Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[ralphjohn69]

First topic message reminder :

It's not logic. Most pot 4 teams are no worse than Rangers. If Rangers were the worst ever pot 4 team last year, what makes them any better now?

Because instead of playing another Pot 3 team they will be playing a Pot 4 team, who will probably be worse than a Pot 3 team so they have a better chance of getting 3rd, although it's obviously not guaranteed. You really don't help yourself when you post about football....

[Pal Joey]

Damn those people.

Them, and their first world problems.

Do you two not realise that you are the problem‽

They cancel each other out... thus creating a perfect equilibrium.

Note how I cut all the heavy bulk of the conversation out of this long-winded exchange?
It's better for those with tiny phones... and it doesn't alter the general gist of the argument.

[Galted]

Damn those people.

Them, and their first world problems.

Do you two not realise that you are the problem‽

They cancel each other out... thus creating a perfect equilibrium.

Note how I cut all the heavy bulk of the conversation out of this long-winded exchange?
It's better for those with tiny phones... and it doesn't alter the general gist of the argument.

Mine's massive, and it ain't made of plastic.

[navyblueshorts]

...How did we get here?? Where the hell has honesty and openness gone? what scared it away? and how do we get it back?

It's been a while coming, and it won't change soon. Too few true states-people with vision, notwithstanding a given decision might be disliked in the now. Too many in hock to the input of too few major industrialists? Too many only concerned about how to win the next election, rather than what's good for the country? Too many that see being an MP as a financially rewarding career in its own right? A truly useless political system for electing MPs/Governments (i.e. FPTP) ?

Democracy is a fragile thing and, IMO, too many have no reason to appreciate it. We haven't had a major war for ~80 years to remind us all what really matters...

[super_realist]

Experts call for Lucy Letby inquiry to cover statistical evidence used in trial

Royal Statistical Society suggests a better understanding of statistics could help NHS trusts act more quickly in similar cases

Pity she hasn't been hanged.

We don't hang people. We're a civilised nation (in that respect).

I know and it's a shame.

We're a lovely civilised nation that lets rapists roam free, keeps terrorists and child killers alive, and paroles anyone who's got a decent sob story to sell to some middle-class type. We've got judges who praise criminals, an underfunded police service that is terrified of doing anything for fear of being labelled with an ism or phobia, bubbling community tensions, and shoplifters who walk out with no fear of the consequences.

Then we wonder why the streets are awash with filth.

But at least we're civilised.

There's a convicted r@pist and drug dealer from Ghana in Scotland who the Scottish Government will not deport because "it might infringe his human rights"
Not our problem.

[super_realist]

https://twitter.com/robert1lefty/status/1708542752110117079?t=uywkVZt1Iz-vqynSYJkhMg&s=19

Why is he so parochial?

Also singing proclaimers on the bus

Agree, needs to stop going on about Oban, Shinty, Glencruiten etc.

[super_realist]

Typically weak BBC not referring to Hamas as a terrorist group.

[McLaren]

Experts call for Lucy Letby inquiry to cover statistical evidence used in trial

Royal Statistical Society suggests a better understanding of statistics could help NHS trusts act more quickly in similar cases

Pity she hasn't been hanged.

We don't hang people. We're a civilised nation (in that respect).

I know and it's a shame.

We're a lovely civilised nation that lets rapists roam free, keeps terrorists and child killers alive, and paroles anyone who's got a decent sob story to sell to some middle-class type. We've got judges who praise criminals, an underfunded police service that is terrified of doing anything for fear of being labelled with an ism or phobia, bubbling community tensions, and shoplifters who walk out with no fear of the consequences.

Then we wonder why the streets are awash with filth.

But at least we're civilised.

There's a convicted r@pist and drug dealer from Ghana in Scotland who the Scottish Government will not deport because "it might infringe his human rights"
Not our problem.

If you were to be completely honest would you be ok with him being hanged?

