“ my solution would be every able bodied Jewish man and woman join the French (or Polish, Russian, British) army and fucking fight…”

I agree that’s the noble thing to do, but I can’t condemn the ones that choose to seek safety in numbers with Jewish Palestinians as exclusively invasion minded aggressors. My 6 million tag was maybe a bit sharp, but you also know that the Nazi’s took Paris and as much as it sucked to be French or European under Nazi occupation, you also know adding Jewish to that carried a lot of extra consequence and danger to your family.

My POV is agnostic of everything save Isreali people today having a right exist as a nation. Which at this point from my POV leaves 1947 as somewhat academic.

It’s your insistence that Jewish people, and the existence of Israel, have always fundamentally been invaders that I was objecting to as it is so intensely at odds with factual history.

You gave a brief nod on not being a scholar of Palestinian history, but then proceed to just count all Jewish refugees as good as Zionist aggressors from day 1(or close enough), and the local Arab population as nothing but pure, kind caring victims of these invaders.

I will state again, that is ahistorical propaganda and NOT what actually happened. And for my POV, its enough generations back as to be Academic, but for your POV it is fundamental because without being able to writeoff Israel as invaders from day 1, nuance enters the calculus and suddenly the conflict is flooded with shades of grey because lots of parties all contribute to the bloodshed, and many with reasonable motivations from both sides yet too.

Please find me any reputable sources to refute the reality of 1920-1940s Palestine:
-Mass Jewish immigration fleeing European oppression raised tensions between Jewish and Arab Palestinians.(as one must expect)
-Arab palestinians were already chaffing and resisting British colonial rule(as one must expect)
-These tensions led conflict, initially more ‘civil’ with the Arab majority trying to refuse all business, sales and trade with all Jews.
-Escalation followed throughout that time, but in drips and drops and NOT a ‘surprise the Zionist army has arrived’! style of aggression

The violent escalation was a fight here, a beating there. Little individual fights, escalating into deaths. Retaliations slowly grew, with each side exchanging small escalations.

-the culmination of this was eventually all out civil war, and the Jewish side immediately accepting a UN mandated 2 state solution

-this culmination coinciding with the end of WW2 and revelations of the true extent of the holocaust can’t be ignored, it certainly shaped the Jewish mindset in the conflict.

-Their mindset was pretty clearly not inaccurate either, as the immediate response of all neighbouring Arab nations was a declaration of war on the new ‘state’, with bold claims of how quickly the Jews would be swept into the sea. The confidence was so high, a call was sent it for ALL Arab palestinians to abandon and flee the entire region of Palestine to better enable the complete cleansing of the land.

The above is all pretty much inarguably factual, and I’d bargain you could get an Arabic and Israeli scholar together to more or less agree on those facts which is saying alot.

——
Propaganda from both sides would like to declare that the Arabs harboured deep Nazi sympathies, and thus Israel was pure and true in all it did. Or from the other side, more or less your narrative of Zionist bad guys launching invasion from day 1(ish).

Both though are just sprinklings of half truths, with anti-British resentment naturally breeding some leanings towards the axis, and even genuine Nazi cleanse the Jews believers. And absolutely Zionists featured prominently within the Jewish population. Neither of those partial truths though make the propaganda of either side true, but instead just an incomplete and intentionally biased picture.


Again, please find me sources demonstrating I’m terribly wrong on all that, but the only ones I can find are clearly biased and the accurate accounts paint the picture above, the propaganda very, very clearly copies the real story more or less with just deletions of inconvenient bits

"Who the fuck cares what the reason they wanted to invadeflee was?"

Characterization matters a little here, no?

"They had a right to refugee status there, not to take control and possession by force"

Which is at the heart of things.

The Arab narrative is that Jews arrived guns loaded and set about pillaging, killing and invading as soon as they had sufficient numbers, while the poor domestic Arab population had only been trying to assist and welcome in the refugees...

Which is ahistorical propaganda.

The reality is that for the most part, the European Jews arriving in Palestine were refugees and acting like refugees. Meaning they mostly just wanted to be able to provide food, shelter and safety for the families, just like everyone else. Most of them tried to set about doing this by legally purchasing land.

Lots of the local Arabs similarly were content to get along.

At that same time though, there were hardcore Zionists among the Jewish arrivals AND there were xenophobic elements willing to use violence within the Arab population too.

The tensions rose as the populations rose, but largely as a result of a large people being displaced, and NOT as the planned invasion you describe. The local Arab population started to band together to refuse to work, trade or sell to Jews. Violence broke out instigated separately on smallish scales by BOTH sides. Escalating violence followed, again back and forth between sides.

I'm in a camp that has a hard time blaming either the domestic Arab population for distress at the huge influx of refugees, nor for the European Jewish people having a low tolerance for discrimination and violence directed there way solely for being Jewish.

I see it as a huge mess, but with two large populations of Jewish and Arab people in Palestine acting not terribly unreasonably under circumstances of extreme pressure.

I think it's lazy and convenient to just declare 'invasion' so that you can simplify it all down to right/wrong and good guy/bad guy....

