|
On November 16 2012 04:57 acidfreak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:I mean sure, Hamas is a terrorist sect but "Palestinians" are as much Hamas operatives as the KKK or "tea party" equate to the entire US public. It's crazy. 1. Palestinian culture is anti-Semitic and the beliefs of the average Palestinian are nearly identical to that of the official Hamas member. 2. You people really want to keep repeating the Big Lie that the KKK and the Tea Party are pretty much indistinguishable, don't you? Ignorance is bliss... The average Israelian is anti-Palestenic, so by your argument Hamas killing civilian Iraselians is ok too. Double standards are a bitch.
Actually Israelis are much much less hateful toward other arabs than is common in pretty much any European country. The number of hate-crimes done by israelis against arabs is very close to 0, while hate crimes in Europe, US against minorities (Jews, Gypsies and so on) is so much higher...
|
United Kingdom10025 Posts
On November 16 2012 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Actually it was White Phosphorus dropped on the UN sanctioned hospital, in case you were curious Just to add that, which is ruled against the laws of war governed internationally, in case anyone was curious White phosphorus isn't against the laws of war, sorry. In case anyone was curious. And Hamas used hospitals as mortar-firing sites and command-and-control centers. Under international law, a protected target becomes unprotected when one side uses it for a military purpose, and responsibility for damage to it falls on those who used it as a military position. The Israeli shelling of the UNRWA headquarters and adjoining hospital was a response to fire from those positions.
I'm sorry this might come across as unconstructive but IMO if you can't even admit that Israel has done things wrong then you are not worth listening to on this subject as you are pretty much just a propaganda mouthpiece.
|
On November 16 2012 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Actually it was White Phosphorus dropped on the UN sanctioned hospital, in case you were curious Just to add that, which is ruled against the laws of war governed internationally, in case anyone was curious White phosphorus isn't against the laws of war, sorry. In case anyone was curious.
Do you even know how much of a tool you make yourself look like? Stop shouting out "facts", if you're clearly wrong.
Let me educate you. In 1977 weapons, especially "inciendary weapons" are banned if there is a chance for collateral damage and injuries on civilian side. Which, on a hospital, is pretty likely.
"Der Einsatz von Brandwaffen gegen Zivilpersonen bzw. in einer Art und Weise, in der es leicht zu sogenannten „Kollateralschäden“ kommen kann, ist entsprechend dem Verbot von unterschiedslosen Angriffen in den Zusatzprotokollen von 1977 zu den Genfer Abkommen von 1949 verboten, nicht jedoch ihr Einsatz im Allgemeinen."
Googletranslate it yourself, or even better. Educate yourself.
Edit: found the right word, thanks to heliusx. I guess fiery weapon is just an enchant in World of Warcraft.
|
On November 16 2012 05:04 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:58 Catch]22 wrote:On November 16 2012 04:56 sevencck wrote:On November 16 2012 04:45 Qikz wrote:
My step family just moved over from Israel and it's not since listening to them and my Dad who'd worked in Israel for the past 5 years when you realise how pro-palestine the western media actually is.
I don't condone violence in any sense of the word, but firing retaliatory rockets at military targets after they get missiles thrown at civillian areas I have little to no problem with.
Israel and the problems in Palestine wouldn't even be this bad had the Allies after WW2 set up Israel better. The governments back then have killed so many more people, innocent people, than they saved. :/ This is absolutely wrong. I frankly have very little patience remaining for either side in this conflict, but the Western media is absolutely not biased in favor of any part of the Muslim world. Maybe not in Canada Right, cause in Canada we know nothing of the News being reported in other countries. Canada is one of the most liberal places on Earth in terms of multiculturalism and non-biased journalism. If Canada and the U.K. aren't biased in favor of the Muslim world, you can be sure the U.S. isn't. There is a clear bias against the Muslim world in the U.S. journalism. France is also becoming increasingly right wing in terms of its religious tolerance particularly with respect to Islam. Sorry, but there is a clear bias against Islam in the Western media, and certainly not one in favor of it.
