pap

I'd reciprocate, but I have no memory of who you are or what you've ever posted. x (I do snide snark, too)

He probs just prefers a schmoke and a pancake. Or a pipe in a crepe. Also probably hated being called Steeeeeeeve. Lamest chant ever?

It's name calling, not that it bothers me. Just pointing out that its something that kids do, poo-head. (go on Alps, have a whack at that).

You did not say we should fire 100 tomahawks at Syria, but I stand by my point. You're calling for the opposite of nothing, which is something, which is ultimately action. If you're going to bowl underarm, don't whine when you get hit for six.

The world cannot stand by and do nothing in the face of illegal and horrendously destructive chemical warfare That's a clamour for action if I ever saw one.

Matey, you're down to name-calling and notably, not addressing the massive double standard at play. I'm not going to badger you for a response on the planned invasion of the US ( they crossed your RED LINE, dude! ) but surely you must see the double standard. Your clamour for immediate action on the basis of chemical weapons use falls flat because you're not prepared to be even-handed in your condemnation. Just for the record, do you think it's okay that white phosphorous was used on a civilian population in Fallujah? If not, what should be done about it?

I'd agree with the approach you're taking, but as I keep saying, we're not impartial. We've been supporting one side in a civil war for two years. What chance do you think negotiations will have? I'd say slim to none. First, there isn't the political will for negotiations. All we've seen on the news this week should be ample proof of that. John Bolton inaugurated them into a wider Axis of Evil club in 2002. The West is interested in removing Assad, not negotiation. Second, even if the West did fancy negotiating, there's no guarantee that Syria will come to the table. I have a lot of agreement with the intent of your post though, and you're right about Britain's place in the world. We're a post-colonial power that should be acting like an elder statesman on the international stage, not a yapping puppy running to heel at its masters' feet.

Fark orf Alps, and take your feigned outraged hyperbole with you. I have on this very thread made a case for a pro-Assad strike, and did a much better job than most who've ever tried to come up with their own theories for my stuff (which generally involves making them as ridiculous as possible). I consider it a possibility. The main thrust of the evidence Verbal mentions is coming from the Israelis, right? Impartial. Besides, everyone keeps on ignoring Fallujah. The world did stand by while the US burned the denizens with white phosphorous. The world stood by when it was Iran getting attacked by Iraq with chemical weapons. The world stands by when the US prosecutes its wars, killing hundreds of thousands of people and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands more. You're taking the hump because chemical weapons were used in Syria. I'd argue that Fallujah is actually a better case to prosecute. There's certainly more evidence of who did what and when. Given your outrage against chemical weapons use, when do you think the invasion of the USA should begin?

...

I think you are going to end up being surprised by just how culturally important the Russians are going to become. They're in the nascent stages of a global propaganda war, as the relatively amateur RT shows, but make no mistake, they are now very much competing for hearts and minds. In a sense, the Russians have got the easiest job of all. All they have to do is sit back and wait for the US to hang themselves on the gallows of their own foreign policy framework. As for Putin himself. A figure of moral probity? Certainly not, but I'd argue that anyone who has made the journey he has, and lived, has a formidable head on their shoulders. Love him or hate him, I at least get the feeling he is his own man, something that could not be said of recent US presidents ( Dubya and Obama, I'm looking at you ).

I've never been much for representative democracy. Wrote this a while before the AV referendum. http://frigsociety.com/2011/04/14/representative-autocracy/

I'm happy enough with that. A cup run always puts a spring in my step. With the number of top-tier clashes in the next round, a good chance of getting one. Always amazed me that neither of the Bristol teams have done better. Huge city. ms pap and I agreed that arseholes in Swindon would have squeaked in unison when they saw their opposition.

Soz, forgot to comment on an earlier point. On it making no sense for Assad to delay the Inspectors from getting to the site. Makes a lot of sense to me. It's a contested area that had just seen combat, wasn't fully under his control and was not safe. The first attempt to get out to the weapons resulted in the inspectors coming under unidentified sniper fire, which may support the "not safe" case, but common sense backs it up in any event. Warzones aren't safe. To say that the delay is proof of complicity is also speculation, yet this is the message that is being endlessly repeated on the news. On a related note, I really don't trust that William Hague after this. Thought he was a straight talker at one point. Comes across as a sinister b*ll****ter now. Inaugural Minister of Truth?

