Probably time to remind everybody the Judiciary branch can’t actually enforce its rulings. If they’re going to go full on religious crazy we can just start ignoring them.
Law gets enforced if power finds it useful to enforce. Ignoring it is not an option, for people actually in danger of having the law enforced against them.
Just to explain: Their demands are mainly loosening the blockade (which is a humanitarian crisis in its own right) and freeing hostages Palestinian detainees.
“rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea” … “the Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them.”
Y'all are conveniently ignoring the fact that this an outdated charter and can't find such language in the new one. Just another day clocking in to the genocide defence factory, don't forget the emojis.
It’s also interesting that Hamas literally calls for genocide or in their more “PR friendly” new draft only ethnic cleansing, and then Hamas ball garglers claim Israel is commiting genocide.
Don’t get me wrong, there have been war crimes, collective punishment is a war crime. But it’s not genocide.
They don’t want to kill all Jews. They want the expulsion of all Jews from Israel/Palestine. At least according to their original manifesto, they’ve changed it to remove this part to be fair.
It can be argued that the Israeli government wants the same thing for the Palestinians.
“rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea” … “the Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them.”
Some members have stated as such but have been corrected by the leadership. Hamas, at least publicly, only said that they wanted to forcefully displace the Jews and that they would not hesitate to kill civilians to attain that objective.
Well yes ? How else would you want to do this. I just gave you an example of a senior Hamas officer saying kill all Jews and Hamas saying they do not agree.
I have no doubt Hamas leadership is a bunch of genocidal maniacs but their official stance has been in the past the forceful displacement and nowadays it’s the return to pre 1967 borders. They are ready to admit to the existence of Israel, not by pleasure mind you, but their official stance nowadays is that they are partially open to a two state solution if the right to return is put in place.
This might be a bunch of lies, but it is their official position.
Oh that’s all? Thank goodness forcible displacement using coercive threats on a civilian population isnt a war crime. I don’t understand why you are splitting hairs on the goals of this openly genocidal group. Supporting Palestinians doesn’t mean you have to go to bat for Hamas.
It really didn’t take much to get you in the mood to justify a targeted attack on civilians did it. I’m consistent in my view that it’s wrong to murder civilians, but it doesn’t seem like you are.
Yeah just 75 years of brutal oppression and all forms of peaceful protests being massacred like the March to Return in 2018.
Was Ukraine targeting civilians when they invaded Crimea too? Some Russian civilians sure died from it.
Just forget all the propaganda you’ve been reading and look at the sheer numbers of miliary Vs civilian deaths.
You’re really far gone down the IDF propaganda drain if you still believe Oct7 was just an attack on civilians.
It was a targeted attack on IDF military bases and also hostage takings on the Kibbutzes nearby. Yes “civilians” were killed but the amount is low compared to the amount of soldiers. Furthermore the israeli “civilians” were extremely heavily armed.
Those videos of Hamas throwing grenades inside shelters? IDF Soldiers were inside.
If Hamas was going for civilian casualties they would have planned pushing in further and would have likely been able to kill at least 10k
Where do you see that I’m supporting them? I literally reiterated in many comments that what they want is a war crime. No need to invent some other objectives they are plenty awful enough.
OP is misleading. Hamas has a new 2017 charter, which has change a lot. As far as I can remember, they had alterd their demand/charter, where the main clause is to have the Israel/Palestine border to be as of 1967.
Given that Jews are not likely to voluntarily leave Israel, this is de facto a call to violently expel or kill all Jews in the area, which is nearly half of the world's Jews.
While yes, going from "Kill all Jews" to just "Kill half of all Jews" is an improvement, it's still not "let's all hold hands and find a way to get along!". This isn't to say that the Israeli far right is all that much better really, though they're better at knowing what parts to say out loud.
Yes it is a clear war crime don’t get me wrong. But exaggeration has no use when reality is awful enough.
Hamas is a terrorist organisation that will not hesitate to kill civilians to achieve their ideals. They do not publicly at least want to kill all Jews.
TBF, so is the IDF. They have killed, what, nearly 20,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children non-combatants, since they declared war on Gaza? They claim to care about not killing civilians, but they sure aren’t putting a lot of effort into not killing them.
What’s a reasonable ratio of combatants to non-combatants killed? 1:1? 1:10? If Israel has to kill one hundred civilians in order to kill a single Hamas militant, is that acceptable?
This is plain wrong and disinformation. Israel has killed way more civilians than is usual or acceptable in a war but nowhere near the numbers you cited.
