Verbal

You really struggle with how journalism works, don't you. It's an opinion piece, written by a Brexiteer columnist, in a newspaper that urged its readers to vote remain. Try the news sections (clue: generally at the front of the paper) for the dawning reality of Brexit's sinking fortunes. By the way, Juncker has long been a target (TM BoJo), so this piece is really not very original. But it still seems to be so surprising to Brexit jihadists that the European Commission would act to protect the interests of its member states. How dare they.

Cheer up Captain.

Indeed. However, the first rule of Saintsweb Fight Club - you don't agree with ANYONE. There you go again, slip-sliding your argument. We weren't talking about US and SK battle manoeuvres (largely reactive, it seems to me, to war games being played by one of the two weird-haired lunatics in this saga). We were talking about sanctions and what you call 'force' (It's a stretch to say manoeuvres are force - force is when you actually invade something or land a missile on it). But worse than that, your post is saddled with that dreary, unthinking anti-Americanism so characteristic of Momentum-ish and stop-the-war cultists, which is actually a form of patronising racism. The assumption is that the actual supposed objects of American sanctions are merely victims, lacking all agency in the face of the almighty power of the West. Which means Saddam wasn't in any way responsible for the fate of hie people under international sanctions, just as Kim isn't now. Absolute twaddle. In the mid-90s I travelled the length of the border between Jordan and Iraq, right in the midst of sanctions - especially with embargoes on oil and medicines. All along that border, trucks were backing up and transferring goods and fuel onto Iraqi trucks. The cross-border trade was phenomenal, in a large area where the only sign of a border was the odd sign here and there saying you were in Iraq or Jordan. The sanctions were completely ineffective. The huge smuggling operations benefitted the Iraqi elites, both as financiers of the trade and beneficiaries. Saddam, however, wanted the sanctions to look effective, to keep this trade running smoothly. So he deliberately withheld supplies, creating devastating shortages, in public hospitals and in food markets in particular. In N Korea, the terrible food shortages which are presently turning into yet another catastrophic famine, are not the result of international sanctions but of widespread crop failures brought on partly by climate change, but more especially by a totalitarian oddball determined to drive his own people brutally into the dirt to embellish his power base. So drop the knee-jerk, flaccid anti-Americanisms, and, as I said before, be prepared to think. The world is just a tad more complex than you seem able to cope with.

As I've said before, your debating style is the same as hypo's, which is to constantly shift the ground when the bit you were standing on crumbles. I know you said 'and force'. My point was you lumped the two together, which is nonsensical. There are circumstances in which both may be necessary. But sanctions alone are a common instrument, used by the UN, among others, and also Russia. It's also characteristic of the flaccid thinking and gullibility that comes from proximity to Corbynista virtue signallers that you'd quote Putin as a source of wisdom on this. That would be the same 'let's talk' Putin who invaded Ukraine, who supplied the not-so-independent 'rebels' with rockets to down passenger planes, and who engages routinely in targeted assassinations of political opponents. Learn to think.

You said you thought the Russians got it "spot on" in claiming that sanctions are a road to nowhere. I'm saying the Chinese think otherwise, and have applied severe sanctions. Not hard to understand.

They would say that. Don't fall for the Putinbots. The Chinese - much closer allies to NK - disagree.

Pleasing to see a Brexiteer can't see the difference. All the better.

Good to see someone's been quietly working on the nails for Brexit's coffin. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/26/keir-starmer-no-constructive-ambiguity-brexit-cliff-edge-labour-will-avoid-transitional-deal Tick tock.

Your work here is done. Now go. Go and save us from other people being wrong on the internet.

Yes. There. You see how easy that was to answer directly and straightforwardly? Now you give it a try. Do you approve of white people murderously ramming cars into crowds of mostly black people? Is that a difficult question to answer? It's odd that you find it so hard, given how quickly you're on here to mimic scumbag when Islamist ****wits do exactly the same thing. Oh, and on the whole 'white supremacists don't matter' bilge in that video, white supremacist and right-wing extremists are behind 73% of all violent extremist incidents in the US since 9/11. So - let's have a straight answer this time. A white supremacist ramming murderously a car into people is an act of terrorism - Yes or No? Delete as appropriate.

Yours is, obviously. So just to be clear, you endorse the view that ramming cars murderously into people matters if it's Islamist ****wits doing the driving and killing, but it's ok if the driver is white and shares your 'nativist' views? As scumbag's mini-me, you seem to have adopted his method of constant evasion rather than giving a straight answer.

