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?

Banal

forget the "b"

Let me know how it is banal about it Fred. What do you think will happen when oil money stops flowing into the M.E. Obama seems to be a fresh thinker. I know, we can pick up the aid tab.

At least I know I havent been squelched.

Raw, Do some broader reading. Might widen your perspectivel

Fred: You do love instructing people on their education, don't you?

How about you broaden yours by watching the video in post 821?

MM

raw .... even i think your thinking is unthinking ..... but someone seems not to know the meaning of banal

That's what comes of being institutionalised, MM.

Fred suggested that MM upset people. I suppose it may be similar to the comment made by Churchill about Charles de Gaulle.

He said that de Gaulle was a perfect gentleman and never upset anyone by accident!

MM upset people?! lol
Reality - divorced from
Projection of own attributes onto others.
Classic symptoms........change of medication required.

For your info fred.

banal - adjective - tediously unoriginal or ordinary. Which bit don't i understand?

But the story has changed - A new man at the top who is not an oil man. He doesn't benefit like his predecessors and will not be held to ransom by oil. I see changes in relationship between Iran and US but not the way you see them.

'Raw, Do some broader reading. Might widen your perspectivel' I have to say that coming from you, the most blinkered man I have ever come across, is an absolute classic statement worthy of the history books. What reading do you suggest?

'even i think your thinking is unthinking' have you done any thinking about that statement because you do come out with some rubbish. Don't insult my intelligence.

Fred - you're special!

Raw, In the 60s,70s,80s, a frequently public "myth" was continually being trotted out that Israel was the beginning of the world and its Armageddon.

The repetition of similar is boring. Read a little recent history.

Check meaning of banal.

Fred:

What on Earth are you talking about? That post makes no sense whatsoever.

Have you overdone the medication?

Yours, concerned,

MM

Myth before my time MM.

I wasn't actually referring to armageddon, i was referring to the tribal instincts that will come to a head when the governments can no longer support their economies. I believe they are squealing at low oil prices now. When the world no longer uses so much oil the trouble will start. A few years off yet though.

Don't see my thinking as the original armageddon myth therefore it is different to what has been said before and cannot be banal.

edit - israel was the beginning of the world only if you believe in creationism but lets not go there.

glad i'm on the right side of this dow fall :)

The weekend chat fred will drop down the order, so here, for posterity, Special Fred.

Gausie;-)))))

Yes, brilliantly funny video, but people with brain injuries can't help themselves, it's not their fault..........and I feel sorry for them.......they don't mean to be obnoxious, unlike some who shall remain nameless............ ;-)
Richard

.

Just been reading this to catch up.
Mighty Micro - you ask about the justification for the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The justification is quite simply that while a war is being waged any side's first aim is to win it. That simple. However I can see the moral dilemma. But no surrender was made after Hiroshima, despite the terrible consequences, which was the justification for the second atomic bomb.
There's also the responsibility to save as many of you own side's lives as possible, and historians, whether in favour of the bombs or not, generally agree that Allied soldiers' lives were saved - especially as it was the belief (generally justified) that the Japanese army was likely to fight to the last man.
Of course Hirohito was badly advised and was certainly pressurised, and probably actually believed at one time that he really was a god. In which case the refusal to surrender after Hiroshima could have been justified in his eyes.

As for the subject of this thread, there's no doubt that Hamas contains lots of fanatics - and logic and moral responsibility hold little sway when you have a red mist in front of your eyes.

Maggot: I happen to agree with you completely. I posed the question to provoke comment.

It's very easy for latter-day revisionists to preach about the morality of the atomic bombs on Japan, but they weren't sitting where Harry Truman was sitting in 1945.

The difference is that now nobody has used nuclear weapons again. My own belief is that it will be a rogue state or a terrorist organisation that will next do so.