Morch

You are not using the website correctly. The source linked does not appear on the Questionable Sources list.

They can try.

Sure you do. Guess them evil Zionists made you post them antisemitic posts.

More misleading comments from you. She did not witness the shooting. She does not know who shot whom. She saw dead bodies. What she did witness was the Hamas terrorist that held her being taken into custody.

I bet trolls could be, though.

Forget that. If they had just settled for the IDF bases they attacked, they'd be in a way better position by now. Again, bad choices.

Indeed. It was even part of their old party anthem. But be that as it may, it's pretty much out of use for years now. And regardless, this wasn't a protest by Likud members, so not seeing the point. I'll make it clear (you can check my posting history) that I'm not a fan of Netanyahu, his party or their policies.

I will answer you again. Back in 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip. No settlements, no soldiers, no Israelis, no occupation. Hamas could have chosen to take the opportunity and develop the Gaza Strip as an example of what the Palestinian State could be like. What they did instead was stick with their agenda, ideology and charter - turning it into a terrorist base instead. Palestinians have been making bad choices since 1947 (and even earlier). Some acknowledgement of that is in order.

Vs. Hezbollah, but on a limited scale. There are at least two topics supposedly dealing with that, one with little posts, the other with posts about pretty much anything else but.

Yeah, that's what I meant by trying to read the posts you comment on in context. Scroll back and you'll get it.

Hamas could have located its facilities in a manner which would lessen the risk for civilians. It could also have provided for the civilians protection. Or take into account that the Israeli response would be harsh, and maybe rethink. But as was seen - Hamas leadership actually commented that civilian death are required sacrifices for the cause, and even called on civilians to stay put and face Israel's attacks. Hamas cynically and knowingly use the people of Gaza.

It's kinda hard to follow an argument when the goal posts keep shifting. If the purpose of the attack was to make a point, to raise awareness, to break a stalemate, or to disrupt normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, then a limited strike on the IDF bases, and capturing soldiers as hostages would have sufficed. It would have humiliated Israel while at the same time resulting in much less international backlash toward Hamas. It would also rob Israel of much international support and justification for retaliatory actions. I did not suggest that Hamas had to go butt heads with the IDF. Nothing about symmetrical warfare. Just that the atrocities part, the attacks on civilians and so forth were not necessary. I've no idea which questions you think I haven't answered. I know you didn't answer mine regarding the two-state solution (both on this topic and another one).

I did not say that the PLO was Hamas. I pointed out that they were not benign to Israel and Israelis, hence their usage of the slogan wasn't as well. Israel exists between the river and the sea. If someone uses the slogan, he basically denounces Israel's existence. Hence, chanting 'river-to-the-sea' is more than 'supporting Palestinians', as it implies the destruction, erasure or what have you of Israel. I didn't claim Israel was a 'victim', that's something you just injected to the conversation.

Do you do context when you reply to posts? Or just react to standalone words?

Here's an example: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m1060.htm You ongoing campaign to discredit 'barrel bombs' use is dully noted. Assad sends his thanks, I'm sure. The rest of your post - again, nothing that you can support.

You are aware that the first targets attacked on 7/10 were IDF bases and soldiers, right? That's what i was referring to.

You make claims - I don't know what you base them on. Not unusual in your case.

I did not suggest a wide-brush claim as you claim. As for the 'river-to-the-sea' - try harder. Some version of it was indeed used (maybe until the 80's or so) by some Israeli right-wingers, it's not something one often hears nowadays, though. As for it being used by the PLO - how does that contradict by comment? The PLO's original stance was not benign to Israel or Israelis either. How the slogan was used in the past does not have a whole lot of bearing on how it is used today.

You mean your claims ? These aren't facts. I know it's hard to accept.

Yes, and? Did anyone prevent you from posting updates on the fighting up north?

Deflect away.

Asymmetric warfare does not imply all that happened on the Hamas 7/10 attack. Posted earlier that had they limited the attack to the army bases and capture only soldiers, there would be less issues and backlash.

That's not an issue - it's simply not what the topic is about. There are at least two topic focusing on the north front. No shortage of updates on that, just less of a focal point right now. Another deflection.

@thaibeachlovers makes a wide-brush claim. I make the case for a nuanced one. You accuse me of making a wide-brush claim. That's about it.

You've made a general comment doubting reports. How else could it be interpreted?