A selection of the front pages as more horror stories seep out – politicalbetting.com

Carnyx said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Have to say that last night's thread was an absolute classic: HYUFD extolling the relative merits of the Nuremburg Rallies and then Leon proclaiming him a 'genius' before denouncing booze and porn.

Oh? What was so great about the rallies? The catering? The visual design?

RochdalePioneers said:

maxh said:

are you going to continue to imprison them and leave them to die at the hands of Hamas I don’t really understand how a civilian in Gaza can be both responsible for the Hamas government and yet imprisoned by them. This reads like doublethink to me.

We'd be here all day so lets just skip to the last part. I was referring to the government of Egypt. Israel gets grief for Gaza being a prison - yet rarely a word against Egypt for doing the same.

A wave of refugees is coming. Either they voluntarily head south as the IDF advises, or they flee when the IDF advances. They are coming. So what will Egypt do? Because the Rafah border crossing remains closed - there is no free transit out of Gaza into Egypt.

My question was to Egypt. Will you say "Free Palestine" whilst continuing to imprison them? Will you blame Israel whilst pushing the fleeing civilians back into the hands of Hamas and the path of the invading army?

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

maxh said:

are you going to continue to imprison them and leave them to die at the hands of Hamas I don’t really understand how a civilian in Gaza can be both responsible for the Hamas government and yet imprisoned by them. This reads like doublethink to me.

We'd be here all day so lets just skip to the last part. I was referring to the government of Egypt. Israel gets grief for Gaza being a prison - yet rarely a word against Egypt for doing the same.

A wave of refugees is coming. Either they voluntarily head south as the IDF advises, or they flee when the IDF advances. They are coming. So what will Egypt do? Because the Rafah border crossing remains closed - there is no free transit out of Gaza into Egypt.

My question was to Egypt. Will you say "Free Palestine" whilst continuing to imprison them? Will you blame Israel whilst pushing the fleeing civilians back into the hands of Hamas and the path of the invading army?

Egypt is a powder keg. The Al Sisi regime took power in a military coup from a Muslim Brotherhood aligned democratically elected government.

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Have to say that last night's thread was an absolute classic: HYUFD extolling the relative merits of the Nuremburg Rallies and then Leon proclaiming him a 'genius' before denouncing booze and porn.

Oh? What was so great about the rallies? The catering? The visual design?

@HYUFD absolutely did not praise the Nuremberg rallies per se. It was an argument about the benefits and virtues of religious faith. Actually quite a sensitive and philosophical debate for post lagershed PB

Someone praised humanism and @HYUFD rightly scoffed at it saying it lacked the mystique, theatre and majesty of great religion, and that even the Nuremberg rallies or tawdry modern Anglicanism were more compelling than the dreary rituals of humanism

RochdalePioneers said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

TimS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

How come we're not talking about the car that caught fire in Luton any more? For some reason that whole discussion suddenly went dead. Weird.

I'm quite relieved it was a short lived story as I'm flying out from Luton airport tomorrow morning.

There was some idle speculation it was started by an electric car; electric cars were surely involved in the full blaze.

Of course, a tank full of 60 or 70 litres of petrol is hardly a zero fire-risk but I do wonder whether the fire risks from lithium batteries is being fully recognised yet.

Good morning

The fire chief stated the fire started with a diesel suv which quickly spread and involved evs and charging points

He went on to say the car park had no sprinklers

This fire will be subject to a review and recommendations including mandatory sprinkler systems is likely to follow

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2023-10-12/airport-defends-lack-of-sprinklers-but-vows-to-learn-lessons-from-fire

That's like suggesting "an overheating chip pan on a gas hob started the fire that burned my house down, but do you know what? It would have been manageable had the house not been wired into mains electricity".

The point is that EV fires burn hotter and longer, and are a devil to put out.

As it happens, the real scandal is perhaps that the car park did not have a sprinkler system. I wouldn't expect one to put out a fire, but it would buy the fire brigade more time.

If the EV ignites spontaneously. Which it won't. Unlike Combustion engined cars which combust on a regular basis.

As for hotter for an EV, how hot do you need? Combustion engine fires melt the tarmac. Stick them in a confined space and they collapse the building. AN EV battery fire hits 1,000c. The Liverpool fire (no EVs involved) hit 1,200c. Going off the collapse of the Luton structure it seems likely that a similar temperature was reached there.

Taz said:

NickPalmer said:

nico679 said:

No conference bounce for Labour according to Techne .

The same poll numbers from their last poll.

Labour 45 Tories 26 .

Domestic issues not taking centre stage and Sunak being able to channel the Great Wartime Leader routine might have some effect on the by-elections .

I'm relaxed about that poll - following the polls showing a Tory bounce after their conference, this suggests it's evened out. A lead of 19 will do nicely, if confirmed by other polls.

Are you concerned with the reports from the focus group that said they preferred Sunak to Starmer but still planned to vote labour ? We know the labour lead is soft. What needs to be done to firm it up.

This is the one in three seats Labour needs to win. It was mentioned here in the last few days.

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Foxy said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

TimS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

How come we're not talking about the car that caught fire in Luton any more? For some reason that whole discussion suddenly went dead. Weird.

I'm quite relieved it was a short lived story as I'm flying out from Luton airport tomorrow morning.

There was some idle speculation it was started by an electric car; electric cars were surely involved in the full blaze.

Of course, a tank full of 60 or 70 litres of petrol is hardly a zero fire-risk but I do wonder whether the fire risks from lithium batteries is being fully recognised yet.

Good morning

The fire chief stated the fire started with a diesel suv which quickly spread and involved evs and charging points

He went on to say the car park had no sprinklers

This fire will be subject to a review and recommendations including mandatory sprinkler systems is likely to follow

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2023-10-12/airport-defends-lack-of-sprinklers-but-vows-to-learn-lessons-from-fire

As I said the other day..."lessons will be learned" about sprinklers in car parks. Maybe I should set up my own fire safety consultancy?

Are car park sprinkler systems foam or purely water? Isn't there an issue with water for fuel fires?

The few I've seen were just your bog standard water. Firefighting foam is expensive, has a shelf life so needs to be replaced and disposed of, not very nice for the environment and needs to be contained to avoid water runoff once deployed.
Realistically, how many car park vehicle fires end up like Luton? I'd wager there are hundreds, if not thousands of old multistorey parks that don't have automatic sprinkler systems (a lot will at least have a dry riser system that the FS can plug their pumps into)
Where's Big G going to get the money from to retrofit all the old parks with sprinkler systems?

Leon said:

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

maxh said:

are you going to continue to imprison them and leave them to die at the hands of Hamas I don’t really understand how a civilian in Gaza can be both responsible for the Hamas government and yet imprisoned by them. This reads like doublethink to me.

We'd be here all day so lets just skip to the last part. I was referring to the government of Egypt. Israel gets grief for Gaza being a prison - yet rarely a word against Egypt for doing the same.

