politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Theresa May now level-pegging with “Don’t know” as to who woul
Comments
-
Just found this from the Xmas day Xword thread.
stjohn Posts: 762
December 2017 edited December 2017
dixiedean said:
17 across national anagram.
Yes. Built is the anagram indicator. The letters of “on a Latin” are “built” into NATIONAL. Which as an adjective means state. It’s also a horse race of course. I fancy TIGER ROLL for next year’s race, if he turns up.0 -
FFS - that's one random tweeter, now you're making it the settled view of an entire wing of politics. I could find individual Tory tweeters making a stupid statement all the time if I cared enough to do so.rottenborough said:
0 -
FrancisUrquhart said:
Unreal. Especially given the OPCW has specifically found Assad responsible for the use of chemical weapons four times since 2013 (when he murdered 700 with them). That's just the ones that can be proved too, there have been dozens.
0 -
If I have understood this right, May has been very busy this month. She sanctioned an MI5/6 plot to release chemical weapons in her own country in order to be able to blame Russia. And then, having seen the poor polling figures for local elections, she allowed the SAS or similar to secretly fly into Syria and release chemical weapons there as it would help with the locals. When there was a chance that independent inspectors were about to enter the area, she persuaded Trump and Macron to come to her aid and start bombing.FrancisUrquhart said:
And the nerve agent attack wasn't the Russians, and the Syrian chemical attack wasn't Assad, it was the white helmets funded by the UK....InfoWars Leftist Edition.rottenborough said:
0 -
Mr. Borough, if she had that level of organisational prowess she would've won a 300 seat majority.0
-
It is not a disputed statement at all. I don't recall a single instance of Israel ever being accused of using chemical weapons even by its worst enemies.DM_Andy said:
That is quite a disputed statement, Certainly Israel has significant chemical weapon capability.Sandpit said:
They haven’t used chemical weapons.DM_Andy said:
I really don't think so - try and find a quote from him that Israel should be bombed, you've got 34 years of him being an MP to try and find something.Sandpit said:
Or the Americans, or the Israelis.RobD said:
Bombs won't save lives or bring about peace unless used against the British?Morris_Dancer said:Leader of the Opposition: "Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace."
Shadow Chancellor [in 2013]: "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell#Irish_Republican_Army
You can bet that if Israel dropped a chemical bomb over their wall, Corbyn would be first on the TV saying that action against them should be hard and immediate.
Having such weapons and using them are two very different things. The US still has chemical weapons and admits it will not have completed destruction of them until 2023.0 -
I think a lot depends on the temperature and how much (if any) overnight rain comes down. I can’t see the medium tyres lasting all but a handful of laps of the whole race, they’ll be shot by the end and there’s plenty of overtaking to be had here.Morris_Dancer said:F1: related tweets connected to this. Worth a read.
https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/985179069787582465
Should be a good, if very strategic, race in the morning - and much more exciting than the aforementioned 40-horse steeplechase.0 -
I wonder if she will have declared the costs of all of that to the Electoral Commission?rottenborough said:
If I have understood this right, May has been very busy this month. She sanctioned an MI5/6 plot to release chemical weapons in her own country in order to be able to blame Russia. And then, having seen the poor polling figures for local elections, she allowed the SAS or similar to secretly fly into Syria and release chemical weapons there as it would help with the locals. When there was a chance that independent inspectors were about to enter the area, she persuaded Trump and Macron to come to her aid and start bombing.FrancisUrquhart said:
And the nerve agent attack wasn't the Russians, and the Syrian chemical attack wasn't Assad, it was the white helmets funded by the UK....InfoWars Leftist Edition.rottenborough said:0 -
I hope she thought about the GDPR implications.Richard_Tyndall said:
I wonder if she will have declared the costs of all of that to the Electoral Commission?rottenborough said:
If I have understood this right, May has been very busy this month. She sanctioned an MI5/6 plot to release chemical weapons in her own country in order to be able to blame Russia. And then, having seen the poor polling figures for local elections, she allowed the SAS or similar to secretly fly into Syria and release chemical weapons there as it would help with the locals. When there was a chance that independent inspectors were about to enter the area, she persuaded Trump and Macron to come to her aid and start bombing.FrancisUrquhart said:
And the nerve agent attack wasn't the Russians, and the Syrian chemical attack wasn't Assad, it was the white helmets funded by the UK....InfoWars Leftist Edition.rottenborough said:0 -
And the same sort of people who think that mock May's political weakness and incompetence. That's the beauty of the conspiracist mindsight, you can hold all sort of illogical views at the same time.rottenborough said:If I have understood this right, May has been very busy this month. She sanctioned an MI5/6 plot to release chemical weapons in her own country in order to be able to blame Russia. And then, having seen the poor polling figures for local elections, she allowed the SAS or similar to secretly fly into Syria and release chemical weapons there as it would help with the locals. When there was a chance that independent inspectors were about to enter the area, she persuaded Trump and Macron to come to her aid and start bombing.
Corbynism and Trumpism is the same phenomena. Both groups are increasingly detached from reality.0 -
Mr. Sandpit, worth also noting that the astroturf retained water from the previous day, so if it does rain overnight, even if the track proper is dry, the fake grass could be very hazardous.0
-
Israel has been accused of using poison gas, this from the Palestinian Solidarity CampaignRichard_Tyndall said:
It is not a disputed statement at all. I don't recall a single instance of Israel ever being accused of using chemical weapons even by its worst enemies.DM_Andy said:
That is quite a disputed statement, Certainly Israel has significant chemical weapon capability.Sandpit said:
They haven’t used chemical weapons.DM_Andy said:
I really don't think so - try and find a quote from him that Israel should be bombed, you've got 34 years of him being an MP to try and find something.Sandpit said:
Or the Americans, or the Israelis.RobD said:
Bombs won't save lives or bring about peace unless used against the British?Morris_Dancer said:Leader of the Opposition: "Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace."
Shadow Chancellor [in 2013]: "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell#Irish_Republican_Army
You can bet that if Israel dropped a chemical bomb over their wall, Corbyn would be first on the TV saying that action against them should be hard and immediate.
Having such weapons and using them are two very different things. The US still has chemical weapons and admits it will not have completed destruction of them until 2023.
More recently, in 2001, foreign observers reported apparent poison gas attacks on demonstrators in Gaza and Bethlehem. The IDF frequently uses tear gas, but the effects on this occasion were serious: severe vomiting, muscular paralysis, convulsions and seizures, leading to the hospitalisation of dozens of victims. The effects lasted several days, even weeks. The IDF dismissed the reports, saying the symptoms were due to ‘anxiety’.
The use of white phosphorus, while not illegal in some battlefield situations, is prohibited as a weapon against civilians especially in crowded residential areas, as was the case during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza two years ago. The UN Goldstone Report condemned this as just one of a number of war crimes committed by the IDF.
0 -
Individual Tory vs. a whole bloody movement of Momentum loons....DM_Andy said:
FFS - that's one random tweeter, now you're making it the settled view of an entire wing of politics. I could find individual Tory tweeters making a stupid statement all the time if I cared enough to do so.rottenborough said:0 -
That seems to me always to be the point on which conspiracy theories founder. They all appear to ascribe to certain groups of people superhuman powers of getting things right and thus hoodwinking the rest of us. Yet in any other walk of life, no human being ever displays the required level of skill & competence.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Borough, if she had that level of organisational prowess she would've won a 300 seat majority.
0 -
It makes zero sense even for a conspiracy theorist to think what is happening with Syria is about the local elections. Even assuming it would have an impact on peoples' votes, it is pretty clear that it is not a hugely popular vote winner of a policy - there is plenty of reluctance and misgivings, or outright opposition, even on the Tory side.0
-
17,345 posts. Do you ever say anything that's not completely sneering?MarqueeMark said:
Individual Tory vs. a whole bloody movement of Momentum loons....DM_Andy said:
FFS - that's one random tweeter, now you're making it the settled view of an entire wing of politics. I could find individual Tory tweeters making a stupid statement all the time if I cared enough to do so.rottenborough said:0 -
-
In what way is that statement wrong?DM_Andy said:
I don't know why I'm wasting my time on here, Is this just a PBTory echo chamber?glw said:Corbynism and Trumpism is the same phenomena. Both groups are increasingly detached from reality.
They both promise vast amounts of goodies aimed foursquare at narrow sectional interest groups that they say other people will pay for.
They both rely on fake news websites.
They both owe their position to the party faithful not the party machine.
They both pose as straight-talking and principled while being the exact opposite in practice.
They both make ludicrous statements on Twitter.
They both did far better than expected in elections but both just failed to win the popular vote.
It is in fact quite worrying that the parallels between them are so striking.
Re the alleged Israeli chemical attack, I haven't come across this one before. Do you have a link to a reputable news site reporting on it, e.g. The Guardian or Independent? Or the UN, for the matter of that? Because the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign isn't exactly noted for its integrity and ability and while the claim isn't by any means impossible on its own that source won't cut it.0 -
One person mentioned it canvassing today - they expressed concern about getting involved, but it didn’t affect their voting intention for these elections.kle4 said:It makes zero sense even for a conspiracy theorist to think what is happening with Syria is about the local elections. Even assuming it would have an impact on peoples' votes, it is pretty clear that it is not a hugely popular vote winner of a policy - there is plenty of reluctance and misgivings, or outright opposition, even on the Tory side.