"welcomed a relatively small number of European Jewish refugees in the 30’s while under British rule"
The Jewish population in Palestine approximately doubled from 84k in 1922 to 175k in 1931, and tensions already started pretty heavily then in 1931. The Arab narrative is pretty emphatic that the invasion start in the 1920s(and unspoken, the resistance and tension internally between Jew and Arab too).


"Then in the 40’s the Jewish minority, America, and England ignored their pleas to minimize immigration, ignored immigration laws, and invited a major invasion, so many European Jews came illegally..."

Come now, don't play dumb, you left out any reason why European Jews might do this outside of 'launching an invasion'. What other motive might 1940's Jewish Europeans have had to ignore immigration laws to migrate out of Europe????


That's where your narrative and mine clash irrevocably. I count the refugee flight from 1940s Europe to be even more desperate than the plight the Palestinians in Gaza face today. I can not accept your POV where upon arriving in Palestine and facing violence and discrimination there too, that it's just plain and simply obvious that the Jewish people's are invaders and bad guys with no right to an existence in the land they fled to.

You know, unless you want to credit Trump's MAGA approach to the southern border as valid cause it's awful similar, save that the Jewish people were facing much more desperate circumstances

I wonder how it’s even possible for Russia to “win” even if they take 100% of Ukraine, which seems impossible itself. It looks far more likely they’re about to lose Crimea.

The stated reasoning was to stop Ukraine from entering the EU (and eventually NATO) to lower tensions along its border and create a buffer zone from the West. Also to stop the terrorist attacks they claimed would come from a free Ukraine.

Now, assuming it survives, Ukraine is guaranteed admission to both, and Sweden, Finland, and more to come. Russia is being hit with attacks daily on the homeland, and their army is decimated and economy destroyed.

I fail to see any way Russia comes out ahead no matter the end results, and the likely outcome will be further degradation of Russia and likely more states becoming independent, shrinking Russia and its influence once again.

It feels like Biden has divided opinion so comprehensively that the two sides can't find any common ground. They each think the other side is the work of the devil and so are unable to take legitimate concerns seriously.

Speaking from a UK perspective I don't like either side, but I see what Biden and his crew are doing around the world and they seem to be an incredibly dangerous administration. Lighting fires and inflaming tensions in countries across the world.

He's upset the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians hate him, so do most of the middle east and Latin america.

Europe has a bleak future ahead of it thanks to Biden and his energy sanction push, and no one seems to have a clue what to do about it.

I'm really starting to miss Trump.

Unless they have intent to use them, or have knowledge that that’s what they’re made for, no? That’s what it says in the law, isn’t it?

“ Every person having upon him or her in his or her possession a picklock, crow, keybit, crowbar, screwdriver, vise grip pliers, water-pump pliers, slidehammer, slim jim, tension bar, lock pick gun, tubular lock pick, bump key, floor-safe door puller, master key, ceramic or porcelain spark plug chips or pieces, or other instrument or tool with intent feloniously to break or enter into any building, railroad car, aircraft, or vessel, trailer coach, or vehicle as defined in the Vehicle Code, or who shall knowingly make or alter, or shall attempt to make or alter, any key or other instrument named above so that the same will fit or open the lock of a building, railroad car, aircraft, vessel, trailer coach, or vehicle as defined in the Vehicle Code, without being requested to do so by some person having the right to open the same, or who shall make, alter, or repair any instrument or thing, knowing or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used in committing a misdemeanor or felony, is guilty of a misdemeanor. ”

I have this opinion, (that police (and some prosecutors) will ascribe intent to anyone in possession of any tools, even those with other uses, so they wouldn’t hesitate to do the same for tools that are clearly purpose built breaking and entering tools having been advertised as such and with no other use,) because I watched a friend be arrested in the 80’s for having a screwdriver and pliers in their backpack that the police called “burglary tools”. He did not have a history of burglary. The case was dropped when they instead charged him with <.5 grams of marijuana for some crumbs found loose in the bottom in his backpack and sent him juvie for 6 months. (I think he was on probation, I know the police wanted to charge him with anything….and did.). I was accused of having lockpicks once because I had picked up a few metal brush bits from a street sweeper in a parking lot and police saw me pick them up, arrested, then released me on site when the supervisor showed up and heard their story.

I think the last sentence of that paragraph puts him in danger, since he clearly has reason to believe at least some of the burglary tools he sells to the public are going to be used criminally.

I don’t want to see you give someone advice that could get them in serious trouble, I know you would feel terrible. You might be correct, technically without intent to commit a crime they’re legal to own, but in reality police and prosecutors decide your intent and I don’t trust them one whit.

Seems ok for laymen installing only 12 gauge wire (they don't work with multiple wire sizes) with no tension (pulls out easier) carefully placed in an empty junction box, but not so much for other sizes of wire, and terrible in crowded boxes because the lever is easily popped open by other wires out of sight and then you may have a bare hot wire loose in your wall. That never happens with a properly installed wirenut.
I'll stick with wirenuts, they work great, are safer, won't let the wire pull out, and only sacrifice 3/4" of wire in the unlikely event they need replacing....and they're cheaper. Sticking with what works.

