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?

Fred - your arguments are so awful that one has to wonder: Is your campaign funded by the israeli government?

stop it I am wetting myself and it costs to get my yfronts cleaned here

Gausie, As usual, if you allow yourself to think and even you should be able to understand what I said and why it was said.

I have no animosity to Martini and subsequent to the introduction enjoyed his company. But our introduction to one another was a Martini suggested, I thought it not unreasonable response. I don't like violence but not afraid of it.

Why not go back to the question contained in the heading of this thread.

Fred

If you had allowed yourself to think, perhaps you wouldnt have opened this topic on a board where all of the other posters are intelligent people who think for themselves and see right through your smokescreens.

Perhaps it's best you either rethink your position, or go spout your nonsense to the welcoming and gullible sheep on some of the other BBs.

Someone who knew you well then Ruth ?

:-)

Dil;-) very well, in fact too well;-)))
listening to Fred on here has made me realise how monotonous i must sound on the other thread,but my hearts in the right place;-) but the for"s and againsts are probably 50/50 on the other thread re the actual topic itself.
poor Fred hes all alone on this one,and agree with Gausie re Freds double standards,they are enough to make me wet my knickers ,never mind Martini wetting his y-fronts ;-)

The funniest thing is while complaining about personal abuse and wanting to stick to the arguments when pushed Fred reverts to comments like "even you should be able to understand....." - ie I'm clever and you are thick.

Too much damp underwear around here for my liking.

Perhaps, my opinion is of no account, but is does appear in line with the United Nations present views. (But I suppose when their opinions differ from yours, their opinions are inconsequential or irrational.)

I suggest you find the recent interview of Jeremy Greenstock on BBC news. Below is a synopsis.
A UN Security Council resolution has called for an immediate ceasefire, access for aid workers and a lasting solution to the conflict, but the Israeli government has rejected it.
Speaking to BBC News, the former UK ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said he hoped Israel would stop military operations soon.
"I think it's a good resolution and needs to be implemented but the Israeli army needs to take decisions on the ground under the Israeli government to implement that resolution," he said.
"The tragedy is this military action was never necessary. There has to be a political route out of the trouble."

Again what I find interesting on some of these threads, is who creeps out of the woodwork and how they group together like pack dogs..
Generally, they seem to resort to personal abuse, hoping it diverts from the main argument.

I wonder why?


Let me repeat once more:

Murder and carnage is being carried out in the name of defence.

Some appear to want to tell the bullied to stop it, but allow the bullies to continue!

How much world condemnation does the Israeli government need.

At the UN, even America is backing off in its support of Israels action.

Isaacs, Read back through the thread and check where the abuse originated. My responses have been quiet mild!

Fred,

I don't think that anyone on this thread has abused you. But, as Isaacs has already said, the condescending attitude does appear to be stemming from you.

Please bear in mind as well that your views on this subject are clearly in the minority. I do seem to remember from a previous post that you claim to have learned a lot from those around you over the years.

Anyway, I've got a thread of my own to start now: Is this how you spell euphanasia and, if so, should be made compulsory for the over 60's?

Indeed, hilary. The first condescending language was used by Fred in post 35 when he sneered at Gausie and ptholden. That merely repeats the attitude shown on other threads so it comes as no surprise.
You cannot debate rationally with the irrational. Futility incarnate.

Fred, are you a sadist?



Dil, dont you even think about responding ;-)))

Even if two way abuse Fred didn't think you were in favour of an eye for an eye.

My feeling Ruth, the above should be on your bedroom wall, as advice to yourself!

Edited

Fred - read your own post:

A UN Security Council resolution has called for an immediate ceasefire, access for aid workers and a lasting solution to the conflict, but the Israeli government has rejected it.

Not surprising they rejected it - it's a ridiculously worded resolution - nobody can deliver it.

Meanwhile the CARNAGE goes on?

Fred is that the best u can do,
bit limp if u ask me, re the pic i mean

See Fred, yove pointed the finger on more than one occasion at me for not being highly intelligent(even though youve still not yet told me what ive missed out on in my life through not being highly intelligent)
But yet by my own admission you do come across as educated /inteligent, so theres no excuse for the crap your posting here re gaza,your living in the dark ages
im sure you could put your intelligence to better use than ranting on here with your double standards crap.

Isaacs,;-) an eye for an eye is ok, as long as it suits his agenda,

I think Fred I don't really have to explain why I believe you to be hypocritical, seems you might be getting the message from others?? Although somehow I doubt it. BTW, I said I don't read the Sun but I do look at the pictures. I've no doubt found my intellectual level in your less than humble opinion :)

Imcidentally, I doubt there is a single poster on this BB who supports the loss of life (either Israeli or Palestinian) during this latest 'conflict' but most seem to have a grip on the rights and wrongs of the actions by Hamas for a considerable period of time. There shouldn't be a terrorist organisation in the world that does not recognise the likely Israeli respone to terrorism. Isreal will take whatever action they believe necessary that threatens their state (people) without worrying too much about international opinion, they have demonstrated this resolve repeatedly for many years. Hamas fire their rockets from many densely populated areas (clearly with the support of the Palestinian population as they are a democratically elected govt) in the hope that Isreal will not retaliate. It is somewhat hypocritical (you should be able to empathise with this condition) that the Palestinians show outrage at civilian casualties. The immediate solution to this problem is for Hamas to cease their acts of aggression and subsequnetly to renounce their aim to destroy the State of Israel.

PTholden, Suggest you check you understanding of hypocritical and reread some of the postings by others with a more open mind. I think there is some support for my postings.

Your statement;

"Isreal will take whatever action they believe necessary that threatens their state (people) without worrying too much about international opinion, they have demonstrated this resolve repeatedly for many years."

This positioning has not resolved their problems.