scary

That go to both sides - Israel & Hizballah. They started it, the whole region was quite - we didnt bomb anyone {in Lebanon}, and suddenly they attacked. what do they think that we don't strike back ? Absolutely correct, that does apply to both sides. However, Hizbullah didn't just expect Israel to fire back, they wanted Israel to fire back. By over-reacting, Israel has played right into Hizbullah's hands. When you say 'they started it', to whom do you refer? It was Hizbullah that started it when they killed and captured IDF personnel, yet it is Lebanon and the Lebanese that are the target of Israeli reprisals. I think everyone here agrees that the killing of 8 soldiers and kidnapping of 2 others was a bad thing. I believe most Lebanese think the same. Israel could have considered Hizbullah's demands, as it has done before, or, better still, could have tried a co-operative response with the Lebanese government. The latter would have done wonders for international relations in the Middle East, and would have earned Israel a lot of support. Instead, Israel started bombing Lebanon, losing it support and setting international relations in the Middle East back decades. There is no difference between Israel's attacks and Hizbullah's subsequent rocket attacks. Israel started with the moral high ground and chose to abandon it in favour of some warped ideal of revenge.

I said 'if' not 'they will'. 'If' Israel can 'accidentally' fire on Lebanese infrastructure and 100+ civilians then it can 'accidentally' fire on the UK ships. If you don't care about Lebanese civilians why should anyone else care about Israeli civilians? You will care if Syria and Iran end up in the conflict, possibly dragging the rest of the world in and Israel is bombed back to the Mesozoic era. The moral of the story is don't fire on someone and expect them not to fire back.

I repeat:Will you ever be capable of understanding the concept that both sides can be wrong? In what way? Do you not understand cause and effect?

Israel is making a rod for it's own back again. Israel starts by using sonic boom overflights and shelling Gaza for months, allegedly to stop Qassam rocket attacks. A rather inexplicable tactic only compounded by the fact that five years of Qassam rocket attacks have caused less deaths than one Israeli airstrike. After 29 Palestinians are killed and 104 injured in June by the shelling, Palestinian militants retaliate by killing two soldiers and kidnapping another. I really cannot see Israeli politicians and the IDF being all that surprised that their actions would result in retaliatory attacks. The Palestinian militants demand the release of some Palestinian prisoners. So, does Israel try to come up with some sort of compromise, such as releasing all of the thousands of prisoners held without charge - which is far from unreasonable? No, they destroy Gaza's infrastructure, cutting off 750,000 people from electricity and water and kidnap half its government. Since Syria was forced to leave Lebanon last year Hizbollah has been losing its credibility. Seeing the events in Gaza, Hizbollah has used them as an excuse - and it is just an excuse, Sunni Hamas and Shia Hizbollah are hardly the closest allies - for a copycat attack, in the hope that Israel over-reacts, isolating themselves and garnering support for Hizbollah in Lebanon. Ever predictable Israel over-reacts. Israel is driving anti-Syria Lebanon back into the arms of Hizbollah. If the Lebanese government collapses as a result, which is not unlikely, anti-Israel Syria, backed by Iran will take control. Israel could easily start WWIII. And Israel will lose WWIII. An interesting article by Henry Siegman here Who said this. Or did you just make it up? Yes, that would be wrong. Will you ever be capable of understanding the concept that both sides can be wrong? Of course, you would think the 'best pilots in the world' would have fewer 'accidents'. Every time the IDF kill a civilian it's an 'accident'. I guess the IDF shooting at another news crew last week was an accident too. What if Israel 'accidentally' fires on HMS Illustrious and HMS Bulwark? What do you think a suitable response would be? Bear in mind they're not Israeli tin cans so are quite capable of sinking the entire Israeli fleet and, with 500 of HM's finest on board, launching an invasion of Israel.

