this deserves an upvote.

human shields are pretty effective. :) if these were two sides in more even conflict would you say the same? if hamas had tanks and were strapping women and children to the front of them, would you still consider it a warcrime for israel to shoot the tanks? it's hyperbole, but i'm pretty sure it's analagous in the right ways.

it does matter who started it... it not mattering who started the conflict is more naive than the other stance. It only "doesn't matter who started it" in the school yard because in an idealized world, it doesn't, and that's what we would like our children to believe before reality intrudes. in a dirty, muddy, complex world. motive matters, timing matters, past matters.

I'm not sure what your goal is, but considering you left out the contextual wrappings of that quoted passage. here it

The Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!

i'm fairly sure that's explicit declaration that they look forward to killing jews in the hopes of accelerating the end times :)

the quote itself does not explicitly incite genocide... unless you look forward to the end times. you make a distinction without a difference.

you're very cynical. fair is fair. and the olympics isn't about the money for a lot of these athletes... it's about being the best, and being their best. one single competitor with an unfair advantage is one competitor too many.

... that'd be criminal. unless it were gangrenous.

first off, any major surgery involves a great deal of risk. infection, and otherwise.
secondly, there's always hope. paralyzed limb, limited neural regrowth is probably not that far off. and throw it in a brace if it gets in the wa.

i'm pretty sure that is against the rules. and they'd probably get DQ if found out.

... i don't think you grasp how analogies work.

you just don't want it bad enough.

and i didn't know the drinking problem in russia was so bad that they implemented a ban of sale of alcohol at night to curb it. god i think i fell down the rabbit hole a little there. apparently they have this thing called zapoi, which is multi-day binge drinking. and this other thing synonymous to "the horrors" which is what the Irish call the withdrawal from prolonged zapoi.

yes it's a problem and yes those stereotypes nail the demographics.

:) you can't incite violence against others. you can't incite panic. you can't slander and you can't libel. all these are antithetical to free speech but they are also right. Free speech isn't the end goal, but simply a stepping stone to a better republic. that's the end goal, not free speech in isolation.

better people than us have made the evaluation that how freedom of expression should be limited is in cases where it brings an explicit and immediate harm. when it doesn't, the positives and negatives of restricting speech are unknown and a lighter touch is better.

real men go for the crowbar.

part utility, part brutality, part durability, part homage.

all metal.

jabby, stabby, crunchy, B n E

just my crowbar and me.

as they say, nothing like a blunt piece of iron. you can really feel the bone break.

the great thing is, even if he tweeted her full name the article would be responsible enough to not print it...

... if that were the case, why not just pack anthrax into a crop duster mechanic of some kind, and just ignore the big boom altogether?

can some explain why information can't be lost? this is slightly confusing and that assumption makes it seem like they're building a lot of theory on a pretty shaky foundation.