pap

There is a new article today courtesy of 21st Century Wire making further allegations that Israel has been co-ordinating with elements of ISIS since May 2013. What's interesting about the article is where it derives its sources. The claims are substantiated by a UN report and numerous reports in the Israeli press, particularly Haaretz, its left leaning paper. http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/02/19/un-report-reveals-how-israel-is-coordinating-with-isis-militants-inside-syria/ With ISIS being held up as a worst-case scenario for everything that is wrong with Islam, the implications of Israel and ISIS actually co-operating with each other are huge, particularly when one examines the escalation in last year's Gaza attacks. At times, it seemed like every time the Israelis went into Gaza, ISIS would be doing something even more repellent, raising the fear and keeping the Gazan tragedy from occupying as much as the news as it should. What's the deal with Israel and ISIS? Is it worth conducting any military operations until the extent of any involvement is properly determined?

S'posed to be shíte. Kotaku panned it.

Going back to my "he's only violent when in a mob" example, let's imagine our usually non-violent person stowing a load of white people before attacking a black person. He hits away when he's battering the caucasians without comment. When he hits the black person, he makes a racist remark. Now is this person merely violent, or is he a racist as well?

The distinction between whether they're really racists, or just faux racists, is irrelevant - particularly from the perspective of the person being abused. It's like saying "ah, such and such isn't normally violent, except when he's in a mob".

Well, let's not beat around the bush. It was fúcking out of order and there should be no excuse for it in this day and age. Unfortunately, racism is something like a hereditary disease, as I found out when I had to explain to my then five year old daughter what the n-word meant. It's actually a little worse than a hereditary disease. Even if your parents don't have it, you can still acquire it via a combination of being fúcking thick and hanging around with similarly afflicted people.

Indeed. My plan is to boo the c**t whenever he gets the ball and cheer the Saints when he doesn't. Am I oversimplifying?

Fair play to you for emerging from cover long enough to post this whatabouttery. I trust you wore a Kevlar vest as you were typing.

Exploding Varmints, Vol 1, a video from the late 1990s. Another insight.

I just hope that during his visit to our fairish city, he finds the time to visit a Millbrook favela so that he can inspire the young street urchins, like he did in Brazil.

Good job too. Makes up for the lack of post-rationing skills

I quite enjoyed the irony of a WWE wrestler having a pop at a footballer for simulation.

Good choice of director. The man is a proper geek. However, I'm still waiting for my District 9 sequel.

I like Boyle personally. He doesn't have too many contemporaries, as his weekly demolition of all the other comics on Mock The Week used to show. I'd disagree with your stance on him being offensive just for its own sake, and would submit the entire blog piece in evidence. Is this a bloke looking to offend at every turn? Doesn't look like it from the piece in question, even if he does have a dog in the fight. I have some sympathy with your other views on free speech though. It doesn't really exist in a meaningful form, even the one you'd prefer. I also think that continually depicting religious icons to píss religious groups off is a poor example of free speech, which has probably got more in common with the grandstanding that used to happen before ancient battles, than any serious political modern dialogue. Deliberately going out to cause offence by pushing buttons isn't a correct application of free speech. It's closer to incitement, only in many cases officially backed. The use of free speech as a democratic right to question doesn't really work either, particularly in this country. Libel laws and super-injunctions all factor in, but the key strategy has always been the same. Say what you like, but prepared to be destroyed for what you've said.

I thought Boyle's piece was an excellent journey through the mire surrounding the subject, pointing out all many hypocrisies and inconsistencies in the way we handle expression. Here's a good example:-

Frankie Boyle has bunged out a blog piece that I thought would be of interest to people here. It's all about freedom of speech, something our Frankie has discovered the boundaries of with some regularity. Boyle ends up concluding:- I know that posters on this site endlessly talk about those that may be offended. Fair points? http://www.frankieboyle.com/frankie/free-speech.html

Er, why? Don't you trust people to be able to read a timestamp? Afraid that you might get hassle from commuters that say "I read your tweet, decided not to go to work today, and was fired"?

To speak further on this, there are two main Walking Dead universes, as far as I know; TV and Comics. The TV show is set in a different universe to the comic. It has many of the same characters, but they don't always go the same way as they did in the Comics, in terms of character development or longevity. The games use the comic art style, but apart from a couple of cameos, feature completely different characters anyway (e.g. I think Glen turns up in S1 of the games). The games are excellent. Not only are they well worth your time, but they also represent (drum roll) a "brand new genre". They share a bit of DNA with old school adventure games, but the focus is really on dialogue, choice and consequence rather than finding the answer to some obscure puzzle. No-one else has taken that to the level that Telltale has. Telltale also make a Game of Thrones series, which is the only good GoT game that exists. Also, The Wolf Among Us is ace too.

Almost always drive down. I've only ever driven back the same day once, which was to get back for a family event the day after. I normally stay on an extra day at least.

I missed Everton this year so far. That's it on the league front so far, although work commitments are likely to mean I miss a couple more. Yeah, got it this year. I hate the M6.

For fúck's sake. I can understand Lou being something of a novelty on a male dominated forum like SaintsWeb, but this thread has got to be in the running for most desperate ever, hasn't it? It's like some of our posters are twelve and have just discovered girls.

I'd like to see some Richard Herring "emergency questions" asked on these interviews.

The program has an agenda, but it's not really doing anything more than asking people to think about the reality of implementation. How exactly would UKIP enforce its immigration strategy, for example? There would be likely some very uncomfortable stuff being done in the name of policy, but then, that's nothing new. We've been hardline on asylum seekers since the days of Blair's government; I've been involved in an asylum appeal myself. The Home Office is not nice as it is. One of the most interesting things about the programme is how much "real life" footage they use in its creation. A lot of existing real life UKIP soundbites are used and depicted as statements from the fictional UKIP government. Undoubtedly a sensationalist take on a potential UKIP government, but still worth a watch if only for a worst case scenario.

I have been watching Marvel: Agent Carter. It's set in the mid 1940s in a universe where Captain America existed, Iron Man will, no one smokes and people look surprisingly fresh faced despite years of world destroying war. It's because they gave up the ciggies, I reckon. Despite the period annoyances, I quite like this show, and this show doesn't mind holding onto a period detail if it suits the plot. Agent Carter, Captain America's mentor/squeeze in the first Captain America movie, is the focus of the show. She has to deal with issues like workplace sexism and having to get the lunch order, except Howard Stark (Iron Man's dad, yo!) is in a bit of bother. His weapons have been nicked, he's in the frame and public enemy number one, and needs Carter's help to clear his name. The first episode establishes her as a double agent. It's quite a British affair. Carter is English, as is the recognisable hired help. Both are capable of some dry wit and sarcasm. The ties to the wider Marvel universe are there too, and they play on them - many of the same actors reprise roles from the Captain America movie in various episodes, Carter herself chief among them. Her journey is a light comparison of women's role in society, and it is an idealised version of the 1940s, but it's a decent watch regardless.