Be Excellent To Each Other

In what way did we back the rebels other than saying "yes, Assad is a bad person"? I wasn't aware we'd even given them weapons. I read something earlier today that suggested the vast majority of the weapons that ISIS have are Russian and US made.

And the situation didn't need much exacerbating - remember that Assad was killing civilians wholesale.

But of course, any involvement by the West is evil and bad. We just love interfering to make sure that civilians die. It's good for business or something.


That's possibly true, but it's impossible to play what if on this to be fair. I'd wonder how much worse ISIS have made the civil war in Syria - the main issue there is Assad bombing the shit out of his own people, not ISIS. That sort of situation creates a vacuum for scum to rise, and there is always scum around ready to take advantage of the lack of order. I would imagine the Black Country wouldn't be in a much better state if the power was off for a fortnight.

As far as I recall the UK supplied non-lethal aid to the rebels but the SAS were said to be operating in the area at some point. Did we contribute to the air strikes? I can't remember. I know the U.S. did so I imagine we did that too. Someone more versed in the affairs can probably chip in.

However the role of ISIS in Syria cannot be understated. They control vast areas in northern Syria and are fighting both the rebels (and recruiting more rebels to their cause) and the regime. Their brutality, attacks and mass executions aren't just a tiny factor in the civil war; they are very much embedded in the conflict and making it infinitely worse.

As a by product of the Iraq invasion, we have a lot to answer for. It'd be nice if Chilcott finished his sodding report, of course, so we might have a better understanding of why we went into Iraq in the first place. Besides, money, oil and to sell off their resources to international corporations.

In terms of facts of what's happening, I can't disagree with any of that. (Although the "Iraq was all about oil" trope has precious little evidence behind it. I'm not sure the UK has made a net pound out of all of the blood and cash spent in the sandpit.)

But to suggest that the UK has any responsibility for the individual decisions of a load of nutcases to start killing, raping and torturing, no, that's on them. And their bonkers religion.

Oh course. We're all responsible for our own actions. That's a facet of Christianity and our rule of law and has been part of our culture for decades.

But this is another country, with a different complex culture, with an intricate religion, battle scarred through their own history of conflicts, conflicts from within and some external, in a more media savvy climate where they hear about the injustices and perceived discrimination against them, their culture, their religion around the world, and a fresh narrative borne of a conflict where outsiders came in and shitted over them, installed a ineffective puppet government (or two, changed at the whim of the U.S.), where families had been murdered and wiped out, they didn't want us there and they protested through violence and we smashed them with more violence; drone strikes, we did that too, and then too little reconciliation too late and so on for years destabilising the region, creating fertile grounds for their own brand of vigilante warriors.

It's more complex than any of that of course and much more complex than ISIS are evil/bad and UK are good. That's the narrative pushed by this government and the media but when you look inwards the UK citizens are good/the UK foreign policy has been bad.

I was going to stop there but just thought I'd posit the view that we probably get tarred with the same brush as the highly mischievous US foreign policies which I'm sure you will agree has upset a lot of people all over the world for a long time. We have facilitated some of that, I'm sure - extraordinary rendition anyone - so some criticism our way is probably warranted.

Hello.

Apologies for being needlessly aggressive and argumentative earlier. The whole refugee situation is highly emotive, and I was in a terrible mood due to having sinusitis for the first time in years since I had an operation on them. That doesn't excuse bring a bit of a dick, but does at least explain it.

I still think we need to do more and need to do it now, but am sorry for how I went about expressing that. Can't quite remember what I said and don't really want to go back and read it, but I have felt bad about it.

Now back to our regularly scheduled bickering

Boo!

Aww. I wanted more name calling!

TATTIES!

Now THAT is more like it.

I don't think 'EBJ acts like a dick for no reason' could ever be called any kind of scandal, otherwise we'd be having them with every other post of his That said...

