London Bridge

[Bill 1,788]

Plebian I am, and happy with itMy post was not aimed at your thoughts, of which I totally agreeBut a dig at the right wing nutters on here who have bleated out "conspiracy theory" when ever I have posted something that suggests government might perhaps be a little more complicated than their stories of Noddy scenario would have.It is in that light that I have questioned their bleats about how the naughty Mr Corbyn voted against anti terror legislation without any attempt to put into context ie what are the wider connotations any legislation may haveotherwise apologies if it came across as an attack on you or you post, it was not.

[Guest]

Sorry old boy, misinterpreted your response. Bit polarised don''t you think?

That said, I''ve got no love for the Tories, but I seriously doubt the current Labour party leadership are fit to run the Country.

Anyway, off topic...

[Len 74]

There are enough people suggesting that the security services either allow or aid these attacks (for political reasons) for the subject to be beyond the realms of crank ''conspiracy theory''. The evidence is there, and the same kind of thing has been admitted to having happened in Ulster, so it''s hardly a novel concept.

A step down from the above idea is that the security services allowed these groups to flourish, eg the Manchester cell involved in the recent attack had their control orders lifted in order for them to go off to Libya and help topple Gadaffi (see John Pilger''s recent article).

This is at odds with the debate in the media, which is steered away from this subject and leads people to believe that the police and security services were always trying to thwart the activities of these cells.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Ian"]Sorry old boy, misinterpreted your response. Bit polarised don''t you think?

That said, I''ve got no love for the Tories, but I seriously doubt the current Labour party leadership are fit to run the Country.

Anyway, off topic...[/quote]cheersit was a bit presumptious on my part presuming everyone was aware of the sptas to the Lbour Party I do think they are capable (but NOT with Abbot) though much will depend on how well the rift can be healed with the ''Blairite'' factioni expec the sabre rattling with the SNP will be put aside, though there will be a fair few sectional interests (NI) to placatebut then there is still an election and we will need to see where we are on Friday

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Len"]There are enough people suggesting that the security services either allow or aid these attacks (for political reasons) for the subject to be beyond the realms of crank ''conspiracy theory''. The evidence is there, and the same kind of thing has been admitted to having happened in Ulster, so it''s hardly a novel concept.

A step down from the above idea is that the security services allowed these groups to flourish, eg the Manchester cell involved in the recent attack had their control orders lifted in order for them to go off to Libya and help topple Gadaffi (see John Pilger''s recent article).

This is at odds with the debate in the media, which is steered away from this subject and leads people to believe that the police and security services were always trying to thwart the activities of these cells.[/quote]It is a complex matter, if only who is the greater ''evil''The riots of 2013 certainly suggested that the police stood back - coincidentally when they were in a pay dispute with the then home secretary (who she, ed?). Though I cannot remember anyone claiming their dispute was all about unions being too powerful.N Ireland had many such claims where people were killed without any intervention so as not to compromise sources or informants.There is a wonderful story about the raid on Amiens prison in 1944 where later information and study has shown that far from being a daring raid to free prisoners who might have information about D Day it was in fact a ruse to make the Germans think that was the case. A fair number of brave pilots and civilians were killed.This stuff is neither pretty or able to be simplistically judged as it is all too often is on here. Sadly those judgements are rarely based on any reasoned understanding of the facts or complexities but presented as some kind of goodies v baddies 1950''s western.The irony is those folk are condemning the enemies for the very thing they are doing. Dogmatic belief in the righteousness of their beliefs.Think before you vote.

[daly 501]

There''s only one way to vote who the hell would want an IRA sympathizer as Prime Minister of the UK

Imagine Corbyn and Diane Abbott leading the UK

It would be worse than watching AN''s team selections

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="daly"]There''s only one way to vote who the hell would want an IRA sympathizer as Prime Minister of the UK

Imagine Corbyn and Diane Abbott leading the UK

It would be worse than watching AN''s team selections[/quote]Quite a few million it would appear, and growing by the dayPerhaps you lot should concentrate on the benefits of Mrs May insteea... you know support the party you will be voting forHere''s a reminder in case you have forgottenhttps://youtu.be/FIsKxwLoJ7U

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="daly"]There''s only one way to vote who the hell would want an IRA sympathizer as Prime Minister of the UK

Imagine Corbyn and Diane Abbott leading the UK

It would be worse than watching AN''s team selections[/quote]

I will take Corbyn''s alleged IRA sympathising over Theresa May who materially supports ISIS.

