Will this increase or decrease the likelihood of terrorist actions in America, Europe and the rest of the world?

If you were a member of a family murdered in this conflict, would you be seeking revenge?

Should Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert, be tried for war crimes if or when this conflict comes to an end?

What will the price of oil be in 4 weeks time?

Hilary, The team I played for at the time turned up to one game with only 14 men. After play had started there was a slight collision and one of the opponents was taken off injured. As per usual for my age, I made a flippant remark, which was "that evens it up". As I was also called Dai, you can guess what my nickname was for a while.

Dai Minic Simpson?

Gausie, Save me sometime. Explain or tell who or what is Minic Simpson. I admit it is lost on me.

Fred - No need to wait. I'll save you right now!

I'm sure Dai Minic Simpson will be along in due course. I hear he's a rugby fan, a good friend of Dil's and a real Dai Mond Geezer.

Before we get further distracted:
Todays BBC News reports:
Palestinian medical officials say 952 people have been killed in Gaza - around a third of them children - and more than 4,200 have been injured.

Israeli troops have entered the suburbs of Gaza City and are engaged in street fighting with Palestinian militants, according to reports.
Witnesses say Israeli special forces have advanced several hundred metres into several districts and intense gunfire can be heard.
Earlier, Israeli planes attacked more targets in Gaza as its offensive against Hamas entered its 18th day.
A Gaza rights group has said more than 90,000 people have fled their homes.

Have a read of:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7826968.stm

In whose name are these actions be taken?

Hold you heads in shame!

Why do we need news reports from the BBC don't we all have tv.

not here in Santiago!

****Meet the Palestinian Terrorists In Gaza that Israel Claims to Fight*****

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuOMiseGCfs&feature=channel

Rule #1: In the Middle East, it is always the Palestinians that attack first, and it's always Israel who defends itself. This is called "retaliation".

Rule #2: The Palestinians are not allowed to kill Israelis. This is called "terrorism".

Rule #3: Israel has the right to kill Palestinian civilians; this is called "self-defense", or "collateral damage".

Rule #4: When Israel kills too many Palestinian civilians, the Western world calls for restraint. This is called the "reaction of the international community".

Rule #5: Palestinians do not have the right to capture Israeli military, not even 1 or 2.

Rule #6: Israel has the right to capture as many Palestinians as they want (around 10,000 to date being held without trial). There is no limit; there is no need for proof of guilt or trial. All that is needed is the magic word: "terrorism".

Rule #7: When you say "Hamas", always be sure to add "supported by Hezbo-Allah, Syria and Iran".

Rule #8: When you say "Israel", never say "supported by the USA, the UK, European countries and even some Arab regimes", for people (God forbid) might believe this is not an equal conflict.

Rule #9: When it comes to Israel, don't mention the words "occupied territories", "UN resolutions", "Geneva conventions". This could distress the audience of Fox, CNN, etc.

Rule #10: Israelis speak better English than Arabs. This is why we let them speak out as much as possible, so that they can explain rules 1 through 9. This is called "neutral journalism".

Rule #11: If you don't agree with these rules or if you favor the Palestinian side over the Israeli side, you must be a very dangerous anti-Semite. You may even have to make a public apology if you express your honest opinion

(Isn't democracy wonderful?)

Gaza - Article by Robert Fisk

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/world/middleeast/11hamas.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&th&emc=th

Fahel, you are more cynical than Cynic and the satire is apt.

I have just wandered around a few other boards. Didn't realise how restrained this one was.

Perhaps a look at some highlights of the Hamas Charter might help to define the problem further.

These are extracts from 'The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)'

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

As for the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion', I refer you to Wikipedia:

'The Protocols has been proven by respected international scholars, both Jewish and non-Jewish, to be a forgery,[1][2][3] a fraud[4][5] and a hoax,[6][7] as well as a clear case of plagiarism[8]. The original source has been clearly identified as an 1864 book by Maurice Joly entitled The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, which was written as a satirical attack against the ambitions and methods of French Emperor Napoleon III.[9] In the book, Machiavelli represented Napoleon III, and described a series of steps that he intended to take to become ruler of the world. The Joly book was in turn based on material borrowed from a popular novel of the time by Euge Sue entitled The Mysteries of the People, in which those plotting to rule the world were the Jesuits instead of Napoleon III. Neither the Joly book nor the Sue book mentioned either Jews or Masons.'

MM. Rhetoric. Similar to many groups who would never negotiate and yet later. This reminds me of the mindless chants from some of the loonier Zionists groups.

I had a nephew, who worked in the middle east, one of the things he told me sometime ago, was when someone living there, said "Never in a thousand years", it usually meant not until next week.

From the posting above you seem to be support the Carnage and Murder, which is continuing in Gaza.

I await for your change to the more useful approach.

I believe from earlier postings you infer that I was anti-American. I think you are confusing, what I feel about the American people with this disastrous administration.

Even this administration is admitting its catastrophic policies. I hope that Obama's will be a breath of fresh air. He is picking up a poisoned chalice.


I have no wish to run down America, there are enough sensible critics within its own borders.

The choice of Leon Panetta to head the CIA is the best sign of change yet
By Andrew Sullivan


But Panettas core qualification at this particular moment was his public statements on the Bush-Cheney torture programme. This is what Panetta wrote in the Washington Monthly last year: (2008)

How did we transform from champions of human dignity and individual rights into a nation of armchair torturers? One word: fear. Fear is blinding, hateful and vengeful. It makes the end justify the means. And why not? If torture can stop the next terrorist attack, the next suicide bomber, then whats wrong with a little waterboarding or electric shock?

The simple answer is the rule of law. Our constitution defines the rules that guide our nation. . .

Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we dont. There is no middle ground.

Fred: Rhetoric, you say.

But those quotes are from the fundamental "constitution" document of Hamas, not some throwaway speech (which would more suit the description of rhetoric).

As always, you come over as an apologist for Islamic extremism. I assume you have a soft spot for -- or at least an "understanding" of -- what "provoked" the 7/7 London bombers.

Straight to the point!, i beleive that the jews of Israel have a right and a duty to protect themselves and their families against any terrorist. They are the allies of a civilised world, including ours.

Boxerdogthats one point of viewand I think you have misused the word civilised?

By civilised i mean a civilised colony of whatever which are free to flourish and not live in fear. Lets not forget it is Israel that are the target of terrorist here and are only defending its people.

boxerdog

We've done all that. You still seem to be misusing some terms:

protect, terrorist, civilised, defending, free.

I suggest you at least read some of the previous postings on the thread.

They've gone a long way to educating me. They might do the same for you.