To EBJ: Thank you for finally actually bothering your grumpy arse to give me an explanation of your statements. I still genuinely have no idea why you started out so evasively and then let yourself get so massively wound up about it. For the sake of record here's my ignorant, stupid, blissfully unaware, clueless, bellend, stupid left-wing brainless cunty post that started this:



That was it. And not that the 'fucking' in there was a quote from EBJ himself and not me adding flavour. We then instantly begin the usual set of needlessly abusive and escalating nonsense to me and Cras before you finally have an aneurysm and actually tell us what you know, laced with a whole load of bullshit and abuse. You've tried desperately here to paint me as needling you and how you're sick of idiots and blah, blah, blah but all anyone need to do is actually read the posts in this exchange to see that you pushed yourself off the deep end for no reason at all and are now acting some kind of werird victim. You're a foam-mouthed loon with a penchant for aggression and abuse; that's absolutely on you and trying to pass it off as a simple reaction to other people is flat out bullshit. Take some fucking responsibility for your shit for God's sake man.

To Cavey: see when people accuse you of excusing EBJ of stuff you castigate others for because you agree with his politics? This is the kind of thing they're talking about. Your friend here has gone flat out mental and well over the score and you rush to excuse him while offering a truly bonkers reading of the situation that paints me as the aggressor. Just because you seem to be so hard of reading, let's take another look at the trolling, needling, wind up, derailing, jackpot hitting, swivel-eyed, grievance-bearing, tiny-minded post that started this:



There it is in all it's glory. EBJ made a statement, I questioned it and shortly afterwards we're here. Yes, there have been occasions when I annoyed you on purpose because I do think you're often a pompous twat but shit happens on online forums; suck it up. What that doesn't mean is you can, with any credibility at all, paint absolutely every single thing I say as some kind of purposeful trolling. When you try do so in way that so blatantly doesn't line up with any kind of reality it gets right on my tits, and honestly makes you look like an idiot. I have very little faith that you'll actually internalise any of this and no doubt it'll be decried as just further 'derailing' but what the hell. Can't hurt to try, right?

To everyone else: I imagine it's obvious that I was never Achilles' biggest fan, but he acts like a weird fanny for a couple of weeks and then gets actually asked to leave, while you all put up with EBJs horrendously toxic shit for years and years and no one gives a fuck? I mean hell, there was a massive load of drama about Hearthly because he used to be annoying about PCs sometimes and yet EBJ regularly doles out the most horrendous abuse and just generally shits the place up with bags of needless aggression and it's business as usual every time? The standards in this place are truly fucked up sometimes. Hell, even by posting this I'm probably inviting Grimm to stomp in with his stupid blue text and read the riot act which will just be mind-boggling as a reaction.

Don't worry, everyone else saw how the exchange went down. It's regrettable that it descended into pathetic name calling.

On the other hand, I don't mind EBG's nuclear outbursts and take them with a pinch of salt but when they're directed at other members he needs to reconsider his responses and calm the fuck down.

He has an amusing avatar

I think the PM to the other chap (which I think suggested that he actually stop being so annoying or nasty or feel welcome to not post, rather than any kind of 'right, you're out of here' action) came off of the back of someone making a specific complaint about him to the mods after an outburst. You can, if you wish, take the same action against anyone you have grievance with, and if it is the same kind of problem I guess it will be handled in the same way (though I'm not a mod, but they are generally decent folks).

I don't think many people put up with one person's name-calling, nastiness or personal attacks more than another's, so I don't think it is specifically that one person was treated differently from another, but I have the impression that a lot of people do as I do and just tune a lot of things out. It's not ideal, as it means a lot of the time there are threads, such as this, that could be really good areas for discussion of ideas and opinion, that many people imply don't bother with, in case it descends into having personal attacks launched at you.

I know that doesn't help much, but if you can't just tune it out as you read it might be an idea just to mute the poster(s) or make an actual complaint to the mods about anyone you think has overstepped the line.

And really, most people here really are nice, so you can take heart in that

Just replying to Mr. Kyssifur about "why didn't the refugees stayed in Turkey because it's a peaceful country"

I was in Instabul last February on work, and the place was packed with Syrian refugees begging in every corner and traffic lights. The war in Syria lasts for more than 4 years, but before the refugee crysis, the media was bored of the civil war, probably because they were entertained with the greek crysis.

What i mean is, i didn't had any idea of how dire the situation was back in february, and these people looked ghoulish and were begging for spare changes just to eat. Turkey is a reasonably developed country, but human rights isn't big on their government priorities. It was just a matter of time before they started coming to the EU, because that wasn't a dignified existence at all.

Gah. I'm on this poxy phone, can't really do a detailed response, but basically I just think we all need to meet irl and get wasted. Seriously.

