Here's an interesting story that is related to Derec's big mistake about assuming military aged men* in a warzone should be shot and killed.
I did not say that. Why do you insist on misrepresenting what I wrote? I merely wrote that we should assume that military aged men in a war zone are civilians, like that tweet was doing.
You insist on misrepresenting what you wrote.
Let me elaborate on this since Derec is minimizing his own writings and forgetting words like "NOT" that need to be added to his own text.
I asked several questions and one was answered. For example, I wrote in quick succession in a paragraph Question A, B, and C. Then, Derec responded with a quick succession of statements in one paragraph Statement A and Statement B. Those statements were focusing on answering the last question I asked but also addressed the totality of questions as well. He now forgets to add the word "NOT" or the negation of his Statement B, but regardless claims to "merely" (his word) have answered as Statement B, even though he also had answered Statement A and this has ramifications.
So let's review the specific posts:
Derec said:
Don2 said:
[Quick succession of less relevant questions omitted for clarity... ] Why are you putting a burden there to PROVE THEY ARE INNOCENT!!?
Because they are military aged men IN A WARZONE DURING AN ACTIVE WAR. We can't just assume they were civilians.
One can observe the pattern:
Don2: Question#1? Question#2? Question#3?
Derec: Statement A. Statement B.
Question#3 = "Why are you putting a burden there to PROVE THEY ARE INNOCENT!!?"
Statement A = "Because they are military aged men IN A WARZONE DURING AN ACTIVE WAR."
Statement B = "We can't just assume they were civilians."
Derec then follows up the discussion with the following:
"I merely wrote that we should assume that military aged men in a war zone are civilians, like that tweet was doing."
So first, he forgets to add the negation. He ought to have written:
"I merely wrote that we should
NOT assume that military aged men in a war zone are civilians, like that tweet was doing."
This is trivial and we all make typos from time to time. We can excuse his typo. However, secondly, he did not "MERELY" respond with Statement B, but also with Statement A. So this is a second misrepresentation of his post he has expressed.
We can also go beyond the statement to the greater context. We are disallowed from criticism of the Israeli government or we are being anti-Semitic. To that end, we can only allow statements like Statement A: skepticism of one side, but not the other.
So what is the conclusion here? It's this: We ought to watch a video where our observations tell us the people in the video being targeted with missiles have no rifles and we must ignore it and not question it because we must censor ourselves. If we make statements, they can only support the right-wing govt of Israel such as "Because they are military aged men IN A WARZONE DURING AN ACTIVE WAR."
That kind of self-censoring agnosticism, if we can even call it that, is not materially any different from supporting it.
apnews.com
Is English your first language? 
I say, AGREEING with you, that a certain peace-keeping is "Surely a far-fetched Dream." You ask me what I'm smoking.