The Hamas-run Health Ministry in the Gaza Strip says at least 500 people have been killed in an explosion that it says was caused by an Israeli airstrike.
Updated: Israel denies involvement in deadly Gaza hospital blast, says explosion caused by Islamic Jihad
Thanks for that absolutely irrelevant fact. Civilians die in war. One side of this war is a democratic government, the other is a literal terrorist organization. Are you defending terrorists today? Is that what you woke up to do on the internet?
So when the Hamas murders children in Israel they are terrorists but when the IDF does the same thing in Gaza it’s “civilians die in war”. You either have to be really stupid or cruel to make this argument work in your head. Probably both.
Yes, now you’re getting it. One is terrorism, the other is defence from that terrorism. The destruction of Hamas is the fastest way to stop the death of innocents on both sides. Israel could have accomplished this by destroying all of Gaza, but instead they show restraint in trying to minimize civilian casualties, and they will risk the assured death of even more of their own citizens by invading to root out Hamas.
You do realize Hamas is the result of Israeli apartheid and occupation? They even helped create it. Israel has been bombing Gaza for years and Hamas doesn’t seem to get any weaker. Your argument is just a way for you to keep moving the goal posts towards complete genocide.
You do realize Hamas is responsible for their own actions? It doesn’t matter what Israel did, Israel can have peace with Palestinians at least in principle. With Hamas, there can be no peace. Quit justifying terrorism as being caused by actions outside their control. It is completely in their control how they respond and they chose to respond with terrorism. What happens now is justified self-defense.
You do realize Israel is responsible for its own actions as well, right? They have a Zionist leader who wants nothing more than genocide. They use terrorism to enforce their rule. They are at fault for it as much as Hamas is. Get rid of the Zionists.
So what you are saying is that everything apparently boils down to two sides wanting nothing more than genocide, as Hamas’ goal since their founding has been the elimination of Israel and the Jews from the middle east. Under that reduction, we just need to choose whether we support a flawed but still functional democracy or another conservative theocracy under Iran in the region. Third option being to pull all support for both sides and just let them destroy each other with a statistically significant possibility of nuclear exchange in the end.
I also would like to know of any other country on earth that would allow a neighboring country to continually launch rockets at it for decades and take no retaliatory action whatsoever, like Israel is somehow an outlier. Is there honestly a realistic expectation that this time would be different if Palestine was given the full Two State system under the original borders? 5th or 6th times the charm on that one? Maybe this time there wouldn’t be another full scale war from all surrounding neighbors, but does anyone actually expect Iran to stop funding or conducting terror attacks on Israel through Palestine, Syria, or Lebanon?
The people don’t necessarily. The Zionists and Hamas both want genocide, yes.
I also would like to know of any other country on earth that would allow a neighboring country to continually launch rockets at it for decades and take no retaliatory action whatsoever
There isn’t one, but there also isn’t a country that would allow another country to occupy its internationally recognized lands, kills its citizens for no reason, displace it’s people to make room for the other nation to colonize it, and build walls to keep them from moving freely.
Hamas is not innocent, but Israel sure as hell isn’t either. They’re both terrorist organizations, but one has a lot more international support for basically no reason.
I’m defending Palestinians who have in no way elected Hamas, and who are killed by an elected government because some random terrorist organization happens to be residing in the same literal prison they are trapped in by the same named elected government.
Figurative prison. Gazans can leave Gaza, it’s just hard and they generally don’t want to (sort of the main point of this entire conflict is that both parties are passionately attached to the land). Those who emigrate generally head to Europe, as they are not welcomed in nearby nations.
They can’t really though. To Israel they can only if Israel issues them permits. So they can’t. Israel bombed their airport in 2001, so they can’t fly. The border crossing with Egypt is not always open and also subject to Egypt letting them in. Also, they don’t have passports that are recognized by any nation. So they really have very few options.
Your defense is useless. Insofar as Israel should stop killing innocents, you have no solution to letting terrorism fester at their borders. No solution to the 1000s of rockets launched at them. No solution to the constant threat of invasion and brutalization of their citizens. You have to say that you support Palestinians, because there’s nothing you can say to stop an organization that demands nothing less than the death of all Jews. So, who do you care to support? Will you allow the Israelis to die because that means Palestinians don’t suffer? Or will you allow the Palestinians to die so that Hamas can be destroyed?
Forreal though, you’re just shifting the goalposts like crazy. They weren’t defending hamas, they were calling the IDF liars. Which… yeah, this claim is a pretty reasonable thing to be skeptical about since they were touting that the hospital was hamas HQ and they ordered the evacuation of gaza city earlier this week?
