AlexL

Yes, and so did the authors of this study and those of the LK99 study, but without finding the right substance. But, obviously, it was not proved theoretically that superconductivity at normal temperatures and pressures is NOT possible, so that the quest continues.

The previous hype about a new room temperature superconductor - LK99 - is only 5 months old. It was proven false only one month later. As it was for the LK-99 claim, there is no report of an experiment showing that the resistivity of the new material drops to zero at a certain temperature. But OK, the authors write, cautiously, "possible"...

From the Ayn Rand Center UK: South Africa's application to the ICJ, genocide, etc

No comment to this older comment of mine? Then you should repudiate and retract your claim.

My subject was only the ambiguity of your comment. As to the subject itself: Who is "he"? Ben-Gvir? If it is Ben-Gvir, I'll first wait for @SpookyKitty to answer my request for clarification (see here) and afterwards... maybe...

So, in fact you do not confirm that you did not fully meant what you wrote. OK then.

It is important to me to correctly understand what you were saying: if you truly meant it, if you were kidding or if you were sarcastic. And for you it should be important too - to be correctly understood. You yourself confirmed subsequently that you did not fully meant what you wrote, so that my initial suspicion was justified.

There are ways to signal that it is not 100% straight, like an emoji ...

"Not wholly" means that it was sarcastic. OK.

"Not wholly" means that it was sarcastic. OK.

You mean your comment was not meant to be sarcastic?

You are not funny. At all.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but can you please show - based solely on his words - why this man's arguments mean specifically "ethnic cleansing". To save you time, here is Wiki's definition of ethnic cleansing:

Conclusion : Israel CAN win, but will NOT. For detailed explanation watch the first 45 minutes. Q&A is also interesting.

You already forgot what the subject was. No, it's Russophobia😁

I'm assuming you're saying this because you know something more than me. Wrong assumption. Sharpen your logic. I know next to nothing about the Israeli military, but it is not me who claimed that "Israel does not have a competent military". Maybe you know "something", but for such categorical pronouncements as "Israel does not have a competent military" one has to know a lot more than "something". Then the Israeli military is incompetent because generals and commanders are not able to make any decision without first asking for permission. "Any decision" ?You have a very serious problem with your logic.

OK, let's see the arguments. What is indiscriminate killing? How would per capita body count prove indiscriminate killing? OK, let's see the arguments. Cannot discriminate 100%. The arguments will ultimately rest on the issue of "Is Hamas a legitimate entity to negotiate with or not" regardless of the issue of indiscriminate killing. You changed the subject, which was "indiscriminate killings". Your Performance is disastrous.

Israel has been in a constant state of war with gaps of maybe only a few years. I can't think of examples of countries that are unable to defeat their enemies for such a long period of time. What more do you want me to say? So: you admit that are not a military expert, that you know - next to - nothing about the Israeli military. Therefore: why claim that it is the incompetence of Israeli military that is at the origin o lack of decisive military successes of Israel after the 1973 war? It is not the army that decides about the start of war, about its end, about the tactics, methods, rules of engagement etc. It is the politicians who do these. And they are subject to pressure from all sides: from the "allies", from its own public opinion, from the world-wide "public opinion" and what not. And thus too often take wrong, or even criminal decisions. Like for example put to risk their own soldiers in order to spare enemy's "civilians". The resounding Israeli military successes before and up to 1973 prove that the army in itself can perform very well. One cannot win a politically correct war. But you do know all this - that the army is fully under the control of the government. It is useful to remember this, from time to time.

The explanation you have it. Under your nose. Just follow the link. Everything is there. You have already done the same, in June 2022: linked to a Russia Today's presentation of a RAND Corp study, instead of linking to the study itself. Russia Today's (misre)presentation was a sinister joke, as I showed at the time. And now you relapse. Why should anyone be interested in RT's summaries of anything instead of the real thing?

you are again evading. as usual...

Then why not cite directly WSJ ?? Russia Today and other state-owned Russian publication are known for distorted reporting of foreign content. Case in point: a study by RAND Corporation which was cited by @whYNOTthrough RT, where it was heavily purged and which I discussed in the thread starting here

Russia Today continues to be @whYNOT's Bible...

At the absolute minimum, it's easy to show that Israel does not have a competent military. Then show it! Are you a military expert? What level of knowledge do you have specifically about Israeli military?

OK, let's see the arguments. What is indiscriminate killing? How would per capita body count prove indiscriminate killing? OK, let's see the arguments. Cannot discriminate 100%. What is your point? In any war, more so in a urban war in "the most densely populated area in the world", shit happens: friendly fire, breach of the rules of engagement. (Besides, in our case, the other side has no such rules, and no rules at all. Just to mention) This is widely known. Speculate on this is dishonest. The ultimate responsible for everything that happens in a war - to the military, to the civilians, to the infrastructure - is the aggressor. The only obligation is to avoid, not killing, this is not the standard, but only to deliberately targeting civilians. It is an opened question for me if the respect for rules is not reciprocal. Of course, Hamas doesn't, but there is no big outcry about this, not even clear condemnation of the international bodies. For this, Israel is a so much more comfortable target - for over 60 years already. You focused on missteps to draw wide ranging conclusions. Who determines what the case is, in specific cases? IOW, who debates and conclusively decides? Each for himself? The public opinion? Majority vote? Specialized tribunals (that is after the war)?

Why should I watch what an adept of one of the parties in conflict is saying? He will proclaim as truth whatever he wants. As I have all the reasons to believe he is prejudiced, I can't take anything he says for granted and I will have to check everything. So why listen at all? Have I ever given you as proof anything said by a pro-Israeli? You're clearly all out of arguments. All you have left is racist memes and head-in-the-sand denialism. No, it these are good and relevant argument, but you put yourself in a position of having no choice but to claim I am a racist and genocide denialist😁. I understand you very well: what else can you do?