egg

Err. Perhaps establish facts mate before spouting. Osama bin Laden explicitly said that the September 11th attacks were linked to the 1982 Siege of Beirut. He made this statement in a video released in 2004, just before the U.S. presidential election, and offered it as a reason for the attacks. Islamists exist beyond Afghanistan.

Retribution for the siege of Beirut was not taken by an immediate Israeli neighbour, and not against them. Sure, Iran have shown themselves as weak, comparatively, but Israel cannot attack every nation and group who oppose their behaviour and objectives. 2nd point. They've always had that ability - it's entirely their choice how close they permit Kibbutz near the border. A buffer zone does not need to be within Gaza.

That misses the point. Al Qaeda weren't a thing during the siege of Beirut. 19 years later they were, and we got 9/11 as a consequence. Your focus is narrow. 20 hostages. 7/10. Hamas. Etc. There's a much wider picture. It's obvious that revenge for this against Israel and it's supporters will be sought by Islamists. Israel's constant attempts to reduce that threat (e.g. today - Lebanon), and it's ongoing Zionism, only increases the appetite.

The alternative to a "police force" or similar is nothing. That gives a real risk of civil unrest or anarchy. Someone has to police the people. Hamas still rule Gaza, so Hamas operatives will do the policing - that should be obvious. Doubtless you'll explain the alternative...and I don't me in due course when (hopefully) new governance and a civil structure is in place. I mean today and the immediate future.

Or it addresses fears.

Degrading Hamas makes Israel in the immediate future, but breeding another generation of Palestinians (and piers in the Arab world) wanting to resist does not make them safer long term. Additionally, Bin Laden's explanation for 9/11 tells us that organised Jihadi/islamic terrorist groups will seek vengeance at some point. They waited 19 years to do that.

That's a more polished version of what I meant!

It's accurate to say that he hadn't done anything to suggest he'd do it at championship level. That's not to say he may have cut it given a chance. Regardless, the lad needed regular men's football. He probably wouldn't have got that here.

No. He'd done nothing to suggest he'd do it at championship level, and he needed to move on to play regularly. Glad the move is working out for him.

Very odd. They don't need to be vegan.

That's the 2 that you choose to believe. I think the hostages were a consideration, rather than an objective. They said they wanted to eliminate Hamas. That was never going to happen. They knew that. They wanted to weaken them and their supporters, on that we agree. They absolutely wanted to draw in Iran and possibly others. Iran took the bait. Tactically they got that right. Smashing up Gaza was also an objective, particularly it's infrastructure. Whilst I don't claim it to be a government policy, if you watch footage of IDF soldiers, killing as many Palestinians as possible was their objective.

Yep. That's the point.

Because the two conflicts are so different that mentioning them in the same context shows obtusity.

There's a reason NATO have limited their involvement. You know that. Any suggestion that "any president" could use a tactical nuke in that conflict is ridiculous. The US wouldn't, ditto Russia.

And possibly trigger WW3. No danger of that by choking Israel. Daft, daft point from you.

As as I know they're resisting and not smashing up another land, starving it's people, and destroying all it's infrastructure. If I've misunderstood and the Gaza people are in the same boat as the Russians, please enlighten me.

You're losing it mate. Nobody is using a nuke. Any US president can turn off the tap to Israel. The two things are about as different as you could get.

Biden didn't, no. Trump played a part in it, yes. That doesn't alter the reality that any US president could and should have stopped this earlier. Not sure why you think this is an anti Trump thing from me. Biden's stance was disgraceful too.

Any US president could have stopped the assault on Gaza, and at any time. I'm not going to blow smoke up his arse for supplying Israel with as much weaponry as they have, and to allow them to act with impunity for so long. The stance the US has taken in the UN during this has been a disgrace. That stance flows from Trump. Better late than never, yes, but the adulation going his way is nauseating.

Sensible judgement, and pleasing they didn't throw the book at him.

Fucking hell 🤣

Median

As has said a million times, your posting style leaves your posts open to interpretation. Regardless, your focus here has been about Trump and 20 Israeli's. Not a word about the people actually negotiating, or the Palestinian people. There's no objectivity whatsoever.

I disagree with you that the focus here should be on the 20 Israeli's, and your focus on Trump for credit. Thinking that you're wrong, as per, isn't me making stuff up. Daft comment. As per.

Please feel free to quote where you've said that anyone else deserves credit. Your focus is on him.