placeholder

And as I pointed out, before there are consequences there has to be a final judicial decision.

Making it personal is just your way of confessing that you've got nothing.

First off, as the article notes a lower court upheld the government's action and this decision will be appealed. So, your hope for consequences depends not on this ruling but that of a higher court. By the way, even though the judge decided against the government there is this: "In a lengthy ruling published Tuesday, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley found that though the Freedom Convoy protests in early 2022 were causing harm to Canada’s economy, trade and commerce, they did not rise to the level of a threat to national security as defined by the law." https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberal-governments-invoking-of-emergencies-act-during-freedom-convoy-unreasonable-unjustified-ruling

Right. Pretty much the entire scientific community has abandoned science and logic leaving only a few enlightened folks like yourself to support it.

John Cadogan is the Australian car salesman who repeatedly predicted the demise of Tesla. Enough said. Get back to us with analyses offered by genuine experts.

You sure about that? Massive expansion of renewable power opens door to achieving global tripling goal set at COP28 The world’s capacity to generate renewable electricity is expanding faster than at any time in the last three decades, giving it a real chance of achieving the goal of tripling global capacity by 2030 that governments set at the COP28 climate change conference last month, the IEA says in a new report. The amount of renewable energy capacity added to energy systems around the world grew by 50% in 2023, reaching almost 510 gigawatts (GW), with solar PV accounting for three-quarters of additions worldwide, according to Renewables 2023, the latest edition of the IEA’s annual market report on the sector. https://www.iea.org/news/massive-expansion-of-renewable-power-opens-door-to-achieving-global-tripling-goal-set-at-cop28

I've seen many of your posts on Ukraine. You seem curiously indifferent to the murderous bombing attacks Russian has launched on purely civilian facilities. At least Israel has the excuse that Hamas uses civilian facilities as depots and stations for launching attacks.

Well, whatever MbS's flaws may be, and they are legion and heinous, he has severely cracked down on Islamists in Saudi Arabia.

Godwin's law: "Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies,[1] is an Internet adage asserting: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Did I get it wrong? Was he referring to WWI? Is BritmanToo even older than my revised estimate? I don't think I would be nearly so grateful to BritmanToo for whupping the Kaiser as I would be him doing in Hitler and company.

Had I been referring to WWI I would have used "Huns" instead of "Jerries."

While I've always thought of BritmanToo too as being an old duffer, I never suspected that he was that old. Thank you for holding back the Jerries, BritmanToo

I cited the quote from Ozimoron: You responded to that quote with this: "I just posted a quote from 2019 proving that divide and conquer has always been Netanyahu's policy." You responded to that quote with this: Still wrong, my reference was to Hamas being much worse Previously you accused me of mindreading. Given that you didn't reference "Hamas being much worse" in your reply but rather "divide and conquer",, one would have to be a mind reader to know that your reply was about "Hamas being much worse" and not about "divide and conquer."

Well, that's not really about divide and conquer, though, is it? It may be reprehensible, but it's a different issue.

If that's the case why do you quote this to contradict? "I just posted a quote from 2019 proving that divide and conquer has always been Netanyahu's policy."

Well, I don't know if 11 years counts as a generation but still... "As far back as December 2012, Mr. Netanyahu told the prominent Israeli journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Mr. Margalit, in an interview, said that Mr. Netanyahu told him that having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state." source

Given that it isn't ruled out, and that it could be the case, I'm not sure what you're driving at. Now, if I had claimed the same possibility for, say, Montenegro, you might have a better point.

I was commenting on a post by Brian BKK that said the soldiers are getting closer to the hostages. I asked if that's good or bad news for them. Why is that whataboutery?

Seems pretty clear to me. What's Hamas going to do with the hostages as Israeli troops draw closer?

Well, the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Proliferation, apparently the go-to organization when it comes to evaluating countries' nuclear weapons statuss, pretty much says that the state of Iran's nuclear stockpile is very uncertain, to say the least, now that the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, can no longer monitor Iran's nuclear program. They could possibly create enough in a few weeks for 5 devices containing 16 kilos of fissile material each, or 11 devices containing 7 kilos each. Those latter devices would yield an explosion slightly smaller than the one created by the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. But even if Iran could create that much material, there's a lot more that goes into the making of a nuclear weapon The state of progress there is unclear, or, rather, opaque. https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/articles-reports/irans-nuclear-timetable-weapon-potential

As Israeli forces draw closer, will this be something that will lengthen or shorten the life span of these hostages?

Let's get this straight. I posted a link to a NYT article about 4 senior IDF commanders who believe that the twin goals of defeating Hamas and liberating the hostages are irreconcilable. Bkk Brian posts an interview with Miri Eisen in which her interviewer specifically asks her about this article. She gives an answer which I maintain never actually addresses the question. You accuse me of acting unreasonably because Eisen didn't offer an answer I was looking for. I ask you to provide evidence that she did provide a relevant answer to that question. You accuse me of hijacking the thread when all I did was point out the Eisen's answer wasn't responsive. And from then on you repeatedly make all sort of generalizations generalizations about my posts. It's you who have hijacked this thread by making it about me rather than about the issue at hand. All you had to do was point out why I got it wrong about the relevance of Eisen's response. To date, you have offered nothing. But you have wasted a lot of pixels.

If the Iranians believe that the likelihood of a war waged against them by the US has risen, that would give them more of an incentive to enrich their stocks of uranium to the level where they can be used to create nuclear weapons. As Ukraine has learned, not having nuclear weapons can be a distinct disadvantage when facing a powerful foe.

Nitpicking much?

You're right. You're not the only person. Generally, though, they're the kind of folks who believe that a certain election was stolen or that global warming is a fake or the the government is faking statistics to make the current US administration look better. Instead of going on and on about my flaws, why not show where I got it wrong about what Eisin said. I asked you already. Why is that such a difficult or unreasonable request? As for dictating the issue at hand, BkkBrian inserted the interview with Eisin. I just pointed out she didn't respond saliently to the interviewer's question about whether the goals of saving the hostages and defeating Hamas were reconcilable. Where did I claim to speak for anyone but myself?