no it means the previous argument was bullshit because fights for human rights for people who fight against human rights is retarded beyond belief. wtf of twisted logic to support the killer as long as you are not getting killed. geez, you are sick.
I think I somewhat misunderstood you previous argument.
As the original argument of the post-chain was the comparison of the Allies carpetbombing Germany (resulting in civilian casualties), and the attacks by Israel (which has also resulted in civilian casualties). I understood your post as justifying the civilian casualties behind their beliefs.
While I do not agree with your thought that people who fight against human-rights have their rights revoked. I can at least to some degree understand your point of view.
It is my opinion murder should be an absolute last resort, and only in cases where a crime has been committed and no other options are available.
On the point of civilian deaths resulting from any attack (be it the Allies, Israel, Hamas or other). I don’t find it acceptable in any way. And that is why I used the words “twisted logic”.
I understood your stance as anyone who thinks differently regarding LGBTQ-rights regardless of any crimes commited should be killed. Which I harshly disagree with.
dont you understand selfdefense, right and wrong?
did you go to school…like ever? hamas and hizbulla want to eradicate israel. theres not much to discuss.
Yes, I went to school where we learned history. WHY do Hamas and Hezbola want to eradicate israel? What about the civilians? Do you know what self defense is? Do you see how silly an argument it is when “their side” says the same thing about their actions?
no it means the previous argument was bullshit because fights for human rights for people who fight against human rights is retarded beyond belief. wtf of twisted logic to support the killer as long as you are not getting killed. geez, you are sick.
I think I somewhat misunderstood you previous argument. As the original argument of the post-chain was the comparison of the Allies carpetbombing Germany (resulting in civilian casualties), and the attacks by Israel (which has also resulted in civilian casualties). I understood your post as justifying the civilian casualties behind their beliefs.
While I do not agree with your thought that people who fight against human-rights have their rights revoked. I can at least to some degree understand your point of view. It is my opinion murder should be an absolute last resort, and only in cases where a crime has been committed and no other options are available.
On the point of civilian deaths resulting from any attack (be it the Allies, Israel, Hamas or other). I don’t find it acceptable in any way. And that is why I used the words “twisted logic”. I understood your stance as anyone who thinks differently regarding LGBTQ-rights regardless of any crimes commited should be killed. Which I harshly disagree with.
But you’re literally supporting a killer as long as you’re not getting killed??? Can you not see the irony?
dont you understand selfdefense, right and wrong? did you go to school…like ever? hamas and hizbulla want to eradicate israel. theres not much to discuss.
Yes, I went to school where we learned history. WHY do Hamas and Hezbola want to eradicate israel? What about the civilians? Do you know what self defense is? Do you see how silly an argument it is when “their side” says the same thing about their actions?