Isegrim

Aye, I'll bet the laptops of all the top national sports journalists are on fire as we speak. 108858[/snapback] Tomorrow's headline: "Lunatic fringe getting hoaxed"

The gloating bastid will be back on here after tomorrow's game anyway...

The thing is that Boumsong isn't making mistakes because he is let down by the incompetence of his partners but that he is making mistakes that are only down to his defending abilities like mishitting the ball yesterday or looking very poor in direct duels with 3rd division players (Cheltenham spring to my mind).

It's ridiculous. I rather want to see Moore in the team than Boumsong...

Sounds like it's coming from Herr Babelfish.

I've only seen Rapid Bucharest playing Hamburg in the last round but they really impressed me. They also knocked out some other decent teams in earlier stages. I wouldn't be too surprised if one of the eastern European teams wins it.

from todays Fiver.

He does sometimes. But even his misses get voted goal of the month.

You'll never get an invite to join if you keep making posts like that tbh. 107363[/snapback] He's already trying to chum up by using a Hessian flag.

Whilst (sadly) I agree that we could do a lot worse, that shouldn't however stop us from demanding better or asking pertinent questions about the management of our club or those who 'manage' it. And neither should it ever hold us back from wanting change. Alan Sugar was a Freddy Shepherd, he spent big, or tried to, he targeted big names, he talked the talk, but the people in control of Spurs today, who don't have his wealth or status, run the club much better than he ever did. They sprang out of a boardroom of a corporate bricks and mortar business. Some of them aren't even Spurs supporters or were born within a stones throw of White Hart Lane. It shouldn't be a question of who can replace Shepherd anyway, it doesn't need to be a mega rich businessman, a sugar daddy (Shepherd is neither anyway), or any kind of individual. We don't need a saviour like Steve Gibson or Dave Whelan. We just need a competent board. The club makes enough money to sustain itself. While I would ideally like the CEO or a Chairman of our club to be a Geordie, I realise the merits an independent board can bring, after all Chelsea, Arsenal and Man Utd before and now, were all ran by independent people not blood-tied to the 'their' respective clubs. And look at the success they've had. To sum up, I think we could do a hell of a lot better than FS and the Halls, a hell of a lot better and I'd wager that we would have far more success as a club without them, than with them. 107270[/snapback] Only you could pick out the one positive thing I said about Shepherd and do a long essay on it. 107365[/snapback] Long? By HTT's standards this is a one-liner.

Woohoo, a front line of Owen, Torres, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho and van Nistelrooy. I'm getting soooo excited... Next they are saying Brett Emerton will be a Newcastle player by the end of the week.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=I9pu_9dthN0

I don't think anybody on here disagrees that terrorists should get locked up for security reasons. And I don't think anyone disagrees that there has to be the possibility of locking up suspects if there is sufficient evidence. The only thing is about the proceedings. You don't need a place like Guantanamo and you don't need to abstain from basic human rights like a fair trial. A normal prison is sufficient enough, as well is a normal criminal proceeding. Here in Jormany we had the trial against a muslim terrorist who got a hefty penalty and will enjoy a long time in prison. Remarkable was his last word where he told about his astonishment regarding the treatment he got because his religious feelings got respected as he got the right food, was allowed to read in the Koran and allowed to pray. Nobody was apologetic about his actions and there was no chance his penalty was going to get reduced . And nobody thinks that this terrorist has been 'reformed'. I think this kind of tolerance is setting a far better example than betraying our ideals. The best way to spit in the face of those religious nutters is by showing that we don't have to lower our moral values to fight against them but just treat them as what they are: lunatic criminals. Oh yes, and I like it to be a fancy dan lecturer...

You need a Braille monitor and keyboard like me ! 106708[/snapback] Obtainable on order from Dell.

Is Rooney not coming as well? 106978[/snapback] I wasn't talking about subs tbh.

He's set to complete the forward line with previous targets Ronaldo and Ronaldinho...

I don't think we have to alter our methods in the slightest to convict a terrorist because of a crime. And I don't think that a place run like Guantanmo makes another terrorist less likely. In fact I think it makes future terrorist attacks more likely, because it is a symbol that enrages fundamentalistic lunatics even more. And it helps to recruit new people because they just have to mention the name 'Guantanamo'. There are just 500 detainees at Guantanamo and only very few alleged high rank terrorists from Al Qaida or the Taliban. But I think the number of people recruited as new terrorists because of Guantanamo is about ten times the numbers of the actual detainees. And they are the people we really have to fear. 106620[/snapback] Pure conjecture, I'm afraid. These people are indoctrinated from an early age, their recruitment has absolutely zero to do with Guantanamo. 106669[/snapback] What? People like the 9/11 terrorists from Hamburg who weren't indoctrinated from the early age at all? Those people Mohammed Atta could recruit in Jormany? I don't know much about the London-terrorists, but when did their indoctrination start and when and why were they prepared to kill themselves for the cause of Islam? Terrorists need a concept of the enemy, and in this case it gets boosted by a symbolic place like Guantanamo whose practical value is very little. Of course do the terrorist cells need fresh blood (especially as they keep decimating themselves on purpose). So recruitment plays a big part in the strategy and you need people willing to get indoctrinated.

clicky clicky

Magnifico.

