Hamas overwhelmed Israel’s border in October with a coordinated, large-scale maneuver before committing atrocities. Now, it acts as a guerrilla force, its fighters often disguised as civilians.
You quoted the article saying Hamas blurs the lines between civilians and combatants, and used that to compare the allies in WW2 to Hamas. You make no mention of this only involving guerilla warfare in such a narrow way, and you did not restrict your comparison to that alone in your comment. The quote (and article) clearly encompasses a wider view of the tactics in that sense, and in my opinion is not doing any justice to the comparison you’re making now.
Thank you for your concern with my reading comprehension, but based on your words, I feel my response is appropriate. Now that you have clarified your position, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not attempting to characterize the allies were fighting like Hamas as the article further elaborates, but in a much more narrow, less obvious and in my opinion less meaningful sense since I haven’t read any article criticizing Hamas simply of employing guerilla warfare in the way you’re using it, but in that this is a deliberate use of human shielding and prolonging of Palestinian suffering, as I’ve cited.
You make no mention of this only involving guerilla warfare in such a narrow way, and you did not restrict your comparison to that alone in your comment.
I didn’t clearly say my comment wasn’t about every other possible thing? It wasn’t about child labor laws or women’s suffrage either.
I onky stated it in a narrow way and you read things into it that weren’t there. That is on you.
I read your quote, along with the entire article, which is the subject of discussion. Choose a better quote next time, one that maybe expresses what you’re trying to say. What you failed to do was specify what you meant by how they’re fighting, and after reading the article (which I trust you also did) and the quote (introductory paragraph of the article) you chose to back up what you meant, I would find little reason to think that you’re referencing any other form of warfare than what is described in the article.
Removed by mod
You quoted the article saying Hamas blurs the lines between civilians and combatants, and used that to compare the allies in WW2 to Hamas. You make no mention of this only involving guerilla warfare in such a narrow way, and you did not restrict your comparison to that alone in your comment. The quote (and article) clearly encompasses a wider view of the tactics in that sense, and in my opinion is not doing any justice to the comparison you’re making now.
Thank you for your concern with my reading comprehension, but based on your words, I feel my response is appropriate. Now that you have clarified your position, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not attempting to characterize the allies were fighting like Hamas as the article further elaborates, but in a much more narrow, less obvious and in my opinion less meaningful sense since I haven’t read any article criticizing Hamas simply of employing guerilla warfare in the way you’re using it, but in that this is a deliberate use of human shielding and prolonging of Palestinian suffering, as I’ve cited.
I didn’t clearly say my comment wasn’t about every other possible thing? It wasn’t about child labor laws or women’s suffrage either.
I onky stated it in a narrow way and you read things into it that weren’t there. That is on you.
I read your quote, along with the entire article, which is the subject of discussion. Choose a better quote next time, one that maybe expresses what you’re trying to say. What you failed to do was specify what you meant by how they’re fighting, and after reading the article (which I trust you also did) and the quote (introductory paragraph of the article) you chose to back up what you meant, I would find little reason to think that you’re referencing any other form of warfare than what is described in the article.
Goodbye, I refuse to speak to you anymore.
That is appreciated, thanks!