fukhueson @ fukhueson @lemmy.world

Posts

268

Comments

485

Joined

2 yr. ago

My comment is relevant to the article. Your comment in reply to me is whataboutism by definition.

Yes, no doubt left as far as how criticism of Hamas gets received.

Mmk

Edit: downplaying the quite evident problem here where if you are critical of Hamas your argument is shut down with whataboutism and accusations of justifying genocide.

Ignoring your comment since you're misrepresenting my argument. No need to address anything you said, this is simply an attempt to reframe my concern that criticism of Hamas is met with whataboutism.

Just look at the soap box this user takes advantage of when I say no one should use human shields. "Yea Hamas does it, but Israel???"

I'm really done with you now, you are simply wasting my time trying to distract from discussion.

There's proof it's a mistake? Also, misrepresenting my argument. It's getting more and more clear what's going on here...

Also, I think you meant to reply to me, not yourself?

An argument expressing the futility of criticizing Hamas while attempting to redirect criticism towards Israel... Now that's funny.

Edit: lol like I need to entertain these whataboutisms... Demanding answers...

And you disproved what I posted... Where? Because I'm trusting this wasn't just a springboard to talk about the IDF when I'm discussing what Hamas is doing right?

Because that'd be whataboutism...

Maybe try addressing what I wrote, not what you want to engage in, which for you is discussing the IDF and not Hamas.

Ignoring your comment since you're misrepresenting my argument. No need to address anything you said, this is simply an attempt to reframe my concern that criticism of Hamas is met with whataboutism.

Just look at the soap box this user takes advantage of when I say no one should use human shields. "Yea Hamas does it, but Israel???"

I don't think you understand what a hypothetical is.

I won't respond to anything else you posted.

Wait until you find out that no one should be using human shields to begin with :) either side.

In my opinion way more productive than silly hypotheticals (and how poor arguments should be responded to, in kind)

Man it would be great if someone (anyone) could disprove what I'm posting, instead of throwing accusations of genocide or... Memeing...

Edit: lol at the insistence of hypotheticals being some "gotcha."

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-cia-award-for-excellence-in-journalism

The CIA Award for Excellence in Journalism is a tongue-in-cheek name and slang expression for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) allegedly killing off journalists who uncover too much public-sensitive information. Referencing the suspicious suicide of investigative journalist Gary Webb and the murder of activist Fred Hampton, the joke and catchphrase achieved prominence online following a viral 2020 tweet.

I think this is an unjust indictment of the mods, and unproductive.

Weird

Edit: appreciating the admission they weren't even trying to have a discussion.

Weird conclusion, speaking for yourself?

Sorry I thought you read your article:

The military alleged that the strike targeted Hamas leaders, including Samer Ismail Hader Abudaqa, whom they identified as the head of the Palestinian movement's aerial unit; Osama Tabash, who it called the head of surveillance and targets in Hamas’s intelligence division; and Ayman Mabhouh, another senior official.

Won't be continuing this conversation, especially if this is the level of discussion I should expect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism or whataboutery is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation.

I bring up information relevant to the article. I'm responded to with a counter accusation instead of a rebuttal of the provided evidence. I won't be replying to you anymore, this is a waste of my time.

Yea I was addressing content directly discussed in the article. I was replied to with things unrelated to Hamas' military use of civilian infrastructure, in an effort to derail conversation on the matter.

Also you don't know what whataboutism is, clearly.

Ah yes, hypotheticals we'd never have to consider. What if Hamas actually cared about Palestinians?

Am I doing it right? :)

My properly sourced information is not invalidated by anything you said. It actually cited multiple highly reliable sources.

Also it's whataboutism :) anyone noticing a pattern here? Blindly discredit anything critical of Hamas?

Goodbye!

Edit: there's nothing "propaganda" about NATO. This ought to be a red flag... And yes, this report confirms more than your sources do, posting incomplete assessments of Hamas' use of human shields does not discredit NATO, sorry.

Edit 2: how hilarious is it that NATO stratcom is accused of being a propaganda outlet when the original post is from MEE?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Eye

Middle East Eye (MEE) is a UK-based news website founded in 2014 that covers the Middle East and North Africa. It is reportedly funded by the government of Qatar.

Organisation

Middle East Eye was launched in London in April 2014. It is not transparent about its ownership. It is formally owned by a company called M.E.E. Limited with a single director Jamal Bessasso; Bessasso is not specified as the owner. Its editor-in-chief is David Hearst, a former foreign lead writer for The Guardian. It employs about 20 full-time staff in London as of 2017.

According to its critics, Middle East Eye began forming in London in 2013 as the Islamist influence of Al Jazeera began to wane; several Al Jazeera journalists subsequently joined the project. Jonathan Powell, a senior executive at Al Jazeera, was a consultant ahead of its launch and registered the website's domain names. Bassasso, a Kuwait-born Palestinian living in London, was the sole director of Middle East Eye's parent company, M.E.E. Limited. Bassasso was a former director for the Hamas-controlled Al-Quds TV. David Hearst denied that Bessasso was the owner of the news site but refrained from divulging the real owner.

According to Ilan Berman and Sultan Sooud Al-Qassemi, Middle East Eye is backed by Qatar. The governments of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain accuse MEE of pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias and receiving Qatari funding. They have demanded MEE be shut down following the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar. MEE has denied the accusations, saying that it is an independent news site, not funded by any country or movement.

Is this comment also accusing me of justifying genocide? Like the others that were removed?

In fitting behavior, I could ask for evidence those Hamas military figures were elsewhere. However, I'm confident subsequent reviews of this event and others like it will uncover the truth, and perhaps we'll get another extensive report on the matter (did you read my link?).

I think we both know that lies travel faster than evidence, don't we?

Don't really care about the reply, I got what I wanted.

Blatant whataboutism :)

Edit: How easy would it be for them to say that both might be true? Very. But if they said that Hamas would lose credibility, and bring into question the whole "freedom fighter" schtick. Can't address it, must focus on allegations of genocide and accusing others of defending genocide if anyone brings up something critical of Hamas (please peruse their comment history), thereby derailing any discussion on the matter.

See? It's that easy.