Israel's war against Gaza is unjust and an attempt at Genocide

"I find it very telling that you’ve said you respect Christians and Muslims, but conspicuously left out Jews"

You are right there. I have added Jews now too.

You think word "if" means "it is so".

That is very false. The words "if, then" represent cause and effect, where truth of first claim equals truth of other. It doesnt mean that first claim is true. It means that in case where it is, it leads to the other claim being true too.

If you knew english sufficiently, you'd know the following can be taken two ways:

"If you concede that Israel has done more bad things, then maybe you should be comparing Israel to Hitler to see if your flawed "analogy logic" works there."

1. It could mean, "if you concede Israel is bad, then you must compare...." meaning, that I said Israel was worse and so therefor I must apply the comparison between it and Nazi Germany. (which I of course wont do, but in any case I wasn't comparing

2. the way you now imply, which doesn't really make sense, and is frankly kind of random.

Let me be clear one last time: I was not, and have not compared Hamas to Nazi's, or stated they're the same thing. What I have done is say:
Your logic is that, because Hamas says "we don't fight those who don't fight us" and talk about living peacefully (Just under sharia law, with no political rights given to any religious minority, and the erasure of Israel (You think this is a peaceful line which shows your naivety) then why don't you (Thegreatsungod) go and look at the nazi's and tell me if they were a peaceful group since, in some documents, like Mein Kampf, they also threw in the odd piece about being peaceful, wanting social justice (their own perverted version).

I say again, this is not a comparison of ideologies, but rather a call for you to apply YOUR logic to other historical groups, to see if you are still comfortable with it. Now, you telling me its a strawman is itself a strawman, since you are oversimplifying my point by saying I am equating. I say again, rebut this whole comment, not a snippet. And btw, try and justify murdering civilians, Hamas justifies killing people like you everyday.

Let’s clear this up. You keep accusing me of strawmanning, but every time I quote your actual reasoning back to you, you either pivot or accuse me of 'misunderstanding.' That’s not debate — that’s deflection.

You said violent words don’t prove evil intent. That’s fine as a general statement. But when an organization like Hamas has a founding document calling for the annihilation of Israel, glorifies martyrdom, indoctrinates children, and acts on those violent words by massacring civilians — then yes, their words match their actions, and the intent is clear.

I’m not saying every violent word makes a group evil. I’m saying when a group is built around a violent doctrine and implements it in practice, you don’t get to rescue their reputation by pointing at a few lines about tolerance in the same document.

As for your 'if' statement — nice try. You framed it rhetorically to imply that my own logic would justify comparing Israel to Hitler. That’s a dishonest framing and you know it. You want to throw in the word 'if' as cover, but the insinuation was obvious.

Also, don’t lecture me about tone. You’ve spent this whole conversation excusing a terror group that murders civilians and hides behind children, while accusing a democratic state of being worse. You’re not speaking from moral high ground — you're speaking from selective outrage.

If you want to be taken seriously, argue consistently. If not, I’ll keep pointing out the contradictions — whether you like it or not.

Let’s be clear: the only party in this conflict that can reasonably say 'we don’t fight those who don’t fight us' is Israel. Hamas didn’t attack a military base on October 7th — they slaughtered civilians, took hostages including infants, and killed people who had never lifted a finger against them. The Biba children, their mother, the elderly — none of them 'fought' Hamas. Yet they were killed, kidnapped, or used as human bargaining chips.

You fall back on 'bad apples' rhetoric, but at what point does that excuse collapse? When the leadership itself plans the atrocities? When civilians are explicitly targeted? When children are murdered in captivity?

You’ve also repeatedly avoided the fact that Hamas wrote their charter in peacetime, pledging eternal war against Israel, rejecting all peaceful solutions, and calling for the destruction of Jews. This wasn’t battlefield rage — this was deliberate ideology.

You mock the idea of judging their words, then demand we count 'good lines' versus 'bad lines' in their charter. That’s not how ideology works. If a group builds its foundation on genocidal intent, no number of PR phrases buried inside the document cleanses that. That’s like saying a gang that feeds the homeless on Sundays can’t be judged for executing civilians the rest of the week.

