Bird vocalizations are variable and with only so much space within which they can vary not all sounds can be identified even with close study of the spectrogram. Plus there are plenty of birds which mimic the calls of other birds very accurately. If you're taking away context clues from location it is not surprising that it would not work super well.
Cattlemen sometimes construct ponds to provide water for their cattle. Is the pond a wetland? Suppose the rancher sells off his herd. Should he be required to keep the pond that has now become a breeding ground for mosquitoes?
Reasonable people can debate weather or not a sinkhole filled with water is a wetland. The EPA overstretched it’s authority and calls these things navigable waterways and that’s what this lawsuit is about.
So if someone went in city, dug hole in middle of road. Filled it with water. And someone came said, oh there is water this must now be wetland. And then stop everything? Would that be fine?
Unlike the Russians facing issues due to the actions of their government? Do you think they are all guilty, all deserving of sanction and economic hardship? Of course not, but what's the alternative?
OK, so your ministers are targeted, but everyday citizens are not. It's now trivial to work around sanctions and they don't matter at all. When your sanctions are symbolic, that's fine. When they're meant to actually have an economic impact, that doesn't work. There's an argument for fomenting dissent against the government causing the sanctions, too. If there were good, easy solutions, it wouldn't be the conflict that it is.
"It's now trivial to work around sanctions and they don't matter at all."
Putin did not dare to travel to south africa. The Oligarchs cannot use their Yachts anymore and their international assets are frozen(and they are not happy about it). That sounds like pretty effective targeted sanctions to me.
No one claimed that sanctions alone will stop the war.
And ALL of the russians are under sanctions since 2014 btw. and that clearly did not prevented the big war, or made Putin less powerful. So if anything, this refutes that sanctions against a whole population are helping.
No, it doesn't, because you don't know what the world would have looked like if there were no sanctions. If the impact of the sanctions delayed the war or forced Russia to go in with fewer supplies then the sanctions absolutely had a measurable impact. Just because Putin has strong authority now doesn't mean he wouldn't have been stronger without sanctions. Your arguments have no basis in reality.
"If the impact of the sanctions delayed the war or forced Russia to go in with fewer supplies then the sanctions absolutely had a measurable impact."
If is key here. You claim there is no alternative to broad sanctions, yet they have been shown to not work (preventing war). And that they delayed the war, you show no proof or indications. If Putins plan was all out war from the beginning, then why would he have waited at all? And sanctions targeting special military supplies are a different thing from sanctioning the civilian population.
So what exactly is your argument based in reality?
It's hard to call either Hamas or Fatah democratically elected - there haven't been elections since 2006, and Hamas actually ran a coup the following year to seize power after they lost in the parliamentary elections.
Even if there are some who would benefit from this (and they have plenty of others methods), should we make it easier for terrorists to transfer money through Paypal?
Is it really domestic when the effective governing body in Gaza and some of the West Bank is Hamas? Should we not sanction countries ruled by terrorist organizations?
I'm fine with that as long as the definition of terrorism is objective and not ideological/political. What objective definition of state terrorism applies to Palestine but not the state of Israel?
You're comparing apples and oranges. The counterparts to the government of Israel would be the PA and Hamas, not "Palestine".
There is no objective measure of terrorism since that designation is a political one. You can look at the objectivity of the criteria but the choosing of the criteria is unavoidably political. The question is not whether or not the definition is objective, but whether or not it is fairly applied. How would you describe a government that pays the families of "martyrs" who blow themselves up in coffee shops and restaurants, not despite but for their actions?
Hamas keeps sending Qassam and other rockets towards Israel, indiscriminately targeting everything while using human shields to defend launch and command sites in a clear violation of international law. On top of that come suicide bombers targeting civilians, which is clearly and indisputably terrorism, and on top of that they pay off the families of martyrs and terrorists, thereby creating a massive financial incentive.
Israel isn't free from blame - particularly the actions of Ben Gvir and friends or the expansions of settlement activity are reprehensible and completely unnecessary provocations - but nothing they do is even remotely as bad as what comes out of Palestine.
> Should we not sanction countries ruled by terrorist organizations?