I don''t want Abbott as home sec. She''s promoted way beyond her IQ to even be an MP, but Theresa May has had 7 years where her sole job is to keep us safe, and she has utterly failed to do so, dogmatic in pursuing cuts against the advice of senior police officers who warned her this kind of thing would happen. She has blood on her hands, and no remorse for it, which personally I feel is a bit worse than some questionable quotes which have been heavily edited by neo-fascist media outlets.

[Guest]

I don''t like May. I think she has made several big errors in her career, and her idea of monitoring encrypted communications make me doubt she has anything like the nouse required to be a true statesman and decision maker.

That said, at least she has never, to my mind, called for the abolition of Mi5, reduction of our armed forces and/or laid wreaths on the graves of terrorists. I also suspect she at least has a cursory knowledge of the potential costs of her manifesto policies.

One suspects by your avatar, that cognitive dissonance would lead you to absolve current Labour leadership of any of their sins, whilst chastising anything the Tories have done. I don''t like either party, but dogmatic, polarised reasoning probably goes a long way to explaining Brexit, Trump, and our current joke of a general election.

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="Ian"]I don''t like May. I think she has made several big errors in her career, and her idea of monitoring encrypted communications make me doubt she has anything like the nouse required to be a true statesman and decision maker.

That said, at least she has never, to my mind, called for the abolition of Mi5, reduction of our armed forces and/or laid wreaths on the graves of terrorists. I also suspect she at least has a cursory knowledge of the potential costs of her manifesto policies.

One suspects by your avatar, that cognitive dissonance would lead you to absolve current Labour leadership of any of their sins, whilst chastising anything the Tories have done. I don''t like either party, but dogmatic, polarised reasoning probably goes a long way to explaining Brexit, Trump, and our current joke of a general election.[/quote]

Cursory knowledge? Her manifesto is completely uncosted and doesn''t contain any figures. Criticise whatever you like about how Labour came to the figures they have, but don''t sit there and talk about Theresa May knowing her figures when she reckons you can give a kid breakfast for 6.8p.

I don''t absolve the Labour party of anything, but Theresa May has refused to criticise Trump for anything, including his disgusting manipulation of Sadiq Khan''s words as he tried to score political points in the US off Britain''s tragedy, she sold $3.3 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia to use to commit war crimes in Yemen, where the world''s biggest humanitarian crisis is happening, she continually buddies up to Saudi Arabia despite knowing they do 75% or more of the things that we condemn ISIS for, and materially support ISIS. She doesn''t lay wreaths on graves, but she actively, and knowingly supplies weapons to countries that support ISIS and you somehow think that the wreaths is worse?

She hasn''t called for cuts or abolition, she''s done it. CUT the number of armed police officers, CUT the number of regular police officers by a savage number, in the face of opposition from all sides and the police telling her it would leave us vulnerable to attacks on this scale. There are fewer police per capita right now than at any other time in the last 45 years. She has sat in cabinet whilst the forces have been decimated - army CUT by 20%, 8500 CUT from the RAF, 5500 CUT from the navy. CUT 10% of the border force. and you''re banging on about a questionable wreath laying and accusing me of cognitive dissonance? STFU you absolute tool.

Jeremy Corbyn''s decisions and choices have never killed anyone. Theresa''s have.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Ian"]I don''t like May. I think she has made several big errors in her career, and her idea of monitoring encrypted communications make me doubt she has anything like the nouse required to be a true statesman and decision maker.

That said, at least she has never, to my mind, called for the abolition of Mi5, reduction of our armed forces and/or laid wreaths on the graves of terrorists. I also suspect she at least has a cursory knowledge of the potential costs of her manifesto policies.