And no — violent words in a war-time speech are not the same as genocidal doctrine in a founding charter. You keep confusing the two, or pretending they’re interchangeable.

As for Hamas in practice — they don’t just speak in violent terms. They act on it. Their leadership trained for months to kill and kidnap civilians. They placed explosives in civilian homes. They used women and children as shields. They held hostages for months — including babies.

You argue that not all of them are bad. Fine — then where were the 'good' ones when those babies were being held in tunnels? Why didn’t they release them? Why didn’t they stop the rape of a polytheist slave? Why didn’t they object to the murder of Holocaust survivors? Silence — and complicity — are not neutrality.

Lastly, I find it very telling that you’ve said you respect Christians and Muslims, but conspicuously left out Jews. It mirrors exactly the pattern of selective empathy and quiet justification you’ve shown throughout this conversation.

You’re not making a moral case. You’re just making excuses for a movement whose words and deeds are rooted in hatred, and whose victims — from infants to elderly — were never combatants at all.

"I didn’t say Hamas was better than Israel. I’m saying that’s what you said. Learn English and reading comprehension."

And I didnt even say that you were saying it. You really need to google what "if" means. These strawmans are not going to win you anything here. If you want to attack someone's argument here, you should usually make sure that you are not inventing a different version of it, which would be strawman. Also, personal attacks arent really helping you either. Insulting other people's religion and intelligence is maybe common in Israel, but here, it doesnt work.

"What I said — and still maintain — is that both use language which openly communicates intent to destroy another people"

Except that Hamas says they dont fight against those who dont fight against them and they respect all other religions. So now you are strawmanning their text here. Clearly, not all their text talks of destruction.

"If you believe the presence of peaceful words disproves the presence of violent intent, then you need to explain why the same logic doesn’t apply to every other violent movement in history that said something pleasant once in a while"

Another strawman. My argument here was that some violent words dont always mean a presence of a completely evil intent. It is actually impossible to fight a war without using some violent words. If that makes group completely evil, then it would mean that Israel is completely evil and then the fight against Israel would be fully justified. So again, your logic here is very flawed. Most people use some violent words. It doesnt make them all equally bad people. I already said that Hamas does contain some bad people just like Israel does, Israel maybe even more. But it doesnt mean all people in Israel are equally bad people.

I didn’t say Hamas was better than Israel. I’m saying that’s what you said. Learn English and reading comprehension.

I dare you to rebut everything I said in that comment. Surprise me, and do it. Or do the same and just send back a half-assed broken English response

"now pretending you didn't say Hamas was better than Israel because Israel has done more bad things"

If you concede that Israel has done more bad things, then maybe you should be comparing Israel to Hitler to see if your flawed "analogy logic" works there.

You’re conflating two different things: recognizing a pattern of language, and declaring two groups identical. I never claimed Hamas is the same as Hitler. What I said — and still maintain — is that both use language which openly communicates intent to destroy another people. That doesn’t make them identical in scale or history — but it does mean that when groups say they intend violence, their words should be taken seriously. That’s not equivalence — it’s basic pattern recognition.

Now, to your point:
Yes, I stated Hamas’s words, especially in their original charter and repeated speeches, overwhelmingly point to violence, jihad, and the destruction of Israel. That is a documented fact, not an interpretation.

You objected by pointing to a handful of lines that mention tolerance.
Your defense of Hamas’s charter relied on those lines — you said they undermine or contradict my claim. So yes, you used peaceful language in the charter as a counterweight to the violent ones, in an attempt to argue that not all of Hamas's intent is violent.

That is what I meant when I said you're trying to offset violence with PR language — and I challenged the logic of that approach, not by misquoting you, but by testing its consistency.

If you believe the presence of peaceful words disproves the presence of violent intent, then you need to explain why the same logic doesn’t apply to every other violent movement in history that said something pleasant once in a while.

So no — I’m not running from anything.
I’m pointing out that you’re trying to narrow the conversation down to technicalities instead of facing the broader, deeper issue:
When a group declares holy war, acts on it, and frames genocide as righteousness — no amount of surface-level 'tolerance' lines can wash that away

Also, don't tell me what to do, and what not to do, you are someone who cannot rebut an entire argument, so she picks out one detail and says "Ah this is wrong" doesn't explain why, just lets that tiny inadequate rebut, serve as a rebut for all. You opened this by saying "I don't know enough" and you prove it with each successive comment.

