What percentage of these attacks deep into Russia are being launched from Ukraine and what percentage are being launched from Russia? Of the latter (assuming non-zero), what percentage are being launched by Ukranian forces operating in Russia and what percentage are being launched by dissident Russians themselves?
Considering the first pictures of the plane burning were on Ukrainian social media, and “someone” put up a Ukrainian flag right outside the airport, I’m guessing these aren’t being launched from Ukraine.
As the other poster said, this attack likely came from inside the house 😱
They’ve also developed and used long-range drones similar to what the terrorists in Tehran sold to the terrorists in the Kremlin. Basically flying mopeds of death.
Seems Ukraine is giving the Kremlin the wonderful opportunity to pull air defense resources back into Russia or face extremely expensive and embarrassing attacks.
These airfields have air defense systems already. They’re just failing to destroy these drones, because the Ukrainian operatives launching them are smarter, and the Russian soldiers are lax.
Firstly, Trump already had his guy investigating Hunter, and when the Biden admin came in, they allowed that investigation to continue, with the unprecedented step that Trump’s c guy didn’t even have to answer Biden’s DoJ.
From that investigation they found … nothing. No Biden crime family. Nothing. Some minor tax issues and also Biden lied on a gun application by saying he wasn’t a drug addict. It’s bad, sure but absolutely nothing to do with the allegations that started the investigation.
So essentially we have a private citizen that’s been investigated to an obscene degree. But Republicans can’t let it go, because if there’s one thing that defines them it’s that they fiercely believe things that have no evidentiary basis, and no amount of logic or reason can change their minds.
So, I don’t know what this nonsense is, with Garland appeasing the right wing even further on this. It’s harassment of Hunter at this point, not any actual pursuit of the truth.
Meanwhile Trump’s own family nakedly traded favors for cash when Trump GAVE THEM JOBS IN HIS ADMINISTRATION, and Garland isn’t even investigating those deals…I mean, the Saudi’s gave Trump’s son-in-law $2 BILLION.
Garland is once again opting for the appearance of impartiality, instead of actually faithfully executing his duties impartiality.
The Trump crime family is a real thing that we’ve all seen hard evidence of. The Biden crime family is a fiction. He’s acting as if it’s the other way around. Shame on him.
I know it’s incredibly difficult, but if you are ever sexually assaulted, it’s crucial to report it as soon as possible.
Time erodes facts, witnesses, memory, and only hurts a victim’s chance to seek justice. Prosecuting a sexual predator early also ensures that no one else can be victimized.
100% this. I wish I had… I’m only confronting it psychologically now, 20 years later, and I have to face the fact there’s no chance of getting justice.
I don’t know if it helps or not for me to point this out (I hope it’s something that gives you some solace), but depending on the circumstances it’s also very difficult to go through an investigation and trial. Maybe things are better now, but 20 or 30 years back it was an ordeal for the victim. The “what were you wearing?” mentality was very prevalent within the male-dominated judiciary and they made it so hard on the victims that they often felt like they were on trial - and in many cases they still didn’t get justice either, despite their personal lives being dissected in front of a room full of strangers, some of whom were intent on falsely portraying them as promiscuous. After seeing this happen to a friend, I lost faith in the system to deliver justice. I don’t have a solution, but an adversarial system just doesn’t seem ideal for this kind of prosecution.
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !fuckcars
It might fix everyone slowing down to a crawl as they go past Stonehenge though. The a303 is a dual carriageway that goes down to 1 Lane past stone henge, the new tunnel would stop the bottleneck that happens as it goes past stonehenge, if having a busy road that goes past Stonehenge hasn’t affected it’s world heritage status, then changing that to a tunnel shouldn’t affect it either, if anything it will improve the aesthetics as all you can hear there is the road.
The main question should be, could this money be better spent? The answer is obviously yes.
That being said, if the issue is traffic slowing down, then you put up a monument between the highway and Stonehenge that blocks drivers’ view. Could easily be a monument to the Celtic and Gallic history of England. Something nondescript from the road’s side.
If the issue is the amount of traffic, then regulated entry is the way. Put stoplights at the highway’s entry and only let several on at a time.
It will not fix everyone slowing down to a crawl, it will lead to more people driving when they should be taking a train and make traffic worse. This is the only possible result of road widening.
If there were a train route along the a303 this may be true. It’s also not building an extra Lane the whole route, most of the route is a 2 Lane dual carriageway, this section is not, it gets gridlocked as the roads struggle with it going from 2 lanes to 1 Lane, this is a rural route, everyone already drives anyway.
I’m not defending the building of the tunnel as I no longer need to use it, I couldn’t care less. But saying that building the tunnel won’t make a difference is completely wrong here as the traffic is not caused because the roads cannot handle the traffic, it’s caused because it’s a single lane road next to a world heritage monument that everyone slows down to look at it. Building a tunnel will improve the area around the monument and will stop idiots from stopping to take pictures on a single lane road. The extra lane will also prevent the bottleneck caused by going from 2 lanes down to one.
