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.
Imma forfeit, I have exams I can’t be distracted for. I’ll return in about a month and a half.
for you,
Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:64)
“The Jews say, 'The hand of Allah is chained.' Chained are their hands, and they are cursed for what they say. Rather, His hands are extended; He spends however He wills. And what has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. And We have cast among them enmity and hatred until the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindled the fire of war, Allah extinguished it; and they strive throughout the land [causing] corruption. And Allah does not like corrupters.”
Surah Al-Isra (17:7)
“If you do good, you do good for yourselves; and if you do evil, you do it against yourselves. So when the second promise came to pass, We sent your enemies to sadden your faces and to enter the Temple, as they had entered it the first time, and to destroy what they had taken over with [total] destruction.”
Surah Al-Baqarah (2:61)
“And recall when you said, 'O Moses, we can never endure one [kind] of food. So invoke your Lord for us to bring forth for us from the earth its plant, its cucumbers, its garlic, its lentils, and its onions.' Moses said, 'Would you exchange what is better for what is inferior? Go down to any settlement, and indeed you will have what you have asked.' And humiliation and poverty were brought upon them, and they were visited with wrath from Allah. That was because they had repeatedly disbelieved in the signs of Allah and killed the prophets without right. That was because they disobeyed and were transgressors.”
Surah Al-A'raf (7:167)
“And [recall] when your Lord declared that He would surely continue to send upon them until the Day of Resurrection those who would afflict them with the worst torment. Indeed, your Lord is swift in retribution, and indeed He is the Most Forgiving, the Most Merciful.”
Surah Al-Isra (17:4-7)
“And We decreed for the Children of Israel in the Scripture that, 'You will surely cause corruption on the earth twice, and you will surely reach a degree of great haughtiness.' So when the promise came for the first of the two, We sent against you servants of Ours who were experts in war, and they entered the homes, and it was a promise fulfilled. Then We gave you back your turn against them, and We reinforced you with wealth and children and made you more numerous in manpower.”
Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:12-13)
“Allah had certainly made a covenant with the Children of Israel, and We appointed twelve leaders among them. And Allah said, 'I am with you. If you establish prayer and give zakah and believe in My messengers and honor them and lend to Allah a good loan, I will surely wipe away your sins and admit you into gardens of pleasure. But whoever of you denies it after that has certainly strayed from the soundness of the way.'”
You forget very quickly, kido, I am not complaining to anybody, and I am happy whatever Allah decides, it's our own fault to have wahn in our heart, otherwise a single Muslim can take down 1000 if he has pure faith, you will soon see in sha Allah. We were never weak and will never be. A one who has Allah with him is never weak. As I told you earlier, dying by non-believer is in our favor. We are those who defeated Roman and Persian empire and mongols and Christian in crusaders. Even we could have defeated easily English empire if some stupid were not traitor within us. Even Usmania to whom you were begging to give Jerusalem to you. But they were weakened by themselves and also Mughul empire. As I told earlier that every rise has fall and there is no fall to Allah. So let me show you how he is going to deal with it soon in sha Allah with this verse.
Surah Ibrahim – Sahih International Translation
14:45
“And you lived among the dwellings of those who wronged themselves, and it had become clear to you how We dealt with them, and We presented for you [many] examples.”
14:46
“And they had planned their plan, but with Allah was [the plan], even if their plan had been [sufficient] to do away with the mountains.”
14:47
“So never think that Allah will fail in His promise to His messengers. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Owner of Retribution.”
14:48
“[It will be] on the Day the earth will be replaced by another earth, and the heavens [as well], and all creatures will come out before Allah, the One, the Prevailing.”
and what is obstaning you from doing this?
"The Jews control the temple mount, and God willing one day it is torn down, the final abomination"
Keep in mind that dajjal which you are waiting desperately will be killed and he could only be here for 4 days and first day would be of one year 2nd would be of 1 month and 3rd would be a week and 4th a regular one. but he will spread disbelieve and chaos every where in this world axcept Makkah and Mdina. I have found that you are just emotional bragger, and you do not talk about facts and figure when you talked about black stone and pedophillia. you got nothing.
And about fire, it was demo, but you will be burn in hell in the deeper pit because you are hypocrites, as you know the truth and yet conceal it because of arrogance and do not accept it.
You're invoking the opinion that the state cannot be established until the Messiah comes. What is funny is, you don't believe that will ever happen, because you are a Muslim. So essentially what you are doing is, using the opinion of some jews, to justify the belief that Jews should perpetually remain as Dhimmi in the land until they convert. By the way, no where in the bible does it say a Jewish State cannot be established without a Messiah. If the Quran explained everything as you love to remind me it does, then how does it explain Gaza. And then you complain about women and children, your God is allowing it, why don't you complain to him?