[super_realist]

Experts call for Lucy Letby inquiry to cover statistical evidence used in trial

Royal Statistical Society suggests a better understanding of statistics could help NHS trusts act more quickly in similar cases

Pity she hasn't been hanged.

We don't hang people. We're a civilised nation (in that respect).

I know and it's a shame.

We're a lovely civilised nation that lets rapists roam free, keeps terrorists and child killers alive, and paroles anyone who's got a decent sob story to sell to some middle-class type. We've got judges who praise criminals, an underfunded police service that is terrified of doing anything for fear of being labelled with an ism or phobia, bubbling community tensions, and shoplifters who walk out with no fear of the consequences.

Then we wonder why the streets are awash with filth.

But at least we're civilised.

There's a convicted r@pist and drug dealer from Ghana in Scotland who the Scottish Government will not deport because "it might infringe his human rights"
Not our problem.

If you were to be completely honest would you be ok with him being hanged?

I don't see why it is our responsibility to allow a convicted r***ist to remain in the country. If he had raped your wife, would you be saying the same?

Hanged in UK or Ghana? 

It's funny that you are happy to convict someone on zero evidence and merely on a  claim, but somehow want to have some far left loony human rights element to the sentencing.

[JuliusHMarx]

Typically weak BBC not referring to Hamas as a terrorist group.

Maybe they're copying GBNews in describing them as 'militants'.

[super_realist]

Typically weak BBC not referring to Hamas as a terrorist group.

Maybe they're copying GBNews in describing them as 'militants'.

Maybe, but excusing these action in any way by refusing to call it terrorism is pretty disposable. Real Corbyn stuff.

[JuliusHMarx]

Typically weak BBC not referring to Hamas as a terrorist group.

Maybe they're copying GBNews in describing them as 'militants'.

Maybe, but excusing these action in any way by refusing to call it terrorism is pretty disposable. Real Corbyn stuff.

In what way are GBNews excusing the actions of Hamas?

[super_realist]

Typically weak BBC not referring to Hamas as a terrorist group.

Maybe they're copying GBNews in describing them as 'militants'.

Maybe, but excusing these action in any way by refusing to call it terrorism is pretty disposable. Real Corbyn stuff.

In what way are GBNews excusing the actions of Hamas?

If you refuse to call it what it is, terrorism then you're downplaying the severity of it. 

Why not call it what it is? Why wouldn't you? Calling it a militant acts places more emphasis on it being a political act than what it is, a planned and deliberate attack on innocent civilians.  That's terrorism by definition.

[JuliusHMarx]

Typically weak BBC not referring to Hamas as a terrorist group.

Maybe they're copying GBNews in describing them as 'militants'.

Maybe, but excusing these action in any way by refusing to call it terrorism is pretty disposable. Real Corbyn stuff.

In what way are GBNews excusing the actions of Hamas?

If you refuse to call it what it is, terrorism then you're downplaying the severity of it. 

Why not call it what it is? Why wouldn't you? Calling it a militant acts places more emphasis on it being a political act than what it is, a planned and deliberate attack on innocent civilians.  That's terrorism by definition.

Yes, it's odd that every news agency seems to be taking that approach - perhaps there is a legal reason or something to do with a set of broadcasting standards. What is not odd is that you only call out the BBC for doing it.

[super_realist]

I've only seen it on the BBC and other media outlets ARE calling it terrorism.
Both the US and UK Foreign offices refer to Hamas as a terrorist organisation.

[Duty281]

Typically weak BBC not referring to Hamas as a terrorist group.

Maybe they're copying GBNews in describing them as 'militants'.

Maybe, but excusing these action in any way by refusing to call it terrorism is pretty disposable. Real Corbyn stuff.

In what way are GBNews excusing the actions of Hamas?

If you refuse to call it what it is, terrorism then you're downplaying the severity of it. 

Why not call it what it is? Why wouldn't you? Calling it a militant acts places more emphasis on it being a political act than what it is, a planned and deliberate attack on innocent civilians.  That's terrorism by definition.

