fukhueson

I said nothing of the sort. Please cite where I said IDF ok :) yet another attempt to lie about my position.

It's still a fallacy, no matter how you want to slice it.

Go away.

I mean it's not like one is the most moral army in the world and the othet is a terrorist organization fighting their oppressors. Wonder which people expect to not shoot or use human shields

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moral_equivalence

Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn't as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.

...

The "not as bad as" argument is always popular with people who know perfectly well they're doing something immoral. Being fully aware of this problem, they feel compelled to attempt to justify it, and they do so by pointing to other, usually worse, immorality. It is practically synonymous to the idea of "the lesser of two evils".

~~Not responding further.~~ I'm in no way accusing anyone of justifying anything, I'm quoting the appropriate section of the article relevant to the fallacy.

The well sourced information presented in the report has not been disputed. You're audaciously prescribing intent onto me (?), accusing me of presenting this to defend NATO. I'm presenting corroborating well sourced information relevant to the article posted. Nothing you claim is substantiated, other than our shared agreement on Tasnim News.

This is unfounded opinion, and a means to discredit information critical of Hamas. Going by your chosen definition, AP news presents information and ideas meant to help inform people on a multitude of issues and is thus propaganda. Did you read the next definition Merriam Webster lists? A bit more critical and harder to apply to NATO huh?

Your answers contain a lot of "can be" and vague allegations. Nothing definite, no evidence. Playing along would be doing what I did, not finding an obtuse definition and applying your personal opinion to it. Like, here's another one:

information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Can't really apply that because the information in the report isn't misleading right? And it's not promoting a cause, it's providing strategies to countries in how to deal with human shield situations. Information, that's it.

I'm tired of this game. Gonna focus on Harris ripping Trump a new one.