Happy Face

Yabooooo! Seems all respect has been lost in yesterdays match thread.

all the best pal.

Today's episode is 3 hours 40 minutes. I couldn't be happier.

£4bn additional welfare cuts Post Office fully privatised 40,000 police officers to be sacked The Tory recovery is really picking up speed now.

How conceited do you become when you get gobby then?

What positives are you taking from the strategy of intervention? My positives from non-intervention would have been saving a trillion dollars and a million lives over the two wars. So intervention must have produced some glowing positives to justify that loss. I'd remind you the taliban and Osama are still going. Taliban leader Mullah Omar said on Wednesday victory is in sight. What's your definition of culling? I never said it would be eradicated, I believe it would be far less though. Suicide attacks have increased exponentially since 2001, how can you claim intervention worked?

1. Very good. 2. Right. We're in agreement then that some form of action against al quaeda/Islamic terrorism was a necessity post 9/11. Getting certain Islamic countries that harbour/export terrorism to cooperate via talks I believe would be a very unrealistic proposition for various reasons. For one thing the worldwide sympathy you talk of doesn't exist as China and Russia do not view this issue in the same light as the U.S. and Britain. Secondly the talks didn't work with Middle Eastern players (Iraq) and still don't (Iran). You joke that you wouldn't get a second term but that is a point worth taking up as anyone who adopted these policies wouldn't gain a second term. It's just not a realistic proposal unless we live in an alternate universe. With the Taliban occupying significant territory and harbouring Al Quaeda operatives in Afghanistan I don't see how the NATO mission in Afghanistan could have been realistically avoided. I'll assume you are ignorant of the situation in Afghanistan prior to 2001, because if you have knowledge of it and advocated leaving it in that state then you are guilty not only of moral cowardice but gross stupidity also. Any 'manhunt' of Al Quaeda would have lead there anyway, and with the hopelessly fragile and corrupt government in place and in the midst of a civil war, any diplomacy would have been an exercise in futility; the UF needed military support urgently. I would like to hear your arguments that non-intervention in Afghanistan would be a good strategy for the region/world. Given your statement 1. quoted there, your opposition to intervention in Afghanistan seems illogical at best. I'd make the Point Paddock Lad already has and add that there's currently a policy in place of hunting and killing suspects (even US citizens) in any country, whether diplomatic ties exist or not. The people on this "hit list" are likely to be killed while at home, sleeping in their bed, driving in a car with friends or family, or engaged in a whole array of other activities. More critically still, the Obama administration -- like the Bush administration before it -- defines the "battlefield" as the entire world. So the President claims the power to order U.S. citizens killed anywhere in the world, while engaged even in the most benign activities carried out far away from any actual battlefield, based solely on his say-so and with no judicial oversight or other checks. I'd also say you're a bit of a condescending bell-end but you must know that already. see my previous post. See my previous post.

As I stated in the first post you responded to, Christianity doesn't have an active sect whose aim and primary activity is to destroy western civilization. That's what separates Islam and those swathes of protesters from their Christian counterparts in the West. As we covered in the Islamophobia thread I believe your citations of 'mass protests' regarding the debacle in New York is an exaggeration, but let's not get into that issue again, it was convoluted enough in that thread, we can agree to disagree. In terms of comparing the levels of offence toward Christians/Muslims, I think this is getting a little into silly territory and is also irrelevant because we are ultimately dealing with the issue of Islamic terrorism, as Christianity does not have a radicalized element which is actively seeking to murder Western society. You cite Terry Jone's proposed stunt as a reason behind Islamic terrorism. I can't help but feel that Osama Bin Laden's recruiting and radicalizing of young men into his cult of death is more relevant to creating terrorists than an American pastor engaging in crass and offensive (but well publicized) behaviour. Finally your referral to the 'GZM debate' leads us back to my unanswered query: what do you feel would have been an appropriate response to the threat of radical Islamism post 9/11? You're making the same point I made with my 2 posts in the other thread. I've been very consistent about saying this pastor bell-end is a nobody whose stunt itself has no potency whatsoever, the coverage of this incident both increases his profile and ignore's the blame which should be placed with those with actual power. The media that should go after people with actual power this strongly are subservient to the White House and would never question their actions so strongly. As a fuckwit no-one gives a shit about, they can go after this dude without any worry of pissing anyone off or losing their job. I would not have mounted a military invasion and occupation of 2 countries after 9/11. It would have been an intelligence led manhunt of al qaeda operatives, at the same time using the worldwide sympathy to put huge pressure on the middle eastern players to get talks to work.....and I would not have got a second term see HF, when I see you and others stating things like this, you will then be the first person to squeal about their "rights" and "innocent until proved guilty" etc etc......fact is if you set up intelligence of individuals like this , it invariably "abuses their rights" as you would call it. You can't seperate the two, they come hand in hand. You either accept it or reject it. Where have I suggested their rights should be infringed? The Uk dealt with years of terrorism by hunting the perpetrators, imprisoning them when found guilty, compensating them when the courts fucked up and generally trying to maintain the system of justice in place.

