"…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."

  • BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.

    • NeuromancerM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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 🤣

      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.

        • NeuromancerM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It isn’t my job to seek out other sources. I seek out the truth. I just cited three serious to your zero.

            • NeuromancerM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Sounds you are arguing in bad faith. That’s where the argument is going

              • BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                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.

                • NeuromancerM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  You think amnesty internal is conservative ? That’s trolling.

                  • BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    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.