0 -
Indeed. Wet AstroTurf is the best enforcer of track limits seen in a long time, better than even the big yellow sausage kerbs.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, worth also noting that the astroturf retained water from the previous day, so if it does rain overnight, even if the track proper is dry, the fake grass could be very hazardous.
0 -
DM_Andy said:
Israel has been accused of using poison gas, this from the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign
More recently, in 2001, foreign observers reported apparent poison gas attacks on demonstrators in Gaza and Bethlehem. The IDF frequently uses tear gas, but the effects on this occasion were serious: severe vomiting, muscular paralysis, convulsions and seizures, leading to the hospitalisation of dozens of victims. The effects lasted several days, even weeks. The IDF dismissed the reports, saying the symptoms were due to ‘anxiety’.
The use of white phosphorus, while not illegal in some battlefield situations, is prohibited as a weapon against civilians especially in crowded residential areas, as was the case during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza two years ago. The UN Goldstone Report condemned this as just one of a number of war crimes committed by the IDF.
Okay lets revise that. No one reputable has ever accused Israel of using chemical weapons. Just about every country on earth uses tear gas and white phosphorus is not a proscribed chemical weapon.
Israel are in many ways not a nice bunch of people and they certainly do things which are in breach of international law but again they have never used chemical weapons.0 -
We had one yesterday who was outright suggesting he was able to figure out these vast, terrifyingly corrupt and successful criminal enterprises at the heart of our politics, because, and I paraphrase, they never thought that people would take the time to look at Companies House documents and figure it out. That's right - they are so successful, and commit so many brazen crimes, but they fill out company registration documents honestly, assuming no one will untangle that thread.AnneJGP said:
That seems to me always to be the point on which conspiracy theories founder. They all appear to ascribe to certain groups of people superhuman powers of getting things right and thus hoodwinking the rest of us. Yet in any other walk of life, no human being ever displays the required level of skill & competence.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Borough, if she had that level of organisational prowess she would've won a 300 seat majority.
But yes, it stretches credibility too far. It's like one of the simplest explanations of many supposed hoaxes - just think of how many people would have to be in on it, in some cases potentially thousands, and consider the chances all of them can be bought or bullied to keep up the hoax on things like terrorist attacks, mass shootings and chemical attacks.
If I am living in such a dark world, I'd prefer to keep living in blissful ignorance, thank you.0 -
You think she might have Assad's address on a computer and she hasn't made sure it is properly secured?RoyalBlue said:
I hope she thought about the GDPR implications.Richard_Tyndall said:
I wonder if she will have declared the costs of all of that to the Electoral Commission?rottenborough said:
If I have understood this right, May has been very busy this month. She sanctioned an MI5/6 plot to release chemical weapons in her own country in order to be able to blame Russia. And then, having seen the poor polling figures for local elections, she allowed the SAS or similar to secretly fly into Syria and release chemical weapons there as it would help with the locals. When there was a chance that independent inspectors were about to enter the area, she persuaded Trump and Macron to come to her aid and start bombing.FrancisUrquhart said:
And the nerve agent attack wasn't the Russians, and the Syrian chemical attack wasn't Assad, it was the white helmets funded by the UK....InfoWars Leftist Edition.rottenborough said:
0 -
Yes, the sentiment change has been extra-ordinary. Just two months back, it was all-go. Ironically, the tax bill may have had something to do about this change of sentiment. Loose fiscal stance, invites tight monetary conditions and markets weaned on near zero interest rates find that difficult to stomach. Plus , of course, the Great Negotiator has really made everyone nervous regarding trade.rcs1000 said:
Composite PMI surveys have shown pretty sharp slowdowns in the last two months: the EU has gone from 59 to 55, the US has gone from 56 to 54, and the UK from 56 to 52.surby said:http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43756202
My company has had 18 fantastic months of sales. However, orders are gradually slipping. The tail-wind [ world wide growth ] is waning.
Now, it's too early to say whether this is just a blip, or whether the global expansion is coming to an end. To my mind, the most concerning of these in the US, because the tax bill should be expansionary.
Edit to add: when I typed "EU", I actually meant "EZ". Eurozone PMIs have moved down. As far as I am aware, there is no EU PMI.
Edit to add (2): also worth noting China's PMI has come in too. It's down at 51.0 -
She was , and she is.Sandpit said:
Paxman was crap. The lovely Victoria Coren was much better last night.FrancisUrquhart said:Meanwhile, Paxman bellowed pointlessly and Josh Widdicombe barely uttered a word. Rarely has a show appeared more tired, more flabby, more blunted by its own complacency. The time has come to put it out of its misery. To go quietly would surely be the modest thing to do.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/apr/14/is-it-time-to-put-have-i-got-news-for-you-out-of-its-misery
Add Newnsight and Question Time to the list.0 -
No - as was pointed out earlier there are even Corbyn fans on here. They are outnumbered, however, and even many of the Labour regulars are not Corbyn fans. Do not be discouraged.DM_Andy said:
I don't know why I'm wasting my time on here, Is this just a PBTory echo chamber?glw said:Corbynism and Trumpism is the same phenomena. Both groups are increasingly detached from reality.
Just in the morning thread plenty of PBTories disagreed with the header, which was written by a Tory.0 -
It's not just Momentum members. It's much wider spread than that now. "Mainstream" Labour supporters, members, and in some cases even MPs are giving succor to Russian propaganda in a way that would have been unthinkable not long ago.MarqueeMark said:
Individual Tory vs. a whole bloody movement of Momentum loons....DM_Andy said:
FFS - that's one random tweeter, now you're making it the settled view of an entire wing of politics. I could find individual Tory tweeters making a stupid statement all the time if I cared enough to do so.rottenborough said:
How the hell a "progressive" left-wing political party has ended up being so willing to side with a government that is the very opposite of all the things the left are meant to believe in is beyond me. Then again we live in a world where the Republican Party is now full of people who admire Putin. So whatever the cause is it seems to be infectious.
And before anyone says anything, no you are not merely open minded, or merely willing to question a MSM narrative. You are doing the work of very wicked people.0 -
Mr. Sandpit, not as good as the suspension-smashing kerbs, though.
Bloody Tories have form, it turns out, on military action for electoral advantage!
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/9852057224210391050 -
So that makes Corbyn and Cyclefree without comment.Roger said:
In that case he's been very restrained. All who watched the news last night saw Israeli soldiers shooting dead young protesters behind a wire while settlers stood and cheered. i didn't hear any comment from Corbyn when one would have been most appropriate.Sandpit said:
Or the Americans, or the Israelis.RobD said:
Bombs won't save lives or bring about peace unless used against the British?Morris_Dancer said:Leader of the Opposition: "Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace."
Shadow Chancellor [in 2013]: "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell#Irish_Republican_Army
You can bet that if Israel dropped a chemical bomb over their wall, Corbyn would be first on the TV saying that action against them should be hard and immediate.0 -
Right, I mentioned that a fact was disputed. Tyndall said that "even Israel's worst enemies haven't claimed that", I posted up something that did claim that. I'm not agreeing with it, I know that it's from a prejudiced source but I don't know if it's true or not. But that wasn't the question, Tyndall said that no-one had made the claim and that wasn't true.ydoethur said:
Re the alleged Israeli chemical attack, I haven't come across this one before. Do you have a link to a reputable news site reporting on it, e.g. The Guardian or Independent? Or the UN, for the matter of that? Because the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign isn't exactly noted for its integrity and ability and while the claim isn't by any means impossible on its own that source won't cut it.
I'm not going to waste my time being baited into answering questions and then being misrepresented by you lot. I'm on this site for intelligent political discussion, I enjoy hearing views that I don't share because it challenges why I think the way I do. Okay, in politics it's rare that you change your mind completely but I think it's useful to try and understand where other people are coming from when they have different views. But infantile selective editing and making it sound like I'm saying something I'm not makes me feel like I should leave you all to your echo-chamber.
0 -
As I said earlier, why would it? In 1982 the circumstances were very unusual. Even then the effect on the Tory vote is thought to be overstated.RoyalBlue said:
One person mentioned it canvassing today - they expressed concern about getting involved, but it didn’t affect their voting intention for these elections.kle4 said:It makes zero sense even for a conspiracy theorist to think what is happening with Syria is about the local elections. Even assuming it would have an impact on peoples' votes, it is pretty clear that it is not a hugely popular vote winner of a policy - there is plenty of reluctance and misgivings, or outright opposition, even on the Tory side.
People will overwhelmingly vote on domestic issues - as they should, especially next month which will have no bearing on foreign affairs. A more pertinent question would be whether they're likely to vote at all. That's where the Marmite qualities of Corbyn may be really important.0 -
you come across as ranty - I think you said it was "disgusting" that Mrs May took questions from reporters? - it isn't - and ill-informed, and too lazy and self-righteous to make yourself better informed. My goldfish understand the workings of the royal prerogative better than you do.DM_Andy said:
I don't know why I'm wasting my time on here, Is this just a PBTory echo chamber?glw said:Corbynism and Trumpism is the same phenomena. Both groups are increasingly detached from reality.
