If you read carefully, you will notice that the commenter used the past tense: "had" = simple past tense of the verb "to have".
If you read carefully, you will notice that the commenter used the past tense: "had" = simple past tense of the verb "to have".
Only
The chemical makeup of the two liquids is different for a start, so you're wrong in saying that.
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
~Ford Prefect
I am answering you. The guy you asked a question to was talking about something that had happened in the past. You then asked a question as though you'd misread it and thought he was saying that it was still happening. He didn't say that, so your question is already answered.
You forgot "fully automatic"
Same. I've got thousands of hours in Skyrim. It's my favourite game of all time. But I'm more into sci fi than fantasy generally and Starfield is shaping up to be everything I would've asked for. It's taken over my life and I have no regrets. Bethesda smashed it again.
"Common sense is just the set of prejudices acquired by the age of eighteen."
~Albert Einstein
Also, when a mummy user and a daddy user love each other very much, they go into a special private online matchmaking lobby and make little baby users.
Just wanted to point out a few factual inaccuracies in your comment.
Totally agree. I'm British, so bearing responsibility for all the horrific and stupid shit the people in charge of the place I was born have done is especially unappealing. Abolishing Israel isn't the answer, nor is blaming powerless Israeli citizens. Even worse is attacking the Jewish diaspora around the world as if they have anything to do with it, that's clear and unambiguous racism.
Similar is the disgust for China/the CCP.
Fuck the CCP --> valid criticism
Fuck China --> ambiguous, could be either
Fuck the Chinese --> outright racism
The problem is the racist can hide behind the likes of the middle statement, using it as a dog whistle, and it can seem like it has huge support, even though most of the people agreeing think they are agreeing with the top statement.
I hope you're right. The opposition haven't indicated they're going to rescind anything yet. They've shuttled so far to the right in the last three years in a successful effort to woo the disillusioned "centrists" that it's really hard to get a grip on where they stand ideologically. All that can be said is they will do anything and say anything if they think it will get them more votes, and they won't commit to anything which might upset the centrists.
Isn't Israel quite happy to keep Israel and Judaism undifferentiated, though? They seem happy to conflate anti-zionism with anti-semitism, and even any criticism of the state of Israel, or support of Palestine as anti-semitism. With such broad and frankly ridiculous definitions, I'm not surprised to see a rise in so-called anti-semitism.
I wouldn't be surprised if hateful people did take delight in the genocide Israel is perpetrating, but I don't see it. And criticising genocidal actions doesn't require hatred for the perpetrators in order to be valid. Anti-semites were clear to lambast Israel at any point in the past 100 or so years, even more so now. And so were normal people.
I have tinnitus, and bought a Bluetooth audio sleep mask so that I could sleep with the TV off and not keep my partner awake. That in itself was a game changer, but on top of that, I sleep way better with my eyes covered and I use it now even when I'm not listening.
(It's extra weird because I have thick eyelids and see black when I close my eyes even in a well lit room, so I never considered that I'd need one.)
The benefit cap is right wing.
Banning your MPs from joining picket lines is right wing.
Purging the left wing from your party -but leaving the right wing untouched- iis right wing.
You can only call Starmer centrist if your view is one from a right wing perspective.
The Overton window in the UK is too far to the right, as is our policy on almost every area. We need a strong push to the left to take us back to the centre, not a slightly watered down, more palatable version of Thatcherism.
Ok let's start with this one:
"Israel has built illegal settlements in Palestine every day since signing the Oslo accords"
Go ahead. Prove that wrong.
Comments like this restore my faith in the internet
Here's a criticism of Israel for you:
The rise in anti-semitism is primarily Israel's fault.
Would you prevaricate thusly when speaking about, say, the third Reich? Or would you "delegitimise" that entire state? Maybe you should think twice before publicly "demonising" the Nazis?
Sometimes a "whole state" bears criticism. Israel does, right now, because it is committing war crimes with western support.
The 3D test unfortunately proves nothing. It would be very useful if we could prove criticism of Israel was coming from an anti-semitic place, but you can't, because you can't read minds. It's one of the most insidious features of all racism: it's very easy to hide. At the moment, though, it is fair to assume that a majority of the criticism of Israel comes from common decency and human compassion, because the IDF are dropping tower blocks on children in their thousands in "self-defense". Anyone enabling those types of actions is the worst of humanity because of their actions and decisions, not because of which god they pray to.
Very good point.
