Can anyone think of a case where opening fire on unarmed citizens actually caused unrest to die down? Because I can’t think of a single case. Even in Russia, the Russian Revolution of 1905 was sparked off by firing on civilians.

In every case I can think of it made things worse for whoever was in charge. Aren’t there any counterexamples?

Then you should hopefully already understand the multiple reasons anecdotal evidence is a poor way of trying to understand large groups of people, which is why we use statistical studies.

The people specifically in your community, engaging with welfare resources, are in no way an accurately representative sample of a larger social class in all areas. Your specific region likely has unique cultural factors at play. The subset of people engaging with welfare have unique economic factors.

That’s really nice. Looks like charcoal?

If you want to start an irl group, yeah. If you’re joining an existing group, no though. Fully online is obviously the easiest place to find groups looking for players, but you can also head down to your local gaming store. I’ve seen bulletin boards before with flyers looking for players, but can probably just ask the people working there if they know of any.

Could also check online forums for your local community, maybe even make a post asking if any gaming groups have openings for irl players.

Dungeons & Dragons is one, for the sufficiently geeky.

It’s less about directly reaching certain people and more about educating the public in an attempt to indirectly shift the overall anti-intellectual bias that is very commonplace in certain communities.

Would’ve been nice if we had started 30 years ago, but better late than never.

This. There was a dramatic shift in his behavior pre-stroke to post-stroke. He also underwent treatment for depression afterwards. It definitely altered his brain.

That isn’t about me being smart. Really it’s just about reading the article.

You can’t just say

delete all images off of each device

and seriously expect me to not point out that’s not what the article says, after I specifically asked that. Either information is accurate, or it is not. Factuality is important, especially these days. It’s not some minor detail, either, had all the images been deleted, it’s likely my overall argument would’ve been incorrect based on the actual evidence.

Then it is no longer necessary to keep bringing it up. It’s frustrating when everyone pretends I’m trying to defend Israeli positions or something instead of simply pointing out that in this one particular case, it’s unlikely to be some coverup conspiracy despite everyone’s rabid wishes for it to be one. The IDF commits plenty of war crimes, but that does not make everything they do another one.

I frankly don’t care if I convince you or not. I am not trying to sell something. I am, however, not going to be swayed away from what I think is correct, either. You all are absolutely trying to sell something, and I ain’t buying.

If that’s really true, you could easily have copy/pasted your evidence. The only reason you wouldn’t is if you can’t. Which is why you just keep saying the same things like that will somehow change something.

Yes, for the third time, the intimidation was very egregious. I have not been talking about the intimidation, except to say it is extreme and wrong. I have been talking about photo deletion, and how militaries feel about photography, not just in Israel, but lots of places.

Regarding where the actual combat is occuring and where the fronts are, maybe you’re right, I’m not sure on that part. It doesn’t change any procedures around opsec, though. An army guy isn’t going to make a judgement about what he should do based on where his base is, he’s just going to follow whatever doctrine his superiors give him for opsec, which in the IDF is probably very harsh. I have a feeling the IDF does not limit it only to the very frontmost positions, especially when a drone is not limited to only targeting those.

Really? Then prove this:

remember how you pretended the documented, verified US government sources weren’t real

Unless you just made it up out of the blue, of course. You do that a lot. You just keep chanting how right you are, but never copy anything to actually prove it. Very weak, when anyone can chant anything.

You really do like making claims you can’t back up. If I was wrong and you could prove it, it’d be a win for you. Unless you actually just can’t, though.

Forward positions are forward positions, it doesn’t need to be top secret for basic no-photography rules to apply.

I agree that all the harassment and intimidation was egregious, though. That part has nothing to do with security in any way I can think of.

All were examined, many photos were deleted. Not all photos were deleted.

No, I do not remember denying any sources were real. Where in any of my (still unedited btw) comments did that happen? Or are you just making shit up again?

No, it does not support everything you’ve been saying. This is why you’ve had to do ninja edits to change what you were saying. Remember that part?

I’m honestly not so sure. I agree all the intimidation was very egregious, but beyond that I think you’re drawing an odd distinction between Ukraine checking phones and cameras if necessary and the IDF doing it.

Also did they delete all the images? I don’t recall the article specifying that all of them were deleted. That would also be unusual I’d think.

Playing pretend in what way? I told you, as soon as you support your specific statements that you’ve made, or admit you were wrong, we’re cool. I don’t see what is being pretended.

Specifically, you saying “using weapons” in this case. The bacteria were not weapons. They were studying weapons, by using other bacteria that behave similar to weapons. I don’t think you actually care, but I do I’m afraid. Where in the report does it say weapons were released? Not studied, released?