"I did not say Hamas is the same as Hitler"

You clearly said Hamas used same words as Hitler did, and these words represent their intent. Do you run away from that statement now?

"You’ve repeatedly claimed Hamas’s violent declarations are offset or undermined by a few peaceful-sounding lines in their charter"

If you want to attack my actual argument, I suggest you copy it instead of making your version of it.

For example, in this particular case, it was you who made an incorrect claim that all Hamas's words call to violence. I have simply corrected your claim.

I'd honestly prefer you just write in your original language because either A. you're acting dumb on purpose (now pretending you didn't say Hamas was better than Israel because Israel has done more bad things, and also tell me in order to see if Hamas is truly bad rather than good we need to "add up all their good and bad statements and see which is higher") or B. You can't comprehend this level of English. Judging by the numerous mistakes in your bio, I feel it is both a combination of the former and latter.

You’ve misrepresented my argument entirely — and in doing so, you committed the very fallacy you accuse me of: a strawman.

Let me clarify once again:
I did not say Hamas is the same as Hitler. I also did not argue that saying some peaceful things means a group can't be violent — in fact, I directly said that’s your logic, not mine.

What I challenged is your method of judgment.

You’ve repeatedly claimed Hamas’s violent declarations are offset or undermined by a few peaceful-sounding lines in their charter.
So I offered a test of your logic:
If you apply the same method to another regime — for example, the Nazis — does it still work? The Nazis, too, had peaceful rhetoric, public welfare programs, even cultural promotion. Does that mean we ignore their violent doctrine and genocidal actions?

Of course not.
That’s the point: your standard of judgment doesn’t hold up under pressure. It fails the consistency test.

This isn’t a claim that Hamas and Hitler are equal — it's a demonstration that judging a regime by cherry-picking its softer lines while ignoring its violent ones is intellectually dishonest, regardless of the regime.

The apple analogy you used doesn’t apply.
I’m not saying ‘they share one trait so they are identical.’
I’m saying: if you use a method of evaluation that excuses violence because of PR language, then you’re applying a broken metric — and I proved it by showing how absurd the outcome becomes when applied elsewhere.

You keep trying to make this about whether Hamas is 'as bad' as Hitler. But that’s not the argument. The argument is that your method of defense fails basic logical scrutiny. And that matters far more than who the subject is

"In this case, your argument is that Hamas cannot be deemed inherently violent because some of their statements mention tolerance or nonviolence. My analogy challenges that logic by asking: If we applied the same reasoning to the Nazis — who also said positive or patriotic things on occasion — would we excuse their crimes because of a few softer lines?"

This is just strawman. Again, if you are going to debate, I suggest you come up with something more than this nonsense. You are trying to say that my logic here is: "No one who says some peaceful things can be violent". If you are going to attack an argument no one ever even used, then you shouldnt be surprised why your arguments fail here. Again, your logic here was "Hitler used violent words and Hitler was bad, so if Hamas uses some violent words, Hamas is equally bad". This logic ultimately depends on assumption that Hamas is same as Hitler. Because if you concede that Hamas is not same as Hitler, then you cannot apply same reasoning to both equally. This is like saying "I like apples, so any person who likes apples is exactly same as me." Well, sadly, such logic is a miserable failure, and you already conceded that Hamas isnt Hitler, so there goes that argument.

Thanks for confirming you have no evidence — just prophecy.
You didn’t refute my point. You didn’t even attempt to explain how your book predicted modern history. You simply repeated that everything is written and that dying is part of the plan. That’s not faith — it’s fatalism.

I asked for proof. I got poetry.
I asked about Gaza, you gave me the Antichrist.
I asked what Islam predicted — you quoted a hadith about foam.

You proved my point without realizing it: when challenged by real-world results — Gaza lost, Hamas failed, Israel still stands — you abandon facts and retreat into end-times hope.

If your best argument is ‘we die and then we win,’
then all you’re offering the world is more graves.

