leicsmac

Fair point on the last WC, though I'm guessing there are fitness/injury concerns due to the high intensity of the games that means they can't play as often as, say, football players.

I think he's made the wrong choice too, but that being said AIPAC and the other influential lobbying organisations in the US want their pound of flesh and there's a heavy price to be paid for any US president that defies them, more's the pity. If he were coming to the end of his second term rather than his first, he might have more flexibility.

As a rather opinionated neutral, a tie, two super overs and a mass brawl with multiple suspended players please.

Other than reducing the number of teams in the competition (which isn't really fair onthe Tier 2 teams and pretty much creates a closed shop that doesn't allow them to improve), I'm not sure what can be done about that tbh.

That they do. And if that doesn't change pretty soon, the consequences may become much more dire than they are already.

... not entirely sure about the "very precisely" part given recent events, but let's assume this is true too... ... then I'm guessing you believe Israel bears no responsibility whatsoever for the deaths of innocent people, despite actually being the party that pulled the trigger on the weapon that ended their lives? Is there any other situation at all now or historically where that is also believed to be the case, because that just seems like an excuse for them to kill civilians as they see fit and then just say they did their best? (The only example I can think of is World War II and the area bombing used then, but that was a less accurate era for such things and quite honestly I'm pretty sure that fell under the description of a war crime anyway.)

That's a great emotive and understandable reason to pick a side, but it's not necessarily logical, of course. Quite right. And doesn't that show how little we've actually developed as a species, despite all our technological development. If they really believe this to be true (and I can believe it), then they have to be ready for other members of our species to (rightly) judge them for taking so many innocent lives, even if they "really" think there's no other choice but to do so. Killing someone even without intent, except in the very most direct and personal self defence (which is a matter of individuals, not states) is, or should be, still a criminal act.

Things on here have remained broadly civil IMO - and we can keep it so.

If I may...they perhaps do if the alternative is you lose your land and become either subjugated or killed anyway. That's the essence of the Samson Option.

Pretty much this. Don't expect any kind of honesty or impartiality from either side currently engaged in military action. Truth is the first casualty of war, after all.

They have nuclear weapons. That alone guarantees at least parity with any opponent they might have. Additionally, they (unofficially) maintain the "Samson Option" whereby they can and will lay waste to the entire Middle Eastern region with those weapons should they look to be conquered and there is not enough of a conventional response to prevent it.

And even if there were not, dead is dead and inflicting death and suffering isn't any more noble when it's done with a veneer of gravitas and sorrow rather than celebration.

It would be factual to say that according to the US and other Western sources (and most people with half a brain) they are terrorists, but it would not be factual to define them as such as a matter of record in the same way as simple recorded empirical data is, because there is a difference between historical dates and statistical scientific facts and a term that while having an internationally recognised definition, does not have wholesale international agreement on whether or not certain parties meet those definitions. Once again I know this is splitting hairs, but for me there is a critical difference between the two, because it is also the difference between the BBC stating the viewpoint of a third party about an event and the parties involved and creating their own viewpoint, and on this and other matters they really shouldn't be doing the latter, no matter how obvious it may appear.

I would say that it is hot relative to general human experience of temperature. That would be factual. Edit: To clarify, merely saying it is hot is opinion, the above would be fact because it's a matter of record.

When you flip a coin and it will come down heads, tails or edge, that is a fact. That the Earth is approximately 90 million miles (or eight light minutes) from the Sun, that is a fact. That the Japanese government surrendered at the end of World War II on the 15th August 1945, that is also a fact and a matter of historical record. Hamas being terrorists - as opposed to being labelled as them by the Western nations - is, again rightly or wrongly, a matter of opinion. The distinction between these political observations and empirical fact is small but it is critically important, and the BBC should not be pushed into making such judgements themselves. They really also shouldn't be referring to Israel in the way you describe here either, unless they are reporting what a third party has said.

Right. Just to clarify, I mean that the BBC can say that the Western countries and their allies have proscribed Hamas as a terrorist organisation (because that's an objective fact, it's a matter of record) but cannot call them terrorists themselves (because rightly or wrongly that is a matter of opinion).

The BBC can say they're proscibed as a terrorist group. That is objective. The BBC cannot themselves label them terrorists because, as obvious as it may be, that is still subjective and would be a violation of the neutral reporting they are chartered to do (however successful or not it appears to be). It's not up to an impartial news agency to pick sides during a war. It's up to them to report events, nothing more.

And that is pretty obvious too I think (there can be no excuses for what has been done recently), but begging pardon, that's not the exact topic of conversation here. The topic was about the citizens of Gaza and whether or not their plight and death and suffering is the fault of Hamas or the Israeli military. I don't see how it cannot be a bit of both.

I think it was Kevin Pietersen who really started that trend of looking for the ton or fifty with a maximum, unless some folks were famous for it before.

I think both parties - the one that leaves an innocent in danger and the one that actually takes their life, intentional or not - have an element of responsibility, and I think that's an obvious answer tbh.

To repeat an earlier point here because I think it's still relevant: If person A is left deliberately by person B where they can be harmed by person C, and then person C actually pulls the trigger - who is mostly responsible for the harm inflicted on person A? The person who set up the situation, or the person who actually carried out the act? Or both?

This whole thing has roots stretching back to the Sykes-Picot Agreement over a century ago, and perhaps even further - a cycle of sectarian violence that just seems to rumble on and on. Though the creation of the state is Israel in the 40's was a massive catalyst. The whole terrible business right now didn't happen in a vacuum, as much as those wanting to pick sides would want it to be so.

They're not really having the best sporting month, are they?

Good to see the Saffers doing their usual Spursy thing of looking great early on and then falling flat at the business end. Pretty much the opposite of their rugby team, come to think of it.

IMO there has to be a change of governance on both sides before any meaningful peace can happen. That, however, seems a long way away.