Weezil

Well............ if you see an impending flood approaching, be sure to point the gun downwards and fire very rapidly. The resultant recoil will allow you to remain suspended above the water line. If any "Looting. Illegal mexicans" pass by, simply divert your line of fire. Be sure to ask for proof of nationality before comprimising your new-found enthusiasm in Newton's third law Don't forget to pull your other piece out and fire in the other direction to counteract any sideways recoil. Keep shouting "yee haaa!" alot to attract some well deserved press attention. I know what you're thinking, I should get out more...You're right

But.....it gives you lovely hair . A big toke on that Jenkem pipe and you might be tempted

, nice one. In the interests of mantaining this thread in Speakers corner, I think you should stipulate precisely the ratio of left versus right pigs feet. ....and what the hell is going on with the green onions and red pepper flakes, sounds like lefty tripe to me.....

Maybe....maybe not....

What about some neutral tripe as well, ...purely in the interest of balance...

Ok, I after reading the link you posted I can see your point

Well, if it was featured in an article by the New york times, why didn't you say so? You could of claimed it was their poor research and not your own. More to the point, it would of been more interesting if you provided the link so we could of evaluated their critique and not the lack of yours Plenty, is the obvious answer. Christianity has a bloodthirsty reputation, but it would be ridiculous to try and tar all practicing modern-day christians with that brush. If you are talking about fact, and by this I mean what is actually quoted in religious text and not practiced by fundamantalist nutters, then the Koran is one of the few religious texts to preach tolerance and respect to people from other religions. You have not kept this thread on track at all. You have directed our attention to a web-site that for all intentions seems very moderate and rather interesting. There is nothing in your criticism of islam that is reflected in the editorial of this website.

There is about 3 or 4 threads going on in one reply here. A broad critique of islam does not justify your lack of research and poor choice in finding this "jihadi website". I suggest you find a better example of a religious extremist website (there's plenty out there for all religions) and you may get a better response. The last statment proclaiming islamic intolerance in Saudi Arabia, yet sanctioning the use of disproportionate force and "killing the money" appears at best contradictory. Care to try again?

QuotePost: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.islamicnetwork.com/ Interesting. Any thoughts out there? This is not a culture that wants to live with other cultures. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can you point to where specifically on the site you came to that conclusion? All I can see (on the forum part) is mainly westerners making offensive comments on something they know feck all about.Quote I have to agree. I can't see anything immediately offensive about this website. I'm sure there may be some choice comments hidden deep within some of the discussion groups, but the same could be said of this website . I am wondering what the point of the OP was, it seems rather serene and less reactionary than other religious websites I've seen. The first paragraph here seems less than confrontational and just wondering where the "jihadi web site" thread label came from. If anything, I was offended by the sheer number of useless ringtones available these days

Speaking as a non-american looking in I thought the whole point behind the media uproar was that he had been exposed for his ridiculous double standards. Presumably if he was a progressive democrat (or republican for that matter), then the homsexual nature of these clandestine meetings wouldn't be so much in question, but one of general decency in a public space. Why should he be left alone? He should be held to account for why he actively pursues and persecutes perfectly law-abiding decent people for engaging in an act that he clearly enjoys doing in a public toilet.This logic would apply to the person irrespective of thier political views or country. I think people are buying 'tickets' for more voyeuristic reasons ie watching a man who clearly enjoyed persecuting homosexuals being exposed as one. THe fact that he lies and squirms around the facts just adds value to the ticket.

I don't think this was their original motivation. I don't see them cynically manipulating the press like a B list celebrity who craves attnetion. I guess they were hoping to find their daughter quickly by keeping the trail hot. The fact it has gone cold and the press have turned on them was in any ways something they hadn't anticipated. Many of the papers today seem detached from them and focusing on forensic details from disclosed and undisclosed sources. This trial by media has been going on for some time in the portuguese and european press, and it looks like now it's going to get uglier in the british press

THis is true. What is incredible to watch is the level of coverage this case has from Sky news. It was the headline story today for news on the hour EVERY time I looked throughout this morning and this evening. This of all days on the 11th September, when Bin laden has taunted the world with his first speech in a long time. A little reflection on this matter by highlighting this anniversary occasionally through the day wouldnt of gone amiss I am not saying this story isnt worthy but this level of coverage for the same story has led to feverish hysterical monotony and an obsessive rehashing of the same facts The other news channels flitted between headline stories as and when facts from other news events came in, indicating at least some balance. I guess with this intensity of cover, speculation on live TV during a news vacum inevitably leads to trial by television