Yes, it's odd that every news agency seems to be taking that approach - perhaps there is a legal reason or something to do with a set of broadcasting standards. What is not odd is that you only call out the BBC for doing it.

Not sure what you mean. From a quick look, the Independent, Telegraph, Mail, GB News, and the Times have all labelled it a terrorist attack, as have Biden, von der Leyen, Sunak and Starmer.

[JuliusHMarx]

BBC, ITV and GBNews are all referring to them as militants, while at the same time pointing out that they are classified as a terrorist organization.
Obviously I haven't read every page of every news site.

[super_realist]

BBC, ITV and GBNews are all referring to them as militants, while at the same time pointing out that they are classified as a terrorist organization.
Obviously I haven't read every page of every news site.

We mustn't contravene the human rights of Hamas by referring to them as terrorists.

[Duty281]

BBC, ITV and GBNews are all referring to them as militants, while at the same time pointing out that they are classified as a terrorist organization.
Obviously I haven't read every page of every news site.

GBnews are calling it a terror attack, which it is. Anyone calling it anything else is a disgrace.

[JuliusHMarx]

BBC, ITV and GBNews are all referring to them as militants, while at the same time pointing out that they are classified as a terrorist organization.
Obviously I haven't read every page of every news site.

We mustn't contravene the human rights of Hamas by referring to them as terrorists.

I'm not saying they are right to take that approach. All I'm saying is that it not just the BBC that are taking it. There are other news organizations also taking the same approach, but it is no surprise that you only criticised the BBC in your initial post.

[JuliusHMarx]

BBC, ITV and GBNews are all referring to them as militants, while at the same time pointing out that they are classified as a terrorist organization.
Obviously I haven't read every page of every news site.

GBnews are calling it a terror attack, which it is. Anyone calling it anything else is a disgrace.

Yes, but my reply was to a post that referred to Hamas as an organization, not to these attacks.
Perhaps on other pages GBNews refer to them as terrorists, but the ones I have seen refer to them as militants.

[super_realist]

BBC, ITV and GBNews are all referring to them as militants, while at the same time pointing out that they are classified as a terrorist organization.
Obviously I haven't read every page of every news site.

GBnews are calling it a terror attack, which it is. Anyone calling it anything else is a disgrace.

Yes, but my reply was to a post that referred to Hamas as an organization, not to these attacks.
Perhaps on other pages GBNews refer to them as terrorists, but the ones I have seen refer to them as militants.

They're widely regarded as and referred to as a terrorist organisation.
If the US and EU refer to them as a terrorist organisation, why are certain news agencies seeking to play it down by referring to them as militants?

What do you think a right wing group burst into Glastonbury, ginned down 500 people and defiled their corpses would be called? Seems these organisations only referring them as "militants" are scared of some sort of Islamic lobby and doesn't help that repulsive people like Corbyn are refusing to condemn it. Starmer could do Labour a lot of good if he actually kicked him out of the party, rather than just remove the whip.

[JuliusHMarx]

BBC, ITV and GBNews are all referring to them as militants, while at the same time pointing out that they are classified as a terrorist organization.
Obviously I haven't read every page of every news site.

GBnews are calling it a terror attack, which it is. Anyone calling it anything else is a disgrace.

Yes, but my reply was to a post that referred to Hamas as an organization, not to these attacks.
Perhaps on other pages GBNews refer to them as terrorists, but the ones I have seen refer to them as militants.

They're widely regarded as and referred to as a terrorist organisation.
If the US and EU refer to them as a terrorist organisation, why are certain news agencies seeking to play it down by referring to them as militants?

I don't know. An article on The Telegraph today said "US President Joe Biden announced the show of support on Sunday, sending fresh aid to Israel following surprise attacks by Palestinian militant group Hamas." Why did they use the word 'militant'? I don't know, you'd have to ask The Telegraph why they are playing it down.

