Ryan Strome

Oh how fitting Matthew Phillips just scored his first NHL goal against the flames!!

They gave up on him and he scored against them lol

13 minutes ago, Spur1 said:

Looking more and more like the US will be going back to Syria. 

I don't think they ever left. If you remember they were planning on it but then after the election they kept them there.

1 minute ago, Optimist Prime said:

I believe I have been extremely pro Peace and Prosperty, make of that what you will. I have noticed though that in multiple threads you make a point of opposition to any post I make, and so I would really just like it if you stopped quoting me or seeking to interact with me at all. it is fruitless. I will try to do the same. Perhaps we can agree to disagree and leave each other alone.

Yeah, I can agree with that. But I will say as a point of concern I find it concerning that you are bothered with somebody disagreeing with you. You have made a couple points that I've upvoted so I would disagree with your assessment but my opinion is only my opinion. I do believe in the past I said it would probably be for the best what you are suggesting but I'm not bothered that you disagree with me. But out of respect I will do as you asked.

9 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

Forgive me for taking the Syrian gentleman historian's version as correct as corroborated by a friend in the Mossad. You will maybe forgive my years of time spent in the theater both north and south of the Golan region somewhat trumping a random user in a hockey forums take on history.

Oh but then you don't know if that random person on a hockey forum might have done the same thing as what you just indicated you did. Maybe so, maybe not right? Again, our interpretation of history differs. I didn't criticize you. I just said they differed and I think you should attempt to just leave it at that as well. You have been very pro-israel in this thread and have all about blamed Palestine for everything.

2 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

when Israel was stomping Syria and came to the outskirts of Damascus they just stopped short. They were winning every engagment and battle along the way and collectively concluded that occupying a city of millions of Arabs was something they had no interest in taking on. There is a little hut there, South of Damascus that I visited: it being famous in Syria as the final building the Israelis captured before they went home. The artilery unit that fled their pieces of cannon there to this day are shamed in Syrian military culture with a black patch as a part of their crest for fleeing in fear from the Israeli's and allowing their guns to be captured intact. The hut is a bit of a museum now, but I digress...

...I believe the exact interest is to eradicate Hamas and allow Gaza to proceed in a peaceful manner after the conflict. Obviously I don't know, but the history of the situation in its entirety tells me that Israel has no interest in administering or occupying the 2 million people of Gaza for a long period of time. 

I think you and I have a different interpretation of history. The Israelis only stopped short because the Soviet Union was on the verge of attacking Israel.

2 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

maybe a brief occupation? I can't see the US supporting anything that has significant time scale to it. If the IDF is satisfied they've flushed out and eliminated Hamas then they'll probably leave. At least I hope so.

 

 

I don't know man. In the past 80 years they haven't showed a willingness to want to leave.

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

Thanks. I think the big difference here is we can see Pooty is full of it, making stuff up as he goes. Does it matter if a lot of Russians believe it? 

 

I agree totally on the negotiated peace part. Just don't think thats ever possible now with Hamas. So until the Palestinians bring in a new government, thats just not  in the cards. 

So then ground invasion followed by a likely full-on military occupation. So as far as terrorist attacks go on Israelis, it's probably rinse and Repeat.

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

on the preemptive part re: Israel, I have to wonder tho if they didn't act, do you think an attack wouldn't have been imminent anyway? I'm out of my depth now in terms of historical events - maybe someone here can objectively provide a full explanation. 

 

Absolutely! I do think an attack was going to happen. In fact, the top Egyptian general went to the Canadian general of the peacekeeping force that was there and told him to leave because an attack was imminent. I will fully admit the truth that I am 100% certain an attack was going to happen but the point I'm trying to make is that is what many Russians believed as well. An attack was going to happen on their land. So to me it's not black and white and land that isn't Israeli land should just be returned Hamas defeated and a negotiated long lasting peace. I fully understand That's wishful thinking at this point.

2 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

I think it can be implied in the "yeah but what do you expect" arguments about the nature of Palestine, It may not be what people are intending tho. 