Israel values life while you value death. Why the hell do you complain about Gaza suffering then? ah yes, because you want to take advantage of the humanity of westerners, and get them to pressure Israel. They're pressuring, but it isn't working. Luckily in Israel, there are leaders who understand your mindset, which is why they aren't taking their foot off the gas, but pressing down further, Hamas is begging for a ceasefire, and until Israel gets what it wants, they won't see a ceasefire. You wanted the war, now you're getting it on our terms.
Quit lying to the world about humanity, it will do you no good. Mohammed won at Khaybar, but not before ingesting poison, which took years to kill him, the same is said of the Palestinians who take up arms against Israel, indeed it will happen to all who lay a hand on Israel. tick tock

English clearly isn't your first language then.

I have repeatedly said that I don't mean to posit that Hamas and Hitler/Nazism are the same thing. The rhetorical device I am using is called analogical reasoning — it’s a standard form of argument that tests whether a line of reasoning, when applied consistently, leads to absurd or unacceptable conclusions.

In this case, your argument is that Hamas cannot be deemed inherently violent because some of their statements mention tolerance or nonviolence. My analogy challenges that logic by asking: If we applied the same reasoning to the Nazis — who also said positive or patriotic things on occasion — would we excuse their crimes because of a few softer lines?

That’s not a comparison of moral equivalence between Hamas and the Nazis. It’s a logical consistency test. If your method of judgment would lead to excusing even the most clearly evil regimes, then your method is flawed.

If you can’t distinguish between analogy and equivalence, then you’re not debating — you’re reacting emotionally. And if you dismiss every uncomfortable analogy as a 'fallacy,' you’re shielding bad reasoning behind a misuse of vocabulary.

So let me say it one more time, very clearly:
I am not saying Hamas is the same as the Nazis.
I am saying your standard of judgment is broken — and I proved it by showing where it leads.

Yes, everything was predicted, believe me, the poor Israelites of 2 brothers will beat the rich Israelites of 10 brothers. I think that clue should be enough for you, although it's very long.
We die we meet Allah, death for all believer is meeting with God. I do not care how many you kill, eventually it all will happen the way Allah wants. You did all that in Gaza to bring the antichrist early, but it will take its time, which is very near. Believe me, The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The people will soon summon one another to attack you as people when eating invite others to share their dish. Someone asked: Will that be because of our small numbers at that time?
He ﷺ replied: "No, you will be numerous that day, but you will be like the foam on a torrent. Allah will remove fear of you from the hearts of your enemies and will throw wahn into your hearts."
Someone asked: "O Messenger of Allah, what is wahn?"
He ﷺ replied: "Love of the world and hatred of death."
whom we shall complain?
We need one thing, removal of wahn, and it will be removed.
In fact, you might have seen it in gazan I mean they were ready or now they are ready as we cannot see wahn among them and their blood will not go in vain. In sha Allah

Again, you repeat the same fallacy. I am not sure why you do it, but alright. To put it simply, you are trying to present two different things as equal. That is a logical fallacy because different things are not equal by definition. Such analogies are usually the weakest arguments due to such fallacy. Too easy to disprove.

I should have known someone who worships water and asks it for wisdom, also wouldn't know what an analogy was, but here we are.

You’re right — this isn’t a debate about Hitler.
It’s a debate about how people excuse or downplay systems of violence when they like the narrative being sold.

The reference to Hitler wasn’t to say ‘you are Hitler.’
It was to demonstrate how absurd and morally broken your logic is:
That a movement like Hamas can call for extermination, commit mass atrocities, indoctrinate children, wage religious war —
and you still insist,

‘Well, not everything they say is violent.’
‘Maybe it’s just a few bad people.’

That’s the exact kind of deflection people once used to excuse fascism, Stalinism, or any brutal regime —
by pointing to one line in a manifesto, or one clinic that opened, while ignoring the mountains of bodies.

So no — you don’t have to be Hitler to oppose Israel.
But you do have to be dangerously naive to excuse Hamas’s crimes with PR slogans and cherry-picked ‘tolerance’ quotes,
while ignoring their doctrine, their actions, and their ideology.

If the point went over your head,
it wasn’t because it was irrelevant.
It was because it was accurate.

Please provide a valid rebuttal, not a bot generated hippie response.