One suspects by your avatar, that cognitive dissonance would lead you to absolve current Labour leadership of any of their sins, whilst chastising anything the Tories have done. I don''t like either party, but dogmatic, polarised reasoning probably goes a long way to explaining Brexit, Trump, and our current joke of a general election.[/quote]er, could that have been the same M15 that Peter Wright in his book Spycatcher stated " as saying of MI5''s legal status,

"It hasn''t got one. The Security Service cannot have the normal status

of a Whitehall department because its work very often involves transgressing

propriety or the law." Cuckney went on to make clear that MI5 operated on

the basis of the 11th commandment - "thou shalt not get caught"."But more pertinently stated he talks about a  "decisive shift inside

MI5 towards domestic concerns", and includes a few words on MI5''s operations

in Northern Ireland. He mentions "student militancy in the 1960s gave way

to industrial militancy in the 1970s", adding that "intelligence on

domestic subversion became the overriding priority".The book further reveals how MI5 tried to remove the then PM Harold Wilson by subterfuge.Parts of MI5 were acting not only outside of the law but as a quasi anti democratic organisation. Anyone around in that time and place will be well aware of what was happening. To say signing an early day motion equates to some some of treason is standing logic on it''s head. To use the lawful democratic process to raise concerns about an undemocratic, uncontrolled group should be seen for what it was.For those too dim to recognise that things are far more complex that the Noddy world they imagine, then carry on. Spew out the words given to you by your betters.There are no cover ups. Hillsborough never happened. Nor did the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4 and the stuff now emerging emerging about Orgreave is all ''project fear''.Simple easily bleated slogans that allow you to avoid the responsibility of thinking.For others I would suggest you read up and decide yourselves. But at least search out reliable and credible sources rather than the misrepresenting bleats put up on here by those who know nothing more than touching their forelock to their betters.Think before you vote.

[Guest]

I also suspect she at least has a cursory knowledge of the potential costs of her manifesto policies.

None of them know the costs without referring to notes. Do you really think they work it out themselves?

Abbot and him are criticised for being careless on air. I suggest the humanity behind the policies is far more important than a few failed interviews. And at least they fumbled rather than changing the subject to the annoyance of the interviewer.

She has been in government for seven years either as senior cabinet minister or PM. And yet she still can''t come up with anything to impress with except Corbyn wouldn''t be a good leader.

He has announced some radical policies for goodness sake. And I don''t think any of them have been withdrawn due to public outrage.

And all this tripe about pressing the nuclear button is nonsense. We will not be the main targets for a nuclear strike and our actions will be determined by others. And is mutually assured destruction really a good option?

[Guest]

Very helpful, thanks City1st. I was talking about the Shadow Chancellor and the fairly recent SCLV letter that made the news at the time.

If you guys genuinely believe a hard left Corbyn, McDonnell, and Abbott dream team will do a competent job in governance of this Country then I fully accept your opinion and hope you will cast your vote.

However, this "Tory bad, evil" and "Labour great, or misunderstood" nonsense is really quite tiring, and reminds me quite a lot of Student Union politics.

Also, please stop patronising people with regards to media bias and shouting soundbites. A lot of people on the hard left seem to have a very low opinion of the majority, and like to take the moral high ground to anyone who doesn''t share their views.

My personal experience is that actually most people are not stupid, have a keen nose for political BS, but have views that really crossover from left to right and back again and simply don''t see a party that represent them.

Maybe less disdain for those who disagree with you, and more respect for democracy? The real crying shame is that there is currently no decent representation for those who have more moderate views.

Dogma and polarisation are driving us further apart.

[Bill 1,788]

"We will not be the main targets for a nuclear strike and our actions

will be determined by others. And is mutually assured destruction really

a good option?"The reality is those who intend a first strike are not going to be sat waiting for retaliation. There will be elsewhere BEFORE a shot is fired. It if was to be North Korea how does any retaliatory strike avoid obliterating a few tens of millions of South Koreans ?What has not been raised is why would these supposed naughty people be wanting to fire a nuclear missile in the first case. Sadly any answer there would require a reasoned answer, which is not what this is about. It is about scrabbling around for anything to throw at the devil incarnate Mr Corbyn. A man who no doubt is sat in his allotment shed plotting the destruction of the world. Attempting to poison the media with home made jam and is a friend of all terrorists (did he not have on the same football shirt as one of the killers at London Bridge ?).No doubt he will be overdue with a library book, puts the milk in his tea the wrong way round and has snubbed Parliamentary protocol by wearing a jumper in the house.Expect more in the coming days as the Tories attempt to deflect blame from Teresa May.