[super_realist]

Speaking of Joe Biden, if he's not dead in 12 months, I think he'll be medically stood down. The guy is an embarrassment. That's worrying considering that Harris would be an even worse leader.

[pedro]

Corbyn is a disgrace.

[super_realist]

Corbyn is a disgrace.

Why him and fellow racist Abbott haven't been officially kicked out of the party is a mystery. 
Imagine he'd won the election and we had a Hamas supporting PM, you think things are bad right now we'd be a pariah state under Corbyn. 
We got a terrible government, but it was the least worst option.

[JAS]

Corbyn is a disgrace.

Why him and fellow racist Abbott haven't been officially kicked out of the party is a mystery. 
Imagine he'd won the election and we had a Hamas supporting PM, you think things are bad right now we'd be a pariah state under Corbyn. 
We got a terrible government, but it was the least worst option.

Surprised GBnews havent invited you to replace Whooton. Starmer is damned either way, if he ejected Corbyn completely he’d be accused of being a Stalinist control freak, if he doesn’t he gets red meaters like you baiting him to do so. He’s been marginalised, the fact that the media still seek his view as if it was in any way important says more about them (and you) than it does him. How many other backbenchers have been asked for their view??

By the way at a current body count of approx 900 to 700 I do not think either side can claim any high moral ground now. Any conflict producing that level of death on both sides is utterly reprehensible, Israel rightly deserved a empathy and support initially but it would seem, blinded by understandable rage, they’ve conflated Palestinian citizens and Hamas into the one and the same thing (legitimate targets) and so we will now have a spiralling escalation, with the spectre of Mad Vlad and sleepy Joe getting dragged in.

[super_realist]

Corbyn is a disgrace.

Why him and fellow racist Abbott haven't been officially kicked out of the party is a mystery. 
Imagine he'd won the election and we had a Hamas supporting PM, you think things are bad right now we'd be a pariah state under Corbyn. 
We got a terrible government, but it was the least worst option.

Surprised GBnews havent invited you to replace Whooton. Starmer is damned either way, if he ejected Corbyn completely he’d be accused of being a Stalinist control freak, if he doesn’t he gets red meaters like you baiting him to do so. He’s been marginalised, the fact that the media still seek his view as if it was in any way important says more about them (and you) than it does him. How many other backbenchers have been asked for their view??

By the way at a current body count of approx 900 to 700 I do not think either side can claim any high moral ground now. Any conflict producing that level of death on both sides is utterly reprehensible, Israel rightly deserved a empathy and support initially but it would seem, blinded by understandable rage, they’ve conflated Palestinian citizens and Hamas into the one and the same thing (legitimate targets) and so we will now have a spiralling escalation, with the spectre of Mad Vlad and sleepy Joe getting dragged in.

There isn't a case for having a terrorist sympathiser in the party.
Ejecting him could only do good for Labour, so why wouldn't you?
The only way that Labour get elected is a less left wing party, Starmer knows this and so does every rational person so why not just bin poison like Abbot and Corbyn?

[McLaren]

Corbyn should go. Don't think it is that hard of a decision. So what if Starmer gets some heat from weirdos in his party, he is trying to get elected and the nation won't mind someone unable to discern terrorism from activism.

[super_realist]

Corbyn should go. Don't think it is that hard of a decision. So what if Starmer gets some heat from  weirdos in his party, he is trying to get elected and the nation won't mind someone unable to discern terrorism from activism.  

Exactly Mac, it is not as if the Momentum freaks are doing anything to further the party and make it any more electable, if anything they are holding it back, so expelling Corbyn and Abbot from the party could only help.
His dillydallying isn't doing much to endear himself to the public that he is a leader and getting rid of those racist members might actually show he had some balls.

[McLaren]

Not sure what you think Abbot has done, please tell me it's not the obvious for you? Great MP as far as I can see.

