RugbyRebels

Love this from The Spectator:

'‘If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense,’ said Alice. ‘Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?’

For the United States, and for the rest of us, Lewis Carroll is as good a guide as any to what is happening in northern Syria right now. Turkey — America’s Nato ally — has sent tanks rolling across the border to attack the Kurds, America’s ally against Isis. Thus the United States finds itself supporting both sides in the same war. You see?'

What the US has done is deliberately provoke the Turks into invading Syria by setting up a protectorate along the border manned by a proxy army of mostly Kurdish fighters. The objective is clearly to prolong the war, divide Syria and ultimately replace Assad with a leadership they can control - or, failing that, total chaos (a la Afghanistan, Iraq & Libya). They failed in their first attempt to achieve the latter goal, effectively suffering defeat at the hands of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah - who they subsquently attempted to demonize and blame for the whole shebang. This article explains it well, though I would certainly raise the possibility that the NATO allies are co operating entirely and simply putting on a show to disguise the fact: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/29 ... ng-turkey/

Members of the medical council who criticized the invasion were arrested this morning and accused of 'treason.' http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/detent ... cil-126483

rowan wrote:What the US has done is deliberately provoke the Turks into invading Syria by setting up a protectorate along the border manned by a proxy army of mostly Kurdish fighters. The objective is clearly to prolong the war, divide Syria and ultimately replace Assad with a leadership they can control - or, failing that, total chaos (a la Afghanistan, Iraq & Libya). They failed in their first attempt to achieve the latter goal, effectively suffering defeat at the hands of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah - who they subsquently attempted to demonize and blame for the whole shebang. This article explains it well, though I would certainly raise the possibility that the NATO allies are co operating entirely and simply putting on a show to disguise the fact: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/29 ... ng-turkey/

That article says pretty much the opposite of what you have written. Rather than describing some super-Machiavellian plot, it seems to have been written by a piss-taking fourteen year-old beside themselves with glee at how incompetent the US has been.

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:What the US has done is deliberately provoke the Turks into invading Syria by setting up a protectorate along the border manned by a proxy army of mostly Kurdish fighters. The objective is clearly to prolong the war, divide Syria and ultimately replace Assad with a leadership they can control - or, failing that, total chaos (a la Afghanistan, Iraq & Libya). They failed in their first attempt to achieve the latter goal, effectively suffering defeat at the hands of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah - who they subsquently attempted to demonize and blame for the whole shebang. This article explains it well, though I would certainly raise the possibility that the NATO allies are co operating entirely and simply putting on a show to disguise the fact: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/29 ... ng-turkey/

That article says pretty much the opposite of what you have written. Rather than describing some super-Machiavellian plot, it seems to have been written by a piss-taking fourteen year-old beside themselves with glee at how incompetent the US has been.

Then you didn't understand it. Probably it was beyond your comprehension because you don't live in the region, do not understand what is going on, and the society you do live in is saturated with warmongering propaganda. The author knows far more about the issue than you do - evidently. I mean, really, what an utterly brainless comment you just made

rowan wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:What the US has done is deliberately provoke the Turks into invading Syria by setting up a protectorate along the border manned by a proxy army of mostly Kurdish fighters. The objective is clearly to prolong the war, divide Syria and ultimately replace Assad with a leadership they can control - or, failing that, total chaos (a la Afghanistan, Iraq & Libya). They failed in their first attempt to achieve the latter goal, effectively suffering defeat at the hands of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah - who they subsquently attempted to demonize and blame for the whole shebang. This article explains it well, though I would certainly raise the possibility that the NATO allies are co operating entirely and simply putting on a show to disguise the fact: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/29 ... ng-turkey/

That article says pretty much the opposite of what you have written. Rather than describing some super-Machiavellian plot, it seems to have been written by a piss-taking fourteen year-old beside themselves with glee at how incompetent the US has been.