[Guest]

Kio mate, you''re a prime example of the "holier than thou" lefties who can''t take a differing opinion without getting abusive. I''m sure you''ve convinced yourself that the Tories are responsible for all ills, and you''re totally entitled to your opinion, which I fully respect.

Out of interest, when was the last time Corbyn actually had to implement hard policies in governance, rather that simply talk a good, populist game? Why do you think that is at this stage of his career? And which party was it that "sexed up" a WMD dossier to unlock a Pandora''s box in the Middle East?

Funny how people are able to forgive and forget Labour''s mistakes, yet foam at the mouth when the right have made mistakes. Further still, are able to excuse and justify Corbyn and Abbott their "minor" misdemeanors when they totally crack under basic questioning during interview isn''t it? Not like we want even vaguely competent politicians running the Country...

[Guest]

City1st, you may well be right - and he could be a lovely, genuine (if misguided at times) politician who is in his job for all the right reasons.

But you really make my point. The simple fact is that we imminently have to vote for not just a leader, but a cabinet to get the best deal we can in phenomenally tough Brexit negotiations. Not just those who have lovely ideas, but those who actually have a basic idea of how to implement the neccessary policies. Do you believe Corbyn and his top people are really capable?

On the other hand we have May and the Tories. Sad, sad times indeed.

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="Ian"]Kio mate, you''re a prime example of the "holier than thou" lefties who can''t take a differing opinion without getting abusive. I''m sure you''ve convinced yourself that the Tories are responsible for all ills, and you''re totally entitled to your opinion, which I fully respect.

Out of interest, when was the last time Corbyn actually had to implement hard policies in governance, rather that simply talk a good, populist game? Why do you think that is at this stage of his career? And which party was it that "sexed up" a WMD dossier to unlock a Pandora''s box in the Middle East?

Funny how people are able to forgive and forget Labour''s mistakes, yet foam at the mouth when the right have made mistakes. Further still, are able to excuse and justify Corbyn and Abbott their "minor" misdemeanors when they totally crack under basic questioning during interview isn''t it? Not like we want even vaguely competent politicians running the Country...[/quote]

I absolutely can take a differing opinion without getting abusive, yet when you make utterly political illiterate points showing total ignorance of the facts, displaying incredible cognitive dissonance and then tell me I''m cognitively dissonant and absolve Labour of blame for everything, I''m well within my rights to call BS. If you don''t like the way I called your BS out, then don''t make pseudo-intellectual BS posts that don''t actually make sense. 

Again in the above post, "you''ve convinced yourself Tories are to blame for all ills"... Ermmm no, I haven''t, I''ve got a degree in International relations, I think I''m capable of dissecting a political situation.... what I did blame them for is things they have demonstrably and indisputably done, which your opening gambit somehow contrived to not only miss, but actively deny having happened. 

I protested the Iraq war, I would happily see Blair put in the dock at the Hague for war crimes for what he did, so don''t sit there piously telling me how I think when you clearly have no idea whatsoever. I''ve also said several times that I do not want Abbott as home secretary as she is totally incompetent, sure you''ve somehow missed that one too seeing as it doesn''t fit your agenda.

Did you somehow also manage to miss the CHANCELLOR screw his figures up under basic questioning too? Or Theresa May crack when her ridiculous school breakfast policy was exposed? I''d rather see politicians try and answer the question and get it wrong than hide from debates at every turn, send Amber Rudd out as her doppelganger because her own party think her incompetent of media appearances, and avoid every single question she is asked in every single one of the few times she does appear in public.

You masquerade as moderate, but your posts paint a different picture, whereby you''re actually a cognitively dissonant Tory. Which is your right and prerogative, but at least try and get the absolute most basic facts right. Theresa May has sat in cabinet whilst the forces have been cut to their lowest level since 1874 (yes EIGHTEEN 74) and sitting there saying "well at least she''s never called for the forces to be cut" is just ignorant, ludicrous nonsense.

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="Ian"]City1st, you may well be right - and he could be a lovely, genuine (if misguided at times) politician who is in his job for all the right reasons.

But you really make my point. The simple fact is that we imminently have to vote for not just a leader, but a cabinet to get the best deal we can in phenomenally tough Brexit negotiations. Not just those who have lovely ideas, but those who actually have a basic idea of how to implement the neccessary policies. Do you believe Corbyn and his top people are really capable?