A wave of refugees is coming. Either they voluntarily head south as the IDF advises, or they flee when the IDF advances. They are coming. So what will Egypt do? Because the Rafah border crossing remains closed - there is no free transit out of Gaza into Egypt.

My question was to Egypt. Will you say "Free Palestine" whilst continuing to imprison them? Will you blame Israel whilst pushing the fleeing civilians back into the hands of Hamas and the path of the invading army?

Egypt is a powder keg. The Al Sisi regime took power in a military coup from a Muslim Brotherhood aligned democratically elected government.

That’s a misframing. There was a popular military coup against the Brotherhood when it turned out they actually are Islamist c*nts

I was in Egypt recently and everyone loathed the brotherhood. Sisi is quite popular for an autocrat

I’d be surprised if there is another revolution in Egypt. If there is I gravely doubt it would be Islamist. The army is firmly in control of Egypt at the moment and they would be jolly hard to dislodge

Big_G_NorthWales said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Foxy said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

TimS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

How come we're not talking about the car that caught fire in Luton any more? For some reason that whole discussion suddenly went dead. Weird.

I'm quite relieved it was a short lived story as I'm flying out from Luton airport tomorrow morning.

There was some idle speculation it was started by an electric car; electric cars were surely involved in the full blaze.

Of course, a tank full of 60 or 70 litres of petrol is hardly a zero fire-risk but I do wonder whether the fire risks from lithium batteries is being fully recognised yet.

Good morning

The fire chief stated the fire started with a diesel suv which quickly spread and involved evs and charging points

He went on to say the car park had no sprinklers

This fire will be subject to a review and recommendations including mandatory sprinkler systems is likely to follow

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2023-10-12/airport-defends-lack-of-sprinklers-but-vows-to-learn-lessons-from-fire

As I said the other day..."lessons will be learned" about sprinklers in car parks. Maybe I should set up my own fire safety consultancy?

Are car park sprinkler systems foam or purely water? Isn't there an issue with water for fuel fires?

The few I've seen were just your bog standard water. Firefighting foam is expensive, has a shelf life so needs to be replaced and disposed of, not very nice for the environment and needs to be contained to avoid water runoff once deployed.
Realistically, how many car park vehicle fires end up like Luton? I'd wager there are hundreds, if not thousands of old multistorey parks that don't have automatic sprinkler systems (a lot will at least have a dry riser system that the FS can plug their pumps into)
Where's Big G going to get the money from to retrofit all the old parks with sprinkler systems?

Fair question and that will be upto those who look at sprinklers in car parks to assess, but it is those responsible for fire safety regulation who will determine the nature of any change to building regulations in this respect

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Plausible scenario

Israel invades Gaza. Unsurprisingly, a LOT of Gazans are killed - as it is quite difficult for 1.1m Gazans to move house in 24 hours

Israel slogs on. Even more die. The West Bank erupts and Hezbollah attacks. Israel is now fighting on 3 fronts, one of them internal

The west funnels aid to Israel. More Gazans die. Now major Arab nations “facilitate” attacks on Israel
- Iran, Syria. Perhaps Jordan, even Saudi

It looks like Israel could lose. America steps in. Europe is afire with deadly riots by Muslim populations. Iran attacks American interests. America attacks Iran. Russia takes advantage and sweeps Ukraine

World War 3

Equally (more?) plausible scenario

Israel invades and occupies at least part of Gaza. Establishes a permanent military presence. Hundreds of thousands are displaced, but the main fighting is over quite quickly and they return home.

There are reprisal attacks in the West Bank and some isolated outbreaks in Western cities. The IDF face regular ambushes in Gaza. But the world's attention moves on. Perhaps there's a catastrophic flood somewhere, or a big change in the Ukraine war, or (quite feasible) a massive US bond market rout and yet another global recession.

And another chapter in the sad ancestral story of the Arabs and Israelis draws to an unsatisfactory close.

I’d say yours is more likely. But not massively so

I reckon the chances of your scenario - basically same old same old - is about 30%. Chances of
mine - major global escalation - more like 20%

50% some mix of the two

What worries me is that the 2020s feels like one of those cursed decades where everything surprises on the downside. The Wuhan flu turned out to be a global plague. Putin really DID invade Ukraine. Liz Truss

The ancestral conflict in the Levant finally turning into a massive international war would be in keeping with the leitmotifs of the 2020s, so far

Foxy said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Foxy said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

TimS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

How come we're not talking about the car that caught fire in Luton any more? For some reason that whole discussion suddenly went dead. Weird.

I'm quite relieved it was a short lived story as I'm flying out from Luton airport tomorrow morning.

There was some idle speculation it was started by an electric car; electric cars were surely involved in the full blaze.

Of course, a tank full of 60 or 70 litres of petrol is hardly a zero fire-risk but I do wonder whether the fire risks from lithium batteries is being fully recognised yet.

Good morning

The fire chief stated the fire started with a diesel suv which quickly spread and involved evs and charging points

He went on to say the car park had no sprinklers

This fire will be subject to a review and recommendations including mandatory sprinkler systems is likely to follow

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2023-10-12/airport-defends-lack-of-sprinklers-but-vows-to-learn-lessons-from-fire

As I said the other day..."lessons will be learned" about sprinklers in car parks. Maybe I should set up my own fire safety consultancy?

Are car park sprinkler systems foam or purely water? Isn't there an issue with water for fuel fires?

The few I've seen were just your bog standard water. Firefighting foam is expensive, has a shelf life so needs to be replaced and disposed of, not very nice for the environment and needs to be contained to avoid water runoff once deployed.
Realistically, how many car park vehicle fires end up like Luton? I'd wager there are hundreds, if not thousands of old multistorey parks that don't have automatic sprinkler systems (a lot will at least have a dry riser system that the FS can plug their pumps into)
Where's Big G going to get the money from to retrofit all the old parks with sprinkler systems?

Vague memories of our annual fire lectures that water isn't great on inflammable liquids as it can disperse the burning fuel. Perhaps if you use enough water it is much less an issue.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Taz said:

Another day, another article from Simon Jenkins in The Guardian pouring scorn on Labours plans to actually provide the homes people need.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-s-supposedly-bold-new-towns-idea-has-been-tried-before-and-it-failed/ar-AA1i6Zwr?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=7a3b2af16c884cd4b9845a74629e93cb&ei=16

Jenkins is elite level Boomer nimbyism.

Foxy said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Foxy said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

TimS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

How come we're not talking about the car that caught fire in Luton any more? For some reason that whole discussion suddenly went dead. Weird.

I'm quite relieved it was a short lived story as I'm flying out from Luton airport tomorrow morning.

There was some idle speculation it was started by an electric car; electric cars were surely involved in the full blaze.

Of course, a tank full of 60 or 70 litres of petrol is hardly a zero fire-risk but I do wonder whether the fire risks from lithium batteries is being fully recognised yet.