Seeing as 1/3 of the deaths are children and the other 1/3 women it’s pretty easy to confirm that there is no targeting involved. It’s just genocide.
Israel was already unecessarily killing and starving civilians before Oct 7. And there’s literally no reason they need to starve anyone right now aside israel comitting genocide.
You seem to have a weird impression of them. Genociding all Palestinians is israels goal, it’s not a “byproduct” of the war. Netanyahu has publicly stated this.
But you’re right since they dared to enter Gaza and fight instead of just bombing civilians while Hamas was in the tunnels underground, their civilian casualty rate has probably decreased. Maybe they got 500 now?
Where did I say that one side didn’t want to genocide the other ? Hamas is more public about it and won’t even try to justify their civilian killings, but Netanhyu government has made it clear again and again that they are willing to do collective punishment. The high civilian death rate is of course intentional.
Hamas has also killed plenty of civilians, and they don’t even try to pretend that it was accidental. That said you are close to their ratio which is three civilians for every military death.
Israel’s civilian deaths to militant deaths is probably higher due to the usage of bombs (10 civilian deaths per explosion) and intentional starvation but it isn’t 100:1.
Hamas’ strategy of hiding behind civilians is also a war crime since it obviously increases the number of civilians killed.
If you believe Israeli propaganda, they have killed 5000 Hamas militants. Reality is probably smaller than that, but since Hamas intentionally doesn’t publish their militant casualties we won’t have a good estimation. That said 500 Israeli soldiers have died and seeing the asymmetry in warfare, you can expect much more Hamas militants to have died. I have not been able to find an estimate from an independent source.
So, here’s the thing - which is more awful? A group that publicly says they want to do genocide but is really, really ineffective at it? Or a group that claims they only want to stop bad people, but happens to be really effective at committing genocide while purportedly killing bad people?
I strongly suspect that the only way Israel can claim that 5k Hamas militants have been killed is by counting every male that appears to be at least a teenager as a militant.
Frankly both are awful and both should not be allowed to take control of Israel/Palestine. I have no idea what solution there is to this conflict honestly, I just want things to stay somewhat factual.
I agree that the 5000 figure seems highly improbable. Israel has been quite effective at killing high members of Hamas but I doubt they have killed 5000 out of the 30000 militants.
The solution is two states, where Israel returns to the 1947 UN borders, and allows the Palestinian Authority to have full control of Palestinian territory. Hamas exists as a powerful force because Israel consistently refuses to work towards a two-state solution in good faith.
The other solution is for the UN to de-militarize both the Palestinians and the Israelis, occupy all the land currently held by Israel, and force a power-sharing agreement and a new constitution so that Israel is no longer a Jewish state. Of course, the last time that Israel was occupied, you had a whole bunch of far-right Jewish terrorists that did things like assassinate diplomat’s families.
Netanyahu literally said publicly that he saw wants to kill all Palestinians including the women and children and his deeds match his words.
For Hamas that’s “more public about” it they sure do their best not to kill kids.
As long as the demographic chart of Palestinians murdered by the IDF looks like the actual Palestinian population demographic (1/3 women, 1/3 kids) it’s safe to assume that there is absolutely no real targeting taking place.
As long as the demographic chart of Palestinians murdered by the IDF looks like the actual Palestinian population demographic (1/3 women, 1/3 kids) it’s safe to assume that there is absolutely no real targeting taking place.
Yes, there is a bump if you look at the Hamas fighting population demographics but it is a minority. The large majority of people killed in this war are civilians there is no doubt about that. I was denying the 1:100 figure. For example Hamas has 1\3 of female victims, yet have a 1:4 casualty rate.
Netanyahu literally said publicly that he saw wants to kill all Palestinians including the women and children and his deeds match his words.
No he didn’t and you know it. Why lie ?
Some senior Hamas executives have had such a discourse for Jews before being very softly reprimanded by Hamas but no executive from the Israeli government. There have been plenty of dog whistles, but they are not stupid enough to say it literally.
Edit : I didn’t realize it but you were the person calling for the massacre of civilians in an earlier comment. Explains why you would lie, you need to dehumanise your enemy. I’m not spending more energy on this. You’re too far gone.
From 2007 to 2017, the Telegraph was actually one of four European newspapers that published Russia Beyond The Headlines (a project from Russia's state news outlet) as a supplement.
