Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
If not directly from their own mouths, is there literally anything that could convince you that these people support hamas?
I know they support Hamas. I read somewhere that upwards of like 70% support their government.
To convince me that they are Hamas, and thus combatants and not civilians, needs more credible evidence, though.
And neither the Israeli nor U.S. governments are above manufacturing consent when it comes to foreign policy. It's fallacious, I'm fully aware, to reject anything they say out of hand...but if there weren't so many foreign policy liars, I wouldn't have a problem.
In short, my problem isn't with what's being reported, but who is doing it.
So what? Hamas forfeited their position to complain about differing combatants and civilians when they chose to engage as irregular combatants. To that end, everyone who stays in combat areas when told to evacuate should be considered a combatant. But the nature of irregular combatants and warfare is probably just something we should agree to disagree on here.
I absolutely agree that a huge amount of reporting is less than honest. But my main question is then, who do you consider a viable source, if anyone, or what's your strategy for getting information you can trust, if you don't consider any sources to be up to snuff?
That's a good question.
If it's a pro Hamas source, then I'll believe what it says about Hamas. Like if Egypt reported that doctors were Hamas combatants, that'd be believable.
Well I mean yeah, but that's not going to happen. Hamas and their friends have a vested interest in making it look like they're just a bunch of victims.
I guess the reason I'm curious is because I find a lot of people (yourself not included) who more or less dismiss every source that backs up Israel's stance/actions as just being zionist propaganda or whatever, so I'm interested in what we (in a general sense) could find that would serve as a sort of common ground of facts, even if we don't agree on the more subjective side of things. Because yeah, there's always going to be people who just carry water for their "side" regardless of the facts, but i feel like a lot of the middle ground is getting pulled to the extremes by the narrative that nothing can be trusted.
Hamas isn't the only group complaining about civilian deaths though, so this is a weird point to bring up that doesn't really add anything to the conversation.
Children are not combatants. Women (generally) are not combatants. Refugees are not combatants.
This is also a double standard, because Israel has been told for decades to leave. Does that make Israeli civilians combatants? No, obviously not.
Civilians should not be killed. Organizations that intentionally kill civilians are terrorists organizations, which includes both Hamas and Israel.