Well you just shift more goals than the FIFA groundskeeping staff, dontcha.
For anyone curious about what this person is doing:
They start by putting words in the mouth of the other user, in a way that could broadly be interpreted as inline with their position but a lot more extreme. (ex: calling isreal a liar. I didn’t, I just implied they are clearly too biased to be a reliable source, close but more extreme.)
From there, they quickly move on to another more extreme claim that might not even be slightly related to the initial users point. The aim with this step is to force acceptance of the initial false claim they made, by blitzing you with a much more extreme claim. If you defend yourself here, it tacitly implies acceptance of the first claim, because you naturally jump to defending yourself from the most extreme claim first. (ex: Saying I’m not denouncing hamas. Of course I am, fuck hamas, they’re terrorist monsters. I dont have to say it in every comment though, especially if its not the topic at hand)
Then at the end they drop a false equivalence on us, tied to the acceptance of the false claim at the start. In this case the equivalence is that by not supporting something you clearly are tacitly approving of that thing. (btw: “which side you’re supporting” coward, just accuse me of supporting hamas. Oh, right, you won’t, because I didn’t/don’t, and you know it…)
Ironic? yes! The explotation of a social rule for their benefit and then rigidly applying that rule to someone else is a classic troll move!
Of course this is bullshit, and it’s bullshit that hinges on you having juuuust enough of an emotional reaction to their attempt that you don’t notice the whole thing hinges on you falling into the trap of accepting something is what you said when you, in fact, said no such thing.
And yes, I am arguing past them. It’s another classic troll move gleaned from my days as a shithead child on 4chan. But I like to think I’m not a shithead any more (might be lying to myself…). I’d also like to think that maybe reading this will keep someone out there from falling for this kind of bullshit in the future.Who knows.
Anyways, isreal sucks. So does hamas, but I just want to be clear how absolutely much isreal is just absolutely noshing down on a colossal plate of homoerotic dicks because of this. Both of them are, of course, but to be clear that “both” very much includes isreal as one of the two. The other one is hamas. But the dirst one is Isreal.
All that to say both sides suck, but Israel was first. It’s absolutely irrelevant. Israel can offer peace all day but there will never be peace with a terrorist organization that demands the compete destruction of all Jews. Hamas was responsible for invading Israel and what they did to it’s people there. Israel is completely justified in defending themselves from an existential threat, no different than you or I. If you fail to recognize those facts, yes, it’s tantamount to supporting terrorism.
They attempt to dismiss the bulk of the argument against them by focusing on one point that they think they can use as a concession, a sort of “moral middle ground” where you both meet (I am referring to them conceding that both sides suck. Which, critically important detail for later, I did not claim!). If it works, this serves a couple purposes: You get a common starting point from which you can build a philosophical bridge that you then can lead the other party across and you get to appear like you’re addressing the criticism directed at you while at the same time dismissing it as “all that”. A strong start, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Sadly it falls apart almost immediately as they lapse into the tired old formula, this time with a dash of logical fallacies. They continue on with a combination Red Herring mixed with a classic Circular Argument. “Israel doesn’t even need to try and get peace, because Hamas would clearly never accept it, so what’s the point in trying?”. I’m sure we can all see the problem there: I didn’t try because it won’t work, and because it clearly won’t work, why should I even bother to try? If it had landed this sure would be a corker to argue against, but since there’s no point in arguing against someone operating in brazen bad faith, we’ll just stick to meta-analysis and move on from that rather weak move.
Oh, but don’t forget that they also tried to put words in our mouth by asserting that anyone had claimed there could be peace between israel and Hamas. Sure, it might be impossible, it might not! But that’s not the point: They’re trying to sneakily get us to accept their assertion that there’s only two sides here! That’s right, those thousands of dead civilians? They don’t get a voice here, because it’s just Mighty And Righteous And Fully Justified, Israel!! vs. Those evil terrorist bastards what started it in the first place, Hamas!!. See, by engaging with the obvious fallacies they were making, they lead us into debating on their terms; that israel and Hamas are the only parties to this little conflict. Fuck you, they’re not, nice try, moving on!
“Hamas was responsible for invading Israel and what they did to it’s people there.” Sure, this is just a statement of fact. Hamas is responsible for the things Hamas did. They’re not addressing that Israel is also responsible for the brutally heinous acts they also committed, but it helps to reinforce their position to drop in a tidbit that you agree with. This seems obvious, sure, but remember that they’re still working under the false assumption that we fell for their very first attempt at establishing common ground. This little extra tidbit is supposed to get us onto the philosophical bridge they’ve built!