Then you didn't understand it. Probably it was beyond your comprehension because you don't live in the region, do not understand what is going on, and the society you do live in is saturated with warmongering propaganda. The author knows far more about the issue than you do - evidently. I mean, really, what an utterly brainless comment you just made

Yeah, sure. I misunderstood this:
Washington’s screwup has made a bad situation even worse.
And this

So why did Tillerson think Erdogan would respond differently?
There’s only one explanation: Tillerson must be so blinded by hubris that he couldn’t figure out what Erdogan’s reaction would be. He must have thought that, “Whatever Uncle Sam says, goes.”

I misunderstood those very clear statements because I don’t live in the region. I only comprehend English

I haven’t said ANYTHING to contradict the author. Only you have. So, that's another strawman argument you can forget about.

You don't understand English either, because those comments you quoted are precisely in line with the comments I made, about America provoking Turkey into invading Syria. Unless you're talking about the footnote I added, suggesting that the whole thing could well be a charade and they might well be co operating fully behind the scenes. Is that what you mean? Well, firstly, I'm not stating that as fact; just that it should be considered as a possibility, given Turkey is a member of NATO, a military organization led by America. But raising the possibility that there may be more to this than meets the eye (gee, that's never been the case before ) is hardly contradicting myself - as you would like to have it - nor is it contradicting the author at all.

Another interesting comment from the late Robert Parry's last article. It really is amazing that after the farce of the 2003 Iraq invasion so many people could have been duped when the US proceeded to invade Libya with a similar litany of lies, and then yet again when they began aiding and abetting their proxy rebels/terrorists in Syria. That goes beyond stupidity. It requires a certain degree of evil.

This approach was embraced not only by Republicans (think of President George W. Bush distorting the reality in Iraq in 2003 to justify the invasion of that country under false pretenses) but also by Democrats who pushed dubious or downright false depictions of the conflict in Syria (including blaming the Syrian government for chemical weapons attacks despite strong evidence that the events were staged by Al Qaeda and other militants who had become the tip of the spear in the neocon/liberal interventionist goal of removing the Assad dynasty and installing a new regime more acceptable to the West and to Israel.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/12/31/a ... planation/

rowan wrote:You don't understand English either, because those comments you quoted are precisely in line with the comments I made, about America provoking Turkey into invading Syria. Unless you're talking about the footnote I added, suggesting that the whole thing could well be a charade and they might well be co operating fully behind the scenes. Is that what you mean? Well, firstly, I'm not stating that as fact; just that it should be considered as a possibility, given Turkey is a member of NATO, a military organization led by America. But raising the possibility that there may be more to this than meets the eye (gee, that's never been the case before ) is hardly contradicting myself - as you would like to have it - nor is it contradicting the author at all.

You're a fraud and a liar.
There is no way that describing an outcome as a screwup can be considered to be synonymous with it being the desired outcome of a plan. The author of the article describes it as a screwup, you claim this is evidence that the US Government deliberately provoked the situation.
Stop telling lies Rowan.
The author, nowhere in the article, draws the conclusion that the US either deliberately provoked the invasion of Syria, or are covertly working together with the Turkish Government. The whole tone of the article is one of glee that the US have been seen to be making an arse of it.

Your bluster and attempts at diversion are to everyone reading this thread, clearly insufficient to draw attention away from the fact that you lied that the article supports your theory that the US Government deliberately provoked the Turkish invasion. Your attempt at diversion by lying about me contradicting the author only made this worse.

In short, you've made an arse of yourself again.

PS The author of the article, Mike Whitney, according to his Counterpunch profile, lives in the US State of Washington, not in the region in question.

So you've decided to attack both me and the author because you don't like the subject matter. That's a juvenile and cowardly approach and discredits you entirely. The article states quite clearly that, by positioning Kurdish troops just across the border from Turkey, which is engaged in a long-running battle with its Kurdish minority (and their kinsmen across the border), the US had provoked Turkey into invading Syria. That's perfectly clear and evident. The US has screwed up and failed in its latest attempt to seize control of a Middle Eastern nation and its resources. That's also perfectly clear and evident - on the surface. But pointing out these self-evident facts is sinister,dishonest and juvenile in your view because you just don't like to read about it. You then get hung up on a footnote adding the possibility of a further dimension to the situation, regarding this as a contradiction rather than expansion of the topic, though it is clearly the latter. In fact, I raise this possibility partly because I don't think the most powerful (and destructive) military organization on the planet is dumb enough to screw up, and the only reason they were initially defeated in Syria was because they opted for a covert op rather than all-out invasion, obviously not considering it worth the risk of all-out war with Syria's longstanding Russian allies. So if you didn't get that, your grasp of the English language is as poor as your understanding of the situation in Syria. I mean, really, liar, liar, pants on fire! Is that the level you're at?

