Happy Face

David Mitchell is good. His podcasts have had me convulsed a couple of times.

EMI will be over the moon. They might even be able to shift copies of his last 2 albums now.

Quick! Someone write Blanket a letter asking if he wants to invest in a football club.

So true.......they vilified him when he was alive and are now morning his passing. Aye, just like the peoples princess Jade Fair enough calling him a fucked up, kiddy fiddling weirdo but it's a bit much comparing him to Goody.

Jackson Five - Everybody Is A Star RIP little Micky, they fucked you right up.

Poor little Blanket

Mind, this was funny.... They average one funny sketch per series. Last year it was "The Football".

They want to stick to peep show....which they don't write. ...especially Webb the unfunny fuck.

Even if I'm confident of a grade A nip and the first wipe is clean, I'll do a safety wipe to make sure I didn't miss the bunghole.

I use dry. But I've heard nothing but good things about wet wipes.

It's a very vague question, but I think I'd probably have him followed. Howabout your good self? You'd have him "followed"? Assuming that they didn't notice the bespectacled guy in the false beard as they trailed him through small villages where everyone knows everyone else and the middle of nowhere (where there is no one else)........... what would you do then? Follow him a bit more? It's not a vague question at all. It's a hard question, yes, but then it would be. Oh dear. You are simple. The US "Black" budget is $50bn+ (equal to the UKs entire defence budget -which is the second biggest in the world). That's on top of the standard $490bn US military budget. They can stretch past a beard and glasses mate. The 3 rockets they ploughed into the funeral cost $3m. Glad to see you advocate the bombing of 50-80 civilians to kill one man who hasn't had a trial. Kind of contradicts your doveish attitude elsewhere.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/paki-j25.shtml

It's a very vague question, but I think I'd probably have him followed. Howabout your good self?

How about if they'd just rounded them all up and imprisoned them all for a couple of years? He'd have just forgiven them. So what do you think should done then? Who? When? If they have firm intelligence of a Taliban commander's position, what should be done about it? So this exact scenario? In Pakistan? In a civillian area? I think it's pretty clear from my earlier posts that I'd prefer the approach espoused by General McChrystal. How about you? He seems to be mostly talking about air strikes in firefights, that's not the same thing as knowing exactly where a Taliban leader will be, and if it it were it's not said what would be done. So like Fop said if they know exactly where a Taliban leader will be - what do you think they should do about it? “When we shoot into a compound, that should only be for the protection of our forces,” he said. “I want everyone to understand that.” I can't see how you can be confused as to my opinion. I'm the one who started the thread to codemn a bombing that's killed a Taliban commander. Your desparation to find an opposing view is palpable btw. It wasn't in a compound though. Fop's not stated a view, just asked a question (which you won't answer). And what about Pakistani air strikes and artillery strikes while we're at it? Yes? No? Maybe? So again what is your opinion of what should be done when the have intelligence on a Taliban leaders position? It's a very simple question that you refuse to answer. "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole" So you're refusing to answer the question then? "Life does not stop and start at your convenience, you miserable piece of shit."

How about if they'd just rounded them all up and imprisoned them all for a couple of years? He'd have just forgiven them. So what do you think should done then? Who? When? If they have firm intelligence of a Taliban commander's position, what should be done about it? So this exact scenario? In Pakistan? In a civillian area? I think it's pretty clear from my earlier posts that I'd prefer the approach espoused by General McChrystal. How about you? He seems to be mostly talking about air strikes in firefights, that's not the same thing as knowing exactly where a Taliban leader will be, and if it it were it's not said what would be done. So like Fop said if they know exactly where a Taliban leader will be - what do you think they should do about it? “When we shoot into a compound, that should only be for the protection of our forces,” he said. “I want everyone to understand that.” I can't see how you can be confused as to my opinion. I'm the one who started the thread to codemn a bombing that's killed a Taliban commander. Your desparation to find an opposing view is palpable btw. It wasn't in a compound though. Fop's not stated a view, just asked a question (which you won't answer). And what about Pakistani air strikes and artillery strikes while we're at it? Yes? No? Maybe? So again what is your opinion of what should be done when the have intelligence on a Taliban leaders position? It's a very simple question that you refuse to answer. "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8118129.stm Most popular = Best

How about if they'd just rounded them all up and imprisoned them all for a couple of years? He'd have just forgiven them. So what do you think should done then? Who? When? If they have firm intelligence of a Taliban commander's position, what should be done about it? So this exact scenario? In Pakistan? In a civillian area? I think it's pretty clear from my earlier posts that I'd prefer the approach espoused by General McChrystal. How about you? He seems to be mostly talking about air strikes in firefights, that's not the same thing as knowing exactly where a Taliban leader will be, and if it it were it's not said what would be done. So like Fop said if they know exactly where a Taliban leader will be - what do you think they should do about it? “When we shoot into a compound, that should only be for the protection of our forces,” he said. “I want everyone to understand that.” I can't see how you can be confused as to my opinion. I'm the one who started the thread to codemn a bombing that's killed a Taliban commander. Your desparation to find an opposing view is palpable btw.

How about if they'd just rounded them all up and imprisoned them all for a couple of years? He'd have just forgiven them. So what do you think should done then? Who? When? If they have firm intelligence of a Taliban commander's position, what should be done about it? So this exact scenario? In Pakistan? In a civillian area? I think it's pretty clear from my earlier posts that I'd prefer the approach espoused by General McChrystal. How about you?

How about if they'd just rounded them all up and imprisoned them all for a couple of years? He'd have just forgiven them. So what do you think should done then? Who? When?

How about if they'd just rounded them all up and imprisoned them all for a couple of years?

Cheers Her Hubby's my godfather, but we weren't close.

There's huge debate as to the rights and wrongs of government sponsored targeted assassinations. I don't think hoying 49 civillians into the mix helps the argument for it.

We should keep this about the NHS HF, not the problems in the US. No problem. Didn't want to start a thread, just found it funny that the universal healthcare scaremongering has gone up a notch over there. My auntie died from cancer yesterday morning she was between 75 and 84. The NHS were superb as far as we were concerned. Years of treatment kept it at bay.

Just a hypothetical; If you had categroical proof that your target who was directly responsible for the attack of September 11th, if he was coming out of obscurity for one day and he was to be at a funeral, would you strike? I think they all commited suicide mate.

Soz Parky. I see what you mean now.