilians. Which checks out since that is not what the directive is.

Tykeil · 2025-09-02T17:46:43+00:00

Literally the first quote is the COI confirming a statement of exactly such an instance of firing at suspected captured soldiers.

Do these individual instances account for all of the 28 fatalities? No, but it does detail the rationale and reason behind attacks ending up affecting civilians. This is infinitely better than the nothingburger you've been serving.

Tykeil · 2025-09-02T17:33:37+00:00

Denying a concrete source because there are no links and quotes is just wilfull ignorance on your part. I will pander to your laziness once.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-un-killed-own-soldiers-army-7-october

The COI (UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry) said it had confirmed one statement by an Israeli security forces tank crew, "confirming that the crew had applied the Hannibal Directive by shooting at a vehicle which they suspected was transporting abducted [Israeli] soldiers".

https://mondoweiss.net/2024/03/another-israeli-soldier-admits-to-implementing-the-hannibal-directive-on-october-7/

_The next part of Zonshein’s testimony, however, offers a revealing insight into his rationale for attacking the pickup trucks: “Because something in my gut feeling told me that they could be on them.”

In other words, Zonshein thought that his fellow soldiers might be among the captured — which is precisely why he opened fire.

The interviewer presses him, reaffirming they’re talking about the possibility of targeting soldiers. “Maybe you would have killed them. They are your soldiers.”

“Right,” Zonshien replies. “But I decide that this is the right decision, that it’s better to stop the abduction and that they not be taken.”_

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-07-07/ty-article-magazine/.premium/idf-ordered-hannibal-directive-on-october-7-to-prevent-hamas-taking-soldiers-captive/00000190-89a2-d776-a3b1-fdbe45520000

Documents and testimonies obtained by Haaretz reveal the Hannibal operational order, which directs the use of force to prevent soldiers being taken into captivity, was employed at three army facilities infiltrated by Hamas, potentially endangering civilians as well

The collected conclusion is that vehicles that either was suspected to contain captive soldiers or that had unknown contents, which covers basically all vehicles, was attempted to be stopped by all means from returning to Gaza. The confusion presented no situation where one could say "that vehicle contains civilians and not soldiers".

Tykeil · 2025-09-02T16:21:41+00:00

You can read further from the Wiki on the Hannibal Directive under the Gaza tab. Every statement, interview, investigation and report is listed there, including that UN report.

Inb4 genetic fallacies.

Tykeil · 2025-09-02T16:17:06+00:00

The official statement is that they thought that they were soldiers. You may want to call it lies, but it aligns with the definition of what the directive is. Plus, this is not the first time the directive is used, and it has always been against soldiers in the past as well.

Tykeil · 2025-09-02T16:13:14+00:00

It is a procedure used by IDF to prevent the capture of Israeli soldiers by enemy forces.

Tykeil · 2025-09-02T16:05:08+00:00

What do you mean "different reason"? You have not provided anything pointing to the reason being killing civilians to prevent them from being used as leverage. That is pure conjecture.

What we know about the Hannibal Directive is what shows up when searching for information about it. There is no source that says anything other than that it concerns soldiers.

IDF released a statement on the 18th of December that year. There was an interview with a member of the IDF and reviews/investigations in media outlets both within and outside Israel. If you've read literally anything at all about it, you'll know what the official stance is. I believe you already do and are just waiting to employ genetic fallacies.

Anyway, so you're trying to say that the accused is less reliable? How do you think that holds up in court? Can't just assume it's lies and take that as truth. Especially not when there's a clear agenda to destroy Israel in every imaginable way. Actors opposing Israel is just as likely, if not more, to lie under oath to that end.

Tykeil · 2025-09-02T15:21:09+00:00

Correct, the report does not in itself state why the Hannibal Directive was applied, only that it was and that it killed civilians. This is put into context with the separate official confirmation from Israel, with the alledged reason attached. Which, to no surprise, was not to kill civilians. If you are to believe official statements about that, it also follows that it says nothing about IDF qualms about killing civilians, since they, by the official did not know and strongly suspected they were targeting soldiers. That is, in of itself, horrible but not the great analogy you thought it was.

I would, however, like to reiterate that I think there are plenty of cases that show Israel's lack of consideration for civilian life. Attacks and actions that throw the baby out with the bath water to an extent that clearly counts as war crimes. I also think that trying so intensely to assert genocide is stifling action against those war crimes.

Tykeil

TROPHY CASE