Next up, I’m a little petty!
They simply build more bridge by implying that israel is totally justified in defending themselves from this threat. It’s pretty goofy that they’ve ignored the irony that they’re claiming an invasion by a foreign group is 100% justifiable grounds for defending oneself with a counter-invasion, yet they deny that Hamas has any standing here.
Also that they ignore the frankly laughable assertion that Hamas is an ‘existential threat’ to israel. Israel, a nuclear power armed and outfitted by the our-healthcare-isn’t-free-find-out-why US of motherfuckin’ A!!(can I get an oorah?) is somehow facing an existential threat from a tiny terrorist faction, in a country smaller than Los Angeles, who’s primary means of warfare is rockets made out of sewer pipes (Yeah, that seems like a fair matchup…). They also seem to think that somehow, massacring civilians would be my reaction to an existential threat. It would not. I object to the massacring of civilians when you do it, when I do it or when israel does it. It’s just a pretty shitty thing to do. Honestly, given the things that usually threaten me existentially? I’d be better off massacring computer science textbooks.
Okay, that was fun. On with the breakdown!
Their final point is worded like a micdrop, but falls flatter than my ass in spandex. A classic False Equivalency - “If you don’t agree with these facts, then clearly you support terrorists!” which does the handy double duty of implying the corollary: “If you do agree with these facts, then clearly you support israel!”
I look forward to their next retort and our next great learning adventure! Now sing it with me, kids:
(sung to the tune of “london bridge”)
“Genocide is always wrong, always wrong, always wrong! Gen-ocide is always wrong, even when you’re jewish!”
…
…
(So I’m not a great lyricist, I’ll admit that.)
Israel has killed 36x as many children as Hamas. https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties
Thanks for that absolutely irrelevant fact. Civilians die in war. One side of this war is a democratic government, the other is a literal terrorist organization. Are you defending terrorists today? Is that what you woke up to do on the internet?
So when the Hamas murders children in Israel they are terrorists but when the IDF does the same thing in Gaza it’s “civilians die in war”. You either have to be really stupid or cruel to make this argument work in your head. Probably both.
Israel has the luxury of using plausible deniability as an excuse when accused of targeting civilians.
Yes, now you’re getting it. One is terrorism, the other is defence from that terrorism. The destruction of Hamas is the fastest way to stop the death of innocents on both sides. Israel could have accomplished this by destroying all of Gaza, but instead they show restraint in trying to minimize civilian casualties, and they will risk the assured death of even more of their own citizens by invading to root out Hamas.
You do realize Hamas is the result of Israeli apartheid and occupation? They even helped create it. Israel has been bombing Gaza for years and Hamas doesn’t seem to get any weaker. Your argument is just a way for you to keep moving the goal posts towards complete genocide.
You do realize Hamas is responsible for their own actions? It doesn’t matter what Israel did, Israel can have peace with Palestinians at least in principle. With Hamas, there can be no peace. Quit justifying terrorism as being caused by actions outside their control. It is completely in their control how they respond and they chose to respond with terrorism. What happens now is justified self-defense.
You do realize Israel is responsible for its own actions as well, right? They have a Zionist leader who wants nothing more than genocide. They use terrorism to enforce their rule. They are at fault for it as much as Hamas is. Get rid of the Zionists.
So what you are saying is that everything apparently boils down to two sides wanting nothing more than genocide, as Hamas’ goal since their founding has been the elimination of Israel and the Jews from the middle east. Under that reduction, we just need to choose whether we support a flawed but still functional democracy or another conservative theocracy under Iran in the region. Third option being to pull all support for both sides and just let them destroy each other with a statistically significant possibility of nuclear exchange in the end.
I also would like to know of any other country on earth that would allow a neighboring country to continually launch rockets at it for decades and take no retaliatory action whatsoever, like Israel is somehow an outlier. Is there honestly a realistic expectation that this time would be different if Palestine was given the full Two State system under the original borders? 5th or 6th times the charm on that one? Maybe this time there wouldn’t be another full scale war from all surrounding neighbors, but does anyone actually expect Iran to stop funding or conducting terror attacks on Israel through Palestine, Syria, or Lebanon?
The people don’t necessarily. The Zionists and Hamas both want genocide, yes.