Hmm, each report that comes in about this seems incomplete, contradictory or just plain confusing. I guess it is hardly surprising considering the level of secrecy in this investigation. This particular report is a good example, as yesterday Sky were reporting a ‘blood sample’ and the next day it is a ‘DNA sample’. This distinction is important, as hair samples have a greater capacity to contaminate any ‘crime scene’ than blood, as they are constantly been shed becoming airborne and distributing over large areas. Declaring the presence of blood on the other hand seems more convenient if you are looking to build a case and charge someone, as it is sounds more incriminating, being suggestive of a violent altercation and/or physical trauma. However young kids of this age or forever getting scrapes and bruises, much more so than an adult, so the presence and potential for cross contamination would be much higher than a case involving an adult. I expect positive DNA identification will not only be found in areas where she is known to have occupied (eg bedroom bathroom etc), but also in places where items of used clothing may have been placed (such as a car boot) before or after she disappeared. In this respect, excluding cross-contamination would be purely speculative, there is just no way you can prove conclusively the blood/DNA sample came from direct contact of a body. DNA profiling nowadays is much more sensitive than even a few years ago and can be conducted with tiny samples, often involving a single cell or a single gene copy. This places the burden of proof on the criminal investigators, and a threshold has to be established for what constitutes a ‘positive’ result using a testing technique this sensitive, as her DNA will have contaminated all predesignated crime scenes. What is worrying is if the investigators are under such intense pressure, the threshold for what constitutes a positive result will invariably lower. For me cross-contamination is the obvious explanation. However the source of the corss-contamination may prove far more interesting to the police, for example if it was an item that was used to clean a crime scene. Obviously, keeping an open mind when investigating a case like this is critical. It seems interesting that they have not found, or maybe are not commenting on any supportive evidence of a body been placed in the boot, such as hair, clothing fibres etc. As stated before, it seems impossible to move a body, which you would of hidden from the police, with a media scrummage going on outside your front gate. Not being familiar with all the techniques of forensic science it would be interesting to hear other peoples comments! Edited to say: I hope that all this speculation will be proven pointless after her safe and speedy return. Blues

QuoteWell, it is true. I got AIDS. Altitude Induced Divorce Syndrome. I dont know... Maybe she was just tired of my shit. Haha.. I did drop a grand or two on skydiving instead of paying the mortgage and I think that was the last straw...Quote Did you pay 250-500 dollars a jump? I hope your next 4 jumps are less expensive......

Go back across the border, amigo, and take your towel-head terrorist friends with you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't you mean "mon ami" and don't you mean "across the ocean"? He is french afterall. The towels might come in handy after a long swim though...... Reason for edit: Reacting seriously like a gobshite tw*t to the orginal comment

umm, I think you just answered your own question. J I guess some of us are trying to see the bigger picture. If you want to take one article describing the opinion of one (ex)terrorist sympathiser from one tabloid newspaper, then fine. Form a big circle and slap each other on the back chanting the mantra 'we were right'. The fact you have to bump this thread to generate an even narrower response suggests your last sentiment was probably right. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(sound of sides splitting with laughter) ' know any other hilarious gags about female cliterodectomies? The absolute genius-wit of this site is reflected by the large selection of cutting-edge T-shirts avilable. Suitable for post-punk conservatives everywhere who like to spark rebellion in their own lunch time. Buy'em while they're hot......

[:) ]I think I'll do just that. I've been lurking here a along time., nice to join in. Maybe go back to lurking for a while Thanks for your time Blue skies.....

Erm, well it seemed like that for you. I pressed you in 3 previous posts (1, 2 and 3) to answer some of the more pertinent points raised in this thread. Just look back and read them this time. In each case all you did was press the point further of us questioning the integrity of the sun, without discussing anything else. Well, we did you the courtesy of replying to your posts, maybe you could return the courtesy of replying to mine?