Also explain how Islam predicted everything right so far. No hadiths either, thats all hearsay, how does the quran from 1400 years ago prove everything? does it predict Dhimmi's coming in and whooping arab asses in 1948 taking back the land the quran admits was given to the Israelites? I bet it doesn't. Does it predict all those worthless Hamas getting obliterated beyon recognition? Nope. Your book which justifies pedophillia, idolatry, and false gods, hasn't proved anything, except that muslims are crappy fighters when up against foes greater than them, proving your little book is a fantasy. Gaza has fallen, and like dominos, next will that abomination on the Temple Mount, and your stone worship sanctuary next. Amalekites always lose in the end.
"Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall chase ten thousand, and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword."
— Leviticus 26:8

This isnt a debate about Hitler, so that is just irrelevant. It would be very silly if you had to be Hitler to fight against Israel's crimes and occupation.

You’re not making an argument. You’re just hiding behind deterministic fatalism — a religious monologue pretending to be a worldview.

You claim 'Islam predicted everything.'
Really? Which specific predictions? Cited where? Proven how? Because vague proclamations wrapped in poetic language aren’t prophecy — they’re retroactive interpretation. You can fit any event into that mold after it happens, and that’s not foresight — that’s confirmation bias.

‘Ink is dried, and everything is prewritten’ is not a truth claim — it’s a surrender of human agency. If everything is already written, then you debating, threatening, or even praying has no effect on the outcome. You’re not invoking divine justice — you’re resigning yourself to a cosmic script you can’t influence.

And saying ‘justice always prevails in the end’ doesn’t hold up historically. Ask the millions of victims of tyrants who died without justice. Justice isn’t inevitable — it’s fought for. It’s preserved by courage, sacrifice, and law — not by fatalistic slogans.

‘Every rise has a fall’ — sure. But not all falls are followed by a righteous replacement. Sometimes evil replaces evil, and sometimes decay is permanent.

You didn’t present truth. You recited dogma.
You didn’t predict reality. You just claimed it after the fact.
You didn’t defend justice. You stripped it of meaning by placing it entirely in someone else’s hands.

This isn’t wisdom.
It’s a retreat disguised as certainty

If everything is predetermined, and already written down, then why fuss about Palestinians dying in Gaza? According to you, neither you nor I can change it.
In any case, your false god, just like your false prophet have lost, and always will lose. You have no caliphate, you have no power, the houthis know that, just as hamas does too.
No amount of stone licking and kissing, or running around said stone, nor praying to it (all idolatry) will help your case, and in turn help Hamas.

During the Nuremberg Trials, there was never any serious question about whether the entire Nazi apparatus was guilty — from Hitler to the SS, to the bureaucrats, to the foot soldiers.
They were guilty of violence.
Guilty of genocide.
Because the crimes were documented so thoroughly, and the intent was made unmistakably clear by their own words, orders, and policies.

Now having said all this — answer me one thing, directly:
Were the Nazis — from the top leadership to the bottom feeders who rounded up, housed, and murdered Jews, who planned and executed an offensive war aimed at annihilation — just a few bad apples?

Because according to your logic, they would be.
And that logic is broken.

I’ve laid out everything:

The charters.

The quotes.

The actions.

The indoctrination.

The mass rape, hostage-taking, and murder.

And your response is:
‘Womp, I could just repeat myself.’
Repeat what, exactly?

If you have a real rebuttal — make it.
But if all you have left is deflection and the hope that repeating yourself enough times will override documented facts, then you're not debating —
you're stalling.
And at this point, the only thing you're proving is that you were never ready for this conversation.During the Nuremberg Trials, there was never a serious debate over whether the entire Nazi apparatus was guilty — from Hitler down to the bottom-feeders who loaded trains and executed orders.
They were guilty of violence, guilty of genocide, because the crimes were documented beyond any doubt — and because their own words made their intent unmistakably clear.

Let’s take it a step further:
Even Hitler, in Mein Kampf, included the occasional ‘nicety’ — lines about prosperity, order, or unity.
To many Germans at the time, Hitler was 'good for Germany.'
Should we weigh those positive sentiments against the Holocaust and say:
‘Well, it’s hard to say if they were really bad — some of their words weren’t violent’?