'‘If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense,’ said Rowan. ‘Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?’

Mellsblue wrote:'‘If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense,’ said Rowan. ‘Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?’

Another infantile, ad hominems response which does not even pretend to address the topic at hand. Precisely why I don't bother with this thread much. You can't debate like adults, and you presume expertise on things about which you clearly know very little. Sad.

Stones of granite wrote:
You're a fraud and a liar.

It's quite possible he's too stupid to be either of those things.

rowan wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:'‘If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense,’ said Rowan. ‘Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?’

Another infantile, ad hominems response which does not even pretend to address the topic at hand.

It wasn’t meant to be anything else.

rowan wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:'‘If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense,’ said Rowan. ‘Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?’

Another infantile, ad hominems response which does not even pretend to address the topic at hand. Precisely why I don't bother with this thread much. You can't debate like adults, and you presume expertise on things about which you clearly know very little. Sad.

I'm not sure you know the meaning of "ad hominem". Your very first response to me was full of insults, and yet you seem to believe that "ad hominem" only applies to comments addressed to you.
I believe you to be a fraud and a liar, although others believe you may be too stupid to be either.

You can't debate like adults, and you presume expertise on things about which you clearly know very little

This is a classic example of what I mean. If you read back, you will see that I claimed no expertise whatsoever. That is just another example of your false claims. Lies, as they are known in English. I simply commented that the statements made in your post were at odds with the article you quoted to support it.
1. You replied with a bunch of insults, but of course it is only others that do ad hominem
2. You ignored the fact that the excerpts that I quoted directly contradicted what you wrote
3. You tried to divert the argument by claiming that I had somehow contradicted the author of the article, even though I made no judgement whatsoever on the content of the article.
4. You claimed that because I don't live in the region, I couldn't possibly understand the article, which is kind of bizarre considering that the author of the article lives even further away from the region than I do.

Rowan, you are full of bluster, and you bullshit like an American Presidential press secretary when you get caught out.

Already answered that:

rowan wrote:So you've decided to attack both me and the author because you don't like the subject matter. That's a juvenile and cowardly approach and discredits you entirely. The article states quite clearly that, by positioning Kurdish troops just across the border from Turkey, which is engaged in a long-running battle with its Kurdish minority (and their kinsmen across the border), the US had provoked Turkey into invading Syria. That's perfectly clear and evident. The US has screwed up and failed in its latest attempt to seize control of a Middle Eastern nation and its resources. That's also perfectly clear and evident - on the surface. But pointing out these self-evident facts is sinister,dishonest and juvenile in your view because you just don't like to read about it. You then get hung up on a footnote adding the possibility of a further dimension to the situation, regarding this as a contradiction rather than expansion of the topic, though it is clearly the latter. In fact, I raise this possibility partly because I don't think the most powerful (and destructive) military organization on the planet is dumb enough to screw up, and the only reason they were initially defeated in Syria was because they opted for a covert op rather than all-out invasion, obviously not considering it worth the risk of all-out war with Syria's longstanding Russian allies. So if you didn't get that, your grasp of the English language is as poor as your understanding of the situation in Syria. I mean, really, liar, liar, pants on fire! Is that the level you're at?

So, for those interested in the topic itself, rather than denialist attempts to divert attention from the subject matter, here it is in full:

The Trump administration has drawn Turkey deeper into the Syrian conflict by announcing a policy that threatens Turkey’s national security. Washington’s gaffe has pitted one NATO ally against the other while undermining hopes for a speedy end to the seven year-long war.

