CB Fry

He's already a lame duck leader. He'll do well to survive until the local elections come May. I expect him to quit in a "principled" huff leaving his supporters to blame the "meedja" and everyone else except their guy's utter incompetence.

I thought it was an egg sandwich.

It's not as bad as City fans booing the Champions League anthem though. I mean, that's proper sacred.

Oh dear. Yet more little fibs. Here you are, as previously referenced by me, in the Gay players thread: http://sotonians.com/chat/sometimes-there-are-no-words-to-describe-how-stupid-some-men-are?p=2 You in full squinnying flow re-treading debates from this forum on another forum, even naming names of people on here. Squinny Squinny. Laughable. But the best bit, of course is someone, having read your grizzling asks this very pertinent question.... "SOG,*I'm not sure anyone has actually*said that?" Beautiful. When you've done making stuff up here, you crack on with making stuff up on another forum.

I'm sorry to have missed what looks like another fantastic day on SOG's fantasy island of made up stuff. No doubt he'll be squinnying off to Papsweb to cry about it all.

That book definitely falls into the category of "books where I can read the chapter I want to read in a quiet afternoon in Waterstones".

The first entry there is, well, The Gunpowder Plot. All the other "nasty ****" listed here can easily be matched by the actions of Boko Haram in one country alone. Nice try at achingly desperate moral equivalence but it doesn't really hang together.

If 10% of the country said they would happily molest a child that's 5 or 6 on every busy bus in Britain, or 3,000 at a SMS home match, where there are hundreds of children. But hey, 90% is, like, loads more so SOG would happily live in that world.

I think you'll find you waded in against me a few posts up (post 486) replying to a post that was nothing to do with you and didn't mention you. More lies, stay classy.

That's because I don't lie. You, consistently, are full of it. Well done on dredging up a completely different thread on this one. Classy stuff. Hats off.

Do "now"? Sorry, still in a dreamworld, you have no idea what I think. Apologise for lying about me any time you like.

If you can, quote me where I have said "no significant homophobia problem exists in society" with reference to that survey or in fact on any post on any thread in the history of this forum. Show me. As ever, consistent as the sun rising in the sky, you make sh it up.

What?

Indeed odd. Agree about the framing of questions and happy to look askance at many surveys. But still maintain that to pretend that one in ten is anything other than a huge proportion when answering that particular question is bonkers even by SOG's particularly bonkers standard.

Yes you are. One in ten is a huge number. You are the one spinning the figures.

More than one in four sympathised and 10% of that group thought was right to attack them and you're trying to spin it the other way? How do you think those figures would index against the UK population as a whole?

I think we're banging up Germans for being Christians. The Nazis were like, so Christian. "We will fight the fundamentalist Christians on the beach, we will fight the fundamentalist Christians on the landing grounds, we never surrender to the fundamentalist Christians what with them definitely being fundamentalist Christians and that being what defines them. Never in the field of human conflict has a war been like so much about religion like what this one is just like the crusades or something" Ah, Winston. Wise words.

Was Christianity the driving force of Hitler and the Nazis? They were acting on the instructions of the Bible and the movement was defined by its Christian beliefs? That is how history judge the Nazis and how it's leadership defined themselves at the time? As, above all else, a fundemental religious mission? You sure about that?

This is a twitterati story that has got a bit out of hand - there was a security guard called Zouhier who spoke to the press, but he was relaying what others had told him, and was stationed near the players not at the entrance. The source material - I think it is a Wall Street Journal article - makes this very clear, but the people linking to it on social media have decided that this was the guy who saved the president and all the people and he's a muslim and the horrible media don't care. The media don't care because it's just not true.

Well, yeah, I was inferring that in the rest of the post. It is, however, unlikely that those ramshackle states are going to eradicate IS without any help from the UN/the West/etc and The West will just be blamed for its continued existence anyway.

Oh absolutely. Which puts the onus on Western democracies to try and intervene. As Shurlock says above then the risk is that kind of intervention looks like the evil west trying to control everything and as you say it becomes more grief than its worth. Cut to grieving mother in the midlands asking why are our soldiers being sent over there to die to sort out stuff that is nothing to do with us etc etc then Damon Albarn and Jeremy Corbyn give it all the "troops out now" routine and out they come, eventually. That all leaves the everybody loses scenario of an unstable state because the job isn't complete but all the extremists blame the interfering infidels for everything anyway. "Something must be done" but no, not that. Something else.

You were the one asking Batman what the line in between do nothing and killing all Muslims was, suggesting you didn't think there was one. Glad you've cleared that up. Batman post was a sarcastic to response to SOG anyway, pretty obvious when you look at it in context. It will take a lot to break the cycle but it will involve more bloodshed before any kind of diplomatic conversations start to resolve anything. The comparisons with Ireland and this idea we are all going to sit round the table and hug it out is facile garbage. Let's stop killing them and they'll stop killing us is utterly deluded appeasement. "What good did killing people" type thinking clearly missed how the major wars in history were actually won and peace achieved. It's far more likely to end with the west significantly stepping up agression against this enemy or even better, encouraging the sovereign states hosting this false "Islamic State" to deal with the criminals in their own lands. These people will need to be brought to their knees, not negotiated with.

You think there is nothing this side of killing all Muslims? Killing all Muslims. Okay then.

I've only just remembered that Euro 2016 is in France. Crikey.

We all get round the table and negotiate, like we did to stop the first and second world war and, like, all wars ever or something.