Al Jazeera denies rumor that hostage was held at employee’s home
Al Jazeera denies rumor that hostage was held at employee’s home
Qatari news network Al Jazeera is stridently denying any link to Gaza-based journalist Abdallah Aljamal, amid unverified rumors that hostage Noa Argamani had been held at his home in central Gaza’s Nuseirat.
According to various rumors, some of which have been picked up by Hebrew-language media with varying levels of credulity, Argamani was held at the home of Dr. Ahmed Aljamal and his son Abdallah. They also claim that Abdallah is an employee of Al-Jazeera.
You're viewing a single thread.
It's impossible! Because that would mean that Hamas is hiding among civilians, effectively using them civilians as shields...
Nobody is saying Hamas isn't using civilians as human shields, they're just saying that it doesn't justify bombing civilians...
فلسطين حرة 🇵🇸 Слава Україні 🇺🇦
Hamas isn’t using civilians as human shields. At least, not at scale. Israel and its western co-conspirators manufacture evidence to use to justify the genocide, but none of that evidence is concrete. It’s just intelligence people making baseless claims.
Unless you define "human shields" as "another person within a quarter mile".
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Thanks for this, I've kind of stepped away from the news cycle as of recent to focus on school, etc. I genuinely was not aware of this.
Yes it does.
You don't want to die? Don't let terrorists live in your home. Leave if you have to.
It's the same old saying, if you have five terrorists and a civilian at a table, you have six terrorists.
Don’t let terrorists live in your home. Leave if you have to.
I'm sure that would have been very easy for the well over 10,000 children who have been killed. Especially the babies.
I have said this multiple times and I will continue to say it- if you have to kill thousands of children in the name of protecting your nation, maybe your nation isn't worth protecting.
Those kids have parents who are making that choice.
Every country who has gone to war in the last century has killed children. The US, Canada, the UK, Germany, France, even Australia...
Civilian casualties are not possible to avoid unless both sides are willing to fight in a completely separate space, and that doesn't happen in modern warfare.
if you have to kill thousands of children in the name of protecting your nation, maybe your nation isn't worth protecting.
Ironically, nearly every major nation in existence has done this at some point in their history. The world is a fucked up place.
Non-ironically, maybe they aren't worth protecting either.
On one hand I can sympathize with that sentiment, on the other hand, I can’t imagine the horrors that would have occurred if the Axis powers had been allowed to conquer the world.
The Axis Powers that were also killing lots of children and thus not worth protecting?
How many terrorists have to be at the table? Itamar Ben-Gvir is a convicted terrorist. Should the cabinet adjourn every time a Kehanist or two shows up? Or does it require a 5/6 ratio before guilt by association kicks in?
If you have one nazi...
Going along with this thought…
Does the setting matter?
Like if I allow or invite one terrorist to live with me, is that the same as regularly attending a governmental meeting with one?
I’m with you man. There are very few adults in Palestine that can truly claim innocence. And they put their children at risk by supporting and aiding Hamas.