Yellowtail

From your link: How much trust do you have in the Hamas-led government? A great deal of faith: ~12% Quite a lot: ~17% Not a lot: ~23% ~52% Not at all: ~45% So less than half have no faith in the Hamas-led government. Clearly hamas is polling better among Palestinians than President Biden is polling among Americans. More from your link: Which party, if any, do you feel closest to? Fatah ~30% Hamas ~27% Palestinian Islamic jihad ~7% Other, ~14% No party ~15% Don't know ~7% So combined, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad parties are the largest voting bloc in Palestine, and both are terrorist groups, and both want to exterminate all the Jews in Israel, after raping many of them.

Yes, I can honestly say there is a difference.

Were not the "League of Nations, UN, Geneva convention, etc. Human rights declarations. War crimes, ICC more recently." all products of the colonialist devils?

Examples? Links? Or just more lies?

Where did I say anything about the severity? Nothing. Please quit making things up. What I "challenged" was that he was making a statement of fact, with only his own limited observations. So, he claimed they used to be rare. He did not claim they were getting more severe, or more frequent or anything else. I stated nothing as fact, nor did I say he was wrong. I merely posted a data table and commented that I've been in situations offshore at least twice in the eastern Pacific where we had to run from hurricanes, so I doubted they are that unusual. You apparently agree with dandyman, but you've said nothing that would support his claim. So what is it you're claiming? That hurricanes used to be "rare"? If that's the case, I think you should provide a definition of rare, show that they are no longer rare, and provide some data to back up your claim. But again, rather just lazily positing a link to some zealot's article, why find a study, read it, pull out a few pertinent quotes and comment on them? That would make for a much better discussion. Until then, you have nothing.

Will the protestors be arrested for Inserection? No, that would only be right-wing protester. Leftists can interfere with the Senant all they like.

It was sold here, the price was just much higher because of the taxes. Under the BOI, typically for the first few years the company would be exempt from corporate income tax and not have to pay VAT & duty in the production of their registered products, regardless of where they are sold. After the first few years of operation the company would have to pay VAT & duty on the products they sell domestically, while they would still enjoy an exemption on the products they export. There is a lot of variation of BOI benefits between different companies and BOI zones. It is, or at least was, a great program.

Yeah, because you either don't have one or it falls apart under scrutiny. Best to just discuss them with other climate change alarmists, that way you don't have to answer any questions, you can just pat each other on the back.

What's the problem with it? I think the huge problem with it is you thinking it's something other than a data table. I never said anything about severity, you just threw that in as some kind of silly "gotcha". Rather just lazily positing a link, why not read it, pull out a few pertinent quotes and comment on them? That would make for a much better discussion.

I love the backlit keyboard on my Asus, but I got it in the US so it is US English, but the keyboard itself is great, much better than my Acer.

What is ridiculous is you attempting to take me to task by nitpicking and bragging about your command of the language (you were an English major if I remember correctly) yet you're not even responding to the correct post. How funny it that? Not as funny as your claim that you used "pitiful" for accuracy because "significant" is a subjective weasel word that can cover a multitude of percentages. Dude cracks me up.

So, to be clear, "significant" is a subjective weasel word that can cover a multitude of percentages, but "pitiful", is clear and concise, correct? If you were honest, you would have checked the data and claimed that only a third of Palestinians support hamas or something similar, but you didn't. You read the headline and made a ridiculous claim. I never pretended to read it carefully, it was your link, you should have read it and represented it honestly.

He wants Israel to apologize to hamas for all the dead Jews.

So have relations improved? I think not.

Why should Israel care about what the ICC thinks? How will it benefit them? Israel would have to commit significant resources to facilitate and ICC investigation, and even if/when found guilty, what is the ICC going to do to hamas? Nothing. It is a waste of Israels time a resources.

Well, it may have something to do with all the hamas apologists going on and on and often lying about Irael killing babies. Think that might have something to do with it?

Sorry, I will rephrase it. To be clear, combined, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad parties represent over a third of Palestinians, and both are terrorist groups, and both want to exterminate all the Jews in Israel, after raping many of them. Is that better? Nitpicking aside, the data you provided does not support your claim that the number of Palestinians that support hamas is not significant. Did you even look at it before you posted the link? Probably not, I doubt very much you actually read the stuff you link to. I'm pretty sure you just Google-up a headline and post a link.

You and others seem to be claiming that hamas has no significant support from the Palestinian people. That is clearly not true. Even if you only go with Palestinians that have a great deal or quite a lot of faith, that's still 29% of the Palestinians. You want to claim that's insignificant, but it's about 600,000 people. It is also worth noting that the only choice offered between "quite a lot", and "not at all", was not a lot. This looks like something of a polling trick to me, but whatever. In any event, the people that selected "not a lot" clearly have some faith, or they would have selected "not at all", Correct? You can keep pretending that only a few Palestinians support hamas, but the data you liked to shows otherwise.

Yes, but is your heart going pitty-pat?

Interesting read about MSNBC playing fast and loose maps: "The first map pertaining to 1946 labeled the entire territory as “Palestine” with the vast majority of the map colored green, denoting Palestinian control. The following maps dated “UN Plan 1947,” “1949-1967” and “Present” showed Palestinian-controlled territory decreasing dramatically in size over time. The maps and subsequent analysis gave the impression that a state of Palestine had existed in 1946 when in fact the area was under British Mandatory rule until May 14, 1948." MSNBC apologizes for 'completely wrong' maps of Israel | The Times of Israel And a little more interesting: "The problem with these maps and with Fletcher’s explanation is that no state of “Palestine” existed in 1946 – or ever. The green area is simply a rendering of the territory not under Israeli sovereignty. It does NOT demarcate land possessed by Arabs or by the mythical state of Palestine. In fact, the vast majority of the land (over 90 percent) had no legally recognized owner after the dissolution of the Ottoman empire in the wake of World War I. The disposition of the green areas remains to this day undetermined because the Arabs rejected the United Nations partition resolution in 1947 and because the Palestinians continue to reject any final agreement with Israel." Update: MSNBC Corrects Mistaken Use of a False Historical Map of Palestine | CAMERA

So, you were lying in the other threads where you stated otherwise as fact?

"A man's got to know his limitations."

Or

Nice, here go one for mojo:

I wonder how it would have turned out had it taken dude another week to get his transfer...(just kidding)