That's a fair point, Bob. That is why I personally I'm choosing to use language like "I fully understand why it happened."

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

the point is, historically we've recognized that in war, the winning side sets the boundaries. Sometimes its negotiated at the time of defeat, but new borders are accepted. We may have to face that reality in Ukraine too. 

 

I've noticed a bit of a trend that the land Israel acquired during the wars noted above that its somehow not legitimate land acquisition. Not sure how we square that with accepted norms over history. 

 

As much as I'm sure you'd like to see us give Quebec back to France, I don't think thats happening. 

First and foremost, I just want to say I will pack their bags for Emmanuel!!

Secondly, I think I nailed your position and I appreciate you sharing it with me and my only argument to what you were saying is I would hope we have learned from the past and that in 2023 we aren't reshaping borders through aggression. 

The reason why I think some would claim the other territorial land grabs are illegal is because they were taken from a preempted strike from Israel. Just like Russia, shouldn't be able to take territory from a preempted strike on Ukraine, nor should Israel on Palestine. Because just so we are abundantly clear many Russians believe that preempted strike on Ukraine was needed because NATO was building up within Ukraine and one could make an argument that was entirely happening. I find it strange why everything is flipped and I'm going to be perfectly honest. The only two things I see different is the religious factor and the fact that one is a Muslim country and one isn't.

Truth be told, as you know I am not a fan of the Muslim religion, but I can look past that when it comes to standing up for human dignity and rights and that has been denied to the Palestinians ever since their land was stolen.

1 minute ago, moosehead said:

who here has defended hamas recent terrorist acts ? 

This is what I'm struggling with by the pro Israeli camp. I can't find anybody in here. Supporting Hamas terrorist attack. I almost feel like that's just a way to disguise a one-sided view on this whole matter by just taking Israel side.

6 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

You mean recently, right?

Just so I fully understand, what is the point you are trying to make? Because I mean, Ukraine is historically part of the Russian Empire, but I don't think any of us would agree It's okay what Putin is doing. While borders certainly have changed. I would like to think that in 2023 we have better understanding and recognition of borders and land rights.

2 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

If not for all those one goal games they lost last season they'd have been a playoff team, gotta think their management group looks at that statistic and believes that there's a chance they could make it. Probably contributed to Sutter's firing, they're probably hoping a new guy at the helm can steer the team back to having success. 

 

I wouldn't call them a lock by any stretch, but bounce back seasons by Markstrom and Huberdeau could go a long way. 

 

Is it likely? I wouldn't necessarily say so. Do I expect the Flames to be in the mix alongside the Canucks, Knights, Oilers, Kraken, and Kings? If they can squeeze more offense out of their forward group I don't see why not, their D is still solid and Marky even being average could have them trending in the right direction. 

I don't know man. I see an aging slow team with a borderline backup goalie at the helm. 

4 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

A trade with Vancouver also wouldn't really make sense unless Vancouver's prepared to pay a premium, which they shouldn't be. 

 

Calgary appears to be looking to try and balance competing for the playoffs with trying to restock the cupboards, trading a D to a divisional rival who is jockeying with them seems counterintuitive unless the price paid outweighs the cost.

 

If Zadorov wears Canucks colours it'll likely be after he signs here as a UFA. Only exception to this probably involves the Flames having flamed out by December or January, at which point they'll likely just take whichever offer is highest. But if they're in the hunt for a spot I imagine they'll just keep him as their own rental. 

The flames? 

12 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I honestly wouldn't mind Zadorov, but I've also been biased since he called out his own country for their actions in Ukraine.

That was an admirable thing of him to do but that isn't the only bias you want him because he is a good player. I don't blame you one bit. I would be over the moon if we could land him. Preferably during free agency though.

48 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

It seems Backlund is a UFA at seasons end too.

If they get no where in talks with him,

Then a trade is imminent,  as it will be for Zadorov.

 

If the Flames aren’t able to extend these 2 players before Christmas,

my hunch is they are “fire sale” for draft picks and a rebuild.