If Hamas fought nobly, they wouldn't hide behind women and children, indeed the Quran demands they not hide behind civilians yet they continue to do so.
One last thing, there is nothing neither you, nor your false god, nor your false prophet, can, or will do about Gaza. The war will continue until the hostages are home, and god willing it continues even after that until each and every hamas member is dead. Then the Gazans will be given another chance to found a peaceful enclave, and should they choose again to elect Hamas, they will remember this War, and what it has caused them. Islam is a weak faith full of weak people, and you are certainly a perfect representation of that. All the faith in the world did nothing to stop this war thus far, and I can assure any amount from now won't stop it either. The Jews control the temple mount, and God willing one day it is torn down, the final abomination, then you will know that your life was all for not, and your prayers, and your faith in a pedophile and a stone, was all for not.
the fire is out little guy, how's that war in Gaza going though?
Did you see how Allah controls this world? What can you do about wildfire?
What you are talking about? You are on a debating website thing you are very intellectual person? I am not talking with you on intellectual par. You're probably not very religious and educated about religion and seems like a secular Jew or Zionist as you believe you could create a Jewish state without messiah. You have no proof for whether the orthodox believe was wrong, and you can create a state. Any ways, let me tell you something. You are by nature are very cowards, and your statement that establishing a Jewish state was impossible for 2000 years until now shows you could only create it when you can kill innocent civilians and children and women. Even now you do not have strength, otherwise you the psychopaths would have destroyed the whole world if you would have the power before it. But the history of Jews are clearly mentioned in Quran, how many times you exert horns and how many tries will destroy it and whenever you will cause chaos you will be punished. Two historical times have been recorded and Allah already predicted the future, and you will be dealt accordingly.
Quran explains about everything, and it did explain why we need hadith and how we can cross-check hadith with Quran. Quran explain everything in a sense that everything is controlled by Allah, if you want guidance then you ask it from Allah. Miracle of Quran is that, you get guidance of Allah directly from it. Not many people know how to communicate with Allah through Quran. When you have direct connection with Allah through his book, then what you need? Allah has talked with all humanity what he was supposed to talk and nothing else was needed, so the Quran is enough, and it was revealed what we needed not more or less.
If you think you are very smart, then let's have some debates.
you will know what is theocratic bogus and pseudo-intellectual facade.
I talked with you thinking you know the basics, but unfortunately you do not. It was supposed to go above your head.
Happy we could talk.
After the hiatus, I'd wager you've given up. All my bets to you, telling you to rebut each point I make not just one point (strawman), have you quiet now. Shows me you had no real argument, and when it came down to it, nothing more than 1 fallacy to continually throw out. Point proven. Thanks and see you next time!
Yet more theocratic bogus wrapped in a pseudo-intellectual facade.
No the Quran does not answer everything, otherwise why would you need a Hadith.
The ability to form a Jewish State, indeed revive it, was only possible recently, and so for the almost 2000 years it was not possible. Then it finally was in 1948. Of course you are moving toward trying to say that Judaism doesn't support the establishment of a Jewish State (Presumably without the Messiah or some other idea) and you are 100% wrong.
You are trying to be smart, but read my comment carefully, you will find the answers for all the questions you are asking. They are already there. Though, I want to ask you why not made Israeli for thousands of years? Why you do not follow Jews and your prophet but Zionist from 18th century? I told you before and telling you again, this world is not run by you but Allah.
Someone can gain temporary advantage, but it can never last longer. Your time will come soon in sha Allah. Just wait and see. Allah is just in this world and hereafter, alhumd ll Allah.
One more thing, every single event is mentioned in hadith and Quran, if you have thrust then quench it by yourself.
Okay, was just making sure you knew it was grammatically not right
But fishes sounds cute.
Also, you wrote "fishes"
In that context it should just be fish. One fish is "a fish" multiple fish, is just fish.
"While you're at it, change person to "people". That's also incorrect."
Oh, well, okay.
Also, you yet again don't rebut my entire comment, just a snippet and move on. That is called avoidance, and deflection, and it is a pretty lazy tactic in debating, and just shows you clearly don't know enough to counter, so you stick to your list of fallacies (being mis-assigned) and avoid the rest. I should also note, that it is a text-book definition of Strawman, the very fallacy you claim I am repeatedly doing lmao.
While you're at it, change person to "people". That's also incorrect.
Again, I don't take English advice from someone who doesn't know the proper application of the word person.
And also, you are wrong, the term if, has many functions in the English language. I could say "if you justify Hamas then what do you say about Nazism" which doesn't mean if (sometime) in the future you said you justify Hamas, no, in this context it means if as in "since you have". These are nuances which someone not native to the English language, or at least capable of C1 would clearly not understand (Clearly you).
“if” means “it is so”, implying it only has one fixed meaning — is completely false
"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.
Fair enough
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.