I start my first argument by defining the terms ‘war crime’ and ‘genocide’. A war crime is defined as ‘a serious violation of international humanitarian law committed during armed conflict.’ (Legal Information Institute). Genocide is defined as ‘any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.’
(Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, un.org)
I argue that the State of Israel, currently led by PM Benjamin Netanyahu, has committed multiple severe war crimes and has attempted genocide of the people of Palestine, since the beginning of the Israel-Palestine/Hamas War on the 7th October 2023, after Hamas kidnapped and took hostage 251 innocent Israelis (figure provided by the BBC). Notable war crimes committed by the Israel Defence Force (IDF) include the targetting of schools, hospitals and other public places (mentioned by BBC, UN, Al Jazeera and more), which violates Article 8 of the Rome statute, which established the international criminal court (ICC) in The Hague, defines a long list of war crimes including “intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected”. Israel has been using thousands of guided missiles in this war, and it’s been confirmed that they have used these missiles against hospitals in Gaza, for example the Ahli Arab Hospital, which incidentally is the last hospital left in Gaza with any function (and it’s on the way to being destroyed anyway, with multiple departments destroyed) (Source: BBC). These missiles were guided, and so any attack in which they were used on a target is intentional, and thus a war crime.
In addition, we have to mention the recent attack and murder of 14 Red Crescent aid workers, as well as a UN representative, on the 23rd of March 2025. At 5:08am, the convoy of ambulances that had been sent to the area to search for a previously lost ambulance, were ambushed and attacked by IDF troops. Only two survived, one was captured by the Israelis and is currently being held for no apparent reason, the other was held in custody for a short time before being released. The IDF originally claimed that the ambulance convoy was “advancing suspiciously” on Israeli troops “without sirens or headlights” (Source: X, Guardian, Sky News etc), however, a video recording from minutes before the shooting started was found on the phone of one of the deceased ambulance drivers, clearly showing that the ambulances had their headlights and sirens on, and were following the road as they should have been. Furthermore, the IDF also claimed that the convoy didn’t clear a pathway with the Israeli government through what was a “combat zone”. However, statistics and maps released by the IDF themselves show that the ambulance route (which was geolocated by Sky News journalists) was outside the “combat zone” that was shown, meaning that the convoy would’ve had no need to clear a route. Another lie. The IDF ALSO claimed that there were 9 Hamas terrorists amongst the victims, however, they later amended that number to 6. That’s 3 families AT THE VERY LEAST wrongfully accused. Not only that, but the lone free survivor of the attack, alongside the families of the victims, vehemently deny that there were any Hamas terrorists on board, and while the IDF claimed to have killed a Hamas terrorist called Mohammed Amin Shobaki, who the survivor Abed denies all knowledge of, and none of the identified victims have that name, nor are there any other likely victims to be found in the mass grave that the IDF left them in. This whole situation was a web of lies from the IDF, and I ask you: if they are in the right in this war, if they are fighting for the right cause, in the right way, why do they feel the need to lie to the public? Imagine the pain and indignity of losing a loved one, maybe he was your son, or your grandson, or your brother, or your husband, imagine the pain of losing him, finding out that you’ll never see his account appear online on social media, you’ll never hear his voice again, you’ll never know the warmth of his embrace or his love ever again, imagine that, and then imagine the military that had destroyed your home, ruined your people, potentially murdered other relatives of yours claiming that your husband/son/grandson/brother etc was a terrorist, that he was a danger to society, that he was a monster. Imagine that.
The requirements for a just war is one that is for a just cause, declared by the correct authority, the good coming out of it must outweigh the evil committed within it, it must be a last resort (diplomacy should have been attempted first), there must be a reasonable chance of victory, the force used must be proportional, the war must be fought by just means (e.g. innocent civilians shouldn’t be targetted), and internationally agreed conventions (e.g. the Geneva Conventions) must be adhered to. Israel’s war on Palestine hardly fits any of these prerequisites. While the kidnappings of innocent Israeli citizens was cruel and shocking, Israel not only declared war as a first resort, and the logic of destroying an entire country in an attempt to both kill Hamas terrorists, while keeping the Israeli hostages (who are likely with Hamas terrorists) safe seems flawed, just as using a flyswatter to kill a fly trying to eat your grape is flawed, as the same shot that will kill the Hamas terrorist will likely also kill the hostage, as potentially evidenced by only 41 hostages having been released so far. This war is not being fought by just means, innocent people and care workers are being targetted, it is not proportional, Israel is firing far more missiles at Palestine than Hamas is firing back, it’s going to take a hell of a lot of good to outweigh the atrocities being committed in this conflict, and I don’t see that amount of good coming, because it is very difficult to destroy terrorist organisations, NATO tried against the Taliban and failed, a 30 year long war that killed many people and ruined the lives of far more, and Hamas themselves said that they can grow back, and continue fighting. This is not a just war. Israel is not the knight in shining armour. The innocent people of Gaza are not the enemy, despite how they’re treated?
