placeholder

What wimps you must think the non-Muslim British are that they would be threatened by such a small percentage of the population.

My mistake. My original post got taken down because the link was protected by a pay wall. So when I reposted with an accessible link I assumed without reading that the post I quoted, which was your latest was the same as before when a previous post of yours was the latest.. Here is the post I intended to comment on in which you quoted another claim from the IDF about progress in the war based on body count. But as the post I quoted from the NY Times shows, Israeli generals believe that they have only destroyed 1/3 of the Hamas battalions based in Rafah. And yet they are winding down operations there. So much for the goal of the total destruction of Hamas. As quoted previously, the Israeli military is low on armaments. And the threat from Hezbollah is growing greater. And there is a shortage of soldiers "The long-simmering issue has come to a head as the military deals with manpower shortages wrought by months of fighting in Gaza and the possibility of war against the Hezbollah terror group in Lebanon. The military currently requires some 10,000 new soldiers, Gallant told the committee Monday, but can only accommodate the enlistment of an additional 3,000 ultra-Orthodox this year, which would be in addition to the 1,800 Haredi soldiers who are drafted annually." https://www.timesofisrael.com/gallant-idf-needs-flexible-regulations-on-haredi-draft-not-law-setting-quotas/

You want to rephrase that? "The result of Sunday’s parliamentary election runoff comes as a huge surprise, with France appearing to be on the verge of a major political shift – but not the one everyone was expecting. No pollster predicted before Sunday that a left-wing alliance would win and that the far right would come in third place. This is a shocking reversal of the outcome of the first round of voting, if tonight’s results match the projections." https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/france-election-runoff-results-07-07-24-intl/index.html

So much winning!...on the other hand... "But three months after Mr. Netanyahu declared that “total victory is within reach,” the military acknowledges that the Rafah siege has eliminated only one-third of Hamas’s brigade. Hamas’s leadership remains intact. And roughly 120 hostages are believed to remain somewhere in Gaza, although about a third are thought to be dead." https://archive.ph/c14L7

"The tipping points at risk include the collapse of big ice sheets in Greenland and the West Antarctic, the widespread thawing of permafrost, the death of coral reefs in warm waters, and the collapse of atmospheric circulation in the North Atlantic. Unlike other changes to the climate such as hotter heatwaves and heavier rainfall, these systems do not slowly shift in line with greenhouse gas emissions but can instead flip from one state to an entirely different one. When a climatic system tips – sometimes with a sudden shock – it may permanently alter the way the planet works." Sounds potentially catastrophic to me.

Whether all the world.s Jews want it or not?

Your claim that climatologists ignore history is just nuts. Most of the ire directed by denialists is claims that climatologists are lying about the past, not that they ignore it. Citing Peter Ridd as a source tells me all I need to know about where you get your information from: This is a link to a detailed rebuttal of his claims for 2021 coral health: "Despite 2021 being a good year for coral health, coral in the Great Barrier Reef has declined over the past decade and is threatened by climate change, contrary to claims by Peter Ridd Inaccurate: Numerous scientific studies show a decrease, not an increase, in coral growth over the past decade. International scientific organizations are not ignoring the improvement in coral communities, and acknowledge the influence of periods with low disturbance on the ability of damaged reefs to recover. Misrepresents source: Peter Ridd misuses data from the Australian Institute of Marine Science in a graph showing how coral cover in the Great Barrier Reef has changed over time. Although the data show an improvement in the amount of coral covering the reef in 2021 compared to previous years, coral cover is not at a record high since 1985 for any region of the Great Barrier Reef. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/despite-2021-being-a-good-year-for-coral-health-coral-in-the-great-barrier-reef-has-declined-over-the-past-decade-and-is-threatened-by-climate-change-contrary-to-claims-by-peter-ridd/ And, of course, the situation is a lot worse now. Devastating coral bleaching in 2024 The fifth mass bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef in the past eight years was declared in April 2024. For the first time, all three sectors of the GBR are affected: south, middle, and north. It is part of the fourth global bleaching event according to the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration – the others were in 1998, 2010 and 2014-17. https://australian.museum/blog/amri-news/coral-bleaching-2024/ Peter Ridd lies a lot. And makes things up. He also gets most of his money from studies commissioned by the dredging industry. It's in their interest to deny that disturbing sediment has an effect on the reefs. https://www.desmog.com/peter-ridd/

