So they've nicked Moazzam Begg for Syria-related terrorism offences.

The wonderful thing is that it is possible to go around starting war after war for fun and profit, while always blaming the designated bad guy, who the scribes and hacks kindly demonise for the benefit of an uninformed public.

At worst, two or three million people might notice what's happening and march through London but that's no problem - just carry on anyway and by the time the body count approaches half a million, attention will be on the next one, or the one after that.

Or at least a funky given

believe their own eyes. Should we take them seriously?

How about the BSM; should we take them seriously too and recuse ourselves from the European Cup because it's full of people we don't like?

I'm struggling a little with the European cup simile up there too. My apologies for being slow today.

long as we stop all the nonsense about principles :shudder:

:-)

I look forward to seeing the working as to how everybody benefits from this. Depends on the definition of 'everybody', I expect.

The beneficiaries are, of course, anyone we live with and care about. Who else is there :shrug:

I'm an anti-interventionist.

In this case that means not egging on one side with continual diplomatic support and massive wheelbarrows full of cash, to the point of overthrowing a democracy. In general terms it means not doing the whole liberal-interventionist/neocon warhawk thing that's been going on for the last 20 years now.

If, OTOH, someone was to say "look, actually we're doing this to encircle Russia because we ultimately want to pilfer their geological wealth" then that would at least be recognisable, old-school, pillage-driven imperialism.

There's a Big Lebowski type quote there, but I'll leave it to Jorge or Supermac if they show up.

Nobody really believes it. Anyway we certainly don't.