That’s your logic.
According to you, I would have to sift through every Nazi statement and action, tally them up, and then — based on what’s more frequent — determine whether the Nazis were good or evil.
Do you realize how illogical, how morally bankrupt that is?

Do you think the six million Jews murdered cared whether Hitler fixed unemployment?
Of course not — because he killed them.

And now you’re applying the same defective reasoning to Hamas.
Yes, Hamas is not Hitler. But the pattern is clear:

Repeated calls for jihad

Charters dedicated to religious war and annihilation

A leadership that glorifies genocide

An ideology built on the destruction of an entire nation

They invaded Israel to slaughter its civilians. They raped, they burned, they kidnapped, they murdered.
And you say:

‘There’s not enough to go on to decide if they’re really bad.’

You’ve abandoned reason.
You’ve abandoned morality.
And worst of all, you’ve abandoned the victims — present and future — by pretending a genocidal movement can be excused with a few lines about ‘tolerance.’

I’ve given you their words, their actions, and their intent.
If all you have left is:

‘Well, I could say the same thing again,’
then you are not arguing.
You are just refusing to look reality in the face.

Make a real rebuttal — not a dodge.
Or accept what’s already obvious: this conversation passed you by the moment facts entered the room.

Islam predicted everything right so far, truth and reality is inevitable no matter what. I shall inform you that, this Game is played by Allah the creator of everything exist. Ink is dried and everything is prewritten. Do whatever you can do, we will do whatever we can do. Justice and truth always prevail in the end. Every rise has a fall. Let's see how the event will turn out.

As I said, my arguments werent disproved. I could repeat same arguments and they would still stand. Then you resort to more personal attacks, which is okay, but I have no interest in trading insults. I prefer logic and debate right now, not insults. You will have to find someone else if your goal is to gain insults. I am certain there are members here who will be happy to insult you, but to me, you are source of information just like everyone else is. I learn from you, and make new arguments thanks to you.

You must be a bot.

I have provided ample evidence. Their own writing material, and their own actions, what more do you need lady?
I still await your justification for Hamas' attacks, that was the initial goal, but you've dropped that clearly, because you have just two lines of PR to go off of.

Let us be real here.

First you are ignorant, now suddenly you can pick apart my arguments...... except you haven't and won't. Or if you can, then do so, please, let me see what the sun god is made of.

p.s. love how you've essentially thrown to the wayside the whole story about the Iraqi being held by hamas members in her home.

And you say anyway these attacks are by a few bad apples. October 7 was done on the word of the top leadership, that's not bad apples, that's a bad batch.
Or is Hitler and his henchmen also just a few bad apples. No, again im not saying hamas is nazis, dont use that trick just to avoid addressing the point

To wylted:

First, I watched your video from start to finish, you don't need my praise, I can't say it's worth much, but I enjoyed your perspective.

Anyways:
You're oversimplifying the relationship between Austrian economics, classical liberalism, and libertarianism.

While it's true that many modern libertarians draw heavily from Austrian economists like Mises and Hayek, it doesn't follow that anyone influenced by Austrian economics is automatically a libertarian.

In fact, Mises and Hayek both identified primarily as classical liberals, not libertarians in the modern sense. Hayek even explicitly rejected the term "libertarian" later in life, arguing that it had become associated with an extreme form of anti-state ideology that he did not support. His vision of government still included important classical liberal institutions like the rule of law, courts, and the enforcement of contracts — not the near-anarchism common among modern libertarians.

Moreover, Austrian economics itself is an economic school of thought, not a political ideology. It emphasizes methodological individualism and the limits of centralized planning, but it doesn't mandate a specific level of government intervention — that's a political interpretation made by different schools of thought.

While libertarianism uses Austrian ideas, not everyone shaped by Austrian economics is a libertarian. Claiming otherwise collapses important distinctions between economic theory, political philosophy, and ideological movements.

Hayek said "I have nothing to do with what today is called libertarianism, although the expression may originally have been used in a sense similar to mine. My difference with libertarians is with their enthusiastic anti-governmentalism."

I could repeat the same argument I used before and it would disprove you again. You resort to all these personal attacks to make up for that, but your arguments are rather weak and unsupported, I must say. But still, this is helping me for my debates about Israel in case someone accepts them.

