Happy Face

This is what irks me most about these islamic states. It's like we're going back to medievel times of the crusades/Moors etc. If we're going to have a fight let's make it over something tangible like oil. It was a "secular" state that declared their war to be a crusade though.... No it wasn't, it was an ill-advised semi-literate Texan christian fundamentalist hick. FYP Not once have I defended the US, I'm at least as concerned by what is happening over there as I am by Iran, it's extremely depressing. Two wrongs don't make a right though and all that. In any case, I don't think Bush used the term in the context it was taken in, he's too stupid to even have known what the historical meaning is. I was just kidding on really. I've been reading some more of Bush's quotes... "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." "The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them."

This is what irks me most about these islamic states. It's like we're going back to medievel times of the crusades/Moors etc. If we're going to have a fight let's make it over something tangible like oil. It was a "secular" state that declared their war to be a crusade though.... No it wasn't, it was an ill-advised semi-literate Texan christian fundamentalist hick. FYP

This is what irks me most about these islamic states. It's like we're going back to medievel times of the crusades/Moors etc. If we're going to have a fight let's make it over something tangible like oil. I'm looking forward to the soil wars of Waterworld It was a "secular" state that declared their war to be a crusade though.... "This is a new kind of, a new kind of evil. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while. And American people must be patient. " Bush - Sept. 16, 2001

More on this widely reported western lie... http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/ahmadineja...ti-semitic.html

Nobody whatsoever. That's the problem

No it's not. My post has links to the reports and sources which includes the US Defence Intelligence Agency who place Israels nuclear arsenal at 60-80. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/ Earlier I quoted the US National Intelligence Estimate that said Iran pose no nuclear threat and don't look likely to. http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf How does that fit the US agenda?

Thought they'd be canny for visits to hotels and other peoples houses. They'll be built into your phone soon enough like. You go around to other peoples houses or hotels, smash their AV equipment and then force them to watch whatever you want regularly? Why would I smash up their equipment? I do force them to watch whatever I want though.

Take a cha cha cha chance

No

So are you saying that Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons then? Er..... Chris the Natural Resources Defence Council is an eco-pressure group and the Federation of American Scientists estimates them having 80 (although quite what they base that on is unclear). But given that no one really knows surely we should assume they have none until it is proven otherwise? Since you seem to be gripping this bone with all your might, can you tell me why their estimate should be dismissed? As a non-profit, non-partisan, international group they've had several studies printed in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. If you choose to dismiss it fine, do you not believe the Federation of American Scientists either? Because it is , why else? Ok lets not believe intelligence agencies, they certainly can be wrong. But then why believe an eco-pressure group that has no more inside information on nuclear proliferation than The Brownies have about Israel having "200+" nuclear weapons? And as Fop said even the FAS (which suggest they may have ~80) shows nothing at all to back up that statement, other than the statement itself. It's your own fault Chris, check your sources before you post em, if you don't want to be ridiculed for them. If you place as much stock in the Brownies as you do the NRDC (which has been going for 40 years and published several studies on worldwide nuclear stockpiles), that's your choice. If you believe the Brownies talk as much sense as FAS (65 years researching Nuclear programs and endorsed by 84 Nobel laureates) then you're free to get your info from wherever you wish. You don't have to believe either of them. Or Mohamed ElBaradei (president of the IAEA, the man claiming Iran have broke the rules) who says Israel have them and undermine the whole thing. If you think all it's all bollocks, it only serves to shine a light on your blinkered view. Not that I think for a second you actually believe Israel don't have nukes. It just serves your preposterous stance that Israel don't need to sign up to the NPT because they haven't been proven to have any. That they should continue their own policy of "nuclear ambiguity" while insisting on Iranian transparency.

Thought they'd be canny for visits to hotels and other peoples houses. They'll be built into your phone soon enough like.

Would be perfect for projecting anti ashley sentiments around the stadium during televised games.

Any one got one? Any recommendations? I was just reading this... It's down to £296 from £350 but that's still a bit steep. Any recommended competitors?

So are you saying that Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons then? Er..... Chris the Natural Resources Defence Council is an eco-pressure group and the Federation of American Scientists estimates them having 80 (although quite what they base that on is unclear). But given that no one really knows surely we should assume they have none until it is proven otherwise? Since you seem to be gripping this bone with all your might, can you tell me why their estimate should be dismissed? As a non-profit, non-partisan, international group they've had several studies printed in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. If you choose to dismiss it fine, do you not believe the Federation of American Scientists either?

