stevenl

So allowing to 'just do it'.

Some more on this here with a couple of options for the judge. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/could-donald-trump-really-go-jail-gag-order-violations-rcna150848 The '1 hour warning time' sounds like a logical next step to me.

That's the problem when you threaten with something you really don't want to do.

Unfortunately it's true. If Russia prevails it seems unlikely they'll stop. Quite a few NATO countries nearby who could fall victim, forcing NATO to step in

Mine was tongue in cheek. I replied to a poster complaining about an illegal worker in Bangkok.

Which this is not about.

As was to be expected, deflect away.

And now a raid on an Al Jazeera office in Jerusalem.

You're the one making a big deal of a non issue.

Again a good laugh from you, implying that the 2 are not related.

So you quote someone within a minute of the post made and expect an obvious mistake to not be corrected. I call that dishonest.

As expected. Al Jazeera is the last news channel operating live from Gaza and is critical of Israeli actions. Israel doesn't like live reporting from Gaza and doesn't like critical reporting.

Better not detain too many, no guarantees on the number of people Rwanda is willing to take in. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68961058

It is not the source that is amusing but the inconsistency in your reasoning. But with the end result of the reasoning firmly set in advance that's no surprise.

Lol, you agree numbers are not to be taken seriously, while simultaneously claiming 13000 hamas terrorists were killed. Source IDF I presume.

Again, I must say you're consistent. Claims without backup.

So it should be easy for you to provide the link.

Any thinking person can say: not true.

And again you're talking about Trump.

They can't, hence my post.

Judging by his denial Trump disagrees with you. Strange denial though, the difference between napping and listening with eyes closed are obvious. Like his mouth falling open. Also his friendly media would have defended this already long ago if there was any possible truth to his statement.

Right, one of the people involved in the decision to scrap the agreement that contained Iran is now doubling down on that. His assessment clearly was wrong then and his references to 'Arabs' doesn't install any faith in his opinion this time.

So how has the monarchy prevented British progress in recent years?

So according to you claiming both sources are unreliable as I did means I indicated one of the sources is reliable. You're not making sense at all.

So anyone accused of something and denying the accusation is a reliable source.