Thug

You’re right. One can only speculate, unless you have absolute evidence. I admit I’ve not read all the posts, so maybe I’m wrong, but I think all I’ve read is speculation? I think people have speculated that Starmer could either have received payments for a favourable position on certain agendas, or he has been rewarded for his favourable position on said agendas. Pure speculation, unless of course by some magic this can be proved.

You what? Thats like the getaway driver saying he was just trying to learn a route to help him in his taxi job, and had nothing at all to do with the bank robbery.

The discussion is not about the merits of a ceasefire. It’s about possible explanations as to why a human rights lawyer would not only not support it, but actively object to it.

It’s also the undocumented future promises, nudges and winks, nominations etc. that can’t be proven until no one gives a **** 50 years down the line. The consequence is a few raised eyebrows, a few ‘I knew it!’s and a load of ‘who the hell were these people anyway?’s. unfortunately that’s how life works.

Thats the issue though. There’s a good argument for a ceasefire, which is not being supported for whatever unknown cause. I guess people (over?)stretch for explanations. You have to admit, it does make you scratch your head as to what motives there could be not to support a ceasefire. To most with no vested interest, there just doesn’t seem to be a valid explanation - corruption is the natural thing to point at.

And reading one of their forums, he’s not really doing much else either…

This is bang on. it'll take a long time to come to fruition, but this is the answer. It’s a lot easier to sell the idea of resistance to oppressed, unemployed people full of the feelings of injustice. When there’s not a lot to live for, you’re happy not to be alive. People with jobs, and a decent standard of living and dignity have a lot more to lose - and subsequently don’t want to lose it. It would be a very, very slow solution - You’re looking at several generations. And in the meantime, there will be ongoing pockets of ‘resistance’ or mischief makers on both sides. October 7th should never happen again. For the sake of both sides.

Ok, fair enough. Easily done. i declare a ceasefire

Wow. I quoted the guy. Then gave links to what ceasefire meant. Where, quite literally, the source I linked and quoted said ‘a ceasefire, also known as a truce or armistice’ Then I posted a dictionary quote of what the word indefinitely means - because the poor chap didn’t know what it meant. It could not be clearer. Give up trying to make me look the fool, it’s backfiring.

I did. If only you’d bothered to read what I was replying to. A ceasefire is the same as an armistice. That was my reply. What exactly is the relevance of what a ceasefire may or may not be used for? A ceasefire may be used by one side to take out the trash, and the other to paint a replica of the Mona Lisa. And what? Someone says that a ceasefire is not an armistice. I show that they’re the same. You come along and give examples of what a ceasefire may be used for…. What’s your point? In fact, I don’t want to know your point. I suggest let’s get this thread back on topic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice An armistice is a formal agreement of warring parties to stop fighting. It is not necessarily the end of a war, as it may constitute only a cessation of hostilities while an attempt is made to negotiate a lasting peace.[1] It is derived from the Latin arma, meani

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceasefire A ceasefire (also known as a truce or armistice[1]), https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/ceasefire a time when enemies agree to stop fighting, usually while a way is found to end the fighting permanently https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/indefinite indefinite adjective UK /ɪnˈdef.ɪ.nət/ US /ɪnˈdef.ən.ət/ Add to word list not exact, not clear, or without clear limits You probably thought indefinite means ‘forever’. It doesn’t.

When Shabana Mahmood representing 70,000 Muslim votes doesn’t vote for a ceasefire, I’m not going blame any Labour politician for voting how they did. I thoroughly applaud any of them that did though.

Indeed for a different thread. I was merely pointing out that a ceasefire and humanitarian pause are not the same thing. Not arguing about what was appropriate.

A ceasefire is to end the current hostilities indefinitely. You’re not wrong when you say hostilities may restart again prob a matter of months, but the idea would be that it wouldn’t. A humanitarian pause (as suggested in this case) is a ?4-12? Hour window of opportunity for the people to a drink of water before they get bombed to bits.

You are WAY off the mark here. it’s absolutely not even close to being the same thing. (the rest of your post I agree with)

Because no one would watch a bunch of nice people mingling.

Wake up, Braverman sacked, Konsa called up. Good news comes in threes, right?

Does sage 50 run as a service, or does it run as an application?

I don’t know if you ever solved this, but another option is WireGuard. If you want to make it very easy, you can use Tailscale, which is based on WireGuard, and allows up to 3 free users. Makes setting up a vpn an absolute breeze.

You best remind these people that there’s a war going on https://www.cxtvlive.com/live-camera/tel-aviv Above link takes you to a live webcam of people surfing and relaxing on a beach at the Carlton, Tel Aviv. There are many webcam streams available from Israel showing life going on pretty much as normal. Here’s a link to get a flight from Manchester to the middle of your ‘warzone’ day after tomorrow. https://www.skyscanner.net/transport/flights/uk/tela/231114/231121/?adultsv2=1&cabinclass=economy&childrenv2=&ref=home&rtn=1&preferdirects=false&outboundaltsenabled=false&inboundaltsenabled=false

Well, it’s a very confusing situation. A couple of days ago I heard some ?Israeli? Pro-Israel uk politician? (I forget who exactly) Refuting the numbers of deaths/wounded. Saying that these numbers were being exaggerated by Hamas. The interviewer then said that the numbers were being reported by the Health Ministry, not by Hamas. And the person said ‘But Hamas control the ministry. These numbers should be ignored as unreliable.’ Not direct quote, but words to that effect. Strangely enough, ever since then I don’t hear the number of deaths reported any more. Just ‘the number of deaths according to Hamas’. So, in answer to your question, I didn’t think it was Hamas that reported the deaths/wounded - I thought it was the health ministry, but I have since been ‘corrected’ and I now see that it is indeed Hamas who lie about the numbers who are dead. I think it’s actually 5 dead, 4 of whom were Hamas leaders. None wounded. Damn those Hamas guys, had me fooled for a bit.

Hamas prob counting these leaflets as bombs. The majority of the ‘injuries’ that Hamas are reporting are paper cuts.

Oh, so they DID start it. Thanks for clarifying.

At the commencement of hostilities, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country.[83] The Israeli government later abandoned its initial position, acknowledging Israel had struck first, claiming that it was a preemptive strike in the face of a planned invasion by Egypt.[83][33]On the other hand, the Arab view was that it was unjustified to attack Egypt.[164][165] Many commentators consider the war as the classic case of anticipatory attack in self-defense.[166][167] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Oh really? I suppose the didn’t attack the Liberty and blame the Arabs either.