Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There’s no way i can see anyone stopping Chelsea over the course of the season. Their squad, and strength in depth is a huge strong point.
The others might get closer, and 1st place might change a few times in Sept and Oct, but by Christmas or January I would expect Chelsea too be pulling away.@fastcars wrote:
@Bad Manners wrote:
@fastcars wrote:
God is a figmant of our imaginations. A bit like an imaginary friend who we turn to in times of desperate need, when mortals in the real world can’t seem to help us any more.
Its comforting to know we can turn to our imaginary friend in times of woe but it doesn’t mean he exsists.I still havent seen anyone give an explantion why the Universe was created. There had to be a beginning. A spark. In that instance God is as good an explantion as any.
Have u ever heard of evolution?
Im talking about the beginning of ANYTHING anywhere Fast. I aint talking about the Evolutionary Process on Earth.
@pikey wrote:
I suppose God is as good an explanation for the start of the universe in the absence of any other compelling theory, Manners. However, it occurs to me that is precisely what God and gods have always been – an easy way to explain away difficult subjects. The province of God, in that respect, has been getting smaller and smaller as time has gone by. He, She or They is/are needed less and less.
That said, though, there is absolutely no evidence that God or Gods was/were involved at all and, so, it must be regarded as an article of faith, rather than an explanation designed to fit the facts.
There had to have been a spark though Pikey. The VERY beginning of anything. I dont think it’s likely to come about by itself.
The Big Bang had to have a beginning as well surely. Surely a God willing the Universe into exsitence is more practical than a Universe willing itself into exsistence.I dunno what their population of Muslims/Arabic people is Pikey. Not as large as ours I’d imagine offhand.
If it had a larger Muslim/ Arabic population than ours and they had more scares then Im sure Bush and his cronies could cast aside their 1st Amendment to conjure up some Draconian methods for survellance.Im comparing it with the fact the guy aint worth than 8 mill. :wink: He’s limited.
How much did Spurs shaft Man u for for Carrick? 18 Mill or something. Lucky if the guys worth 8 mill.
What Not to Take From Britain’s Success
By Juliette N. Kayyem
Saturday, August 12, 2006; Page A21While many Americans may have an inferiority complex about things British — the refinement, the style and, of course, those accents — it would be a mistake to carry it over to the area of counterterrorism.
This week, soon after authorities in London announced the arrests of a group of people allegedly plotting to bomb a number of airliners, commentators and experts were marveling at how the British disrupted the attack and asking whether we needed to be more like them, with their less restrictive surveillance laws, a domestic intelligence agency, almost no rules against watching and tracking Muslims in mosques or community centers, and no First Amendment. But those would be the very lessons we ought not to learn from this week’s events.
First, Britain has been the target of three serious homegrown attacks, either successful or attempted, since Sept. 11, 2001 — and all since the Iraq war began. The suspects are all from immigrant families, all young men who appear to have felt no allegiance to their nation or the freedoms they enjoyed. Their alienation was so complete that they sought to kill their own countrymen.
Second, the disruption this week of the bomb plot occurred because of very good human intelligence: a person’s infiltrating the terrorist cell, convincing the plotters that he was part of their plan, and then turning on them when they started to get serious. Finally, there was nothing in airline or airport security that stopped the plot, despite the frenzy of security activity at airports throughout the world since Sept. 11. These facts suggest helpful lessons that might get lost in the flurry of the U.S. administration’s “we are still under threat” attitude.
No one doubts that we are under attack, but this week’s developments should motivate us to assess our priorities, including what we are doing right. Though there is considerable fascination with electronic surveillance — through the domestic eavesdropping program — this practice is helpful only as a complement to real and serious human intelligence efforts by our agents. The Bush administration has spent a lot of money and time promoting the National Security Agency’s surveillance program — a program that is legally suspect and has not been clearly effective in targeting real and credible threats. Unfortunately, human intelligence has gotten short shrift from the administration.
And while it is understandable to clamp down at the airports, this should be seen as a short-term reaction and not as part of any real counterterrorism effort. No terrorist attack has ever been stopped at an airport; even would-be “shoe-bomber” Richard Reid got on his plane, and only the heroic actions of flight attendants and passengers stopped him.
Finally, getting tougher on communities of interest — including pronouncements that authorities will start profiling or focusing on minority populations — is exactly what we ought not to emulate about Britain. The most serious homegrown attack on U.S. soil was by Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.
Immigrant groups feel themselves part of America, and our success is that we have made them feel that they have a role in the nation’s destiny. Tougher surveillance, profiling or efforts that risk alienation might give us a sense that we are doing something, but the long-term legacy of such efforts could well prove self-destructive. Investing in those communities and asking for their assistance in the fight against terrorism is a smarter strategy.
There is much to learn from the British: their reticence about disclosing details, their clear expertise in human intelligence, their non-hysterical reaction to very real threats. But how we deal with our immigrant and domestic populations is certainly not one of them.
This is from the Washington Post. Seems a bit arrogant to me. Kinda making out that Britain is alienating it’s immigrant community by using strong arm tactics.
Na Nite.
Yup we’ll done to the man. 8)
Yep. He’s British.
I say well done to Robbo for rising above stupid banter remarks. I always wanted to see Tim Henman doing well.