[super_realist]

Not sure what you think Abbot has done, please tell me it's not the obvious for you? Great MP as far as I can see.

Mac, she has been suspended by the Labour party for having one of her racist letters to a newspaper published.
It was actually sent back to her because it didn't have her name and address on it, and she could have changed the content, but she sent it back again, unedited.

You see Mac, that's how you accuse people of racism, you actually have an example, not just an assertion.

Perhaps you didn't know about this suspension or Observer letter, or that she pretended to blame Starmer for ruining her career rather than take responsibility for her actions.
Like Corbyn and RLB she's a major embarrassment and damaging person to have in your party and even if she's a decent constituency MP, she acts in complete detriment to her party. How she was ever given a ministerial role is laughable, it's hard to find anyone less articulate than she is .

[McLaren]

Super

If it came to it I would submit your posting history on here as evidence of your racism.

[super_realist]

Super

If it came to it I would submit your posting history on here as evidence of your racism.

I've asked goodness knows how many times for you to provide an example and every time you've failed to do so.
The best you could do, in a rather mealy mouthed fashion was to say "it's just the impression I get", which rather goes hand in hand with your incredibly low threshold for evidence to convict someone of sexual assault.

[navyblueshorts]

Typically weak BBC not referring to Hamas as a terrorist group.

Maybe, but seem to recall them being democratically elected to represent Gaza some years ago, only for 'the West' etc to decide they didn't like that outcome and refuse to engage with them. They're by no means saints, but it takes two to tango.

[super_realist]

Typically weak BBC not referring to Hamas as a terrorist group.

Maybe, but seem to recall them being democratically elected to represent Gaza some years ago, only for 'the West' etc to decide they didn't like that outcome and refuse to engage with them. They're by no means saints, but it takes two to tango.

I think they're both pretty ghastly sides to be fair but being elected still makes them a terrorist organisation. It is funny the amount of people who are unwilling to condemn the action.


Going round civilian houses and shooting people in the head in the name of Hamas is by definition terrorism. They are terrorists and should be described as such. BBC are hiding behind their "style sheet"
Imagine the Islington elite of the BBC and Corbyn would be falling over themselves to call it terrorism if it was Israel who started an unprovoked attack.

[navyblueshorts]

Corbyn is a disgrace.

Why him and fellow racist Abbott haven't been officially kicked out of the party is a mystery. 
Imagine he'd won the election and we had a Hamas supporting PM, you think things are bad right now we'd be a pariah state under Corbyn. 
We got a terrible government, but it was the least worst option.

Surprised GBnews havent invited you to replace Whooton. Starmer is damned either way, if he ejected Corbyn completely he’d be accused of being a Stalinist control freak, if he doesn’t he gets red meaters like you baiting him to do so. He’s been marginalised, the fact that the media still seek his view as if it was in any way important says more about them (and you) than it does him. How many other backbenchers have been asked for their view??

By the way at a current body count of approx 900 to 700 I do not think either side can claim any high moral ground now. Any conflict producing that level of death on both sides is utterly reprehensible, Israel rightly deserved a empathy and support initially but it would seem, blinded by understandable rage, they’ve conflated Palestinian citizens and Hamas into the one and the same thing (legitimate targets) and so we will now have a spiralling escalation, with the spectre of Mad Vlad and sleepy Joe getting dragged in.

I'd like to comment/discuss, but anything not 100% in support of Israel isn't allowed. It's interesting, the lack of nuance in any of the current reporting of the situation. Appears to be quite alright for Israel to blow civilians to smithereens (again) and turn Gaza into even more of a ghetto than it was; ironic, that.

The leaders on both sides are bathed in blood. They know no other way, and so it continues. It'll only be worse this time, given the current Israeli Government makeup.

[navyblueshorts]

Typically weak BBC not referring to Hamas as a terrorist group.

Maybe, but seem to recall them being democratically elected to represent Gaza some years ago, only for 'the West' etc to decide they didn't like that outcome and refuse to engage with them. They're by no means saints, but it takes two to tango.

