junior

I like the style, bit like a hip-hop version of the last NIN album IIRC. Bit heavy going though, could've done with chilling out at times. I don't think it'll last another few listens, but if it does I'll put my hand in my pocket.

Sadly we have completely lost control of ours borders, and the only way to sort it out is addressing European issues. It is true that certain immigrant groups have no interest in integrating or contributing to society, and are responsible for far more than their share of criminal activity. If that sounds like it comes from the BNP, then I guess the BNP could be right about a thing or two. My personal experiences with European immigrants has been much like that noted so far, very amiable. But then not all Europeans share the same values. Why can't it just go back to being the neds versus everyone else, at least we new where we stood then

^^^ Which is why we should be willing to stick around and change it for the better. Not that I am in any way politically active (beyond the odd forum rant ) but I can't see myself leaving. The positives, the negatives, and the ability to moan about them, make up a Britain which I am proud of, and which I think is generally very under-appreciated, especially from within. I don't think many of my generation can really understand how easy they have life, and the sacrifices that have been made to make it that way. They make most of our current problems seem fairly insignificant.

Because its leaders are largely corrupt and incompetent. Easy, sorted This is interesting http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7038348.stm Quote: "A report on armed conflict in Africa has shown that the cost to the continent's development over a 15-year period was nearly $300bn (£146bn). The research was undertaken by a number of non-governmental organisations, including Oxfam. It says the cost of conflict was equal to the amount of money received in aid during the same period."

You can be pretty much guarantee that at least one person would always be smoking in each pub. So, the choice you had was to either inhale other peoples smoke, or not go to the pub. IMO that is less choice overall than we now have with the ban. Ghostrider, regards the governments f**cked up thinking. As has already been mentioned, the relevant thing is who you are doing damage to. I will stick up for anyones right to do damage to themselves in whatever fashion they choose. They have no right to do any damage to others though. OK so they have the right to leave, but, as I say above, that effectively means not going to the pub at all. I fully that people have no right to smoke. Nor, IMO do they have any right to feel hard done by (being nannied by the state) because of the ban.

@ babies in limbo ... or if you want to "Liberate yourself from the Original Mumbo-Jumbo that liberated you from the Original Sin you never had". De-baptism? http://www.secularism.org.uk/debaptism.html?CPID=d91b32e124c86f7f7f97508842b2f9ea