Correct.
The punishment should fit the crime. Being born in a location run by a terrorist organization is not a crime.
This idea of group punishment is a very slippery slope and I believe you've already slide down it. As I pointed out in the previous comment, there are domestic terrorists in the US. And I'll go even further, members of the US current government have argued that other members of that government attempted a coup. Can't get much stronger claims of being ran by a terrorist organization than that.
A good example of sanctions is the recent US ones vs Russia. It's almost entirely targeted towards individuals and property/companies associated with those individuals who promote/support invading Ukraine. (War being the crime, sanctions being the punishment).
w.r.t. PayPal, afaik they're not the only payments organization so I'm fine with them not providing service as it's not like the Palestinian's have no alternative. (As opposed to say the only grocery store in a region refusing to sell food to a homosexual).
> The punishment should fit the crime. Being born in a location run by a terrorist organization is not a crime.
The problem is, as soon as you remove the sanctions, Hamas will use that to collect funds to buy more weapons to send off to Israel.
The only way to achieve actual, lasting peace in Israel and Palestine is to get an Arab country as a guarantor that Israel won't be attacked - but Hamas is so deeply connected with Iran whom everyone else in the region intensely dislikes that no one will take on that role.
Why would an Arab country guarantee Israel won't get attack? They literally want that land for themselves and went to war over that.
Actual people are the ones giving money to Hamas. Those people can and should be sanctioned. The people that aren't shouldn't be. It's a simple concept.
As long as the one deciding that is the US, the one that conveniently ignores the deeds of their allies in the region when they're not busy themselves destabilizing it and toppling their heads of state, no.
Israel actually does multiple levels of warning before issuing strikes against shared civilian/terrorist infrastructure including leaflets, audible warnings and so on, and only then fires a payload.
Palestine has dropped more rockets on their own people than Israel has even sent their direction.
They definitely don't peck this fast when digging for food or making holes - those are slower more powerful strikes. The fasy drums are for the purpose of making noise.
I don't understand how the people making movies/TV still haven't figured this out. Do they all just have home theaters and never try to watch something on a phone with crappy audio or when somebody is sleeping in the house?
Do you think those people actually watch the stuff they make? If they did, half of it would never get released, and the next 49% would be way better than it is right now.
An example of this being the case (that movie creators don't watch their stuff) is that most of the Star Trek TNG actors freely admit they've never watched most of their episodes.
There's nothing about having a monarch as the head of state that requires so much ceremony and attention. We could stop putting the king on currency, not have official periods of mourning, relegate news about the royal to the tabloids etc. without making any changes to how the government is structured.
Realistically speaking, if it weren't the monarchs wasting tabeloid inches it would be the equally inane antics of Hollywood celebrities. It's good for the UK to have homegrown entertainment, and nice that it has a historical foundation, rather than the vapidness that is lowbrow entertainment elsewhere.
Note that for the royal family, the ceremony and waste of resources is the point. The UK monarchs have generational wealth, but more power from celebrity than from law. The pomp, theatrics, ritual, and press keeps them relevant to the public. In return, they maintain the history and legacy of the UK: palaces, museums, and castles are maintained on the royal purse, but often open for tours to the public.
> In return, they maintain the history and legacy of the UK: palaces, museums, and castles are maintained on the royal purse, but often open for tours to the public.
This perpetrates the idea that UK would stop having history & landmarks without the royal blessing. Other countries, with rich histories & tourist landmarks, survived the transition away from monarchy just fine.
To paraphrase "Mother," Italians have their food, [censored] have their music, the CIA have the United States of America, and the Brits have their King/Queen. And once you have a Thing, it makes sense to be good at it, hence nice ceremonies, attention, and world wide respect.
Because you do not understand it does not mean you can call it “ridiculous”. It’s insulting to brits who have been very attached to their queen for decades (and maybe before that as well). Lots of people do not understand it, that’s ok, and you can say as much.
It didn’t say 30% were rejected - it said on some offers as much as 30% were rejected. Again, the models can be totally accurate in aggregate but due to random variation or low sampling show as inaccurate on one specific offer, that is just how statistics work.