0 -
Take a look at stop the warDM_Andy said:
I really don't think so - try and find a quote from him that Israel should be bombed, you've got 34 years of him being an MP to try and find something.Sandpit said:
Or the Americans, or the Israelis.RobD said:
Bombs won't save lives or bring about peace unless used against the British?Morris_Dancer said:Leader of the Opposition: "Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace."
Shadow Chancellor [in 2013]: "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell#Irish_Republican_Army
You can bet that if Israel dropped a chemical bomb over their wall, Corbyn would be first on the TV saying that action against them should be hard and immediate.0 -
This place can be a bit of a bear pit sometimes, but compared with most other parts of the Internet, it’s an oasis of reason and moderation. Just as importantly, there are plenty of differences of option that don’t divide neatly on party lines.DM_Andy said:
17,345 posts. Do you ever say anything that's not completely sneering?MarqueeMark said:
Individual Tory vs. a whole bloody movement of Momentum loons....DM_Andy said:
FFS - that's one random tweeter, now you're making it the settled view of an entire wing of politics. I could find individual Tory tweeters making a stupid statement all the time if I cared enough to do so.rottenborough said:
Stay!
0 -
Mr. Andy, varying opinions are welcome, though sometimes comments are (usually by accident) taken out of context. Of course, arguments will be picked apart if others consider them to have weaknesses.0
-
That is frustrating - I've had it happen to me (even more annoyingly it was someone I was agreeing with). But at the same time I'm still intrigued. Do you know if anyone else reported on this at the time?DM_Andy said:Right, I mentioned that a fact was disputed. Tyndall said that "even Israel's worst enemies haven't claimed that", I posted up something that did claim that. I'm not agreeing with it, I know that it's from a prejudiced source but I don't know if it's true or not. But that wasn't the question, Tyndall said that no-one had made the claim and that wasn't true.
0 -
And in response, a selective editingIshmael_Z said:
you come across as ranty - I think you said it was "disgusting" that Mrs May took questions from reporters? - it isn't - and ill-informed, and too lazy and self-righteous to make yourself better informed. My goldfish understand the workings of the royal prerogative better than you do.DM_Andy said:
I don't know why I'm wasting my time on here, Is this just a PBTory echo chamber?glw said:Corbynism and Trumpism is the same phenomena. Both groups are increasingly detached from reality.
My full comment as you well know is that it was disgusting that May took questions from journalists two days before any MP has an opportunity to.0 -
Anyway, I must be off. Do play nicely, children.0
-
I don't know - and sorry that I snapped back at you because you are one of the decent ones.ydoethur said:
That is frustrating - I've had it happen to me (even more annoyingly it was someone I was agreeing with). But at the same time I'm still intrigued. Do you know if anyone else reported on this at the time?DM_Andy said:Right, I mentioned that a fact was disputed. Tyndall said that "even Israel's worst enemies haven't claimed that", I posted up something that did claim that. I'm not agreeing with it, I know that it's from a prejudiced source but I don't know if it's true or not. But that wasn't the question, Tyndall said that no-one had made the claim and that wasn't true.
0 -
Having is not same as using - please let us know when and where Israel has used these weaponsDM_Andy said:
That is quite a disputed statement, Certainly Israel has significant chemical weapon capability.Sandpit said:
They haven’t used chemical weapons.DM_Andy said:
I really don't think so - try and find a quote from him that Israel should be bombed, you've got 34 years of him being an MP to try and find something.Sandpit said:
Or the Americans, or the Israelis.RobD said:
Bombs won't save lives or bring about peace unless used against the British?Morris_Dancer said:Leader of the Opposition: "Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace."
Shadow Chancellor [in 2013]: "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell#Irish_Republican_Army
You can bet that if Israel dropped a chemical bomb over their wall, Corbyn would be first on the TV saying that action against them should be hard and immediate.0 -
Even better, you get to learn things on here. There is such a lot of expertise, sometimes in esoteric areas, and people who argue the points often do so from positions of considerable knowledge. You may not end up agree with them, but you learn.RoyalBlue said:
This place can be a bit of a bear pit sometimes, but compared with most other parts of the Internet, it’s an oasis of reason and moderation. Just as importantly, there are plenty of differences of option that don’t divide neatly on party lines.DM_Andy said:
17,345 posts. Do you ever say anything that's not completely sneering?MarqueeMark said:
Individual Tory vs. a whole bloody movement of Momentum loons....DM_Andy said:
FFS - that's one random tweeter, now you're making it the settled view of an entire wing of politics. I could find individual Tory tweeters making a stupid statement all the time if I cared enough to do so.rottenborough said:
Stay!0 -
As it happens I found it for myself:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22310544
White phosphorous is a grey area in law and we've used it ourselves in areas with civilian populations. However, whether it was criminal or not I would say it is not an appropriate thing to use.0 -
I had expected you to find someone reputable - like a country or an official organisation. Not some ranty group posting from their mother's back room in Merthyr Tydfil.DM_Andy said:
Right, I mentioned that a fact was disputed. Tyndall said that "even Israel's worst enemies haven't claimed that", I posted up something that did claim that. I'm not agreeing with it, I know that it's from a prejudiced source but I don't know if it's true or not. But that wasn't the question, Tyndall said that no-one had made the claim and that wasn't true.ydoethur said:
Re the alleged Israeli chemical attack, I haven't come across this one before. Do you have a link to a reputable news site reporting on it, e.g. The Guardian or Independent? Or the UN, for the matter of that? Because the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign isn't exactly noted for its integrity and ability and while the claim isn't by any means impossible on its own that source won't cut it.
I'm not going to waste my time being baited into answering questions and then being misrepresented by you lot. I'm on this site for intelligent political discussion, I enjoy hearing views that I don't share because it challenges why I think the way I do. Okay, in politics it's rare that you change your mind completely but I think it's useful to try and understand where other people are coming from when they have different views. But infantile selective editing and making it sound like I'm saying something I'm not makes me feel like I should leave you all to your echo-chamber.
If that is your criteria for a reputable source then there are a whole raft of groups who believe the Earth is hollow and flat at the same time. They sound like they are right up your street.0 -
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/2001_Israeli_Nerve_Gas_Attacksydoethur said:
That is frustrating - I've had it happen to me (even more annoyingly it was someone I was agreeing with). But at the same time I'm still intrigued. Do you know if anyone else reported on this at the time?DM_Andy said:Right, I mentioned that a fact was disputed. Tyndall said that "even Israel's worst enemies haven't claimed that", I posted up something that did claim that. I'm not agreeing with it, I know that it's from a prejudiced source but I don't know if it's true or not. But that wasn't the question, Tyndall said that no-one had made the claim and that wasn't true.
God knows what claim to credibility wikispooks has; you will see in the "Official narrative" section that wikipedia won't run the story on the grounds that it is insufficiently sourced.0 -
If by decent you mean not a right-wing ogre, you are sadly correct. Ydoethur has some way to go to become a full-blown PB Tory.DM_Andy said:
I don't know - and sorry that I snapped back at you because you are one of the decent ones.ydoethur said:
That is frustrating - I've had it happen to me (even more annoyingly it was someone I was agreeing with). But at the same time I'm still intrigued. Do you know if anyone else reported on this at the time?DM_Andy said:Right, I mentioned that a fact was disputed. Tyndall said that "even Israel's worst enemies haven't claimed that", I posted up something that did claim that. I'm not agreeing with it, I know that it's from a prejudiced source but I don't know if it's true or not. But that wasn't the question, Tyndall said that no-one had made the claim and that wasn't true.
A few more Wagner voluntaries on Sunday mornings should do the trick
0 -
He hasn't eaten any babies yet, I think. Come to think of it I am waiting for mine since voting Tory last June - it's not encouraging me to vote for them again.RoyalBlue said:
If by decent you mean not a right-wing ogre, you are sadly correct. Ydoethur has some way to go to become a full-blown PB Tory.DM_Andy said:
I don't know - and sorry that I snapped back at you because you are one of the decent ones.ydoethur said:
That is frustrating - I've had it happen to me (even more annoyingly it was someone I was agreeing with). But at the same time I'm still intrigued. Do you know if anyone else reported on this at the time?DM_Andy said:Right, I mentioned that a fact was disputed. Tyndall said that "even Israel's worst enemies haven't claimed that", I posted up something that did claim that. I'm not agreeing with it, I know that it's from a prejudiced source but I don't know if it's true or not. But that wasn't the question, Tyndall said that no-one had made the claim and that wasn't true.
A few more Wagner voluntaries on Sunday mornings should do the trick0 -
More important than Syria
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/top-10-unrealistic-clich-s-in-tv-drama-a8300116.html
This one drives me nuts
Actors pretending to drink from empty cups or swinging them about in such a way that the liquid would obviously slop out. Once spotted you will see it everywhere – soaps, dramas, big films. Surely drama schools can include a lesson on realistic pretend drinking? Or, how about actually putting liquid in the cups? “At last,” said Paul Keeble, relieved finally to get this off his chest.