My apologies for such a late response.... If he isn't bothered about killing Muslims in this country how can he say he's doing it because of oppression of Muslims elsewhere? No, not at all, as I said before I believe the vast majority of Muslims world-wide as peace-loving people (and that's using my definition of peace). I then questioned how much they knew about Islam, but perhaps it's better to question how much of an argument the average Muslim can put up upon being told by someone like Choudary that their beliefs, and their way of life, is not Islamic, and that if they were *real* Muslims they would not have any Christian or Jewish friends, or even that they should be willing "martyrs"? There may well be an argument, one of the most sensible sounding Muslims from that Dispatches programme (I can't remember his name) was confident that it existed, but refused to tell the presenter, guarding it like a national secret. Regarding the people saying these things.... Dispatches saw all these people as authoritative/important/knowledgable enough to speak on the show on the subject. The worst of which (IMO) was Abu Mohammed (I think that was his name) who it was said had studied Islam extensively, quoted from the Qur'an "take not the Jews and Christians as friends" etc. Choudary himself has had promonent roles in Al-Mauhajiroun and Al Gurabaa, And other "islamist" groups are growing all the time e.g. Hizb-ut-tahrir and Tablighi Jamaat The important thing about that poxy religion and this mess, is that the ideology is spread *in the name* of Islam, and through Islamic channels (mosques, bookshops, websites, associations etc.). Did you see that last Dispatches called "Undercover Mosques"? Some would say that MI5 should be monitoring 4000 people at the extreme end of the Muslim scale (for want of a better description) in the UK. From that Tablighi Jamaat article: "The group (literally, the preaching party)belongs to the ultra-conservative Deobandi school of thought within Sunni Islam, whose adherents run more than 600 of Britain’s 1,350 mosques." It seems "extreme" views are neither uncommon, nor without authority. TBH I don't know what to think anymore, the secretary general of the MCB vigorously defends prophetic paedophilia, scholars and sheikhs here's one) preach violent supremacy, genocidal Ayatollahs, combined with the fact that every single Sharia regime around the world is thoroughly barbaric, means I'm having a hard time believing that Islam itself, as opposed to the beliefs of the majority of its apparent followers, is a "religion of peace". The definition of terrorism itself is the difference... What I was trying to get at, was one of a difference in the value placed on, or respect for, a human life. That can never be blamed on a 3rd party, it is a personal belief. What would it take for that value you place on human life to disappear? More than a change in governement policy I suspect. I think it might be worth repeating myself here (since I have now figured out which words to use). The important thing is that these beliefs are spread *in the name of* Islam, and through Islamic channels. Militant Islam *in this country* is a new thing, but Muhammed himself (a role model to Muslims as Jesus is to Christians) was a dab hand with the sword killing hundreds of people at a time. Much more prophetic brutality here . In seven parts. It is not new globally, you will find a substantial account from around the globe for the past four years at JihadWatch. Why is it new in this country? The headline from one of those times articles was from an ex Sharia judge in Pakistan: "[the Ummah] must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad". Some more possbilities: lack of integration, levels of immigration, "inspiration" from 9/11, lack of decent leadership in Muslim communities, an increased dislike of Western culture.....All more worthy of debate in this context, IMO, than our foreign policy. See above for some 1300 year old violence. Re Al-Qaeda, giving them weapons and training I can believe, but I don't believe that the CIA are responsible for their religious beliefs. Read the Qur'an for evidence to the contrary However, thankyou, as long as we are looking in roughly the right place I'm happy My objection to your approach in this matter is that talk of foreign policy is dangerously distractive. Appeasment doesn't work. How come there are so many Muslims living in multicultural societies, surely if the above is the case there would be bloodshed everywhere..... Again I think the distinction between what those at the "top" of the religion, and those at the "bottom" actually believe is worth making. She goes on to say: "Muslims have been hostages of their own belief systems for 1400 years. There is no way we can keep the Koran." I can't think of a single instance of a terrorist attack, or plot, carried out in this country, in recent years, by a seperatist or left-wing group, which had the devastating effects of the ones on 7/7, or the potentially devastating effects of the fertaliser bomb plot, or the chapati flour bomb plots, never mind the hundreds more instances required to make up the remaining proportion. That is a European pole admittedly, but I think my point stands. Ask your average London commuter where the threat to their life comes from... Maybe, I guess it depends what you want to achieve. I'm not going to think about how to help them achieve it. I've already said that I think the people of Afghanistan and Iraq are better off, less oppressed, now than under their previous regimes. Can you give a more specific question? It isn't just a case of "us" (all our foreign policy) and "them" (all of their greivances) as I'm sure you appreciate. Soap box away, I'm going back to sleep Oh yeah MCB blog.

Yet more from Pat Condell I'm tempted to call him a genius for his ability to get a complicated message across, but tbh, I don't think he really says anything which isn't common sense. I just think we tend to have a kind of liberal fog which stops us from seeing it. To add even more substance to what he says, consider the recent publication of an "offensive" cartoon in a Swedish paper over which Muslim groups are planning to take legal action. As of 1st October new Eurpoean legislation will come into force which *could* (whether it is even enforcable remains to be seen) make this kind of free expression illegal, since it could spread religiously oriented hatred. If I may be so bold as to propose, that certain beliefs are deserving of exactly that emotion, whether they are religious is irrelevant. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/04/europe/EU-GEN-Sweden-Prophet-Drawing.php

Yeah that's what I was thinking. I'm sure I've read on here suggestions to banish people to remote islands for whatever crime, he was just doing the same and giving a name as an example. I know that's not what he literally said, but I'm not going to take this semi-rant literally, I don't think he was seriously suggesting any of our isles be used to punish criminals.

More from Pat Condell http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=418_1176494781

I don't see anything in there about UK government policy, or intent in Afghanistan. The dubious nature of any business dealings of (primarily) US oil companies does not make the UK government corrupt. Proof thats why we didn't. Well we said we were going to remove the Taliban from power and look for Bin Laden, and that's what we have done. The proof is in the pudding. Believe or not I actually trust Tony Blair. I have absolutely no doubts about his integrity, if not his faultlessness . Bring on the "liberal" abuse... DeMascus, I will reply more fully once I've got my home PC through its latest hissy fit, but just briefly about the MCB, the bottom couple of posts from this blog are worth reading: Quote: "The MCB present themselves as the moderate face of British Islam, yet many of the ideas and doctrines they put forward are actually not that far removed from the radicals. For example, The Quest for Sanity, a book published by the MCB in the aftermath of 9/11, argues in several places for the restoration of the caliphate (= global Muslim state), a similar aim espoused by many radicals." World-wide sharia, more of a "universal view"? I'm undecided about the MCB, I don't know if they are naive, or deliberate, when they divert attention from the real cause of terrorism, but how naive can an umbrella organisation be? I'm certainly not comfortable about there apparent cosyiness with the government.

