Dr Gloom

We're in Iraq so America can leverage and contain oil supply and pricing and Israel can steal water from the Tigris. We're in Afghanistan to help the sisters. Think I've got it now. we're in afghanistan because of 9/11. the yanks had to react and there was clearly a link between afghanistan and bin laden. after the coalition invaded afghanistan, the taliban even offered to discuss handing over bin laden to a neutral country in return for a bombing halt. he was definitely there at the time and obviously al-queda was linked to the attacks on the twin towers. whether the invasion was a smart move is debatable when you look at the loss of life and whether the war in afghniatan - or a war on terror - can ever be won, but it was a legitimate war. the invasion itself wasn't without good grounds, unlike the invasion of iraq, which was illegal. now that we're there, the liberation of afghanistan from the taliban seems a good reason to stick round and ensure the job is done though obviously that wasn't the reason we got in there initially.

the buxom dames of channel 4's two flagship property shows. one posh, the other with massive norks and a line in telling you what to do. which would you rather have over your house?

Did I? I don't see how it could be described as anything but war propaganda given it's using an horrific emotional personal story to justify ongoing military occupation. sorry, just re-read the thread and i guess you didn't. i'm sure someone said that but can't see it so either it was deleted or i'm reading thing that aren't there... I think NJS said something about scottish gangsters and knee-capping. I don't think anything comparable to this happens in the UK on an institutional level. Taliban rule is vile......like Saudi Arabian rule and any other number of countries where personal freedom is non-existent. yup. it's pretty shocking we're in bed with the saudis tbh.

i don't get why he has to live with nolan. that's just weird

Did I? I don't see how it could be described as anything but war propaganda given it's using an horrific emotional personal story to justify ongoing military occupation. sorry, just re-read the thread and i guess you didn't. i'm sure someone said that but can't see it so either it was deleted or i'm reading thing that aren't there...

Tell you what Dan, prove me wrong then by finding somewhere on this board where you've made that point when someone has in fact been defending acts like the one described by the Taliban. And the rest of your post's the straw man stuff I'm on about. Why do I have to defend Islamic extremism? Just to disprove what I've just said about you and your straw man arguments? Fuck off man I've never once defended the Taliban or Muslim extremism. As for the war in Afghanistan. I think it's a waste of time because it's underfunded, our troops are too small in terms of numbers and probably under equipped. If we were to go about it properly I think we'd probably have to be there for 20 years or more and commit loads more bodies and personally I find it a bit offensive when people who'd shit themselves if they had to go there think it's ok for the government to send young lads and lasses there under the current circumstances. The only way to change places like that is to take them out of poverty but how the fuck do you take the whole world out of poverty? Even if 'we' wanted to. my post wasn't aimed at you directly alex. happy face said the article was war propaganda and that it's no worse than what goes on in glasgow on a weekend. i can't agree with that at all. the main difference being that kind of thing is illegal here, where as it would be openly encouraged in afganistan if the taliban were still running the show. if you look back through this thread, you'll see that most people are having a go at leazesmag. that i can understand. he's on the wind up, he's got an agenda and he's trying to push buttons. but where are the those condemning the actions in the article leazesmag posted? i counted a handful compared to the number of those taking the piss out of leazes. he's created a rod for his own back there i suppose but you must be able to see my point. the troops issue is a sensitive one i agree. but would taking the world out of poverty really end sharia law and the repression of women in the muslim world? look at the oil rich gulf nations. there are countries there that aren't in poverty but still have some fucked up and digusting laws that frankly have no place in the civilised world. oh, and i agree with you njs about not tarring all muslims with the same brush. obviously moderate muslims and live happily alongside other cultures. ps. i've just done a course on hostile environment training. i'm now qualified - and therefore insured - to do an embed in afghanistan or other reports from hostile areas like somalia, nigeria or haiti in the future so i hope that comment about shitting yourself wasn't aimed at me It was aimed (mainly) at politicians tbh. And you've answered your own question re: the lack of condemnation. well, happy face actually.