If the US president says it it MUST be true. They don't scaremonger do they. You keep bringing up the IAEA amendment. I'll say it again, this is not something Iran has recognised (as it does not apply to any other nations). Whether they did initially and changed their mind I don't know, but as I said earlier, either way it's a small violation in comparison to Israels outright refusal to co-operate in any way shape or form with UN resolutions. Which "experts" are you quoting in the third part. The US existing National Intelligence Estimate hasn't been amended to reflect this "belief".

Forum aces prone to fluffing threads no longer have an excuse - after boffins yesterday unveiled a FORMULA for the perfect discussion. University eggheads studied page after page of writing to deduce what makes a topic perfect. Researchers say the formula promises 100 per cent success. Tottenham Hotspur fans will be gutted the findings emerged too late to prevent some cringeworthy debates around attendances and whether they are a big club. The equation would also have saved Jay-Z fans from heartbreak after they failed to troll their way into the gold section. A research team at Liverpool John Moores University performed the research and Professor Tim Cable, director of WUM analysis sciences, declared: "Many factors make up a 'perfect thread'. But we've finally nailed the key elements." That formula in full: T-H-F+W=G Where T = Toontastic H = Hova F = Fop W = Wikipedia evidence G = Gold

I guess the Sun has only become more powerful in political terms, as they've wiped out the opposition. In 1956 there were 7 papers with a circulation of over a million. In 1980 there were 6. In 1992 there were 5. By 2002 there were 4. Today there are 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newsp..._by_circulation At least their readership is dwindling quickly since the dawn of the internet. I just hope ex-readers aren't using the website to form political opinion.

Finished Band of Brothers. Fantastic book, but not as good as the TV show. The book seems to concentrate on Winters more. The odd mention of each of the other characters in one or two chapters meant you never get to know them as well as you'd like. I found each of the characters in the TV show was more memorable. I seem to have misplaced In Cold Blood, so I started Hammer of the Gods this morning. Wasn't too excited about it beforehand, but I'm well into it just after the prologue. Haven't listened to much Zep since uni. I carried all their albums in my backpack wherever I went for what, in retrospect, seems like the entire 3 years solid. I did love playing them over and over on my backbreaking discman. Think this will get them back into heavy rotation for a month or so.

"We believe he [Cameron] will cut away a lot of the red tape which is strangling British business." All hail deregulation.

That was class.

I don't think "Iran are doing nothing wrong" I think they're reacting to events rather than shaping them. Israel and the US test their missiles... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...le-missile.html http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=10610182 ...and refer to Iran as the next target.... http://www.theage.com.au/world/iran-next-t...75a.html?page=2 This, despite the NIE stance (unchanged since 2007) that Iran has no nuclear capability since 2003 and there's no evidence they have since been seeking one... http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf Iran have seen defenceless nations like Afghanistan and Iraq annhialated without any justification. I guess Iran don't want to sit back helplessly as those nations did. They still remember the US backed attack of 1980 As Juan Cole wrote yesterday... http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/09/29/cole/

I don't think you can lay the blame for the fear at the feet of the Iranian leadership/media when as mentioned Israel have been fully backed in their attemps to wipe out Gaza, and the US are already nation building (badly) in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think Iran have taken any comparable action to warrant the fear that the western media and leadership whip up.

He's pointed out that the tories got the call about how to handle the economic disaster wrong; the only political party in the world to call it wrong i.e. to do nothing. (New)Labour are really down in the dumps, but I suggested to mrs hips last night that it might be worth a £20 punt on them winning the next election. Is he suggesting every country that gave trillions to the banks got it spot on? He's told us that not ONE saver in UK lost a single penny of their savings. But the national debt has doubled in the space of a year to crippling levels for future generations and banks will continue to sell products to people who can't afford them safe in the knowledge Gordon says they're too big to fail. Unlike anyone else going bankrupt, the money lenders will be protected. A vote for Gordon is a vote to take the food from your grandchildrens mouth. Huzzah!!

The Feelies - Boy with the Perpetual Nervousness

He's pointed out that the tories got the call about how to handle the economic disaster wrong; the only political party in the world to call it wrong i.e. to do nothing. (New)Labour are really down in the dumps, but I suggested to mrs hips last night that it might be worth a £20 punt on them winning the next election. Is he suggesting every country that gave trillions to the banks got it spot on?