Good morning

The fire chief stated the fire started with a diesel suv which quickly spread and involved evs and charging points

He went on to say the car park had no sprinklers

This fire will be subject to a review and recommendations including mandatory sprinkler systems is likely to follow

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2023-10-12/airport-defends-lack-of-sprinklers-but-vows-to-learn-lessons-from-fire

As I said the other day..."lessons will be learned" about sprinklers in car parks. Maybe I should set up my own fire safety consultancy?

Are car park sprinkler systems foam or purely water? Isn't there an issue with water for fuel fires?

The few I've seen were just your bog standard water. Firefighting foam is expensive, has a shelf life so needs to be replaced and disposed of, not very nice for the environment and needs to be contained to avoid water runoff once deployed.
Realistically, how many car park vehicle fires end up like Luton? I'd wager there are hundreds, if not thousands of old multistorey parks that don't have automatic sprinkler systems (a lot will at least have a dry riser system that the FS can plug their pumps into)
Where's Big G going to get the money from to retrofit all the old parks with sprinkler systems?

Vague memories of our annual fire lectures that water isn't great on inflammable liquids as it can disperse the burning fuel. Perhaps if you use enough water it is much less an issue.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Foxy said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

TimS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

How come we're not talking about the car that caught fire in Luton any more? For some reason that whole discussion suddenly went dead. Weird.

I'm quite relieved it was a short lived story as I'm flying out from Luton airport tomorrow morning.

There was some idle speculation it was started by an electric car; electric cars were surely involved in the full blaze.

Of course, a tank full of 60 or 70 litres of petrol is hardly a zero fire-risk but I do wonder whether the fire risks from lithium batteries is being fully recognised yet.

Good morning

The fire chief stated the fire started with a diesel suv which quickly spread and involved evs and charging points

He went on to say the car park had no sprinklers

This fire will be subject to a review and recommendations including mandatory sprinkler systems is likely to follow

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2023-10-12/airport-defends-lack-of-sprinklers-but-vows-to-learn-lessons-from-fire

As I said the other day..."lessons will be learned" about sprinklers in car parks. Maybe I should set up my own fire safety consultancy?

Are car park sprinkler systems foam or purely water? Isn't there an issue with water for fuel fires?

The few I've seen were just your bog standard water. Firefighting foam is expensive, has a shelf life so needs to be replaced and disposed of, not very nice for the environment and needs to be contained to avoid water runoff once deployed.
Realistically, how many car park vehicle fires end up like Luton? I'd wager there are hundreds, if not thousands of old multistorey parks that don't have automatic sprinkler systems (a lot will at least have a dry riser system that the FS can plug their pumps into)
Where's Big G going to get the money from to retrofit all the old parks with sprinkler systems?

Fair question and that will be upto those who look at sprinklers in car parks to assess, but it is those responsible for fire safety regulation who will determine the nature of any change to building regulations in this respect

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Have to say that last night's thread was an absolute classic: HYUFD extolling the relative merits of the Nuremburg Rallies and then Leon proclaiming him a 'genius' before denouncing booze and porn.

Oh? What was so great about the rallies? The catering? The visual design?

@HYUFD absolutely did not praise the Nuremberg rallies per se. It was an argument about the benefits and virtues of religious faith. Actually quite a sensitive and philosophical debate for post lagershed PB

Someone praised humanism and @HYUFD rightly scoffed at it saying it lacked the mystique, theatre and majesty of great religion, and that even the Nuremberg rallies or tawdry modern Anglicanism were more compelling than the dreary rituals of humanism

Barnesian said:

..

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Plausible scenario

Israel invades Gaza. Unsurprisingly, a LOT of Gazans are killed - as it is quite difficult for 1.1m Gazans to move house in 24 hours

Israel slogs on. Even more die. The West Bank erupts and Hezbollah attacks. Israel is now fighting on 3 fronts, one of them internal

The west funnels aid to Israel. More Gazans die. Now major Arab nations “facilitate” attacks on Israel
- Iran, Syria. Perhaps Jordan, even Saudi

It looks like Israel could lose. America steps in. Europe is afire with deadly riots by Muslim populations. Iran attacks American interests. America attacks Iran. Russia takes advantage and sweeps Ukraine

World War 3

Equally (more?) plausible scenario

Israel invades and occupies at least part of Gaza. Establishes a permanent military presence. Hundreds of thousands are displaced, but the main fighting is over quite quickly and they return home.

There are reprisal attacks in the West Bank and some isolated outbreaks in Western cities. The IDF face regular ambushes in Gaza. But the world's attention moves on. Perhaps there's a catastrophic flood somewhere, or a big change in the Ukraine war, or (quite feasible) a massive US bond market rout and yet another global recession.

And another chapter in the sad ancestral story of the Arabs and Israelis draws to an unsatisfactory close.

I’d say yours is more likely. But not massively so

I reckon the chances of your scenario - basically same old same old - is about 30%. Chances of
mine - major global escalation - more like 20%

50% some mix of the two

What worries me is that the 2020s feels like one of those cursed decades where everything surprises on the downside. The Wuhan flu turned out to be a global plague. Putin really DID invade Ukraine. Liz Truss

The ancestral conflict in the Levant finally turning into a massive international war would be in keeping with the leitmotifs of the 2020s, so far

Disaster mode has been turned on in our simulation. The player must be bored. I hope she doesn't just turn us off.

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Have to say that last night's thread was an absolute classic: HYUFD extolling the relative merits of the Nuremburg Rallies and then Leon proclaiming him a 'genius' before denouncing booze and porn.

Oh? What was so great about the rallies? The catering? The visual design?

@HYUFD absolutely did not praise the Nuremberg rallies per se. It was an argument about the benefits and virtues of religious faith. Actually quite a sensitive and philosophical debate for post lagershed PB

Someone praised humanism and @HYUFD rightly scoffed at it saying it lacked the mystique, theatre and majesty of great religion, and that even the Nuremberg rallies or tawdry modern Anglicanism were more compelling than the dreary rituals of humanism

The Nazis were early in the whole politics as mass spectacle thing -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_Light

Helped by using some of the best available artists -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Will

Which brings us back to the conception that evil people *must* be stupid, cowardly and can't have good artistic skills & taste.

Which in turn creates bizarre arguments that either evil people aren't evil, because they are artistic or clever, or that their didn't actually achieve X because they were evil.

There was a chap, quite prominent in the Balkan wars, Radovan Karadžić.

Poet, psychiatrist, politician war criminal. I recall having a bizarre discussion with some people who alternated between believing he was evil and that his poetry was crap/good. That he could be evil and his poetry good, was something that they couldn't encompass. For extra LOLs, none of us had read the poetry in question.

Nigelb said:

Biden edges out Trump in Fox News poll, loses to DeSantis or Haley
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4251779-biden-trump-desantis-haley-2024-poll-fox/

JosiasJessop said:

Another point to make is this:

Hamas did this attack knowing full well that Israel would have to respond. In fact, I would not be surprised if they did it *knowing* Israel *would* respond.