The Telegraph Group has recently been in financial trouble and bailed out by a company run by the vice-president of the UAE Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. While Putin is visiting the UAE next week, Mansour is probably best known in the UK as owner of top-flight football team Manchester City, so him doing stuff in the UK is not anything new. On the other hand there is a government probe in to this acquisition, perhaps unsurprising considering that the Telegraph is one of the four newspapers of record in the UK despite how shit it is
To be clear Bowen did not from my recollection say that the strike was from Israeli. He did, however, incorrectly say that the hispital had been "flattened" based in drone footage he was looking at on screen.
No. The programme as a whole said responsibility hadn’t been determined. The news was breaking as Bowen was on air - he didn’t say anything about responsibility
I think I just have to agree to disagree. It's a simple philosophy problem in my head
"Hospital got flattened"
"Hamas doesn't have munitions to flatten hospital"
"Israel flattened the hospital"
If you're reporting about a flattened hospital in Gaza, you're tactically supporting the idea Israel did it by simply reporting that a hospital got flattened. It also shouldn't suprise you that's how many people online ran with it.
The report of a massive explosion outside the hospital would have lead the same people who made assumptions about Israel being responsible to assume that Israel was responsible.
Yeah it would lead neutral observers to beleive Israel flattened a hospital since they are the only ones immediately in the region with the munitions to do so. Both things can be true
But there was a massive explosion outside the hospital. Are you really saying that that shouldn’t have been reported with the caveat ‘we don’t know who is responsible’ because people would have assumed it was Israel ?
No, im saying the reporting the explosion in the parking lot of a hospital as "flattening the hospital" was irresponsible and it's no wonder it would make people think Israel blew it up by simply stating those things as facts. It was irresponsible to report it this way, especially since there was no evidence to suggest that was the case.
Yeh. We agree, he fucked up by making a hasty assumption about the hospital explosion, based on the drone footage he was seeing.
I’m saying that if he had reported accurately- a large explosion outside of the hospital - people would still have made the same assumption that Israeli action caused it.
You're probably right but I think the bigger issue is he can use cover of "well people would have ran with whatever narrative anyways so it's really not relevant to people jumping to that conclusion." In my opinion, we 100% should criticize him and recognize that it helped foster the sentiment it was an Israeli attack. Either way, the bigger issue is he doesn't think he did anything wrong reporting that way and I think thats a problem. Appreciate the back and forth.
He's asked if he regrets anything he said that evening and he says no - then he's challenged on the "flattened" comment and he says "Oh yeh - well, I got that wrong. I was looking at the pictures .... and that was my conclusion looking at the pictures and I was wrong on that".
He basically comes across as pissed off that the Israeli's wont open the borders so that reporters can observe directly. But yes - he should have started with "that was a cockup on my part"
And Trump did not tell the traitors to stormthe building, amiright?
Jesus, the way you Hamas bootlickers refuse to listen to anything that disagrees with your agenda reminds me of the MAGA crowd. In fact it is the same thing, just on the left.
I was correcting a factual inaccuracy. If you can find anything in my post history that suggests that I support Hamas, then feel free to point it out. Otherwise - zip it.
I am, however a fan of the BBC - and while it is far from perfect, I'm happy to defend it where the Telepgraph gets it wrong.
Somehow both unbelievable and completely believable that he is going to try and blame his child for making the stupid decision to pay so much for Twitter and for waving due diligence, which would have given him space to back out of the deal.
The right choice. Nuclear would be a great solution if we went all in 40 years ago. But we didnt and now we need a solution as soon as possible, not in 15 years to build a plant or in 25 years when it breaks even, now.
<span style="color:#323232;">That's 32500000000 kWh/y
</span><span style="color:#323232;">= 32500000000 * k * W * h / y
</span><span style="color:#323232;">= 32500000000 * k * W * h / (365 * 24 * h)
</span><span style="color:#323232;">= 32500000000 * k * W * h / 8760 / h
</span><span style="color:#323232;">= 32500000000 / 8760 * k * W * h / h
</span><span style="color:#323232;">= 3710046 * k * W * 1
</span><span style="color:#323232;">= 3710046 kW
</span>
(You actually corrected yourself later when converting to mW.)
130TWh is the final electricity consumption, not the generation. Since Sweden is a big net exporter of electricity, there is a big difference
I’m not sure what macrotrends refers to by “Fossil fuel consumption”, but it’s pobably referring to raw energy rather than electricity (which doesnt consider conversion efficiency)
In reality, sweden uses almost no fossil fuels in its electricity mix, and that is in large part due to nuclear
KWh and KW, not KW and KW/h
In your calculations you failed to account for capacity factors. Wind plants have average capacity factors of about 42% in sweden, so the capacity would need to be over double the consumption, even ignoring the variability of consumption and production
Nevertheless, I do agree that Sweden doesn’t need more nuclear. It already generates some of the cleanest electricity in the world and I’d imagine fossil fuels are really only used for peak load.
