[Vincentsdream]

okay I misunderstood my bad.

[houseoftechno]

US Immigration arrests a Turkish student to yank her visa and send her home for pro-Islamist anti-Israel activism.

[houseoftechno]

Armed Hamas street fighting defense tactics.

[houseoftechno]

I hear there is a little bit of a clatter going on with the citizens of Gaza.

Seriously, I hope they don't get harmed for protesting, but from the MO of the Islamist regimes, I expect citizens are going to get seriously hurt.

[Vincentsdream]

With in two posts younworry about gazans expressing their freedom of speech, and glorify someone being deported for doing the same lmao. That's rich.

I am interested in the "human shield" video, what's the source?

[IvorySmith]

Originally Posted by Vincentsdream ↗

Insane.

2. The report lists a total of 37 people killed under the age of 17. So you believe the slaying of 37 youths makes the tens od thousands of dead children in Gaza okay? You dont leave much room for sympathy for one group vs the others, thus you obviously support the genocide.

The effects of a cause don't automatically nullify the justification for the cause.

Cause: hamas hates Israel
Effect: hamas killed civilians

Cause: israel hates hamas
Effect: israel killed civilians

What's missing between the Cause and Effect is "intent."

Cause: hamas hates israel
Intent: hamas will kill civilians because they're too weak to kill Israeli military
Effect: hamas killed civilians

Cause: israel hates hamas
Intent: Israel will kill hamas in a heavily populated area where collateral damage is probable
Effect: Israel killed civilians

One side's Intent was solely to kill civilians and only killed 37.
One side's Intent was solely to kill thousands of combatives, and killed thousands of civilians in the process.

The attacker does not always get the benefit of choosing the location of the battle. Hamas chose to have a battle in their own populated city, or else, they would not have attacked Israel (only a tard attacks someone's people without expecting consequences).

I'm certain that, if hamas extended the invitation to israel, that israel would have fought them in the desert far, far away from civilians. But the situation was that hamas needs public support via the death of their own people. Hamas is too weak to fight the Israeli military, so has to fight unconventionally. Part of this fight is garnishing public opinion. You know who hates baby killers? Everyone. So let's put our babies on top of our weapons, so that when they destroy our weapons (the weapons we've used to kill their babies), they'll have to kill our babies and the world will hate them.

Why do they need public opinion?
If enough people label Israel's cause as genocide, then hamas will have won because, you do not have to destroy an army, you only have to defeat it. If hamas can attack israel and the international community forbids israel from counter-attacking, then hamas has completely negated Israel's military superiority by changing the rules.

However, in real life, if you go over a border and attack a stronger nation's people, then that country has the right to seek you out. If you want to hide behind civilians so that they have to kill civilians to kill you, then that's their right, and you'll have to deal with the consequences.

What is completely wrong is that you, as someone not in the conflict, can't see the conflict from both sides. Don't be blinded by propaganda, like WM suggested. Make your own opinion and don't choose sides. It's a crappy situation, and just like when Jews were being killed in ww2, he who has the biggest guns makes the rules. Doesn't make it wrong or right, just makes it crappy and life. Always has been, always will be.

[WonderMomma]

New thread here: https://www.documentingreality.com/f...2025-a-260638/