Anonymous #1 21h

I say this as a joke but it’s probably the actual subconscious thought process of a lot of people

11

Anonymous #2 21h

Even if Hamas were doing that, yes John Brown literally took hostages including George Washington’s grandson

12

Anonymous #1 21h

Sorry, great-grandnephew but the point still stands

5

Anonymous #1 21h

It’s not an if, it’s extremely well documented. Okay and? You going to try and equate that to using an entire civilian population as fodder? The point only stands if you rode the short bus.

5

Anonymous #2 21h

I have yet to see documentation of using an entire civilian population as fodder, just a lot of “there was Hamas under that hospital and that elementary school and that university and that family’s home and that cemetery trust” Genocide support and ableism to boot? Good job branching out bud.

7

Anonymous #1 21h

Maybe because your head is so far up your ass you refuse to acknowledge that there can be two “bad guys” in conflict. I’m not here to explain a well established fact because you’re an ignoramus. Literally never supported a genocide, but nice strawman. Oh I’m sorry I was just pointing out your clear mental handicap

6

Anonymous #2 21h

Suggesting that Hamas uses human shields as justification for why the zionist entity needs to shoot through civilians (especially with no evidence) is in fact apologia, and apologia for a genocide is support for that genocide. I did not say Hamas is perfect. What they are, however, is a legitimate resistance group exercising their right to resistance. I’d ask you to provide evidence but I can only seriously engage with people whose first instinct isn’t to throw infantile ableist insults.

4

Anonymous #1 20h

Idk who #2 is lol bc one of us has the other blocked, but they sound insufferable

0

Anonymous #3 20h

Eh it’s nothing new, just the classic “both sides bad” with some added ableism (“this point only stands if you rode the short bus”)

0

Anonymous #1 20h

I never used it as justification for why Israel kills civilians. Your brash assumptions really aren’t a good look. It’s incredibly well documented that Hamas sets up their operations in heavy civilian populations in order to deter Israel from striking. Including by the ICC who has recognized the genocide in Palestine. Sureee bud… “legitimate resistance group” who has tortured and killed Palestinian civilians who disagreed with their methods.

6

Anonymous #1 20h

And my bad for adding a little seasoning to my argument instead of playing performative politics.

4

Anonymous #1 20h

Ohhh look another idiot here to give their uneducated opinion. Tell me, how many Palestinian civilians can Hamas directly kill before they’re no longer good guys?

4

Anonymous #2 20h

Okay, so, bear with me here, saying “yeah genocide is bad but have you considered that people fighting back against their own genocide are ALSO bad and those bad people use human shields (so you should shoot through the shields)” is in fact justification for killing civilians. It it’s documented, let’s see the documents. Show me the ICC one specifically since you brought it up. It’s not up to us to decide who is and isn’t legitimate resistance. Palestinians have not only a right but…

0

Anonymous #1 20h

…a legal obligation to fight back against “israel” by any means necessary. Adding ableism to your arguments is not “seasoning”, it’s undermining your legitimacy.

1

Anonymous #1 20h

That is in fact once again not what I said. Are you capable of having an argument without resorting to hanging me up in a cornfield? Because that’s arguably less productive than me being “ableist.” Jesus christ this isn’t discovery, use the internet. It takes 5 seconds. Careful bud.. you’re sounding alot like Bibi with that one

3

Anonymous #1 20h

Yes and strawmanning my argument does the same to yours, glad we could work that out

6

Anonymous #2 20h

What did you say then? Because I’m really not sure what argument you could make from “Hamas is using human shields” that doesn’t end in either “yeah genocide bad but so is fighting back against it” or “they should shoot through the shields”. You made the argument. Back it up. I’m not going to go searching for sources to prove your point. I don’t sound like anything, because that’s not my opinion. It’s the opinion of international law.

0

Anonymous #1 20h

Then I see no reason for this discussion to continue if you can’t differentiate something so incredibly simple. Also I was incorrect the ICC has open investigations into the matter. The UN and EU have along with several independent reports from a variety of backgrounds.

6

Anonymous #2 20h

This is not a discussion, it’s me trying to engage with someone who refuses to state their beliefs. Say something substantive or leave.

1