You need some gingernuts.
This isn’t a tits pun.
Your mums a rediculous business model
Can’t belive i had to scroll to the bottom to find this.
Nothing he said is actually wrong, just missed that recognition is also a big part of it.
Id argue that 4% is why it needs to be used.
Im not telling you to speak it fluently, but if you asked the general population if they use Maori at least once on a daily basis it would be much higher that 4%.
Or just simply remember its like sign language - if its all people want to or can “speak” and an official language they should be disadvantaged.
Fish are food, not friends
US can only veto security council resolutions. ICC doesn’t need UNSC to investigate.
Same result - UN won’t take military action, but ICC can still proceed.
Tamgent point here.
Many of these countries also have territory claims in Antarctica. For reasons.
Extention level threat, qualified officer, not injured who can serve. Predjiced against said event.
100% would be allowed to stay.
In all fairness alot of it stemmed from the fact she watched her partner die after they were betrayed by a supposedly ally - trust from that wouldn’t come back quickly.
Would have liked to see the series carry on a bit more though
Don’t mess with Americas boats
How did something that only killed 10 targets injure thousands, especially when you are considering explosives.
I don’t think I could injure 1000s of civilians with only 10 targets killed with an explosive hidden on their person if I tried.
Close - you’re looking at letter, not action and intentions.
Booby traps are banned for use in ways that are likely to be used by civilians and remove protections on the civilian population. Things like placing explosives on public transport, the side of the road, in marketplaces or protected places. Targeted strikes, like on a piece of civilian equipment that is likely to only be used by the target (cellphone, personal vehicle, laptop) are permitted as they are unlikely to be set off by a random civilian.
What is a question, however, is if the targets were actually combatants.
That’s a warcrime
Correct.
Killing civilians isn’t a war crime. Deliberately killing civilians, or not taking reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties is a war crime.
“Small” explosive that is embedded in something passed to and likely worn by the target is unlikely to be a war crime. If they somehow snuck a 1000lb bomb into one it absolutely would be however.
Fat electrician had a great video on this.
Soo accurate that if the target is in a car you need to know what seat.
How do you have less votes than the wrong person?
How nice of them
Devils advocate.
How many peaces, truces, agreements in that area have ever meant something?