A Very Brady Sequel.

The correct word would be plurality.

Not sure if this is exactly what you’re looking for, but the opening scene to The Conversation uses a high-zoom shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlwdpNw1FW8

Eye in the Sky also prominently features long-distance/high magnification shots from the perspective of a drone/UAV.

I agree with everything you’ve said. Hamas can be a terrorist organization, and still be the elected government. Both can be true, and acknowledging the how and why of that being the case is necessary reach a resolution to the conflict.

The fact that you’re trying move this conversation towards the actions of Israel while avoiding the actions of Hamas leads me to believe you’re not interested in having a genuine discussion. I think you’re trying to play gotcha.

Have Israel and Hamas used terrorist tactics? I think so. Do both sides not care about the well-being of civilians? I think so. Are both sides of this conflict bad? I think so.

My definition of terrorist tactics is irrelevant to how the OP would classify Hamas.

Regardless, here’s how terrorism is defined on Wikipedia: it seems pretty reasonable to me.

Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants

If Hamas isn’t a terrorist organization then what would you call them?

Personally I don’t think it’s too far either–I’d agree with you. I just meant I understand how someone might think “embarrassing” the kid infront of a stranger may be too far

Please don’t tease. His parents never teased him growing up, so he finds it very disrespectful.

I could see how sending a kid to the store might be a bit too far, but aside from that it’s just harmless teasing. Nothing more than a mild practical joke.

Kids can handle jokes. It’s important to learn to laugh at yourself and not take everything seriously. Otherwise you just end up being boring and stuck up.

So ignore all non-significant results? What’s to say those methods result in findings closer to the truth than the methods with no significant results.

The issue is that so many seemingly legitimate methods produce different findings with the same data.

9 of the teams reaching a different conclusion is a pretty large group. Nearly a third of the teams, using what I assume are legitimate methods, disagree with the findings of the other 20 teams.

Sure, not all teams disagree, but a lot do. So the issue is whether or not the current research paradigm correctly answers “subjective” questions such as these.

Not to mention the fact that all it takes is for one nuclear exchange to happen, and the world as we know it ceases to exist. The stakes are incredibly high.

Great quote! That’s one of my absolute favorite books. I recommend it to people all the time.

If you liked Alas, Babylon, I’d strongly recommend On The Beach by Nevil Shute.

They’re a weapon of last resort because of (warranted) fear of them. Hence, everyone absolutely should be scared of war between NATO and Russia.

A war between Russia and NATO would result in the textbook definition of a pyrhhic victory. Everyone should be afraid of that. There will be no winners in nuclear combat.

I’ve simply pointed out the irony and hipocrisy. I’m making no statement on whether or not Nicaragua should be involved.

The West shoe-horned themselves into the Middle East decades ago. The West currently has a “vested” interest because they’ve made an absolute mess of the Middle East, when there was never a good reason for getting involved in the first place. Historically, the West has done in the exactly what they’re now accusing Nicaragua of.

Additionally, it’s particularly ironic due to America’s historical meddling in Nicaragua.

I’m making no comment on Nicaragua making this move in good faith. I agree it’s obvious that they’re a pawn. I’m only pointing out the hypocrisy.

So because Western nations are larger they’ve been entitled to interfere in the Middle East for the last century?

And how much trade needs to occur between two countries to entitle one to interfere with the other?

The Nicaraguans “have no reason to inject themselves into a conflict over the Middle East,” one of the western intelligence officers said.

Well that’s definitely the most ironic thing I’m going to read for a while.