No, that depends on the gun. Give me a scoped Daniel Defense Delta 5 Pro and I will hit 9/10 at 500y.

Yes. Ak-47 actually.

Of course I watched it. Seems like a perfectly decent showcase of marksmanship to me, that clearly shows 500 yards is well within the maximum effective range of a Type 56. His shooting is clearly accurate. And that's with iron sights. — Tzeentch

Not what maximum effective range refers to.

Again, say this person were to be given a modern AK platform with a scope and a several months to familiarize himself fully with the rifle, would you think it a 'nothing burger'? Would you say "Oh, don't worry, they can't hit us from here" (which is what you would be saying had you deemed yourself outside of the weapon's maximum effective range). — Tzeentch

You don't understand what MOA is then because a scope doesn't change it. You can aim with a scope all you want, the bullets are simply going all over the place within the MOA.

Good to know your moral compass makes you feel totally ok with being sarcastic about kids being bombed or growing up in a war zone. You'd think there would at least be common ground that such things aren't exactly a joke. But here we are.

As for picking up arms myself - I’ll stick to challenging governments, holding them accountable, and, you know, using law to make a change. Maybe not as flashy but it works:

https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Gerechtshoven/Gerechtshof-Den-Haag/Nieuws/Paginas/The-Netherlands-has-to-stop-the-export-of-F-35-fighter-jet-parts-to-Israel.aspx

Did you watch it? Misses: 1 on 150y, 3 out of 5 at 350y, 4 out of 6 at 400y, 4 out of 6 at 450y, 5 out of 7 at 500y.

And these are stationary targets, the gunman is stationary and in a supported position, where he knows the distance to the target and can adjust sights accordingly.

Travel distance where the bullet can kill is several kilometers for an AK-47, but that's not what effective range is. Effective range is the maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired effect. Missing stationary targets more often than not means it cannot be expected to be accurate and achieve a kill. So 300y is more or less the max. for this type of AK-47, probably less since the targets were stationary and the gunman in an optimal position.

Cool you are so obsessed with me you start imagining what I do when not posting here.

Still has an MOA of 3-4, so no. Hitting anything at such distances is a trick shot. Not realistic under real circumstances.

Hopefully it's cancer.

It would be more congruent with the espoused ideals of self-determination, UN SC and GA resolutions to arm Palestinians than Israel. But I suspect it would be sufficient to simply stop supporting Israel carte blanche and stopping arms deliveries to Israel by the "international" community (e.g. roughly global North), plus actual diplomatic pressure will force Israel to treat for peace with its enemies. If it turns out that doesn't work, then arming Palestinians is the more ethical choice than arming Israel.

Replied via PM.

Or the universe operates as suggested in the 3-body problem (the series hasn't reached this point yet). But I don't want to spoil the books or the series.

Nope. Designed for a range up to 300 meters and it's shit to aim with beyond distances of 200 meters. With a 3-4 MOA, you're talking about 17 to 22 cm deviation over 200 meters, which means a killing shot at 200 meters is nothing more than a hail mary, at 400 yards it's nonsense.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/08/05/practical-accuracy-of-the-ak-in-7-62-and-5-56-by-9-hole-reviews/

But I see now they are describing it as an AK-47 style weapon, so could be a 103 or M version, which are a bit more accurate at longer distances but still not enough for 400 yards.

I still don't want my money to flow towards a regime I don't think should remain in power. The profits will be used to maintain the means of oppression of Chinese citizens, where particular minorities suffer the most (Uighurs, pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong) and specific people who "dissappear".

Nothing burger. Considering the weapons carried, he wasn't even close to anywhere at an attempt.

trick question. E. All of the above.

Yes but not as a right to self defence but retaliation because Hamas breached ius in bello, but as quickly became obvious not in the way it has done. Additionally, the Palestinians have a continual right to self defence meaning any IDF soldiers in Gaza and West Bank and any settlers there are fair game. And any military campaign in Israel proper aimed against military targets would be allowed too. Basically, Israel has no right to self defence where it concerns the occupied territories. And as long as it maintains its colonisation policies and colonies it remains an aggressor and attacks into Israel proper would fall under self defence for Palestinians instead.

Then don't listen to politicians but international lawyers. This stuff is defined. Israel is the aggressor, Hamas commits a war crime and Israel uses it as an excuse to step up its decade old aggression by committing even worse war crimes.

play-pretending as a victim again. It's factually correct that anyone who defends Israeli aggression is a war crime apologist.

Read the thread. He is one so it's not calling names but a statement of fact.

In fact, people's unwillingness to call it out is just a lack of moral clarity or understanding of the facts.

Don't forget Hong Kong.

Labour conditions in the EU are significantly better but yes exploitation exists everywhere. Environmental protections are better in the EU as well. Both of which cause local production to be expensive. The global North consumerism can only be supported through exploitation of the periphery, because only cheap production (eg exploitation) will ensure a level of profit that is sustainable under capitalism due to its insistence on growth. Obviously spending money in such a way as not to support the worst offenders is more ethical. Best is to consume less. And there are plenty of companies that have high(er) standards.

Labour conditions, human rights, pollution and build quality are all issues.

The implication being she's a bitch otherwise it couldn't be cannibalism, right?

I'm not really interested what a war crime apologist has to say about who to negotiate with. People tend to negotiate with their enemies, not doing so just makes you dumb.