Treliving left damage just like Benning did,.

but Calgary has nothing in the pipeline.

 

Id like to think Zadorov is listening to our “Goldstar”  Milstein , with paitience.

 

Zadorov would be a fabulous playoff grab and resign.

MB resigned already.

44 minutes ago, Win2024 said:

Better version of Tryamkin 

Not even comparable. He is far better than try! In fact, he keeps progressing and getting better each season.

1 minute ago, Optimist Prime said:

War of Independance: '47 - '49, the arab leage invaded former Mandatory Palestine including the Holy War Army of Palestine. Israel won this war and in the armistice agreements caputured 50% of the area alloted to an 'arab state'. 

 

Six Day War: '67, again arab entities attacked Israel, in the end Israel captured the Gaza Strip, Sinai, West Bank and Golan Heights.

 

War of Attrition: '67 to 70, both sides claimed victory however Israel continued to own the Sinai

 

Yom Kippur War: '73, Arab entities invaded Israel, victory was Israel's and led to the Egypt-Israeli Peace Treaty

 

Operation Litani: '78, the PLO terror group in southern Lebannon was dealt with by combined forces of Israel and Lebanese De Facto Forces. Israel victorious and PLO retreated from Southern Lebanon.

 

First Lebanon War: '82-85, PLO, Syria, "Jammoul" (eventually hezbollah) and Lebanese Shia Amal's fought the Lebanese De Facto Forces, the lebanese Front and Israel. as a result the PLO was expelled from Lebanon. 

 

First Intifada: '87-'93,  Hamas and UNLU (coalition of Palestinian Leadership) '87-'93, began a campaign of sending people with rocks and slings up against a modern army, with some suicide bombers to sew terror in the region by blowing up buses and gatherings. The resulting international media coverage of the Flintstones being beat down by the Jetsons created a PR victory for Hamas. THe PLO was caught off guard and was not at first involved in the Hamas and UNLU plans.

the Oslo Accord was drafted, a so called road map to peace with Palestinians.

 

2nd Intifada: 2000-2005, Palestinian Uprising against Israeli's, who under Ariel Sharon defeated Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

 

Operation Cast Lead; '08-'09, Hamas indescriminate rocket fire from Gaza was becoming frequent and the operatoin reduced Hamas ability to fight from apartment rooftops in Gaza proper. 

 

Operation Pillar of Defense; 2012, Israel was determined to end Hamas rocket fire from Gaza into civilian centers Israel VS Hamas with no interveners. Hamas lost and rocket fire into Israel was stopped for a few years.

 

Operation Protective Edge; 2014, Israeli intel discovered credible threats evolving out of Hamas war tunnels in Gaza where weapons of war were being built and stockpiled, Israel managed to destroy many tunnels and the arms cache's therein under Gaza Strip.

 

Israel - Palestine Crisis; 10 May 2021 to 21 May 2021, hamas Rocket attacks on Israel from Hamas led to 11 days of conflict and then a ceasefire. Reportedly the Rocket Attacks were in anticipation of a Supreme Court ruling on a housing eviction involving six Palestinian families near Jerusalem.

 

and that brings us largely to the events of ten days ago.

 

 

 

Why did I bother to type all this out? Because some folks have decided to ignore who has started hostile actions and murderous activities in almost every single case: I have said it before: when you start war after war after war and win NONE of them, there are consequences and they are not pleasant. I can think of no people in history who have lost wars they started and came out better off than before they started them.

 

I just think a recap was in order.

I have no idea where you learn that but the six-day war was preemptedly started by Israel.

Just now, CBH1926 said:

The problem is that as you have mentioned, all big powers lack credibility.

Few countries that I feel are truly impartial like Sweden, Norway, Switzerland etc. lack the “muscle” to get it done and truth be told, big powers are needed to make guarantees which brings us to square one.

Ya good point. 

11 minutes ago, CBH1926 said:

Iran has been arming Hamas for decades, their enemy is Israel so as long as Israel is there and being supported by Iran’s biggest enemy, Iran is not going anywhere.