Tell you what Dan, prove me wrong then by finding somewhere on this board where you've made that point when someone has in fact been defending acts like the one described by the Taliban. And the rest of your post's the straw man stuff I'm on about. Why do I have to defend Islamic extremism? Just to disprove what I've just said about you and your straw man arguments? Fuck off man I've never once defended the Taliban or Muslim extremism. As for the war in Afghanistan. I think it's a waste of time because it's underfunded, our troops are too small in terms of numbers and probably under equipped. If we were to go about it properly I think we'd probably have to be there for 20 years or more and commit loads more bodies and personally I find it a bit offensive when people who'd shit themselves if they had to go there think it's ok for the government to send young lads and lasses there under the current circumstances. The only way to change places like that is to take them out of poverty but how the fuck do you take the whole world out of poverty? Even if 'we' wanted to. my post wasn't aimed at you directly alex. happy face said the article was war propaganda and that it's no worse than what goes on in glasgow on a weekend. i can't agree with that at all. the main difference being that kind of thing is illegal here, where as it would be openly encouraged in afganistan if the taliban were still running the show. if you look back through this thread, you'll see that most people are having a go at leazesmag. that i can understand. he's on the wind up, he's got an agenda and he's trying to push buttons. but where are the those condemning the actions in the article leazesmag posted? i counted a handful compared to the number of those taking the piss out of leazes. he's created a rod for his own back there i suppose but you must be able to see my point. the troops issue is a sensitive one i agree. but would taking the world out of poverty really end sharia law and the repression of women in the muslim world? look at the oil rich gulf nations. there are countries there that aren't in poverty but still have some fucked up and digusting laws that frankly have no place in the civilised world. oh, and i agree with you njs about not tarring all muslims with the same brush. obviously moderate muslims and live happily alongside other cultures. ps. i've just done a course on hostile environment training. i'm now qualified - and therefore insured - to do an embed in afghanistan or other reports from hostile areas like somalia, nigeria or haiti in the future so i hope that comment about shitting yourself wasn't aimed at me

i have made this point before alex because it puzzles me and i respond to it in threads where i see it. people are quick to attack critics of islamic extremism for some reason. i don't read the daily mail; i consider myself liberal, which is why i find it strange and i think it'd an area where the left falls on its arse a bit. leazesmag's argument that multiculturism can't exist is a difficult one to defend. britian is a great example of it working. the ethnic and cultural diveristy is one of the things i love about living in london. but there are some cultures in this world that clearly can't or don't want to co-exist. the level of sharia law that includes honour killings - and the kinds of mutilations practiced by the taliban that was linked to in the opening post in this thread do not have a place on this earth. they are barbaric and abhorrent - most of us agree with this i'm sure, and yet those who criticise it are often shot down in flames. for what it's worth, i'm not calling anyone a do-gooding fancy dan lecturer for disagreeing with me. it just strikes me that it's ironic that many on the left seem scared to attack this form extremism. why is that? are we all scared of being being labeled reactionary? what is your view alex? can islamic extremists live in a multi-cultural society? is there a place for those beliefs in the modern world? and whether you agree with the fact that the coalition invaded afghanistan or not, now that we're there, isn't the mission to stay to try and remove the taliban a war worth fighting?

Complete different, and you know you're talking shite because when you've actually got a point to make you'll write 10 lines. As I sad the British were masters at supressing dissent - the Tasmanian genocide, the Indian tyranny and others were just as bad as anything the Taliban have ever done. Theres nothing wrong with condemning the bastard for shit like this but don't tell me they are the only "inhuman" fighters who've ever done stuff like this. You really need to read some history. i find it strange when so many on the left are quick to attack those that are critical of the more barbaric and savage strands of islam around the world. i consider myself a leftie but many liberals fall over here if you ask me the taliban enforced one of the strictest interpretations of sharia law ever seen in the muslim world. treatment of women is shocking - they were forced to wear the burqa in public and were allowed neither to work nor to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the qur'an. nor where they were not allowed to be treated by male doctors unless accompanied by a male chaperon, which led to illnesses remaining untreated. not to mention public flogging in the street, stonings and public execution for violations of the taliban's laws. the british empire has blood on its hands no doubt. there are some that say we shouldn't even be in afghanistan. i disagree. war shouldn't be entered into lightly and the iraq war was massively misguided. the invasion of afghanistan was justified. and now we're there we must try to finish the job. it's debatable as to whether we will; no one has won a war there before. but the taliban harboured terrorists - that's why we invaded post 9/11. now we're there we have to stay and win. it's a worthy cause - there is no place in the modern world for this kind of regime.

totally agree. That is why I posted it. I expected one or two to play it down or even defend it though, but there is really no excuse for it at all. It's of even more concern that this is the sort of mentality they would try and impose on us, because they certainly won't change their ways in the name of "multiculturism and tolerance". Not a chance. well, i don't agree with that. this kind of thing doesn't happen in most parts of the civilised world. britain is a good example of multiculturism - it works. the taliban however, are barbarians. i don't think we will win the war in afghanistan and that is a real worry. these people are animals.

i'm going to try to get this thread back on topic. the fact that this kind of thing goes on in the world is horrifying. fucking savages. there really is no way to defend it.

I wonder why he lives in Newcastle.

We already are in one. bit early doors to be saying that.