Moving back to genocide, Israel’s war on Gaza has been identified as a genocide by multiple professional organisations such as the UN and Amnesty International, a genocide against the people of Palestine. Israel has targetted multiple schools and hospitals throughout Gaza (Sources: BBC, French Foreign Ministry). This is no accident. This is a concerted effort to rid Palestine of its ability to care for its citizens in a competent way. Without hospitals, Palestinians will die to easily curable illnesses and injuries, the elderly, children, babies, the disabled, mothers. Imagine living in that hellscape, listening to the fruitless cries of desperate babies dying from illnesses/injuries they need not die from, the desperate calls of the elderly, potentially your grandparents, as they grow weak and ill, and eventually dead, with no grave. Imagine having to walk through the ruined streets of Gaza, listening to the wails, and groans, and the final breaths, walking through the ash, and the rubble, and the blood, knowing that these people didn’t have to die, didn’t have to be subjected to such cruel conditions, didn’t have to lose their families, their loved ones. This didn’t have to happen. Israel chose this for the people of Gaza. Israel continues to choose this for the people of Gaza. More than 50,000 Palestinians have died since the conflict began, potentially fifty times the number of Israelis killed (Source: BBC). This is NOT proportional. This is genocide. Israel has also been targetting schools, 87.7% of which are now destroyed, or at least badly damaged (Sources: Save the Children, Guardian). This will ensure that in the future, young people born in Palestine will have no place to learn, no safe haven where they can follow their dreams, no steps on which to climb out of the hole of poverty that they will likely find themselves in. In addition, there will be no way to educate these children about how terrorism is wrong, and so the problem will arise continuously, not to mention the grief and hatred being incited in Gaza against Israel, that will no doubt lead people to join Hamas to get revenge anyway. The good that might come out of this war will NOT outweigh the atrocities committed within it. This is genocide.
You said that Hamas called for violence in their words in document charter. I showed that they called against violence of those who dont fight against them. So that has disproved your argument regarding to what they call for. You mention irrelevant example of Hitler, but Hitler didnt write the document we are talking about, so that is irrelevant, as Hitler =/= Hamas. So thats your one argument disproved. As for arguments about violence caused by Hamas, that was disproved many comments ago. Each group has some bad people in it. It doesnt put blame on whole group, otherwise Israel would be blamed as well, and then you get nowhere.
to Wylted:
Yeah I'm realizing that more and more. I should've realized when I read the bio and saw them say "Dear Water, give me your wisdom" like "Mam this is a public pool"
You’re confused — again — about basic critical evaluation.
You think that because Hamas includes the word 'tolerance' somewhere in their charter, it somehow cancels out the rest of their open, repeated calls for genocide, perpetual holy war, and religious domination.
That is not how rational analysis works.
That’s not how sane people evaluate dangerous organizations.
When a group — in the same document —
Calls for the extermination of Jews,
Declares holy war as the only acceptable path,
Calls for the destruction of Israel,
Mandates permanent Islamic rule over non-Muslims,
and
Tosses in a paragraph about 'tolerance' for public relations,
A sane, rational person does not say:
'Wow, that all sounds horrifying, but look! They also said tolerance, so maybe they're fine after all.'
No.
A sane, rational person sees what they are doing:
Using hollow language to mask violent intent.
This is textbook extremist propaganda:
Say just enough "nice-sounding" words to fool the naive.
Meanwhile embed your real objectives clearly and repeatedly for anyone serious enough to read critically.
You are mistaking the presence of PR language for the presence of sincerity.
You are suggesting that the inclusion of one word about 'tolerance' obliges us to ignore the entire operational framework of genocidal violence that saturates the rest of the charter.
That is not critical thinking.
That is willful self-delusion.
When Mein Kampf occasionally talked about peace or building German prosperity,
should the world have ignored the calls for race war because, hey, there were also some nice-sounding lines?
When the Soviet Union’s constitution spoke of 'equality,'
should the world have ignored the gulags, purges, and mass starvation?