There isn’t one, but there also isn’t a country that would allow another country to occupy its internationally recognized lands, kills its citizens for no reason, displace it’s people to make room for the other nation to colonize it, and build walls to keep them from moving freely.
Hamas is not innocent, but Israel sure as hell isn’t either. They’re both terrorist organizations, but one has a lot more international support for basically no reason.
Removed by mod
If I come at you with a knife, do you have the right to defend yourself?
You come at me with a knife, so I lob a pipe bomb at you, blowing you up along with the family right next to you having a picnic.
Did you warn them to get out of the way?
Yup, warned them good… right as a threw the pipe bomb. Oh, and there’s another family by the way out who won’t let them pass.
You’re defending killing civilians. You are no better than the goons in hammas.
Israel warned these people they were going to kill them real well. I’m glad they issued the warning…
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67114281
Is this user banned or blocked?
I’m defending Palestinians who have in no way elected Hamas, and who are killed by an elected government because some random terrorist organization happens to be residing in the same literal prison they are trapped in by the same named elected government.
Figurative prison. Gazans can leave Gaza, it’s just hard and they generally don’t want to (sort of the main point of this entire conflict is that both parties are passionately attached to the land). Those who emigrate generally head to Europe, as they are not welcomed in nearby nations.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/poor-living-conditions-trigger-mass-migration-from-gaza/3009581#:~:text=GAZA CITY%2C Palestine,livelihood in the seaside territory.
They can’t really though. To Israel they can only if Israel issues them permits. So they can’t. Israel bombed their airport in 2001, so they can’t fly. The border crossing with Egypt is not always open and also subject to Egypt letting them in. Also, they don’t have passports that are recognized by any nation. So they really have very few options.
Yes that’s why I said it is difficult, but possible.
Your defense is useless. Insofar as Israel should stop killing innocents, you have no solution to letting terrorism fester at their borders. No solution to the 1000s of rockets launched at them. No solution to the constant threat of invasion and brutalization of their citizens. You have to say that you support Palestinians, because there’s nothing you can say to stop an organization that demands nothing less than the death of all Jews. So, who do you care to support? Will you allow the Israelis to die because that means Palestinians don’t suffer? Or will you allow the Palestinians to die so that Hamas can be destroyed?
Wait I’m lost which one is which again?
Forreal though, you’re just shifting the goalposts like crazy. They weren’t defending hamas, they were calling the IDF liars. Which… yeah, this claim is a pretty reasonable thing to be skeptical about since they were touting that the hospital was hamas HQ and they ordered the evacuation of gaza city earlier this week?
When you’re quick to call Israel liars while careful to avoid denouncing Hamas, it becomes clear which side you’re supporting.
Well you just shift more goals than the FIFA groundskeeping staff, dontcha.
For anyone curious about what this person is doing:
They start by putting words in the mouth of the other user, in a way that could broadly be interpreted as inline with their position but a lot more extreme. (ex: calling isreal a liar. I didn’t, I just implied they are clearly too biased to be a reliable source, close but more extreme.)
From there, they quickly move on to another more extreme claim that might not even be slightly related to the initial users point. The aim with this step is to force acceptance of the initial false claim they made, by blitzing you with a much more extreme claim. If you defend yourself here, it tacitly implies acceptance of the first claim, because you naturally jump to defending yourself from the most extreme claim first. (ex: Saying I’m not denouncing hamas. Of course I am, fuck hamas, they’re terrorist monsters. I dont have to say it in every comment though, especially if its not the topic at hand)
Then at the end they drop a false equivalence on us, tied to the acceptance of the false claim at the start. In this case the equivalence is that by not supporting something you clearly are tacitly approving of that thing. (btw: “which side you’re supporting” coward, just accuse me of supporting hamas. Oh, right, you won’t, because I didn’t/don’t, and you know it…)
Ironic? yes! The explotation of a social rule for their benefit and then rigidly applying that rule to someone else is a classic troll move!
Of course this is bullshit, and it’s bullshit that hinges on you having juuuust enough of an emotional reaction to their attempt that you don’t notice the whole thing hinges on you falling into the trap of accepting something is what you said when you, in fact, said no such thing.
And yes, I am arguing past them. It’s another classic troll move gleaned from my days as a shithead child on 4chan. But I like to think I’m not a shithead any more (might be lying to myself…). I’d also like to think that maybe reading this will keep someone out there from falling for this kind of bullshit in the future.Who knows.