I think they're both pretty ghastly sides to be fair but being elected still makes them a terrorist organisation. It is funny the amount of people who are unwilling to condemn the action.


Going round civilian houses and shooting people in the head in the name of Hamas is by definition terrorism. They are terrorists and should be described as such. BBC are hiding behind their "style sheet"
Imagine the Islington elite of the BBC and Corbyn would be falling over themselves to call it terrorism if it was Israel who started an unprovoked attack.

I don't disagree that what they're doing is terrorism, but the continual lack of anyone holding the Israeli state to account, over decades, has sown the seeds. Time to reap the whirlwind.
Netanyahu is a macho prat. He could have wiped out the infiltrators and left it, more or less, at that for now. Played a longer game going after the Hamas leadership if he'd wanted to. Oh no; of course not. Got to blow the bejeezus out of Gaza just to appear a strongman. Now he risks involving Hezbollah etc, and they're a much bigger fish than Hamas.

[JuliusHMarx]

Hamas are terrorists - everyone know that. But it is possible to condemn them at at the same time have enormous sympathy for the Palestinian population and believe that way they have been treated by the Israeli state over the years is disgraceful and more or less state-sponsored terrorism. But by playing the long game, bulldozing a few houses here, a few there, a few more somewhere else, secure in the knowledge that the international community will take no action if they break international law, Israel can slowly and patiently march to a fully occupied single-state solution.

[super_realist]

Corbyn is a disgrace.

Why him and fellow racist Abbott haven't been officially kicked out of the party is a mystery. 
Imagine he'd won the election and we had a Hamas supporting PM, you think things are bad right now we'd be a pariah state under Corbyn. 
We got a terrible government, but it was the least worst option.

Surprised GBnews havent invited you to replace Whooton. Starmer is damned either way, if he ejected Corbyn completely he’d be accused of being a Stalinist control freak, if he doesn’t he gets red meaters like you baiting him to do so. He’s been marginalised, the fact that the media still seek his view as if it was in any way important says more about them (and you) than it does him. How many other backbenchers have been asked for their view??

By the way at a current body count of approx 900 to 700 I do not think either side can claim any high moral ground now. Any conflict producing that level of death on both sides is utterly reprehensible, Israel rightly deserved a empathy and support initially but it would seem, blinded by understandable rage, they’ve conflated Palestinian citizens and Hamas into the one and the same thing (legitimate targets) and so we will now have a spiralling escalation, with the spectre of Mad Vlad and sleepy Joe getting dragged in.

I'd like to comment/discuss, but anything not 100% in support of Israel isn't allowed. It's interesting, the lack of nuance in any of the current reporting of the situation. Appears to be quite alright for Israel to blow civilians to smithereens (again) and turn Gaza into even more of a ghetto than it was; ironic, that.

The leaders on both sides are bathed in blood. They know no other way, and so it continues. It'll only be worse this time, given the current Israeli Government makeup.

I think you're misled there Navy, only today the UN made comment and didn't even mention the Israel dead they only talked of sympathy for the dead in the occupied territory. Remember that the UN DONT define Hamas as a terrorist organisation either, and especially on the left media there is blanket support for Palestine.

Much as I dislike Israel as a state and any state based on religion, and as much of an bumhole as Netanyahu is, you cannot expect him not to take reprisals for a ghastly terrorist outrage on innocent civilians. He's damned if he does and would look extremely weak if he doesn't.

[navyblueshorts]

Corbyn is a disgrace.

Why him and fellow racist Abbott haven't been officially kicked out of the party is a mystery. 
Imagine he'd won the election and we had a Hamas supporting PM, you think things are bad right now we'd be a pariah state under Corbyn. 
We got a terrible government, but it was the least worst option.

