Indeed. The British guy in that video reminds me of about 60% of the people in a political I did in Uni and also reminds me of why I dropped it. It's actually a half decent discussion, but I hate people who can't at least see two sides of a coin. It's the same worldview I had when I was about 12.

Maybe the Arabs can poach a few victories!

Yep he's a typical nobhead from uni that has tunnel vision.

Enough with the egg and soldiers routine already.

I think everyone involved just needs to get laid.

It's more of a backlash from the view we're initially presented with that Israel is the innocent victim suffering against malicious terrorists to the one with the larger military force continuing to take land. But then the pendulum swings too far the other way and suddenly they're thirsty for the blood of babies against the completely innocent palestinians.

I disagree. I think the best point of the story is that the president gave 99.1% of the land to the Israelis.

More excuses for the Isrealis? I think so. It doesn't give them the right to kill innoccent civilians. Israel doesn't give a **** about Palestinians either.

Gaza is crowded full of residential areas. They couldn't place it away even if they wanted to, nor do they have many spots to place them.

You know uh, I couldn't even assume what their intentions are. I don't know how you can devise plans out of the blue. Please substantiate with some sort of evidence, otherwise there is no point going on with assumptions.

Oh, no, another diaspora wont happen. Israel is most definitely here to stay (although you have to give them credit for finding one of the very few areas in the region without oil!). The solution broadly agreeable is 2 states based on the 1967 borders. Just that Israel haven't helped at all with the settlers in the west bank.

What I meant was in a hypothetical situation where the expanded territories are given back, the Palestinians are provided with a state of their own with Hamas still continuing their "social services", the mullahs in Iran are still in power, their personal agents in Lebanon, Hezbollah, still thereabouts and the frauds from the muslim brotherhood in Egypt - somehow, I don't think the region will be incident free. They may hate each other and that's fine as long as they mind their own business. Add in a possibly nuclear Iran and the Saudis might find common cause with Israel after all! Interesting times...

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but if it's land under Palestinian and Hamas authority then it's far more than 1% and more like 30%!

It's not more excuses for the Isrealis, I've more or less made it clear that I don't much care for either side in the conflict. The only sad thing is that innocents as always take the brunt of the pain and suffering.

When you want a firework display at home, you normally do it in your garden and away from small children and flammables. It you don't have a big enough garden then you go and do it somewhere else more suitable, BUT you don't set the display up in your own house!

There was no reason for Hamas to attack Isreal from their own territory, they could've done it from other regions and other locations, Isreal is used to being attacked from outside territories. Hamas knew exactly what they were doing when they started their attacks.

If I was going to prepare an academic paper then I would substantiate my assumptions without a shadow of a doubt, in fact nearly anything can be substantiated in some way or another, it just takes time to fish the stuff out. But this is a banter forum based around a decent level of debate there's usually no real need. But what I will say, that if you read between the lines, it's fairly obvious that Hamas are acting under the blessing and support of Iran who are pushing for a much wider conflict in the region, this is my opinion only of course but I know this is easy to substantiate. Hamas cannot compete with Isreal, they need a wider support base and Iran is that support base.

Glad to see that someone seems to share my view and is looking at the conflict in a much broader sense.

It was sarcasm. Anyway, the 30% Israel pretty much have a lot of control over.

That's what the current concern is about, civilians. Not Hamas.

You could easily say that Hamas were being careless, not devising plans in regards to their location.

Israelis knew what they were doing too.

Israelis are used to bombing Gaza without any consideration of civilians. They could of been a little more thoughtful, direct civilians to a safe place and then did their business. Using bombing is not the only option. What they are doing is pretty careless too.

All I was pointing out is there was no indication of intentions regarding locations. It really has nothing to do with what's practically going on. I'm trying to keep on what's actually happening.

Of course they're always going to be conflicted. The colonising has been progressively going on since the beginning of time.

We've been arguing on many different points from the beginning, for ages. If that doesn't count as a "broader sense" enough then I don't know what does.

Why would a fish be involved, and what would his religion have to do with ... oh wait, I thought that said Christian sturgeon! :laughing:

I didn't make the thread. A moderator took a post I made in some thread and made it a thread. I had no idea, lol.




Christian Sturgeon? Whats that got to do with fish?