Clausewitzian

Also, last point.
You argue against freedom of speech, yet........ are a self described Libertarian........ I really don't know how that can be, as a libertarian is, by their very definition, against restrictions on speech.

I shall give but a few observations. I do so freely, because I have the right to speak. I intend to exercise that right, whether or not it causes offense, because I live in a democracy. And in a democracy, speech is not a luxury, no, it is a necessity.

You opened by praising freedom of speech as a noble inheritance, passed down by our forebears, granting us the ability to speak publicly and without fear. In this, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But scarcely a breath later, you pivot: speech, you claim, can be harmful; speech, you warn, ought to be restricted. You go further still, suggesting that speech is no longer merely speech—it has now become a tool.

Let us be clear: speech has always been a tool. That is why it evolved from the primitive grunt to the articulate phrase, from tribal murmur to statesman’s oration. It is a tool sharpened by civilization, by philosophy, by politics. And as with all tools, it may build or destroy. But the point is not to dull the tool, it is to teach its proper use.

In a democracy, we live with both edges of that sword. We accept that speech will, at times, be crude, painful, or foolish—because the alternative is far more dangerous. The alternative is silence.

Of course, speech is not without limits. Most democratic societies already recognize boundaries: libel, defamation, incitement to violence—these are not protected forms of speech. Even in the United States, that great fortress of free expression, one may not incite panic by falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre. So I must ask: when you call for further “restrictions,” what precisely do you mean?

Who, under your model, shall decide what is or is not harmful speech? Shall we criminalize criticism of religion? If a citizen says, “This religion treats women unfairly, and I oppose it,” is that hateful? Should it be punished?

You must understand that once the state acquires the authority to police speech based on offense or discomfort, it will not stop with your concerns. Today it is religion, tomorrow it is politics, the day after—history itself. Shall our children be raised on a single narrative, taught only one version of the past, allowed only one acceptable opinion?

We have seen, in living memory, regimes that muzzled speech in the name of the “greater good.” Nazism, Communism, theocratic absolutism, all began by silencing the “wrong” voices. And in the end, all voices fell silent. I would rather face the chaos of discord than the quiet of oppression.

Let me be clear: I do not defend unchecked speech. I defend free speech, restrained by law where necessary—but never by fear, never by vague appeals to safety, and never by those who seek power through censorship.

We do not preserve democracy by weakening its core. We preserve it by enduring its challenges and remaining steadfast in its principles, even when it is difficult, even when it is unpopular.

Freedom of speech is not simply a right. It is the lifeblood of a free people. And I would rather be wounded by words than silenced by decree.

Thank you.

Certainly, that is one of the shortcoming's of this website.
Note, he is a self-published author who's entire professional reputation relies on the premise of this argument (Otherwise his book is pointless), so he wouldn't dare argue this topic in public if he also didn't get to make the rules.

I can't blame him either, but you can see by his arguments he is going to great lengths to make people think that isn't what he is doing, when clearly it is.

Think about this:
If he's arguing that "In the Year of our Lord" constitutes a religious invocation, then he has to confront this simple fact: the year “1776” itself is based on the Anno Domini system — a calendar system created by Christians to count the years since the birth of Christ.
So if the mere use of religiously-originated phrasing equals religious intent, then every reference to the year 1776 would also be a religious act. He can’t have it both ways.
That forces a choice:
If he says it doesn’t count, then he's admitting that religious origin doesn’t automatically mean religious meaning.
If he says it does count, then what is he actually proving? By that logic, every government document ever dated using the Gregorian calendar would be a theological statement — which is absurd.

Common sense tells us that saying “1776” isn’t a religious invocation. And by that same logic, neither is “In the Year of our Lord.” Both are ceremonial phrasing, nothing more.

FauxLaw:
You didn’t present an argument — you delivered a sermon in footnotes just to avoid saying the plain truth:
Yes, the Constitution says 'in the Year of our Lord.' That’s not divine revelation — it’s 18th-century date formatting. A timestamp, not a theological thesis.

It doesn’t establish doctrine, it doesn’t endorse a deity, and it certainly doesn’t mean James Madison was invoking Horus, Ra, or the cosmic spirit of due process.

So no, you haven’t shown that the Constitution meaningfully 'mentions' God. You’ve just taken a throwaway formality and tried to canonize it.
Yes you did frame the debate so as to afford you maximum room to operate, while confining your opponent to basically having to prove that it doesn't mention god period, not just, it doesn't mention god in any meaningful sense.