Here’s what’s going on: On January 18, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced the creation of a 30,000-man Border Security Force (BSF) to occupy East Syria. Two days later, January 20, the Turkish Army launched a ground and air offensive against Kurdish troops in the Afrin canton in Northwest Syria.

The media has tried to downplay the connection between the two events, but the cause-and-effect relationship is pretty clear. Tillerson’s provocation triggered the Turkish invasion and another bloody phase to the needlessly-protracted conflict. Washington’s screwup has made a bad situation even worse.

A five-year-old child could have figured out that Turkey wasn’t going to sit-back and let the US establish a Kurdish state on its border without putting up a fight. Keep in mind, the US plans to defend this new protectorate with a 30,000-man proxy-army comprised of mostly Kurdish fighters from the People’s Protection Units or YPG. The Turks, however, believe the YPG is connected to the terror-listed PKK which has prosecuted a scorched earth campaign against the Turkish state for decades. That’s why Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will not allow these groups to dig in along Turkey’s southern border, they constitute a serious threat to Turkey’s security. Just imagine if Hezbollah decided to set up military encampments along the Mexican border. How long do you think it would take before Trump blew those camps to kingdom come? Not long, I’d wager.

So why did Tillerson think Erdogan would respond differently?

There’s only one explanation: Tillerson must be so blinded by hubris that he couldn’t figure out what Erdogan’s reaction would be. He must have thought that, “Whatever Uncle Sam says, goes.” Only it doesn’t work like that anymore. The US has lost its ability to shape events in the Middle East, particularly in Syria where its jihadist proxies have been rolled back on nearly every front. The US simply doesn’t have sufficient forces on the ground to determine the outcome, nor is it respected as an honest broker, a dependable ally or a reliable steward of regional security. The US is just one of many armed-factions struggling to gain the upper hand in an increasingly fractious and combustible battlespace. Simply put, Washington is losing the war quite dramatically due in large part to the emergence of a new coalition (Russia-Syria-Iran-Hezbollah) that has made great strides in Syria and that is committed to preserve the Old World Order, a system that is built on the principles of national sovereignty, self determination and non intervention. Washington opposes this system and is doing everything in its power dismantle it by redrawing borders, toppling elected leaders, and installing its own stooges to execute its diktats. Tillerson’s blunder will only make Washington’s task all the more difficult by drawing Turkey into the fray in an effort to quash Uncle Sam’s Kurdish proxies.

In an effort to add insult to injury, Tillerson didn’t even have the decency to discuss the matter with Erdogan– his NATO ally– before making the announcement! Can you imagine how furious Erdogan must have been? Shouldn’t the president of Turkey expect better treatment from his so-called friends in Washington who use Turkish air fields to supply their ground troops and to carry out their bombing raids in Syria? But instead of gratitude, he gets a big kick in the teeth with the announcement that the US is hopping into bed with his mortal enemies, the Kurds. Check out this excerpt from Wednesday’s Turkish daily, The Hurriyet ,which provides a bit of background on the story:

“It is beyond any doubt that the U.S. military and administration knew that the People’s Protection Units (YPG)…had organic ties with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which Washington officially recognizes as a terrorist group….The YPG is the armed wing of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), which is the political wing of the PKK in Syria. They share the same leadership…the same budget, the same arsenal, the same chain of command from the Kandil Mountains in Iraq, and the same pool of militants. So the PYD/YPG is actually not a “PKK-affiliated” group, it is a sub-geographical unit of the same organization….

Knowing that the YPG and the PKK are effectively equal, and legally not wanting to appear to be giving arms to a terrorist organization, the U.S. military already asked the YPG to “change the brand” back in 2015. U.S.

Special Forces Commander General Raymond Thomas said during an Aspen Security Forum presentation on July 22, 2017 that he had personally proposed the name change to the YPG.

“With about a day’s notice [the YPG] declared that it was now the Syrian Democratic Forces [SDF],” Thomas said to laughter from the audience. “I thought it was a stroke of brilliance to put ‘democracy’ in there somewhere. It gave them a little bit of credibility.” (Hurriyet)

Ha, ha, ha. Isn’t that funny? One day you’re a terrorist, and the next day you’re not depending on whether Washington can use you or not. Is it any wonder why Erdogan is so pissed off?

