4 ms·

There's no indescriminate bombing of hospitals. Nice how you pushed this lie so casually. There are very strong proofs that a hospital was hit by a failed rock

by mola 3y ago

There's no indescriminate bombing of hospitals. Nice how you pushed this lie so casually. There are very strong proofs that a hospital was hit by a failed rocket launch of a gazan militia against Israel. Plus Hamas and other militias keep their weapons under schools hospitals and mosques. When ever Israel bomb these sites it first gives notice to evacuate. It's in no way indescriminate. As opposed to a surprise raid against civilians in they're homes butchering their families, mothers before children, babies beheaded before their mothers and children tied up and burnt alive. Perhaps that is why ppl decrying the bombing of gaza while not mentioning what Hamas did get such strong condemnations

ebiester 3y ago
And, as you will notice, I did not say "I" on this. I said "someone." The point of the argument is to say that someone who espouses A does not immediately support B, and used a contemporary example. I could have as easily said, "someone who does not support the bombing and murder of 8,000 Gaza residents by Israel or the withholding of aid does not immediately support the hostage taking of 230 hostages by Hamas." Would that be a less controversial opinion for you?
- mola 3y ago
  Nope, you wrote murder, that's not a fact, that's editorializing. This is a war, the first strike was the senseless butchery I described. The ideology that drew that strike calls for annihilation of all Jews. And yet, Israel doesn't indescriminatly murders civilians. Israel called all civilians to leave the bombarded area, Hamas called them to stay. you have no idea how many of those dead are combatants, So how is saying "murder of 8000" not controversial? Israel has no obligation under any international law, or any moral obligation to give aid as long as the hostages are not released. Remember these hostages are as young as 9 MONTHS. Hamas have not let the red cross see them. A person who says what you wrote indirectly supports Hamas by spreading their morally corrupt narrative.

by mola 3y ago

ebiester 3y ago

And, as you will notice, I did not say "I" on this. I said "someone." The point of the argument is to say that someone who espouses A does not immediately support B, and used a contemporary example. I could have as easily said, "someone who does not support the bombing and murder of 8,000 Gaza residents by Israel or the withholding of aid does not immediately support the hostage taking of 230 hostages by Hamas." Would that be a less controversial opinion for you?

mola 3y ago
Nope, you wrote murder, that's not a fact, that's editorializing. This is a war, the first strike was the senseless butchery I described. The ideology that drew that strike calls for annihilation of all Jews. And yet, Israel doesn't indescriminatly murders civilians. Israel called all civilians to leave the bombarded area, Hamas called them to stay. you have no idea how many of those dead are combatants, So how is saying "murder of 8000" not controversial? Israel has no obligation under any international law, or any moral obligation to give aid as long as the hostages are not released. Remember these hostages are as young as 9 MONTHS. Hamas have not let the red cross see them. A person who says what you wrote indirectly supports Hamas by spreading their morally corrupt narrative.