When tyrants say contradictory things,
the rational mind doesn't latch onto the "nice" part and ignore the slaughter.
It sees the slaughter as the true face — and the "niceness" as camouflage
You are literally willfully idiotic if you on one hand admit to being completely ignorant, and on the other want to come nitpick my argument for logical fallacies, when you are so clueless to the conflict you werent even aware a polytheist was rescued by the IDF, and yet after hearing that you STILL try to defend hamas. You even previously said "Thanks for reminding me that they'd throw me off a building, but hey look! TOLERANCE"
@WyIted
I was merely exposing the flaw of one of his arguments. I even bothered to read that hamas charter thing to see if it commands violence, and I find parts which command against violence of those who dont fight against them, and command respect of other religions. He basically fed me this argument.
Your arguing with somebody whose only goal is to act as stupid as possible to frustrate you. .
"the correct approach is not blind acceptance of every word"
But this then negates your one argument. If you want to judge Hamas only based on their words, then you must include those words where they say they tolerate those who dont fight against them. But if you want to judge on some other basis, then probably avoid "these are their words" argument.
You know, when you said " you changed my mind, not many can do that" I thought, wow, this was an easy win. It took minimal effort for me to do that.
My argument is not flawed, because unlike what you have said, I have not "Just" resorted to words, I explained how they keep sex slaves of polytheists like yourself, I also repeatedly invoked october 7 to try and get you to see how defending them is wrong, I then provided sources, and you...... told me im using a logical fallacy because some words in that doc present hamas as nice, (as if saying no one can rule this land but islam is nice???), while other parts show their clear genocidal intent against all non-believers, and now you're squirming like a child having a temper tantrum talking about logical fallacies. Your fallacy is ignorance.
No. You completely misunderstand the nature of sources, propaganda, and credibility.
First:
When evaluating the Hamas Charter, or any ideological document, the correct approach is not blind acceptance of every word.
It is critical evaluation of the document’s full intent and operational meaning.
We assess not individual phrases in isolation, but the overarching ideological framework they establish.
Second:
I did not cherry-pick anything.
I cited the charter's core doctrines — genocidal statements about Jews, jihad as the only solution, refusal to accept peaceful settlement — not a single out-of-context line about 'tolerance.'
You, on the other hand, did cherry-pick:
You latched onto a vague PR phrase about “tolerance under Islam”
while ignoring the concrete, repeated, explicit calls for extermination, permanent holy war, and religious domination.
You cited their claim of kindness while willfully ignoring their commands for murder.
Third:
A source containing both propaganda and intent is not invalid —
it reveals precisely the dual nature of organizations like Hamas:
They publish surface-level, audience-targeted "tolerance" language to manipulate useful idiots abroad,
While simultaneously promoting hatred and war internally and operationally.
This is basic analysis of extremist groups.
It’s why terrorist propaganda cannot be taken at face value.
It must be judged by what they say openly to their own people and what they actually do.
Fourth:
The 'part true, part false' argument you make is absurd.
By your logic, no historical document — not Mein Kampf, not the Soviet Constitution, not any extremist manifesto — could ever be critiqued, because they all contain both noble-sounding statements and declarations of atrocity.
That would mean we couldn’t even critique the Nuremberg defendants — because parts of their rhetoric sounded noble too.
Your argument is not just flawed.
It is fundamentally dishonest.
You are attempting to shield Hamas by
Accepting their PR sentences as gospel,
Ignoring their calls for slaughter as 'unreliable,'
Pretending the evidence I cite is invalid because it refuses to play along with your cherry-picked illusion.
But reality is not a cafeteria line.
You do not get to pick the 'nice' words out of a genocidal document and call it tolerance.
The Hamas Charter is a whole.
Its core ideology is exterminationism.
Its “tolerance” rhetoric is a fig leaf for conquest.
This is proved by their actions, their history, and their official political speeches for the last 35 years.
You haven’t rebutted my argument.
You haven’t defended Hamas.
You’ve proven you are either dangerously naive —
or knowingly complicit in whitewashing evil.
Choose one.
But you don’t get to pretend this is a debate of equals anymore.
You started this conversation arrogantly claiming you knew enough to defend Hamas.
When confronted with evidence of Yazidi sex slaves, hostage-taking, and the systematic slaughter of civilians, you shifted to saying, 'I don’t know enough, I need to do research.'
Now, you come back not with real research, not with facts about Hamas’s documented atrocities,
but with cherry-picked PR snippets from their own propaganda documents —
ignoring the calls for perpetual holy war, the mass murder of Jews, the destruction of Israel, and the violent subjugation of non-Muslims.
