stu0x

Do your research. Nothing that I have posted is in any way restricted, it's all in the public domain. I happen to know a lot about terrorism as a result of my job, but there's nothing stopping you from doing a bit of reading. Pol Pot was never indicted either. In fact he held majority UN support whilst presiding over some of the worst genocides in history. So I guess he never did it either?

It's not like this guy was 'picked on'. He was an extremely vocal very senior member of an organisation whose aims are the death of you, me, and everyone else on this forum. See this is the thing that people don't understand about AQ. Someone earlier in the thread compared it to the IRA/Martin McGuinness. The comparison doesn't stand up. The Republicans' aim is the 'liberation' of the island of Ireland. They have/had a political motivation. Generally, when the IRA planted bombs, they phoned in a warning. Their objective was to undermine and humiliate the Government to effect change. When the IRA killed people, it was *usually* either a mistake, or targeting what they considered valid military targets (Police, Army, Loyalist paramilitaries). The IRA realised there was no mileage in the indiscriminate murder of civilians, as it would negatively affect the support they needed to engender to achieve their aims. Al Qaeda is the polar opposite of this. Their beliefs are idealogical, not political. The stated aims of AQ are 1) the destruction of Western democratic society 2) the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate throughout the Middle East, Africa and Europe 3) the imposition of Sharia law. They believe that *any* act is not only justified but encouraged in the support of violent Jihad and the achievement of those aims. It also has nothing to do with religion - your common or garden 'non Islamist' muslim is just as fair game, and in some ways is a higher target, than your jews, christians, etc. I'm not making this up, it isnt opinion or 'propaganda', these are the openly stated aims of Al Qaeda. You cannot negotiate with fanatics. There is no wiggle room there, there's nothing 'we' can offer them - other than to no longer exist. It's not as if AAA became a political enemy buy speaking out of turn and criticising the establishment. You cant compare him with someone under house arrest in Burma. He advocated, supported, encouraged and authorised acts of mass murder with the specific intent of killing as many people as possible. He made himself, by his beliefs and actions, a military target, not a political one. His death was the result of a legitimate military action. You should be no more concerned about his death than that of any other murderous fanatic.

Sounds like the civilian alter ego of a Superhero. For that reason alone, I'm in.

Rich lists of any kind are pointless. They're based on wildly speculative conjecture. Even just accurately figuring out what these people are worth, if you had unrestricted access to their total assets (which the compilers of the list don't) would be ludicrously complicated. But more importantly these kind of people do not go about publishing their assets. Our owners in particular would be incredibly secretive about that sort of thing, it's the Swiss way of doing things. The fact that the authors of the list probably don't even know who our owners are (beyond 'Liebherr family', whatever that means) is case in point.

Your use of the word 'apparently' and the phrase 'we'll probably never know' indicates that you dont/didn't really know a great deal about him, which is probably why you find it scary. AAA was not 'apparently' a very bad man. He was the head of global AQ following the death of bin Laden, and for several years has been the number 2 or 3 (depending on how you grade these things) of that organisation. He was directly responsible for a number of terrorist attacks and many more terrorist plots. He unequivocably supported and advocated terrorism as justifiable 'jihad' including the use of suicide bombing against civilian targets and specifically women and children. He was a terrorist, there are no ifs or buts about it. Just because you personally might not know his name as well as you know bin Laden's, it doesn't mean others don't. Look at it this way - when was the first time you became fully aware of bin Laden? For 99.9% of people it was September 11th 2001. Yet he'd been on the Ten Most Wanted list for years and had been involved in terrorist attacks internationally for almost 10 years beforehand. Did he suddenly become a bad man on 9/11, just because that's when most people knew his name?

Wow. Thanks for educating me. I guess those Law quals, years of experience, and having actually worked with one of the draftsmen on the study papers for the Sexual Offences Act, were all blown out of the water by your forum post. I'll make sure I say 50 hail mary's next time I'm at the Bailey. If you quote the legal definition of something, but leave out a fundamental element of it, it's pretty much the opposite of 'irrelevant'. Whatever. Simply reading the posts in order demonstrates that you're talking nonsense. If it hurts your ego too much to admit it, don't worry about it.

