Decapitating, because there isn't evidence of intent. Just phenomenally cruel and negligent dropping a bomb anywhere near civilians, especially at that density. Then again, I suppose intent gets fuzzy given how foreseeable something like this was.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Right, and the one kid wasn't disemboweled, they had spontaneous oopsy-doodles-guts-all-noodles, and the other wasn't dismembered, they went red-rover-red-rover-your-limbs-are-all-over.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml -5 points 5 months ago

Disemboweling is disemboweling, dismemberment is dismemberment, neither one has any bearing on intent. Beheading implies the bombs were dropped at least in part to decapitate children, which there is zero evidence of. But again, I don't think the intent distinction necessarily matters that much, given that Israel bombed an area where this was a foreseeable outcome.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't think intent is required. Behead's definition says "cut off the head of (someone), especially as a form of execution." The especially part means it isn't exclusive to that.

Both Be-head and De-capit(ate) = Off-head

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

I think this is just one of those "language is complicated" things. I'm seeing multiple definitions out there. I don't know really how much it matters, it starts to approach a semantic argument and getting away from the actual concrete events that have occurred.