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

..

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Plausible scenario

Israel invades Gaza. Unsurprisingly, a LOT of Gazans are killed - as it is quite difficult for 1.1m Gazans to move house in 24 hours

Israel slogs on. Even more die. The West Bank erupts and Hezbollah attacks. Israel is now fighting on 3 fronts, one of them internal

The west funnels aid to Israel. More Gazans die. Now major Arab nations “facilitate” attacks on Israel
- Iran, Syria. Perhaps Jordan, even Saudi

It looks like Israel could lose. America steps in. Europe is afire with deadly riots by Muslim populations. Iran attacks American interests. America attacks Iran. Russia takes advantage and sweeps Ukraine

World War 3

Equally (more?) plausible scenario

Israel invades and occupies at least part of Gaza. Establishes a permanent military presence. Hundreds of thousands are displaced, but the main fighting is over quite quickly and they return home.

There are reprisal attacks in the West Bank and some isolated outbreaks in Western cities. The IDF face regular ambushes in Gaza. But the world's attention moves on. Perhaps there's a catastrophic flood somewhere, or a big change in the Ukraine war, or (quite feasible) a massive US bond market rout and yet another global recession.

And another chapter in the sad ancestral story of the Arabs and Israelis draws to an unsatisfactory close.

I’d say yours is more likely. But not massively so

I reckon the chances of your scenario - basically same old same old - is about 30%. Chances of
mine - major global escalation - more like 20%

50% some mix of the two

What worries me is that the 2020s feels like one of those cursed decades where everything surprises on the downside. The Wuhan flu turned out to be a global plague. Putin really DID invade Ukraine. Liz Truss

The ancestral conflict in the Levant finally turning into a massive international war would be in keeping with the leitmotifs of the 2020s, so far

Disaster mode has been turned on in our simulation. The player must be bored. I hope she doesn't just turn us off.

If the 'perfect storm' button really has been pressed it means I'm wrong about Trump. He's coming back to the White House.

JosiasJessop said:

Another point to make is this:

Hamas did this attack knowing full well that Israel would have to respond. In fact, I would not be surprised if they did it *knowing* Israel *would* respond.

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

maxh said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

A rather grim warning by Israel.

https://www.reuters.com/world/un-says-israeli-military-warns-11-mln-gazans-relocate-south-2023-10-13/

And when (if) those 1.1 million have left and Israel has occupied Gaza City, will it withdraw and let them go back?

The Palestinians won't believe so, as since 1948 that's not tended to be the case.
Which is of course one of the reasons why 'Egypt should just take them all' isn't likely to be an easy solution.

It might seem odd to us to be so passionately attached to somewhere like Gaza, but many are.

There won't be anything much left in Gaza to be attached to. Hamas are not these poor downtrodden innocents imprisoned by the beastly Jew (ssshhhhh don't mention Egypt). The are genocidal terrorist psychopaths.

Like ISIS before them they need to be eradicated. That means killing most of them. Because they aren't going to just give up or reform - like Jake and Ellwood they are on a Mission from God. They have no interest in the innocents in Gaza other than using them as human shields. And as for Egypt and the rest - they have no interest in the civilians either. They are political pawns left to suffer *by them* for regional points scoring.,

This has to end. The status quo can't be sustained, there is no viable status quo ante to wind the clock back to. We need a long-term solution for the diaspora issue and with respect to Egypt and Jordan and Syria their mission of leaving people in multi-generational refugee camps as Someone Else's Problem is also over.

Israel has demonstrated in recent years that it wants diplomatic solutions. Reaching out to make all kinds of previously unlikely alliances. But if diplomacy doesn't work, it will impose a settlement militarily. And as wounded as it is, and as armed as it is, woe betide any of the powers around it who think they still get to disrupt this.

Genuine, not loaded question.
Why is your and others’ entirely appropriate horror at the actions of Hamas not matched by a horror of indiscriminate bombing and killing of civilians in Gaza?
I can think of a few reasons, and am trying to understand whether my moral equivalence between a civilian Palestinian death and a civilian Israeli one is mistaken.
How do you justify this to yourself? (Again, this sounds loaded, it isn’t).

I think the short answer is that evil bastards who behead babies in their cribs deserve everything that is coming to them.

Indeed. But that doesn't apply to the vast majority of people who are now dying in Gaza. So Max's question still stands.

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

maxh said:

are you going to continue to imprison them and leave them to die at the hands of Hamas I don’t really understand how a civilian in Gaza can be both responsible for the Hamas government and yet imprisoned by them. This reads like doublethink to me.

We'd be here all day so lets just skip to the last part. I was referring to the government of Egypt. Israel gets grief for Gaza being a prison - yet rarely a word against Egypt for doing the same.

A wave of refugees is coming. Either they voluntarily head south as the IDF advises, or they flee when the IDF advances. They are coming. So what will Egypt do? Because the Rafah border crossing remains closed - there is no free transit out of Gaza into Egypt.

My question was to Egypt. Will you say "Free Palestine" whilst continuing to imprison them? Will you blame Israel whilst pushing the fleeing civilians back into the hands of Hamas and the path of the invading army?

Egypt is a powder keg. The Al Sisi regime took power in a military coup from a Muslim Brotherhood aligned democratically elected government.

That’s a misframing. There was a popular military coup against the Brotherhood when it turned out they actually are Islamist c*nts

I was in Egypt recently and everyone loathed the brotherhood. Sisi is quite popular for an autocrat

I’d be surprised if there is another revolution in Egypt. If there is I gravely doubt it would be Islamist. The army is firmly in control of Egypt at the moment and they would be jolly hard to dislodge

A revolution can only succeed if a substantial proportion of the armed forces defect.

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

..

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Plausible scenario

Israel invades Gaza. Unsurprisingly, a LOT of Gazans are killed - as it is quite difficult for 1.1m Gazans to move house in 24 hours

Israel slogs on. Even more die. The West Bank erupts and Hezbollah attacks. Israel is now fighting on 3 fronts, one of them internal

The west funnels aid to Israel. More Gazans die. Now major Arab nations “facilitate” attacks on Israel
- Iran, Syria. Perhaps Jordan, even Saudi

It looks like Israel could lose. America steps in. Europe is afire with deadly riots by Muslim populations. Iran attacks American interests. America attacks Iran. Russia takes advantage and sweeps Ukraine

World War 3

Equally (more?) plausible scenario

Israel invades and occupies at least part of Gaza. Establishes a permanent military presence. Hundreds of thousands are displaced, but the main fighting is over quite quickly and they return home.

There are reprisal attacks in the West Bank and some isolated outbreaks in Western cities. The IDF face regular ambushes in Gaza. But the world's attention moves on. Perhaps there's a catastrophic flood somewhere, or a big change in the Ukraine war, or (quite feasible) a massive US bond market rout and yet another global recession.

