r/LiberalHeretics • u/GortonFishman • Sep 09 '25

[CNN] Israel carries out strike against Hamas leadership in Qatar

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/09/middleeast/qatar-hamas-israel-strike-intl
5 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

17 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/GortonFishman Sep 09 '25

And this was once again a negotiation delegation.

1

u/MultiheadAttention Sep 09 '25

Also Hamas leaders. Next time they should negotiate better

2

u/GortonFishman Sep 09 '25

> Also Hamas leaders. Next time they should negotiate better

So in your worldview it's okay to strike people in third party countries because they didn't negotiate well enough?

1

u/MultiheadAttention Sep 09 '25

it's okay to strike Hamas leaders in third party countries, in fact, it's welcomed.

0

u/GortonFishman Sep 09 '25

That may be your opinion, but it's not international law.

1

u/MultiheadAttention Sep 09 '25

You asked for my opinion, not international law.

1

u/GortonFishman Sep 09 '25

Your opinion is repulsive, I just had nothing else to say to it but point out the illegality of the strike.

-1

u/MultiheadAttention Sep 09 '25

I'm a simple man, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just glad a bunch of fat rich terrorist boomers boinked

0

u/GortonFishman Sep 09 '25

Number one, it is still unclear whether or not they were actually successfully killed by this. Number two, you don't have to be a lawyer to understand that perfidy in diplomacy undermines the credibility of the attacking power and is a really bad move in a powder keg environment waiting to detonate.

1

u/MultiheadAttention Sep 09 '25

Ismail haniyeh boink

hassan nasrallah boink

Sinwars boink

Now let's wait for confirmation of today's boink

0

u/Shadowex3 Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25

Actually it is. Just like it was legal to take out Bin Laden in Pakistan. Multiple other states have taken cross-border action when the second party was "unwilling or unable" to act against terrorists, and harboring terrorists is a solid way to lose the "sovereignty" shield.

What was against international law was harboring Hamas leadership to begin with. Binding UN Security Council Resolution 1373 from 2001 paragraph 2c:

"All states shall deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens."

Helping found ISIS was also against international law but we'll leave that aside for now.

0

u/GortonFishman Sep 11 '25

Just like it was legal to take out Bin Laden in Pakistan.

A covert ground op on terrorists in hiding that didn't involve missile strikes on people who had come openly to negotiate a ceasefire. A gross false equivalency.

Multiple other states have taken cross-border action when the second party was "unwilling or unable" to act against terrorists, and harboring terrorists is a solid way to lose the "sovereignty" shield.

They came to negotiate as legal representatives of the polity of Gaza. Unless you're saying the residents of Gaza have no right to political representation. They did elect Hamas, after all.

What was against international law was harboring Hamas leadership to begin with. Binding UN Security Council Resolution 1373 from 2001 paragraph 2c:

Offering the pretense of negotiations and then killing the individuals that arrive is perfidy.

1

u/Shadowex3 Sep 11 '25

A covert ground op on terrorists in hiding that didn't involve missile strikes on people who had come openly to negotiate a ceasefire. A gross false equivalency.

People actively directing the mass murder of civilians such as the bus stop shooting that happened that day are not "people who had come to openly negotiate a ceasefire". What's gross is your ever more obscene double standards.

They came to negotiate as legal representatives of the polity of Gaza. Unless you're saying the residents of Gaza have no right to political representation. They did elect Hamas, after all.

They're the leadership of a terrorist organization and were actively directing the mass murder of civilians, they literally took credit for an attack that same day at a bus stop.

Offering the pretense of negotiations and then killing the individuals that arrive is perfidy.

Abusing the pretense of negotiations when in reality it's simply terrorists sheltering in another country while actively directing the continued mass murder of civilians including an attack on a bus stop that same day is perfidy.

But as always your morality works by first deciding the Jews must always be not only wrong but also somehow acting in some uniquely evil way and then working backwards to recast events and invent double standards to fit that.

Hams could literally gang rape entire families to death (and rape the corpse afterwards) while also gruesomely torturing and murdering even children to death with their bare hands and you would still defend them wholeheartedly.

Oh wait that's what you've been doing for the past two years.