Sweden uses essentially no fossil fuels in the grid - it’s basically hydro, nuclear and wind for all of it. The small amount of fossil fuels used is stuff like burning plastics, and one oil plant that is turned on once in a blue moon when there’s an energy crisis. It’s national news when they turn that one on, and it’s considered a huge failure every time it happens.
The real figure for fossil versus non-fossil energy in Sweden is 2% fossil versus 98% non-fossil, with hydro being the primary energy source (35-45%), followed by nuclear (30%) and then wind (20%). Source, in Swedish: www.energiforetagen.se/energifakta/…/produktion/
Probably not for long given the state of the Rouble and the economy. Tech-wise Russia has nothing to offer and when it comes to the stuff China might be interested in, such as ores and oil, well you’d have to not send miners to the front to continue producing them. That Russia of all countries is importing metals should make you stop and think.
Yeah, but that was the Soviets. These are capitalists. Capitalists suck at war economics and I’m not even sure it’s plausible under modern finance capitalism. I agree they’re not likely to run out of troops any time soon, but I don’t think we’re likely to see economic gains like WWII.
I also don’t think we’re going to see industrial development on par with WWII. My point is that during WWII:
The USSR suffered something like 25 million deaths, orders of magnitude above even the wildest propaganda about current Russian losses
They still had the labor power to not only run their industrial base, but to build much of it from scratch
It’s a country of around 143 million, and I saw an (undoubtedly cautious) estimates of 11 million+ military age men. They had something like 1.2 million military personnel before the war.
Just a basic understanding of demographics and even one historical example should tell anyone that “they are so short on people they can’t even run their industry” is absurd.
Oh no, their Twitter and Facebook exports are too low. They’ll have to scrape by on checks notes one of the world’s largest supplies of oil, precious metals, and other natural resources. Surely, the Russian economy will collapse any second now!
Hydrogen is a pretty complicated gas to deal with. The flame is nearly invisible in daylight meaning you could be standing in a Hydrogen fire and only tell because your skin is burning off. The molecule is so small that its hard to contain it because seals leak. Storage of hydrogen is also a problem. The density is also very very low in both gaseous and cryogenic liquid form which means you have to have very large containers compared to most other fuels.
The article proposes to graduate hydrogen to a utility grade fuel, which isn’t impossible, its just really really hard, and other alternatives are much easier to accomplish the same goal.
One approach may be to located hydrogen combustion or hydrogen fuel cells very close to the point of extraction turning it into electricity as soon as possible. That would bypass most of the storage challenges at least. However, this idea comes with its own challenges as hydrogen extraction points may not be near utility grade power lines for transport of the electricity produced.
You make some interesting points. Would you happen to know if it would be possible to add something to it to make it more visible? Kinda like they add that smelly thing to gas.
Everytime I read about hydrogen being the future I get the feeling of oil lobby selling the next “oil” because thats all they understand. Hydrogen has a future where its energy to weight ratio counts and that is aviation fuel. For now.
I see blood but I don’t see a wound. Are they really going to try and pass that the perfect hole there is a bullet hole? Wouldn’t a gun shot wound there take a bigger portion of the ear?
Depends on the round. A lot of factors come into play on gunshot wounds, including velocity, mass, resistance, angle. There is even some possibility that the round just barely missed, but the displacement of air is actually what broke skin.
There is even some possibility that the round just barely missed, but the displacement of air is actually what broke skin.
That is an urban legend. I’ve been missed by some pretty large caliber rounds in war and I’ve seen some pretty large caliber rounds barely miss people. No damage is done. You have to make contact with the round (or vice versa) for it to do damage.
Guy I agree his account history looks a little sus, but isn’t that a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black? You have 3 comments since December.
Ah I see why, I had the main few communities you post in blocked. My bad. I rescind my comment. Note to everyone else: Check histories in a private tab so you can see even communities that you have blocked.
I’m literally just a dude. I usually don’t have time to post, and haven’t really felt the need to comment, but I had a rare day off where i felt like I could actually take part in conversation.
Paramedic here. All parts of the head are very vascular, and so any head injury at all bleeds fantastically. If the top of his ear got clipped, that would be enough to produce that much blood.
I haven’t read Alabama’s ruling, but if those embryos are legally children, then yes. Fortunately the destination state and the federal government do not agree, so you won’t have to worry about it unless you live in Alabama.
telegraph.co.uk
Top