Once seen you do see it everywhere. Why can't they put liquid in the damn cups, even if it is way too little?0 -
No Richard, stop lying. This is what you said.Richard_Tyndall said:
I had expected you to find someone reputable - like a country or an official organisation. Not some ranty group posting from their mother's back room in Merthyr Tydfil.DM_Andy said:
Right, I mentioned that a fact was disputed. Tyndall said that "even Israel's worst enemies haven't claimed that", I posted up something that did claim that. I'm not agreeing with it, I know that it's from a prejudiced source but I don't know if it's true or not. But that wasn't the question, Tyndall said that no-one had made the claim and that wasn't true.ydoethur said:
Re the alleged Israeli chemical attack, I haven't come across this one before. Do you have a link to a reputable news site reporting on it, e.g. The Guardian or Independent? Or the UN, for the matter of that? Because the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign isn't exactly noted for its integrity and ability and while the claim isn't by any means impossible on its own that source won't cut it.
I'm not going to waste my time being baited into answering questions and then being misrepresented by you lot. I'm on this site for intelligent political discussion, I enjoy hearing views that I don't share because it challenges why I think the way I do. Okay, in politics it's rare that you change your mind completely but I think it's useful to try and understand where other people are coming from when they have different views. But infantile selective editing and making it sound like I'm saying something I'm not makes me feel like I should leave you all to your echo-chamber.Richard_Tyndall said:
It is not a disputed statement at all. I don't recall a single instance of Israel ever being accused of using chemical weapons even by its worst enemies.0 -
The same people most outraged by Trump and blame it on Fake News/ InfoWars / Russia, appear to be the ones lapping up Squawkbox etc output which is near identical in their output of conspiracy theories relating to Russia / Syria.glw said:
It's not just Momentum members. It's much wider spread than that now. "Mainstream" Labour supporters, members, and in some cases even MPs are giving succor to Russian propaganda in a way that would have been unthinkable not long ago.MarqueeMark said:
Individual Tory vs. a whole bloody movement of Momentum loons....DM_Andy said:
FFS - that's one random tweeter, now you're making it the settled view of an entire wing of politics. I could find individual Tory tweeters making a stupid statement all the time if I cared enough to do so.rottenborough said:
How the hell a "progressive" left-wing political party has ended up being so willing to side with a government that is the very opposite of all the things the left are meant to believe in is beyond me. Then again we live in a world where the Republican Party is now full of people who admire Putin. So whatever the cause is it seems to be infectious.
And before anyone says anything, no you are not merely open minded, or merely willing to question a MSM narrative. You are doing the work of very wicked people.0 -
ISTR that in the soaps, when they show people drinking in the pubs, they use a special water rather than beer - and they very rarely actually drink any. There was an accusation that some actors would replace the fake alcohol with the real stuff.kle4 said:More important than Syria
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/top-10-unrealistic-clich-s-in-tv-drama-a8300116.html
This one drives me nuts
Actors pretending to drink from empty cups or swinging them about in such a way that the liquid would obviously slop out. Once spotted you will see it everywhere – soaps, dramas, big films. Surely drama schools can include a lesson on realistic pretend drinking? Or, how about actually putting liquid in the cups? “At last,” said Paul Keeble, relieved finally to get this off his chest.
Once seen you do see it everywhere. Why can't they put liquid in the damn cups, even if it is way too little?0 -
Makes sense - it's when there's clearly nothing in there which gets me, since if there's no call for the actor to drink anything in the scene there's no worry about multiple takes leading to them needing to piss or something, but you really do see it in everything from low budget tv to oscar winning movies, and actors don't seem to get taught 'convincing cup holding' in acting class.JosiasJessop said:
ISTR that in the soaps, when they show people drinking in the pubs, they use a special water rather than beer - and they very rarely actually drink any. There was an accusation that some actors would replace the fake alcohol with the real stuff.kle4 said:More important than Syria
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/top-10-unrealistic-clich-s-in-tv-drama-a8300116.html
This one drives me nuts
Actors pretending to drink from empty cups or swinging them about in such a way that the liquid would obviously slop out. Once spotted you will see it everywhere – soaps, dramas, big films. Surely drama schools can include a lesson on realistic pretend drinking? Or, how about actually putting liquid in the cups? “At last,” said Paul Keeble, relieved finally to get this off his chest.
Once seen you do see it everywhere. Why can't they put liquid in the damn cups, even if it is way too little?0 -
Preventing Russia from obtaining a warm water port has been an objective of British foreign policy for over 250 years.stodge said:Afternoon all
Well, I'd say "so far, so reasonable". Plenty of chest-thumping and positive spin from Trump, May and others but I'd like some independent verification as to the effectiveness of these strikes.
I'm not a supporter of the Prime Minister or her Government but it appears a well-planned, co-ordinated and restricted attack on certain installations appears to have been carried out with the customary effectiveness by the Armed Forces involved.
It's completely right and proper to question the medium and long term consequences of what we have done. None of this will stop the slaughter of men, women and children by other, more conventional means, I fear.
I think the diplomatic aim has to be to prize Russia from Assad but that will mean a Syrian Government recognising Russian strategic interests at Tartus and elsewhere even if that Government throws Assad and his thugs under the nearest tank.
I'm convinced Putin needs a ruined client state in Damascus like he needs a hole in the head so let's start sweetening a deal which guarantees Russian strategic interests while offering them a chance to disengage from active participation in the civil war.0 -
Various constitutional lawyers have pitched in with a response to the tweet below. The consensus appears to be that the missile strikes are of doubtful legality, that the government's legal case for the strikes doesn't stack up but the lawyers are sympathetic to finding a legal basis for this kind of action.
The legal situation as I understand it: States are not allowed to punish other states for transgressions of international law. Only the UN can sanction that. The two justifications for cross border military action are firstly your country is under imminent threat and secondly to prevent an imminent humanitarian disaster or stop one that is underway. The first doesn't apply in this case so you fall back on the humanitarian argument. The problems here are that the humanitarian disaster, if it is such, is apparently a one off, has already happened and the military action doesn't serve to prevent a second imminent incident. In practice this is a unilateral punishment of course, but that's a no-no under international law.
https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/9851603594337198080 -
I'm guessing (and it is only that) that people really don't want unnecessary liquids on set, not just because of the electrical equipment, but any spillages might affect costumes and props that will need to be replaced or reset. And they might be a source of continuity errors after editing - in one take the glass is full, the next it is empty, then it is full again.kle4 said:
Makes sense - it's when there's clearly nothing in there which gets me, since if there's no call for the actor to drink anything in the scene there's no worry about multiple takes leading to them needing to piss or something, but you really do see it in everything from low budget tv to oscar winning movies, and actors don't seem to get taught 'convincing cup holding' in acting class.JosiasJessop said:
ISTR that in the soaps, when they show people drinking in the pubs, they use a special water rather than beer - and they very rarely actually drink any. There was an accusation that some actors would replace the fake alcohol with the real stuff.kle4 said:More important than Syria
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/top-10-unrealistic-clich-s-in-tv-drama-a8300116.html
This one drives me nuts
Actors pretending to drink from empty cups or swinging them about in such a way that the liquid would obviously slop out. Once spotted you will see it everywhere – soaps, dramas, big films. Surely drama schools can include a lesson on realistic pretend drinking? Or, how about actually putting liquid in the cups? “At last,” said Paul Keeble, relieved finally to get this off his chest.
Once seen you do see it everywhere. Why can't they put liquid in the damn cups, even if it is way too little?
I'm sure we have one or two knowledgeable people about such matters on here ...
(There are worse crimes. On one so-called 'show', they had a GNR steam engine pulling LMS coaches out of what was obviously a Southern Railway station. I nearly cancelled my TV licence in disgust) 0 -
Ah, it all falls into place:Charles said:
Preventing Russia from obtaining a warm water port has been an objective of British foreign policy for over 250 years.stodge said:Afternoon all
Well, I'd say "so far, so reasonable". Plenty of chest-thumping and positive spin from Trump, May and others but I'd like some independent verification as to the effectiveness of these strikes.
I'm not a supporter of the Prime Minister or her Government but it appears a well-planned, co-ordinated and restricted attack on certain installations appears to have been carried out with the customary effectiveness by the Armed Forces involved.
It's completely right and proper to question the medium and long term consequences of what we have done. None of this will stop the slaughter of men, women and children by other, more conventional means, I fear.
I think the diplomatic aim has to be to prize Russia from Assad but that will mean a Syrian Government recognising Russian strategic interests at Tartus and elsewhere even if that Government throws Assad and his thugs under the nearest tank.
I'm convinced Putin needs a ruined client state in Damascus like he needs a hole in the head so let's start sweetening a deal which guarantees Russian strategic interests while offering them a chance to disengage from active participation in the civil war.
Russia sells cheap gas to the west, we burn it to create CO2 emissions, global warming kicks in, Arctic ice retreats and Russia has warm water ports!0 -
Winning a war doesn't make you legitimate, just de facto.Barnesian said:
If our aim is to stop the suffering we should just recognise that Assad has won this war and is the legitimate ruler of Syria. I don't see any UK PM shaking his hand any time soon (unless he has a big budget for arms purchases).stodge said:
I'm not so sure but it will require more diplomatic effort than we've been willing to put in so far.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Noble aims but completely unattainablevolcanopete said:
The aim would be to have a number of urgent bilateral and multi-lateral communication lines opened up with the objective being a ceasefire to stop everyone killing each others' grandchildren and,then,to prioritise education for them,not wars,bombs and missiles to keep the armaments industry fat.Much better value for money than Tomahawks but then there is always a magic money tree for war.
