Israel claims a tunnel ran through this Gaza cemetery it destroyed. A visit to the site raised more questions than answe

[Eko]

13. Ha.

Is not a question?
- No it is not. Unless you insist on asking questions that have already been answered.
Its nice to know that since you feel like you answered it then it becomes not a question. Unfortunately that is not how it works. By definition it is still a question.

"They didn't just dig up a cemetery. They dug up a legitimate military target which they had every reason to suspect was located underneath the cemetery. And they are pretty open about it"
But you dont actually know that so why are you stating it as fact?
- I am not stating it as a fact, I am stating it as something that is not being challenged. I don't actually know that the moon is not made of cheese, but I have no reason to doubt it.
I challenged it, was that not good enough for you? Once again your supposition that you are the arbiter of things seems to be a theme with you.
Your next sentence shows you don't actually know this in the first two words.
" And apparently, they found their military target. "
- That was what the man in charge of finding the tunnel reported. Apparently, if you get the meaning of the word.
Oh yeah, Just like the man in charge of finding WMD's in Iraq found them. Apparently.

The rest of that paragraph reinforces it.
"There is no question that Hamas militants were attacking from the tunnels that the reporter toured, and there is no question that the Hamas military headquarters were located in the tunnel, in close proximity of the cemetery, and there is no question that both the militants and their headquarters were there before IDF dug up the cemetery. "
But there is still the question of if the tunnels went into the cemetery isn't there? Odd that you don't mention that one.
- There is also still a question of whether the moon is made of cheese, but there are no facts to suggest it is. Anybody can ask questions, regardless of their basis in fact.
No, that question has been answered by fact finding and evidence, not someone saying so either way.
"Do you really not care about Hamas turning a cemetery into a military target?"
I'm sure if your neighbor went all MAGA and dug tunnels, hoarded bombs and had a shootout with LE and they razed your house because it was near your neighbor you would be all like, "Yeah, makes sense."
- Forgetting, for argument's sake, that law enforcement and wars are not comparable, and that I resent being compared to a corpse, not to mention the blatant false equivalency of your entire analogy, I would just say that you are avoiding my question.
They are very comparable. That is why our LE uses tactics from our military. Shoot, a lot of times they use the same material. Armored cars, sniper rifles, Quick response teams, automatic rifles, even tanks.

"If the IDF target was underneath a gay bar, they would have leveled a gay bar. And if their target were underneath a salami factory... well, you get the picture. But Hamas chose a friggin cemetery. IDF wasn't after any of the above, they went after a legitimate military target. And nobody in their right mind is disputing this."
Or hospitals, or churches, schools, clinics, pretty much like any building or place and they are now like, fuck it, blow it up, burn it down, dig it up, bomb it, flood it. Tell me like one place, just one place in Gaza that they haven't decided to destroy. Just one place. You cant. Your answer will be its war. And that's fine. You can be that way. I'm not. A lot of us aren't. We aren't the type to think it's ok to obliterate your enemies. The civilians and the fighters. Just admit it. And we still don't have proof they were using that cemetery, just you and them saying they were. If you do indeed think its fine to obliterate your enemies why are you even arguing with me? Does it matter if Hamas was even using the cemetery or if they weren't? Just being near it seems to be enough for you for them to just doze it down.
- Ok, I admit it. Anything that otherwise enjoys the protections of international law and Hamas turns into a legitimate military target loses its protective status, as per international law. It then becomes subject to the treatment afforded to military targets, according to international law. No one but Hamas detrmines what protections they want to void by violating international law. And international law is not concerned with what type you are (and you seem to me the type that thinks it is not ok to obliterate your enemies by some but not others). Am I being too redundant in referring to international law? Does it interfere too much with your narrative that states it is me who makes all these judgements?
International law doesn't protect Hospitals? Churches, Schools, Clinics? Graveyards? It does doesn't it? Of course if the enemy uses one of them like a graveyard to attack then it becomes a military target,,, but they haven't shown proof it was used so then until proof is shown its a violation of international law right? Right?
"BTW, IDF owes neither you nor the reporters nor anyone else any proof. If anyone doubts their account, it is on the doubter to prove there was no legitimate military target under the cemetery. Good luck with that. No, I really don't care about idle speculations being passed as righteous indignation. Especially when it is patently biased and one-sided."
Pretty sure I have money going to the IDF. Naw, the IDF doesn't owe me any proof, but the people that take my money do. Or am I not allowed to care about that at all and must bow down to your idle speculations that are righteous indignation and absolutely biased and one sided? Give me a break. When Ol George Bush invaded Iraq should I have just shut the fuck up then like you obviously think I should now? Should I have just been like, Dang, he said there were WMD's in Iraq so there's your proof? Then I was a traitor for thinking and saying that I didn't believe the party line and needed proof to do absolutely horrible things, now I'm just what? Woke? One last thing, "it is on the doubter to prove", have you ever heard that it is near impossible to prove a negative? Can you prove to me that there werent WMD's in Iraq? Can you?
- I swear, none of the money I get from you goes to IDF. While you are welcome to bow down to me if this is your choice, nothing I say should create in you a sense of obligation. Nor do your posts create in me a sense of obligation to owe you any proof for every righteous indignation you advance. Of course I don't expect you to shut the fuck up, nor do I expect you to speak up. Just a word of caution, though: parroting what is in my posts doesn't necessarily make you sound more persuasive, even as I appreciate the flattery.*
Are you part of the IDF? Do my taxes only go to you? I didnt parrot your posts, I added the quotation marks for a reason or did you not understand that?

*The italics are all mine, so, to avoid the appearance of you having nothing of your own to contribute, try to avoid claiming authorship of any content italicized above.
I added them back so you can feel safe.
Eko.