Sure. But it's not actually terrorism, is it? In fact, as worded, completely inoccuous activity seems to fall under the act - the definition of "UK-related activities" in the section includes literally any activity taking place in the UK. So intentionally helping set up a foreign embassy seems like it falls under the act.
Regardless, national security it may be, but terrorism it ain't.
People don't cycle that much overall, due to perception and poor infrastructure, but yeah it's also skewed by gender. My impression is that the public perception of poor safety is something that most people are exposed to, but weighs more heavily on women.
Very few people have swimming pools at home, if that's what you mean.
Yes.
Falls into a weird niche for me - if I'm in a situation where text-only history is not good enough, I'll just use something graphical, rather than some crazy image-in-terminal solution.
Mostly in git I use an alias I wrote/stole ages ago which displays linear history compactly.
Ugh. UK universities absolutely should not be shutting down research at the behest of China, but how is this terrorism? Seems like terrorism is back to being the bogey-man.
My point, all along, is that ICE shouldn’t be behaving how they are, at all, it’s fucked.
And you felt the need to make that point, repeatedly, when no-one disagreed with it. And you won't even begin to talk about why.
Yes, I think we absolutely need to make a decision between true things and false things. I don't give a shit what country you associate that habit with because it's so clearly important and positive. You'll have to actually respond to me if you want to convince me that it is anything other than vital in today's "post-truth" landscape.
That would be some context about your thinking that it would have made sense to include in your first comment, given the thread context!
I dont get it lmao you get arrested without arms anyway so… why you even have guns in america for anyway if not for against nazis?
I'm an outsider but I think the reality is very clearly not that simple.
Most people are still not being arrested, and most of those arrested or involved with the police or federal agents are not being assaulted with deadly weapons. It's not at the point where it is some kind of obvious choice to make it a fight.
In fact, in reality, that is rarely the case I would say, because the fascists are incentivised to not make it so clear cut and obvious, because then people fight back. That's why the worst crimes of fascist regimes are usually conducted in secrecy and with denial. Even when e.g. France was conquered by the Nazis, most people were not part of The Resistance.
But Yiddish is itself a Germanic language, and modern German dialects like Bavarian do have "Schof" = "Schaf" = "sheep". Is there a better etymology for Schof here? And Seckl < Säckle < Sack would be perfect for scrotum too, and in high German you can call someone "du Sack" to mean they're an idiot also.
You haven't explained at all - and still haven't - why you felt the need to accuse people of thinking it's OK. Remember you started with "well that's OK then" - implying the parent comment thought ICE was fine to shoot people - and then said "Do you think it’s ok he got shot?"
You have only explained that you think what ICE did was wrong. You haven't explained why you felt the need to imply that other people thought what ICE did was right. I guess you aren't going to.
Imagine if I replied to your comment with, "do you think it's OK that JFK got shot?" You'd be pretty confused, right, because you haven't said anything to suggest you thought it was. That's exactly what you did, just with someone else, not JFK. There was exactly the same amount of hint that the person above that it was OK.