I shudder at the thought of where you must hang out to find this stuff. A post from someone who's too extreme even for the gamergaters. And you do know what the whole red pill thing on Reddit is, right? So I'm guessing you're on Stormfront.

This is all like a really dumbed down Grimm’s fairy tale – the fable of the three bags. 1. Scumbag I’ll make allowances for your evident dementia, because I’ve posted on here a number of times about the deeply misogynistic (you’ll need to look that up) religious culture from which the majority of the British Pakistani population are descended. Three-quarters of British Pakistanis have family roots in a tiny area around Mirpur and the Mangla Dam. I know this, not least because I’ve been there – something you’d never be able to do (even if you could stand being around so many brown people) because it’s been a conflict zone ever since Partition. The misogynism that’s emerged from this deeply conservative village culture, combined with a contempt for western ‘ways’, has been handed down inter-generationally, contributing to offensive ideas including that white girls are good for nothing except as objects to rape. So no, I’ve not ignored it, and I condemn such attitudes unequivocally, just as (unlike you but like everyone else) I condemn the rape of anyone by anyone. I’ve also followed the Rotherham and Oxford stories since well before the trials, notably by reading Andrew Norfolk’s brilliant exposes over the years, published in The Times. So having got that out of the way, let’s hear from you how you justify deciding that white people murderously ramming a car into mostly black people is okay but brown people doing it is uniquely a terrorist act. Of course, you can’t explicitly justify it, because it would make far too explicit your skin-crawling hatred of black and brown people. You’re instead rendered stupidly dumb, resorting to changing the subject whenever you’re called out. So Scumbag is a well-earned name – a pox on your ugly little life. 2. Douchebag Actually, that should be in the possessive – Scumbag’s Douchebag. The following may appear unkind, but I’m trying to be fair. Your history of mini-me-ing on here is wearing. You’re now lolloping along behind Scumbag like a lobotomised poodle, echoing everything he says in that lemon-sucking way of yours. Your posting style is that of someone letting go after a dodgy doner kebab, and no one wants to clear up the mess. Be your own bat. Have an idea that’s actually yours. Don’t be such a pathetic nebbish. There. I hope that helps. 3. Fleabag. Actually you share this title with aintforever, whose posting style is very similar. Your arguments are so full of holes that you even contradict yourself from one sentence to the next – in one sentence saying you’re not making a false equivalence and in the next making exactly that false equivalence. What IS that? Is it some sort of homage to the David Bowie method of lyric-writing? Where you throw a random set of sentences into a post and stand back thinking you’ve created a work of art? If so, let me tell you it doesn’t work. It looks more like the ravings of someone who’s posting while randomly pulling mini-jacks out of his neural net. But the worst of it is that you mash up this alphabet soup with a bizarre disregard for context. What does that famous picture from the weekend tell you, of a young black woman staring into the eye-holes of a KKK marcher? Do swastika symbols carried by gun-toting, Jew- and black-baiting lunatics mean nothing to you? Whose side are you on in this? Or more pertinently, whose side should you be on? Because here’s the ironic thing. Charlottesville is in the state of Virginia. This was a state (not the only one in the South) that until 1967 made it a criminal offence for white people to marry black or brown people. The law, passed in 1924, was charmingly called the Racial integrity Act, and its underlying purpose was to stop the ‘degeneracy’ of the offspring of mixed-race marriages enfeebling the gene pool. You may remember the case of the Lovings – a white man and black woman who married and were driven out of their home state of Virginia because of this law. So you might want to reflect on the fact that your own marriage, by this law, would have defined you as a degenerate lawbreaker who deserved to have his property forfeited and to be imprisoned, simply for having the temerity to marry a non-white. These ideas are alive again with the Trump-assisted rise of the white supremacists, including the ****wit who drove the car into a crowd of mostly black people. So get a grip, you utter, utter numbskull. What adventures lie ahead for Scumbag, douchebag and Fleabag? Actually, who gives a ****.

The definition of a terrorist attack - and that's what we're talking about here - is offered through that NYT link if you'd click on it; it's given by the US Government Accountability Office. Actually, you did. You said that Antifa's attacks 'have been at least as prevalent as attacks from the far-right'. If you're saying that Antifa's attacks are as prevalent as ALL other attacks in the world, then you'd hopefully accept that that's a remarkably silly, plainly false statement. If you're comparing Antifa with American far-right terrorism, even allowing for you playing fast and loose with the definition of Antifa's 'terrorism', you're simply, statistically wrong. And that's leaving aside the context that's missing from all your comments so far on this - the history and present-day of vicious, violent racism, mostly aimed at America's black population, that has been endemic on American life since well before the civil war - of which symbols like Lee's statue and the confederate flag are intimidating, oppressive presences. Again, don't fall into the same category as the pro-terrorist scumbag.