I'm going to have to dial back on my podcasts like. He's doing far too many to keep up with. Tell Em Steve Dave is the only one I really look forward to any more....though the Hollywood Babble On has started well and might keep my interest as a film geek.

1. Very good. 2. Right. We're in agreement then that some form of action against al quaeda/Islamic terrorism was a necessity post 9/11. Getting certain Islamic countries that harbour/export terrorism to cooperate via talks I believe would be a very unrealistic proposition for various reasons. For one thing the worldwide sympathy you talk of doesn't exist as China and Russia do not view this issue in the same light as the U.S. and Britain. Secondly the talks didn't work with Middle Eastern players (Iraq) and still don't (Iran). You joke that you wouldn't get a second term but that is a point worth taking up as anyone who adopted these policies wouldn't gain a second term. It's just not a realistic proposal unless we live in an alternate universe. With the Taliban occupying significant territory and harbouring Al Quaeda operatives in Afghanistan I don't see how the NATO mission in Afghanistan could have been realistically avoided. I'll assume you are ignorant of the situation in Afghanistan prior to 2001, because if you have knowledge of it and advocated leaving it in that state then you are guilty not only of moral cowardice but gross stupidity also. Any 'manhunt' of Al Quaeda would have lead there anyway, and with the hopelessly fragile and corrupt government in place and in the midst of a civil war, any diplomacy would have been an exercise in futility; the UF needed military support urgently. I would like to hear your arguments that non-intervention in Afghanistan would be a good strategy for the region/world. Given your statement 1. quoted there, your opposition to intervention in Afghanistan seems illogical at best. I'd make the Point Paddock Lad already has and add that there's currently a policy in place of hunting and killing suspects (even US citizens) in any country, whether diplomatic ties exist or not. The people on this "hit list" are likely to be killed while at home, sleeping in their bed, driving in a car with friends or family, or engaged in a whole array of other activities. More critically still, the Obama administration -- like the Bush administration before it -- defines the "battlefield" as the entire world. So the President claims the power to order U.S. citizens killed anywhere in the world, while engaged even in the most benign activities carried out far away from any actual battlefield, based solely on his say-so and with no judicial oversight or other checks. I'd also say you're a bit of a condescending bell-end but you must know that already.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11260290 Jesus, Mary and sodding Joseph!

You can assume every one of my posts comes with the understanding that Al Qaeda are a bunch of murdering fucks who's actions I abhor and oppose with every fibre of my being.

I've never said any terrorism is justified. But people ignore the reasons for it. Let's not forget the discrepancy here. The US collectively has lost it's shit just because a muslim group would like to practice their religion. Protests have been strong and effective, in terms of elected officials supporting the protesters and slagging off the muslims insisting they put an end to their action. Isn't burning the koran a bit more of an insult? More worthy of condemnation? sorry like, but what a load of anti west drivel. Do you seriously think burning a book [however important it is to them] is more "insulting" than flying aeroplanes into buildings ? Difficult to believe what I'm reading here. Fucking hell, that is very obviously not what he said. yes he is, he's attempting to justify Islamic Terrorism in any way he can. Fuck knows why. Quite amazing. Which act of terrorism? I've pointedly said there's no justification of 9/11.