On the other hand we have May and the Tories. Sad, sad times indeed.[/quote]

Theresa May didn''t have the guts to debate Leanne Wood ffs. Yep, she''s incredibly tough.

[Guest]

Ah, you''ve got a degree in "International Relations" - making sense now. How''s the move to tolerant and progressive Australia going by the way?

Also, I don''t believe you "called BS" - I believe it got a little disrespectful and personal with words such as "tool" being thrown around. Very tolerant of you. Oh well, politically illiterate I may be, but to be totally honest I couldn''t really be arsed to read the rest of your vacuous post.

Anyway, thanks for the productive chat. Enjoy casting your vote - can only imagine your disappointment at a lowly MSc like myself getting the same voice as your well informed self!

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="Ian"]Ah, you''ve got a degree in "International Relations" - making sense now. How''s the move to tolerant and progressive Australia going by the way?

Also, I don''t believe you "called BS" - I believe it got a little disrespectful and personal with words such as "tool" being thrown around. Very tolerant of you. Oh well, politically illiterate I may be, but to be totally honest I couldn''t really be arsed to read the rest of your vacuous post.

Anyway, thanks for the productive chat. Enjoy casting your vote - can only imagine your disappointment at a lowly MSc like myself getting the same voice as your well informed self![/quote]

Coming along nicely thanks re: the move... it got a little disrespectful because your post was poorly informed nonsense, trying to take a swipe at me by calling me cognitively dissonant and accusing me of failing to see the ills of Labour, which is pretty poor form. If you attempt to condescend to someone, and make statements which are stupid and false during that attempt, expect to get called a tool (or worse) - surprised you''re so upset about it to be honest. I am disappointed that people who seemingly lack the ability to research basic facts gets an equal vote, but such is democracy.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Ian"]City1st, you may well be right - and he could be a lovely, genuine (if misguided at times) politician who is in his job for all the right reasons.

But you really make my point. The simple fact is that we imminently have to vote for not just a leader, but a cabinet to get the best deal we can in phenomenally tough Brexit negotiations. Not just those who have lovely ideas, but those who actually have a basic idea of how to implement the neccessary policies. Do you believe Corbyn and his top people are really capable?

On the other hand we have May and the Tories. Sad, sad times indeed.[/quote]If you seriously think the brexit nonsense is going ahead then good luck. Even Farage has just stated that he might have too come back as May is not likely to deliver. If May is fully in support of this idiocy why not come out and say it ?If it is to be a Labour government that that will only be through support from four anti brexit parties. And you imagine they are going to back a Labour government trying to pull the UK out of the EU. Why do you think they are talking about voting case by case ?The vote was advisory ....  to the government who called for it. The only statute is that requiring a vote. That vote has taken place. There is nothing else.If there is a subsequent vote to withdraw Article 50 it simply ends the nonsense there.

[ron obvious 1,502]

Ian, how feasible would it be to monitor all encrypted messages? I would imagine it would be simple enough to detect if a message is encrypted, but would the sheer volume defeat any such system?

What I''m thinking is of perhaps some sort of licensing system, whereby some organisations are allowed to use encryption, which would bring the rest under suspicion.

I can''t help feeling that if ultimately there is a human as source & a human as receiver there must be a way of identifying them.

Also, we seem to have become quite good at detecting child pornography users, & I''m wondering if we could use similar techniques to detect those watching extremist videos - & treat them in similar fashion.

I also saw an article about vigilante groups entrapping child pornography users (frowned on by the police, of course). I wonder if such methods could be used to entrap Jihadists - in fact I would imagine it already is.

[Guest]

Ian, I think if you look back at previous posts, much of the "abuse" has come from those who believe Corbyn is the personification of evil.

One in particular is quite ridiculously spiteful to those who are encouraged by his policies.

Corbyn would never have been a minister in a Blair government. Teresa May might have been. That is why there is a major split in the Labour movement. Some want to be in government and mould the policies around popularity. Others, the incumbent and his supporters want policies they believe in and hope they can persuade people to vote for them.

And no wonder many Labour supporters are anti war when as you say, Blair''s government were desperate for one and altered the real facts to promote one.

