Lighthouse

When you're basically writing, "death to Israel!" on the side of the cruise missiles you've been developing, it kind of is a hostile act. That's not a deterrent. From most other nations it is but I can't totally convince myself Iran would never use it. Not going to disagree with that at all.

Half decent football, challenging for the top half. I like unearthing talent from abroad and I'll happily take the odd Moi and Gaston mixed in with the Manes and Tadics. What I can't stand is throwing away about 15 games a season in the last 5 minutes and making ridiculous signings like Carrillo and Osvaldo, which are doomed from day 1.

Only if you don’t understand it. My point wasn’t literally comparing ice cream to a thermonuclear warhead. I don’t want anyone to have nuclear weapons but we do and they will never be uninvented. What we can do is stop them from spreading to fanatical religious fantasists who might be more inclined to use them.

I can't blame a five year old for wanting three pints of chocolate ice cream. Doesn't mean they should have it.

No, different problems. I haven't crashed my car into a telegraph pole.

At the moment it seems they do. They've both managed to drag a one off problem out for about 6 months.

This morning; car insurance and broadband providers.

As far as I am aware, India/Pakistan is more of a territorial dispute which can be moderated through patient negotiation and diplomacy. I don’t support Trump or his decision to withdraw from the agreement but I doubt we wants to start a war in the region either. Quite simply, he wants to re-impose restrictions on a belligerent regime which threatens US interests in the area, both Arab and Israeli. Iran may act like they are being bullied in the playground but if they didn’t keep running up to the hardest kid in school and kicking him in the nads, it might aid their situation somewhat.

I sleep soundly at night knowing that whatever I think of USA, Russia and China, they aren't about to nuke each other off the face of the planet. On the other hand I think a country which believes that... MIGHT be tempted to fire one off at Israel.

Yeah, cool, except I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the missile with, "Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth," written on the side, in Hebrew. You think a country that says stuff like this is developing nuclear material for peaceful purposes; and I'm the naive one?!

Well, that sounds perfectly sensible to me. Also I didn't say World, I said West. Iran are test firing cruise missiles with, "Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth," written on the side, trying to develop nuclear weapons and your response is some 30 second video of Pompeo saying, "we lied, we cheated, we stole."

I've never said I trust any of those men, I don't get your point or how it is relevant to what I said.

There are always the same two mistakes popping up in debates like this: 1. "We don't know this, there isn't any evidence." - No, there is evidence, you just haven't read about it in the Grauniad. As Batman says, military commanders in the area will know which ship was responsible, where is it and what the first mate had for breakfast. 2. "We're just as bad as them, it's our fault really." - Again, no. Whatever the Saudis, Israel and the great Tango Monster may get up to, Iran are worse. They are die hard religious fanatics who make no secret of their desire to wipe half of the west of the face of the Earth.

I knew you'd say that, it's kind of like saying I want Ralph out because he lost at home to Cardiff. They are right far more often than they are wrong. I don't see what the motivation is for the West to lie about this; after Iraq/Afghanistan/ISIS there really is no appetite for another Middle Eastern War. Iran on the other hand have a fanatical desire to wipe USA and Israel off the face of the planet (or at least that's what they wrote on the side of one of their prototype missiles).

Why not?

That's based on the supposition that the attacking ship left Iran perpendicular to the coast and intercepted the ship at a perfect trajectory, with precise timing. The attacking boat could have been trailing the ship for a while, or may have sailed out beyond the actually course of the ship and fired upon it when it passed between them and the Iranian coast. The ships could have changed course to avoid other shipping, stay in a particular lane, or to find a favourable current. I'm no naval expert but to say that attacking the right hand side proves anything seems extremely simplistic. I trust our intelligence and if people like Hunt are convinced it was Iran, that's good enough for me.

I don't think so and I believe there will be a lot of scrutiny on refs and the FA not to allow that. I'm not convinced there's a deliberate bias towards the big clubs, more of a subconscious intimidation. If Saints have a corner in front of the Kop End, it's easy for a ref to pretend he didn't notice a shirt pull and not have 50,000 Scousers screaming for blood. If he sees two or three replays and another official spots it too, that wont happen.

I didn’t mean it quite that literally but we were certainly robbed of the opening goal in a game we went 2-0 down in. I think a few minutes here and there checking VAR is worth it for moments like that.

Knock off £15m for Gabbi and probably a bit more for the Hoedt/Cedric/Boufal/Clasie/Davis/Carrillo loans. I'm not saying we're skint but it's hardly as if we've dug deep in our pockets either.

So you're saying the Saudis may have attacked a ship (which left their own port) hundreds of miles from their own coast but very close to Iran, as a false flag to escalate US/Iran tensions, in revenge for Iran backing Houthi rebels? The Saudis also believe that the US, who will be watching the region like a hawk, won't notice any of this?

Debating whether it’s a mine or a missile is one thing but who else do you think might have been responsible, if not Iran?

I think you would know 99% of the time whether you can go nuts or whether there's a dubious foul in the build up. It's not perfect but it will cut out many of the ridiculous decisions we've seen recently. With VAR we'd have a League Cup trophy in our cabinet.

I’m pretty sure there was also money involved in that which stopped us from going into admin for a few more months. It’s easy to criticise in hindsight but I think Lowe was just doing whatever it took to keep the club afloat. It’s not as if we were desperate for a keeper, he was just a makeweight. To think we used to believe Gaston was a poor signing when he cost £12m and ‘only’ got about 6 goals in his first season. He’d get our golden boot these days.

Comparisons to us are hardly valid, everyone looked good compared to what we achieved. After all their spending and big names, they finished 3 points above Palace. Whilst we can hardly laugh, it’s not like they actually achieved much.

I’m sure Anderson, Lanzini, Antonio, Yarmolenko, Nasri, Snodgrass and Wilshere will be delighted to have another AM in the squad.