Swedens largest newspaper is running on this article again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy
|
On November 16 2012 05:15 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 05:13 Sea_Food wrote:On November 16 2012 05:04 sevencck wrote:On November 16 2012 04:58 Catch]22 wrote:On November 16 2012 04:56 sevencck wrote:On November 16 2012 04:45 Qikz wrote:
My step family just moved over from Israel and it's not since listening to them and my Dad who'd worked in Israel for the past 5 years when you realise how pro-palestine the western media actually is.
I don't condone violence in any sense of the word, but firing retaliatory rockets at military targets after they get missiles thrown at civillian areas I have little to no problem with.
Israel and the problems in Palestine wouldn't even be this bad had the Allies after WW2 set up Israel better. The governments back then have killed so many more people, innocent people, than they saved. :/ This is absolutely wrong. I frankly have very little patience remaining for either side in this conflict, but the Western media is absolutely not biased in favor of any part of the Muslim world. Maybe not in Canada Right, cause in Canada we know nothing of the News being reported in other countries. Canada is one of the most liberal places on Earth in terms of multiculturalism and non-biased journalism. If Canada and the U.K. aren't biased in favor of the Muslim world, you can be sure the U.S. isn't. There is a clear bias against the Muslim world in the U.S. journalism. France is also becoming increasingly right wing in terms of its religious tolerance particularly with respect to Islam. Sorry, but there is a clear bias against Islam in the Western media, and certainly not one in favor of it. I tought france is almost muslim these days That's how backlashes work. The movement against Muslims in France came as a result of a growing muslim population. Unfortunately most people are conditioned to only understand their own way of life, so when something comes along that is as different as Islam is from regular western society, fear spreads, and movements grow etc. France is in the middle of this now.
Enlighten us with how well you know France man. Like the movement against muslims have nothing to do with the high unemployment, the declining christians and the complexity of our ties with old colonies such as Algeria.
|
United Kingdom10025 Posts
On November 16 2012 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 05:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 16 2012 05:13 Sea_Food wrote:On November 16 2012 05:04 sevencck wrote:On November 16 2012 04:58 Catch]22 wrote:On November 16 2012 04:56 sevencck wrote:On November 16 2012 04:45 Qikz wrote:
My step family just moved over from Israel and it's not since listening to them and my Dad who'd worked in Israel for the past 5 years when you realise how pro-palestine the western media actually is.
I don't condone violence in any sense of the word, but firing retaliatory rockets at military targets after they get missiles thrown at civillian areas I have little to no problem with.
Israel and the problems in Palestine wouldn't even be this bad had the Allies after WW2 set up Israel better. The governments back then have killed so many more people, innocent people, than they saved. :/ This is absolutely wrong. I frankly have very little patience remaining for either side in this conflict, but the Western media is absolutely not biased in favor of any part of the Muslim world. Maybe not in Canada Right, cause in Canada we know nothing of the News being reported in other countries. Canada is one of the most liberal places on Earth in terms of multiculturalism and non-biased journalism. If Canada and the U.K. aren't biased in favor of the Muslim world, you can be sure the U.S. isn't. There is a clear bias against the Muslim world in the U.S. journalism. France is also becoming increasingly right wing in terms of its religious tolerance particularly with respect to Islam. Sorry, but there is a clear bias against Islam in the Western media, and certainly not one in favor of it. I tought france is almost muslim these days That's how backlashes work. The movement against Muslims in France came as a result of a growing muslim population. Unfortunately most people are conditioned to only understand their own way of life, so when something comes along that is as different as Islam is from regular western society, fear spreads, and movements grow etc. France is in the middle of this now. Enlighten us with how well you know France man.