Surprised GBnews havent invited you to replace Whooton. Starmer is damned either way, if he ejected Corbyn completely he’d be accused of being a Stalinist control freak, if he doesn’t he gets red meaters like you baiting him to do so. He’s been marginalised, the fact that the media still seek his view as if it was in any way important says more about them (and you) than it does him. How many other backbenchers have been asked for their view??

By the way at a current body count of approx 900 to 700 I do not think either side can claim any high moral ground now. Any conflict producing that level of death on both sides is utterly reprehensible, Israel rightly deserved a empathy and support initially but it would seem, blinded by understandable rage, they’ve conflated Palestinian citizens and Hamas into the one and the same thing (legitimate targets) and so we will now have a spiralling escalation, with the spectre of Mad Vlad and sleepy Joe getting dragged in.

I'd like to comment/discuss, but anything not 100% in support of Israel isn't allowed. It's interesting, the lack of nuance in any of the current reporting of the situation. Appears to be quite alright for Israel to blow civilians to smithereens (again) and turn Gaza into even more of a ghetto than it was; ironic, that.

The leaders on both sides are bathed in blood. They know no other way, and so it continues. It'll only be worse this time, given the current Israeli Government makeup.

I think you're misled there Navy, only today the UN made comment and didn't even mention the Israel dead they only talked of sympathy for the dead in the occupied territory. Remember that the UN DONT define Hamas as a terrorist organisation either, and especially on the left media there is blanket support for Palestine.

Much as I dislike Israel as a state and any state based on religion, and as much of an bumhole as Netanyahu is, you cannot expect him not to take reprisals for a ghastly terrorist outrage on innocent civilians. He's damned if he does and would look extremely weak if he doesn't.

I don't think I'm misled. Any attempt to discuss what the Israeli state does vis-à-vis the Palestinians is pretty much always labelled as anti-Semitism, so it just never happens properly.

Strength isn't, or shouldn't be, the leader of a vastly more powerful nation simply beating his (always 'his', isn't it?) chest and blowing loads of people up just because he can and to satisfy what is, lets face it, just a desire for retribution, even if that is an understandable immediate emotion. Any thug in charge of a vastly superior military force can do that. A stronger leader might actually use his brain, wait and think a bit.
At some point, Israel is going to have to come to terms with the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world down there and, presumably, they don't want their citizens living their lives in perpetual fear. Ditto the regional Arabic nations - Israel exists and it's not going away. Israel can do what it does because of the dogmatic support primarily by the US, both in the UN etc and through arms supply, and the tacit knowledge of everyone else that if they mess with Israel, they have the US to deal with as well.
The current situation is not solving anything as far as I can see. All this is doing is creating more and more hate. More hopeless Palestinians seeing that their lives are worth nothing and the only ones 'standing up for them' (however twisted the ideal and logic) are groups such as Hamas. If Israel were to come to an honourable solution with the Palestinians, the excuses of any Arabic/islamic rabble rousers down there would have their central pillar kicked out at a stroke - I think this is sadly unlikely in the near future, as Israel appears to have slid further and further to the right, politically and religiously, over the recent past. Won't be long before you have islamic wing nuts on one side, with Jewish wing nuts on the other - how's that going to work out?

Totally agree that no-one would expect Netanyahu to do nothing, but I might ask what he intends to achieve with this approach beyond wiping out the actual infiltrating terrorists? Maybe he should look to Sri Lanka and their conflict with the Tamil Tigers? Lord knows what happened there, because they kicked all the journalists/observers out before their military did whatever it did to them...

It's a ridiculously complex situation overall, and I do get the Israeli state and their 'rise and kill first' approach. Why wouldn't they do that? Millenia of persecution culminating in the Holocaust. I get 'the West' and its tacit approval of what Israel does - after all, look at the guilt we have re. the treatment of the Jewish people? I get the idea post-WWII of presuming no-one will help, so they help themselves first. Problem is, it's fixing nothing very much is it, given the displacement and disenfranchisement of so many Palestinians in setting up the Israeli state and in the years since?

