"…there came a point, a few weeks ago, when I realized, the government isn’t going to end the war, isn’t bringing the hostages back, and isn’t helping the evacuees.”
" Increasingly, Netanyahu’s many opponents are questioning his handling of the war. Others are questioning the prime minister’s motives, suggesting his political interest lies in the continuation of the fighting, which inevitably delays his political demise. Netanyahu is currently under trial on various charges of corruption."
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.