So now a messy situation gets even messier. Now the US has to choose between its own proxy army (The Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces) and a NATO ally that occupies the critical crossroads between Asia and Europe. Washington’s plan to pivot to Asia by controlling vital resources and capital flowing between the continents depends largely on its ability to keep regional leaders within its orbit. That means Washington needs Erdogan in their camp which, for the time being, he is not.

Apparently, there have been phone calls between Presidents Trump and Erdogan, but early accounts saying that Trump scolded Erdogan have already been disproven. In fact, Trump and his fellows have been bending-over-backwards to make amends for Tillerson’s foolish slip-up. According to the Hurriyet:

“The readout issued by the White House does not accurately reflect the content of President [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan’s phone call with President [Donald] Trump,”…“President Trump did not share any ‘concerns [about] escalating violence’ with regard to the ongoing military operation in Afrin.”…The Turkish sources also stressed that Trump did not use the words “destructive and false rhetoric coming from Turkey.”…

Erdoğan reiterated that the People’s Protection Units (YPG) must withdraw to the East of the Euphrates River and pledged the protection of Manbij by the Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA)…

“In response to President Erdoğan’s call on the United States to end the delivery of weapons to the [Democratic Union Party] PYD-YPG, President Trump said that his country no longer supplied the group with weapons and pledged not to resume the weapons delivery in the future,” the sources added.” (Hurriyet)

If this report can be trusted, (Turkish media is no more reliable than US media) then it is Erdogan who is issuing the demands not Trump. Erdogan insists that all YPG units be redeployed east of the Euphrates and that all US weapons shipments to Washington’s Kurdish proxies stop immediately. We should know soon enough whether Washington is following Erdogan’s orders or not.

So far, the only clear winner in this latest conflagration has been Vladimir Putin, the levelheaded pragmatist who hews to Napoleon’s directive to “Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself.”

Putin gave Erdogan the green light to conduct “Operation Olive Branch” in order to pave the way for an eventual Syrian takeover of the Northwestern portion of the country up to the Turkish border. Moscow removed its troops from the Afrin quarter (where the current fighting is taking place) but not before it presented the Kurds with the option of conceding control of the area to the central government in Damascus. The Kurds rejected that offer and elected to fight instead. Here’s an account of what happened:

Nearly a week ago, [a] meeting between Russian officials and Kurdish leaders took place. Moscow suggested Syrian State becomes only entity in charge of the northern border. The Kurds refused. It was immediately after that that the Turkish Generals were invited to Moscow. Having the Syrian State in control of its Northern Border wasn’t the only Russian demand. The other was that the Kurds hand back the oil fields in Deir al Zor. The Kurds refused suggesting that the US won’t allow that anyway.

Putin has repeatedly expressed concern about US supplies of advanced weapons that had been given to the Kurdish SDF. According to the military website South Front:

“Uncontrolled deliveries of modern weapons, including reportedly the deliveries of the man-portable air defense systems, by the Pentagon to the pro-US forces in northern Syria, have contributed to the rapid escalation of tensions in the region and resulted in the launch of a special operation by the Turkish troops.” (SouthFront)

Erdogan’s demand that Trump stop the flow of weapons to the SDF will benefit Russia and its allies on the ground even more than they will benefit Turkey. It’s another win-win situation for Putin.

The split between the NATO allies seems to work in Putin’s favor as well, although, to his credit, he has not tried to exploit the situation. Putin ascribes to the notion that relations between nations are not that different than relations between people, they must be built on a solid foundation of trust which gradually grows as each party proves they are steady, reliable partners who can be counted on to honor their commitments and keep their word. Putin’s honesty, even-handedness and reliability have greatly enhanced Russia’s power in the region and his influence in settling global disputes. That is particularly evident in Syria where Moscow is at the center of all decision-making.

