20
Israelis critical of the government
(themedialine.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 May 2024
20 points (79.4% liked)
Conservative
357 readers
80 users here now
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.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
Smoke. In an urban environment you need lots of smoke to move around. Otherwise you have to use more force which can risk civilians.
Yeah cause we all know Israel values the lives of Palestine civilians 🙄
https://www.hudson.org/terrorism/hamas-strategy-depends-maximizing-palestinian-civilian-casualties-douglas-feith
Why are you using an opinion article from a conservative think tank? This has no value in proving your argument, it’s just a webpage that confirms your beliefs.
You mean why would I use a conservative source on a consecutive forum? Aka the truth.
Oh geez so you really are just using this community to self-confirm your bias and assert your correctness, rather than actually have any kind of real discussion with other users. Cause if it were the second thing you wouldn’t have just called an op piece “the truth”.
Cringey af my guy.
You’re not having a discussion. You’re crying about the source.
Interesting that rather than simply admit “yeah you know what? My source is an opinion article and not necessarily fact” you have to frame it as me crying about it so you can avoid admitting to yourself that maybe you made a bad call.
Say whatever you want to say to make yourself feel superior, I’m simply happy knowing I’m right about this and you have no substantial response, like the other countless threads you’ve dipped out of throughout the week.
You didn’t offer a counter. You offered whining about it.
I can’t have a conversation about crying. Offer a counter cite.
It’s not my job to do the arguing for you, which is basically the same thing you said to me last week when the inverse happened in another thread. You gave a bad reference, it’s that simple.
I guess that means you’re welcome to cry about it.
In the meantime I welcome anything that’s not just some conservative think tank dude’s published thoughts.
No, the reference is good, but you want to whine about it.
It is well known Hamas uses people as human shields. You have yet to counter that.
https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/hybrid-threats-hamas-use-of-human-shields-in-gaza/87
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/03/26/amnesty-international-says-hamas-committed-war-crimes-too/
NATO States it, and Amnesty International states it, yet you don't offer a counterpoint other than but why is a conservative posting a conservative source in a conservative forum.
Hahaha you can’t provide a good source to save your life and rather than actually try you’re just making it other people’s problem 🤣
Even Amnesty International has been found by the US Government of being one-sided and biased.
Washington post article is another opinion article, AND it’s paywalled.
Stratcomcoe just 404’s.
Now I’m starting to think you’re straight up incapable of finding a credible source for your arguments. Maybe that just means your arguments aren’t credible? You should read Rule 2.
Rule 2 - my source is a reliable conservative source.
You’re free to counter cite when you’ve refused to do because you know I’m right.
I just cited you nato and amnesty international Both are reliable sources.
Well it’s reliably conservative, I’ll give you that. The problem is when you’re only paying attention to conservative sources you keep yourself in a little echo chamber and never actually know what’s going on.
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
It isn’t my job to seek out other sources. I seek out the truth. I just cited three serious to your zero.
It’s also not my job to seek out other sources just because yours are bad, so where is this thread going?
Sounds you are arguing in bad faith. That’s where the argument is going
lol for what, not being convinced by a biased news source? If you’re correct then your argument should hold up to basic scrutiny, and should be available in information sources other than conservative opinion articles.
A conservative saying “I’m right because I found a conservative person on the internet that says the same thing” isn’t a good faith argument either. It’s textbook confirmation bias. It also convinces literally nobody, which is probably why most of the activity on this community is from people with dissenting opinions.
But feel free to continue deluding yourself with even more groupthink, it’s your community.
You think amnesty internal is conservative ? That’s trolling.
I didn’t say conservative, I said one-sided.
Bold of you to assume that’s the side.
I also didn’t say I believed they were, they’ve just been found to have been previously by entities such as the US Government, which you’ve previously aligned with on issues like Israel/Palestine.
I guess you only believe government entities when they say what you want to hear.