Je suis Omar

Everyone knows grammar, even little children. You're probably thinking of those "grammar rules" you think are grammar rules that aren't. The ones everyone is scared s**tless to advance.

But it's those same no nothing idiots who had been espousing it. It even took OED until 1998 to see the light.

Please expand, Michael. What is the difference, say, between the USA and ISIS?

The lawless Russians tried some members of Unit 731, but the rule of law USA hid the whole affair and safeguarded members of Unit 731 by using what has always worked well on sheeple, they declared it all Soviet propaganda, when here it was the master propagandists, the USA who was covering up their usual depravity.

That would be the many similarities that you are studiously avoiding. There we have it.

------------------The USA also granted immunity to the war criminals of Unit 731.

A better word to describe the depravity, the evil that is the USA hasn't yet been coined.

Strange days indeed. You consider it patriotic to support American war crimes/criminals and terrorists.

The USA doesn't do the rule of law. It excels at torture, murder, rape, thievery, lying and propaganda.

There's no need to sugarcoat it, GH, the USA is, far and away, the leading terrorist group in the world. This has been the case since before the USA became a "nation". The only difference between the Nazis and the USA is that the Nazis had a short run and the USA has been slaughtering innocents and stealing others wealth for over two centuries.

Such utter nonsense. I'm the one asking for the rule of law to be followed and you are an apologist for war criminals and terrorists.

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."[2] Article 39 of the United Nations Charter provides that the UN Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security". http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

Would you like someone to explain that sentence to you? You don't seem to have much of a grasp of the word 'proof'.

See, you don't even have a basic grasp of what grammar is. The deontic/social uses of the two modal verbs, can and may, are exactly what grammar is. 1. Use your pen. 2. Can I use your pen? Notice how the addition of two words, notably the modal verb 'can', changed the grammatical/syntactic properties of sentence 1? From OED: grammar 1 The whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics. ------------ See how easy it was to come up with a bogus English rule. But all these grammar gurus steeped for long years in intensive grammar studies couldn't seem to recall any.

Because the thread is "Why are so few willing to discuss the science?" I'm going to assume that you do know what science is. --------------------- http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html#faq How Could Thermite, an Incendiary, Demolish the Towers, When Buildings Are Normally Demolished Using High-Explosive Cutter Charges? As is obvious from a review of the literature on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much greater stability. Thus, aluminothermic cutter charges similar to the shaped charges used in commercial demolitions are entirely feasible. However, a variety of forms of thermite might be used to demolish a steel-framed skyscraper in a way that uses no cutter charges at all, as in this Hypothetical Blasting Scenario, which posits three types of aluminothermic pyrotechnics: a thermate incendiary coating sprayed onto steelwork, nano-thermite kicker charges placed near steelwork, and thin-film nano-composite high-explosives distributed throughout the building. The strategically applied incendiary coatings, ignited several minutes before the building's take-down, weaken the structure; but obvious failures start only when the kicker charges break key supports, and the thin-film high-explosives begin pulverizing the building from the initial failure zone outward.

May versus Can for permission.

I did notice your "but whatever", BM. All these implied parts of speech "eat/get/..." suffice as verbs and they weren't even implied. That's the point, you, that is the vast majority, don't understand grammar at all, in a conscious sense. The nonsense you are taught in school is just that, nonsense, incredibly simplistic drivel. If the school system taught anything of value on English grammar, there'd have been some lively discussion. As you may have noticed there has been precious little. Odd when so many have been schooled for so long.

That being a country founded on a policy of genocide. Hooray!

People who speak out against the biggest war criminal nation on the planet are precisely the people any country should want. Sheeple, not so much.

Kangaroo courts run in American gulags - yet another gigantic laugh. Americans are número uno world class liars and yet you keep advancing this dreck.

Finally, after how many pages, you have come up with one of the bogus rules, BM. Good on you! The split infinitive is a dandy example of something that was never a rule of English.

That's risible. Omar being tried by the war criminals/terrorists that invaded Afghanistan. That's like the Nazis trying Mother Teresa.

Get outta here! Go to bed. Eat your spinach. Where's the subject in those three sentences, BM? The stuff that is taught about English is so bloody simplistic that it is laughable. You, like all users of a language, know, intuitively, all the exceedingly complex rules that make up the English language or any language.

You weren't born knowing how to speak, you learned to use them by listening to people who were taught those rules. Nobody is ever taught "those rules", Wilber. Again that's a fatuous notion, albeit a commonly held fatuous notion. You only have to look at how no one has been able to describe a rule they learned. How do you think such incompetence could be the foundation of one of the most complex things humans do?

Un no, jbg.