I see 3 times as much rotating mass. Plus the exhaust lifter has to be under spring tension and lifting that every compression and exhaust cycle is going to add more losses.

Also..."your exhaust lifter bearings are shot. You're going to need a full bottom end rebuild." :-(

Is that why republicans usually get <10% of the black vote?
I think they are no different from non blacks in that they can see who is working for their interests and who is working against them. You clearly don't think they are capable of that.

Republicans switched from supporting civil rights to opposing them in order to win the southern white (mostly racist) vote. You aren't ignorant of this historical fact, you simply choose to deny it like any facts you don't like. That history has been accepted for 50 years +-....are you saying I'm so good I made it up at two years old and got the nation to play along?! Damn, I'm good.

In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

I may not be the walking encyclopedias my parents were, but at least I know my own language, and my nations history.

Thanks

It took me a minute of looking at it to work it out too. The ropes need to be kept under tension for it to work, and at first glance the four corner pieces are much more obvious than the one doing all the work of holding it up.

the subliminal message @ 10:20 (ish)

another method of diffusing tension in an argument about ideas is to locate a cat.

if someone says, "no, you are stupid and i disagree," etc, you can say, "yes but hey look, a cat."

and they'll say, "wow, that is a good cat." and you'll say, "yes, i know. let's stop arguing and be friends." and it's possible they'll say, "yes okay"

it's also possible they don't like cats, but then that friendship was never going to last anyway.

The bible was written almost exclusively by Jews, both the Old and New Testament. Jesus was a Jew and so were most of His apostles. The events of the majority of the books in the bible happened in Israel. Christianity is a Jewish religion. So, it shouldn't really surprise anyone that the bible has a lot to say about the Jews. Where they came from, how they got there, and what happens to them in the future.

Christian support for the Jews is a relatively new phenomenon. During the reign of the Catholic church, Jews were persecuted by Catholics and forced to convert to Christianity. The Jewishness of Jesus was lost to history; this is why you see much of the art during the middle ages depicting the Lord as a European man.

What changed is that the Jews returned to the land of Israel in 1948, something that many scholars of time past assumed was impossible. The general teaching was that God had broken His covenant with the Jewish people because they rejected Christ and that the church was now the new Israel. This is called replacement theology.

Yet, the Jews did return to their own land, a unique event in all of history. Never before had a people group been displaced from their own country, scattered all over the world for thousands of years, and then regathered to their original land with their cultural and genetic purity intact. This is a true miracle which anyone can plainly see is evidence of the hand of God working in the Earth on behalf of His chosen people.

The video makes it seem like the idea of Israel being integral to end times prophecy is some kind of leap, yet anyone who has studied the bible seriously knows that nearly everything predicted about the end times revolves around Israel, and particularly Jerusalem. There are numerous prophecies in the Old Testament stating plainly that God will scatter His people and gather them back to Israel in the last days.

The scripture predicts that the Jews will build a third temple. At this moment the Dome of the Rock, the golden domed building you see in photographs of Jerusalem, stands in the place where the third temple must be built. You could sum up the entire tension in the middle east in two words: "Temple Mount".

Not only are the Jews ready to rebuild their temple in a moments notice, they have created all of the implements of the temple and have been training priests to serve in the temple. The scripture declares that for end times prophecy to be fulfilled there must be a third temple. I can confidently predict that this will happen sometime in the future and the Dome of the Rock most likely be destroyed.

I also wanted to mention one other thing. The name "Palestine" was given to the area by the Romans. The Palestinians are not a people group, they are Arabs who settled in the area after the Jews were dispersed around the world. The video really does you a disservice by neglecting to mention the fact that it was the Arab nations that attacked Israel unprovoked on multiple occasions and the Jews against all odds defeated them. It was their right to take that territory and they are under no obligation to return it.

In the end, there will be much more conflict in the middle east, all revolving around the Jews and Jerusalem in some way. You may doubt the scripture but you will see this unfold with your very eyes. One day a charismatic man will come on the scene who will negotiate a peace in the middle east between the Jews and the nations of the world. He will seem at first to be someone who can solve all of our problems but eventually he will establish a one world order and rule the world with an iron fist. He will go into the Jewish temple and declare himself to be God. This is who the bible calls the Antichrist.

So, if you want to know where we are at in the end times, watch Israel and Jerusalem. Jerusalem is Gods prophetic time clock. When you see the Dome of the Rock being replaced by the temple, know the Lord is near, even at the doors.

I was thinking the same thing, but he addresses that in the video. The defining feature of a crossbow is that the bowstring is mechanically held in tension. With this device, if the wielder relaxes his arm the string goes slack.

Having said that, it's similar to a chu-ko-nu (repeating "crossbow" that doesn't hold the string in tension) but more accurate because the moving parts move linearly.

*promote

more tension, stakes and drama than all of season 8

I knew the blaster sounds came from telephone pole tension cables.