Arlaerion

In two of three final reports there are bombs worn or placed by the attackers. In two of the reports the final assault was started by government personell (either directly, letting it look like the hostage takers started it, or by killing the guy on a dead man’s switch). In one report it was classified as a suicide attack from the start.

The dead man’s switch was confirmed by one of the surviving attackers. He also was the one speaking of a dispute between the attackers concerning the target building (school vs. police station).

They wore explosive belts. That’s why i supect they intended to blow themself up. Sure, I could be wrong. But then you got to find better sources.

Why are you getting cynical now?

I asked where it states that Putin bombed the school. Your own source contradicts your comment. So please explain.

Where in that article does it say it was bombed deliberately? And by Putin?

The first explosions were the bombs placed by the attackers themselves. The fighting afterwards was as expected.

There was a massive tsunami in the area killing almost 20k people, the power plant was not their first concern.

The guy died 4 years after the accident from lung cancer, not very common in nuclear power.

I never agreed that its outmoded or old tech.

At Fukushima Daichii died one worker of radiation poisoning and one in a crane incident. The evacuation killed 51 more. Scientific consense is, that the loss of life and cumulative lifetime would have been lower if there was no evacuation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents

For the total number of airships, the loss of life (and airships) is quite high…

I explicitly wrote “civil nuclear power”. I know there were big incidents, especially in early military nuclear sites. Windscale and Kyshtym are two of those.

Yeah, read it. Also the article with the discussion on the death toll. 31 immediate deaths 60 attributable in the following two decades

The official WHO estimate with 4000 more cancer deaths until 2050 is based on the disputed LNT model. Even UNSCEAR itself says:

The Scientific Committee does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/let-s-separate-the-urban-myths-from-chernobyl-s-scientific-facts-20190705-p524f7.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

Dr. Thomas shares that contrary to popular belief there is a scientific consensus that the Chernobyl accident has resulted in the deaths of less than 55 people as a result of radiation.

The two airship accidents with the most casualties count together 120 dead (USS Akron and Dixmude).

More people died in airship incidents than in civil nuclear power.

E: typo

So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

Kurds deserve their own state as much as plaestinians do. But colonial nations back in the past fucked up.

In this case it’s Austria not tolerating those fascists.

There is an ‘adequately’ missing. It somewhat counters the excuse of malice.

If you can’t adequately attribute it to stupidity it has to be malice (or at least negligence).

One big problem with your last paragraph: Baptism and many other rite to join religions happen at a very young age. These children know no world without the belief almost everyone around them practices. It’s getting their norm how live is. Leaving gets hard, it means leaving your life behind.

Diamonds are produced in the earth’s crust. The gold in that ring though…

Globally there’s way mor illegal trafficking in construction than in prostitution. So should wo do something there too?

And yes, legalizing will not eliminate human trafficking, but it would put the blame (and criminalization) away from victims.

I am not your enemy, I’m taking part in a discussion. Also this is my first post in this thread, stop talking like I personally offended you.

I explicitly wrote about the state of Israel and not the Jewish people. So the timeframe of my argument the founding of Israel and the decades after that. Jewish europeans settled there since the end of the 19th century, and for almost half a century it worked. The phrase started being used after that.

The Likud Party hat that phrase in it’s founding charter: “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”

Yes, it was used earlier by the PLO but back then the meaning was more like “take back what was ours”. It was not against the jews, they were there before the founding of Israel. It was against the forced taking of land by creating the state of Israel.

Extremist forces took it further, especially Hamas. But by then the sitation was already complicated enough for an easy solution…

Maybe if israeli hardliners didn’t support the founding of Hamas and assassinate Rabin they could have reached a peaceful solution almost 20 years ago?