As we noted earlier, Washington has made every effort to patch up relations with Turkey and put the current foofaraw behind them. The White House has issued a number of servile statements acknowledging Turkey’s “legitimate security concerns” and their “commitment to work with Turkey as a NATO ally.” And there’s no doubt that the administration’s charm offensive will probably succeed in bringing the narcissistic and mercurial Erdogan back into the fold. But for how long?

At present, Erdogan is still entertains illusions of cobbling together a second Ottoman empire overseen by the Grand Sultan Tayyip himself, but when he finally comes to his senses and realizes the threat that Washington poses to Turkish independence and sovereignty, he may reconsider and throw his lot with Putin.

In any event, Washington has clearly tipped its hand revealing its amended strategy for Syria, a plan that abandons the pretext of a “war on terror” and focuses almost-exclusively on military remedies to the “great power” confrontation outlined in Trump’s new National Defense Strategy. Washington is fully committed to building an opposition proxy-army in its east Syria enclave that can fend off loyalist troops, launch destabilizing attacks on the regime, and eventually, effect the political changes that help to achieve its imperial ambitions.

Tillerson’s announcement may have prompted some unexpected apologies and back-tracking, but the policy remains the same. Washington will persist in its effort to divide the country and remove Assad until an opposing force prevents it from doing so. And, that day could be sooner than many people imagine.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/29 ... ng-turkey/

Anyone got anything even close to approaching a good idea on what to actually do next that will meet enough concerns of the Turks, Iranians, Syrians and Kurds such it will be acceptable to all? Likely it'd not even be a good idea, just the least worst, and even that looks unlikely even before the genius of Trump is considered

The US needs to respect international law and Syria's sovereignty and simply butt out altogether. Only then will things begin to return to normal. As for what should be done about longstanding issues such as the plight of the Kurds in the north, that's a very different issue. At this point I believe they are not even involved in negotiations. But certainly no progress can be made in that respect under the current conditions.

Probably a mistake saying anyone, has anyone but Rowan got any ideas?

Don’t be so infantile.

Just a thought I had that 'display this post' doesn't proffer much in the way of how to move forwards

You're obviously not interested in resolving the issue then. & it's perfectly clear you don't remotely understand it - nor really care about it. If you genuinely want to end the conflict, you must first remove the agent of its origin. Anything else would be a case of dealing with the symptom, rather than the disease.

As the article clearly states, if the US weren't still meddling in Syria, there would have been no need for its NATO ally Turkey to invade. You can read into that situation what you like, but it's going to be very difficult to resolve the issue with the Kurds being invaded and left out of negotiations.

rowan wrote:You're obviously not interested in resolving the issue then.

We thought we'd leave it to you as you're doing such a good job of it.

rowan wrote:Already answered that:

rowan wrote:So you've decided to attack both me and the author because you don't like the subject matter. That's a juvenile and cowardly approach and discredits you entirely. The article states quite clearly that, by positioning Kurdish troops just across the border from Turkey, which is engaged in a long-running battle with its Kurdish minority (and their kinsmen across the border), the US had provoked Turkey into invading Syria. That's perfectly clear and evident. The US has screwed up and failed in its latest attempt to seize control of a Middle Eastern nation and its resources. That's also perfectly clear and evident - on the surface. But pointing out these self-evident facts is sinister,dishonest and juvenile in your view because you just don't like to read about it. You then get hung up on a footnote adding the possibility of a further dimension to the situation, regarding this as a contradiction rather than expansion of the topic, though it is clearly the latter. In fact, I raise this possibility partly because I don't think the most powerful (and destructive) military organization on the planet is dumb enough to screw up, and the only reason they were initially defeated in Syria was because they opted for a covert op rather than all-out invasion, obviously not considering it worth the risk of all-out war with Syria's longstanding Russian allies. So if you didn't get that, your grasp of the English language is as poor as your understanding of the situation in Syria. I mean, really, liar, liar, pants on fire! Is that the level you're at?

No, you really didn’t. That’s just another example of the kind of self-deceiving shite mixed with abuse that you post. Frankly, whatever cause you support is done more harm by your pathetic ramblings than if you restricted your posts to match reports from the 3rd division of the Kazakhstan pub league.

You’re a fraud and a liar.