Maps and documents recovered from the bodies of Hamas attackers reveal a coordinated plan to target children and take hostages inside an Israeli village near Gaza.
Maps and documents recovered from the bodies of Hamas attackers reveal a coordinated plan to target children and take hostages inside an Israeli village near Gaza.
Why can’t we agree someone did something horrible without bringing whataboitisms into it?
Nobody is saying what Hamas did was acceptable, but a lot of people like you will say any stupid bullshit to distract people from talking about ongoing war crimes being committed by our allies.
Someone said Hamas did a bad thing, so your first response was “oh yeah, well Israel…” Which tells me you do in fact support Hamas and what they did
It must be comforting to have a simple worldview.
I have seen people on Lemmygrad celebrating what Hamas did and talking about how they hoped the hostages get tortured. It is not accurate to claim nobody is saying what Hamas did was acceptable.
Mia Khalifa is certainly celebrating it.
So is BLM Chicago, and the greater movement doesn’t seem to object.
Brooklyn College students held a vigil for the dead; others went to protest the vigil, screaming the whole time that it was “justified.”
Londoners vandalized a Jewish neighborhood. Australians are chanting “gas the Jews.” New Yorkers at the “pro-Palestinian” marches gleefully waved swastikas.
A group of something like 30 Harvard clubs issued a statement saying Israel was entirely at fault for the attack, didn’t mention Hamas at all.
Most of this happened before any reprisals. They’re not complaining about reprisals, they’re glorifying the violence.
Lots of people are saying it was acceptable, lots of people are celebrating it, and they’re not all too subtle about why.
whataboitism is when you refer to a completely unrelated issue.
Example:
“Why did you hit him?”
“Well, Johnny over there hit his brother two years ago!” - unrelated, whataboitism.
“He stabbed me, stole my wallet, and tried to run away” - a normal explanation, even though it is too refers to an action of a different person.
With this easy guide you too will be able to understand complex topics in no time
“Why did you hit him? I caught you red handed!”
“I didn’t hit him.”
“Your phone literally says ‘2:00: hit Bob in the face.’”
“Alright, alright, let’s just pretend I hit him. But that doesn’t justify what his cousin said about me last week!”
There was an attack on civilians, it targeted children, it killed children, the people who did it are pretending they didn’t, the user here is also pretending the attrocities didn’t happen, and even they it did, “he started it so nyah.”
Aside from all of the things that detracts from the conversation, is there something it adds?