The situation, sadly, needs far wiser, forward-looking states-people than the World is currently gifted with, I think, so I don't see any end to it.

[super_realist]

I disagree. We see plenty agents who just flagrantly support Hamas (surprised the usual left elite of Lineker, Thompson and Harry Potter brats haven't piped up)
I've just been listening to Yvonne Ridley refusing to condemn the Hamas terrorist attack.
You should be able to condemn these vile acts and label them as terrorist acts AND be a supporter of Palestine.

[navyblueshorts]

I disagree. We see plenty agents who just flagrantly support Hamas (surprised the usual left elite of Lineker, Thompson and Harry Potter brats haven't piped up)
I've just been listening to Yvonne Ridley refusing to condemn the Hamas terrorist attack.
You should be able to condemn these vile acts and label them as terrorist acts AND be a supporter of Palestine.

Agreed.

I'm not and haven't really been watching the news, so not up to date on exactly how this is all being referred to. My recollection of any discussion of Israel's behaviour re. the Palestinians in the past is that pretty much anyone critical of Israeli state actions was tarred as an anti-Semite straight away, preventing any meaningful debates from even getting off the ground.

[Duty281]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341

BBC doubling down on not calling terrorists terrorists. Even Starmer weighing in against the BBC.

Remember - don't pay the licence fee. Never, ever, ever.

[super_realist]

Think it's pretty clear that both sides are pretty repulsive.
Palestine voted in a terrorist group, Israel voted in a hard line nutter in Netanyahu. What could possibly go wrong?

Just another example of religion poisoning everything.

[super_realist]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341

BBC doubling down on not calling terrorists terrorists. Even Starmer weighing in against the BBC.

Remember - don't pay the licence fee. Never, ever, ever.

Compete BS from the BBC. Virtually every first world country refers to them as a terrorist group.
They claim it's because calling them terrorists would be "taking sides" I don't understand that, this is a group which murdered a grandmother, filmed it on her phone and posted it on her own Facebook page, it's beheading babies and indiscriminately gunning down civilians.
If you can call a murderer a murderer, a diddler a diddler, or a r***ist a r***ist (maybe you can't with the preposterous censorship on here) why not call a terrorist group a terrorist group?
They're so afraid of the Muslim lobby.

[Galted]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341

BBC doubling down on not calling terrorists terrorists. Even Starmer weighing in against the BBC.

Remember - don't pay the licence fee. Never, ever, ever.

CBeebies has enough decent shows to make it worth it.

[JuliusHMarx]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341

BBC doubling down on not calling terrorists terrorists. Even Starmer weighing in against the BBC.

Remember - don't pay the licence fee. Never, ever, ever.

Surely you're not advocating breaking the law?

[super_realist]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341

BBC doubling down on not calling terrorists terrorists. Even Starmer weighing in against the BBC.

Remember - don't pay the licence fee. Never, ever, ever.

Surely you're not advocating breaking the law?

It's only breaking the law if you watch live TV without a licence.
At the very least I think that it should only be BBC that requires a licence, not all live TV. Surely unfair that the BBC has authority on that.
Can't think of the last BBC thing I watched SAS Heroes perhaps?

[JuliusHMarx]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341

BBC doubling down on not calling terrorists terrorists. Even Starmer weighing in against the BBC.

Remember - don't pay the licence fee. Never, ever, ever.

Surely you're not advocating breaking the law?

It's only breaking the law if you watch live TV without a licence.

True, but Duty said 'Never, ever, ever' without any qualification.

[super_realist]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341

BBC doubling down on not calling terrorists terrorists. Even Starmer weighing in against the BBC.

Remember - don't pay the licence fee. Never, ever, ever.

Surely you're not advocating breaking the law?

It's only breaking the law if you watch live TV without a licence.

True, but Duty said 'Never, ever, ever' without any qualification.

Like many state owned organisations it needs serious reform.

[Sponsored content]