Because this is the 'Middle East' thread, not the 'Life and Times of scary' thread. Three countries armed with what? The best 'air defense' they've got are RPGs which aren't going to do much to a fast jet. It would be a step up a few levels if they built themselves some mangonels and onagers to put a bit of rock/flak in the sky. It never is. If they employed them it wouldn't need to be stated. Don't call me Army, I'm thinking man's infantry if you don't mind. But I'm sure some kind and switched on soul will point out the obvious to you if you are that interested. That might just be the point. I'm sure IDF pilots aren't bad at what they do, but what they do is extremely limited. It was 26 actually. Bloody good pilots them Iraqis

How exactly did you come to that hilarious conclusion? When was the last time an IDF pilot faced effective air defense, AAA, SAMs, etc.? When was the last time an IDF pilot faced another aircraft, dog-fight style? When was the last IDF anti-armour helicopters faced, you know, armour? When was the last time an IDF pilot did something as simple as a carrier landing? IDF pilots spend their time shooting fish in barrels. Best in the world We? You're not in the IDF yet. They that are do find difficulty telling the difference between armed terrorists and children playing football though. Perhaps they should hold themselves to a higher standard.

Erm, that was down to Bush Snr. and Cheney in 1991 when there was already a Shia uprising to which assistance had been promised by Bush - but then he got bored and decided against it, despite other nations and the US military wanting to see it through. It would have been finished before the year was out. If you want to know why Iraqis don't trust Western troops, it might have something to do with the punishment meted out to them after the uprising failed. Bush Snr. is as responsible for as many coalition deaths as his spineless son. Bush Jnr should fish out his balls and try getting down and dirty in Daddy's war himself instead of posing for photo opportunities wearing a uniform other people work for. Still, at least he gets to call himself a 'War President'.

Well, there is your first error. Research is supposed to be undertaken without opinion, anyone can research something in order to support their own opinion. Just remember the relationship between opinions and arseholes. I'm probably pre-empting a few people here when I say, huh? Local newspaper? Photograph? Straw man, anyone? Could you perhaps show the last time you used your own research in this thread, particularly in regard to whether the BBC is biased against Israel? Could you also explain how 'Chechen insurgents -- Or freedom fighters --...' is indicative of media bias? Again with the straw man. The media has bias, as you are well aware, no one has said it doesn't. The debate is about the BBC and its supposed bias against Israel. No rebuttal? Are those links at the bottom of my previous post broken? I just tried them and they are not. They definitely show stories of Israel/Palestine from different angles, which refutes the notion that the BBC is biased. As for attacking people, ad hominems seems to be your favourite recourse as soon as you are aware that your secundum quid arguments are failing.

Bullshit. So your idea of evidence is a blog? William Porter should feel proud that you hold bloggers in such high regard. Or is it just those that use 'lefty/leftist' as if it were somehow insulting. It doesn't take you long to go back to 'Honest Reporting', does it. So, now your idea of evidence of BBC bias is that in a program broadcast on Radio 4 and the World Service called 'From Our Own Correspondent', that is about the thoughts and experiences of correspondents - and isn't actually a news program - one of them said that she cried. Now, that was not because Arafat was ill, but because she was thinking about her shared experiences of the siege. Instead of linking to the most banal blogs and revisionist sites you can find on the web, try doing some of your own research and develop your own judgements. People will take you a lot more seriously than they will while you continue to regurgitate and assimilate the opinions of random nut-jobs on the internet. I'll help get you started with some examples of other episodes of 'From Our Own Correspondent': Israeli elections. Qassam rocket attacks First encounters with a militant family Life in post-occupation Gaza The evidence so far suggests that the BBC shows stories from all sides. Try looking some more yourself.

No, it doesn't. The fact that he is quite nuts and a particularly vicious racist does. I never said it was neutral, I was pointing out the fact that the site you used to back-up your views is even less neutral. You might try reading the BBC's Charter and agreement before repeating that statement, or at least provide some proof of your assertions. 5.1{c} may throw some light on it for you: treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality, both in the Corporation's news services and in the more general field of programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy, and do not contain any material expressing the opinion of the Corporation on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting and matter contained in programmes which consist of proceedings in either House of Parliament or proceedings of a local authority or a committee of two or more local authorities; The BBC has no choice but to be impartial. The BBC has to report 'news' - not 'news according to Israel' or 'news according to Palestine' just plain, straightforward news without an opinion. Good blanket statement that. Being hostile to Israeli policy and being hostile to Israel are not the same thing. You are using the same arguments as The Avon Lady, in between the ad hominems. If the coat fits. *Edit - Poor Grammar* anal retentive that I am.

