Israel is under attack

[swilow]

respond to the pertinent parts.

Pertinent for you to basically argue against the me that exists in your head. Deciding something is pertinent and responding only to that almost defines cherry picking.

i don't condemn hamas

Seems pertinent to me

Of course, you do condemn Hamas in about 0.6% of your posts here.

 

[nepalnt21]

responding only to that

no i will not respond to EVERY single one of your fallacies. sorry ro burst your bubble; i have a life outside of bluelight.

give me an "i condemn the horrible crimes of hamas on october 7th" signature if that will help you mentally.

 

[nepalnt21]

.6%, you say? that's quite a lot. are you sure it's that much?

why would i bring them up more than that? even if you mistakenly believe that demonstrates my "bias"?

look at the amount of people killed by the idf since 10/7 compared to the numbers of ppl killed by hamas on 10/7... is that proportionate?

something like 1,000 to 30,000?

look at the civilians killed by the idf vs hamas... seem proportionate?

the idf is killing WAYYYYYY over 90% civilians.

what hamas did was bad, yes, and i have no qualms saying that. it was inexcusable, horrible... but by any metric, hamas is WAYYYYYY more moral than the idf.

i don't think my observations show bias, i think that shows my willingness to be in reality.

 

[Cream Gravy?]

but by any metric, hamas is WAYYYYYY more moral than the idf

 

[-=SS=-]

but by any metric, hamas is WAYYYYYY more moral than the idf.

You do realize that no one is going to take anything you say seriously going forward, right?

I think you might need to recalibrate your sense of morality. It seems to be missing rape and mutilation. Kind of critical to include those in the 'evil scumbag' definition within your morality program.

 

[mal3volent]

something like 1,000 to 30,000?

the idf is killing WAYYYYYY over 90% civilians.

source that isn't Hamas, UN, other terrorist sympathizers?

 

[nepalnt21]

missing rape and mutilation.

i guess it doesn't count when israel does it?

cause all brown semites are terrorists, right?

 

[mal3volent]

i guess it doesn't count when israel does it?

cause all brown semites are terrorists, right?

yes, because literally everything is about skin color from your perspective
that is your intersectionalist worldview

 

[nepalnt21]

clearly it's why the right wing, white- jew- supremacist netanyahu's buddies think they have the moral high ground, so i have to assume that his supporters are the same.

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

clearly it's why the right wing, white- jew- supremacist netanyahu's buddies think they have the moral high ground, so i have to assume that his supporters are the same.

When you assume you make an ass out of u (you) and me.

But thanks for your thoughts on the subject ...

 

[mal3volent]

white- jew-

very illuminating that you list these attributes out with a negative tone attached.

 

[-=SS=-]

My relationship to this thread

 

[swilow]

but by any metric, hamas is WAYYYYYY more moral than the idf.

The openly genocidal group that massacres, rapes, tortures, burns alive, kidnaps people because they are Jewish is more moral than the group that responds to those horrors?

I appreciate your honesty in finally agreeing with me that you are an absolute Hamas apologist.

 

[Pissed_and_messed]

He's doing the opposite of that fallacy you posted though. He's pointing to examples where oppression didn't automatically lead to violence. OTOH, the argument that Israel's treatment of Gazans inevitably brings about violence against Israel essentially does commit that fallacy.

You might be right.

I don't consider the original argumentation I referred to, particularly convincing anyway, and not correct by any practical standards. Israels colonialism can not be overlooked. Ofc there are some other factors in play too.

 

[nepalnt21]

list these attributes out with a negative tone attached

speaking of ASSuming...

no, it was the "right wing" and "supremacist" parts that carry the negative connotation.

also, "zionist" and "terrorist" come to mind...

nice try, though. you think you're slick.

 

[nepalnt21]

The openly genocidal group that massacres, rapes, tortures, burns alive, kidnaps people because they are Jewish

you mean the israeli government/ idf?

 

[nepalnt21]

When you assume you make an ass out of u (you) and me.

But thanks for your thoughts on the subject ...

i'm willing to read what other reasons there might be, maybe i'm not creative enough - all i can think of for why ppl support a right wing, white- jew- supremacist, zionist terrorist regime of genocidal maniacs is that they are uninformed or are just racists and bad ppl themselves.

seriously, i'm all eyes.

 

[swilow]

jew- supremacist

I for one appreciate that you're being more blunt about your favourable opinion of Hamas and animosity to the Jews.

 

[nepalnt21]

wow, more lies.

do better.

 

[nepalnt21]

ffs, do you only think in fallacies?

i hate hamas. i also hate the idf.

they both rape, they both kill.

who has killed more civilians?

this isn't rocket science.

religion isn't even a part of the question.

which organisation has been in power and using its military, infrastructural, and monetary superiority to terrorize a civilian population (as one of its main focuses) for its entire existence?

hamas bad. make it my sig, cause you forget every time i say it to soothe your puckered bootyhole hair.

idf badder.

hamas would probably be just as bad, if not worse, if it had control of the government and one of the most advanced militaries in the solar system;

netanyahu's shitmonger buddes? they DO have that power. i would be discussing hamas the same % i'm discussing israel, if the roles were reversed.

palestinians are BY FAR more murdered, oppressed, and terrorized than anyone that lives in israel proper. gazans literally live in an open air prison, and one of the most populated places on earth where they are being popped off like fish in a barrel.

the fact that you deny the seriousness and awfulness of this situation is the key evidence that YOU are the biased one here.