Russia cannot afford to be seen to be chased out of its Syrian bases - that would be a supreme national humiliation and personal disaster for Putin - so it will support any Government in Damascus which will retain these assets. The West didn't realise, recognise or understand this or perhaps they did.
Whatever the case, just as Moscow propped up Afghanistan in the 80s and Washington propped up South Vietnam in the 60s and 70s, the alternative - defeat and humiliation, was and is politically unacceptable for an aggressive nationalist like Putin.
Russia could play a big part in stabilising and rebuilding Syria but only if its strategic assets are secured. Assad's survival guarantees this though the economic consequences of propping up this ruined State and pointless despot can't be justifiable so let's offer them something sensible. Russia needs Tartus not Assad. Offer Putin his bases and a partnership in the long term reconstruction of Syria in exchange for him dropping Assad and supporting a UN-sponsored interim provisional Government (excluding Assad and ISIL).
If our aim is regime change then we should recognise that the price is countless more deaths and suffering. We really should just butt out.
A dictator who gases civilians has lost any right to legitimacy0 -
Also actresses are not keen on multiple takes of them eating anything - spoils their figures.JosiasJessop said:
I'm guessing (and it is only that) that people really don't want unnecessary liquids on set, not just because of the electrical equipment, but any spillages might affect costumes and props that will need to be replaced or reset. And they might be a source of continuity errors after editing - in one take the glass is full, the next it is empty, then it is full again.kle4 said:
Makes sense - it's when there's clearly nothing in there which gets me, since if there's no call for the actor to drink anything in the scene there's no worry about multiple takes leading to them needing to piss or something, but you really do see it in everything from low budget tv to oscar winning movies, and actors don't seem to get taught 'convincing cup holding' in acting class.JosiasJessop said:
ISTR that in the soaps, when they show people drinking in the pubs, they use a special water rather than beer - and they very rarely actually drink any. There was an accusation that some actors would replace the fake alcohol with the real stuff.kle4 said:More important than Syria
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/top-10-unrealistic-clich-s-in-tv-drama-a8300116.html
This one drives me nuts
Actors pretending to drink from empty cups or swinging them about in such a way that the liquid would obviously slop out. Once spotted you will see it everywhere – soaps, dramas, big films. Surely drama schools can include a lesson on realistic pretend drinking? Or, how about actually putting liquid in the cups? “At last,” said Paul Keeble, relieved finally to get this off his chest.
Once seen you do see it everywhere. Why can't they put liquid in the damn cups, even if it is way too little?
I'm sure we have one or two knowledgeable people about such matters on here ...
(There are worse crimes. On one so-called 'show', they had a GNR steam engine pulling LMS coaches out of what was obviously a Southern Railway station. I nearly cancelled my TV licence in disgust)0 -
Oh how we laughedFrancisUrquhart said:US has 'blatant disregard' for law, says Corbyn
I "condemn in the strongest possible terms" the military action in Syria.
"The US panders to the terrorists and the current situation is destructive," he said.
"The US and its allies continue to demonstrate blatant disregard for international law."
He said it was "shameful that the US constitution was cited as a reason to launch military action.
"It's interesting what the UK and France will think when they realise they have broken international law while citing the US constitution."
Oh no wait, it wasn't Jezza, it was the Vasily Nebenzya the Russian UN envoy. Sorry, it is hard to tell the statements apart.0 -
It's obvious.kle4 said:
It's an interesting question really. He appears to believe, utterly and completely, in the necessity of any action being through the UN and always trying to get people talking, but is he able to contemplate anything should neither of those options being attainable?Cyclefree said:From the previous thread, I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.
Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?
Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?
People who would like to resolve things with a gunboat all the time will very quickly come up against the reality that that is not possible, and so have to contemplate other solutions (or simply do nothing), but if only UN action is permissible, what to do when someone with a veto does something, or shields others? What to do when people have been calling for talking for a long long time but no one wants to, particularly if they are winning? It's not enough to act as though some options are still on the table when they clearly are not, so is doing nothing preferable to the limited something that is available?
The answer might be yes, but I don't know that Corbyn has the flexibility to consider what if his preferred solution is not possible, other than do it again.
We unilaterally give up our veto rights as that will shame Russia into giving up theirs.
/sarcasm0 -
I realise there some can be some confusion about what is, and is not, allowed on pb.
The rules are pretty simple:
1. Don't deny the holocaust. And if you do deny the holocaust and are asked politely by the moderators to stop, then stop. Don't keep posting about how it didn't happen.
2. Don't be rude about OGH. He doesn't like it, and will ban you.
3. Avoid overtly racist or antisemitic posts.
4. Don't libel public figures. OGH has had correspondance from Carter Ruck in the past, and he didn't enjoy the experience. If you're putting OGH in danger of getting sued, you will be banned.
5. Be nice about Radiohead. rcs1000 (me) runs the technical side of the site, and I will ban you if you are caught denying they are the greatest band of the last 30 years. (If you say say that they might be second only to The National, then I might forgive you.)
6. Don't claim to have tipped certain outcomes when you didn't.
7. If you enter into a bet with another site member, then - if you lose - you need to pay up or you will be banned.
8. Don't have multiple different IDs.
9. Use a genuine email address when registering.0 -
It is mainly Tory fanboys talking to each other all the timeYorkcity said:0 -
Yes, well, parliament is either sitting or it isn't. The same does not apply to journalists, does it? Silly and ranty.DM_Andy said:
And in response, a selective editingIshmael_Z said:
you come across as ranty - I think you said it was "disgusting" that Mrs May took questions from reporters? - it isn't - and ill-informed, and too lazy and self-righteous to make yourself better informed. My goldfish understand the workings of the royal prerogative better than you do.DM_Andy said:
I don't know why I'm wasting my time on here, Is this just a PBTory echo chamber?glw said:Corbynism and Trumpism is the same phenomena. Both groups are increasingly detached from reality.
My full comment as you well know is that it was disgusting that May took questions from journalists two days before any MP has an opportunity to.0 -
Sorry Andy but you really are thrashing about now. You can go on the internet and find someone making every outlandish claim under the sun. Just look at much of your posting. If you are resorting to Toby from Taunton as your source to back up a claim then you have lost any credibility what so ever.DM_Andy said:
No Richard, stop lying. This is what you said.Richard_Tyndall said:
I had expected you to find someone reputable - like a country or an official organisation. Not some ranty group posting from their mother's back room in Merthyr Tydfil.DM_Andy said:
Right, I mentioned that a fact was disputed. Tyndall said that "even Israel's worst enemies haven't claimed that", I posted up something that did claim that. I'm not agreeing with it, I know that it's from a prejudiced source but I don't know if it's true or not. But that wasn't the question, Tyndall said that no-one had made the claim and that wasn't true.ydoethur said:
Re the alleged Israeli chemical attack, I haven't come across this one before. Do you have a link to a reputable news site reporting on it, e.g. The Guardian or Independent? Or the UN, for the matter of that? Because the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign isn't exactly noted for its integrity and ability and while the claim isn't by any means impossible on its own that source won't cut it.
I'm not going to waste my time being baited into answering questions and then being misrepresented by you lot. I'm on this site for intelligent political discussion, I enjoy hearing views that I don't share because it challenges why I think the way I do. Okay, in politics it's rare that you change your mind completely but I think it's useful to try and understand where other people are coming from when they have different views. But infantile selective editing and making it sound like I'm saying something I'm not makes me feel like I should leave you all to your echo-chamber.Richard_Tyndall said:
It is not a disputed statement at all. I don't recall a single instance of Israel ever being accused of using chemical weapons even by its worst enemies.0 -
Crimes against railway history should be punished severely. The latest series of Endeavour featured the Mid Hants Railway when it was supposed to be on the Western rather than the Southern. Worse still, the episode was supposed to be in 1968, well after the end of steam on the Western region. But they still showed a Bulleid Pacific.JosiasJessop said:(There are worse crimes. On one so-called 'show', they had a GNR steam engine pulling LMS coaches out of what was obviously a Southern Railway station. I nearly cancelled my TV licence in disgust)
0 -
I will save my entirely justified criticism of Radiohead for our conversations on Facebook.rcs1000 said:I realise there some can be some confusion about what is, and is not, allowed on pb.
The rules are pretty simple:
1. Don't deny the holocaust. And if you do deny the holocaust and are asked politely by the moderators to stop, then stop. Don't keep posting about how it didn't happen.
2. Don't be rude about OGH. He doesn't like it, and will ban you.
3. Avoid overtly racist or antisemitic posts.
4. Don't libel public figures. OGH has had correspondance from Carter Ruck in the past, and he didn't enjoy the experience. If you're putting OGH in danger of getting sued, you will be banned.
5. Be nice about Radiohead. rcs1000 (me) runs the technical side of the site, and I will ban you if you are caught denying they are the greatest band of the last 30 years. (If you say say that they might be second only to The National, then I might forgive you.)
6. Don't claim to have tipped certain outcomes when you didn't.
7. If you enter into a bet with another site member, then - if you lose - you need to pay up or you will be banned.
8. Don't have multiple different IDs.
9. Use a genuine email address when registering. 0 -
You need a number 10 Robert to make it like the Commandmentsrcs1000 said:I realise there some can be some confusion about what is, and is not, allowed on pb.