Here's a two-state solution and how to get there:

1. Israel to unilaterally recognise a right for the Palestinians to have a sovereign state where the 1967 borders will be the basis for the size of Palestine
2. stop all further settlements in WB and evictions in East-Jerusalem, recognise ownership rights in East Jerusalem
3. repeal all discriminatory laws in Israel proper
4. no more collective punishment of Palestinians
5. no more blockade of Gaza and its air space and sea
6. no more mass destruction in response to ineffectual missiles or balloons
7. tear down the wall
8. For the interim period, Gaza and WB remain occupied territories but they will be policed instead of military oppression
9. Palestinians to commit to an indefinite cease fire as long as Israel maintains the above 8 points
edit: 10. forgot: Palestinians to recognise Israel along the 1967 borders as the basis of the size of israel

In other words, stop the crimes. There's no excuse.

Enter into the transition period where Palestine should be set up:
1. include the political wing of Hamas in talks as well as PA
2. land-for-land exchanges to arrive at comparable land size
3. Israel to pay Palestine an amount equal to all the monies spent supporting illegal settlers so it has the means to settle the new lands it receives through the land-for-land exchange
4. Palestine to hire their own first and Israeli contractors second (which will lead to "reparations" flowing back to Israel and creating economic interdependence)
5. have religious leaders negotiate the Temple Mount
6. Jerusalem as independent city-state administered by Palestinians and Israelis alike
7. gradually transition policing activities in Palestine to Palestinians
8. Set up a special task force of like minded Israelis and Palestinians to investigate (terrorist) crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and vice versa, where jurisdiction will be with the state of the victim
9. retreat from WB and Gaza and set up border controls
10. Declare a Palestinian state
11. Party with your Israeli neighbours — Benkei

Again playing victim. I have nothing against Jews in Israel. I have a lot against criminals not being brought to justice, especially where it concerns war crimes and colonisation. That some Israeli Jews abuse their Jewishness by equating sick Zionist policies with Jewishness and equating anti-zionism with anti-semitism and that you're not astute enough to tell the difference is fun but it's not going to make me stop repeating it.

Also, to apply your fantastic moral compass to all those Jews killed in ww2: "sorry, they lost!"

Maybe someday you'll start to understand what a consistent moral philosophy looks like.

I don't want sympathy. You seem to misunderstand that what Jews think had become irrelevant. It's about what the rest think and what happens when finally support for the thieving murderers of Israel stops. That useful idiots will defend it until the end of the earth is irrelevant. That others see you have no argument is enough. What we're seeing is the beginning of the end of Israel and when the end is there let's all remember your reply here: "sorry, they lost".

Except of course the Jews went on the offensive in April 1948 with the specific aim to claim territory (Dalet plan), which aim was already illegal decades before that. It remains interesting that aggressors and oppressors keep pretending they're victims. How dare the oppressed demands justice, or worse, actually fight back!

Probably both. It's the Zionist agenda causing this, which is a Jewish thing.

The enemy? You mean all those non-combatants you displaced and then stole their houses and land?

It's theft plain and simple. If I attack you and you successfully defend yourself, you don't get to steal my wallet afterwards. The defence is justified the theft isn't.

But her lies went unchecked, allowed to list off the common anti-Trump hoaxes. — NOS4A2

What lies and hoaxes? Be specific instead of vague aspersions.

I saw classical music was underrepresented so here's a crash course.

Ludwig van Beethoven's Ode to Joy is a celebration of universal brotherhood, Enlightenment ideals and humanist philosophy.



Wagner's Der Ring Des Nibelungen is an exploration of the nature of power, the limits of knowledge, and the role of the gods in human affairs



And Strauss' Also sprach Zarathustra is an obvious candidate also for being reused in a Space Odyssey (or especially so?).



This famous piece by Rachmaninov is often called the Bells of Moscow. That name came about because the Russian publisher, to whom Rachmaninov sold publishing rights for a handful of cash, failed to secure international rights. Then some dimwitted American dubbed it the Bells of Moscow and the legend that the bells are the bells of the Kremlin tolling for each executed prisoner came about and everybody repeats it. Wikipedia gets that wrong. Idiots.

He'll be back in 4 years.

Maybe read the Talmud again and what it says about theft. These principles are as old as dirt.

It's progress, I suppose, you are comparing Israel to other colonizers with your examples. "Look at those guys! They got away with their crimes, so why shouldn't we?"

I'm all in favour of letting natives settle and vote in the US. Oh wait. Already happening.

Yes, that's what you get if you steal. You have to give it back. It beggars belief you're arguing in favour of thieves keeping their spoils.

No it isn't. If being Jewish is based on religious law then insisting on a predominantly Jewish citizenry is religious.

No international lawyer worth his salt talks about war at all anymore due to the abuse of the term during the time of the League of Nations.

I've already answered this pages ago and how current Israeli blood has been diluted to such an extent that their claims to other areas in the world would be significantly stronger than to Israel. But even if we would grant the existence of that right then certainly the rights of recently displaced is much stronger.

Edit: moreover I don't recall Jews being prohibited from settling in Palestine.

On a more serious note, I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Consider traveling to Israel. Then you'll see why so much blood has been shed over it. — BitconnectCarlos

You should explain why people's rights cannot be exercised. This seems self-evident otherwise it's just the arbitrary exercise of power. I know the common reason most Israeli Jews offer. I want to know yours.