As I stated in the first post you responded to, Christianity doesn't have an active sect whose aim and primary activity is to destroy western civilization. That's what separates Islam and those swathes of protesters from their Christian counterparts in the West. As we covered in the Islamophobia thread I believe your citations of 'mass protests' regarding the debacle in New York is an exaggeration, but let's not get into that issue again, it was convoluted enough in that thread, we can agree to disagree. In terms of comparing the levels of offence toward Christians/Muslims, I think this is getting a little into silly territory and is also irrelevant because we are ultimately dealing with the issue of Islamic terrorism, as Christianity does not have a radicalized element which is actively seeking to murder Western society. You cite Terry Jone's proposed stunt as a reason behind Islamic terrorism. I can't help but feel that Osama Bin Laden's recruiting and radicalizing of young men into his cult of death is more relevant to creating terrorists than an American pastor engaging in crass and offensive (but well publicized) behaviour. Finally your referral to the 'GZM debate' leads us back to my unanswered query: what do you feel would have been an appropriate response to the threat of radical Islamism post 9/11? You're making the same point I made with my 2 posts in the other thread. I've been very consistent about saying this pastor bell-end is a nobody whose stunt itself has no potency whatsoever, the coverage of this incident both increases his profile and ignore's the blame which should be placed with those with actual power. The media that should go after people with actual power this strongly are subservient to the White House and would never question their actions so strongly. As a fuckwit no-one gives a shit about, they can go after this dude without any worry of pissing anyone off or losing their job. I would not have mounted a military invasion and occupation of 2 countries after 9/11. It would have been an intelligence led manhunt of al qaeda operatives, at the same time using the worldwide sympathy to put huge pressure on the middle eastern players to get talks to work.....and I would not have got a second term

http://www.juancole.com/2010/09/top-storie...ng-nut-job.html

Your first three sentences are quite promising, but your reference to the GZM fiasco and the koran burning stunt leave me a little confused. Are you citing these incidents as incitement/reasons for terrorism? If not what's the relevance? I thought your references to the reasons for terrorism were to various administrations' actions in the Mid East region. You answered my first query but I'd still be interested to hear what you felt would be an appropriate response to the threat of radical Islamism post 9/11? The first sentence was a response to you. The rest was a more general point about what recently caused mass protests in the US compared to what caused todays protests in Afghanistan. People were claiming Muslims are far more keen to kick off, but I'd say less offence has been caused to christians from these two events. Building a mosque 4 blocks from the WTC is not an incitement for terrorists....refusing permission and displaying religious discrimination is though. Burning korans is. Think I already posted this today... Terry Jones, the Dove pastor, appears to want to prove Muslims are intolerant by provoking them to attack ‘Christians’ over the burning of their scripture. I.e., he thinks just like al-Qaeda, which wanted to provoke Christians to attack Muslims so as to demonstrate Christian imperialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_...American_adults Total christianity down 10% in the US in just 18 years. People with no religion up almost 7%. The growth in evangelism is just 0.6% Really? Genuinely never heard of any of that happening. Clutching at straws here HF. If you don't believe me about Mecca then I suggest you book a holiday there and see how it turns out. I appreciate that Saudis represent one of the more extreme sects (Wahhabism) but they have a central role in International Islam. Also, let's not forget how extreme the other branch of Islam - the Shiites - can be, as witnessed right now in the high profile Iranian case where a women may be stoned to death for the grevious sin of infedility. Are you being devil's advocate here or can you genuinely not see a difference? And not that I need state it surely, but I am no defender of Christianity any way, shape, or form. It's definitely a more tolerant faith though, which is reflected in the cultural values of the countries it has been adopted in. I wasn't saying I didn't believe you about . That's why I said 'genuinely'. Perhaps there is an element of devils advocate, but I genuinely think it's a question of development isn't it? Catholicism is most prevalent in the developed world. The church has been forced to change to keep up with society which changed at a far faster rate, due to rapidly increasing wealth, improved social welfare programs and technological advances. Most of the power of the church has been taken away by the state, so when they do their evil, like collectively rape the shit out of thousands upon thousands of small children, they try to be a bit more discreet about it these days because they (supposedly) don't have the protection of the government. But then, the west has developed as well as it has off the back of stealing the resources of the middle east hasn't it?

I've never said any terrorism is justified. But people ignore the reasons for it. Let's not forget the discrepancy here. The US collectively has lost it's shit just because a muslim group would like to practice their religion. Protests have been strong and effective, in terms of elected officials supporting the protesters and slagging off the muslims insisting they put an end to their action. Isn't burning the koran a bit more of an insult? More worthy of condemnation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_...American_adults Total christianity down 10% in the US in just 18 years. People with no religion up almost 7%. The growth in evangelism is just 0.6% Really? Genuinely never heard of any of that happening.

Mankind has reached the stage in the 'Developed World' where any benefits of religion are outweighed by the negatives. It is all a great lie used to control the masses - Marx was spot on. spot on Renton. Personally I'm sick of hearing about it, the idea that people can get so het up over someone burning a fictional storybook is ridiculous. I have more important things to worry about in my life, religions are so crazily primitive I see anyone getting worked up about them as complete morons and of no real benefit to the human race. An individual burning books is nowt worth worrying about. Fictional storybooks have been burnt by governments in the past on a scale I find disgusting though and would get het up about if it happened again. A distinction worth making I think. We look forward to you standing in the centre of Tehran and exercising your right to free speech and telling them all how stupid they are ...you're funny. you think that this argument says it all. the onus has to be on civil society to uphold the values we have instituted into our founding documents. otherewise we are just paying lip service to ideals we say we are fighting for abroad. i agree its shitty when people with different agendas/ideals who have come to the west (NA, EU) from countries where they wouldn't enjoy the same freedoms we have, complain or protest about things or say nasty things about the west . but the freedoms we enjoy can't just be for those who were born here, they have to apply to everyone equally. no one has ever questioned that we have it better in the west than in Tehran. http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q...995&bih=553 Do you think the middle east was a peaceful place that suffered no western aggression prior to 9/11 Leazes? is the middle east where your allegiance lies too ? Do you think the German resistance that opposed the Nazi party were unpatriotic? would you have allowed sympathisers of Hitler Youth to demonstrate in the streets of the UK and exercise their right of freedom of speech ? You mean like the neo-nazi's that still enjoy freedom of speech? Aye. so you would have supported Nazi's demonstrating on the streets of the UK during the 2nd world war ? Deary deary me.

They all get worked up. Catholics haven't even seen bible's burnt, they lose their collective shit every time a film like the Life of Brian or Dogma says a word out of line. Most christians get worked up in the way you've literally illustrated though. Would you not agree that many muslims have a tendency to react a bit more strongly than that, as witnessed by the ridiculous Mohammed cartoon incident? If a mad mullah was burning Bibles in Saudi would anyone really give a shit? I think they all overstep the mark..... http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news?articleid=3028478 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-55438457.html http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/kan...tillers_murder/ etc. I think you've fallen into the same trap a lot of people do by excusing it as a minority of catholics, christians, protestants when abortionists get killed and that, but maintaining it's 'many' muslims that are extreme. Well your first two links refer to sectarian problems in Northern Ireland and the last one is a religiously motivated murder against an arbortionist. As far as NI goes, I think it is much more complicated than just religion, and the latter link shows how a strongly held conviction can lead to perverse actions, just as animal liberation does in this country, for instance. But they're hardly international outright riots are they? Also I can see why someone gets worked up about abortion and commits murder if they literally believe abortion is murder - the action is obscene to me but I can understand the perverse logic of murdering the aborter in order to save 'lives'. I can also understand the tribal hatred in Northern Ireland even if I despair about it. But a mob trashing a Danish embassy because of some cartoons they've never even seen? Are you really telling me that Islam can absorb criticism and ridicule as well as christianity? I don't think so. Protests are probably bigger and more frequent in muslim countries. That says more about the dwindling popularity of all religions in the west rather than the extremity of the most unhinged members of each church.

Mankind has reached the stage in the 'Developed World' where any benefits of religion are outweighed by the negatives. It is all a great lie used to control the masses - Marx was spot on. spot on Renton. Personally I'm sick of hearing about it, the idea that people can get so het up over someone burning a fictional storybook is ridiculous. I have more important things to worry about in my life, religions are so crazily primitive I see anyone getting worked up about them as complete morons and of no real benefit to the human race. An individual burning books is nowt worth worrying about. Fictional storybooks have been burnt by governments in the past on a scale I find disgusting though and would get het up about if it happened again. A distinction worth making I think. We look forward to you standing in the centre of Tehran and exercising your right to free speech and telling them all how stupid they are ...you're funny. you think that this argument says it all. the onus has to be on civil society to uphold the values we have instituted into our founding documents. otherewise we are just paying lip service to ideals we say we are fighting for abroad. i agree its shitty when people with different agendas/ideals who have come to the west (NA, EU) from countries where they wouldn't enjoy the same freedoms we have, complain or protest about things or say nasty things about the west . but the freedoms we enjoy can't just be for those who were born here, they have to apply to everyone equally. no one has ever questioned that we have it better in the west than in Tehran. http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q...995&bih=553 Do you think the middle east was a peaceful place that suffered no western aggression prior to 9/11 Leazes? is the middle east where your allegiance lies too ? Do you think the German resistance that opposed the Nazi party were unpatriotic? would you have allowed sympathisers of Hitler Youth to demonstrate in the streets of the UK and exercise their right of freedom of speech ? You mean like the neo-nazi's that still enjoy freedom of speech? Aye.

They all get worked up. Catholics haven't even seen bible's burnt, they lose their collective shit every time a film like the Life of Brian or Dogma says a word out of line. Most christians get worked up in the way you've literally illustrated though. Would you not agree that many muslims have a tendency to react a bit more strongly than that, as witnessed by the ridiculous Mohammed cartoon incident? If a mad mullah was burning Bibles in Saudi would anyone really give a shit? I think they all overstep the mark..... http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news?articleid=3028478 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-55438457.html http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/kan...tillers_murder/ etc. I think you've fallen into the same trap a lot of people do by excusing it as a minority of catholics, christians, protestants when abortionists get killed and that, but maintaining it's 'many' muslims that are extreme.

Mankind has reached the stage in the 'Developed World' where any benefits of religion are outweighed by the negatives. It is all a great lie used to control the masses - Marx was spot on. spot on Renton. Personally I'm sick of hearing about it, the idea that people can get so het up over someone burning a fictional storybook is ridiculous. I have more important things to worry about in my life, religions are so crazily primitive I see anyone getting worked up about them as complete morons and of no real benefit to the human race. An individual burning books is nowt worth worrying about. Fictional storybooks have been burnt by governments in the past on a scale I find disgusting though and would get het up about if it happened again. A distinction worth making I think. We look forward to you standing in the centre of Tehran and exercising your right to free speech and telling them all how stupid they are ...you're funny. you think that this argument says it all. the onus has to be on civil society to uphold the values we have instituted into our founding documents. otherewise we are just paying lip service to ideals we say we are fighting for abroad. i agree its shitty when people with different agendas/ideals who have come to the west (NA, EU) from countries where they wouldn't enjoy the same freedoms we have, complain or protest about things or say nasty things about the west . but the freedoms we enjoy can't just be for those who were born here, they have to apply to everyone equally. no one has ever questioned that we have it better in the west than in Tehran. http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q...995&bih=553 Do you think the middle east was a peaceful place that suffered no western aggression prior to 9/11 Leazes? is the middle east where your allegiance lies too ? Do you think the German resistance that opposed the Nazi party were unpatriotic?