Was it the guy doing the mobile phone/text message song in the pleasance courtyard? I can't remember his name, or face to confirm, but a googling of "text message song" produced Pete Gold as the likely suspect. http://www.petegold.co.uk/

I can believe it exists, there are probably trans-mostplaces pipelines. Any proof that is why we went to Afghanistan?

Maybe you guys should start a conspiracy theories thread, if there is any proof of these claims I'd be interested in hearing it. I can assure you it was not a blanket insult, nor was intended to scare people form you (what ). There's a degree of humility in the term, so it is, at least in part, complimentary. "Bleeding-heart" maybe now, but you'll have to do more than protest against the war to make me think you are liberal. Paranoid conspiracy theories are traditionally the realm of those with right of centre thinking. I repeat that I meant no offense, but I you have taken some, well, that's your problem. If you are still interested in what I meant, the first part of this article (ignore the potentially patronising headline) does a reasonable job of explaining it. So was Mohammed Sidique Khan concerned about his athiest/Christian/Buddist/Yazidi "brothers and sisters"? To quote old Choudary again "I will stand by my Muslim brother whether he is oppressor, or he is opressed." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4 That might explain why there is never Muslim outrage at the (near endless) list of abuse carried out against Muslims in Islamic countries. Whether this type of thinking come form the idea of the Ummah, I don't know, but it does show prejudice. Again, see the link above for an apparently Islamic definition of innocence. You might dismiss this as a single view, but consider the word "dhimmi", it is used as a name for a (primarily) Jew or Christian living under Sharia law (living Islamically). The literal translation is "guilty". "Dhimmitude" then being the second class status given to all dhimmis. So, is it also up to the individual to determine guilt/innocence? If people started murdering people because they disagreed in a different government policy, would you still argue for a change in that policy as a solution? If have nothing against people who object to certain policies, my problem is with people who threaten my life (or way thereof). So, you tell me, what is the difference between someone like yourself, with seemingly very strong objection to foriegn policy, and a terrorist willing to blow themselves up for the cause? There are various beliefs that I believe are the difference, each is spread in the name of Islam, through Islamic channels: the Ummah concept; the concept of martytrdom in murderous suicide ("kill and be killed"); with it the idea that martyrdom leads to guaranteed paradise (virgins included); the idea of superiority; the idea that Muslims not living under Sharia are living in an "house of war" (Dar al-Harb). There will always be people who object to government policy, there have not always been people willing to murder because of their objection. There are now though. If the government change that policy those people still exist, and so there is still a danger to myself. Without the concepts I list above those people wouldn't exist, they would not have that willingness to murder. So, as a solution to this particular problem, I look towards those concepts, and the ways in which they are spread. So, you tell me what you are missing, here's one last clue "Airport bomber's email to relative said he wanted to die for Allah" http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2152282,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront Oh, what the hell, here's another http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22278311-2,00.html?from=public_rss Quote: "Muslims were "brainwashed" from an early age to believe Western values were evil and that the world would one day come under the control of Sharia law. The US-based psychiatrist - who has two fatwas (religious rulings) issued against her to be killed - warned that Muslims would continue to exploit freedom of speech in the West to spread their "hate" and attack their adopted countries, until the Western mind grasped the magnitude of the Islamic threat. "You're fighting someone who is willing to die," Dr Sultan told The Australian in an Arabic and English interview. "So you have to understand this mentality and find ways to face it. (As a Muslim) your mission on this earth is to fight for Islam and to kill or to be killed. You're here for only a short life and once you kill a kafir, or a non-believer, soon you're going to be united with your God." "

It's the age he came into the country at that is the important part for me personally. After entering the country legally at 6, I'll call him British. Interestingly that isn't why the he was allowed to stay though. According to the lawyer quotes in the article, the important part was "....any EU national who had lived in the UK, even in prison, for more than 10 years, could only be removed from Britain on imperative grounds of national security..." Going by that, any EU national could arrive in Britain, commit a murder, get locked up for 10+ years, then still have the right to stay The fact that the government seems to be protesting the decision suggests that they didn't know what the were signing up for in the first place