Sir.Lancelot:
I don't know if you feel this way, but if I was in your position, I would feel as though I've just wasted hours of my time debating someone who is here in bad faith.
He 100% framed the debate to favour his opinion, which affirms what I said a few comments ago which is, FauxLaw would never debate this topic publicly unless he could make the rules, and place his opponent in a box with no possibility of deviation.

You know what would be a good idea? Make the same debate, but frame it in a way which makes it neutral, i.e. state that "In the Year of our Lord" is mentioned, but one has to prove it was done so, as a clear invocation of religion. Then challenge him to a debate and watch him not answer, or decline. As it stands now, he has limited what you can do, forcing you to recognize what everyone already knew, that the lord is mentioned, but with the added implication, that His mentioning was done so in violation of "separation of church and state" in mind. He won't accept that debate, I almost guarantee it, because it would show that he is guilty of Truism, since he can't prove the mention was meaningful in any sense.

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?

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.

Okay, was just making sure you knew it was grammatically not right

Also, you wrote "fishes"

In that context it should just be fish. One fish is "a fish" multiple fish, is just fish.

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

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.

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

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'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

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.

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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"

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.

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

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

For Fawzia Amin Sido: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawzia_Amin_Sido

For Hamas's Charter:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

How you can say "You've come closer to convincing me that Hamas is bad with these stories of sex slaves" is utterly beyond me. A day ago you were confident you could defend hamas and their attacks against jews, now you need to "do more research" and "need to confirm" what I said, which is code for "I don't know enough about this conflict, so let me save face and pretend to go do research.

To Wylted:

You and me both. She stopped me at "I could argue Hamas' attacks against civilians are justifiable"

I appreciate that you’re taking the time to reconsider things. I don’t expect anyone to know every detail about complex conflicts — but I do believe that before even entertaining justification for a group’s actions, it's important to fully understand who they are and what they stand for.

It's not just isolated 'bad people' doing 'bad things' on both sides. Hamas’s founding charter, their actions, and their ideology all point very clearly to systemic hatred — including against polytheists, Yazidis, Jews, Christians, and many others.

Also, just because Yazidism isn’t considered fully polytheistic doesn’t mean you would have it any better. In fact, you would likely have it worse. You seemed to imply, even if unintentionally, 'well, Yazidis don't worship multiple deities like I do, so this anecdote doesn't really resonate.' But the truth is, Hamas — and groups like them — make no fine distinctions when it comes to 'acceptable' versus 'unacceptable' non-Islamic beliefs. Any deviation, whether it's Yazidism, Wicca, polytheism, or anything outside strict Islamic orthodoxy, would be seen as grounds for severe punishment.

I respect that you're willing to look into it more — and I hope you do. Because in matters this serious, neutrality without full knowledge can unintentionally side with very dark forces.

I'll give you one name, Fawzia Amin Sido. She was abducted by ISIS following the massacre of her village in 2014, when she was 11 years old. She was held by ISIS, and made a sex slave, having multiple children by ISIS fighters, and was sold repeatedly to many different Muslim groups around the middle east. The last group she was sold to was Hamas where she was held for 10 years (most of her time as a slave). She was rescued by Israeli Forces, being held in Rafah. That place everyone told Israel not to go to, where only civilians were. She was used as a sex slave by Hamas, whose actions against Israel you see justification for.

According to ISIS and Hamas, Yazidism is polytheistic. They believe in one God, but also believe in many divine angels who manage the world.

Now tell me you want to still try and make the case of Hamas. You and others think they're just a group dedicated to the liberation of so called "Palestine" if that were the case, why would they be spending money on Yazidi children to impregnate?
"But right now their main enemy is Israel's military"
No, that's simply not true. If that were true, they would not have taken civilians as hostages. They would not have killed a Holocaust survivor in captivity, and they would not have bough a child to impregnate, simply because, according to them, she's a polytheist. Their enemy is the West, their enemy are those who reside in the region of Palestine, exerting sovereignty over it.

Make no mistake, they hate non muslims, you and I alike, and they are fooling millions by framing their fight against Israel, as one of liberation. You said you could justify their attacks against Israel (Including against civilians), I ask you, a polytheist, whether you think you'd be able to travel to a state under the rule of Hamas. Right now you can go to Israel freely. Hamas seeks to establish a Caliphate governed under Sharia Law. I am telling you, do some research before you try and defend people who (I say again) will hurt you.