Selective quoting much. This is also from the 6th IPCC report: Fire activity depends on weather, ignition sources, land management practices and fuel flammability, availability and continuity (Bradstock et al., 2014). Increased fire activity in southeast Australia associated with climate change has been observed since 1950 (Abram et al., 2021), though trends vary regionally (medium confidence) (Bradstock et al., 2014). In New Zealand, there has been an increased frequency of major wildfires in plantations (FENZ, 2018) and at the rural–urban interface (medium confidence) (Pearce, 2018). https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-11/#:~:text=Our regional climate is changing,western New Zealand%2C more extreme Increased winter rainfall is projected over Tasmania, with decreased rainfall in southwestern Victoria in autumn and in western Tasmania in summer, fewer tropical cyclones with a greater proportion of severe cyclones and decreased soil moisture in the north (medium confidence). https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-11/ So, cyclones may decrease in frequency but increase in strength. Virtually no climatologists are predicting Armageddon. What denialists generally aim to do is conflate the predictions of some climate activists with the predictions of climatologists. Or they cite the double standards of various prominent people, as though this has anything to do with the science. Apparently, they believe that People magazine and similar sources are scientific journals. That said, as the latest report of the IPCC says, the destructive effects of climate change will be far greater at 2.0 degrees average increase than 1.5. And 2.5 will be even more severe. As for your claim that "Time to condemn media reporting on extreme events being caused by Climate Change...generally the media reports that climate change is making such events more likely, or more severe. But not that each and every event can be absolutely attributed to anthropogenic climate change. Which is the correct way to report the findings of attribution science.

Spare me the conspiracy theories.

. Whether rightly or not, the US governement has traditionally had more latitude to act against enemies abroad that it considers to be dangerous threats even if they are US citizens. Domestically, it's another matter.

On American territory?

It's more actual story than you've offered.

Making things up much? https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth-annual You'll not that from 1997 until the world economic crisis the UK economy was growing nicely.

I took it but stopped when I read this proposition "Almost all politicians promise economic growth, but we should heed the warnings of climate science that growth is detrimental to our efforts to curb global warming." A right wing caricature. Also, there are no names of people or organizations behind this website.

Whatever the source of contentment or discontent may be, it's clear that currently, Brexit is not popular and hasn't been for some time https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/#:~:text=As of late 2023%2C 31,EU or the single market.

Actually, I know of 4 eminent conservative justices who disagreed with you about the basis of the Supreme Court's latest decision. Their names are Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch. What conservative justices said about immunity — before giving it to Trump https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/02/what-conservative-justices-said-about-immunity-before-giving-it-trump/

One of the more absurd contentions from the right, is that the US is not a democracy. There are varieties of democracy. The US is what is called a representative democracy or a constitutional democracy. The problem with the hypothetical case you cite is that it's about civil law. Not criminal law.

Just because the decision is unpopular doesn't make it correct, either. After all, three supreme Court justices disagreed with the decision

More nonsense from you. You think supreme Court decisions should be above criticism? So tell me how did conservative politiciansreact to the supreme Court decision to make gay marriage a constitutionally guaranteed right? And that's far from the only decision that was criticized from the right.

Got actual evidence to back that up? Or is this just a uninformed, uninformative cheap shot?

In part 3, Frost asked Nixon whether the president could do something illegal in certain situations such as against antiwar groups and others if he decides "it's in the best interests of the nation or something". Nixon replied: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal", by definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_interviews#:~:text=In part 3%2C Frost asked,not illegal"%2C by definition.

Actually, on a percentage basis the Tories in Parliament were more supportive of 2nd Iraq War than was Labour. To its credit, the Lib Dems were unanimously opposed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_parliamentary_approval_for_the_invasion_of_Iraq#:~:text=The debate was held on,MPs voted against the invasion. I haven't bothered to look up the rest of those military actions, but I suspect the conservatives were more supportive of them, too.

So much winning..and yet... Israeli Generals, Low on Munitions, Want a Truce in Gaza Israel’s top generals want to begin a cease-fire in Gaza even if it keeps Hamas in power for the time being, widening a rift between the military and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has opposed a truce that would allow Hamas to survive the war. The generals think that a truce would be the best way of freeing the roughly 120 Israelis still held, both dead and alive, in Gaza, according to interviews with six current and former security officials. Underequipped for further fighting after Israel’s longest war in decades, the generals also think their forces need time to recuperate in case a land war breaks out against Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia that has been locked in a low-level fight with Israel since October, multiple officials said. https://archive.ph/sDZM8 https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/world/middleeast/israel-military-gaza-cease-fire.html The article goes on to note that the generals now recognize that the 2 goals of defeating Hamas and rescuing the hostages are mutually incompatible. It also relays the generals' concern that given Netanyahu's refusal either to occupy Gaza or turn governance over to alternative Palestinian leadership, the war could drag on indefinitely and continue to sap Israel's military strength. But so what? After all, the IDF keeps on sharing with us the progress it has been making and will continue to make...maybe forever?

Yes you. You repeatedly claimed that since I hadn't seen the exact questions that I couldn't know that school or adults associated with the school were mentioned in those question. Yet the authors specifically state that they were. And every time I brought it up you simply didn't answer. Here's a recent example of that, but not the only one by far: You have very tender feelings. Or is that just an excuse for not being able to account for your topsy turvy way of evaluating evidence?

As I pointed out, that's not a justification for singling out in a question one possible source of information. Quite the opposite, if a researcher truly wants to know where the information comes from. And you still refuse to engage with the words of the authors of the article. Here are those words again: "We began by asking our 18- to 20-year-old respondents (82.4 percent of whom reported attending public schools) whether they had ever been taught in class or heard about from an adult at school each of six concepts—four of which are central to critical race theory." They explicitly state that they students were asked in each of the 6 questions if they were taught such concepts in class or from an adult in school. Yet you continue to deny that it's uncertain if such was the case.