You took offense at that? Are you in offended mode or something? lol
Explain it yourself then.
|
On November 16 2012 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Actually it was White Phosphorus dropped on the UN sanctioned hospital, in case you were curious Just to add that, which is ruled against the laws of war governed internationally, in case anyone was curious White phosphorus isn't against the laws of war, sorry. In case anyone was curious. And Hamas used hospitals as mortar-firing sites and command-and-control centers. Under international law, a protected target becomes unprotected when one side uses it for a military purpose, and responsibility for damage to it falls on those who used it as a military position. The Israeli shelling of the UNRWA headquarters and adjoining hospital was a response to fire from those positions.
I was under the thought that White Phosphorus is banned for any use near civilians? If by some fact it isn't banned because I could be wrong of course, you agree with the use of such a weapon?
|
On November 16 2012 05:21 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On November 16 2012 05:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 16 2012 05:13 Sea_Food wrote:On November 16 2012 05:04 sevencck wrote:On November 16 2012 04:58 Catch]22 wrote:On November 16 2012 04:56 sevencck wrote:On November 16 2012 04:45 Qikz wrote:
My step family just moved over from Israel and it's not since listening to them and my Dad who'd worked in Israel for the past 5 years when you realise how pro-palestine the western media actually is.
I don't condone violence in any sense of the word, but firing retaliatory rockets at military targets after they get missiles thrown at civillian areas I have little to no problem with.
Israel and the problems in Palestine wouldn't even be this bad had the Allies after WW2 set up Israel better. The governments back then have killed so many more people, innocent people, than they saved. :/ This is absolutely wrong. I frankly have very little patience remaining for either side in this conflict, but the Western media is absolutely not biased in favor of any part of the Muslim world. Maybe not in Canada Right, cause in Canada we know nothing of the News being reported in other countries. Canada is one of the most liberal places on Earth in terms of multiculturalism and non-biased journalism. If Canada and the U.K. aren't biased in favor of the Muslim world, you can be sure the U.S. isn't. There is a clear bias against the Muslim world in the U.S. journalism. France is also becoming increasingly right wing in terms of its religious tolerance particularly with respect to Islam. Sorry, but there is a clear bias against Islam in the Western media, and certainly not one in favor of it. I tought france is almost muslim these days That's how backlashes work. The movement against Muslims in France came as a result of a growing muslim population. Unfortunately most people are conditioned to only understand their own way of life, so when something comes along that is as different as Islam is from regular western society, fear spreads, and movements grow etc. France is in the middle of this now. Enlighten us with how well you know France man. You took offense at that? Are you in offended mode or something? lol Explain it yourself then.
I'm not offended, I find it ridiculous to say "France is almost muslim" (which is wrong, I bet you've never been outside of "Ile de France", it's so white out there the sun doesn't have to show itself) and the relationship between france and its muslim population cannot be reduced to such a thing as "people only understand their own way of life".
Also the thread is not about France, it's about Palestine.
And I'm quite pissed because it's just all this thread, people talking about things they have no clue about.
|
United Kingdom10025 Posts
On November 16 2012 05:23 Shelke14 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Actually it was White Phosphorus dropped on the UN sanctioned hospital, in case you were curious Just to add that, which is ruled against the laws of war governed internationally, in case anyone was curious White phosphorus isn't against the laws of war, sorry. In case anyone was curious. And Hamas used hospitals as mortar-firing sites and command-and-control centers. Under international law, a protected target becomes unprotected when one side uses it for a military purpose, and responsibility for damage to it falls on those who used it as a military position. The Israeli shelling of the UNRWA headquarters and adjoining hospital was a response to fire from those positions. I was under the thought that White Phosphorus is banned for any use near civilians? If by some fact it isn't banned because I could be wrong of course, you agree with the use of such a weapon?
I think Israel 'proved' that their use of it was OK.
This is just conjecture, but i assume they did that by asking the UN to look the other way.
|
On November 16 2012 05:23 Shelke14 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Actually it was White Phosphorus dropped on the UN sanctioned hospital, in case you were curious Just to add that, which is ruled against the laws of war governed internationally, in case anyone was curious White phosphorus isn't against the laws of war, sorry. In case anyone was curious. And Hamas used hospitals as mortar-firing sites and command-and-control centers. Under international law, a protected target becomes unprotected when one side uses it for a military purpose, and responsibility for damage to it falls on those who used it as a military position. The Israeli shelling of the UNRWA headquarters and adjoining hospital was a response to fire from those positions. I was under the thought that White Phosphorus is banned for any use near civilians? If by some fact it isn't banned because I could be wrong of course, you agree with the use of such a weapon?
Its banned as a weapon but allowed as a tool to light up a area. you can fire it as long as its not aimed at people.
|
And a majority of deaths are actually women and children cited by the UN and Red Cross... A massive majority are killed in their homes during bombing strikes.
Actually a majority of the deaths are males of combat age. From 2000-2007 94% of Palestinian casualties were male and 80% were adults.
A massive majority are killed in street battles, some of which involved air strikes, but a massive majority are not killed in their homes by airstrikes.
It's like reality just doesn't compute on some situations.
Your reality doesn't compute because it doesn't square with the facts.
Also I liked your "main source" while the IDF has been known to block medical help (note the Red Cross) on numerous occassions from getting into the wreckage of a airstrike by the IDF. Also note since the hospitals are being blown up it's troublesome for them to fix their wounded now isn't it?
Also note that Israel treats casualties at times when Palestinian hospitals had not taken damage, and that Israel has blocked the Red Crescent because Palestinians hijack the ambulances and use them to move weapons and men, and that medical care has never been blocked, it is provided by the IDF and the Israeli medical services.
Sorry are we both talking about the same Israel and the same Palestine? "Isreal destroys homes of terrorists"? Do you know about any of the relocations?
Yes, Palestinians who use their homes as bunkers or for tunnels or as weapons depots lose them, boo-hoo. Homes are not destroyed arbitrarily to make land for settlements, illegal homes are destroyed because they're illegally built.
|
On November 16 2012 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Actually it was White Phosphorus dropped on the UN sanctioned hospital, in case you were curious Just to add that, which is ruled against the laws of war governed internationally, in case anyone was curious White phosphorus isn't against the laws of war, sorry. In case anyone was curious. And Hamas used hospitals as mortar-firing sites and command-and-control centers. Under international law, a protected target becomes unprotected when one side uses it for a military purpose, and responsibility for damage to it falls on those who used it as a military position. The Israeli shelling of the UNRWA headquarters and adjoining hospital was a response to fire from those positions.
Israel did violate the laws of war, sorry.
"White phosphorus munitions did not kill the most civilians in Gaza – many more died from missiles, bombs, heavy artillery, tank shells, and small arms fire – but their use in densely populated neighborhoods, including downtown Gaza City, violated international humanitarian law (the laws of war), which requires taking all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and prohibits indiscriminate attacks"
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/03/25/rain-fire
|
On November 16 2012 05:23 Shelke14 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Actually it was White Phosphorus dropped on the UN sanctioned hospital, in case you were curious Just to add that, which is ruled against the laws of war governed internationally, in case anyone was curious White phosphorus isn't against the laws of war, sorry. In case anyone was curious. And Hamas used hospitals as mortar-firing sites and command-and-control centers. Under international law, a protected target becomes unprotected when one side uses it for a military purpose, and responsibility for damage to it falls on those who used it as a military position. The Israeli shelling of the UNRWA headquarters and adjoining hospital was a response to fire from those positions. I was under the thought that White Phosphorus is banned for any use near civilians? If by some fact it isn't banned because I could be wrong of course, you agree with the use of such a weapon?
You are not wrong. They are banned, at least in the way Israel used them.
|
On November 16 2012 05:24 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 05:23 Shelke14 wrote:On November 16 2012 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Actually it was White Phosphorus dropped on the UN sanctioned hospital, in case you were curious Just to add that, which is ruled against the laws of war governed internationally, in case anyone was curious White phosphorus isn't against the laws of war, sorry. In case anyone was curious. And Hamas used hospitals as mortar-firing sites and command-and-control centers. Under international law, a protected target becomes unprotected when one side uses it for a military purpose, and responsibility for damage to it falls on those who used it as a military position. The Israeli shelling of the UNRWA headquarters and adjoining hospital was a response to fire from those positions. I was under the thought that White Phosphorus is banned for any use near civilians? If by some fact it isn't banned because I could be wrong of course, you agree with the use of such a weapon? Its banned as a weapon but allowed as a tool to light up a area. you can fire it as long as its not aimed at people.
