site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   2073 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for September 7, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In July, @coffee_enjoyer cited the testimony of a former US Army Green Beret named Anthony Aguilar, who claimed to have witnessed the IDF indiscriminately shooting at people seeking famine aid at their distribution centres. @P-Necromancer earned themself an AAQC by arguing that Aguilar's testimony didn't come off as terribly persuasive.

Today, Quillette published an article called "Gaza and the Collapse of Truth-Seeking", which adds further wrinkles:

In late July, a self-described “eyewitness” finally emerged—a former US Army green beret named Anthony Aguilar, who had been dismissed as a security contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. News organisations (including the BBC and PBS), websites, and numerous podcasts carried interviews with Aguilar in which he was described as a “whistleblower” and permitted to allege “barbaric” tactics and “war crimes” on the part of US security contractors and the Israel Defence Forces (IDF). Nobody seemed to mind that the accompanying footage from Aguilar’s body camera [emphasis mine] showed not a single killing. Aguilar’s most heart-rending story—in which he claimed to have been kissed by a grateful Palestinian boy whose killing he then witnessed—was later found to have been fabricated in every detail. The boy was never shot and remains alive. At the time of writing—four days after Aguilar’s claims had been fully discredited in early September—neither the BBC nor PBS had amended their earlier coverage.

I think you meant to post this in the main thread.

I’m not yet convinced that Israel is being truthful here. No journalist has met this boy in person and it’s been a week since the story was published. Fox News is using weasel words when they report how they obtained the video, saying things like “answered questions provided by Fox News Digital through a GHF translator” and “according to a translation verified by Fox News Digital”. In other words, no one from Fox News got to meet the boy and his family, which begs the question of why Israel wouldn’t even let their most stalwart defender interview the boy. The only other outlet that has received a video of the boy is Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire.

I would like to see a reliable journalist interview the boy and his family, first to see if it’s real (faking a video is a fun Saturday afternoon project for Mossad) and second to ask them about their experiences at the aid distribution site. It’s bewildering that they wouldn’t let a single journalist see this kid, given that the story of Abdul has been published on every major news channel and newspaper.

faking a video is a fun Saturday afternoon project for Mossad

There it is.

It’s bewildering that they wouldn’t let a single journalist see this kid

Almost as bewildering as Aguilar's original claim that, of the 2,000+ Palestinian civilians shot dead by the IDF at aid centres, not a single one of them was caught on video by the body cam he was personally wearing.

Yes, I require independent corroboration for the allegations of the Israeli government, because they have a history of manipulating and lying to my country, like when they planned to bomb Americans and blame it on Arabs during the Lavon Affair, or when they posed as CIA agents to pay terrorists to kill Iranian civilians in the Bush era, or when they tried to convince us that their geopolitical foe was building nuclear weapons every year since Reagan. Or when the head of Mossad threatened the family of the ICC prosecutor. “Let a respected American journalist interview the family” is the tiniest of asks when we’re talking about a story of this magnitude.

Aguilar's original claim that, of the 2,000+ Palestinian civilians shot dead by the IDF at aid centres, not a single one of them was caught on video

Aguilar provided a video of the soldiers shooting into the crowd, then cheering and saying “I think you hit one”. Did you watch it? Or do you mean why he didn’t record corpses? Do you think it could be because, when your friend or even a stranger is shot in front of you, you don’t bring the guy over to the one who shot you, but to the nearest hospital? This is why the hospitals have reported on the dead they receive from the aid distribution site. But the statements of doctors have always been ignored since the start of the conflict, even when they’re the most respected in their specialty and crying in a sworn testimony to the House of Parliament.

Aguilar provided a video of the soldiers shooting into the crowd, then cheering and saying “I think you hit one”. Did you watch it?

Yes. In the segment of the video I watched (in which one of the soldiers says "I think you hit one"), no civilians are visible on camera when the soldiers begin firing. When one of them says "I think you hit one", it isn't even clear what the "one" he's referring to is - certainly the soldier saying this doesn't accompany footage of a civilian being shot. I find this very suspicious. Do you mean to tell me that, of the 2,000+ Palestinian civilians allegedly shot dead at these aid distribution sites, not a single one of these was captured on video? Not by any of the soldiers wearing bodycams, or by any of the Palestinian civilians who presumably have smartphones on their persons?

What is this place?

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.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats