Jump to content

junior

Members
  • Posts

    293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by junior

  1. The only thing that benefits all parties, with the exception of third parties: sell. I'm sure hardened shafters like the Gers would use the more professional K-Y Number 1 rule of selling is to set the asking price higher than what you actually want to get. Number 1 rule of buying is to not pay the asking price. The chairmen are both old enough and ugly enough to know how to negotiate. Boumsong was practically seen as a God, and while he might not have deserved that level of praise, he was still one of our best players at that time. Clement was one of our best players by far when he played last year, he manged that despite injuries, the fact he is only 20 (ish) and that it was his first year at the club. To try and (roughly) answer your question, I firmly believe that the over-ridding factor in deciding to sell the players was the fact that they wanted to leave.
  2. ^^^ And he should do exactly as he sees fit, good on him. Keeping a player against their will is hardly good for moral is it? That is why it has become commonly accepted good practice to let players go. I gave two examples which were AGAINST the wishes of Rangers. Obviously where large sums of cash are involved, the clubs still have to come to a fair agreement. I would expect a last minute deal to be done for Naismith, a slump in his form next season is no good for anyone.
  3. Njugle, I am still trying to convince people that grievances over foreign policy are not the main reason we are threatened by terrorist attacks. Admittedly I seem to be failing. Ahh well, plough on.... With regards the defence of Saddams regime, I think a bit of anti-americanism, or anti-britishness is healthy, but this is surely taking the piss? "Hmm" +1. Saddam killed whole towns of innocent people with chemical weapons, when that happens again I will be willing to accept that "things we heard about only during Saddam's days are coming back now". Did you see the pictures on BBC 2 last night? There were more than a few corpses in the streets. Who are the people killing and being killed in those comments KOYAANISQATSI? Not coalition forces. Iraqis at least now have half a chance of building a better country for themselves, a chance they never had under Saddam. A chance that would be a hell of a lot greater if we had more accurately directed our "war on terror". In the link below a certain despicable disgrace for a human being I have previously mentioned states that his in an "ideological and political war". He, along with Omar Bakri (who was asked to leave the country after the 7/7 bombing) were the leaders of al muhajiroun. A group who according to wiki "became notorious for its conference "The Magnificent 19", praising the September 11, 2001 attacks". He fairly infamously gave an Islamic definition of innocence on Newsnight which bears a striking similarity to the definition of oppression I linked to previously (Muslim=innocent, non-Muslim=guilty).
  4. Marooned, it's fairly commonly accepted that when a player wants away he should be let go. We had to do that recently with Clement, and, dare I say it, in the past with Boumsong. Commonly accepted outside Tyncastles "contractual chains" style regime that is. Commodore, maybe I have projected my proposed Rangers turdness onto the Celts, but they seemed to be going down hill at the end of last season, and that list of names is hardly going to set the heather alight.
  5. An interesting piece on the Beeb forums: http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=524 Quote: "At the time of writing this column, therefore, the situation is that the BBC has deliberately republished an antisemitic libel — but censored all criticism of itself, blocked any further opportunity to post up fresh protests, and semi-concealed the whole discussion."
  6. ^^^ Ahem..... RANGERS TREBLE how can I say anything else? More seriously I predict a close season with both the mighty gers and the turdey tims getting worse before they get better. I also think it will be more entertaining with more Scottish players in each giving their all more regularly. Hearts will go through the most managers, and Aberdeen will be the biggest whingers () apart from that they won't do much worthy of attention. .... running ....
  7. Perhaps, but the Sunni/Shiite conflict (including umpteen wars) has been going on almost as long as Islam has existed, it isn't completely made up (I can find proof if you don't believe me). Are Muslim inherently violent? No, I agree, but the religion of Islam itself... How many 2nd generation British Muslims, when confronted by a Sheikh Osama, or an Anjum Choudry, telling them that if they were real Muslims they would be prepared to go to Afghanistan and fight with the Taliban, would be able to put up a convincing Islamic argument to the contrary? The original/authentic/fundamental/literal Islam seems to me, with an admittedly limited knowledge, to be extremely violent, but as importantly, supremacist as well.
  8. Yes I was surprised to hear that. Perhaps it's down to the meeting I linked to earlier, or maybe the AQ cru are asserting some influence... Either way Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam, yet it is now that Muslims decide to protest against "oppression"? When was the last time any Muslim protested against the oppression of their brothers and sisters in Saudi Arabia or Iran because of the apostasy laws? I found an interesting Islamic definition of oppression the other day that might explain this. It basically said that any Muslims under non-Muslim control ("dar al-harb") were defined as "oppressed". I couldn't find it again but the article below (from an Australia based apostate) does almost as good a job. http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/IslamOppressed.htm
  9. "We even kicked a giraffe to death once" Last weeks with the number one bench was hilarious too. Someone's leaving eh? I've seen Naveed being a footy pundit, could be him.
  10. ^^ What are you saying about Muslims? The joke was about suicide bombers wasn't it? What do they have to do with religion?
  11. Picture yourself in Aberdeen, Glasgow or London with a stick of memory in one hand and £15 quid in the other, how near to Shetland could you get? Not very. You could try swimming with it, surfing on it, throwing it, if you've got a plane or a boat your fuel would run out and you'd sink miles before half way. You live on a remote island, what do you expect? A sprinkling of fairy dust and it magically arrives? A 30p stamp to cover 200 miles? Nothing personal, I just like ranting I had that the other day, I put it down to me taking several hours to write the post
  12. Don't be ridiculous, it doesn't count if its not being done by the Joooooz To anyone that takes umbrage with my sarcasm, I would urge you to watch this video, it speaks (as part of bigger "moral inversion" picture) of the UN Human Rights Council essentially ignoring the murder of 130 Palestinians by Palestinians, but when one third of that number are killed by Israel "special sessions" are arranged: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzkou8kAxnI
  13. People that moan about delivery time/cost to Shetland You live on a remote island miles away from anywhere FFS, not next door to Harrods! Face facts, it's going to be harder to get things here. Life in Shetland has its good points and its bad points. How about using some of the time it takes for your new toy to arrive, to go outside, take a deep breath, look around, and enjoy some of the good points! Aaaaahh....
  14. Here MPAC claim 2000+ people, perhaps they are trying to show the beeb how to be biased and exaggerate http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/3840/34/ On the other side they didn't report (I couldn't find it) this apparently larger (3000 people) gathering in London last month calling, amongst other things, for an Islamic takeover of Britain. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56503 I don't think this necessarily indicates a bias, more of a worrying censorship. C4 for me too.
  15. This is very interesting, click "Listen to latest edition": http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/moralmaze.shtml Go Melanie!
  16. Fair enough, but you then say: And you previously said: Again, I don't wish to be pedantic, or hold you to a literal meaning of anything you say, however, to misinterpret the true cause of the threat leads to a dangerous misdirection when it comes to trying to eliminate it... "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality" and also: ""This article does not cite any references or sources". It's not surprising, violence is not the only tactic of those who chose to try and destroy our way of life. Some more media manipulation: Spreading the message online More muck spreading "Jihadi Hosting Solutions"? Cyber-democracy? Youtube hate/religion censor BBC employee member of Hamas Hate/Truth ban? Try this site for some Israeli/Palestine history (WARNING: some graphic images): http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/ If this isn't enough just think back a few weeks to the civil war between the genocidal main parties, none have Jewish members (AFAIK ). It wasn't Jews throwing people off the tops of buildings, and (again, AFAIK) no Israeli parties have genocidal charters. Here is an interesting link about Palestinian aid, there's more in the link above: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/whamas11.xml In Iraq the majority of violence is Sunnies killing Shiites and vice-versa (in the name of the "real" Islam?) this article is interesting http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0621/p03s01-woiq.html?s=hns Whatever our current role there is, it isn't bombing mosques. Afghanistan is a case of international and Afghan forces fighting together to try and stop the return of the taliban. I can't speak for the people but I'd be willing to bet opposing limbs (sorry ) that they don't want the taliban back either. To try and get back to the point, foreign policy grievances are stupid, people are being brainwashed with nonsense. Sure I can't tempt you with a common ideology? Pots and kettles spring to ming. You have compared the "violence" of the actions of our troops abroad, with those of (suicide?) bombers that threaten to attack us. You also seem to think that the Israel trying to protect the lives of their citizens constitutes "oppression", and you have also accused the British state of "terrorism". At the risk of repeating myself, in each of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, the real violence, oppression, and terrorism are being carried out (against people of all faiths and none) by Muslims. Some perseived persecution in this country. To anyone still reading, my apologies for such a long post, I hope you found it of some interest.