Guess Israel didn't know that a hospital may contain people. Right?
Edit: argh, doublepost, sorry.
|
Do you even know how much of a tool you make yourself look like? Stop shouting out "facts", if you're clearly wrong.
Let me educate you. In 1977 weapons, especially "inciendary weapons" are banned if there is a chance for collateral damage and injuries on civilian side. Which, on a hospital, is pretty likely.
"Der Einsatz von Brandwaffen gegen Zivilpersonen bzw. in einer Art und Weise, in der es leicht zu sogenannten „Kollateralschäden“ kommen kann, ist entsprechend dem Verbot von unterschiedslosen Angriffen in den Zusatzprotokollen von 1977 zu den Genfer Abkommen von 1949 verboten, nicht jedoch ihr Einsatz im Allgemeinen."
Googletranslate it yourself, or even better. Educate yourself.
Edit: found the right word, thanks to heliusx. I guess fiery weapon is just an enchant in World of Warcraft.
Do you know how much of a tool you make yourself look like? White phosphorus is legal as a screening tool to mask troop movements.
"Educate yourself."
I'm sorry this might come across as unconstructive but IMO if you can't even admit that Israel has done things wrong then you are not worth listening to on this subject as you are pretty much just a propaganda mouthpiece.
I'll be happy to admit Israel is wrong when Israel is actually wrong, like say the killing of Salah Shahadeh, Israeli intelligence should have known that he had surrounded himself with children and the strike should have been called off.
But when so much simply false anti-Israel propaganda is parroted, I am going to of course deny it. If you think that the negative things people are saying about Israel here are true then you are so mystified as to be not worth listening to on this subject.
Israel did violate the laws of war, sorry. "White phosphorus munitions did not kill the most civilians in Gaza – many more died from missiles, bombs, heavy artillery, tank shells, and small arms fire – but their use in densely populated neighborhoods, including downtown Gaza City, violated international humanitarian law (the laws of war), which requires taking all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and prohibits indiscriminate attacks" http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/03/25/rain-fire
HRW's opinion is not authoritative.
Saying that using WP in an urban area is automatically not taking all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and is also automatically an indiscriminate attack is just an opinion, and a stupid one at that. I do not care what the double standard, biased HRW has to say about Israel in any situation. They are not a human rights organization, they are an anti-Israel, anti-American propaganda outfit.
|
United Kingdom10025 Posts
On November 16 2012 05:24 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 05:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 16 2012 05:20 WhiteDog wrote:On November 16 2012 05:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 16 2012 05:13 Sea_Food wrote:On November 16 2012 05:04 sevencck wrote:On November 16 2012 04:58 Catch]22 wrote:On November 16 2012 04:56 sevencck wrote:On November 16 2012 04:45 Qikz wrote:
My step family just moved over from Israel and it's not since listening to them and my Dad who'd worked in Israel for the past 5 years when you realise how pro-palestine the western media actually is.
I don't condone violence in any sense of the word, but firing retaliatory rockets at military targets after they get missiles thrown at civillian areas I have little to no problem with.