Anyways, isreal sucks. So does hamas, but I just want to be clear how absolutely much isreal is just absolutely noshing down on a colossal plate of homoerotic dicks because of this. Both of them are, of course, but to be clear that “both” very much includes isreal as one of the two. The other one is hamas. But the dirst one is Isreal.
All that to say both sides suck, but Israel was first. It’s absolutely irrelevant. Israel can offer peace all day but there will never be peace with a terrorist organization that demands the compete destruction of all Jews. Hamas was responsible for invading Israel and what they did to it’s people there. Israel is completely justified in defending themselves from an existential threat, no different than you or I. If you fail to recognize those facts, yes, it’s tantamount to supporting terrorism.
Another great example here!
They attempt to dismiss the bulk of the argument against them by focusing on one point that they think they can use as a concession, a sort of “moral middle ground” where you both meet (I am referring to them conceding that both sides suck. Which, critically important detail for later, I did not claim!). If it works, this serves a couple purposes: You get a common starting point from which you can build a philosophical bridge that you then can lead the other party across and you get to appear like you’re addressing the criticism directed at you while at the same time dismissing it as “all that”. A strong start, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Sadly it falls apart almost immediately as they lapse into the tired old formula, this time with a dash of logical fallacies. They continue on with a combination Red Herring mixed with a classic Circular Argument. “Israel doesn’t even need to try and get peace, because Hamas would clearly never accept it, so what’s the point in trying?”. I’m sure we can all see the problem there: I didn’t try because it won’t work, and because it clearly won’t work, why should I even bother to try? If it had landed this sure would be a corker to argue against, but since there’s no point in arguing against someone operating in brazen bad faith, we’ll just stick to meta-analysis and move on from that rather weak move.
Oh, but don’t forget that they also tried to put words in our mouth by asserting that anyone had claimed there could be peace between israel and Hamas. Sure, it might be impossible, it might not! But that’s not the point: They’re trying to sneakily get us to accept their assertion that there’s only two sides here! That’s right, those thousands of dead civilians? They don’t get a voice here, because it’s just Mighty And Righteous And Fully Justified, Israel!! vs. Those evil terrorist bastards what started it in the first place, Hamas!!. See, by engaging with the obvious fallacies they were making, they lead us into debating on their terms; that israel and Hamas are the only parties to this little conflict. Fuck you, they’re not, nice try, moving on!
“Hamas was responsible for invading Israel and what they did to it’s people there.” Sure, this is just a statement of fact. Hamas is responsible for the things Hamas did. They’re not addressing that Israel is also responsible for the brutally heinous acts they also committed, but it helps to reinforce their position to drop in a tidbit that you agree with. This seems obvious, sure, but remember that they’re still working under the false assumption that we fell for their very first attempt at establishing common ground. This little extra tidbit is supposed to get us onto the philosophical bridge they’ve built!
Next up, I’m a little petty!
They simply build more bridge by implying that israel is totally justified in defending themselves from this threat. It’s pretty goofy that they’ve ignored the irony that they’re claiming an invasion by a foreign group is 100% justifiable grounds for defending oneself with a counter-invasion, yet they deny that Hamas has any standing here.
Also that they ignore the frankly laughable assertion that Hamas is an ‘existential threat’ to israel. Israel, a nuclear power armed and outfitted by the our-healthcare-isn’t-free-find-out-why US of motherfuckin’ A!! (can I get an oorah?) is somehow facing an existential threat from a tiny terrorist faction, in a country smaller than Los Angeles, who’s primary means of warfare is rockets made out of sewer pipes (Yeah, that seems like a fair matchup…). They also seem to think that somehow, massacring civilians would be my reaction to an existential threat. It would not. I object to the massacring of civilians when you do it, when I do it or when israel does it. It’s just a pretty shitty thing to do. Honestly, given the things that usually threaten me existentially? I’d be better off massacring computer science textbooks.
Okay, that was fun. On with the breakdown!
Their final point is worded like a micdrop, but falls flatter than my ass in spandex. A classic False Equivalency - “If you don’t agree with these facts, then clearly you support terrorists!” which does the handy double duty of implying the corollary: “If you do agree with these facts, then clearly you support israel!”
I look forward to their next retort and our next great learning adventure! Now sing it with me, kids: (sung to the tune of “london bridge”) “Genocide is always wrong, always wrong, always wrong! Gen-ocide is always wrong, even when you’re jewish!” … … (So I’m not a great lyricist, I’ll admit that.)
Terrorist is only when those without power use violence I guess. What about all the dead Palestinian civilians?
They’re both terrorist organizations. One is just more well armed with more international support.