pap

Don't fall for Lord D's transparent sh!t. I can see right through it

You reckon? I saw it more like this:- Then again, I'm not peering through an Ekelund-stained window

We'll sign who we want We'll sigh who we want We'll bin them next year But we'll sign who we want Loan move good for him, but was expecting to see him feature in cup games. Youth players for those?

Le Figaro have a world exclusive interview with Assad. Chrome does a manful enough job of translation although my French is 22 years neglected. http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2013/09/02/01003-20130902ARTFIG00532-la-mise-en-garde-d-el-assad-a-la-france.php Big point. The Middle East is a powder keg, and that action in Syria could trigger a regional war. Not sure he's far wrong there. If the West goes into Syria, Iran might feel it sensible to throw in with them. Fairly obvious that conflict is heading there anyway, why not engage with an ally in tow?

Blimey hypo, I've been on this site from the get go. I wouldn't say you were like Turkish or CB at all, from the limited amount of time I've spent here. What would you say are the similarities?

Not really a solution, imo. The worst that can happen to a poster here is a permanent ban. They come back. Self-moderation is a better way to go.

Indeed. I think we're both posters who see the "me too merchants" crawl out of the woodwork. Loads of them. Can't remember who any of them are, obviously.

One of the problems I have with Glasgow Saint is that I never happen to know whether he is taking the p!ss or not. I'm not. Barry Sanchez is an excellent poster. I've certainly had my run-ins with the lad, but I'll not let this opportunity pass without comment. We used to have a poster here called "dune". I did not agree with his opinions, but I did appreciate what dune brought to the site, enough provocative prose to prompt others into a response. After dune's Helena Bonham Carter inspired demise (is there any other sort? ) it's nice to know that we've got Barry Sanchez, who performs a largely similar function. Anyway, I agree with your post. Anyone who bans posters without posting is an Internet m!ngebag.

not606 have banned me for life and I haven't submitted a single post there. Someone ripped off my Poch vs Nige image without bothering to host it. I re-uploaded a defaced version of the same image, indicating that not606 were a bunch of thieving basts, and got my lifelong ban. Down? They should already be out with the way they choose to run their site.

trousers, me ol' mucker. I've been very busy this weekend. Just wanted to address this. I was referring to something completely different than your point, hence the 'not'. Wasn't trying to suggest you'd mixed them up - was just trying to stress that I wasn't talking about the same thing as you. Not very successfully, it'd seem

Signed up for this yesterday. Very good. Excellent quality yesterday when watching our game. The OP is spot on in setup too. Was up and running in about 10 minutes.

A mate from Burglars Anonymous wants to know when Kelvin's gaff is going to be empty. Can TSW forum oblige? Again?

I think those accords are part of the past anyway. Take the Geneva Conventions (note, not Protocol) as an example. If the US is able to get around that through the use of the word "enemy combatants" instead of "prisoners of war", and the rest of the world is okay with that, what f**king use is the law? I have to say that I have some trouble making any sort of distinction between kids being killed by bombs or kids being gassed, particularly after Alps' interesting but obvious point that almost all conventional weapons use chemical reactions to set them off. The end result is the same; the potential of lives tragically cut short. Without wanting to get too descriptive, war is hell. There are plenty of nasty, slow ways to go that don't involve chemicals. Reports from the Russian front (WW2) are littered with tales of rape, human debasement and all the other elements you need to synthesise a literal hell on Earth. The simple facts are these. Conflict kills, and we have been agitating for more conflict. I simply don't believe the notion that we're operating on a needs-first basis. We sell weapons to the likes of Bahrain who use them to put down demonstrations in their repressive regimes. We're in bed with the Saudis, who happen to view the Iranians as enemies. Western actions in the region have actually strengthened Iran by removing local bulwarks like Iraq, and through policies such as shoot anything that moves, have generated a lot of accord with the views of radical Islamists. We started a fire and poured fuel onto it. It's no wonder that we have a conflagration of protest. Many of us will remember the very real terrorism we faced in the 1980s. Many considered the IRA as the enemy, some still do. Most have grown up with respect to terrorism in Northern Ireland. It's not all sorted. I often see the dreaded white armoured vans which indicate that something is afoot when making my way out of Belfast, but by the same token, it's better than most ever hoped. We recognised that we weren't going to solve terrorism by force of arms. Blair's biggest achievement (even though Major laid the foundations), forever overshadowed by his disastrous judgement on Iraq. I'm suspicious that we haven't applied our own lessons in the Middle East - militated more strongly for a two-state solution. The UK has been on a foreign policy chain for the last 60 years. Sometimes it's just US -> UK. At others, especially recently, it has been Israel -> USA -> UK. That is not a healthy situation to be in, particularly as the progenitor of policy continues to flout every UN Resolution thrown its way, aided and abetted by its allies who happen to be Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council. I'm under no illusions. This was a massive setback for the government and in no way represents a shift in thinking vis a vis the special relationship. Shame, because we're never going to be able to reconcile Britain as constituted into any sort of nation while we continue to be the foreign policy satellite of another.