 

Palestinian refugees in Jordan have had very rough time for decades, Gulf states haven’t helped as much as they could. Palestinians are like Kurds, used by many for political goals, proxy wars etc.

There needs to be an unbiased player willing to get both sides to sit down and come to some sort of negotiated agreement so we aren't doing this every couple years. That person no offense cannot be the United States. They are not a trusted partner in the middle East. That being said, it also can't be Canada because we are just seen as a smaller version of the United States. Russia has no legitimacy when discussing peace with anybody. So I wonder if there's a European country that might be respected enough to negotiate a peace agreement that is able to last.

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

Its definitely worth trying as many times as it takes. I'd like to think we've advanced as humans but we're just monkeys with matches when it comes down to it most of the time. 

 

I think there's been so much "equivalency" talk through all this that maybe people have forgotten what Hamas and Iran hope to install, and it ain't a peaceful democracy.

 

 

I'd like you to actually back up your statement on official policy please. 

 

 you won't find one post where I have defended Hamas because I don't and I never will. I understand why the attacks took place. Certainly does not mean I will ever defend Hamas. I do however, support Palestinians writing their own destiny. I do support a sovereign independent Palestine and that starts by Israel leaving Palestinian land and stopping the blockades.

2 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

kind of like Canada did with first nations people? 

 

 

I just keep coming back to the fact that there can't be negotiation with Hamas. I'm hoping that the result of all this is the Palestinians get a group in that can actually help bring them peace and a new democracy. 

 

Yeah exactly like that. I guess the only difference I would say is that it's 2023 so one would hope that we would be acting in the same manner.

I do agree Hamas shouldn't be the government at all and Hamas should be stamped out, but they did have a non-terrorist government one time before and the Israelis didn't offer any peace and still took their land. If you are suggesting that maybe the second time would be better. I mean I suppose it's worth a try rather than seeing innocent children dying daily.

2 minutes ago, Heretic said:

Is that Israel's fault? 

Who's fault is it?

 to be fair, the Israelis took their land and then restricted their movement. So while nothing would be Israel's fault on the Egyptian border, except for the fact that Israel's actions have turned Palestinians into very poor people that are trying to flee the country. So Egypt likely is left with no choice but to restrict access of the border.

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

Just like we would if Canada has a terrorist group bent on ending us.

 

Imagine if the FLQ had taken over Quebec somehow back in the 70s. There would be zero chance at peace.

 

Hopefully Palestinians turf Hamas as their representatives because I have no hope for them until that happens. 

5 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Roman IS the source.  I know the ones who are not on his side will never believe him, they'd rather here it from CNN.  But I would put big money down that Roman is actually a better source in regard to this war than CNN or Fox News.

 

Also, he's provided much information on the Ukraine war as well, but never got called out there.  I think the difference in this thread is there are now TWO sides here battling each other for who is right with whataboutisms ad nauseam.  That didn't happen in the Ukraine thread because nobody was ever on the Russian side, and if somebody ever was they either didn't post or were gone before the sun came up...

That's not how a source works though. While you may trust them? Who is the guy?

Essentially I heard it from a friend of a friend..

As for Russia, nobody really knows what the truth is. That's how every war is. Take for example Western media is identical from country to country. Yet when you turn on media from say India or other Eastern European countries that aren't aligned with NATO, we hear a different story. So just because some guy has family in a country of 40 plus million and a country of 8 or 9 million certainly doesn't give him an insight scoop just because you prefer his take on the conflict. I support sharpshooter in that decision. Do you remember CDC when Eklund was a legitimate source? It was an absolute joke to go into the trade thread. The same guy was being traded to five different Canadian teams e5.

17 minutes ago, brownky said:

I've heard that Tanev guy was an alright defenceman, particularly on the team before he went to Calgary.

Been good in Calgary as well. Imagine a trade deadline purchase of Tanev and Zadorov.

Time to do some fleecing