First it was: 'I know enough to defend them.'
Then it was: 'I don’t know enough, let me do research.'
Now it’s: 'Here, I found some lines where they sound peaceful. Let's pretend that erases the rest.'
This isn’t research.
This is you desperately digging for a way to save face —
even if it means knowingly misrepresenting who Hamas really is.
You know Hamas kept polytheists as sex slaves.
You know they kidnapped civilians, executed them, murdered Holocaust survivors, and broadcasted it proudly.
You know their charter preaches eternal holy war against Jews and the destruction of any non-Islamic sovereignty.
But instead of honestly accepting what they are,
you reach for whatever half-sentence you can find that lets you pretend —
even now — that they might still be 'complicated freedom fighters' instead of religious fanatics and genocidal killers.
You are no longer ignorant.
You are willfully deceiving yourself.
You are now knowingly presenting cherry-picked “evidence”
to defend a group that openly declares murder as a religious obligation.
That is not critical thinking.
That is intellectual cowardice.
And no amount of selective quoting will wash the blood off the facts.
Don’t be so naive.
Don't pretend you can cherry-pick your way out of moral responsibility
You willfully support the murder of jews. When you cant defend them its "I need to read more" when you have an inch to defend them its "Heres a fallacy" as if you're an expert. Come on now.
It was you who pointed me towards that text made by Hamas. But your case suffers from fallacy of cherry picking your own source. Hamas's words are either good source of their words or arent. If they are, then the message of tolerance for other religions is their word. If they arent a good source, then you cant use their words as a valid critique against their words. If source is part true, part false, then it is not a good source, thus cant be used to make argument, as your one argument is purely about what Hamas said, yet you willingly ignore many of their words which dont suit you and which negate your argument, making your argument flawed.
You quoted Hamas’s charter thinking it shows 'tolerance.'
Let's actually read what Hamas says — and what their leaders have said for decades:
From the Hamas Charter (1988):
Article 7:
"The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, when the Jews will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say: O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."
Article 13:
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
Article 32:
"The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion; it does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, the Rotary Clubs, the Lions Clubs, and other sabotage groups. All of them are nothing more than tools to serve its interests and realize its Zionist, expansionist goals."
Statements from Hamas Leaders:
Mahmoud al-Zahar (Senior Hamas Leader):
"Palestine means Palestine in its entirety — from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River. We cannot give up a single inch of it."
(Meaning: No Israel at all.)
Fathi Hammad (Hamas official, 2019):
"The Jews have spread corruption and acted with arrogance, and their time is coming... We must attack every Jew on planet Earth — slaughter and kill them."
Ismail Haniyeh (Hamas Political Bureau Chief, 2021):
"Our resistance will continue until the liberation of all of Palestine, from the river to the sea, until the defeat of the occupation."
(Again — elimination, not peaceful coexistence.)
Now, let’s be brutally clear:
You claim that Hamas's language about "tolerance" somehow softens their reality.
You handwave mass murder, hostage-taking, child slavery, and ideological theocracy because you read two lines about "human rights under the shadow of Islam."
But Hamas's "shadow" of Islam is built on subjugation, dhimmitude, violence, and bloodshed — by their own words, in their founding documents and in every major leader's public statements for 35+ years.
They did not suddenly abandon these beliefs because some activists in the West got squeamish.
They still fire rockets into Israeli cities from civilian areas.
They still glorify suicide bombers as martyrs.
They still vow to destroy Israel — not coexist, not compromise, but destroy.
And then, the most insane part: "Apparently them keeping a polytheist child as a sex slave wasn't enough to dissuade other polytheists from supporting Hamas."
This isn’t just self-destructive.
It’s a symptom of the brain rot infecting much of Western society today —
where identity politics and shallow virtue signaling matter more than understanding real evil.
It’s willful blindness — the same kind of moral decay that led educated elites at Yale, Columbia, and CUNY to proudly march alongside people chanting genocidal slogans without knowing (or caring) what they actually stand for.
Final verdict:
You aren’t "neutral."
You aren’t "nuanced."
You aren't "doing research."
You’re proving, line by line, that you were willing to side with monsters — until you personally realized you might also be among their victims.
And even now, you flinch from fully admitting it.
You didn’t need more research.
You needed a conscience
This is from Hamas charter about other religions.
"Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts.
Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect. The members of other religions must desist from struggling against Islam over sovereignty in this region. For if they were to gain the upper hand, fighting, torture and uprooting would follow; they would be fed up with each other, to say nothing of members of other religions. The past and the present are full of evidence to that effect.
"They will not fight you in body safe in fortified villages or
from behind wells. Their adversity among themselves is very
great. Ye think of them as a whole whereas their hearts are
diverse. That is because they are a folk who have no sense." Sura
59 (al-Hashr, the Exile), verse 14.
Islam accords his rights to everyone who has rights and averts
aggression against the rights of others. The Nazi Zionist practices
against our people will not last the lifetime of their invasion, for
"States built upon oppression last only one hour, states based upon
justice will last until the hour of Resurrection."
"Allah forbids you not those who warred not against you on
account of religion and drove you not out from your houses, that
you should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo!
Allah loves the just dealers." Sura 60 (Al-Mumtahana)"
Good for you for finally seeing that Hamas are not good people — but honestly, I am shocked.
Shocked that it took me telling you about a Yazidi sex slave before you sat back and thought, 'hmm, maybe I can't support them.'
When I read their opening charter — calling for genocide — that was enough for me.
When I saw them taking hostages, including Holocaust survivors, that was enough.
When I saw them building tunnels under hospitals, using civilians as shields, that was enough.
For you, the turning point wasn't any of that — it was the realization that they would kill polytheists too. And even now, you don't seem entirely sure.
If you don't even know what their charter says about Jews, about non-Muslims, about religious minorities —
then why on earth did you think you were in a position to justify their attacks on Israeli civilians?
This was never about 'sensitivity.'
I'm not sensitive.
I'm astonished it took this much — literal child slavery and mass hostage-taking — for you to even stop and think, 'maybe I can't defend them
I guess I can just stick to position that Israel is bad while at the same time considering Hamas bad as well. But I do need to do more research about the polytheism in Gaza. If Hamas is really treating polytheists that way, then I cannot defend Hamas.
"A day ago you were confident you could defend hamas and their attacks against jews"
But I am not sure if I want to anymore. I did check the population data, and yeah, there are many polytheists in Israel (sure, different religions from my own, but still polytheists), but no data on polytheists in Gaza. Gaza is 99% muslim and 1% christian according to wikipedia. Now, to me, this could easily mean that polytheism is oppressed there, because usually, there are at least some polytheists in a country unless there is active effort to oppress them.
For Fawzia Amin Sido: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawzia_Amin_Sido
For Hamas's Charter:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
How you can say "You've come closer to convincing me that Hamas is bad with these stories of sex slaves" is utterly beyond me. A day ago you were confident you could defend hamas and their attacks against jews, now you need to "do more research" and "need to confirm" what I said, which is code for "I don't know enough about this conflict, so let me save face and pretend to go do research.
You seem like a very smart person. Rarely does anyone here succeed in changing my mind. This was well played.
It is a sensitive topic after all. You made a smart move by appealing to my polytheism. That does come close to convincing me that Hamas is bad, even tho I need to find out more to confirm what you are saying.
To Wylted:
You and me both. She stopped me at "I could argue Hamas' attacks against civilians are justifiable"
I appreciate that you’re taking the time to reconsider things. I don’t expect anyone to know every detail about complex conflicts — but I do believe that before even entertaining justification for a group’s actions, it's important to fully understand who they are and what they stand for.
It's not just isolated 'bad people' doing 'bad things' on both sides. Hamas’s founding charter, their actions, and their ideology all point very clearly to systemic hatred — including against polytheists, Yazidis, Jews, Christians, and many others.
Also, just because Yazidism isn’t considered fully polytheistic doesn’t mean you would have it any better. In fact, you would likely have it worse. You seemed to imply, even if unintentionally, 'well, Yazidis don't worship multiple deities like I do, so this anecdote doesn't really resonate.' But the truth is, Hamas — and groups like them — make no fine distinctions when it comes to 'acceptable' versus 'unacceptable' non-Islamic beliefs. Any deviation, whether it's Yazidism, Wicca, polytheism, or anything outside strict Islamic orthodoxy, would be seen as grounds for severe punishment.
I respect that you're willing to look into it more — and I hope you do. Because in matters this serious, neutrality without full knowledge can unintentionally side with very dark forces.