The rules are pretty simple:
1. Don't deny the holocaust. And if you do deny the holocaust and are asked politely by the moderators to stop, then stop. Don't keep posting about how it didn't happen.
2. Don't be rude about OGH. He doesn't like it, and will ban you.
3. Avoid overtly racist or antisemitic posts.
4. Don't libel public figures. OGH has had correspondance from Carter Ruck in the past, and he didn't enjoy the experience. If you're putting OGH in danger of getting sued, you will be banned.
5. Be nice about Radiohead. rcs1000 (me) runs the technical side of the site, and I will ban you if you are caught denying they are the greatest band of the last 30 years. (If you say say that they might be second only to The National, then I might forgive you.)
6. Don't claim to have tipped certain outcomes when you didn't.
7. If you enter into a bet with another site member, then - if you lose - you need to pay up or you will be banned.
8. Don't have multiple different IDs.
9. Use a genuine email address when registering.0 -
My own pet hate in soaps is how alcohol/drug problems escalate at lightspeed. Characters go from pillars of the community to raving boozehounds in weeks. It is especially true of teenagers - I remember watching Hollyoaks as a student and Sasha (Nathalie Emmanuel from Game of Thrones) and her mate Fletch went from trying a bit of weed to full blown smack addicts over the course of a month. Obviously things have to be speeded up in soaps - no one can doss about for a year ticking over in work and love as they do in real life, but it means that substance issues are dealt with poorly as any one who has a few too many instantly becomes a cross between George Best and Pete Doherty.JosiasJessop said:
ISTR that in the soaps, when they show people drinking in the pubs, they use a special water rather than beer - and they very rarely actually drink any. There was an accusation that some actors would replace the fake alcohol with the real stuff.kle4 said:More important than Syria
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/top-10-unrealistic-clich-s-in-tv-drama-a8300116.html
This one drives me nuts
Actors pretending to drink from empty cups or swinging them about in such a way that the liquid would obviously slop out. Once spotted you will see it everywhere – soaps, dramas, big films. Surely drama schools can include a lesson on realistic pretend drinking? Or, how about actually putting liquid in the cups? “At last,” said Paul Keeble, relieved finally to get this off his chest.
Once seen you do see it everywhere. Why can't they put liquid in the damn cups, even if it is way too little?0 -
I hope someone lost their job over that.tlg86 said:
Crimes against railway history should be punished severely. The latest series of Endeavour featured the Mid Hants Railway when it was supposed to be on the Western rather than the Southern. Worse still, the episode was supposed to be in 1968, well after the end of steam on the Western region.
We're supposed to have credibility? Shit.Richard_Tyndall said:
Sorry Andy but you really are thrashing about now. You can go on the internet and find someone making every outlandish claim under the sun. Just look at much of your posting. If you are resorting to Toby from Taunton as your source to back up a claim then you have lost any credibility what so ever.
Is that of the overall number most are Tory fanboys, or that each individual is mainly a Tory fanboy?malcolmg said:
It is mainly Tory fanboys talking to each other all the time
Ah, we have some fun.
Evening all.0 -
No.10. Don't publicly show up rcs1000.malcolmg said:
You need a number 10 Robert to make it like the Commandmentsrcs1000 said:I realise there some can be some confusion about what is, and is not, allowed on pb.
The rules are pretty simple:
1. Don't deny the holocaust. And if you do deny the holocaust and are asked politely by the moderators to stop, then stop. Don't keep posting about how it didn't happen.
2. Don't be rude about OGH. He doesn't like it, and will ban you.
3. Avoid overtly racist or antisemitic posts.
4. Don't libel public figures. OGH has had correspondance from Carter Ruck in the past, and he didn't enjoy the experience. If you're putting OGH in danger of getting sued, you will be banned.
5. Be nice about Radiohead. rcs1000 (me) runs the technical side of the site, and I will ban you if you are caught denying they are the greatest band of the last 30 years. (If you say say that they might be second only to The National, then I might forgive you.)
6. Don't claim to have tipped certain outcomes when you didn't.
7. If you enter into a bet with another site member, then - if you lose - you need to pay up or you will be banned.
8. Don't have multiple different IDs.
9. Use a genuine email address when registering.0 -
So that's why I had no takers for my £50 million bet that the world wouldn't end in the next three weeks!rcs1000 said:7. If you enter into a bet with another site member, then - if you lose - you need to pay up or you will be banned.
I was very disappointed about that. I had even started planning the extension and looking for a winter place near Lyons.0 -
"Mission accomplished"? Like Bush Jnr and Iraq in May 2003?0
-
You're too late, I made that point hours ago.Sunil_Prasannan said:"Mission accomplished"? Like Bush Jnr and Iraq in May 2003?
0 -
Oh no, that's alright.kle4 said:
No.10. Don't publicly show up rcs1000.malcolmg said:
You need a number 10 Robert to make it like the Commandmentsrcs1000 said:I realise there some can be some confusion about what is, and is not, allowed on pb.
The rules are pretty simple:
1. Don't deny the holocaust. And if you do deny the holocaust and are asked politely by the moderators to stop, then stop. Don't keep posting about how it didn't happen.
2. Don't be rude about OGH. He doesn't like it, and will ban you.
3. Avoid overtly racist or antisemitic posts.
4. Don't libel public figures. OGH has had correspondance from Carter Ruck in the past, and he didn't enjoy the experience. If you're putting OGH in danger of getting sued, you will be banned.
5. Be nice about Radiohead. rcs1000 (me) runs the technical side of the site, and I will ban you if you are caught denying they are the greatest band of the last 30 years. (If you say say that they might be second only to The National, then I might forgive you.)
6. Don't claim to have tipped certain outcomes when you didn't.
7. If you enter into a bet with another site member, then - if you lose - you need to pay up or you will be banned.
8. Don't have multiple different IDs.
9. Use a genuine email address when registering.
I need to be taken down a peg or two on occasion.0 -
Russia gained Konigsberg in 1945, unfortunately.Charles said:
Preventing Russia from obtaining a warm water port has been an objective of British foreign policy for over 250 years.stodge said:Afternoon all
Well, I'd say "so far, so reasonable". Plenty of chest-thumping and positive spin from Trump, May and others but I'd like some independent verification as to the effectiveness of these strikes.
I'm not a supporter of the Prime Minister or her Government but it appears a well-planned, co-ordinated and restricted attack on certain installations appears to have been carried out with the customary effectiveness by the Armed Forces involved.
It's completely right and proper to question the medium and long term consequences of what we have done. None of this will stop the slaughter of men, women and children by other, more conventional means, I fear.
I think the diplomatic aim has to be to prize Russia from Assad but that will mean a Syrian Government recognising Russian strategic interests at Tartus and elsewhere even if that Government throws Assad and his thugs under the nearest tank.
I'm convinced Putin needs a ruined client state in Damascus like he needs a hole in the head so let's start sweetening a deal which guarantees Russian strategic interests while offering them a chance to disengage from active participation in the civil war.0 -
My problem is I forget who I have bets with. I know I have one with Richard Nabavi which I suspect he is going to win come next March but I think I have a couple more and I can't for the life of me remember what they are or who they are with. Is Peter from Putney the keeper of all bets? Or was it Peter the Punter?ydoethur said:
So that's why I had no takers for my £50 million bet that the world wouldn't end in the next three weeks!rcs1000 said:7. If you enter into a bet with another site member, then - if you lose - you need to pay up or you will be banned.
I was very disappointed about that. I had even started planning the extension and looking for a winter place near Lyons.0 -
Although like the Crimea it suffers from being stuck in a bottleneck at the Skagerrak.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Russia gained Konigsberg in 1945, unfortunately.Charles said:
Preventing Russia from obtaining a warm water port has been an objective of British foreign policy for over 250 years.stodge said:Afternoon all
Well, I'd say "so far, so reasonable". Plenty of chest-thumping and positive spin from Trump, May and others but I'd like some independent verification as to the effectiveness of these strikes.
I'm not a supporter of the Prime Minister or her Government but it appears a well-planned, co-ordinated and restricted attack on certain installations appears to have been carried out with the customary effectiveness by the Armed Forces involved.
It's completely right and proper to question the medium and long term consequences of what we have done. None of this will stop the slaughter of men, women and children by other, more conventional means, I fear.
I think the diplomatic aim has to be to prize Russia from Assad but that will mean a Syrian Government recognising Russian strategic interests at Tartus and elsewhere even if that Government throws Assad and his thugs under the nearest tank.
I'm convinced Putin needs a ruined client state in Damascus like he needs a hole in the head so let's start sweetening a deal which guarantees Russian strategic interests while offering them a chance to disengage from active participation in the civil war.0 -
Or amalgamate two so that there are eight like in fight club.malcolmg said:
You need a number 10 Robert to make it like the Commandmentsrcs1000 said:I realise there some can be some confusion about what is, and is not, allowed on pb.
The rules are pretty simple:
1. Don't deny the holocaust. And if you do deny the holocaust and are asked politely by the moderators to stop, then stop. Don't keep posting about how it didn't happen.
2. Don't be rude about OGH. He doesn't like it, and will ban you.
3. Avoid overtly racist or antisemitic posts.
4. Don't libel public figures. OGH has had correspondance from Carter Ruck in the past, and he didn't enjoy the experience. If you're putting OGH in danger of getting sued, you will be banned.