Take a look around the rest of the site (mute your computer and put on some sunglasses first though). It has a very interesting take on things - and a possible problem with their Caps Lock. Be careful though, the banging-on-about-the-Holocaust-ometer goes off the scale. From the front page: 'The "Palestinians" are still tortured by the residual shame of their flight. Their shame is so great because in their eyes running from Jews was like running from women!' 'ISRAEL'S GROWING CANCER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ARAB Citizens of Israel!' Not at all racist. 'ISRAELI-ARAB KNESSET MEMBERS ARE AGENTS FOR THE ENEMY!' 'FACT: One out of every four children inside Israel is Moslem. The annual Arab-Israeli population growth rate is 3.4% while that of the Jewish-Israelis but 1.4%. Do the math and you will see a demographic catastrophe just over the horizon!' Nor this. Apparently Israel's military responses are mild: 'That Roman now sits in the State Department and the United Nations and every time Israel offers any half-hearted response to an attack on Jewish civilians, he keeps reiterating, "Israel is using excessive force---Jew, Fight Fair!"' Tatiana Soskin wasn't trying to incite a riot when she tried to stick a drawing of Mohammed as a pig on to an Arab shop. She was the victim, yes. Very neutral that site. A bit like the neutral search of CSM, on that most balanced of sources, Honest Reporting.

Could you please refrain from telling me what I don't know. I've been in the military since you were learning to tie your shoelaces, oddly enough I do know one or two things military. It doesn't matter what you call an Apache or what ordnance is strapped to the side. Missiles and rockets make big bangs, they're not for attacking individuals in an urban environment. There is plenty of other equipment suitable for such a task. Or try the non-lethal and more effective capturing option - there is more information available from a live prisoner than a dead splat. Do we have to debate semantics now? It makes a lot of difference, it completely changes the meaning of the quote. If you don't understand this, it explains why you struggle providing contextual, accurate quotes.

I repeat: You believe Israel deliberately targets civilians. Contrary to your beliefs, constantly repeating something doesn't make it true. As you will see if you look very, very carefully, the word 'deliberately' does not appear anywhere in that quote. Conspiracy nuts, anyone? Are Palestinians under siege? Well, they're fenced into their own country, their money is withheld by Israel, their access to, food, water and medical treatment is restricted. Power, communications and sanitation are provided on a whim. So clearly, yes, they are under siege. What are the results of a siege? Disease and malnutrition leading to serious health problems, lower birth rates and higher infant mortality. Eventually the population becomes unsustainable. In the mean time, dissension brews and, seeing no alternative form of redress, the area becomes a breeding ground for terrorism. Are Israelis incapable of understanding this? Obviously not. They know what the results will be, and not one of them is a reduction in terrorism, in fact, quite the contrary. Or are you suggesting that Israelis are too dim to understand the impact of their actions? What if terrorist willingly hang out near civilians? It's not the first time terrorists use civilians as human shields. so the civillians can go back inside the home  . .i dunno If they still have a home. You seem to be suggesting that if Palestinians go outside it's their own fault of they're killed by Israeli air-strikes. By the same logic, if an Israeli is killed by a suicide bomber it must be their problem for daring to venture outside, no? You really have swallowed the party line, haven't you. Israel's actions are akin to using a sledgehammer on a thumb-tack It has a whole heap of equipment at it's disposal, yet demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge on their purposes. Apaches are for air support and attacking armour. They are not for killing individuals in an urban terrain. High civilian death counts in such a situation are not an accident but an inevitibility. A rifle is quite capable of doing the job with much less risk to civilians. Even better still, get some boots on the ground and arrest the terrorists. In combating Northern Irish terrorism, British security forces killed only 368 people in total over 32 years, but arrested, tried and imprisoned 8-10,000 pIRA members alone. Which country's tactics have worked?

