This is a rather significant move on their part. Hamas has a proclivity to quash dissent and the civilians must know what kind of risk this puts them in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Gaza_economic_protests

In July and August 2023, thousands of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip took to the streets to protest chronic power outages, poor economic conditions in the territory, and Hamas’s taxation of stipends to the poor paid by Qatar. The rallies, organized by a grassroots online movement called “Alvirus Alsakher” (The mocking virus), were a rare public display of discontent against the ruling Hamas government. Hamas bars most demonstrations and public displays of discontent.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2019/03/gaza-hamas-must-end-brutal-crackdown-against-protesters-and-rights-defenders/

Hamas security forces’ violent crackdown against peaceful Palestinian protesters, activists, human rights workers – including an Amnesty International worker – and local journalists must be immediately halted and investigated, said Amnesty International.

Hundreds of protesters have been subjected to beatings, arbitrary arrest and detentions, and torture and other forms of ill-treatment since 14 March, when Palestinians took to the streets across the Gaza Strip to protest against the rising cost of living and deteriorating economic conditions under the Hamas de facto administration.

Thank you for saying this, I was a little taken back by what in my opinion seemed to be comments expressing sympathy for Hezbollah.

Removed by mod

But do you condemn Hamas?

Yes I did, NATO is not debunked, your sources do not dispute the reports contents. Sorry.

They are not debunked by your sources, nothing you provide proves the NATO article wrong. YouTube is not a source.

Bored, leaving.

I said nothing of the sort. Please cite where I said IDF ok :) yet another attempt to lie about my position.

It’s still a fallacy, no matter how you want to slice it.

Go away.

Kamala is aborting this 78 year old baby on live television.

I mean it’s not like one is the most moral army in the world and the othet is a terrorist organization fighting their oppressors. Wonder which people expect to not shoot or use human shields

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moral_equivalence

Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn’t as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.

…

The “not as bad as” argument is always popular with people who know perfectly well they’re doing something immoral. Being fully aware of this problem, they feel compelled to attempt to justify it, and they do so by pointing to other, usually worse, immorality. It is practically synonymous to the idea of “the lesser of two evils”.

Not responding further. I’m in no way accusing anyone of justifying anything, I’m quoting the appropriate section of the article relevant to the fallacy.

Apnews…?

I directly quoted the article indicating relevance. Not whataboutism at all.

And you disproved what I posted… Where? Because I’m trusting this wasn’t just a springboard to talk about the IDF when I’m discussing what Hamas is doing right?

Because that’d be whataboutism…

Maybe try addressing what I wrote, not what you want to engage in, which for you is discussing the IDF and not Hamas.

In my opinion way more productive than silly hypotheticals (and how poor arguments should be responded to, in kind)

Man it would be great if someone (anyone) could disprove what I’m posting, instead of throwing accusations of genocide or… Memeing…

Edit: lol at the insistence of hypotheticals being some “gotcha.”

Weird

Edit: appreciating the admission they weren’t even trying to have a discussion.

Weird conclusion, speaking for yourself?

Sorry I thought you read your article:

The military alleged that the strike targeted Hamas leaders, including Samer Ismail Hader Abudaqa, whom they identified as the head of the Palestinian movement’s aerial unit; Osama Tabash, who it called the head of surveillance and targets in Hamas’s intelligence division; and Ayman Mabhouh, another senior official.

Won’t be continuing this conversation, especially if this is the level of discussion I should expect.

Ah yes, hypotheticals we’d never have to consider. What if Hamas actually cared about Palestinians?

Am I doing it right? :)

My properly sourced information is not invalidated by anything you said. It actually cited multiple highly reliable sources.

Also it’s whataboutism :) anyone noticing a pattern here? Blindly discredit anything critical of Hamas?

Goodbye!

Edit: there’s nothing “propaganda” about NATO. This ought to be a red flag… And yes, this report confirms more than your sources do, posting incomplete assessments of Hamas’ use of human shields does not discredit NATO, sorry.

Edit 2: how hilarious is it that NATO stratcom is accused of being a propaganda outlet when the original post is from MEE?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Eye

Middle East Eye (MEE) is a UK-based news website founded in 2014 that covers the Middle East and North Africa. It is reportedly funded by the government of Qatar.

Organisation

Middle East Eye was launched in London in April 2014. It is not transparent about its ownership. It is formally owned by a company called M.E.E. Limited with a single director Jamal Bessasso; Bessasso is not specified as the owner. Its editor-in-chief is David Hearst, a former foreign lead writer for The Guardian. It employs about 20 full-time staff in London as of 2017.

According to its critics, Middle East Eye began forming in London in 2013 as the Islamist influence of Al Jazeera began to wane; several Al Jazeera journalists subsequently joined the project. Jonathan Powell, a senior executive at Al Jazeera, was a consultant ahead of its launch and registered the website’s domain names. Bassasso, a Kuwait-born Palestinian living in London, was the sole director of Middle East Eye’s parent company, M.E.E. Limited. Bassasso was a former director for the Hamas-controlled Al-Quds TV. David Hearst denied that Bessasso was the owner of the news site but refrained from divulging the real owner.

According to Ilan Berman and Sultan Sooud Al-Qassemi, Middle East Eye is backed by Qatar. The governments of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain accuse MEE of pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias and receiving Qatari funding. They have demanded MEE be shut down following the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar. MEE has denied the accusations, saying that it is an independent news site, not funded by any country or movement.

Is this comment also accusing me of justifying genocide? Like the others that were removed?

In fitting behavior, I could ask for evidence those Hamas military figures were elsewhere. However, I’m confident subsequent reviews of this event and others like it will uncover the truth, and perhaps we’ll get another extensive report on the matter (did you read my link?).

I think we both know that lies travel faster than evidence, don’t we?

Don’t really care about the reply, I got what I wanted.

Blatant whataboutism :)

Edit: How easy would it be for them to say that both might be true? Very. But if they said that Hamas would lose credibility, and bring into question the whole “freedom fighter” schtick. Can’t address it, must focus on allegations of genocide and accusing others of defending genocide if anyone brings up something critical of Hamas (please peruse their comment history), thereby derailing any discussion on the matter.

See? It’s that easy.