Israel and the problems in Palestine wouldn't even be this bad had the Allies after WW2 set up Israel better. The governments back then have killed so many more people, innocent people, than they saved. :/ This is absolutely wrong. I frankly have very little patience remaining for either side in this conflict, but the Western media is absolutely not biased in favor of any part of the Muslim world. Maybe not in Canada Right, cause in Canada we know nothing of the News being reported in other countries. Canada is one of the most liberal places on Earth in terms of multiculturalism and non-biased journalism. If Canada and the U.K. aren't biased in favor of the Muslim world, you can be sure the U.S. isn't. There is a clear bias against the Muslim world in the U.S. journalism. France is also becoming increasingly right wing in terms of its religious tolerance particularly with respect to Islam. Sorry, but there is a clear bias against Islam in the Western media, and certainly not one in favor of it. I tought france is almost muslim these days That's how backlashes work. The movement against Muslims in France came as a result of a growing muslim population. Unfortunately most people are conditioned to only understand their own way of life, so when something comes along that is as different as Islam is from regular western society, fear spreads, and movements grow etc. France is in the middle of this now. Enlighten us with how well you know France man. You took offense at that? Are you in offended mode or something? lol Explain it yourself then. I'm not offended, I find it ridiculous to say "France is almost muslim" (which is wrong, I bet you've never been outside of "Ile de France" it's so white the sun doesn't have to show itself) and the relationship between france and its muslim population cannot be reduced to such a thing as "people only understand their own way of life". Also the thread is not about France, it's about Palestine.
Right then. First you are challenging the fact that i made assumptions about France and then you make a massive assumption about me.
My sister lived in Amiens last year and i visited here 3 times (she was doing her masters at Gendarmerie).
Ok, so that's not enough to make a judgement about the French and their relationship to their muslim population, i was just putting down a very simple theory.
It was wrong of me to even talk about it..
Lets get back on topic 
|
On November 16 2012 05:27 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 05:24 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 05:23 Shelke14 wrote:On November 16 2012 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Actually it was White Phosphorus dropped on the UN sanctioned hospital, in case you were curious Just to add that, which is ruled against the laws of war governed internationally, in case anyone was curious White phosphorus isn't against the laws of war, sorry. In case anyone was curious. And Hamas used hospitals as mortar-firing sites and command-and-control centers. Under international law, a protected target becomes unprotected when one side uses it for a military purpose, and responsibility for damage to it falls on those who used it as a military position. The Israeli shelling of the UNRWA headquarters and adjoining hospital was a response to fire from those positions. I was under the thought that White Phosphorus is banned for any use near civilians? If by some fact it isn't banned because I could be wrong of course, you agree with the use of such a weapon? Its banned as a weapon but allowed as a tool to light up a area. you can fire it as long as its not aimed at people. Guess Israel didn't know that a hospital may contain people. Right?
What would Israel gain by dropping it on a hospital? The fact it was used us definite and people were hit by it. However it was not done on purpose and was not dropped on the hospital that the Hamas leaders were hiding under.
|
Despite all the arguments thrashing at each other, I think that it is important that we understand the delicacy of the situation, and acknowledge that in jus ad bellum, it is the attacker's responsibility to limit the amount of civilian casualties, as any non-zero amount of civilian casualties is too many.
Thoughts go out to the civilian victims and families, and hopefully the violent conflict does not escalate from this event; it would be very problematic for the rest of the world, not to mention the devastation already wrought upon the civilians living in that area.
|
Do you know how much of a tool you make yourself look like? White phosphorus is legal as a screening tool to mask troop movements.
"Educate yourself."
So you're calling "phosphor bombing on a hospital" "masking troop movements" now? And even if you do, you're still wrong. I quoted you the the statement in german. As soon as there's the chance of collateral damage in civilians, they're banned. You can twist it like you want.
And because im a nice guy, here's the explanation in english.
Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'. The same protocol prohibits the use of said incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas.
And because i want to be 100% clear, from the same article:
However, the use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty.
A hospital is NOT a military target outside civilian areas.
|
On November 16 2012 05:25 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +And a majority of deaths are actually women and children cited by the UN and Red Cross... A massive majority are killed in their homes during bombing strikes.
Actually a majority of the deaths are males of combat age. From 2000-2007 94% of Palestinian casualties were male and 80% were adults.A massive majority are killed in street battles, some of which involved air strikes, but a massive majority are not killed in their homes by airstrikes.
I would like to look at your source because literally every source I have seen in the last 45 minutes of research says you're pulling numbers out of your ass to support your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
