beefybake

Brembo have for some time gone downmarket, and offered a cheapo range of brake parts. The Brembos at Eurocarparts are little different to the others that ECP sell, except they have a Brembo badge on the boxes.

The tractors weren't in Israel. Suggest you troll elsewhere.

Definition of a demilitarized zone is where warring parties parties agree to cease open military warfare, pending a diplomatic solution. The dispute concerns territory. The border prior to the 1967 war is internationally recognised. Israel did not, and does, accept this border. The words of Moshe Dayan are an admission that Israel deliberately provoked further open military conflict, to expand the territories under its control, whilst giving the impression of being the victim. Demilitarized zones are usually tense, fragile affairs. If you don't want conflict you don't send your tractors in, 'innocently' assuming it's OK.

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html "..... It is an article of faith among Israelis that the Golan Heights were seized in the 1967 Middle East war to stop Syria from shelling the Israeli settlements down below. The future of the Golan Heights is central to the search for peace in the Middle East, and much of the case against giving the Golan Heights back to Syria rests on the fear of reviving that threat. But like many another of Israel's founding legends, this one has come under question lately, and from a most surprising quarter: Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan. General Dayan died in 1981. But in conversations with a young reporter five years earlier, he said he regretted not having stuck to his initial opposition to storming the Golan Heights. There really was no pressing reason to do so, he said, because many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland. General Dayan did not mean the conversations as an interview, and the reporter, Rami Tal, kept his notes secret for 21 years -- until he was persuaded by a friend to make them public. They were authenticated by historians and by General Dayan's daughter Yael Dayan, a member of Parliament, and published two weeks ago in the weekend magazine of the newspaper Yediot Ahronot. Historians have already begun to debate whether General Dayan was giving an accurate account of the situation in 1967 or whether his version of what happened was colored by his disgrace after the 1973 Middle East war, when he was forced to resign as Defense Minister over the failure to anticipate the Arab attack. But on a more immediate level, the general's 21-year-old comments play directly into the current dispute over whether the Golan Heights should be returned to Syria in exchange for peace. The Government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is firmly opposed to returning the Golan, contending that the high ground is vital for Israel's security. ''Look, it's possible to talk in terms of 'the Syrians are b*****ds, you have to get them, and this is the right time,' and other such talk, but that is not policy,'' General Dayan told Mr. Tal in 1976. ''You don't strike at the enemy because he is a b*****d, but because he threatens you. And the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'' According to the published notes, Mr. Tal began to remonstrate, ''But they were sitting on the Golan Heights, and . . . '' General Dayan interrupted: ''Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was.''

Earlier in this thread, there were excerpts from letters by former Israeli leader, Moshe Dayan, in referring to the real reasons for the 1967 war. He admitted that the real reason was not the threat from Syria, it was simply about territory. Israeli farmers would send their tractors into the approaches towards the Syrians, deliberate goading to force a response, and to make it look like Israel was the victim. So here we are again, Israel attacks an Iranian consulate, Iran responds, and the West et al, go along with this sick joke that Israel is again the victim. Watching that slime face Cameron talking his crap would almost make you want to puke. The utter moral bankruptcy of it all.

Been fairly obvious for quite some time. The charity logo plastered all across the roofs of the vehicles. As you say, those aid workers were hunted down. "Tragic mistake" does not remotely cover it.

There's a film made in the 80's called 'Pacific Heights'. I watched it on first release back then. Michael Keaton plays the anti-hero. There is a scene where Keaton is asleep in his pit. The alarm clock goes off. This was the first time I'd seen a clock that you could record your own message on. The message was a very loud... "GET UP YOU LAZY B*****D... !" That has become my mental kick up the arse to procrastination.

A work of art.

You've been insider trading ... ?

I rather got the impression long ago that everything was owned and controlled either by local oligarchs or offshore/American entities. And that between them they're the ones who finance the gangs. This undermines democratic institutions, and prevents any real development of the country. Basically the definition of what used to be called 'banana republic'. Except, here, without the bananas.

I haven't tried that particular flavour. I've had a couple of the other ones. Quite pricey, but very much a high quality chocolate. Cadbury's generic stuff not really in the same league. An occasional buy. Usual for me are the Ritters chocs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68332923 That was on the front page of the BBC yesterday morning. By early afternoon, it had disappeared. Only found it again by googling some of the key words. Funny isn't it, you invade someone else's country. The locals rise up, and somehow they're the terrorists. Your special forces set about executing innocent people. And it all ends as it always deserved to, in ignominious defeat, and scrambles for the last flights out of the country. I'm trying, failing, to find some moral superiority over current events. Armed Forces Minister James Heappey is my local MP. Prior to going into politics, he was an army officer, and was in Afghanistan. Always a big supporter of anything to do with the forces, looks like he's being accused of straightforward lying here. Wonder if that's why the report had such a very, very short time on the front page.