I clearly need to unsubscribe from this topic
You make a very good case regarding polytheism, but again, I am not familiar at all with that story. Each group has some bad people in it. Its expected that bad things are done, no matter which side we are talking about. As for justifying Hamas, I will not be doing that for two reasons: I. Its a very sensitive topic, II. If Hamas generally does attack polytheists, then I would rather not be justifying them. But I will have to read more about that reason II. I didnt really think about it in that way because I didnt know that there even are polytheists in Palestine, even tho Yazidism is a bit unclear to me. It is labeled as monotheistic religion, but it does have some elements of polytheism.
I'll give you one name, Fawzia Amin Sido. She was abducted by ISIS following the massacre of her village in 2014, when she was 11 years old. She was held by ISIS, and made a sex slave, having multiple children by ISIS fighters, and was sold repeatedly to many different Muslim groups around the middle east. The last group she was sold to was Hamas where she was held for 10 years (most of her time as a slave). She was rescued by Israeli Forces, being held in Rafah. That place everyone told Israel not to go to, where only civilians were. She was used as a sex slave by Hamas, whose actions against Israel you see justification for.
According to ISIS and Hamas, Yazidism is polytheistic. They believe in one God, but also believe in many divine angels who manage the world.
Now tell me you want to still try and make the case of Hamas. You and others think they're just a group dedicated to the liberation of so called "Palestine" if that were the case, why would they be spending money on Yazidi children to impregnate?
"But right now their main enemy is Israel's military"
No, that's simply not true. If that were true, they would not have taken civilians as hostages. They would not have killed a Holocaust survivor in captivity, and they would not have bough a child to impregnate, simply because, according to them, she's a polytheist. Their enemy is the West, their enemy are those who reside in the region of Palestine, exerting sovereignty over it.
Make no mistake, they hate non muslims, you and I alike, and they are fooling millions by framing their fight against Israel, as one of liberation. You said you could justify their attacks against Israel (Including against civilians), I ask you, a polytheist, whether you think you'd be able to travel to a state under the rule of Hamas. Right now you can go to Israel freely. Hamas seeks to establish a Caliphate governed under Sharia Law. I am telling you, do some research before you try and defend people who (I say again) will hurt you.
Well, I guess you are right about Hamas probably hating polytheists. Again, I am not really aware of examples of polytheists being killed specifically for being polytheists in Palestine. Sure, some muslim countries have very harsh punishments for apostasy (example: converting from islam to polytheism), while some other muslim countries have no punishment for apostasy. I cant really imagine Hamas liking polytheists much, but right now their main enemy is Israel's military. I dont really know whats it like in Palestine because I was never there, but I cant make assumptions on what they would do.
"The only question is how far each of them go in practice. Polytheism and monotheism are always mutually exclusive."
In real life Jews and Christians give pagans the side eye and Muslims murder them.
I only meant to make that clear, in case you were not aware (As I have encountered one other polytheist before, who evidently was not aware), because you expressed a desire to defend Hamas' attacks on Israeli civilians, and at some point in the future, imagine (God, or in your case God(s) forbid), they attacked you, and someone got up to defend them against you. Then what?
I dont know how Jews treat the polytheists, so I wont be going in that discussion anyway. Christianity, islam and judaism are all against polytheism. The only question is how far each of them go in practice. Polytheism and monotheism are always mutually exclusive.
"As you are clearly a polytheist, I should remind you that Hamas and their followers, and allies throw polytheists off buildings."
Thanks for reminding me.
"Dude you can not be so stupid as to believe that claims are arguments and not the premises behind those claims. I refuse to believe you are literally that stupid, but if you are please kill yourself so you don't accidentally pollute the gene pool at some point"
I said arguments are made out of claims, which is a fact. Damn, you really went all in on that one, didnt you?
As you are clearly a polytheist, I should remind you that Hamas and their followers, and allies throw polytheists off buildings.
Now, having said that, lets hear you argue that 10/7 was justified.
They wouldn't convert to Islam. As you certainly know, Islam has taken a lot from Judaism. Most of its prophets, its torah has been changed to fit the Islamic narrative, but one thing mohammed could not steal, is the Jews from their own faith. They refused to convert, and rejected his prophethood. We see then later in the Quran, that mohammed turns violent against them, and ethnically cleanses them from Arabia.
I also suggest you try and establish the validity of the Hadith, many are made out of political necessity to allow for violence or to explain one of the many shortcomings in the so called perfect book the Quran.
Bottom line, Jews like any group do not deserve genocide (which make no mistake, mohammed was advocating for in the Hadith), nor can supposed crimes of some members, act as justification to murder all members. In any case, the Quran is a jew hating book, and the islamic religion does not allow for a Jewish state to exist in so called Dar al-Islam.