The far right in the US accounts for 73% of all deadly terrorist attacks since 9/11. The far right includes white supremacists, Islamophobes, and neo-Nazis. So the 'vast majority of attacks in recent memory' actually are from the far right. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/opinion/finsbury-park-terrorist-attack-far-right.html You also appear to contradict yourself by saying you're not making a 'false equivalency' between far-right and far-left attacks, but then go on to say that 'attacks from the likes of antifa have been at least as prevalent'. That is a false equivalence. So if you don't want to be associated with the far-right pro-terrorist scumbag on here, I'd suggest a revision.

It doesn't get easier than condemning Nazis, and yet you just can't bring yourself to do it, can you, scumbag. You've spent the entirety of this thread railing against those awful Muslims and that awful religion, complaining when Islamist scumbags run cars and trucks into people. And yet when white supremacists do exactly that, you fall pathetically silent. Which makes you no different at all to the people who justify the Islamist suicide bombers, knifers and car rammers. Or actually it makes you worse. There's no Islam in Charlottesville for you to conveniently hide your skin-crawling racial hatred. Don't be surprised if others conclude that you gave a little jump for joy at a car being rammed into black people, killing a young white woman standing up for their civil rights against torch-burning Nazis and KKK. Lying racist scumbag.

Robinson will always appear to be right to racist scumbags like you. But here's your chance to redeem yourself. Even a racist scumbag can do something decent, right? So condemn the terrorist act of a white supremacist driving a car at speed into people with the same vehemence that you condemn Islamist ****wits driving cars and trucks into people.

Your co-believers' car-ramming attack on protestors against neo-Nazism has been called out as a terrorist attack even by the most right-wing of leading Republicans. Senator Marco Rubio: "Very important for nation to hear potus describe the events in Charlotteville for what they are, a terrorist attack by white supremacists." Senator Cory: "Mr President - we must call evil by its name. These were white supremacists and this was domestic terrorism." Senator Orin Hatch: "We should call evil by its name. My brother didn't give his life fighting Hitler for Nazi ideas to go unchallenged here at home." Mike Huckabee, ex governor of Arkansas: "'White supremacy' crap is worst kind of racism - it's EVIL and a perversion of God's truth to ever think our Creator values some above others." Your turn, scumbag.

Just a little mood music before the game tomorrow. The New Yorker reviews the season as if it were a new season of Game of Thrones, and declares its loyalties thusly: https://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/looking-ahead-to-the-english-premier-leagues-game-of-thrones?mbid=nl_TNY%20Template%20-%20With%20Photo%20(197)&CNDID=14519307&spMailingID=11677871&spUserID=MTMzMTc5NjAzMDE2S0&spJobID=1221021892&spReportId=MTIyMTAyMTg5MgS2 So a draw then.

Has the Bolivarian Missile become a closet remoaner? Only we remoaners advocate the Norwegian model, which means membership - not the meaningless 'access' - of the single market. This is because we know: (1) it's unacceptable to Brexit Jihadists, who will threaten blow up the economy and take hostages if it ever found its way into the May regime's Brexit negotiating position; and (2) that once embarked down the Norwegian route, we're ever closer to a belly flop back into the EU.

I'm always in this neck of the woods, just not subtracting from the sum of knowledge.

Thank you for visiting our forum. Which club do you support?

An official United Nations report has laid the blame for serious human rights violations in Venezuela firmly at the door of the Maduro regime, which has killed dozens and imprisoned and abused thousands. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-human-rights-violations-nicolas-maduro-un-responsibility-highest-level-united-nations-a7882061.html No doubt St Jeremy will be making a new statement condemning the anti-democratic and human rights-violating regime. After all, as he himself said: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." This would replace his statement yesterday, which was carefully neutral.

Not so sure you can be that pessimistic, Brian. Last year's signings seemed to slot into the missing goals/losing trophies thing very quickly.

Excellent to see that the 'Brexit Jihadists' meme is coming along nicely... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4764278/Lib-Dem-leader-Vince-Cable-blasts-hardliners.html