  17. Saying that the status of the UN, or the lack of equality in the world, are a "catalyst" for terrorism is entirely different from saying that these things are to blame. What did these things catalyse? What is the underlying issue (which existed long before 9/11) that has been sped up by these circumstances? I think it is a supremacist, violent, religious ideology. Regarding the Blair quotes if you are looking for proof, will the guardian do? http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,2115929,00.html There was no pun. And, call me and old-fashioned nazi but I don't consider our state, our PM (past or present), or our government (past or present) to be terrorists. I think that also starts to answer your point about how we are oppressing people abroad. The vast majority of people oppressing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, are themselves Muslims. That is why their grievance isn't justified.
  18. Sorry, I don't mean to be pedantic, I was just using your post to make a point of my own, partly because I don't currently know of better words to use myself It wouldn't surprise me, I seem to remember something about him getting a "message from God" or similar. Thats an obvious link to Christianity, but I think its safe to say he was alone with that particular motive. You won't find British soldiers cheering "God is great!" whilst firing their rifles, as seems to happen in the most "problematic" parts of the world. I'm not defending the war, but I'm afraid that I will have to defend the government again. Murder involves intent (pedantic again, sorry) I don't think we have ever deliberately targeted innocent civilians, more that we have just targeted poorly. Unlike abroad where terrorists bombing markets, mosques, schools and public transport is the norm
  19. ^^^ Medziotojas, going back to your previous post, you say Islamic fundamentalism was significant in the 9/11 attacks. If there is something fundamental to Islam that encourages the murdering of innocent civilians by the thousand, and Christianity is just as bad, then how come no such attack has ever been carried out in the name of Christianity? If murderous ideas are "fundamental" to a religion then how are "extremists" misusing them? The equality of religions argument is used often, there is a book coming out soon (by one of my preferred academics ) which I expect to address that argument better than I ever could. Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is, and Islam Isn't. I don't know enough about Islamic literature to judge myself whether the "real Islam" is peaceful or not (and anyway that is down to those in authority in the religion to decide, not me) but I would leave open the possibility that it might not be. I fully agree that the majority of Muslims are law-abiding, peace-loving people, but how much do the 1.x billion of them actually know about Islam? Perhaps that's why those preaching the violent, supremacist ideology are so successful. Could it be that the intelligent people carrying out these attacks actually have a correct understanding of Islam, one which they can back up with examples from the Qu'ran, hadith and works of academia? The people that should be proving them wrong (if they can) are those in authority in the religion. Why is there never an ayatollah around when you need one?
  20. OK, I have woefully misused the term "civil liberties". I mean the kind of freedoms that we have in this country to do pretty much whatever we want as long as it doesn't affect other people. The kind of freedoms terrorists try to take away by targeting innocent civilians, examples as before, going to shopping centres, nightclubs, airports (and going on buses, trains etc. all of which have at least had attacks planned against them in this country). Can you explain this. The idea that giving in to terrorists encourages more of them is that, if people think they can achieve their goals through violence and terror then they are more likely to use those means. The freedoms I think I have described above. The most important freedom is to be able to walk down the street without the threat of being blown up Firstly, if any "groups" are intent on killing and maiming innocent people in the cause of a barbaric, supremacist, religious ideology, then I have absolutely no problem with imposing all sorts of severe restrictions That could be a good point about what binds a community, but I can't help thinking that "feel" is the relevant word. Some wise words from his lordlyness (Sir ) Tony: "The idea that as a Muslim in this country you don't have the freedom to express your religion or your views ... you've got far more freedom in this country than you do in most Muslim countries," "The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we're not fighting it properly. We're not standing up to these people and saying, 'It's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified'." I don't see how anyone can be to blame other than the terrorists, and anyone that plays a part in organising the act (including those responsible for their radicalisation\corruption\enraging\teaching\idunno?). Blaming the government, is a bit too close to blaming the victim for my liking. There are peaceful ways to send a message to them (voting?). Assuming, off course, that foreign policy is actually their grievance, the latest attacks have a more "fundamentalist" appearance.... I never said any of those things about either Mr. Butt or anyone (of any religion) who is angered by the tragic events of war. When that anger turns into attempts at murdering innocent people, then those words apply. religion thread.... ... we might get there yet...