I think we can accept that on a general level, there's no substitute for first-hand experience. Equally though, we can look at recent events, the nature and composition of the Syrian forces, where they get their funding from, who we're prepared to do business with (al Qaeda, FFS) and make the determination that Assad was winning. We can also speculate, as we've both done. As for Assad's position; he continues to be supported by the Russians. That's a huge factor, as Russia is still very much part of the "don't f**k with us club". Their Deputy Prime Minister describes the West's approach to the Islamic world as "a monkey playing with a hand grenade", a vivid and accurate metaphor, if Dubai Phil's input is anything to go by. We've certainly shown ourselves to be clueless in creating stable democracies. Baghdad has continued to suffer the effects of indiscriminate bombing, no doubt part of a strategy of tension created there as well. Charlie makes an interesting point when he says that our foreign policy is linked to American foreign policy. It's true, and he is also correct in his assertion that I'm not a fan of that link. Despite the fact that I frequently criticise the actions of our government, I am a proud Brit and have a great affection for our best virtues. I do think we have an obligation to get involved in just conflicts, but I'm also of the opinion that we need to be operating from a strong moral base when we do so. The US has been prosecuting its own form of imperialism since the end of the Second World War. It has orchestrated revolutions, ruined countries with development loans and is now looking to initiate military action on the strength of some passionately pronounced polysyllabic words. "Undeniable". "Vanishingly small". It's all boll*cks designed to impress the same people who equate a big thesaurus with a valid point. There's no proof, it's a huge rush and the West has been sponsoring one side for two years. The problem with being linked to US policy is being linked to Israeli policy by default. They have been agitating for war with Iran for some time, which included Netanyahu's infamous cartoon bomb at the UN. If Western troops prevail in Syria, Iran is surrounded by foes. No prizes for guessing what happens next. Personally, I think intervention in Syria is a massive over-reach and a clear provocation to the Russians. Monkeys with hand grenades, indeed.

I had never seen this before. Thanks.

Adkins was golden from around his third game right up until the final third of the championship season. He had a blistering run of managerial form. Our bolt out of the gates at the beginning of the Championship season was amazing; seeing Saints near to or at the top of the table was a weekly pleasure. Adkins was the manager who gave us that feeling. We owe him a lot of thanks for that. Saying that, his star dipped in the final third of that season. I'm not ITK, and this is pure speculation, but do you think he knew from the start that the job only went as far as the Premiership? It would certainly explain the "parting of the ways" comments immediately after promotion. Whatever the reason, most of us were cacking our pants toward the end due to the volatile form the team were showing. I remember Nige's exploits fondly, and I'll happily admit to being one of the "next Ferguson" crowd, particularly when the Liverpool job was up for grabs (oh dear:D). We can all be guilty of seeing what we want to see, particularly when it comes to one of our own, especially after he was dismissed in the way he was. All I can say is that I hope the NDAs run out in time for the memoirs.

Aye, basically the same problem as we had when we first moved to HD. These days, most channels have an HD derivative and the vast majority of content is produced in the format. Back in the day, there were only a couple. If you're not throwing 4K pixels at the screen, you're not getting the full benefit of the telly. I have to wonder what sort of size screen you'll need to see the benefit. Gotta say; this cycle was quick. My Blu Ray collection is miniscule compared to the DVDs I got.

For the UK's position, just look at the US position.

The situation before the chemical attack was broadly this; Assad's forces were in the ascendancy. Reports from months back suggested that the relative unity of his army plus better armoured equipment was proving decisive in the conflict, so much so that we had the big fuss about whether it was okay to sell weapons to Syrian rebels to help them in the conflict. Another reason I consider it ridiculous is that UN Chemical Weapons Inspectors were already in Damascus. Let's argue your case though, and I'll try to do a more honest job of it than most. Assad as chemical attack launcher. Short-term gains are expedient control of the territory due to nature of attack. Long-term, he knows he has a fair chance of blaming it on the rebels, particularly with Russian support. He may even be able to "generate" conclusive proof that the rebels did it. He actually has a much better shot of doing that than Western forces, being in situ and all that. So yep, I buy an Assad-led attack as a means of discrediting the rebels as a possibility. What does he have to lose? Orchestrating this attack will bring Western forces upon him, potentially including professional armies that are a match for his own. This point has been made abundantly clear. It looks as if at the very least, bombings are on the horizon. They have the situation contained. All they need to do to win the war is keep doing more of the same. Why wreck that with this action? Even if we argue for the "blame the rebels" position, a smarter plan would have been to use a different chemical weapon to one he uses himself, perhaps using the Russians to procure it. Let's not pretend the West is impartial here. The US is funding the rebels, as are Arab states, Britain and France are selling weapons to them. There is no way on Earth a verdict of "yeah, actually it was the rebels that did it. We're going to attack them instead" is going to be returned. My take is that they'd expected Assad gone by now, didn't really anticipate his tenacity, and have engineered this event to trigger the "red line". I have no doubt that inspectors will discover that chemical weapons were used, but we'll need a thorough investigation to determine who used them. At the speed things are going, and the general state of play at the scene, there is no way that the investigation will conclude before the first shots are fired in Damascus' direction.

