That’s pretty much my thinking too. I mean, what’s the less biased alternative to get to the truth here? The law firm has an incentive to satisfy the people paying them, but they also have their own reputation to maintain.

So I guess I’d be inclined to skeptically believe their findings. Although, it would be better if the firm released their own summary (or endorsed this one).

I like to picture Jesus in a Tuxedo T-shirt, 'cause it says, ‘I wanna be formal, but I’m here to party, too.’

You know, Jesus did grow up. You don’t always have to call him baby. It’s a bit odd and off putting to pray to a baby.

I agree with everything you’ve said. Hamas can be a terrorist organization, and still be the elected government. Both can be true, and acknowledging the how and why of that being the case is necessary reach a resolution to the conflict.

The fact that you’re trying move this conversation towards the actions of Israel while avoiding the actions of Hamas leads me to believe you’re not interested in having a genuine discussion. I think you’re trying to play gotcha.

Have Israel and Hamas used terrorist tactics? I think so. Do both sides not care about the well-being of civilians? I think so. Are both sides of this conflict bad? I think so.

My definition of terrorist tactics is irrelevant to how the OP would classify Hamas.

Regardless, here’s how terrorism is defined on Wikipedia: it seems pretty reasonable to me.

Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants

If Hamas isn’t a terrorist organization then what would you call them?

Not to mention the fact that all it takes is for one nuclear exchange to happen, and the world as we know it ceases to exist. The stakes are incredibly high.

Great quote! That’s one of my absolute favorite books. I recommend it to people all the time.

If you liked Alas, Babylon, I’d strongly recommend On The Beach by Nevil Shute.

They’re a weapon of last resort because of (warranted) fear of them. Hence, everyone absolutely should be scared of war between NATO and Russia.

A war between Russia and NATO would result in the textbook definition of a pyrhhic victory. Everyone should be afraid of that. There will be no winners in nuclear combat.

I’ve simply pointed out the irony and hipocrisy. I’m making no statement on whether or not Nicaragua should be involved.

The West shoe-horned themselves into the Middle East decades ago. The West currently has a “vested” interest because they’ve made an absolute mess of the Middle East, when there was never a good reason for getting involved in the first place. Historically, the West has done in the exactly what they’re now accusing Nicaragua of.

Additionally, it’s particularly ironic due to America’s historical meddling in Nicaragua.

I’m making no comment on Nicaragua making this move in good faith. I agree it’s obvious that they’re a pawn. I’m only pointing out the hypocrisy.

So because Western nations are larger they’ve been entitled to interfere in the Middle East for the last century?

And how much trade needs to occur between two countries to entitle one to interfere with the other?

The Nicaraguans “have no reason to inject themselves into a conflict over the Middle East,” one of the western intelligence officers said.

Well that’s definitely the most ironic thing I’m going to read for a while.

I interpreted the “you” in the reply to my comment as referring to me specifically.

If it was meant as a general “you”, then I take it back. I’m not trying build a strawman. I’m just trying to disagree with the notion that every country should have laws like Germany and Austria.

Accusing a stranger of being a Nazi when faced with reasonable disagreement; the mark of true enlightenment.

You’ve perfectly described the problem with what the OP is proposing. Disagreeing with that position doesn’t make you a Nazi.

Don’t you understand, if we make the symbols illegal then people won’t have those beliefs anymore. Duh.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that’s where the money should come from too. I just meant where else is the money going to come from in the current US healthcare system.

Unfortunately, we don’t live in a country where that’s the case right now. I think it is still a very good thing to donate blood, despite having for-profit/privatized healthcare.