  21. So shall we vote for whomever will focus on the security of the country by eroding the civil liberties and freedoms, that we are supposed to be defending, because of the threat of international terrorism. I haven't yet seen a manifesto that intends to "focus on the security of the country by eroding civil liberties and freedoms" but I'll assume for a second it exists while I respond. Is it not a civil liberty that you should be able to walk through an airport, or a shopping centre, or a nightclub, without the threat of being blown up? Is it not a civil liberty that we should be able to vote for MPs based on our own opinion of their policy and not someone else's? By giving in to terrorists you encourage more terrorism and so you are actually removing more (and more important) freedoms by not standing up to them. Exercise your freedom and vote for whoever you want, don't let the actions of maniacs affect your decision. The UN is a spineless joke. Just because it is possible to call the leaders of nations "terrorists" due to their responsibility for activities during war, that doesn't mean it is accurate, or helpful, to compare them with (attempted) suicide bombers. Ask the people of London whether they feel more threatened by Gordon Brown or Omar Bakri. You seem to have a sympathy for these nutters, why? If the threat is coming from abroad changes in immigration and religious freedoms, which we can only democratically apply to out own country / region, will have very little or no impact on the sources of the threat. It is a very difficult issue to resolve, the best we can do is start looking in the right place. Immigration changes may not impact much on the source of the problem, but if they can save a single life by making it less effective, or less likely, then surely it must be worth doing. Tackling the source (see below) may be more possible by restricting religious freedoms, I'm not pretending for a second it will be easy. I agree, we need to look in the right place: the core cause, why do some people want to kill innocent Brits so much?. Hassan Butt from the Guardian gives an alternative to the "foreign policy" argument here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2115891,00.html Quote: "By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology." Islamic theology debate anyone?
  22. I'm ashamed to say that after the strange events in London I had similar thoughts. Then the reports from Glasgow (including those of a flaming maniac attacking a policeman while shouting "Allah"!) brought me firmly back to my usual racist stance I don't think that blaming foreign policy is a good idea, I think the major reason behind any (attempted) murderous, terrorist attacks is some kind mental disorder in the perpetrator. I certainly don't think we should let their actions affect the way we vote. I agree that it is a particularly difficult type of threat to address, but I think it can only be done through firstly appreciating the true nature of it (these attacks might be amateurish, but they are co-ordinated, symbolic in timing and similar to a lot of attacks in the middle-east, suggesting some sort of controlling "intelligence") and then seriously looking at immigration and religious freedoms...
  23. Even if its a government decision, paying any attention to this kind of "offense" taking gives it credibility. Credibility which it doesn't deserve IMO. Admittedly I haven't read The Satanic Verses, but I'm of the opinion that religious beliefs should be attacked at every opportunity, be that in an objective debate, a satirical cartoon, or a book that sounds a bit like a mix of the two. Beliefs don't deserve protection, religious or not. Would you rather share the planet with people who use mass protests and death threats to get what they (their leaders?) want, or people that don't? A sure fire way to encourage more death threats is to give the previous ones credibility. We should stand up and confront that type of behaviour, and I think with this honour we are at least going some of the way to doing that.
  24. The knighthood was for "services to literature". Some people are still out to get him I see: http://english.farsnews.ir/newstext.php?nn=8603270428 I think it would be a shame (to say the least) for the Queens decision on who to honour to be affected in any way by the fact that it might offend people. It would give credibility to that offense.
×
×
  • Create New...