A better version of my post would be to point out that it took 3 seconds to get some initial info with which to do a quick pass of self-assessing the claims.

I agree with your original point that rhetoric gets stretched a lot on these contentious topics.

Browsing some of the clips myself, I think it's a bit less than a slam dunk on the narrowest interpretation of the streamer "supporting" various groups... but a pretty convincing display of a strong bias wrt said contentious topic.

And to zoom back out to the context of the original comment vis a vis the posted article, it provides some useful context about why this person might be targeted for additional screening by domestic security organizations -- regardless of what one thinks about the validity or wisdom of those particular decisions.

Edit: And to your original framing, I think it's very easily apparent that this streamer is not a simple case of "concern for civilian deaths" -> "endorses Hamas". He's very consistently making the claim that they (and others) are emancipatory groups which are being maligned as terrorist.

I mean, literally in the first video he makes the standard argument that terrorist designations are politicized but you have to "look at who's right". And it's all in the context of defending Hamas and Hezbollah etc

And that's immediately followed by a clip of saying "America is biggest terrorist organization".

Obviously, the streamer is taking a "critical IR" type of standpoint.

So, I'm not sure what standard you're looking for. I never said anything about who's right or wrong, either among the streamers or the underlying sides of the conflict.

But the statement that he "endorses" Hamas etc doesn't seem so farfetched in the overall context.

And I apologized for the snark in my comment providing the link -- that was motivated by pointing out how readily available information is for self-assessment of the claims vs. calling for the original commenter to cite their claims (which most people are not doing in most HN comments).