It is feeble to mention the Corbyn and Abbot gaffes. They weren''t major policy disagreements. They were stupid mistakes and not checking your notes properly. Just as Davis didn''t when he was unaware that he was disagreeing with May over immigration. Is that incompetency? Of course not, it is just someone, no doubt having figures buzzing around their heads, just getting mixed up. Or else we meet as well appoint the winner of Mastermind as the PM and Eggheads as the cabinet.

[Guest]

Ron - I''m not a cryptographer, but my understanding that with a reasonable key size (any cheap smartphone could handle this without breaking a sweat) it would take years of current supercomputing power to even decrypt a single message. It''s not remotely feasible to consider brute force "guessing" of keys for volume of traffic - and I would imagine that apps like WhatsApp negotiate unique keys between handsets. Basically - it''s impossible to guess the keys if encryption is done properly.

What does tend to get exploited is problems in encryption algorithms, or their software implementations, to allow massive shortcuts to be taken to "guessing" the keys - which is where I imagine a lot of the security services focus their efforts. Effectively this is exploiting bugs - doesn''t matter how cryptographically strong your keys are if someone leaves it on iCloud with an account password of 123456 or gets phished.

In essence, if care is taken and things are done properly - it''s totally unfeasible for security services to decrypt secure transmissions. My understanding (could be wrong) is that Theresa May expects companies to cripple their encryption and/or provide the secret keys for popular services like WhatsApp etc. so that intelligence can decrypt messages "legitimately" within seconds; much like a hotel having a master key.

If this is the case, it''s totally ignorant of the technicalities of encryption. a) it would defeat the point of end-to-end encryption entirely, and b) criminals would simply roll their own solutions. There are plenty of well known implementations of secure algorithms, which can (and are) freely and fairly easily used. Any vaguely competent programmer could use an off-the-shelf open-source library to produce a quick application to highly encrypt messages within a couple of days.

Simply put, the only people who would suffer are ordinary citizens. The whole idea of monitoring modern encrypted traffic is totally misguided.

[Guest]

Keelansgrandad - fair enough, but if you think the hard left and Corbyn supporters are not abusive, I think you should have a look at the sort of bollocks Emma Barnett received after the recent fair interview of Corbyn on Woman''s Hour.

There''s absolutely no attempt by hardcore leftists to find common ground for those who disagree with them, as Kio so eloquently demonstrated earlier. Love and tolerance for anyone who agrees with them. Everyone else can do one, or is a tool/Tory Scum/Zionist etc. etc.

This is the total opposite of the inclusive mantra that the left preach. Would be laughable if it wasn''t pushing us closer to the brink.

[Hucks6 169]

I don''t like Donald Trump but he was right about one thing at least he has the balls to say it

[Van wink 2,994]

@Ian

There was a guy being interviewed on the radio this afternoon, an "expert" in matters off encryption, which no doubt he was.

Basically he was saying that the only way ecryption could be overcome is if a deliberate bug is built into the architecture of the system which the security services could then exploit. The risk of course is that the wrong people get hold of the work round and then the whole thing is blown, in lay terms 😀

[ron obvious 1,502]

Ian, I think you may have misunderstood my post. I''m suggesting that it may be possible to ascertain that a communication is encrypted - not to be able to decrypt it, simply to determine that it is in a secure encrypted form ( not the usual commercial sort ) & therefore suspect if not used by a licensed user.

[Guest]

Vanwink - exactly. Basic, basic stuff though. No doubt May is aware of this and is trying to exploit public ignorance to get through draconian measures.

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="Ian"]There''s absolutely no attempt by hardcore leftists to find common ground for those who disagree with them, as Kio so eloquently demonstrated earlier. Love and tolerance for anyone who agrees with them. Everyone else can do one, or is a tool/Tory Scum/Zionist etc. etc.

This is the total opposite of the inclusive mantra that the left preach. Would be laughable if it wasn''t pushing us closer to the brink.[/quote]

Again, disagreeing is fine, condescending to someone when you can''t even get the facts even close to right, makes you a tool. 

Everyone who can base opinions on fact, even if their conclusion is different to my own, and can do so without randomly accusing people of cognitive dissonance whilst displaying it themselves in spades, is fine, People like you who don''t display those skills, are tools.