No I don't. Understanding why they do it isn't the same as excusing it. Until Israel and Israelis try to understand why they do it, it will continue. Criticising Israeli policy doesn't mean agreeing with Palestinian terrorism, some people are too stupid to understand that. If you can provide a quote of me using the phrase 'Israel deliberately targets civilians', 1 bazillion shekels is yours. If you can't, then you are a liar. I will say that Israel disregards Palestinian civilians, considering them expendable, then complains about and wonders why there is terrorism. Yes. Can you prove that it doesn't? Can you explain its bizarre strategies for 'stopping' terrorism that do nothing but inflame the situation? Here's a big wake-up call for you, if there is still terrorism, the policies aren't working. No I didn't. Remedial literacy lessons are in order. Try not to misquote me in future. Yes, everyone must agree with everything Israel says and does or they're propagandists, terrorist sympathisers, Holocaust deniers, 'anti-semitic' and just plain wrong. By the way, the BBC isn't allowed to take a political stand or show any bias, you may wish to check these things instead of making ill-informed statements. One of my neighbours is a rather nice Jewish, former concentration camp detainee who left Israel because of its actions in Palestine. He'll be watching the World Cup at my house on Saturday, along with a few other people, two of them Muslim. Shockingly, none of us will try to kill another. No need to go any further. I said 'random houses, as in houses that just happens to be near a house used by terrorists and I asked how that is supposed to stop terrorism, not how judicious you find it. At least try to answer the questions asked. You have a point? They don't seem to declare themselves friends at all, there is no use of the word 'friend' on there in relation to Rachel Corrie. I've come to the conclusion they're not friends, they have never met her and you're making it up. Now, if you would care to stop the ad hominems and put forward a salient, well constructed and informed argument, perhaps using less straw men, I'm sure people would appreciate it.

It really is about time that FIFA dragged themselves out of the stone age and started using video referees or at the very least used match videos to take retrospective action against players found to have been diving or simulating injury. It would soon stop all the cheating and the complaining about refereeing decisions, the game would be much better for it. Still, it wasn't a bad game and France did deserve to win.

Perhaps you could explain how someone who has spent many years combating terrorists on three different continents is a 'terror apologist'. Any evidence would do. Perhaps you could even debate the point as to how demolishing random houses stops terrorism, preferably without any dubious links or misquotes. I would suggest not misusing the word 'ironic' while displaying the Stars and Stripes, it reinforces the common stereotype. There also appears to be no evidence that they are Rachel Corrie's 'friends'.

If you take a look at the whole clause, it says largely innocent. Not all 16,000 homes had tunnels, as Balschoiw showed you, in the last 6 years approximately 90 inter-connected tunnel entrances have been found - less tunnels. That means a maximum of around 90 houses to be legitimately demolished. I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make here. To begin with, I have had extensive training in both tunnel and cave warfare, so definitely do know what I am talking about. Secondly, I never said it didn't have multiple entrances, tunnels usually do. I did say: But that doesn't change the fact that Israel don't only demolish the houses with the tunnel entrances - they destroy every house in the area - tunnel or no tunnel, while they fail to destroy the tunnels themselves. There is no tactical or strategic reason for Israel's actions. It doesn't prevent the tunnels, is does create lots of potential terrorists with a quite legitimate grudge, and - the pun is unavoidable - it drives known terrorists underground.