Personally, I reckon Miliband was electioneering. He felt the public mood and decided that he wasn't going to be another Labour warmonger. The party has only just started to get back all the people who abandoned it over the issue of Iraq. Make no mistake; Cameron was itching for action. Miliband did the right thing for the wrong reasons. Whatever. I'll take it.

Spain, France and Germany for starters. Canada was keen but is now pulling back.

Not strictly Syria related, but very interesting. Every protest in the world since the early 80s until the present day. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/22/mapped_what_every_protest_in_the_last_34_years_looks_like#.UiB31D5h1v0.twitter Rather scary, especially the post-2001 period.

....thousands continue to suffer (in a war paid for by the West, featuring our Al Qaeda allies).

I know you didn't write this, trousers-me-lad, but what's your main interest here? Miliband going back on his promise to the PM?

The UN was neutered from the start by the veto powers of the permanent members of the Security Council. I wonder what sort of organisation it'd be without those constraints. Most UN Secretary generals seem to have their head in the right place. Kofi Annan was completely on the money when he spoke about the legality of the Iraq War. It must be incredibly frustrating to continually see five nations halting the UN from doing the right thing. You'd have to wonder whether the Israel situation would ever have been allowed to develop in the way that it has if the UN were able to enforce its resolutions.

Saw an interview with a couple of MPs on Breakfast this morning. The Labour matey kept on making the point that we would be unlikely to help the Syrian people through bombing them. Personally, I'm pleased that Parliament has gone the right way on this occasion. It's a real surprise to see us break ranks with US foreign policy, but equally, I get the feeling, despite Cameron's insistence that "he gets it" (aptly American), that this'll just be voted on again until the right result is reached.

It's got my seal of approval. There are points where the plot lurches but let's remember, the Lost writers could basically do what they wanted in their incoherent mess of a universe. There aren't many episodes left. Some scenes might leave you flat. A lot of people hate Skyler, but at this point, it's already recognised as one of the best shows on telly. Mr Chips to Scarface. Interesting ride.

Surely this depends on the originator of said fart. If it's yourself, you'll feel a sense of pride. If it's anyone else, it smells f**king disgusting.

Well he's original. It's a bit like seeing one of Bill Hicks' angrier performances where he is rude to the audience.

So would you say it is time for Turkish to give up his claim of never defeated on "mong boards"? A case of having too many fingers in too many pies?

Well, you say that, but it really isn't. This is more of one of those semantic defences you refer to. I'm flattered that you keep track, by the way. Anyway, all I was saying is that I don't know you, and that's not really that surprising. What was your input, exactly? A one line attack that you'd no doubt been thinking up for hours, plus one incongruent follow up which bears no resemblance to your original point? Cast of hundreds, skip. You're not exactly standing out in front of the crowd.