It is accurate, and I can back it up with data. Is there anything in particular you think is incorrect? Or are you just annoyed with it in general.
bombing civilian infrastructure which is likely to have families, children, non combatants inside is a war crime.
collective punishment is a war crime.
forcible relocation is a war crime.
ordering civilians to a new area and then bombing them en route or on arrival is intentional targeting of civilians, and therefore a war crime.
blockading a population within an area which you are actively shelling is a war crime.
depriving a population of non combatants of food and water and fuel is a war crime.
bombing a convoy of ambulances is a war crime.
bombing a refugee camp is a war crime.
killing reporters is a war crime.
use of white phosphorus on civilian targets is a war crime.
Israel has done all of these things. There is no excuse for war crimes. It doesn't matter how evil the enemy is, you are not allowed to do these things and not be a war criminal.
That sounds like a policing problem?
I don't expect to see anything, that's the point. That causes bias in your thinking. The evidence I have seen fulfils the criteria for war crimes, as I pointed out in my bullet-point list above. I accept that there can be excuses for these actions, but only when there is sufficient evidence to prove the extraordinary case. Now, we have seen the evidence that Israel has done these things, but we haven't seen the evidence that there are extraordinary factors. Occam's Razor requires that the explanation for an effect should contain as few agents as possible when considering the unknown causes. Adding in a tunnel network, or a Hamas base where there is no evidence for one is in violation of Occam's Razor. The simple explanation is that Israel is being indiscriminate in its attacks. As supporting factors, Israel has attacked indiscriminately and illegally in the past, and Israel has lied to the international media and community in the past.
When people ask me about my expertise I get excited that I get to talk about it. If someone were to refuse to believe me I would find it funny.
Civilian infrastructure are public works dedicated solely to civilians and does not inherently include power.
Did I say that civilian infrastructure includes power?
You do not understand war crimes.
I can read. I can read the UN charters. I understand war crimes.
Collective punishment implies no military purpose
No it does not. There is a definition in international law. Nothing is implied, it is defined.
Forcible relocation is only occurring if Israel does not allow them to return after the current conflict is concluded.
Again, relocating is defined in the UN charters. This is where you should go if you would like to understand the definitions of war crimes.
Israel has not ordered civilians to any specific area they have then bombed.
This has been independently verified by the BBC. Israel did exactly this, repeatedly.
Israel has a border. That's not blockading a population
And did Israel allow any Palestinians through that border after October 7th? Or did it close the border and bomb the Rafah crossing, thus blockading the entire Gaza Strip?
Not providing food is not the same thing as depriving of food
Not allowing any food in is depriving of food
Bombing a convoy of mismarked vehicles is not a war crime.
Vehicles were not mismarked, they were legit, as the Red Cross independently verified. You would also need some proof that they were mismarked before bombing them, which was not gathered.
Something called a refugee camp for 80 years is not an active refugee camp.
A "refugee camp" is not a refugee camp. What is it then? A tomato?
The IDF is not using white phosphorous munitions within Gaza City but have probably used it for illumination. This is perfectly legal.
It's not even remotely legal to use while phosphorus in areas where civilians are present, or even where event combatants may be present. Again, check the charters (chemical weapons).
Sources: Red Cross International, BBC, UN charters.
I can accept it if I'm shown evidence. I'm a scientist, I need data and a sound hypothesis to change my mind. I don't care about personal experience or lived truth when I'm trying to find objective truth.
If you'd like to sum up my reply as three words, that's up to you. If you want to believe that I'm taken by propaganda, that's fine too, but it's more than a little bit intellectually lazy. There are laws that define war crimes. In my reading of them, and many others', there is between little and no room for the evidence we've seen to amount to anything other than a war crime. At least a huge amount of compelling evidence the other way would be needed to exonerate. Take for example the footage we've seen of entire square kilometers of Gaza completely flattened by building. There we have evidence of the war crime of targeting civilian infrastructure except if there's also evidence that all of it was a Hamas base. Now, it seems unlikely that this is possible, unless everyone in Gaza is a member of Hamas. Another extraordinary claim which would require extraordinary evidence to be borne out.
In general, my view on the situation in Israel has been that there are no good guys. In recent days, though, I'm watching a democratic state ally of my country committing horrific crimes against humanity, with weapons provided by my country and other allies. Hamas never had my support. Netenyahu's Israel has lost it.
The tunnels are not well documented enough for, say, a map of them, are they? We don't know if there is a tunnel under x or y building that has been flattened. So that's not sufficient evidence.
Like I said, I think they're funny.
Ok so everything I wrote isn't wrong.
It's telling how you're accusing me of snark, when that's precisely all you've provided so far. Well, that and a rambling opinion piece on the Oslo accords in support of a tu quoque fallacy. And of not saying anything meaningful when I clearly made three substantive rebuttals above.
Cheers
It doesn't work like that mate.
You're missing the point/s