Rather depends on one's definition of 'right wing' or 'left wing'. For decades it's hardly been necessary to scratch the surface to find Arabs being openly referred to as vermin in the Knesset ( Parliament of Israel ). And the underlying Israeli acceptance of the necessity of a free, undominated Palestinian state has long been decidely murky ( to say the least ), regardless of the political labels.

If you'd bother reading the thread, you'll see that what the issue really is, is the right to question what is being put in front of you, and for whose benefit it actually got there.

A specific reason for the introduction of MMR was economic. It's cheaper in immediate costs to administer several vaccinations at once rather than individually over a period of time. The entrenched positions of both government and pharmaceutical companies and their relative powers ... answer your question as to why.

In your opinion. As I said, I had no particular skin in the game at the time. Nor particularly now. My own view then and now, is that the the root question about whether a concoction of vaccines all mixed into one is proveably OK...is a valid question. Oh, and by the way, yes I'm well aware of what the BMA is. Doctors dish out what the state, and pharmaceutical companies assure them is OK..... , as was thalidomide, powerful hydocortisone creams that ruined skin, all the ****zepams etc.., that fostered addictions.. being handed out like sweeties. The list can go on. The current favourite is statins, which the pharmaceutical industry has taken from a scenaria where they do have a good effect for those with very definite conditions, and managed to transform that into a scenario where almost anyone over a certain age is being recommended, or pushed, to go on statins. There is a valid question there, and Wakefield is not that question.

Many people don't understand investing or stock markets, or are not interested, or confident enough to make individual stock decisions. For those people. Life Strategy funds are excellent. What you are referring to as 'wildly underperforming' is nonsense. Like any other funds with signifant bond presence, multi asset funds like the life strategies... were heavily hit my last year's collapse in bond markets, from which quite a big recovery has been taking place. The general tone of your comment here is that of someone who is deeply into growth funds (US) with heavy emphasis on the 6 or 7 giants that are fuelling the surge in US markets..., Microsoft, Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet ( Google ), Tesla etc... ..., and with little exposure to bonds. There are index trackers for everything, including bonds...., Government bonds, Corporate bonds, Investment grade corporate bonds, Junk bonds....., and they can and do get hit the same as everything else.

Think you may have been caught up in the 'public vilifications' . I didn't at the time have any particular skin in the game but did note... 1. There didn't really seem to have been any proper independent testing of MMR. 2. Wakefield was going against the direct vested interests of the status quo..., ie the drugs industry, the government, and the likes of the BMA. So he was always likely to be *ucked. The result, and the situation now, is that the whole subject is rather like the scenario where no one hardly dares to question, or criticise, anything about Israel without being accused of anti-Semitism. Basically public discussion of MMR has been closed down. Rather little wonder, sometimes, that people seek refuge in conspiracy theories. https://youtu.be/bqcoMniqSQQ?si=fjjOiHufopMA3cQf

I watched Blade Runner on first release. I thought it quite simply a classic, as is the dying scene with Rutger Hauer. As I recall, those lines were not in the script, but ad libbed, or suggested, by Hauer. Years later, I was very surprised that it had performed poorly at the box office. I've read some of the various discussions about the voice over. For me, the voice over added to the noir atmosphere, and that the studio executives were right to insist to Ridley Scott that it be included. Blade Runner 2049. Nope, not for me, except for a few parts. As I understand, the motives of the producers/financiers was to make lots of money off the back of the now cult classic original. Not to make a worthy follow up. Despite that I did find the scenes of interaction with the hologram lover convincing. Much of the rest of the film was just too much CGI.

https://www.dw.com/en/dutch-court-bans-export-of-f-35-fighter-jet-parts-to-israel/a-68233104 Can the courts do similar in this country ?

Some useful info here.... ( links to Northern Scotland stats, there's a drop down menu for the other regions by clicking on Tracker at top of page. ) https://energy-stats.uk/octopus-tracker-northern-scotland/. The various caveats/warnings about the Tracker tariff are listed on the Octopus site.... https://octopus.energy/smart/tracker/.

That gung-ho/heads gone attitude in the aftermath of 9/11 is what ended up with the mess that was Iraq and Afghanistan. And in the latter, the almost scene for scene repeat of the last helicopters taking off from the US Embassy in Vietnam in 1975. Except it was C-17's with people hanging off the undercarriages. .

Ah, Ok, so you were just out for a troll on a Sunday afternoon.

Well then, let's hear your take, backed up by respected source material.

At the root of all this is whether the majority of Israeli citizens accept the prospect of a 2 state solution. If they don't , then the 'Palestinian problem' does not exist. The various Western powers then have to publically acknowledge that what this is is the 'Israel problem'. At least some of the hypocrisy currently on display will dissipate.