Except it's not that simple. For a start, you've just had a soldier kidnapped by use of a tunnel. No houses, still tunnels. 16,000 houses destroyed means 16,000, largely innocent, families homeless. With at least 5 people per family, that is a minimum of 80,000 people, already in poverty, now without homes or any other possessions. Those 80,000 people now really despise Israel. Do you think they are more or less likely to become terrorists or terrorist sympathisers? With the very limited social service structure available to them, who do you think are the most likely people to come to their rescue - terrorist groups by any chance? No doubt, some of these people were already terrorists - but how is Israel supposed to monitor them and collect intelligence now they have effectively disappeared from a structured environment? Detecting tunnels in such circumstances is easy, and well within Israels capabilities. Destroying tunnels is also very easy - An IDF spokesman is talking nonsense. Both military and civil engineers are quite capable of setting demolitions charges - a large proportion of infantry are capable of doing such a job, and it doesn't take a PhD and all the equipment of NATO to fill a shaft with concrete/rubble. Destroying the homes of terrorists isn't unreasonable. Destroying homes because they are in the neighbourhood of terrorists is despicable. Collective punishment is against international law for a reason, only Israel and some of the world's worst dictators employ it. With some of its people being the victims of collective punishment in the past, Israel really should know better. Do you know everything your neighbours do? What if it transpired that one of your neighbours was colluding with Palestinian terrorists? Would you think it justifiable that their house and all the other houses in the neighbourhood, including yours, were destroyed? It would be no different than doing it in Palestine. Israel condemns attacks on its own civilians, but expends an awful lot of energy targeting Palestinian civilians. The only possible conclusion for Israel's actions is that is trying to make a Palestinian state un-viable. It's uncomfortably close to genocide by proxy - hold a people under siege, let nature take its course. Well done, that wins the award for sickest comment I've seen or heard today.

How do you come to that conclusion then? There are many more religions than those involving Jesus and I've not seen any evidence that he did or did not exist. The bible doesn't count as evidence. Semitic is not the same as Jewish. Anti-Semitic is not the same as anti-Jewish. Or is it because Christians have essentially achieved what they set out to do in establishing a major power base? The Vatican has an awful lot of say in World events, substantially more than any other religious group. Both Ireland and Italy wanted the phrase 'Christian values' in the European constitution and Christianity has a bigger say in US politics and legislation than pretty much anything else. And if you think Christianity has evolved, take a look at certain parts of Africa where Christians are still trying gain power. Unlike Christian countries I suppose. What book is it people swear on in court, and how credible would a witness be considered that refused? What is it that holds sway over US law? Gay marriage - just not Christian. You are very, very wrong and the conflict is in Northern Ireland, not Ireland. Potted history for you: Catholics enacted an apartheid on Protestants in Ireland. The British fought the Catholics. Protestants enacted an apartheid on Catholics in Northern Ireland. The British tried to stop it. The Catholics fought the Protestants. The Protestants fought the Catholics. The British got stuck in the middle. The Catholics fought the British. Both Northern Ireland and the Republic were already independent. Try walking down the Falls Road at night with a big 'I'm a Protestant' sign. When the wounds have healed try walking down Shankhill with an 'I'm a Catholic' sign. Actually, you said: As with most religions, I take a stance against what I see as "wrong" within them. Yet you fail to see any wrong in a religion that is just as much a 'death cult' as Islam. Maybe they made it up too. It is not at all certain. You are assuming, and assuming wrongly. Is it possible for some people to talk about Muslims without referring to 9/11? Do you honestly think a site that has as its header Islam: the Religion of Peace (believe it or else) along with a picture of someone with a head wound is balanced and trustworthy? How many times will people question the sources you use as evidence for your beliefs before you start to take notice? 5,000 acts committed by how many Muslims out of the 1bn? Of course, your figure of 5,000 is wildly wrong and yet still doesn't come close to the number of terrorist incidents committed in the last five years, mostly by secular groups, such as FARC. The site you give uses both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to bolster its numbers as well as being filled with things such as: 21-year-old woman stabbed to death by Pakistani on her wedding day for rejecting an arranged Muslim marriage. That is a murder, not a terrorist attack just like the many other similar events listed. According to that site any Muslim that kills someone is a terrorist. Following the same logic, how many of the ~16,000 murders committed in the US each year are by people considering themselves Christian, and therefore, are Christian terrorists?