And another chapter in the sad ancestral story of the Arabs and Israelis draws to an unsatisfactory close.

I’d say yours is more likely. But not massively so

I reckon the chances of your scenario - basically same old same old - is about 30%. Chances of
mine - major global escalation - more like 20%

50% some mix of the two

What worries me is that the 2020s feels like one of those cursed decades where everything surprises on the downside. The Wuhan flu turned out to be a global plague. Putin really DID invade Ukraine. Liz Truss

The ancestral conflict in the Levant finally turning into a massive international war would be in keeping with the leitmotifs of the 2020s, so far

Disaster mode has been turned on in our simulation. The player must be bored. I hope she doesn't just turn us off.

If the 'perfect storm' button really has been pressed it means I'm wrong about Trump. He's coming back to the White House.

My view is that the nascent war in Israel makes Trump less likely, not more. Americans might elect an isolationist when Russia is invading Ukraine; they'rein my view unlikely to when Arabs are invading Israel. But I'd be interested in tge views of our American posters (who are probably all still in bed).

another_richard said:

Is any politician brave enough to tell the oldies that the era of cruise ships is now over and that we are entering a new era of warships ?

Foxy said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

maxh said:

are you going to continue to imprison them and leave them to die at the hands of Hamas I don’t really understand how a civilian in Gaza can be both responsible for the Hamas government and yet imprisoned by them. This reads like doublethink to me.

We'd be here all day so lets just skip to the last part. I was referring to the government of Egypt. Israel gets grief for Gaza being a prison - yet rarely a word against Egypt for doing the same.

A wave of refugees is coming. Either they voluntarily head south as the IDF advises, or they flee when the IDF advances. They are coming. So what will Egypt do? Because the Rafah border crossing remains closed - there is no free transit out of Gaza into Egypt.

My question was to Egypt. Will you say "Free Palestine" whilst continuing to imprison them? Will you blame Israel whilst pushing the fleeing civilians back into the hands of Hamas and the path of the invading army?

Egypt is a powder keg. The Al Sisi regime took power in a military coup from a Muslim Brotherhood aligned democratically elected government.

That’s a misframing. There was a popular military coup against the Brotherhood when it turned out they actually are Islamist c*nts

I was in Egypt recently and everyone loathed the brotherhood. Sisi is quite popular for an autocrat

I’d be surprised if there is another revolution in Egypt. If there is I gravely doubt it would be Islamist. The army is firmly in control of Egypt at the moment and they would be jolly hard to dislodge

A revolution can only succeed if a substantial proportion of the armed forces defect.

It doesn't have to be a successful revolution, and yes the Egyptian military knows which side its bread is buttered by.

Once again a waiter or tour guide has told @Leon what any western tourist wants to hear.

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

maxh said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

A rather grim warning by Israel.

https://www.reuters.com/world/un-says-israeli-military-warns-11-mln-gazans-relocate-south-2023-10-13/

And when (if) those 1.1 million have left and Israel has occupied Gaza City, will it withdraw and let them go back?

The Palestinians won't believe so, as since 1948 that's not tended to be the case.
Which is of course one of the reasons why 'Egypt should just take them all' isn't likely to be an easy solution.

It might seem odd to us to be so passionately attached to somewhere like Gaza, but many are.

There won't be anything much left in Gaza to be attached to. Hamas are not these poor downtrodden innocents imprisoned by the beastly Jew (ssshhhhh don't mention Egypt). The are genocidal terrorist psychopaths.

Like ISIS before them they need to be eradicated. That means killing most of them. Because they aren't going to just give up or reform - like Jake and Ellwood they are on a Mission from God. They have no interest in the innocents in Gaza other than using them as human shields. And as for Egypt and the rest - they have no interest in the civilians either. They are political pawns left to suffer *by them* for regional points scoring.,

This has to end. The status quo can't be sustained, there is no viable status quo ante to wind the clock back to. We need a long-term solution for the diaspora issue and with respect to Egypt and Jordan and Syria their mission of leaving people in multi-generational refugee camps as Someone Else's Problem is also over.

Israel has demonstrated in recent years that it wants diplomatic solutions. Reaching out to make all kinds of previously unlikely alliances. But if diplomacy doesn't work, it will impose a settlement militarily. And as wounded as it is, and as armed as it is, woe betide any of the powers around it who think they still get to disrupt this.

Genuine, not loaded question.
Why is your and others’ entirely appropriate horror at the actions of Hamas not matched by a horror of indiscriminate bombing and killing of civilians in Gaza?
I can think of a few reasons, and am trying to understand whether my moral equivalence between a civilian Palestinian death and a civilian Israeli one is mistaken.
How do you justify this to yourself? (Again, this sounds loaded, it isn’t).

I think the short answer is that evil bastards who behead babies in their cribs deserve everything that is coming to them.

Indeed. But that doesn't apply to the vast majority of people who are now dying in Gaza. So Max's question still stands.

bigjohnowls said:

another_richard said:

Is any politician brave enough to tell the oldies that the era of cruise ships is now over and that we are entering a new era of warships ?

Booked my first ever cruise in 2025 and now this!

maxh said:

1,500 Palestinians dead.
1,200 Israelis dead.
1.1 million Palestinians forcibly displaced if Israel’s warning is heeded.
400,000 already displaced.
6000 bombs dropped on Gaza.
What is it about the current situation that makes a civilian Israeli life worth more than a civilian Palestinian one to justify such numbers?

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Russia takes advantage and sweeps Ukraine

Your Tischgespräche is plausible up to this bit. If the RF were capable of sweeping Ukraine they'd do it today.

I also don't think that the US would directly engage the RF forces to save the Green T-Shirt Regime if it all went to fuck in Kiev. Other sources of fanciful conjecture are available. DYO-Wikipedia-R.

I wanted to keep it pithy. I agree Russia as things stand cannot sweep Ukraine. But how long will America keep funding Kyiv if it is ALSO desperately trying to aid Israel. There are many ways it could stop

Without that aid Ukraine is fucked. Also, other nations might see this chaotic moment as a good time to help Russia. China? They want the west dethroned. Helping Putin win in Ukraine would really aid that. As Israel fights for its life

Alternatively or additionally, China might see the coming 18 months as the ideal moment to take on Taiwan, as two mad old men fight for the White House

Fancy a gin?

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MaxPB said:

JosiasJessop said:

Another point to make is this:

Hamas did this attack knowing full well that Israel would have to respond. In fact, I would not be surprised if they did it *knowing* Israel *would* respond.

Hamas couldn't let the peace exist and for people in Gaza to get used to living in peace with Israel or any hint of normalised relations between Israel and the Arab world. They carried this out to provoke a response from Israel that they hoped would result in the deaths of Palestinian children to turn another generation of Arabs against Israel.