Okay, I think I'll let you have that as the last word..... .....and rest my case. I contend you have NOT proven any bias or inaccuracy in that news story.Quote Is that an echo?. Well I guess I won't have the last word I and others have gone to some effort to demonstrate the clear bias that exists in this report. You, on the other hand, have made no such effort. In this instance, your opinion alone is not sufficent and your contention is irrelevant. If this was a court of law, you would be reaching for your cheque book this very minute. Please check out the links I gave (particularly the definition of 'bias'), read the other posters remarks, and explain why you think this report is not biased.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Slander the whole publication and hope that everyone buys it? blah blah blah... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm still waiting for you to provide an example from that particular story that shows a bias as you claim, or any incorrect facts. Speak in generalities all you want, but you've yet to show that there was anything wrong with the story which started this thread. The tits on page 3 have no bearing upon the accuracy of the story of jailed muslim terrorists on page 1. So you want me to show there is a bias in this story? Well it is right there in the title. THe correct terminology would be "Dirty bomb plotters jailed" or "Dirty bomb plotters incarcerated." The use of the term "Dirty bomb plotters caged" demonstrates a bias. towards classifying them as animals or subhuman. Something I am inclined to agree with, but nevertheless biased. So....... I am still waiting for a response to my orginal posts (drumming of fingers....)

My 'slander' as you put it has everything to do with the sun and the news of the world being a scurrilous rag and has been backed a number of times in court. My original comment against the sun was directed against the sun as a whole and surpirse that you chose this as your only reference (when by your own admission others were available!). It lends no credibility to your poll and renders your latter argument of 'prove this story biased" utterly meaningless. Afterall, in the world of journalism, reputation is everything. If they criminally bullshit on other stories (see below), why should I rely on the quality of reporting in this? Slander the whole publication and hope that everyone buys it? That won't be difficult. The sun is by its own admission a tabloid newspaper. Read the first google search description. As you are not familiar with this newspaper, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_(newspaper) and the sunday edition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World#Libel_actions_brought_against_the_News_of_the_World Be sure to check out the sections describing libel actions brought against the news of the world and 2006 phone tapping scandal for examples of how incorrect facts and criminal behaviour by this newspaper lead to multiple huge court payouts and a hefty prison sentences for one of their journalists. As for bias, there are detailed sections describing the political and social leanings of the sun/news of the world. It has a LONG history of xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, vigilantism and harrasment of celebrities and innocent parties alike by using papparazi tactics. .....and if that is not enough, it has had a set of tits splashed accross one of the primary news pages every day (page 3 if you didn't know already) for the last 38 years. You are still trying to tell me to take this newspaper seriously? Well keep on digging, but no-one will take you seriously if you carry on trying to defend the sun as a reliable source of fact. THis is not a court of law and the sun lawyers are far too shrewd to allow me to illustrate to you personally that they are presenting incorrect facts. However previous court cases (as detailed above) have shown that this paper is prepared to go well beyond "bias or incorrect facts" to titilate gullible individuals. This is the nature of tabloid journalism and I am surprised I have to point this out to you.

I have an alternative view. they voted 'set them free' purely in protest at the inane content of the poll. You don't seriously believe there are 4 mad mullahs out there, sat at their computers 24/7 clicking on dropzone polls (possibly between bouts of stroking their AK47s and dreaming of 72 virgins) in order to mantain fair representation in an otherwise meaningless poll? Well if you are out there..(large echoey sound reverberating through the ether....) .Come on you mad mullahs, speak up and lets hear it!

Aaahh, the hottest part of the sun, as a physicist I guess you would know this

There was nothing slanderous about my remark, although it was a bit sarcastic, I will admit that. However the Sun is well known for its strong editorial bias and right wing views. AS with all papers, they employ a large number of lawyers to keep there dialogue in check and avoid litigation. I guess my point is that nobody in the UK would try and make a serious point using that paper as reference alone. Click on the link at the bottom of my OP and you will see why, that was a genuine headline for this newspaper! Furthermore If there are so many quality publications discussing this serious incident, why choose this grubby publication to make your point? I suspect it is because their editorial style is so ridiculously biased (not a slanderous remark), it ensures the conclusion to your "poll" falls in line with your own personal beliefs without ambiguity. If that is the case, why bother with this rhetorical poll, afterall it is an interesting subject to discuss but again trivialised by your limited scope of answers. Thank you for the google links, I clicked on all of the publications and not one of them discussed the muslim beliefs of the convicted at any length, but rather they focused on their links to Al-qaeda. Not one of these journals described islam as a violent faith. If this was the case as you stated, don't you think it would be disussed at some length? Ho, hum, still waiting for replies on the other points