I don't think we have to alter our methods in the slightest to convict a terrorist because of a crime. And I don't think that a place run like Guantanmo makes another terrorist less likely. In fact I think it makes future terrorist attacks more likely, because it is a symbol that enrages fundamentalistic lunatics even more. And it helps to recruit new people because they just have to mention the name 'Guantanamo'. There are just 500 detainees at Guantanamo and only very few alleged high rank terrorists from Al Qaida or the Taliban. But I think the number of people recruited as new terrorists because of Guantanamo is about ten times the numbers of the actual detainees. And they are the people we really have to fear.

Wow, the man that never gets abusive....errrr.....gets abusive. 106384[/snapback] Er so? Couldn't give a shit tbh. I've seen people die standing up for what we believe in the West. Fuckers like you don't have a clue. Oh my, abusive again. Will Gemma stand it? 106439[/snapback] Ah, so people have died for our right to have places like Guantanamo where we can lock away people for dubious reasons in dubious circumstances? Sorry, I always believed the West stood for its civil rights like fair trials and all this nonsense... 106456[/snapback] And you know this FOR A FACT? How about you define a DUBIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE? Please take into account that when these suspected terrorists are nabbed, the people doing the nabbing are under extreme pressure. Pressure of having their head cut off with a rusty blade. I would never claim we get it right all the time and I would never claim we have no bad apples. No doubt you believe we should be expected to get it right all the time and that we will never have any bad apples. Wake up and become a part of the real world, mate. This is no joking matter and shouldn't be taken lightly. Idealists passing judgement on people living in dangerous circumstances, doing something they have no understanding of, would make me laugh if it wasn't so serious. 106581[/snapback] Why I know it for a fact? Well, there have been people released from Guantanamo because they had to be found not guilty. Those people are now free to tell their versions about their treatment at Guantanamo and how they were kidnapped. Even when taking into account the possbility of lies and exaggerations they still give a sorry verdict about the state at Guantanamo bay. Also after a judgement of an American court the department of defense had to release the protocols of the testimonies of the detainees. Those are official documents who sometimes have more resemblance to a surreal comedy than to a court hearing (http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt/index.html). And make no mistake, it isn't just about the 'nabbing' of the people as suspected terrorists. You are totally right that the ordinary soldiers who are doing their job are under extreme pressure and having a difficult job to do. But that doesn't excuse the process that started in the aftermaths, because that is the time were our western values come to place. You might know better what the job of a soldier is about, but I consider myself competent enough to pass judgement about the standard of legal proceedings. And in my eyes even suspected terrorists have the right of a trial in accordance with the rule of law. It is not about letting those people free but it is about locking them up when they have been found guilty. If there is evidence that those people detained at Guantanmo are terrorists or did help terrorists then maybe imprison them for several years, decades or for the rest of their lives. But if you can't come up with the evidence then you can't keep someone locked up just because he was found at the wrong place in Afghanistan when an American combat unit drove by. The other things is that an imprisonment on remand should neither take place at a part of an island where American law doesn't apply nor should it take four years to charge or clear the suspects. And if you charge them give them a fair trial, not just a hearing in front of a military tribunal without sufficient legal aid, competent translators etc. You can gladly call me an idealist, though I repeat I thought these were the ideals that separates us from the terrorists and muslim fundamentalists...

Wow, the man that never gets abusive....errrr.....gets abusive. 106384[/snapback] Er so? Couldn't give a shit tbh. I've seen people die standing up for what we believe in the West. Fuckers like you don't have a clue. Oh my, abusive again. Will Gemma stand it? 106439[/snapback] Ah, so people have died for our right to have places like Guantanamo where we can lock away people for dubious reasons in dubious circumstances? Sorry, I always believed the West stood for its civil rights like fair trials and all this nonsense...

Don't know why the hell i put Mick Martin instead of Tommy Craig there! 106389[/snapback] Just to put me close to a heart attack?

BTW - they yesterday had a report on TV about the British kitchen and were showing a shop selling deep fried mars bars in Edinburg. But not only that but also deep fried pizza ... though at least it wasn't tartan...

Blogs, the thunderboxes of the world wide web...