When you read about Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Qatar, make no mistake, they're in this for Islam, not for so called liberation and freedom, hence why Hamas cites that same hadith in their inaugural charter along with:
"The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews' usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised."
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
(They want a truce, not an end to any conflict hence the resistance to any peace initiative by israel which keeps them in power.
Article 22: "They [the Jews] were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard about... They also stood behind World War I... They also stood behind World War II, where they collected immense benefits from trading in war materials and prepared for the establishment of their state."
"The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say: O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him — only the Gharqad tree would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
That all comes from Islam, but yeah, keep wondering what the Jews did, when the real problem is clearly Islam
I must not talk about this topic, because I cannot control my heart and mind after seeing little children dying like in GAZA. I would say only one thing though. There is hadith of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) that you will kill every Jew, and they will try to hide behind every tree and stone and those stones and tree will tell you a Jew is behind you only one tree would not tell which they farm a lot I do not know the name in English. I was wondering what heinous crimes they would do to deserve such a persecution. Here we go.
Dude you can not be so stupid as to believe that claims are arguments and not the premises behind those claims.
I refuse to believe you are literally that stupid, but if you are please kill yourself so you don't accidentally pollute the gene pool at some point
"would further imply that you believe October 7, was justified"
I am not going to go around justifying that, because it would upset people and I kinda promised to mods that I would stay away from too sensitive topics.
I'm interested to hear what you mean by "Hamas' attacks on Israel are justified", as you didn't note if some attacks are but others aren't, merely that their attacks are justified, which would further imply that you believe October 7, was justified, which opens a can of worms I 150% believe you could not defend from.
"It doesn't matter what topics are avoided"
Sure it does. You can pretend that it doesnt, but clearly, not all topics are equally received. To claim that they are would destroy your argument, because all arguments are technically made out of claims which are also like topics of their own, which then negates your argument of "retarded arguments", as you are saying that there are retarded topics, which then negates what you said at start. People have different levels of tolerance for different topics. When I argued that some women get turned on by being raped, no one cared much because its not really that sensitive topic.
It doesn't matter what topics are avoided. Even non controversial topics should be approached in a non retarded way. Whenever you are faced with the decision of behaving like a retard or not, you should choose not to.
Again, you dont get to determine who is a retard, and if your definition of "retard" is not being well received by others, then that is a very retarded definition, but still, person is better received if those topics are avoided. As for your arguments, making a few random claims here and there doesnt really count as debating. Sure, while I did that way of "debating", no one cared either. But thats not really debating.
Just don't be a retard. Maybe start with stuff you actually believe and argue that well and then apply those principles to devils advocate topics. Seriously there are arguments about genociding Jews here that are well received. I have made them
Lol sure, as if no person on this site gets upset by sensitive topics. I aint defending anything anymore which will cause mass upset. The fun from that is not worth all the drama that would come later.
You can keep pretending people don't want to hear those arguments when the truth is that you present those arguments like a complete retard. The site would welcome anyone who actually held that belief or who argued it well
Nah, it will trigger people.
Which attacks are justified by Hamas in your opinion.
I am also tempted to debate that Hamas's attacks on Israel are justified, but that might trigger some people lol
Although how to define unnecessary is a bit tricky. If I define it as "Not needed for Israel's survival", then that might work. If I define it as "Not needed to win the whole war", then that might work as well.
This is a good topic to debate. Might give it a try. Although my topic would probably just be "Israel has commited war crimes", with war crimes being defined as unnecessary harming of civilians. A bit more simple.
The Hamas Charter outlines a broader ideological framework tied to Dar al-Islam (House of Islam), emphasizing that lands under Islamic rule must remain so. Non-Muslims (referred to as “infidels”) within Dar al-Islam are subject to specific conditions under Islamic governance. The Charter extends this idea to Palestine, framing the struggle as both religious and territorial. Its rhetoric—especially in calling for jihad and targeting Jews—has been criticized for anti-Semitism and for conflating political objectives with religious obligations.
I am not criticizing you because you're a student; I am critiquing your phrasing. In your opening, you say, "It's very possible that Hamas has committed its own war crimes." The key phrase—“very likely”—is problematic. Their invasion was a war crime. Taking hostages, especially civilians, is a war crime. Using civilian infrastructure for military purposes is a war crime. Desecrating bodies is a war crime. All these actions occurred within the first 72 hours of the October 7 invasion. Yet, you imply uncertainty with “very likely.” This is where my criticism stems from.