Hamas give no fucks about Palestinians, all they want is the destruction of Israel by any means necessary and Israel living in peace with its neighbours runs contrary to their stated aim.

Just think on that, Hamas has offered up Palestine's children as a sacrifice for photos they want to use as propaganda in Arab states who were slowly thawing relations with Israel. That's all this is, a photo opp for Hamas with dead Palestinian children.

Agree entirely with this. It is what I have been saying since the attack happened. It also accounts for the clearly intentional torture and defilement of the bodies. Hamas could have made the attack and killed lots of people but they needed to be sure that the response from Israel was unprecidented so they set out to be as barbaric as possible. The more Palestinian civilians who are killed over the next few weeks the better it is for Hamas.

On the barbarism of the attacks. An Israeli volunteer speaks. He implies that 70 children were “cut” - presumably beheaded or dismembered

https://x.com/eylonalevy/status/1712566504032784624?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

It really is Nazi-level stuff; worse than ISIS. I don’t remember ISIS torturing and beheading kids

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MaxPB said:

JosiasJessop said:

Another point to make is this:

Hamas did this attack knowing full well that Israel would have to respond. In fact, I would not be surprised if they did it *knowing* Israel *would* respond.

Hamas couldn't let the peace exist and for people in Gaza to get used to living in peace with Israel or any hint of normalised relations between Israel and the Arab world. They carried this out to provoke a response from Israel that they hoped would result in the deaths of Palestinian children to turn another generation of Arabs against Israel.

Hamas give no fucks about Palestinians, all they want is the destruction of Israel by any means necessary and Israel living in peace with its neighbours runs contrary to their stated aim.

Just think on that, Hamas has offered up Palestine's children as a sacrifice for photos they want to use as propaganda in Arab states who were slowly thawing relations with Israel. That's all this is, a photo opp for Hamas with dead Palestinian children.

Agree entirely with this. It is what I have been saying since the attack happened. It also accounts for the clearly intentional torture and defilement of the bodies. Hamas could have made the attack and killed lots of people but they needed to be sure that the response from Israel was unprecidented so they set out to be as barbaric as possible. The more Palestinian civilians who are killed over the next few weeks the better it is for Hamas.

On the barbarism of the attacks. An Israeli volunteer speaks. He implies that 70 children were “cut” - presumably beheaded or dismembered

https://x.com/eylonalevy/status/1712566504032784624?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

It really is Nazi-level stuff; worse than ISIS. I don’t remember ISIS torturing and beheading kids

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

..

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Plausible scenario

Israel invades Gaza. Unsurprisingly, a LOT of Gazans are killed - as it is quite difficult for 1.1m Gazans to move house in 24 hours

Israel slogs on. Even more die. The West Bank erupts and Hezbollah attacks. Israel is now fighting on 3 fronts, one of them internal

The west funnels aid to Israel. More Gazans die. Now major Arab nations “facilitate” attacks on Israel
- Iran, Syria. Perhaps Jordan, even Saudi

It looks like Israel could lose. America steps in. Europe is afire with deadly riots by Muslim populations. Iran attacks American interests. America attacks Iran. Russia takes advantage and sweeps Ukraine

World War 3

Equally (more?) plausible scenario

Israel invades and occupies at least part of Gaza. Establishes a permanent military presence. Hundreds of thousands are displaced, but the main fighting is over quite quickly and they return home.

There are reprisal attacks in the West Bank and some isolated outbreaks in Western cities. The IDF face regular ambushes in Gaza. But the world's attention moves on. Perhaps there's a catastrophic flood somewhere, or a big change in the Ukraine war, or (quite feasible) a massive US bond market rout and yet another global recession.

And another chapter in the sad ancestral story of the Arabs and Israelis draws to an unsatisfactory close.

I’d say yours is more likely. But not massively so

I reckon the chances of your scenario - basically same old same old - is about 30%. Chances of
mine - major global escalation - more like 20%

50% some mix of the two

What worries me is that the 2020s feels like one of those cursed decades where everything surprises on the downside. The Wuhan flu turned out to be a global plague. Putin really DID invade Ukraine. Liz Truss

The ancestral conflict in the Levant finally turning into a massive international war would be in keeping with the leitmotifs of the 2020s, so far

Disaster mode has been turned on in our simulation. The player must be bored. I hope she doesn't just turn us off.

If the 'perfect storm' button really has been pressed it means I'm wrong about Trump. He's coming back to the White House.

My view is that the nascent war in Israel makes Trump less likely, not more. Americans might elect an isolationist when Russia is invading Ukraine; they'rein my view unlikely to when Arabs are invading Israel. But I'd be interested in tge views of our American posters (who are probably all still in bed).

Trump is pro Israel though, he would go to war with Israel against Hamas and Iran even if he wouldn't go to war with Ukraine against Putin

Trump has been fiercely critical of Netanyahu recently. He's also bought and paid for by Putin.

numbertwelve said:

I think Haley is value for the GOP nomination. It still requires a LOT to change before the primary season, but she feels the most credible challenger if Trump falters. DeSantis is a busted flush IMHO.

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Russia takes advantage and sweeps Ukraine

Your Tischgespräche is plausible up to this bit. If the RF were capable of sweeping Ukraine they'd do it today.

I also don't think that the US would directly engage the RF forces to save the Green T-Shirt Regime if it all went to fuck in Kiev. Other sources of fanciful conjecture are available. DYO-Wikipedia-R.

I wanted to keep it pithy. I agree Russia as things stand cannot sweep Ukraine. But how long will America keep funding Kyiv if it is ALSO desperately trying to aid Israel. There are many ways it could stop

Without that aid Ukraine is fucked. Also, other nations might see this chaotic moment as a good time to help Russia. China? They want the west dethroned. Helping Putin win in Ukraine would really aid that. As Israel fights for its life

Alternatively or additionally, China might see the coming 18 months as the ideal moment to take on Taiwan, as two mad old men fight for the White House

Fancy a gin?

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

..

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Plausible scenario

Israel invades Gaza. Unsurprisingly, a LOT of Gazans are killed - as it is quite difficult for 1.1m Gazans to move house in 24 hours

Israel slogs on. Even more die. The West Bank erupts and Hezbollah attacks. Israel is now fighting on 3 fronts, one of them internal

The west funnels aid to Israel. More Gazans die. Now major Arab nations “facilitate” attacks on Israel
- Iran, Syria. Perhaps Jordan, even Saudi

It looks like Israel could lose. America steps in. Europe is afire with deadly riots by Muslim populations. Iran attacks American interests. America attacks Iran. Russia takes advantage and sweeps Ukraine

World War 3

Equally (more?) plausible scenario

Israel invades and occupies at least part of Gaza. Establishes a permanent military presence. Hundreds of thousands are displaced, but the main fighting is over quite quickly and they return home.