Well that was confusing. Brilliant first half from England, played to their true potential. Cole's goal was simply stunning, I'd be surprised if we see a better goal on the rest of the tournament. Second half was just embarrassing. England probably have the best defence in football - usually - but I've seen school boys defend better against set pieces. Both of Sweden's goals - and the near misses - were gifted by England. Shocking half. Down to two forwards (and one just out of nappies, that Sven doesn't seem to want to play anyway) isn't promising for the rest of the tournament. Do you think anyone would notice if Defoe went on in Wallcot's shirt?

Look closer at the second definition, neither fear or rationality are needed. Try the more difficult route of finding what is right with them, including Judaism. If Jesus existed he would have been a Semite. So how would he be anti-Semitic? And how is this different from Judaism or Christianity? Bear in mind, the three Abramic religions are all essentially based on the Old Testement. A: Because you're obsessed with demonising Muslims B: So the IRA/UDF etc. haven't put any effort into blowing people up because one sides version of Christianity is better than the others? Christians have never tried to convert or kill all non-Christians? What is the reason you don't criticise Judaism? Perhaps you could provide some evidence of that figure you made up. When you've finished researching you will find that most terrorists are secular. Here are some more for you: 2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. Deuteronomy 17 1 These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess—as long as you live in the land. 2 Destroy completely all the places on the high mountains and on the hills and under every spreading tree where the nations you are dispossessing worship their gods. 3 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those places. Deuteronomy 12 23 My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out. 24 Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces. 31 "I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the desert to the River. I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you. 32 Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods. 33 Do not let them live in your land, or they will cause you to sin against me, because the worship of their gods will certainly be a snare to you." Exodus 23 They are just the sources of three of the 613 Mitzvot by which Jews are supposed to live. Lots of death and destruction in them. The fact that the militias in Somalia are Muslim is totally irrelevent to the conflict there, whether or not they use it as a veil. The fighting would occur whether they were Muslim, Christian or Zoroastrian. It is the result of a power vacuum and many people wishing to be the big fish in a small pond. A thirst for power is part of the human condition, it is not limited to followers of any religion.

There are no known* terrorist organisations in North Korea and a lack of information from the outside world and an excess of propaganda prevents any chance of a popular uprising. *That doesn't mean there aren't any, just that we don't know. Although it is unlikely.

I don't think there is much militarily that the US could do. They're too stretched for anything more than the most minor of ground campaigns and a missile strike on North Korea is a whole different kettle of fish than a strike on Afghanistan. The first problem is what do they target? The second, bigger, problem is, unlike Afghanistan, the DPRK has the potential and the will to strike back and that could lead the World down a path best avoided. Militarily, the best route would probably be to attempt to knock it out of the sky but, despite all the hype about anti-missile systems, that could end up being an embarrassing failure, and if successful, there could still be reprisals. Any response is probably best left to Japan/Australia/New Zealand etc., with assistance from US forces in South Korea. In reality, the most likely response would be political, and I don't think the DPRK will care too much about that. Expect to see an ICBM in the skies near you soon (if you live in the Far East).

When you say: that is not a critique of Islam, it is an attack on Muslims personally. Bearing in mind there are ~1bn Muslims in the world and rising, your suggestion that 'for the most part' they wish to impart violent death on the infidels would mean that between 8.5% and 17% of the World's population is determined to kill the other 83%. Perhaps you could show some pictures or other evidence of this amassing army that is many times bigger than the combined active and reserve forces of the rest of the world. Or perhaps what you said is Islamophobic nonsense?

I do plenty of reading, thanks. They refused to play because they weren't being paid enough. This is the second time today that they have threatened to not play, the issue was apparently solved after their payment was guaranteed by FIFA after they lowered their initial demand to an undisclosed sum. They have since changed their minds about this reduced amount. Wanting $196,300 each plus $38,000 for a win and $19,000 for a draw from a country with a GDP of $1,700 per capita is a long way from playing for charity. Besides which, they are getting the priceless advertising of their own skills in the largest sporting event in the world. Play well and, no doubt, they will soon be offered 5, 6 or even 7 figure contracts with European club sides. They have been involved in this dispute since before the World Cup started, if they had any ideas of not playing then they should have withdrawn and allowed another team to take their place.