That Corbyn fella...

What are you saying then? In what sense is Theresa May using this to distract from home politics?

Military action ('sabre-rattling', 'gunboat diplomacy') will generally have a short-term effect of galvanising public support behind a leader and distracting the public from his/her woes at home. Look at initial support for the Iraq war or how comparatively unpopular Corbyn's measured and considerably more intelligent approach has been on Syria. Rogue states need to be dealt with by as much of a consensus as possible in the international community, not by emphasising fractures and perpetuating the new client war that Syria is threatening to become (although still with a confusing ). And that means diplomacy even with Putin. Sabre-rattling is used by political minnows like Theresa May to distract people from what a weak PM she is. The effect won't last, so there's a danger they'll ratchet it up.

If you read what I wrote, I only engaged you on points you made. You consistently re-engage by playing the man not the ball. Recent responses include 'utter bullsiht'and 'ignorant bollocks'. For one with such a startlingly high estimation of their own capacity for reasoned argument, I find this astonishing.

If you post ignorant bollocks, in this case making silly assumptions about me and what I'm saying (e.g., I seem to support Putin or subscribe to conspiracy theories), that's what you can expect to get back, as, funnily enough, it was actually you who was 'playing the man' (as above, standard tactics, accuse people of what you yourself are doing). Also, this is LFGSS. Discussion culture on here is sometimes not for the faint-hearted. You're either an alias and know that or you're genuinely new and don't.

A very important principle that you need to follow (and I'm mentioning this because you don't) is that of charity in interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

(I once saw this referred to as 'chairtable interpretation' on some web-site, which made my day.)

It's important in every context, but especially in Internet arguments.

And, as I implied earlier, another classic is that people 'react' to a longer post by picking out a small point that may not have been fully formulated (and is often incidental or marginal to the general tenor of the post) but certainly doesn't lead to the interpretation they uncharitably give it, without any acknowledgement of the wider context in which that point is made. This is what you just did.

I don't think you're trolling (or at least not yet), but trolls do it all the time; they at first post things violating the principle of charity that are just annoying enough to get people's backs up bit by bit before they sometimes eventually resort to full flaming (if they last that long without being banned), depending on how much people bite. The aim that trolls pursue with this is often just to make someone write very long posts in reply (which, admittedly, is not very difficult to achieve in my case) and shift the burden of discussion onto them. This is sometimes known as 'mean-mindedness'. It can be employed quite slyly but can likewise be annoying.

I'll put you on ignore for now, because others reading a thread typically find this kind of exchange intensely tedious. Feel free to reciprocate the favour.