Regarding collateral damage caused by Israel, the question revolves around casualty figures and whether they reflect disproportionate harm. If you’re prepared to discuss this further, please share the data you’re referencing to support claims about unnecessary collateral damage.
Your argument critiques the IDF’s proportionality and collateral damage, but it clearly overlooks key principles of international humanitarian law. Proportionality doesn’t demand zero collateral damage; rather, it assesses whether the anticipated military advantage outweighs the risk to civilians. For example, the ambulance incident you mention—while shocking—is under investigation, with reports suggesting that six Hamas fighters were among the dead. If true, this would highlight the complexities of combat zones, where neutral entities like ambulances can be exploited by militants. While this does not absolve Israel of responsibility, it adds nuance to the discussion.
Warnings to civilians, such as evacuation notices, are not about exonerating the IDF but fulfilling their obligation to minimize harm. These efforts are complicated by Hamas embedding operatives in civilian areas—an act that constitutes a war crime under international law.
Finally, your critique of tone while conceding ignorance weakens your position. Substance dictates debates, and if you have none, or are lacking, then you lose.
I still haven't researched that incident. Working on it. My initial assumption is they are using them to transport important Hamas members and for propaganda purposes once they are hit. It's their typical tactic. They literally use our empathy against us and see that empathy as weakness, they aren't like western powers.
To Clausewitzian,
I understand that perhaps my viewpoint on proportionality is flawed. However, if you’ve been able to provide these arguments from the beginning, surely it might’ve been more prudent to use those, rather than emphasising how mind-blown you are that a student would dare to enter a debate on a topic about which you know more about than them, however, you have done very little to rebut any of my comments about the IDF’s war crimes. I never intended to suggest that Hamas was anywhere but in the wrong in this war, that is not my argument. My argument is that the methods that the IDF has used in order to attack and kill Hamas officials are flawed and cause too much unnecessary collateral damage. An example: one of the excuses the IDF gave for the murder of the Red Crescent aid workers was that some of them were Hamas officials. Remind me, how were they to know this? To attack the Red Crescenft ambulances would be to knowingly risk committing a war crime, as well as the fact that there was very little evidence to suggest that the Hamas terrorist that was apparently killed was even present. It’s true that there is no necessity to warn civilians about an incoming strike, but the argument saying “Oh, they didn’t have to do this at all, they could’ve just given no warning” is severely flawed, as the same logic applies to “It could’ve been worse than assault, I could’ve killed them if I wanted to”. The attempt to make the IDF sound merciful does not hold much water. I understand that I may not know as much about this war as you, and I could likely learn something in a debate with you, however your opening of ad hominem attacks towards me (saying my “rhetoric is clearly lacking”, and that I “should concede the debate immediately”).
In all honesty, it’s true that my comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany is incorrect and poor, and I apologise, however, it’s also unfair to suggest that Israel is a victim here. Israel is not defending itself. This war is unnecessary, there was another way. Violence only breeds more violence. Am I wrong in saying that in the killings, deserved or not, of Palestinian civilians, will breed more Hamas terrorists, as the children of the killed seek revenge against Israel? It can be compared to when Hercules fought the Hydra. With every head you cut off, two more grow in its place. Israel could take the example of US after WW2, by helping Palestine rebuild. Time will tell.
One more comment I swear.
I just have to highlight how you yet again misinterpret the definition of proportionality. Proportionality is not 1 Israeli dies, so one Gazan does.
Proportionality is there are 100 people here, not all 100 would die in a strike, however there is no question some might. There are Hamas operatives within the 100. Does striking this target, killing the Hamas fighters (who are committing war crimes by their very presence among civilians), outweigh the potential harm to civilians? This does not mean, does killing 6 hamas for 6 civilians work? As I have said before its not a numbers game. It is, does killing these Hamas war criminals, have justification despite the potential civilian casualties?
I have been on, and therefor seen first hand the opinions and sentiments of US college students, who will say oh grave heavens, look at the 50 thousand killed, yet they make no effort (as you too have not) to understand what proportion are and are not civilians, not a single even remote effort. This is also just what? 2 weeks off of hamas making a revision of thousands of casualties for which the author takes at face value. A PolitiFact article from May states "That’s because over most of the conflict, the figures have come from Gaza’s Ministry of Health, an agency of the region’s Hamas-controlled government". But the author again takes the casualty assessments at face value and as true. When I talk about clear ignorance, this is exactly what I mean. Emotional reaction often replaced informed judgement.