This is just bs really, I'd buy you a pint then you'd buy me one and hey presto blokes have sorted out their differences.

Allow me to respond properly with an actual accounting of what occurred, rather than the steaming pile of horseshit that Bamba has piled high for you to read.

I was countering Craster's rather dense assertion that simply increasing organ supply 'in no way possible' could lead to a decrease of availability, and that was after I'd previously gave one example as to how that could happen. So all I did is quote myself:



After which you can very clearly see Bamba reply to me with nonsense that included calling me a 'massive dick', and thereafter followed my post.

There are a few salient points here, Bamba. Firstly, you wouldn't argue the toss, or word it in such an aggressive and argumentative way, if it wasn't me. You don't like me, which I couldn't give less of a fuck about, except for the fact that it clearly compels you to take issue with everything I say regardless of what it is and make a post to oppose it. You could insist you'd say the same to anyone else but nobody would believe that.

The fundamental issue here is that you're fucking lazy with it too. It wouldn't require more than a single iota of independent thought to consider how a sudden and unprepared over-supply of organs could cause disastrous issues, but because it's me you fold your arms and huffily demand that I provide citations and reasoning to justify what should be a completely self-explanatory position. Then when I do lead you by the nose through the basic premise of the argument, you call me defensive, try to demean my reasoning, and then insult me on top? On a topic you know fuck all about?

Yeah, I don't think so. All of this is a very deliberate attempt to rile me up, which you are able to do so easily because of your profound fucking ignorance on the subject, and your determined unwillingness to engage that pea-brain to concede any validity in my argument or to germinate your own thoughts.

So you deserved to be told what a worthless piece of shit you are, and I told you. I'd do it again and indeed will do so if you pull the same kind of bollocks in the future.

It's fucking laughable that in one breath you're telling Cavey to 'suck it up' because 'shit happens on online forums' to excuse your own behaviour, whilst at the same time berating the rest of Beex for tolerating my alleged 'toxicity' in another. The only thing I do, bucko, is voice my honest opinions and tell people who I think are particularly special idiots what I think of them using language that adequately conveys my strength of feeling. Suck it up, it's an internet forum. If someone insults me I don't run crying to the mods - I'll just respond appropriately and in kind, or in a manner that leaves you in little doubt as to what I think. If you don't like it then that's just too jolly bad.

Trying to attack Cavey because he's a good guy that refuses to doggypile on to me with the rest and can actually see through my swears to the point I'm trying to make and why I'm making it just reiterates why he's such a valuable forumite here. Let's not be in any doubt, he's a far nicer person than me and will make many concessions in an argument in order to stimulate the kind of intelligent debate that he's aiming for here. It's just unfortunate that many people then pick up those concessions in order to beat him around the head with them and use it as flimsy justification to negate his whole position. I don't know why he posts here as I can only imagine there are plenty of other places on the internet that would appreciate him far more.

And finally, for the record, the initials are EBG, you bumbling belm-merchant.

The bigger and better person would have stopped responding to the other, knowing they were in a position of superiority.

A 500 odd word rant followed this so clearly, you do give a fuck.

I give a fuck about the deliberate antagonism of the debate at hand. His personal opinion means less than nothing, much like I think of him.

And 'rant'? Please. This is me in a great mood.

If it helps, you're all making me feel much better about my mild descent into dickishness!

You're OK. My mum got loads of use out of your Wii Fit and it was a tidy deal, so I'm still grateful for that. FOR NOW.

Of course I don't like you, I make no bones about that; hell pretty much no one likes you due entirely to exactly this kind of insulting nutball rambling. But, that's genuinely neither here nor there in this case. The meat of your rant here is such breath-taking bullshit that I'm stunned you bothered trying it, especially as the evidence of it's right here in the last couple of pages of this thread. You made an assertion and I questioned it with the innocuous quote I posted before. My very next post to you was this:



Bearing in mind that in the interim you've clarified precisely nothing and instead just goaded Craster with utterly needless stuff like this:



The next time thing you do is just re-quote your own post with nothing added at which point, yes, I call you a dick. Because you were acting like a massive dick about the whole thing. This somehow eventually gets you to actually explain what the hell you mean in the first place; something you could've done right at the start instead of winding various people up--yourself included--and throwing abuse around. You obviously do know more than me on this subject and that's fine, but you dropped a seemingly counter-intuitive assertion out in a post and I asked for clarification then you buggered about insultingly before fucking exploding with rage. You accuse me of being argumentative just to annoy you specifically but it looks a shitload more like you reacting badly because it's me that's asking the question. Either way, this narrative of me purposefully needling you is delusional and there's nothing about the sequence of posts there that support it. I'll say it again: take some responsibility for your shit man. Also: the 'truth-talking plain-speaking hero we deserve' schtick is genuinely embarrassing to watch you roll out. You're a vicious prick who likes to insult people for no reason, trying to gussy that up as something more noble is laughable stuff.