Hypo; I'm not sure why you're so defensive about me saying I probably know more people than you. To date, I've lived permanently in four different places, travel far and wide in prosecution of my duties and have met tons of people as a consequence. I've met people as you describe. One bloke in particular wanted me to help him set up a stall in Liverpool. He was into a lot of stuff I wouldn't touch with a bargepole, but he really was an exception. Most of the other people I know with an interest in the subject are as described; professionals who hold down a job. A couple even have previous experience in the forces. You're telling me that everyone you've met is a nutter. One possible conclusion is that you haven't met many people, ergo my point. Of course, another possible conclusion is that you're just as inflexible as you say conspiracy theorists are. Maybe you just think they're crazy because you don't like the stuff they're saying. That's probably a more likely explanation. I've got good friends who I just won't discuss it with after seeing their initial reactions. One of them actually turned white with rage at the time. We're still mates now, and he'll be travelling up for my daughter's 18th birthday party. We just won't discuss politics. Well-publicised atrocities like Boston are the means by which we lurch further into a police state and perpetuate the myth of having an unknowable, undefeatable enemy. Fear is being used to introduce legislation that is against the interests of the people. Do the neutral observer thing again and take a look at all the laws that we have passed in this country since 2001. If you didn't have the context of fear, you'd assume that Britain was incrementally turning itself into a police state. Look at the actions of the United States and the sort of things it gets up to; extraordinary rendition, torture, extra-judicial killing, drone attacks on kids, chemical weapons attacks in Fallujah. Consider the case of the two SAS operatives that were caught in Iraq, dressed as Arabs and caught placing car bombs. The Iraqi police refused to let them go, so the British Army rolled over the cop shop with a tank. These are not the actions of democracies championing freedom. They are the actions of bullies and antagonists. Ask yourself this. If none of these outrages had ever happened, would people accept all the legislation, torture and murder that has been conducted for our sakes, and in our names? Unlikely. You say you don't see the relevance of events that conspiracy theorists discuss, yet they're catalysts for all of this military action. We wouldn't be in the Middle East without them.

Of course it could, but I reckon I probably know more people than you. As for not addressing your other points, do you really want me to? You said you didn't understand the whole "bubble" thing. Anyone with a bit of travel under their belt will understand what I mean. When you go to other places, the focus of the news is often on different things, normally stuff that is of interest to the locals. I'm fairly sure that news reports in the Spanish bubble on Gibraltar differ massively from those we're seeing on the Beeb. The effects of cultural relativism and vested interests, no doubt. Which returns me to your point. You are offering up your limited life experience as some kind of proof that everyone who places stock in conspiracy theories is a crackpot. I'm merely pointing out that outside of our bubble, conspiracy theories are discussed more openly, more seriously and without the stigma that is perpetuated here. Hell, even this thread is an illustration of how a bit of distance, geographically or culturally, can alter perceptions on something. As you correctly point out, no-one is having a pop at me for suggesting that the rebels launched the attack. Even the deleted Daily Mail article I linked suggesting the same thing passed mostly without comment. It seems we're fine to discuss conspiracy theories, as long as it doesn't involve our own governments or the so-called good guys. Step out of the bubble. Imagine being a neutral observer just pondering the activities of nations on Earth. Who have been the biggest aggressors and killers of people in the last 20 years? (Clue: it's not Assad or the terrorists)

tbh, I haven't checked up on Boston for some time now - but every time I go back to catch up, I'm less convinced by the official account. The last time I looked I found a slow-motion frame-by-frame video of people moving into place immediately after the blast. That is well worth seeking out. Belief is probably too strong a word, but I think the likelihood is that Boston was just another event in a strategy of tension.

Yeah, it can be dangerous projecting your own experience as the whole. Not my experience. I discuss the situation with a number of my mates who have careers across the spectrum. Maybe you're not talking to the right people.

I wasn't suggesting that at all. I'm saying that expressing those opinions in the Anglo-American bubble gets the flak. I could have the same discussions on here with people in other parts of the world and get a completely different reaction. I don't think that's patronising, more a recognition of reality from someone who has been through the ringer. That's a decision for individuals to make. I'm not saying that someone is a moron for not thinking what I do. In fact, I dish out very little in the way of abuse compared to what I get. If I'm a crackpot, I'm in good company. Doubt it though. I reckon I'm just a spiky c**t in the wrong bubble.

That's one way of looking at it, although perhaps you should turn that on its head. Maybe if you have considered many of my points seriously in the past, you should be more open to some of the most outlandish stuff I suggest. As I said before, we all live in an Anglo-American bubble. The propaganda currently being spouted on what are supposed to be impartial news channels is amazing. Further, I know that any time I discuss inflammatory issues that affect issues in that bubble, particularly when the emotional angle has been stoked, I'm going to catch a load of crap for expressing those opinions. So be it. Outside of our bubble, such ideas are openly discussed. The main difference is that those discussing them aren't instantly labelled crackpots. If I had to characterise the majority of my posts, I'd say that a vast majority of them are fuelled by justifiable distrust of Western motives. We market ourselves as lovers of freedom and transparency, yet put whistleblowers away for 35 years. We condemn other countries for allegedly using chemical weapons, yet the US was fine to use them at Fallujah. Drone strikes cause collateral damage of around 90%. The West trying to use moral authority in lieu of evidence is as funny as it is tragic.