Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

~Ford Prefect

I have tinnitus, and bought a Bluetooth audio sleep mask so that I could sleep with the TV off and not keep my partner awake. That in itself was a game changer, but on top of that, I sleep way better with my eyes covered and I use it now even when I’m not listening.

(It’s extra weird because I have thick eyelids and see black when I close my eyes even in a well lit room, so I never considered that I’d need one.)

It doesn’t work like that mate.

• bombing civilian infrastructure which is likely to have families, children, non combatants inside is a war crime.
• collective punishment is a war crime.
• forcible relocation is a war crime.
• ordering civilians to a new area and then bombing them en route or on arrival is intentional targeting of civilians, and therefore a war crime.
• blockading a population within an area which you are actively shelling is a war crime.
• depriving a population of non combatants of food and water and fuel is a war crime.
• bombing a convoy of ambulances is a war crime.
• bombing a refugee camp is a war crime.
• killing reporters is a war crime.
• use of white phosphorus on civilian targets is a war crime.

Israel has done all of these things. There is no excuse for war crimes. It doesn’t matter how evil the enemy is, you are not allowed to do these things and not be a war criminal.

Ok so everything I wrote isn’t wrong.
It’s telling how you’re accusing me of snark, when that’s precisely all you’ve provided so far. Well, that and a rambling opinion piece on the Oslo accords in support of a tu quoque fallacy. And of not saying anything meaningful when I clearly made three substantive rebuttals above.
Cheers

Ok let’s start with this one:

“Israel has built illegal settlements in Palestine every day since signing the Oslo accords”

Go ahead. Prove that wrong.

It is accurate, and I can back it up with data. Is there anything in particular you think is incorrect? Or are you just annoyed with it in general.

Just wanted to point out a few factual inaccuracies in your comment.

1. This is no longer a justified conflict. A state has the right to self defence in a limited way. The right to self defence does not override the rules on collective punishment. The right to self defence does not include the right to invade a state where the enemy is a terrorist group within that state, rather than the state itself. The right to self defence does not override the rules on attacking civilian infrastructure (especially ambulances) even where there is suspicion that a terrorist organisation may be using it. The right to self defence does not override the rules on forcible relocation or blockade. In short, the response to an enemy using a human shield must not be to eliminate the shield. It’s astounding that so many people seem to need this explained to them. This is borne out by international law, cf. the UN charters.
2. Israel did not do everything they could do to avoid this conflict. The one thing they had to do was to abide by the Oslo accords, yet they have built settlements in Palestine every single day since signing, and restricted Gazans every single day since signing. The two state solution has failed as a result of Israel’s actions. In terms of actions since October 7th, the usual way to go about dismantling an embedded terror organisation is to use counterintelligence, ground ops and precision strikes. The reasons are obvious, I hope. The only way to get those hostages back is either by freeing them in covert ops or by negotiation at a political level. Destroying entire city blocks from the air will not get the hostages back, as we all know.
3. The label genocide is not misconstrued, according to the UN genocide experts. Some say there is a grave risk that this is a genocide, based on the available facts, and some say that it already fulfills the criteria.
   I can provide sources for all of my claims, if you’d prefer not to do the legwork yourself.

Removed by mod

I am answering you. The guy you asked a question to was talking about something that had happened in the past. You then asked a question as though you’d misread it and thought he was saying that it was still happening. He didn’t say that, so your question is already answered.

If you read carefully, you will notice that the commenter used the past tense: “had” = simple past tense of the verb “to have”.

Only

The chemical makeup of the two liquids is different for a start, so you’re wrong in saying that.

You forgot “fully automatic”