tome

That's not the question I'm interested in. The question I'm interested in is whether it's correct to claim that Israel occupies "parts of Lebanon", particularly in the context in which the claim was made, next to the claim that it occupies Gaza and the West Bank.

> The wall extends across the so-called Blue Line and has made “more than 4,000 square metres [43,055sq feet] of Lebanese territory inaccessible to the Lebanese people”

So you're saying Israel's occupation of Lebanon amounts to 4,000 square metres? About the area of an athletics track, I guess? (Not counting the bit inside the athletics track.)

Would you be willing to back up that claim with money on a prediction market?

> Why should anyone be opposed to you living in Russia?

I don't know. Why did the Cossacks oppose Jews living in Russia?

> Israel's occupation of ... parts of Lebanon

Which parts of Lebanon does Israel occupy?

Really, why? What do you mean? The reason for manual approval of accounts was to defeat spammers.

Look again. There is one away fan ban listed during 2025 for the Europa League, as I said. I did not say it happened to no one but Maccabi.

Pretty much every language has a form of resumable exception known as a "function call". It's hard for me to understand why no one in the algebraic effects/effect handlers community has noticed this yet.

> you clearly don't know much about Maccabi

I know nothing about Maccabi, but nothing I've said relies on "good behaviour" on the part of of Maccabi fans.

> Edit: I see you removed disputing my quotation as being inaccurate, no worries, I've made similar mistakes before, so while I'll leave my above words, they don't matter anymore.

Yes, the mistake was entirely mine.

> As for why Birmingham in particular, I don't see it as some kind of gotcha to say because ...

Fine, that's a perfectly valid reason in itself, but the West Midlands police did keep quiet about that being the basis for the ban, only saying so (in far less detail than you) after the match had taken place: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqx3d5enx0xo, which in itself seems suspicious.

If your point is "hooliganism happens and is treated on a case-by-case basis, in some circumstances warranting bans" then my response would be to agree, though I still hold that such hooliganism is rare. This isn't the 1980s any more. Any further dispute is about the facts of the particular case, and what I've seen from the Commons committee which questioned the West Midlands police chief doesn't fill me with confidence that your interpretation is the correct one.

Ah, well that I agree with! I suspect the only remaining point of disagreement is whether the level of hooliganism of Maccabi fans warranted the ban. My guess, based on what I've seen from the evidence to the Commons committee is no, but I'm not particularly inclined to get into a debate about that.

> As for a "particular reason"... the Amsterdam match!

A match that happened 12 months prior? Maccabi had played several away matches around Europe in that intervening period. Why should it have been a Birmingham team that saw fit to ban them?

> Subsequently, after a Maccabi game in Stuttgart, UEFA gave Maccabi a (suspended) away fans ban. Is it really still in question whether it's plausible for a police force to say there are security concerns?

It's not implausible! But bans of all away fans happens rarely.

Right, as you can see here: https://www.uefa.com/running-competitions/disciplinary/stadi...

It also looks like a UEFA ban is rare not common. One incidence in 2025 for Europa League matches.

> Here's an example from a few months ago where Italy suspended their EU obligations to free movement to prevent hooligans entering from Germany

Are you sure that all away fans were banned? Doesn't look like it. It looks like they imposed controls to forbid the travel of particular people, which, as I said, often happens.

> Airlines operating Germany–Italy routes were asked to verify passenger identities against watch-lists before boarding

> The Tel Aviv police did see fit to call off a Maccabi game about 2 weeks after this furore

I think you mean the match against Hapoel Tel Aviv, which happened before this furore. The Tel Aviv police naturally know and expect that there is often unrest at a derby match, let alone a derby match between teams who share a stadium. But why would there be particular reason to assume that there would be unrest at a match between fans from Tel Aviv and Birmingham who have no particular relation to each other? And even if there was, why not cancel the match or play it behind closed doors? Why punish Maccabi specifically?

That list confirms that during 2025 there was one incidence of UEFA banning a Europa League team from bringing fans. There are nearly 200 matches in one season of Europa League, so it's rare, I think.

According to the UEFA website you linked it looks like BSC Young Boys were the only other club to face a ban on Europa League away fans in 2025. Maccabi Tel Aviv doesn't appear there, of course, since despite UEFA having rules and punishments against fan violence, they didn't consider it appropriate to punish Maccabi. So I wonder how frequently a team is forbidden from taking away fans by the local police, despite not being sanctioned by UEFA.

Are you sure? For example, you said Maccabi Tel Aviv fans

> threw an innocent member of the public into a river

whereas the BBC says

> It was, in fact, a Maccabi fan who was found in the river

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2xnzye903o

Individual fans are frequently banned. How many other occasions can you name where no away fans were permitted at a game?

Maccabi Tel Aviv have been travelling to Europa League away matches every few weeks:

https://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/clubs/57477--m-tel-avi...

Why is it only Birmingham that saw fit to ban them?

> > when no other sets of fans are given the same treatment

> This treatment is often doled out to clubs' fans. Even in Tel Aviv.

Sorry, what treatment are you talking about exactly? Your parent seems to be referring to the treatment of being "blocked from attending by the police/council". Is that what you mean is often doled out to clubs/fans?

OP very specifically said that he was imprisoned by Saddam Hussein and that the US pulled strings to get him freed.

Do you have a source showing that he was imprisoned in Iraq? Wikipedia suggests he was there freely

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini%27s_life_in_...

Seconded. I don't recall hearing anyone talk about "the rules based order" until a couple of years ago.

Right, and that's what I see as dismissive.

Value investing a la Buffett and Munger is certainly not how we got 2008. Quite the opposite. In fact they were some of the most prominent individuals before 2008 outspoken about the risks of the derivatives that led to 2008, calling them "financial weapons of mass destruction".

Oh I see, you meant Elon and Thiel prevent the shares they control from being shorted? I originally thought you meant they prevent any TSLA shares from being shorted.

I've begun to call it (in my own head) "pessimissivism", a fatal combination of being pessimistic and dismissive. It can't be unique to HN, but I find it particularly jarring that it has taken root here, given the optimistic and open-minded origins of this forum.

Correct. Berkshire only buys well-functioning businesses. '“Turnarounds” seldom turn'.

https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1979.html

> Elon and Peter Thiel don't allow their shares to be shorted

Do you have more information about that? That sounds impossible for a publicly traded company.