5. Be nice about Radiohead. rcs1000 (me) runs the technical side of the site, and I will ban you if you are caught denying they are the greatest band of the last 30 years. (If you say say that they might be second only to The National, then I might forgive you.)
6. Don't claim to have tipped certain outcomes when you didn't.
7. If you enter into a bet with another site member, then - if you lose - you need to pay up or you will be banned.
8. Don't have multiple different IDs.
9. Use a genuine email address when registering.0 -
Winning a war is not what makes him legitimate. President Bashar al-Assad became President of Syria in 2000 and still is. He is recognised by the UN and indeed by the UK as the President of Syria. Having stirred up the motley crew of resisters we are responsible for the civil war. He has invited the Russians to help him as is his right.Charles said:
Winning a war doesn't make you legitimate, just de facto.Barnesian said:
If our aim is to stop the suffering we should just recognise that Assad has won this war and is the legitimate ruler of Syria. I don't see any UK PM shaking his hand any time soon (unless he has a big budget for arms purchases).stodge said:
I'm not so sure but it will require more diplomatic effort than we've been willing to put in so far.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Noble aims but completely unattainablevolcanopete said:
The aim would be to have a number of urgent bilateral and multi-lateral communication lines opened up with the objective being a ceasefire to stop everyone killing each others' grandchildren and,then,to prioritise education for them,not wars,bombs and missiles to keep the armaments industry fat.Much better value for money than Tomahawks but then there is always a magic money tree for war.
Russia cannot afford to be seen to be chased out of its Syrian bases - that would be a supreme national humiliation and personal disaster for Putin - so it will support any Government in Damascus which will retain these assets. The West didn't realise, recognise or understand this or perhaps they did.
Whatever the case, just as Moscow propped up Afghanistan in the 80s and Washington propped up South Vietnam in the 60s and 70s, the alternative - defeat and humiliation, was and is politically unacceptable for an aggressive nationalist like Putin.
Russia could play a big part in stabilising and rebuilding Syria but only if its strategic assets are secured. Assad's survival guarantees this though the economic consequences of propping up this ruined State and pointless despot can't be justifiable so let's offer them something sensible. Russia needs Tartus not Assad. Offer Putin his bases and a partnership in the long term reconstruction of Syria in exchange for him dropping Assad and supporting a UN-sponsored interim provisional Government (excluding Assad and ISIL).
If our aim is regime change then we should recognise that the price is countless more deaths and suffering. We really should just butt out.
A dictator who gases civilians has lost any right to legitimacy
All civil wars are brutal - US, Spain, Cyprus - and this one is too. The sooner it stops the better. The sooner we stop interfering the sooner it will stop.0 -
Who cares if it's legal or not (even though I personally do!)? Nations especially western nations will do whatever to protect their national interests. If that means breaking international law allied with the commission and execution of war crimes (as what happened in Iraq) so be it.FF43 said:Various constitutional lawyers have pitched in with a response to the tweet below. The consensus appears to be that the missile strikes are of doubtful legality, that the government's legal case for the strikes doesn't stack up but the lawyers are sympathetic to finding a legal basis for this kind of action.
The legal situation as I understand it: States are not allowed to punish other states for transgressions of international law. Only the UN can sanction that. The two justifications for cross border military action are firstly your country is under imminent threat and secondly to prevent an imminent humanitarian disaster or stop one that is underway. The first doesn't apply in this case so you fall back on the humanitarian argument. The problems here are that the humanitarian disaster, if it is such, is apparently a one off, has already happened and the military action doesn't serve to prevent a second imminent incident. In practice this is a unilateral punishment of course, but that's a no-no under international law.
https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/9851603594337198080 -
Could maybe just drop the Radiohead one.tlg86 said:
Or amalgamate two so that there are eight like in fight club.malcolmg said:
You need a number 10 Robert to make it like the Commandmentsrcs1000 said:I realise there some can be some confusion about what is, and is not, allowed on pb.
The rules are pretty simple:
1. Don't deny the holocaust. And if you do deny the holocaust and are asked politely by the moderators to stop, then stop. Don't keep posting about how it didn't happen.
2. Don't be rude about OGH. He doesn't like it, and will ban you.
3. Avoid overtly racist or antisemitic posts.
4. Don't libel public figures. OGH has had correspondance from Carter Ruck in the past, and he didn't enjoy the experience. If you're putting OGH in danger of getting sued, you will be banned.
5. Be nice about Radiohead. rcs1000 (me) runs the technical side of the site, and I will ban you if you are caught denying they are the greatest band of the last 30 years. (If you say say that they might be second only to The National, then I might forgive you.)
6. Don't claim to have tipped certain outcomes when you didn't.
7. If you enter into a bet with another site member, then - if you lose - you need to pay up or you will be banned.
8. Don't have multiple different IDs.
9. Use a genuine email address when registering.
Whoops!0 -
That is one hell of a claim, I think there are many contributory factors.Barnesian said:
. Having stirred up the motley crew of resisters we are responsible for the civil war.Charles said:
Winning a war doesn't make you legitimate, just de facto.Barnesian said:
If our aim is to stop the suffering we should just recognise that Assad has won this war and is the legitimate ruler of Syria. I don't see any UK PM shaking his hand any time soon (unless he has a big budget for arms purchases).stodge said:
I'm not so sure but it will require more diplomatic effort than we've been willing to put in so far.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Noble aims but completely unattainablevolcanopete said:
The aim would be to have a number of urgent bilateral and multi-lateral communication lines opened up with the objective being a ceasefire to stop everyone killing each others' grandchildren and,then,to prioritise education for them,not wars,bombs and missiles to keep the armaments industry fat.Much better value for money than Tomahawks but then there is always a magic money tree for war.
Russia cannot afford to be seen to be chased out of its Syrian bases - that would be a supreme national humiliation and personal disaster for Putin - so it will support any Government in Damascus which will retain these assets. The West didn't realise, recognise or understand this or perhaps they did.
Whatever the case, just as Moscow propped up Afghanistan in the 80s and Washington propped up South Vietnam in the 60s and 70s, the alternative - defeat and humiliation, was and is politically unacceptable for an aggressive nationalist like Putin.
Russia could play a big part in stabilising and rebuilding Syria but only if its strategic assets are secured. Assad's survival guarantees this though the economic consequences of propping up this ruined State and pointless despot can't be justifiable so let's offer them something sensible. Russia needs Tartus not Assad. Offer Putin his bases and a partnership in the long term reconstruction of Syria in exchange for him dropping Assad and supporting a UN-sponsored interim provisional Government (excluding Assad and ISIL).
If our aim is regime change then we should recognise that the price is countless more deaths and suffering. We really should just butt out.
A dictator who gases civilians has lost any right to legitimacy
Ascribing all or too much responsibility on the West (even when it has been a factor) is one of the common condescending ways some here treat the region, as if it is entirely beholden to our whims. It infantilizes the people and governments there, viewing them as nothing without us, having no agency or responsibility.0 -
Not correct:Barnesian said:
Winning a war is not what makes him legitimate. President Bashar al-Assad became President of Syria in 2000 and still is. He is recognised by the UN and indeed by the UK as the President of Syria.Charles said:
Winning a war doesn't make you legitimate, just de facto.Barnesian said:
If our aim is to stop the suffering we should just recognise that Assad has won this war and is the legitimate ruler of Syria. I don't see any UK PM shaking his hand any time soon (unless he has a big budget for arms purchases).stodge said:
I'm not so sure but it will require more diplomatic effort than we've been willing to put in so far.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Noble aims but completely unattainablevolcanopete said:
The aim would be to have a number of urgent bilateral and multi-lateral communication lines opened up with the objective being a ceasefire to stop everyone killing each others' grandchildren and,then,to prioritise education for them,not wars,bombs and missiles to keep the armaments industry fat.Much better value for money than Tomahawks but then there is always a magic money tree for war.
Russia cannot afford to be seen to be chased out of its Syrian bases - that would be a supreme national humiliation and personal disaster for Putin - so it will support any Government in Damascus which will retain these assets. The West didn't realise, recognise or understand this or perhaps they did.
Whatever the case, just as Moscow propped up Afghanistan in the 80s and Washington propped up South Vietnam in the 60s and 70s, the alternative - defeat and humiliation, was and is politically unacceptable for an aggressive nationalist like Putin.
Russia could play a big part in stabilising and rebuilding Syria but only if its strategic assets are secured. Assad's survival guarantees this though the economic consequences of propping up this ruined State and pointless despot can't be justifiable so let's offer them something sensible. Russia needs Tartus not Assad. Offer Putin his bases and a partnership in the long term reconstruction of Syria in exchange for him dropping Assad and supporting a UN-sponsored interim provisional Government (excluding Assad and ISIL).
If our aim is regime change then we should recognise that the price is countless more deaths and suffering. We really should just butt out.
A dictator who gases civilians has lost any right to legitimacy
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9691319/Britain-officially-recognises-new-Syrian-rebel-coalition-as-countrys-legitimate-government.html0 -
Was that a by-election?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Russia gained Konigsberg in 1945, unfortunately.Charles said:
Preventing Russia from obtaining a warm water port has been an objective of British foreign policy for over 250 years.stodge said:Afternoon all
Well, I'd say "so far, so reasonable". Plenty of chest-thumping and positive spin from Trump, May and others but I'd like some independent verification as to the effectiveness of these strikes.