If by traffic, you mean the flow of traffic will increase, then yea, of course because if you remove obsticles and increase capacity, then more cars can use it instead of travelling through small villages and clogging up their roads.
If you mean building more capacity and removing junctions in the middle of nowhere where there is a bottleneck of traffic because of poor road layouts and a world heritage site will cause more traffic jams, I’d love to see that study. That’s pretty a niche study, and I’d imagine the people protesting this tunnel would appreciate seeing it.
Carbrain /kar 'bren/ [1] is a neighbourhood in Cumbernauld, North Lanarkshire in Scotland. It gets a brief mention on William Roy’s eighteenth century map of the Scottish Lowlands.[2] In the nineteenth century it was no more than a farm steading.[3] An early map shows just a few buildings existed in 1864.[4] By the start of the First World War it had not grown significantly, although there was a school near the railway station.[5] It was sometimes spelled Carbrane.[6] Even in 1956 Carbrain was mostly farmland[7] with a small burn flowing through it.[8] The map seems to show this flowing possibly down the Gully[9] and eventually feeding the Red Burn in the Vault Glen. This burn isn’t named so can’t be identified with the Horseward Burn from historic maps.[10]
I was just mocking that fact that you would rather insult someone and try to act superior than actually back your argument up with any kind of facts.
I never said that building more roads doesn’t lead to more traffic in all scenarios as there are plenty of scenarios where this is true. I provided plenty of reasons to convey why this is not relevant in this scenario. Rather than counter my argument with any relevant fact, you reverted to a smug insult presuming that I don’t use public transport and that you are superior for using it.
Fixing the a303 isn’t going to lead to more cars on the road: everyone uses it anyway, they just hate it. The tunnel is just to stop people slowing down to look at stonehenge as they drive past while keeping the number of lanes the same all the way so it doesn’t randomly narrow.
I think the US delegation took him aside and said something along the lines of “alright chucklefuck, going forward, if you want parts and technical support for any of the massive amounts of extremely advanced military shit we’ve sold you for decades, you’re going to stop fucking around on the Sweden accession”.
As long as you don’t tell your doctor to make the patch as big as possible like trump did, you should be fine in most cases. This looks more like the size of bandage you would get after ripping your whole ear off.
When I was very little, maybe 2, my mum had sat me down in front of Sesame Street while she did some chores. Not long after I came running into the kitchen “mummy mummy there’s a birdie in the front room!” She said yes, that was big bird and to go back in and watch it. I kept running back to her increasingly more upset about the birdie until she came into the living room to find a pigeon had come down the chimney and was irately trying to escape. I know I was too young to remember it, but I swear I can recall the feeling of vindication!
It’s always rubbed me the wrong way when people regularly say it was banned in the UK (funny enough, people never mention that Ireland also didn’t show it).
The BBC in the UK and RTE in Ireland chose not to show it. It’s a bit like saying Comedy Central cutting the Muslim prophet Muhammad from that south park episode means he was banned from US TV. It’s not the same thing.
To my knowledge, the episode has now been shown in full in the UK plenty of times, but not yet in Ireland.
And it’s completely reasonable that both broadcasters chose not to show it. It was effectively condoning ongoing terrorism where innocents were being killed.
Imagine if Enterprise had some pro-al-qaeda remarks immediately after 9/11. There’s no way networks would show it lol
Thankfully, the GFA came about and the troubles were ended in the way that Picard advocated in the episode - with diplomacy, compromise, and dialogue, not endless violence.
It’s a bit like saying Comedy Central cutting the Muslim prophet Muhammad from that south park episode means he was banned from US TV. It’s not the same thing.
It’s a fair point but not quite the same. At the time in Ireland the vast majority of the population only had access to RTÉ (and BBC if you had a big aerial on your roof and lived close enough to the north) so both state broadcasters not choosing to broadcast was an effectively a ban.
Satellite and cable were taking root but cable wasn’t an option where I lived at the time which was only 20KM from the centre of Dublin city. Outside the major cities it just wasn’t happening.
We did get a satellite dish around that time so that we weren’t restricted to just two channels (edit: our house was located in a lowland that ruled out BBC even with the usual roof aerial) but with Sky in on the ban that would have ruled that out as a way to see it too.
Hello fellow Dub. :) I’m a Northsider too. Your brief foray to the south (even if it is the north of Wicklow it’ll always be the south side) doesn’t count and means we’re kindred. :D
In the episode it is stated that Irish unification happened because terrorist attacks kept happening for decades and the British government eventually just gave in to the terrorists.
I fucking hate making fun of that horrible incident, I can’t imagine it’s easy for him to constantly be reminded about his ear being bitten on live tv.
That being said, AJ’s sheer shock when Tyson handed him a mushroom gummy and Alex thought it was an ear and initially didn’t know how to react was pretty fucking funny.
bbc.co.uk
Top