"Who just happened to have tens of thousands of missiles....aimed at Israel. Just your standard political organisation!!"

Hezbollah were formed in 1982 after Israels invasion and occupation of Lebanon through to 2000, so yes Hezbollah has missiles.

"Yeah, so when they fired 600 rockets at Israel, unprovoked, they were trying to avoid a war? Struth AC. Do you have ANY standards?"
- Unprovoked? When you lie to yourself like that mhaze, do you actually believe the lies?

"You are beyond explanation. Hezbullah's leadership has been destroyed, or have you already memory-holed that?"
- You have a western mindset, taking out Hezbollahs leadership doesn't make any difference, every single Hezbollah commander has a deputy trained to take their place should they be killed, and their deputies probably have deputies too. It's organised in a way that if the leadership is taken out, another steps up to take his place, and they are compartmentalised, so that they can operate without directions from commanders if need be.

"They have agreed to move back to the Resolution 1701 lines and have them properly monitored this time."
- That's because they have the ability to strike into southern Israel anyway. Moveing back from the border doesn't mean they can't still hit the vast majority of Israel if they choose.

"Israel has now got the declared right to move back into Lebanon if Hezbullah steps out of line. Hezbullah, who promised to never abandon Hamas, have abandoned Hamas."
- Well, everyone knew that Hezbollah would use the ceasefire to re-arm itself, and that Israel would be the one to break the ceasefire themselves, everyone but you that is.

Pepe Escobars not that bad, though I prefer his commentary on BRICS than geopolitical issues, I was just showing you that I get multiple instances of information every day. Those were just the ones I saw yesterday.

[Cont.]
And finally, I had to send an email off to your good friend Cartalucci, to find an old video, because YouTube scrubs the user watch history of content creator they don't like, then I found the video myself but Brian responded pretty quick anyway.

Watch 2 mins of this and tell me U.S. isn't involved.
Go ahead, eat your words Mr. Grassroots everything.
And by the way, Dana Stroul here the one doing the talking, now works for guess who?
- The Pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy that I showed you yesterday, who put out that garbage about Syria’s ‘Diversity-Friendly’ Jihadists.
http://x.com/dstroul

More confirmation...
SYRIA IN TURMOIL: Shocking Escalation You Won’t Believe! | Larry C. Johnson & Scott Ritter
http://youtu.be/5WDb2tKhcEw
- You act like you're so smart and sure of yourself that you know better than Ex-CIA intelligence analysts, and that I'm automatically wrong about everything, but really you're just advertising how clueless you actually are.

.

Dear mhaze,

.

You wrote :

1. « So, calculating the probability that science will finally arrive at the answer to life, the universe and everything requires a bazillion parameters to be considered ie no such calculation is possible. »
.

Perhaps, mhaze, but who knows what future developments in AI and computer science will enable us to do ?
.

2. « But you expressed confidence it would happen. And that confidence is based on faith in the processes of science to arrive at THE answer. Faith. No better, no worse than the faith shown by some theists that their understanding of the world will eventually arrive at THE answer. Or more exactly that the answer will eventually be presented in a way that even the doubters will accept. »
.

Faith has a religious connotation, mhaze. I do not have faith in scientific endeavour. I do not see why I should have confidence in it either. I simply have good reason to consider that there is a greater probability of the falsifiable empirical sciences coming up with the correct explanations of how the universe and mankind came into being than the unfalsifiable, all-purpose explanation carved in stone for eternity by religious dogma.

It’s not a question of faith, trust, belief, or confidence. It’s my judgment, after careful consideration of the facts.

Those who place their faith in religion consider that the unfalsifiable, all-purpose explanation carved in stone for eternity by religious dogma has already correctly explained how the universe and mankind came into being. But there is no consensus on that.

Of course, science and religion both make mistakes, the difference being that science operates like nature, by trial and error, whereas religion operates according to its so-called divine revelation.

In 1633, the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo Galilei to recant his theory that the Earth moves around the Sun. It took 359 years for it to admit what, by that time, everybody already knew : Galileo was right and the “divine revelation” was wrong.

Facts like that impact negatively on my judgment.

.

We're told that "colonized people, even under the UN
Charter, have the right to struggle for their liberation,
even with an army, and the successful ending to such a
struggle lies in the creation of a democratic state that
includes all of its inhabitants".

The Palestinian people are not being treated in a humane way.

The fact that Israel feels it can carry on without any
regard for international laws - what Israel is doing is
illegal. And justification of its actions is just wrong.

However, it is lazy thinking to hate and attack Jews
because of pro-Palestinian feelings. That is not acceptable.
It's the Israeli governments persecution of Palestinians
that's wrong . One can be pro-Jewish but anti-Zionist.
As many people are.

Looks like Syria is probably going to fall.
This will not be the end, but merely just the beginning.
Seems like 'Armageddon' is now close at hand.

Banjo,

"Faith has a religious connotation, mhaze"

Yes it does, That's why I used the word to describe you attitude to the science finding THE answer.

You keep referring to one of the differences between religion and Science as being falsifiability . But religion also travels with the times, but just at a pace you find unacceptable. The Geocentric world view is one example. (But remember 'science' also took an age to come around on that as well.) Equally, the 6 day creation story - yes I know some sects still believe it, but no mainstream church. Evolution - although theists hold that evolution is guided by the deity.

But remember that science also takes an age to accept new data. Check out the whole eugenics story from early last century. Or the Continently Drift story. And myriad others.

It is said science advances one death at a time - ie the old guard needs to die off before the new ideas are accepted. Religion might move slower than that, but the direction and intent are the same.

But we will always have the divide where those who ultimately come down of the side of the deity will be considered by the others as dupes and fools. Innately people believe that anyone who doesn't think like them must be dupes or fools. But there is no validity in thinking that one world-view is rational while the other is irrational when neither is capable of being proven...or disproven. Which is where this all started.