Fernando

We started to go down as well when we spent all that money on Lukaku.

I'm with @NikkiCFCwe need to give another season to Poch. The team is inconsistent and need another season. With Potter we never saw the games we saw against City, Arsenal and what not. So there's room to work. Give him time because no one will do better at this time and the board buying young players all the time....

What a regression we have. But as many people said 1 billion spent and did not signed good strikers. If we don't improve fast we might get caught in relegation fight.

True but I was just reporting the vibe that I'm getting with some Latinos and hence why the Democrat vote might lose some Latinos voters in this elections.

We should win this one. United had one of those games where they play their best against us and run out of steam for next game. We should have no problem beating Everton.

I'm really surprised at this as well. Because ever since Obama came to power the relationship with Israel started to wane. And Biden looked like might follow that path but this has shown otherwise. Very crazy. Besides Israel the article that @Vesperbrought about the fraction of the democrats voters I can only speak for a few Latinos that I spoke to. And this is the feeling that I'm getting, they are mad at the Biden government for how the immigrants have come in and gotten all this help, while some of them are here many years and have gotten little help. So it's a frustration and on top of that budget cuts that need to start because of the massive resources that are being used to help the immigrants.

Some of you guys are surprised but this is what I expected. A lot of inconsistency this sea but we should improve by next.

Apparently Venezuela wants to get Guyana land because of the oil. Oh men another war incoming here.

A little raw but I still think him and Enzo are going to get better as time passes on. With Poch coaching I expect things to improve. Let's not forget he is only 21, and with Enzo they will grow together and chemistry will improve a lot.

We need to win, don't care if it's ugly, if it's catenaccio, we need to win at all cost!

I'm not a fan of Sanchez, but to me he is better then Mendy and Kepa. Sanchez ain't wc but I rather him then those two. Jorginho and Kova where in decline it was right to sell him. Enzo and Caicedo will come good, and Lavia we can't judge as he has been injured. Kante obviously wc, no replacing him.

Hey I was just going by your definition. And I say that definition don't fit the bill.

Again you go of rail. I'm just going by your definition of "Deliberate" Deliberate is not warning people to flee otherwise they die. That is not deliberate not matter what else you bring me.

Deliberate? So in that case how can you call what Israel is doing is genocide? As by that definition they where not deliberate. They warn people to flee before the bombing. But Hamas stop their own people from leaving. So by that definition it don't count as "deliberate" is the key.

By the way what is the definition of genocide for you?

Well after all the chat we had here, I hope Palestine do get their two state solution. And for Israel to not interfere with Palestinians sovereign and vice versa. As that is cry of everyone, for Palestinian to have their own state. Let's see if that resolves the issue with all this and if Israel leaves them a lone.....but then again even if you have that, would you resolved the hatred that exist from longstanding war as you mentioned?

By the way @Fulham Broadwayif you care the posture of my church about these events here it goes https://thechapel.com/site/assets/files/1/thoughts_on_israel_-_nov_2023.pdf

Take a look at this. Canada did a fair analysis on this. I look at the FBI website and it wasn't satisfying to me. So I took the Canada one as they where fair in their research: The past few decades have witnessed an increase in the scholarship produced regarding terrorism. Critical to this body of literature has been the definition of terrorism. Although defining terrorism has proven to be a highly contentious issue, there is some agreement among academics that the term is highly malleable and is hence, open to many different definitions and interpretations (Staiger et al. 2008; Weinberg et al. 2004; Fletcher 2006). Many factors have been identified as contributing to the complexity involved in determining the definition of "terrorism." According to Weinberg et al. (2004), the primary factors that impede any attempt to provide a formal definition of terrorism include the use of the term for political purposes; problems associated with the scope of the term (i.e. identifying where terrorism begins and ends); and issues associated with the analytical characteristics of terrorism. Others argue that much of the difficulty surrounding the definition of terrorism stems from the need to develop a concrete meaning of the term (Grob-Fitzgibbon 2005; Fletcher 2006). For example, Grob-Fitzgibbon (2005) argues that the term remains ambiguous as a result of governments and scholars seeking to define the term too broadly so as to classify any form of unconventional violence as terrorism. Rather, the author suggests that governments and academics avoid "general" definitions of terrorism and instead acknowledge the various meanings the term may occupy. Despite this call to utilize the numerous and varied definitions of terrorism, legal definitions continue to serve as the primary and formally recognized definitions utilized by many governments and people. Given the scope of this project, it is critical that such terms subsequently serve as the foundation on which this report is based. In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of intimidating the public "…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act." Activities recognized as criminal within this context include death and bodily harm with the use of violence; endangering a person’s life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public; significant property damage; and interference or disruption of essential services, facilities or systems. It is useful to briefly contrast this definition with those adopted by other nations operating under law systems similar to that of Canada. According to the British Terrorism Act (2006), terrorism refers to the use and threat of action "designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public" and "made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause." Similar to the legal definition of terrorism in Canada, violence against people; damage to property; endangerment of life; and risks to the health or safety of the public are the key actions addressed within the Act. In the United States, terrorism is defined as consisting of activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State….intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation; or…affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." Finally, the legal definition of terrorism in the European Union can be found in the EU Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002) which identifies terrorism as activities with the aim of "seriously intimidating a population, or; unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or; seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation." Activities that may be deemed terrorist under this framework include attacks on people resulting in death, kidnapping or hostage taking and extensive destruction to a government or public facility. Although it is widely acknowledged that attempts to establish a definition of terrorism that transcends various national borders have been largely unsuccessful (Staiger et al. 2008), the definitions presented clearly show that some consistency can be found in the various definitions employed by the governments of many Western democracies. Given these similarities, the approaches adopted by these governments toward the issue of victims of terrorism may provide some key insights on the various ways other governments can address the multiple issues that affect victims of terrorism. More info here as it's more of a longer article: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rr09_6/p3.html

So by that definition we are screw and everyone is a terrorist.....

Israel is a terrorist state? On what basis? Well let me ask you this question. What is terrorism for you? Because if I see what your telling me here, then your country was also that, as well USA.....

Yes and they don't did terrorism just because, kill babies, rape women and such. Any country has the right to defend themselves when these acts of terrorism happens. And segregation? Please men, then all black people in North America and South America have a right to terrorism...ludicrous statement. The leader of the movement to end segregation, Martin Luther King will cold hardly disagree with your view. People have a right to protest and defend themselves, but no act of terrorism.

So Native Americans in North America have a right to attack Americans and Latinos because we are settling their land? Crazy argument. Nothing justify terrorism.

It's similar to USA did with Afghanistan. Hamas is a terrorist organization and Israel has a right to defend itself just like any country would do. Now that Israel is committing atrocities I'm not debating that. What I am is taking every word that is coming from Hamas as Gospel, when they are found multiple times as lying.

All the info about death and hospital was coming from inside. If you read all the news it would say organization lead by Hamas. Nonetheless like I mentioned both sides have done atrocities. In no way I'm saying Israel is innocent as well, because war brings ugly stuff no matter what side you are.

Hmmmm New York times is one of those in which they published against Israel and then had to back track because the info it got from Hamas was wrong... So we go back to the beginning. You got two choices or accept the news that is coming from Hamas or accept the news that is coming from Israel. Either way you mentioned that both are not reliable....