I'd tear her apart alright. she's big in all the right places

jesus wept. so if we're in a relegation battle come january, let's just carry on as we are eh?

Hicks and Gillet are going to try to cling on to power as long as possible. Let's be frank, they made their investment before the financial crisis but like most foreign investors, they're still going to want a return. This is why foreign takeovers are so dangerous for our clubs. Most don't give a monkeys about what kind of shape the club is when they jump ship - exit strategy is all about a return on the investment. That's why I reckon this could be a long, ugly, bitter, protracted dispute. Hopefully will be even more embarrasment for Liverpool fans than we've had since Ashley took over

enough to convert a gay guy to pussy that like

well they've managed to outdo themselves this year. i've never seen such a group of bell-ends all in one room before.

tbf to hughton, we're looking more solid at the back than we have for some time. and against man city and everton we took the game to them so i wouldn't say his approach overall is too negative. the only thing i think he's doing that most of us would change is persisting with nolan. though with ben arfa out now, it doesn't look there are many other options.

as much as a shithole as sunderland is, boro is far worse. hull, slough and milton keynes are my choices mind of biggest shitholes in the country

january jones

I agree totally about the importance of a winning mentality and spirit - belief counts for so much. Citeh might take a while to gain the belief to win the title but they're not far off. Despite the fact we matched them for long periods, I just knew they'd nick it. Was that down to a piece of individual briliance from Johnson or the collective mentality of the team ?

4-5-1 isn't necessarily a defensive formation, it depends on how you play. I don't think we were defensive against Blackpool, and when you start with 2 wingers and a shadow striker (yes I know it's only Nolan but still) it's harsh to call that overly negative in my view. If it had been like the beginning of last season where we sometimes lined up with a midfield of Gutierrez, Smith, Nolan, Barton and Guthrie then I'd be inclined to agree with you, but that hasn't been the case. If he was to drop Nolan and stick Ben Arfa in the hole, with Gutierrez out wideit would be the same system, but no-one could say it was negative or defensive. good point. chelsea play 4-5-1 at home and no one calls it defensive. it's the right formation with the wrong players - the system needs mobility and pace in the front 4. hughton's got it half right by dropping smith for tiote. now he needs to drop nolan for gutierrez. i've been impressed with hughton so far this season but he has a big call to make now and it's a test for him. at home, he should be playing our three most attack minded midfielders - routeledge, ben arfa and gutierrez. i don't mind nolan playing in the hole away from home but against poorer quality teams we need more pace behind the front man. It's more of a 4-3-3 like. same difference. 4-3-3 when attacking becomes a 4-5-1 when defending. it's still playing with one striker, three midfielders and two wide men however you label it - same as us. It's nothing like how we play tbf. Drogba and Anelka are both roaming forwards with pace and guile who interchange, taking turns to come deep. They in turn get overlapped by Kalou and Lampard and Malouda etc..It's a rotating 433. ------------Drogba------ -------Malouda-----Aneilka--- ------------Essien------- ------Ramires---Obi------- obviously their players are a million times better than ours but it's still the same system - one front man and two wide players getting up to support him. the main difference is we've got nolan supporting the front line man from midfield - they've got lampard or essien. i reckon this line up would be the best use of our current players: --------------------------------------------harper simpson/taylor-------williamson/campbell----------collocini-----------enrique ----------------------------------tiote----------------barton/guthrie --------routeledge-----------------------ben arfa-------------------------gutieerez --------------------------------------------carroll

4-5-1 isn't necessarily a defensive formation, it depends on how you play. I don't think we were defensive against Blackpool, and when you start with 2 wingers and a shadow striker (yes I know it's only Nolan but still) it's harsh to call that overly negative in my view. If it had been like the beginning of last season where we sometimes lined up with a midfield of Gutierrez, Smith, Nolan, Barton and Guthrie then I'd be inclined to agree with you, but that hasn't been the case. If he was to drop Nolan and stick Ben Arfa in the hole, with Gutierrez out wideit would be the same system, but no-one could say it was negative or defensive. good point. chelsea play 4-5-1 at home and no one calls it defensive. it's the right formation with the wrong players - the system needs mobility and pace in the front 4. hughton's got it half right by dropping smith for tiote. now he needs to drop nolan for gutierrez. i've been impressed with hughton so far this season but he has a big call to make now and it's a test for him. at home, he should be playing our three most attack minded midfielders - routeledge, ben arfa and gutierrez. i don't mind nolan playing in the hole away from home but against poorer quality teams we need more pace behind the front man. It's more of a 4-3-3 like. same difference. 4-3-3 when attacking becomes a 4-5-1 when defending. it's still playing with one striker, three midfielders and two wide men however you label it - same as us.