Hamas member says they will repeat attacks until Israel is destroyed
news.yahoo.com
Ghazi Hamad, a senior member of Hamas, has welcomed the large-scale attack on Israel on 7 October, during which civilians were killed en masse, and promised that the Palestinian terrorist group would repeat such attacks many times in the future until it destroyed Israel.

Quote: “We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do it again and again. The Al-Aqsa Deluge [the name Hamas gave its 7 October onslaught - ed.] is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth. Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it. We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.”

  • Limitless_screaming
    4•1 year ago

    He’s saying that Hamas isn’t legitimate because they committed atrocities. I will never accept this until people acknowledge that the occupation government isn’t legitimate, and doesn’t deserve a dime.

    Let me be clear here: if you have to choose the lesser of two evils, then the occupation government will not be your choice, no matter what’s on the other side.

    • BarbecueCowboy
      0•1 year ago

      I feel like your argument here gets slippery very quickly. You’re basically advocating for ‘win at all costs’ if you’re on a specific side and that’s real hard to support.

      • Limitless_screaming
        3•1 year ago

        Advocating for a “win at all costs” strategy is something you should accuse people supporting the murder of dozens of people because there’s a Hamas leader amongst them (still disputed) of.

        I don’t want civilians to be harmed and I don’t support terrorizing people until they retaliate. those two qualities make me a better person compared to any occupation government supporter (person on the other side). lets say that I support the murder of civilians until Hamas achieves their objectives, that would only bring me down to their level, if not a little higher.

        • BarbecueCowboy
          0•1 year ago

          no matter what’s on the other side.

          You’re redirecting now and trying to walk it back, but those are your words.

          • Limitless_screaming
            2•1 year ago

            Am I? Lets put the quoted words back in their original context:

            if you have to choose the lesser of two evils, then the occupation government will not be your choice, no matter what’s on the other side.

            Let me break that down for you:

            1. if you have to (means if you had no other choice but to do the given task)
            2. choose the lesser of two evils (means that the two options are bad, and you’re about to choose the least horrible one)
            3. then the occupation government will never be your choice, no matter what’s on the other side (means that the occupation government is so bad that you cannot sink lower)

            BTW everyone can see what you’re giving boosts to on Kbin. It’s very weird that there are two people on the same platform (kbin), with the same position on this conflict, who have the same weird habit.

    • @ultranaut@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0•1 year ago

      I don’t understand this way of thinking. Why does what people believe about the legitimacy of the Israeli government have any effect on your acceptance of atrocities?

      • Limitless_screaming
        4•1 year ago

        Why does what people believe about the legitimacy of the Israeli government have any effect on your acceptance of atrocities?

        It doesn’t, atrocities are atrocities, but if people think that Hamas isn’t legitimate for their atrocities, then the occupation government is even less legitimate for theirs.