I only meant to make that clear, in case you were not aware (As I have encountered one other polytheist before, who evidently was not aware), because you expressed a desire to defend Hamas' attacks on Israeli civilians, and at some point in the future, imagine (God, or in your case God(s) forbid), they attacked you, and someone got up to defend them against you. Then what?

As you are clearly a polytheist, I should remind you that Hamas and their followers, and allies throw polytheists off buildings.

Now, having said that, lets hear you argue that 10/7 was justified.

They wouldn't convert to Islam. As you certainly know, Islam has taken a lot from Judaism. Most of its prophets, its torah has been changed to fit the Islamic narrative, but one thing mohammed could not steal, is the Jews from their own faith. They refused to convert, and rejected his prophethood. We see then later in the Quran, that mohammed turns violent against them, and ethnically cleanses them from Arabia.

I also suggest you try and establish the validity of the Hadith, many are made out of political necessity to allow for violence or to explain one of the many shortcomings in the so called perfect book the Quran.

Bottom line, Jews like any group do not deserve genocide (which make no mistake, mohammed was advocating for in the Hadith), nor can supposed crimes of some members, act as justification to murder all members. In any case, the Quran is a jew hating book, and the islamic religion does not allow for a Jewish state to exist in so called Dar al-Islam.
When you read about Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Qatar, make no mistake, they're in this for Islam, not for so called liberation and freedom, hence why Hamas cites that same hadith in their inaugural charter along with:
"The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews' usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised."
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
(They want a truce, not an end to any conflict hence the resistance to any peace initiative by israel which keeps them in power.
Article 22: "They [the Jews] were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard about... They also stood behind World War I... They also stood behind World War II, where they collected immense benefits from trading in war materials and prepared for the establishment of their state."
"The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say: O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him — only the Gharqad tree would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

That all comes from Islam, but yeah, keep wondering what the Jews did, when the real problem is clearly Islam

I'm interested to hear what you mean by "Hamas' attacks on Israel are justified", as you didn't note if some attacks are but others aren't, merely that their attacks are justified, which would further imply that you believe October 7, was justified, which opens a can of worms I 150% believe you could not defend from.

Which attacks are justified by Hamas in your opinion.

The Hamas Charter outlines a broader ideological framework tied to Dar al-Islam (House of Islam), emphasizing that lands under Islamic rule must remain so. Non-Muslims (referred to as “infidels”) within Dar al-Islam are subject to specific conditions under Islamic governance. The Charter extends this idea to Palestine, framing the struggle as both religious and territorial. Its rhetoric—especially in calling for jihad and targeting Jews—has been criticized for anti-Semitism and for conflating political objectives with religious obligations.

I am not criticizing you because you're a student; I am critiquing your phrasing. In your opening, you say, "It's very possible that Hamas has committed its own war crimes." The key phrase—“very likely”—is problematic. Their invasion was a war crime. Taking hostages, especially civilians, is a war crime. Using civilian infrastructure for military purposes is a war crime. Desecrating bodies is a war crime. All these actions occurred within the first 72 hours of the October 7 invasion. Yet, you imply uncertainty with “very likely.” This is where my criticism stems from.

Regarding collateral damage caused by Israel, the question revolves around casualty figures and whether they reflect disproportionate harm. If you’re prepared to discuss this further, please share the data you’re referencing to support claims about unnecessary collateral damage.

Your argument critiques the IDF’s proportionality and collateral damage, but it clearly overlooks key principles of international humanitarian law. Proportionality doesn’t demand zero collateral damage; rather, it assesses whether the anticipated military advantage outweighs the risk to civilians. For example, the ambulance incident you mention—while shocking—is under investigation, with reports suggesting that six Hamas fighters were among the dead. If true, this would highlight the complexities of combat zones, where neutral entities like ambulances can be exploited by militants. While this does not absolve Israel of responsibility, it adds nuance to the discussion.

Warnings to civilians, such as evacuation notices, are not about exonerating the IDF but fulfilling their obligation to minimize harm. These efforts are complicated by Hamas embedding operatives in civilian areas—an act that constitutes a war crime under international law.

Finally, your critique of tone while conceding ignorance weakens your position. Substance dictates debates, and if you have none, or are lacking, then you lose.