No, you aren't. You said it requires vaginal or anal intercourse. Penetration of the mouth (by a penis) is also s1 rape, as you subsequently appear to have discovered by google/wiki

Seems he went to the same hair clinic as Wayne Rooney, surely that's a massive clue

You can actually see the line on her neck where she changes from everyday-orange into show-brown. She looks like someone's swapped the heads on a pair of 'ethnically complementary' barbie dolls. Albeit ones that have been left on a radiator.

But that is extremely unlikely to actually happen. At present the League sells broadcasting rights individually to European countries. All that will happen is they will sell exclusive broadcasting rights, European-wide as one package, to Sky for the additional 10% premium than they currently pay. In European countries that have no Sky presence, Sky will re-sell those rights to local broadcasters. Sky could then simply enforce a no-compete element to the foreign broadcasting rights, on the basis that they own them.

Hilarious. You're so desperate to whinge, you didn't even notice you've already whinged in this very thread and quoting the exact same post. Top skills.

1) No it doesn't 2) Men have arses too

Sounds like you're just sore you didn't get a name check

Clearly we should have a few bars from the Vengabus...

It's not just crown copyright that expires

I understood that all the tickets were free, on the basis that the penalty is supposed to be partly financial. Also Fenerbahce are one of the 'big three' Istanbul clubs that account for the vast majority of fans in Turkey, and they are, like Barcelona (and arguably more successfully than Barca,) a sports club that competes in many fields, and very successful in most. All that being said, it's not that much of a surprise they managed to attract so many. The closest equivalent would be to ask if United would manage to attract 40,000 women and children to Old Trafford for free - I'd suggest they would.

People have been coming out with this nonsense since day one of Abramovich at Chelsea, and there is literally about 0.1% chance of either of those things happening, for a host of reasons. There is literally *no* chance of them happening at City.

No. No one can.

Don't bother, sign Oskarsson, Toledo, Roncatto, Braathan, Guarin and FWT. Combined will cost you less than Connolly and you'll win the Champions League

There is. The table at the end of the season. Any one match before then is irrelevant in isolation.

True. It makes a lot more sense that there was an international shadow conspiracy involving the murder of thousands of people that would require the complicit involvement and subsequent silence of hundreds if not thousands of people, all for reasons unknown or too vague to properly explain - and then someone accidentally told a BBC reporter.

It's ironic that one of the few who have been conclusively proven to have gotten it wrong steadfastly refuses to accept it, even on a thread dedicated to doing so in a light-hearted and irreverent fashion. And you wonder why so few people have any time for you...

We're flying high at the top of the division, and seen as a progressive, forward thinking team (and club) that has every chance of being promoted. In short, I'd hope we'd be aiming a lot higher for a loan deal. We need to be looking at the sort of deal that took Bendtner to Birmingham in '06 or Taarabt to QPR last year. A player from a PL club with obvious quality who is not getting a game in their parent club. And we should have sufficient 'collateral' in terms of our reputation and results to achieve that. I'd be looking at someone like Nimely(sp?) from Man City, Diouf from United, maybe even Macheda from United. (I've just re-read that first paragraph, and imagined saying it 25 short months ago. I would probably be sectioned.)

I always find it amazing how, in the age of the apparently 'enlightened' football fan, such entrenched established 'wisdom' is trotted out again and again as if it's validity is self-evident. For all the words written and spoken about football nowadays, the lexicon is still embarrassingly small. Because obviously there are no successful teams that don't use at least one massive, largely immobile central defender. There are no situations in which two more dynamic 'ball-playing' centre backs might be more effective. And there is no benefit to introducing competition in all positions, even ones where your best players play, because they are immune to injury, fatigue, or loss of form.

Answer: no