egg

That's a more sensible and credible explanation Del than some of that above, but martyrdom of the whole country and it's people would be the impact of a nuclear attack by Iran on Israel. Lighthouse's opinion that the Iranian interpretation and enforcement of sharia on the ground is evidence that they'd risk their entire nation to destroy Israel is one that I find ridiculous. Iran, like anyone else with a nuke, want a nuclear deterrent. That works - nobody will now attack North Korea, and the west back off from Russia . Iran are plainly a future Iraq/Afghanistan, but with a nuke, they have guaranteed safety albeit with a lifetime of sanctions for not doing as they're told.

In summary: You: 'They're Islamist nutters' You: They kill gay people in accordance with their interpretation of Islam. You: Cos of that they want to destroy Israel, and as a consequence see the destruction of their country and people. Me: You're absolutely bonkers, and clearly don't have much time for Islam or Islamists.

The suggestion that because they have a strict interpretation of Sharia law means that they'll wipe out Israel even if it means mutual destruction, is as absurd an opinion as I've seen on this thread. Absolutely bonkers.

Night

We got there quicker than I thought. They're more likely to use a nuke cos they're Muslim. What a reasonably thought out reason that is. On the wider issue, this isn't religious per se. Sure, there are historical claims, but the religious aspect in recent times was the western desire to create a Jewish state hot on the heels of WW2. Since then it's been about resistance, occupation, punishment, reprisals, repeat.

Do you honestly believe that Iran want a nuclear weapon to eliminate Israel? If so, do you really think that they would be stupid enough to use it? Iran want a nuclear deterrent for the same reason as us, Russia, the US France, North Korea, etc. Why are they felt more likely to use a nuke than anyone else? It's one thing wanting a nation not to exist, it's a hell of a stretch to suggest that a nation would allow itself to be destroyed to take out another. On the wider issue, your belief is that your belief is the right one. It sure ain't universally held, and I suspect isn't the widespread view in this country. This forum ain't a reliable barometer for sensible opinion.

It will have been breached if they stormed Rafah. I think the US have fortunately done enough to rule that out.

From the off, their stated aim to eliminate Hams was never achievable. I'm glad you now agree.

And there lies the problem - the belief that this mess is all as a consequence of 7/10. Of course, his episode in Gaza flows from that. What happened prior to that was mainly on Israel. What we're seeing in the west bank is on Israel. Many western governments have all but renounced this Israeli government but still they continue, seemingly cheered on by many. The solution does not lie exclusively with Hamas. You know that.

Err, it's Israel's stated aim to eliminate Hamas.

They didn't wipe out the PLO. Or if they did, they got Hamas as a replacement. Nobody can seriously believe that Hamas, or as a minimum it's cause and backers, will be eliminated by this.

Running

Lol at the daft cunts finding that funny.

More poor whataboutery, and rather misses the points that a) Ukrainians have an actual country b) that there's a wee bit more space to move people about in Ukraine and c) that 2/3 of Ukraine hasn't been destroyed. You can also throw into to mix that (according to the forum experts) Russia's army is fecked and can barely cobble together a tank or missile.

Why should Egypt absorb 2.3m people when the western world, the us included, can see that the logical solution is ceasefire and a Palestinian state. Do you support or oppose that?

This is not a war, it's revenge by Israel. The latter part is bollox. Hamas approach does not mean that they do not give a fuck about the civilians. By your rationale, Israel didn't give a fuck about it's people by their behaviour towards the Palestinian people - your point, if it's right, must cut both ways. Israel hold hostages too, thousands of them. They pick up more Palestinians a week (without charge or explanation) than Hamas hold. Regardless, your WW2 comparison was a poor one. Very poor. Of course, but apparently they're a terrorist organisation in charge of a non state.

Israel? The Palestinians don't have a state...

They're either a bunch of terrorists, or a government with an army. They can't be both. Regardless, it ain't remotely comparable to WW2.

Floor

Terrible comparison. WW2 was a war, with actual militaries fighting each. This ain't a war. Hamas is a terrorist organisation. They have no military, navy, or air force. This is Israel smashing the shit out of Gaza (and detaining thousands of West Bank citizens without charge) in response to a terrorist attack. And the continued laughing at SoG's post are a bit pathetic. He's an idiot, but play the post.

This forum. Charles gets nothing like the flak that Smallbone does, despite contributing a hell of a lot less.

Agreed that he needs a holding player alongside him, and Downes is the best we've got. It's a shame that Charles has flattered to deceive as, on paper, he'd be a great pairing with Smallbone. On that, I find it surprising that Smallbone gets so much flak but that Charles gets an easy ride despite costing a fortune.

Activity

My only real criticism of the lad is that he's not great at playing on the half turn which really slows us down. I like that he gets into good positions, that he uses the ball well, that he makes good runs. He's definitely not a holding midfielder, but I like that he'll do a job for the team. There's loads of people who don't understand the game who can't recognise what he does well, but jump all over him for what he doesn't. I met one bloke yesterday who thought he was atrocious at the weekend. I asked if he didn't like the 2 x assists, but apparently they don't count as everything else was apparently shit! Bless. I like the lad. A bit to work on still, but there's a player there.

And some people tell us he's a better option than Manning. The kid is a mile away from being ready.