There are reprisal attacks in the West Bank and some isolated outbreaks in Western cities. The IDF face regular ambushes in Gaza. But the world's attention moves on. Perhaps there's a catastrophic flood somewhere, or a big change in the Ukraine war, or (quite feasible) a massive US bond market rout and yet another global recession.

And another chapter in the sad ancestral story of the Arabs and Israelis draws to an unsatisfactory close.

I’d say yours is more likely. But not massively so

I reckon the chances of your scenario - basically same old same old - is about 30%. Chances of
mine - major global escalation - more like 20%

50% some mix of the two

What worries me is that the 2020s feels like one of those cursed decades where everything surprises on the downside. The Wuhan flu turned out to be a global plague. Putin really DID invade Ukraine. Liz Truss

The ancestral conflict in the Levant finally turning into a massive international war would be in keeping with the leitmotifs of the 2020s, so far

Disaster mode has been turned on in our simulation. The player must be bored. I hope she doesn't just turn us off.

If the 'perfect storm' button really has been pressed it means I'm wrong about Trump. He's coming back to the White House.

My view is that the nascent war in Israel makes Trump less likely, not more. Americans might elect an isolationist when Russia is invading Ukraine; they'rein my view unlikely to when Arabs are invading Israel. But I'd be interested in tge views of our American posters (who are probably all still in bed).

Trump is pro Israel though, he would go to war with Israel against Hamas and Iran even if he wouldn't go to war with Ukraine against Putin

Trump has been fiercely critical of Netanyahu recently. He's also bought and paid for by Putin.

If anything his speech said Netanyahu was not tough enough...

squareroot2 said:

maxh said:

1,500 Palestinians dead.
1,200 Israelis dead.
1.1 million Palestinians forcibly displaced if Israel’s warning is heeded.
400,000 already displaced.
6000 bombs dropped on Gaza.
What is it about the current situation that makes a civilian Israeli life worth more than a civilian Palestinian one to justify such numbers?

Perhaps it's because Hamas attacked Israel and murdered innocent people and cut babies throats...you don't expect Israel to stand by do you. You wouldn't if it was your own child.

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

..

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Plausible scenario

Israel invades Gaza. Unsurprisingly, a LOT of Gazans are killed - as it is quite difficult for 1.1m Gazans to move house in 24 hours

Israel slogs on. Even more die. The West Bank erupts and Hezbollah attacks. Israel is now fighting on 3 fronts, one of them internal

The west funnels aid to Israel. More Gazans die. Now major Arab nations “facilitate” attacks on Israel
- Iran, Syria. Perhaps Jordan, even Saudi

It looks like Israel could lose. America steps in. Europe is afire with deadly riots by Muslim populations. Iran attacks American interests. America attacks Iran. Russia takes advantage and sweeps Ukraine

World War 3

Equally (more?) plausible scenario

Israel invades and occupies at least part of Gaza. Establishes a permanent military presence. Hundreds of thousands are displaced, but the main fighting is over quite quickly and they return home.

There are reprisal attacks in the West Bank and some isolated outbreaks in Western cities. The IDF face regular ambushes in Gaza. But the world's attention moves on. Perhaps there's a catastrophic flood somewhere, or a big change in the Ukraine war, or (quite feasible) a massive US bond market rout and yet another global recession.

And another chapter in the sad ancestral story of the Arabs and Israelis draws to an unsatisfactory close.

I’d say yours is more likely. But not massively so

I reckon the chances of your scenario - basically same old same old - is about 30%. Chances of
mine - major global escalation - more like 20%

50% some mix of the two

What worries me is that the 2020s feels like one of those cursed decades where everything surprises on the downside. The Wuhan flu turned out to be a global plague. Putin really DID invade Ukraine. Liz Truss

The ancestral conflict in the Levant finally turning into a massive international war would be in keeping with the leitmotifs of the 2020s, so far

Disaster mode has been turned on in our simulation. The player must be bored. I hope she doesn't just turn us off.

If the 'perfect storm' button really has been pressed it means I'm wrong about Trump. He's coming back to the White House.

My view is that the nascent war in Israel makes Trump less likely, not more. Americans might elect an isolationist when Russia is invading Ukraine; they'rein my view unlikely to when Arabs are invading Israel. But I'd be interested in tge views of our American posters (who are probably all still in bed).

Trump is pro Israel though, he would go to war with Israel against Hamas and Iran even if he wouldn't go to war with Ukraine against Putin

Trump has been fiercely critical of Netanyahu recently. He's also bought and paid for by Putin.

If anything his speech said Netanyahu was not tough enough...

If anything, it was about Netenyahu dissing him.

Trump's entire reaction to this dreadful crisis is effectively about himself.

Sean_F said:

maxh said:

RochdalePioneers said:

maxh said:

1,500 Palestinians dead.
1,200 Israelis dead.
1.1 million Palestinians forcibly displaced if Israel’s warning is heeded.
400,000 already displaced.
6000 bombs dropped on Gaza.
What is it about the current situation that makes a civilian Israeli life worth more than a civilian Palestinian one to justify such numbers?

Civilian lives are equal. Always have been, always will be.

The problem for Gaza's civilians is that they elected psychopaths as their government and continue to support them and continue to educate their children in the just cause that is genocide against the Jew.

Hamas have done things over the last week that are incomprehensible. And will be crushed as a result. Some of the innocent civilians will be as appalled as the rest of civilisation is - we need to get them out of harms way. Others celebrate.

So what do we do? Say "Free Palestine" where Palestine is a terror state run by elected genocidal psychopaths. Free it to do what? I want to save Palestine. We saved Germany and the free world by bombing it into submission and the nazi leaders into their graves. The same is coming for Gaza. Which is why the innocent civilians should head south.

Here then is the challenge for Egypt and the Arab world. A significant number of people are going to flee to the border, whether voluntarily now or running for their lives shortly. You say "Free Palestine". But are you going to continue to imprison them and leave them to die at the hands of Hamas?

Because that is the truth. The people who want to slaughter the citizens of Gaza are not the IDF. It is Hamas. And I am told to provide succour to psychopaths? No.

Thanks for a thoughtful answer even though it is clear from your posts that you feel passionately about this.

The problem for Gaza's civilians is that they elected psychopaths In 2007 or so, yes. And I can see that the nation/state of Gaza bears responsibility for this. I find it hard to ascribe responsibility for this situation to the current population of Gaza, especially given the median age and proportion of the country too young to have voted in 2007.

continue to educate their children in the just cause that is genocide against the Jew. Whereas this statement indicates much more current responsibility for the extremism of Hamas amongst the population as a whole. I haven’t heard this claim before and can’t immediately verify it. Do you have a reliable source?

You say "Free Palestine" Sadly, it has been a good few years since I have been idealistic enough to sign up to pithy slogans. My view is basically that civilians are rarely to blame for the actions of their governments, and this is more true for Palestinians in Gaza than it is for Israelis because of the relative recency of elections. I can see the intractable problem Israel currently faces and don’t see another

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

maxh said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

A rather grim warning by Israel.

https://www.reuters.com/world/un-says-israeli-military-warns-11-mln-gazans-relocate-south-2023-10-13/

And when (if) those 1.1 million have left and Israel has occupied Gaza City, will it withdraw and let them go back?