I hope everyone's reading this on a reasonably specced PC for the full 60FPS experience.

Ruysan - you make a fair point there, to be honest.

Actually, it's about ethics in forum posting.

The only way is ethics.

For the sake of brevity and moving the topic on. Bamba, I disagree, you're full of shit and can only respond to me by insisting that it's my fault. You did deliberately needle, it's as clear as day, and you did deserve everything I said. You'd be hugely surprised, I'm sure, to see me speak in quiet, nervous and polite tones to people that I really respect. Look at the way I speak to you and use that basis to judge what I think of you. The only thing embarrassing here is your very strenuous and lonesome assertion that I'm mindlessly aggressive, when it's clearly in response to what you've said and the way you said it. Sorry if you're bewildered by what you think are disproportionate responses, but it's what you'll get.

In other news this was a very interesting talk I just watched.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_o ... n#t-571912

Very broadly I think unchecked population growth is only going to exacerbate problems of people fleeing less desirable parts of the world for more desirable parts, but this bloke comes at it from a rather counterintuitive angle.

I know others don't like Daniel Hannan but I've always found him very considered and generally on the money: http://www.capx.co/its-not-always-our-fault/

Unfortunately I still think he's a cock sieve so can't bring myself to spend the time reading that. I acknowledge that's a little unfair...

Go on Chris, you know you want to.

leave me out of this you liberal bastard

Clearly I shouldn't go away for the weekend again.

Where did you go Grim...? Was it nice?

On Friday I was looking after dogs for my parents in the middle of nowhere.
On Saturday I was playing Tractors just down the road from the middle of nowhere.
And on Sunday I wen to Grillstock! That was rather fun.

What were you doing?

Heh. For my part I made the conscious decision not to get further involved; I sent my PMs to those I give a fig about and, well, haters gonna hate, trolls gonna troll, I just resigned this thread/discussion to its inevitable fate.

I had a great weekend; my grandson's 5th birthday party on Saturday (I was given the "baddie" red light sabre), followed by a fantastically rustic pancetta pasta (that I helped to make!), all washed down with copious red wine. Sunday was round the parents for roast dinner.

Where did we put that case of Stu Campbell crowd sourcing to pay that woman's fines after she nicked a mars bar? In here?

Anyway, magistrates are, apparently, resigning over these unfairly levied fees according to the Law Society.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/more-m ... =GAZ070915

The article provides some background on the fees too, if you're interested.

Hm. Now the UK is picking individuals off with drones, a marked shift in policy, is it really a good thing?

In terms of not escalating matters, probably not.

That said, if you go to fight in Syria like this and then make PR videos for ISIS I don't think you can complain when you do get targeted.

Parliament specifically voted against military involvement in Syria, though.

Is the punishment for treason still the death penalty?

Edit: Google says no... Oh well
They got their just desserts imho

Where they tried before a jury of their peers? Evidence presented to a defence lawyer? No. So don't talk about treason, which is a criminal definition, as there was no due process here.

Article 51 of the UN allows acts in self defence as long as the UN isn't there and you 'fess up straight away and I think the right to life is moved aside given it was "the only way to stop the indivudual". I don't think it was in Syria as Syria doesn't exist like it does on a map anymore.

I can see the arguments for it being legally OK, but I am not really down with it. I think it is more clear cut than the IRA in Gibraltar incident.

Were these guys specifically targeted? Or was it just coincidence that British drones killed British citizens? If it was on purpose, then I don't think I'm ok with that. Had these men yet committed a crime?

There was, it appears, intelligence to suggest they were planning malicious hijinx

But they were in Syria and known to the authorities. What could they have done?

Come back and exploded.

And, is planning an attack an offence that warrants summary execution?

Well, it is "self defence of the nation" and that be different.