hypochondriac

It was this graph:

Probably. It's mainly to do with the motivation being a political or religious ideology which to be fair you could argue is any killing except accidental.

I was genuinely surprised by that figure. If I had to guess I would say stuff like antifa violence and I remember a few shootings in America but not much in the UK.

I was genuinely surprised by that figure. If I had to guess I would say stuff like antifa violence and I remember a few shootings in America but not much in the UK.

No: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." Indiscriminate killing of multiple people in heavily populated civillian areas is one type of terrorism and the majority of high profile cases of this in the past decade or two is Islamist in nature with the odd right wing and left wing scumbag thrown in.

TBF he didn't say terrorism he said "attacks like this" ie indiscriminate killing in heavily populated civillian areas. The vast majority of the time in recent years that tends to be an Islamist nutter.

There was the bloke who killed the MP but I'm not sure murdering one person is quite the same- as horrible as it is.

TBF this is a couple of years old but it looks like Far left terror was the major cause of terrorist incidents and deaths although Islamic groups are the largest groups who commit terrorism which is maybe why they are so easily brought to mind when incidents like this occur: Global Terrorism Index 2022: Key findings in 6 Charts - ISD (isdglobal.org)

To be fair I think that speaks more to the fact that the quality in the league this year is particularly strong rather than our players lacking quality. You could make a case for THB, Downes and Armstrong at least alongside KWP obviously.

I expect his point is that in the 80s lots of bombings were committed by the IRA so if there had been a bombing incident it wouldn't have been outlandish to make an assumption about who was behind it. Just because it subsequently turns out not to be them doesn't make the original assumption a racist one. I personally tend to avoid speculation about the perpetrators before facts are known nowadays but everybody thinks about what it could be because often it is someone shouting Allahu Akbar.

So you equate the actions of Hamas to Nelson Mandela? Their actions are justified?

Yeah that's what that Labour trade union member said. He was wrong too. There's no ambiguity that Hamas are a terrorist organisation.

That's what part of the discussions would focus on I'd imagine.

Where did I say that? Absolutely huge jump from that to supporting raping, murdering and kidnapping of hostages.

Like I have said repeatedly, once the hostages have been returned and Hamas has been dismantled for a generation there will hopefully then be an opportunity for negotiation to work towards a process for peace that will hopefully involve both sides being free from violence and this will of course mean compromise and change on both sides. The hope would be that those doing the negotiating are not ideologically captured by fantasy religion and want to work towards a real solution.

Whilst Israel occupy the West Bank they should support the holding of innocent hostages and the raping and murdering of Hamas?

Yes.

If Palestinians openly opposed Hamas, supported the return of hostages and publicly stated their desire to work towards peace whilst recognising Israel's right to exist then I would 100% agree with those calling for a solution and for Israel to sort this out. But this will never happen because there's no evidence that they believe or will do any of these things.

Right so it was a quick and dirty solution and you probably wouldn't have supported the formation of the Israeli state. Thanks for answering the question.

It was nothing to do with pressing a fuck you up properly button. They simply saw an opening and took it and it's laughable to suggest they wouldn't do the same thing again and again given the opportunity. They do it because they are at least partly motivated by their interpretation of their religion. You can't reason with a hardline religion and what Israel have rightly reasoned is that the sane response to this is to ramp up security and try to prevent them from doing it again, not peace and love and giving them the chance to repeat their atrocities.

I just wanted to know if you would have supported the formation of the state of Israel if you knew it would have displaced some Palestinians.

Presumably your solution would involve pushing for elected government or spokespeople to act on behalf of the Palestinian people? If we are accepting that Hamas do not speak for them.

I think that convoluted non-answer speaks for itself.

I was referring to the polling which shows that a majority in Palestine support Hamas and their aims who are a terrorist group. It's not a childish jibe but interesting that you consider it so. It's naive in the extreme and in my view historically illiterate to suggest that the onus is on Israel to be conciliatory towards someone like Hamas with the belief that somehow they will renounce their murderous ways and not try to remove the Jewish state from existence as they have done many times over the last century. I don't know for certain because no one does but I expect what Israel wants to do is to largely wipe out the threat of Hamas for a generation and once they are confident of that goal there will no doubt be a conclusion to this war and they may be more amenable to talk about solutions. Hopefully at that point both sides can work towards a solution but I would imagine that Israel would want to feel some degree of confidence that there will be no repeat of October the 7th in the near future which will almost certainly mean they would want negotiations from a group that don't involve Hamas or anyone connected to them.

I was talking hypothetically. If you were able to travel to that period of history and have influence over the outcome would you do so? Do you support the formation of Israel when it was formed even if in your mind that meant that some Palestinians had to be displaced? With regards to your second point like you say it's a nice idea but it's pretty much impossible to get both sides to agree so it's fanciful.