Comment by trimethylpurine
2 years ago
What you're saying requires a belief that you are the official speaker of Hamas. And that they don't mean what they say, they mean whatever you say they mean.
It's a stretch. I can't say I believe you. I'll go with the documentation and official statements pending some more compelling evidence to establish your authority.
Dude this post doesn't make any sense, like it's not even attempting to respond to any of it. If you're on tilt, bless, this is overwhelming for me too. But it's bizarre to tell me I'm "trusting Hamas" when I virtue signalled 4 times I don't believe them.
If it's any help to either of you, I'm completely lost in what you're both arguing about, and sometimes on HN you can get caught up in an endless over-explaining trap that sends the thread off into the right margins and really makes whatever important point you were originally trying to make impossible to find.
We all have trouble (me especially) accepting the idea that our interlocutors here sometimes just aren't going to agree with us, no matter how many ways we restate our case. Sometimes the most persuasive thing you can do is just leave off.
No I'm saying that I'm trusting Hamas. I'm not trusting your implied claim that the new charter doesn't say that. It clearly does.
I gave a short response because it seemed like you were claiming that a new charter doesn't call for the killing of Jews. The new one only calls for the killing of the ones in Israel for now, because they are Zionists, even if not by choice.
I am pointing out that the implication is not for you to make. The meaning is expressed by the authors. The same ones who entered a neighboring nation and gave inarguable meaning to their already stated purpose. Furthermore, they NEVER deny the original 1988 meaning either. As a point, they don't.
As for 10% casualty; it means when making 10 calls for 10 kills, if 1 is a bad call that's acceptable. If 2 are bad, that's not acceptable. That was stated pretty clearly in the article. I didn't read it a second time, but I'm sure it's there.
So, Israel, even as demonized in this hearsay article, still sounds 90% better than Hamas.
Stated another way, even if Israel were to state that they intend to only save one Gazan civilian, it's still better than the stated purpose of Gaza. Your earlier comparison then is problematic.
I'm sorry for the percent sign explanation. When you tell me the article doesn't say that, I make a genuine effort to understand what you've missed. The article says 10% casualty, and I said 90% as a cup half full expression. Since you said the article didn't say that, I guessed that you didn't see 90 in the article. I tried to help you look for the 10.
I'm not calling you an idiot despite the seemingly implication. Not everyone understands how percentages work and I can't be expected to make any assumption about what you do or don't know.
Common sense being uncommon as it is.
It says that they are willing to kill up to 20 innocent people for e en the lowliest Hamas stooge in addition to wrongly 1 in 10. That is in order to correctly kill 9 its justified to kill 200 innocents adjacent in addition to 1 yahoo who was poor fellow who was miss-targered.
1 reply →
Bloviating isn't the same as explaining. You make no sense and are actively damaging Israel. Are you a Hamas plant? Your posts are composed of verbal and mental gymnastics completely unrelated to the post you're replying to. I already told you I'm on Israeli right and agree with you the 1988 charter is what to rely on
4 replies →