The Palestinians won't believe so, as since 1948 that's not tended to be the case.
Which is of course one of the reasons why 'Egypt should just take them all' isn't likely to be an easy solution.

It might seem odd to us to be so passionately attached to somewhere like Gaza, but many are.

There won't be anything much left in Gaza to be attached to. Hamas are not these poor downtrodden innocents imprisoned by the beastly Jew (ssshhhhh don't mention Egypt). The are genocidal terrorist psychopaths.

Like ISIS before them they need to be eradicated. That means killing most of them. Because they aren't going to just give up or reform - like Jake and Ellwood they are on a Mission from God. They have no interest in the innocents in Gaza other than using them as human shields. And as for Egypt and the rest - they have no interest in the civilians either. They are political pawns left to suffer *by them* for regional points scoring.,

This has to end. The status quo can't be sustained, there is no viable status quo ante to wind the clock back to. We need a long-term solution for the diaspora issue and with respect to Egypt and Jordan and Syria their mission of leaving people in multi-generational refugee camps as Someone Else's Problem is also over.

Israel has demonstrated in recent years that it wants diplomatic solutions. Reaching out to make all kinds of previously unlikely alliances. But if diplomacy doesn't work, it will impose a settlement militarily. And as wounded as it is, and as armed as it is, woe betide any of the powers around it who think they still get to disrupt this.

Genuine, not loaded question.
Why is your and others’ entirely appropriate horror at the actions of Hamas not matched by a horror of indiscriminate bombing and killing of civilians in Gaza?
I can think of a few reasons, and am trying to understand whether my moral equivalence between a civilian Palestinian death and a civilian Israeli one is mistaken.
How do you justify this to yourself? (Again, this sounds loaded, it isn’t).

I think the short answer is that evil bastards who behead babies in their cribs deserve everything that is coming to them.

There's another angle to this as well: Hamas's actions last weekend were straight out of ISIS's playbook. I'm not Jewish, but there's no way I'd feel safe living under Hamas control in the West Bank, or any territory they controlled, as I'm not Muslim. In fact, you're in trouble if you're a Shia Muslim (AIUI Hezbollah is mainly Sunni).

But if you're Christian, or gay, or female - then I'd much rather live in Israel than under any of these sh*ts.

Thanks both for the replies. I’m with Foxy on this - Hamas themselves deserve whatever revenge Israel can mete out.

The tricky question for me is the impact on civilians. I’m sympathetic to the comparisons with Germany in WW2 - a regime needed annihilating and there was no way to avoid civilian deaths. Turning that to Gaza I can quite imagine that Hamas are happy to use hospitals, schools etc as civilian shields.

Yet many on here seem to go further, identifying all Gazans with Hamas and holding them responsible.

If the line is ‘Israel needs to do this and there is no way to do so without killling innocents’, I can understand that, though am deeply uneasy. If the line is ‘Gazans are getting what is coming to them for electing Hamas back in 2007 or so’ I think that is blind, indiscriminate hatred that is morally equivalent to violent antisemitism

That, too, is a very thoughtful response.

viewcode said:

MattW said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Taz said:

Another day, another article from Simon Jenkins in The Guardian pouring scorn on Labours plans to actually provide the homes people need.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-s-supposedly-bold-new-towns-idea-has-been-tried-before-and-it-failed/ar-AA1i6Zwr?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=7a3b2af16c884cd4b9845a74629e93cb&ei=16

Jenkins is elite level Boomer nimbyism.

That column reminds me of a quote in Asimov about a report from a bureaucrat where the content exactly evened itself out, creating a total value of exactly zero.

I remember it (the Asimov passage)! It's from one of the Foundations, can't remember which: I think the first book.

I think the character was also asked about an archeological question, to which the reply was along the lines of "Well person X says this, but person Y says that". Asimov's in-universe stand-in is excoriating about this approach, which is why I can't use it without wincing...

Richard_Tyndall said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

maxh said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

A rather grim warning by Israel.

https://www.reuters.com/world/un-says-israeli-military-warns-11-mln-gazans-relocate-south-2023-10-13/

And when (if) those 1.1 million have left and Israel has occupied Gaza City, will it withdraw and let them go back?

The Palestinians won't believe so, as since 1948 that's not tended to be the case.
Which is of course one of the reasons why 'Egypt should just take them all' isn't likely to be an easy solution.

It might seem odd to us to be so passionately attached to somewhere like Gaza, but many are.

There won't be anything much left in Gaza to be attached to. Hamas are not these poor downtrodden innocents imprisoned by the beastly Jew (ssshhhhh don't mention Egypt). The are genocidal terrorist psychopaths.

Like ISIS before them they need to be eradicated. That means killing most of them. Because they aren't going to just give up or reform - like Jake and Ellwood they are on a Mission from God. They have no interest in the innocents in Gaza other than using them as human shields. And as for Egypt and the rest - they have no interest in the civilians either. They are political pawns left to suffer *by them* for regional points scoring.,

This has to end. The status quo can't be sustained, there is no viable status quo ante to wind the clock back to. We need a long-term solution for the diaspora issue and with respect to Egypt and Jordan and Syria their mission of leaving people in multi-generational refugee camps as Someone Else's Problem is also over.

Israel has demonstrated in recent years that it wants diplomatic solutions. Reaching out to make all kinds of previously unlikely alliances. But if diplomacy doesn't work, it will impose a settlement militarily. And as wounded as it is, and as armed as it is, woe betide any of the powers around it who think they still get to disrupt this.

Genuine, not loaded question.
Why is your and others’ entirely appropriate horror at the actions of Hamas not matched by a horror of indiscriminate bombing and killing of civilians in Gaza?
I can think of a few reasons, and am trying to understand whether my moral equivalence between a civilian Palestinian death and a civilian Israeli one is mistaken.
How do you justify this to yourself? (Again, this sounds loaded, it isn’t).

I think the short answer is that evil bastards who behead babies in their cribs deserve everything that is coming to them.

Indeed. But that doesn't apply to the vast majority of people who are now dying in Gaza. So Max's question still stands.

The moment Israel decides that any level of collateral damage is unacceptable is the moment Israel ceases to exist because Hamas already trap civilians on all of their terrorist outposts to ensure there is always collateral damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure.

In case you missed it my argument is not that there will be no collatoral damage. It has been with some on here (Bart especially) who claim that that Israel should drive the whole of Gaza into the sea and that there are no limits to acceptable civilian deaths as long as Hamas are destroyed.

As others have pointed out Bart is encouraging genocide as the answer to Israel's problems without realising that it is exactly that cycle of violence which has perpetuated this war for the last 75 years.