I'm not a supporter of the Prime Minister or her Government but it appears a well-planned, co-ordinated and restricted attack on certain installations appears to have been carried out with the customary effectiveness by the Armed Forces involved.
It's completely right and proper to question the medium and long term consequences of what we have done. None of this will stop the slaughter of men, women and children by other, more conventional means, I fear.
I think the diplomatic aim has to be to prize Russia from Assad but that will mean a Syrian Government recognising Russian strategic interests at Tartus and elsewhere even if that Government throws Assad and his thugs under the nearest tank.
I'm convinced Putin needs a ruined client state in Damascus like he needs a hole in the head so let's start sweetening a deal which guarantees Russian strategic interests while offering them a chance to disengage from active participation in the civil war.0 -
Doesn’t matter. Everything is our fault and our responsibility. Goes without saying. Apparently.kle4 said:
That is one hell of a claim, I think there are many contributory factors.Barnesian said:
. Having stirred up the motley crew of resisters we are responsible for the civil war.Charles said:
Winning a war doesn't make you legitimate, just de facto.Barnesian said:
If our aim is to stop the suffering we should just recognise that Assad has won this war and is the legitimate ruler of Syria. I don't see any UK PM shaking his hand any time soon (unless he has a big budget for arms purchases).stodge said:
I'm not so sure but it will require more diplomatic effort than we've been willing to put in so far.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Noble aims but completely unattainablevolcanopete said:
The aim would be to have a number of urgent bilateral and multi-lateral communication lines opened up with the objective being a ceasefire to stop everyone killing each others' grandchildren and,then,to prioritise education for them,not wars,bombs and missiles to keep the armaments industry fat.Much better value for money than Tomahawks but then there is always a magic money tree for war.
Russia cannot afford to be seen to be chased out of its Syrian bases - that would be a supreme national humiliation and personal disaster for Putin - so it will support any Government in Damascus which will retain these assets. The West didn't realise, recognise or understand this or perhaps they did.
Whatever the case, just as Moscow propped up Afghanistan in the 80s and Washington propped up South Vietnam in the 60s and 70s, the alternative - defeat and humiliation, was and is politically unacceptable for an aggressive nationalist like Putin.
Russia could play a big part in stabilising and rebuilding Syria but only if its strategic assets are secured. Assad's survival guarantees this though the economic consequences of propping up this ruined State and pointless despot can't be justifiable so let's offer them something sensible. Russia needs Tartus not Assad. Offer Putin his bases and a partnership in the long term reconstruction of Syria in exchange for him dropping Assad and supporting a UN-sponsored interim provisional Government (excluding Assad and ISIL).
If our aim is regime change then we should recognise that the price is countless more deaths and suffering. We really should just butt out.
A dictator who gases civilians has lost any right to legitimacy0 -
OK I stand corrected. Nov 2012 "William Hague, the foreign secretary, announced Britain's formal switch of recognition from Damascus to a newly engineered committee of leftists, liberals and Islamists which his diplomats helped to bring together in Damascus earlier this month."ydoethur said:
Not correct:Barnesian said:
Winning a war is not what makes him legitimate. President Bashar al-Assad became President of Syria in 2000 and still is. He is recognised by the UN and indeed by the UK as the President of Syria.Charles said:
Winning a war doesn't make you legitimate, just de facto.Barnesian said:
If our aim is to stop the suffering we should just recognise that Assad has won this war and is the legitimate ruler of Syria. I don't see any UK PM shaking his hand any time soon (unless he has a big budget for arms purchases).stodge said:
I'm not so sure but it will require more diplomatic effort than we've been willing to put in so far.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Noble aims but completely unattainablevolcanopete said:
The aim would be to have a number of urgent bilateral and multi-lateral communication lines opened up with the objective being a ceasefire to stop everyone killing each others' grandchildren and,then,to prioritise education for them,not wars,bombs and missiles to keep the armaments industry fat.Much better value for money than Tomahawks but then there is always a magic money tree for war.
If our aim is regime change then we should recognise that the price is countless more deaths and suffering. We really should just butt out.
A dictator who gases civilians has lost any right to legitimacy
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9691319/Britain-officially-recognises-new-Syrian-rebel-coalition-as-countrys-legitimate-government.html
This "newly engineered committee of leftists, liberals and Islamists" certainly isn't recognised at the UN and I doubt if it still exists.0 -
To get serious for a moment (why?) I made the mistake earlier of poo-pooing Yokel, and saying I doubted that bombs would safely destroy chemical weapons stocks.
Well, it seems the US have been working on weapons to do just that:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/blu-119.htm
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/165580-destroying-chemical-weapons
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/adw.htm0 -
For that, it would need to be recognised by Russia.Barnesian said:
OK I stand corrected. Nov 2012 "William Hague, the foreign secretary, announced Britain's formal switch of recognition from Damascus to a newly engineered committee of leftists, liberals and Islamists which his diplomats helped to bring together in Damascus earlier this month."ydoethur said:
Not correct:Barnesian said:
Winning a war is not what makes him legitimate. President Bashar al-Assad became President of Syria in 2000 and still is. He is recognised by the UN and indeed by the UK as the President of Syria.Charles said:
Winning a war doesn't make you legitimate, just de facto.Barnesian said:
If our aim is to stop the suffering we should just recognise that Assad has won this war and is the legitimate ruler of Syria. I don't see any UK PM shaking his hand any time soon (unless he has a big budget for arms purchases).stodge said:
I'm not so sure but it will require more diplomatic effort than we've been willing to put in so far.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Noble aims but completely unattainablevolcanopete said:
The aim would be to have a number of urgent bilateral and multi-lateral communication lines opened up with the objective being a ceasefire to stop everyone killing each others' grandchildren and,then,to prioritise education for them,not wars,bombs and missiles to keep the armaments industry fat.Much better value for money than Tomahawks but then there is always a magic money tree for war.
If our aim is regime change then we should recognise that the price is countless more deaths and suffering. We really should just butt out.
A dictator who gases civilians has lost any right to legitimacy
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9691319/Britain-officially-recognises-new-Syrian-rebel-coalition-as-countrys-legitimate-government.html
This "newly engineered committee of leftists, liberals and Islamists" certainly isn't recognised at the UN and I doubt if it still exists.
The point being that while the Opposition may be a busted flush in the eyes of the world Assad is ruler of Syria at best de facto, not de jure.0 -
You said I needed to play more Wagnerian voluntaries.Yorkcity said:
That implies that I play them in the first place.
I may not be English, but I never play anything more jingoistic or right wing than Parry. (Parry may have been a racist bastard but he could at least compose!)
Edit - oops, sorry, @Yorkcity it was @RoyalBlue. Your avatars are too similar.
How would you like me to grovel?0 -
There probably are many contributory factors. I'm basing my claim on the article by Robert F Kennedy Jnr published in Politico Magazine in 2012 which changed my views on Syria.kle4 said:
That is one hell of a claim, I think there are many contributory factors.Barnesian said:
. Having stirred up the motley crew of resisters we are responsible for the civil war.Charles said:
Winning a war doesn't make you legitimate, just de facto.Barnesian said:
If our aim is to stop the suffering we should just recognise that Assad has won this war and is the legitimate ruler of Syria. I don't see any UK PM shaking his hand any time soon (unless he has a big budget for arms purchases).stodge said:
If our aim is regime change then we should recognise that the price is countless more deaths and suffering. We really should just butt out.
A dictator who gases civilians has lost any right to legitimacy
Ascribing all or too much responsibility on the West (even when it has been a factor) is one of the common condescending ways some here treat the region, as if it is entirely beholden to our whims. It infantilizes the people and governments there, viewing them as nothing without us, having no agency or responsibility.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/rfk-jr-why-arabs-dont-trust-america-213601
Robert Kennedy says "In part because my father was murdered by an Arab, I've made an effort to understand the impact of U.S. policy in the Mideast and particularly the factors that sometimes motivate bloodthirsty responses from the Islamic world against our country."
"Assad enraged the Gulf’s Sunni monarchs by endorsing a Russian-approved “Islamic pipeline” running from Iran’s side of the gas field through Syria and to the ports of Lebanon. The Islamic pipeline would make Shiite Iran, not Sunni Qatar, the principal supplier to the European energy market and dramatically increase Tehran’s influence in the Middle East and the world. Israel also was understandably determined to derail the Islamic pipeline, which would enrich Iran and Syria and presumably strengthen their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Secret cables and reports by the U.S., Saudi and Israeli intelligence agencies indicate that the moment Assad rejected the Qatari pipeline, military and intelligence planners quickly arrived at the consensus that fomenting a Sunni uprising in Syria to overthrow the uncooperative Bashar Assad was a feasible path to achieving the shared objective of completing the Qatar/Turkey gas link"
0 -
Bloody Spurs. Can’t rely on them for anything.0
-
The great Martin Armstrong echoing exactly what I've been saying - follow the money to find the truth:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/war/trump-lays-the-seeds-to-world-war-iii/
There is no basis in International Law for this shameless attack.0 -
-
Not a penalty, but a red card in my opinion.
Anyone else triple captain Kane?0 -
-
Surely the tenth commandment of rcs1000 is :
Though shall have no god but pineapple pizza .. or some such exotic topping ?!?0
