Jump to content
BANGKOK 18 February 2019 06:38

bristolboy

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    5,759
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7,261 Excellent

About bristolboy

  • Rank
    Titanium Member

Recent Profile Visitors

929 profile views
  1. What makes you think that this is British law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law#British_citizenship_by_descent
  2. The thing about a joke is that it should be based on the truth. Since a wall will have virtually no effect on drug trafficking, it's a laugh based on a falsehood.
  3. Tell that to the Palestinians living in the occupied territories. If you're an Israeli living there, you have all the rights of an Israeli citizen. If you're a Palestinian, not so much. And even in Israel, it's not the case. Up to now, no national land has been given to Arabs to let their overcrowded villages expand. Whereas if the village is Jewish, no problem.
  4. Point being that you claimed the motivation was anti-Semitism. Also you claimed that only one weapon was being supplied to the Burmese. Got a source for that? And what post claimed that only Israel was supplying weaponry to the Burmese?
  5. You mean those anti-semites at Haaretz? Editorial Israel's Dirty Arms Deals With Myanmar Reports of the events in Myanmar have not kept the Israeli government from cooperating with those suspected of war crimes ...Israeli spokesmen justified the supplying of weapons with the claim that “both sides committed war crimes,” claims that were rejected in the UN report. The court’s ruling on the petition is classified, but according to testimony from Myanmar the weapons sales are continuing, even in the midst of the crimes. https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/israel-s-dirty-arms-deals-with-myanmar-1.6429524
  6. I assume you're going to try and invoke the fact that Palestinians living in the occupied territories and in Jerusalem aren't technically residents of Israel. Go ahead and wave that fig leaf for all it's worth. Which is nothing.
  7. "read Jewish publications financed by Israel"?
  8. Like most other Trump supporters, you have a remarkable ability to not recognize evidence.
  9. Nonsense. It has not been just a slight outcry by any means. Nor is it all forgotten about. Just ask Aung Suu Kyi. And what western style democracy deprives residents of their rights the way Israel does.
  10. Even though Trump has admitted that it's not an emergency?
  11. Unfortunately, the chief protector of these abusers, John Paul II is past all punishment. In fact, the Church is moving to beatify him.
  12. Unlikely "The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (signed by President Bush on December 17, 2004) authorized hiring an additional 10,000 agents, "subject to appropriation". This authorization nearly doubled the Border Patrol manpower from 11,000 to 20,000 agents by 2010.[28" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol
  13. What exactly do you mean by "the IPCC disappeared the Hockey Stick in 2007"? That an image was no longer used? In fact, the hockey stick has by now been confirmed over and over again including a huge study by 80 climatologists in Nature Geoscience. Mann and others now do agree that there was a slight global warming during the Medieval Warm Period and slightly more Global cooling during the little ice age. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-11/ps-prc112309.php https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Red-Manns-Hockey-Stick-6-Blue-Output-response-of-Crowleys-linear_fig2_257564851 But what the denialists do is take the warmest regional temperatures for the MWP, like those in Southern Greenland, and generalize it to the globe. This is utterly dishonest. And of course, the most relevant portion of the hockey stick is the blade. And that has been growing higher and higher. What's more, it has consistently accelerated at at rates that outstrips those predicted by the IPCC in their regular reports. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/
  14. Because the choices you offered were inadequate. The best answer, the one that most climatologists would subscribe to would be " from most to all".
  15. Scientific literature apparently unknown to 97 percent of climatologists.
×
×
  • Create New...