"Liberalism is not the same as Libertarianism. "

I am aware but some libertarians refer to themselves as classic liberals

"I am not a libertarian. My views on Liberalism, specifically classical liberalism are shaped by the Austrian school of economics. "

That's literally libertarian economics LOL. I know because it's a rabbit hole I went down when I was a libertarian

You're repeating the same moral confusion wrapped in false equivalence and selective blindness.

Yes, Hamas’s charter contains one or two carefully phrased lines about 'tolerance' or 'not attacking those who don't attack them.'
But the bulk of their doctrine — their strategic goals, political speeches, educational materials, and war policy — revolves around jihad, martyrdom, genocide, and the total destruction of Israel.

You don’t evaluate a political ideology by cherry-picking a sentence that makes you feel better.
You look at what it emphasizes, repeats, and acts upon.
And Hamas does not act on tolerance — it acts on murder, theocracy, and holy war.

The claim that “not all their words call for violence” is meaningless when:

Their operational strategy is violence.

Their actions match their violent rhetoric.

Their peace language is never followed by peace.

This isn’t semantics. This is war doctrine.

You then try to dismiss their documented atrocities — from mass murder to rape camps — by saying 'every group has bad people.'

No. Hamas institutionalized terrorism.
Its entire leadership glorifies murder.
Its media exalts child martyrs.
Its schools teach that killing Jews is divine.
That’s not 'bad people.' That’s the point.

Israel’s moral failings are real and debatable — but they are not ideological imperatives enshrined in its founding documents.

Meanwhile, Hamas's charter is a blueprint for endless war and religious conquest —
not because I say so,
but because they wrote it,
they say it,
and they do it.

If you still want to defend that,
you’re not being moral.
You’re being willfully blind.

You didn’t care about this issue before October 7.
Now you're pretending to be a moral authority in a war you only understand through Instagram slides and selective quotes.
You didn’t do research.
You walked up to the conflict like it was a ‘White Savior Needed’ casting call — and now you’re shocked that facts didn’t hand you the lead role

Your entire assessment of Hamas is essentially framed from their charter alone, and even then, you don't even consider all the bad things written there which just makes me laugh.

"Israel has done more worse things, so Israel is worse". Does Hiroshima and Nagasaki make America more unjust, more bad, or more evil than Japan? to you it would, because in that case you would (as you do now) disregard the actions, words, and history of Japan, and all that led to the war in favor of the one singular action. That is why I try not to debate what can best be described as "rookies" because they're just so obviously clueless. If your entire argument for Hamas (of which you felt very sure of yourself only days ago) hinges on two lines from their charter, then save us all time, and don't even attempt to debate because you will lose every time until you understand why you are wrong. When you say you can argue that Hamas is justified, the burden of proof is on you, and you'd better have more than two PR lines from a constitution. I have words, but actions too, and at least in my world, actions speak louder than words.

To Wylted:

Liberalism is not the same as Libertarianism. I am not a libertarian. My views on Liberalism, specifically classical liberalism are shaped by the Austrian school of economics.
Also, I am indeed proud of what I've read, but that is not why I put that there. I put it there so that others might find it of use, whether for their personal development, or to see where I am coming from when it comes to debates.

Also, I don't want, and would not pick up the debate if you left it. I don't want to sit around listening to the same echo-chamber regurgitated lines from the pro hamas camp. I've been doing it long before October 7, and I don't care to devote more time than I already do, on it.

Also, there is no need to take this personally. I am merely collecting arguments for my debates. I have nothing against you. I even said that you are smart.

As I said, your argument was "Hamas calls for violence in their words". I have shown that their main document talks against violence of those who dont fight against them, and talks of tolerance of all other religions. So when judging words only, you must judge all words, and clearly, not all words call to violence, and some even call against violence. So the claim that all their words call to violence was disproved.

Further, if we are talking about intent, and if words reflect intent directly, then the words against violence reflect intent against violence. So not all intent is about violence either.

If you claim that most of their words call to violence, then that is difficult to meassure as you provided no statistics but just few quotes, but it still doesnt negate that many of their words call for peace too. So clearly, not all for violence.