The idea of the contract is based on a religious right, or obligation, to violently attack innocent people in the country they reside. Which would mean that Islamically(?) speaking Muslims could have either a right, or obligation, to violently attack you or I. There's a joke in there about loyalty cards somewhere... but seriously, the Ummah is a religious belief which prejudices against people based on their beliefs, I'd give that more importance than any admirable quality. ditto So assuming these attacks were in defence of the Ummah, I would far rather place the importance on the (apparently) religious belief, rather than the foreign policy. To do otherwise you are not only arguing the case for the terrorists, but also dangerously missing the underlying problem. Regards "responsibilities", and "solidarity". Remember why we went to Afghanistan in the first place? Looking through your previous posts you seem to be doing your best to break up any national solidarity by instilling a lack of trust in the government. I have only ever seen talk like that in response to a terrorist attack on sites used by some of the less respectable members of a certain religion. I heard a phrase the other day which I think kind of sums up a lot of peoples attitudes lately, including yourself (no offense intended, it sounds worse than it is) and myself at times: "cultural self-hatred".

I don't believe that any such contract, or covenant, has ever existed in Britain. At least not in the form of an agreement made by the British government or authorities. It's existence as an Islamic concept even seems a bit dubious to me tbh, based on some jaunt Mohammed made through Ethopia. I haven't seen any Islamic text which says that behaviour should be followed by Muslims. Perhaps it is implicit in the life of Mohammed. Assuming that it does exist as an Islamic concept, the question of whether it is broken, is one for individual Muslims (if you agree with my mate Choudry) or, I would say, those with authority over sharia. Do you think it exists? What do you think it consists of? Are you Muslim? Do you think it has been broken?

^^^ Yes, I thought it was excellent, a good variety of British Muslim opinion. Parts seemed to bring together what we had been discussing, saying the foreign policy argument is based on Islamic theology, "defending the Ummah" and all that.

I have never seen evidence that Israeli children are taught murder based on religion, so you'll have to excuse my cynicism when your statement suggests equal guilt. Palestinian children being brainwashed in this way is fairly common if youtube is anything to go by. A search for "palestine children" bring several distinct results in the first page. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=palestine+children&search= See my sig.

^^^ "full scale civil war" is not my understanding of the current situation in Iraq. In fact, as I understand it, the Kurds in the North are getting on very well indeed. If "rape and murder being the only skills sqaudies are good for" is your opinion, why put it in quotes? Is this what you think? Our boys would be so proud ...

I don't see how who supplied the "materials" and "know-how" makes a difference in the context of whether or not the Iraqis are better off now than under Saddam. Regards abuses by coalition military personnel, I can only repeat what I said earlier: when whole towns of innocent people are getting killed by chemical weapons, I will accept that Iraq is no better off today. I'd be willing to bet that rape and murder was one of the main tactics of the previous Iraqi military.

I think to belittle another persons dreams is a bit harsh tbh. I personally, generally think very little of the people or products of Hollywood, but a dream to get there is as real as any. Who knows what I'd think if I grew up in Govan heights. What does that have to do with it? So would you abolish all transfers where a player is mid-contract? I'll take your word for it that, that is what happens. The solution to having a shucks press, is not reading their shucks. The old firm (the big nasties that they are ) will do what is best for them, and I think that is quite right, including if that means signing a player for the bench. Regards him not getting a game, do you think that if he was good enough for the first team the manager would leave him out? That would be daft, it's up to him to play well enough. He also knew what contract he signed, and I'd be a bit if it had automatic selection written into it.

^^^ I can only refer you to the comments I made earlier about age, uglyness and negotiation. Second rule of selling: don't accept the first offer Regarding Derek Riordan, why is it Celtics fault he sits on the bench? He signed a contract, he knew what he was doing.

Nothing at all to do with the fact that Newcastle manager Graeme Souness(at the time until he was found out) offered £8 million for a player Rangers picked up for free....???? "over-ridding factor", selling your best players is never something you want to do, regardless of their value. You can't buy wins in the SPL. With regards to "If the player was happy enough to sign a 4-year contract then he should be aware enough to realise what that means." I agree. Do you know what it means to dream of playing for Rangers? (You may wish to substitute another team, or entire dream, to get my point )

Loud exhausts are a safety feature. You can't expect cage drivers to look in their mirrors to know you're behind them