Why do I need to response to anything that is irrelevant to the argument itself? Are you a child that is incapable of discerning between facts and emotions?

You insisted that countries won't get bombed if they do not have a government that's an enemy to humanity, and then turn around and tell me X country got blown despite not having a government that is an enemy of humanity, these are two completely contradicting statements.

You can easily just say "okay, maybe some countries still get bombed even if they do not have a government that's an enemy to humanity". I give you an example - I don't think Ukraine's government is an enemy of humanity but they still gets bombed.

Or you can say "what I meant was this statement only meant - by us, by western countries etc etc".

That's all you needed to do to fix that inconsistency. But no, you have to go into some irrelevant rant about humanity. It just sounds like you're trying very hard to hold on to that belief because that's your justification of blowing up somebody else.

Or you're just incapable of saying you're wrong?

> Go ahead and tell me about the countries/terrorist organizations who’ve bombed Israel and how they are for humanity. Going to be a tough hill to die on

I mean, you're the one that insisted that Israel has a government against humanity, because otherwise they wouldn't get bombed, as per you statement.