"Hamas’s decades-long history of bombings, murders, executions, hostage-taking, mass rapes, and use of civilians as shields is not 'disproved' because you emotionally want it to be."

This is now moving the goalpost from words to actions, but it was already disproved because each group has some people who do bad things. Israel has done much more bad things, so logically, Israel has more bad people. As for fighting against Israel, it clearly means in many cases fighting against those who fight against them. No army on this world can control all its members, and some members of Hamas had their families killed by Israel, which makes it difficult for some to make reasonable choices, as it would for any other human in any other war.

The 2017 Hamas Charter, officially titled "A Document of General Principles and Policies," reaffirms Hamas's commitment to armed resistance as a central strategy. While it omits some of the overtly antisemitic language of the 1988 charter, it continues to endorse violence against Israel.​

Key Excerpts Highlighting Violence:

Armed Resistance as a Strategic Choice:

"Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws. At the heart of these lies armed resistance, which is regarded as the strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people." ​

Rejection of Alternatives to Full Liberation:

"Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea."

Legitimization of Jihad and Resistance:

"Hamas confirms that no peace in Palestine should be agreed on, based on injustice to the Palestinians or their land. Any arrangements based on that will not lead to peace, and the resistance and Jihad will remain as a legal right, a project and an honor for all our nations’ people." ​

So your BS is all about "But look see they want peace. No they don't. As stated there "Hamas confirms that no peace in Palestine should be agreed on". They've also said they don't support truces longer than 10 years and certainly no complete end of hostilities, (As the Quran dictates too), which is why I am totally for an immediate resumption of war after the last Hostages are home. Realist foreign policy dictates that when an Enemy comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first, and so kill we shall.

From the Talmud:
"הבא להרגך השכם להרגו"
"Ha-ba le-horgekha, hashkem le-horgo."
"If someone comes to kill you, rise early to kill him first."
Tractate Sanhedrin 72a

Your argument has completely collapsed into incoherence.
Let’s walk through it cleanly:

First:
You claim that because Hamas says in one sentence they 'tolerate those who don't fight them,'
that cancels out their explicit, repeated calls for genocide, religious domination, and holy war throughout the rest of their charter.
That is not critical evaluation.
That’s propaganda absorption.

Saying 'we won't attack you — as long as you don't resist our conquest' is not tolerance.
It’s the language of invaders, tyrants, and totalitarians throughout history.

Second:
The Hitler example was not to say 'Hitler = Hamas.'
It was a rhetorical exercise used to show that extremist documents often mix hollow-sounding “positive” language with plans for mass violence —
and only a fool reads the positive lines at face value while ignoring the actual doctrine of extermination.

You missed the entire analogy because it would require you to admit what’s obvious:
When a group talks about mass murder and conquest 95% of the time,
and says 'but we tolerate those who submit' in 5% of the text,
you judge them by the 95%, not by the fig leaf.

Third:
Your claim that 'violence was disproved' is laughable.
Hamas’s decades-long history of bombings, murders, executions, hostage-taking, mass rapes, and use of civilians as shields is not 'disproved' because you emotionally want it to be.

You cannot erase all that with wishful thinking.

Fourth:
'Every group has bad people' is not a defense of a group founded specifically for mass murder.
Hamas is not a social club where a few rogue members misbehave.
Their entire purpose — as stated by themselves — is jihad until the elimination of Israel and the imposition of Islamic rule over the land. That is in their charter, and has been since their inception. It is not merely the opinions of the few, but the view of the plenty.

Finally:
Your desperate pivot to 'Israel is bad too' is irrelevant.
This conversation is not about Israel being perfect.
It is about whether you were willing to defend, excuse, or whitewash a terrorist organization whose founding documents and actions openly mandate genocide.

You have not disproved my argument.
You have simply exposed that you will twist any words, ignore any evidence, and minimize any atrocity
rather than admit that you tried to defend monsters.

You haven’t defeated my argument.
You have surrendered your credibility

You acted clueless at first, and still appear clueless, just confidently clueless. We like to call that "uninformed ignorance". Stop believing Hamas is all about sunshine and rainbows, and two states, and whatever other BS you can muster, and start seeing them for what they are, and what they've always been.

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.