aintforever

Yes but there is a difference between "reasonable doubt" and NO doubt. If someone is caught red handed or is obviously guilty beyond any doubt, and has committed sick crimes that would mean they would probably never be released - then they should be killed IMO.

No sympathy for the guy at all, deserves all he gets. I think the death penalty is a good idea, but only in extreme cases, mass murderers etc and where there is no doubt at all of guilt. I just cannot see the point of spending a fortune keeping someone like Myra Hindley inside for their whole life, they are worthless so should just be done away with. I don't think it's important if it doesn't act as a deterant, or if the person can be rehabilitated, it's about justice - criminals getting what they deserve and the victims getting what they deserve.

Yeah, there's one big camp full of true Saints fans and there's a two man tent with Dibden Purlieu Saint and Nineteen Canteen spooning in front of shrine of Rupert Lowe.

Is it me or are the PL bringing in these new rules just in time to stitch up the Skates? The new stricter Fit and Proper Person Test was brought in the nick of time to stop Taksin's dirty money buying pompey. Now they are bringing in tough financial rules at a time when pompey appear to be up against it. It wouldn't surprise me if the PL are ****ed off about how Gaydamak used his son to get round the original FPP rules - it can't be good to have a gun-runner connected to your league when you are trying to market it as the best to a worldwide audience. Especially when the club in question doesn't have a proper ground.

It's because there is a chance Papa might be good - the alternatives we know are ****.

That is well funny, this season is the first time in years they have something close to a sustainable wage bill and they just cannot handle it. We had 27 years living within our means in the top flight, a large part of that having our best players sold by nobhead chairmen, 5 mins of the same and they are deserting in droves and protesting! I don't know what they hope to achieve by protesting, if there was anyone else interested in buying the club (unlikley), they would run a mile looking at that mess.

I think you are over complicating it somewhat, managers can and do have all sorts of specialist coaches, managers have many different styles, some are hands on, some dont see that much of the players from week to week. IMO there is little difference between having a Manager and Coach or a DOF and Head Coach. The way I understand it the difference is the DOF buys the players but lets the head coach pick the team whereas a manager does both. I just cant see it working if a DOF is brought in above Pardews head, for it to work the DOF has to appoint the manager IMO, then the DOF has a stake in the managers success.

Charlton will be desperate to put one over on Pardew, Charlton 4 Saints 0.

Why would the relatives who received calls lie, or why would the passengers pretend to be on a hijacked plane?

I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that the US security agencies new that something was being planned, and had the terrorists on their radar, but purposely let them get on with it believing they wouldn't do something so bad. Lets not forget that the attacks changed the whole attitude of a country and gave the US government the green light to plunder one of the biggest oil reserves in the world. Oil, security and arms companies stood to make billions. Plus there is the Israel connection, the whole of the US could suddenly empathise with their situation.

The military aircraft theory is clearly nonsense. If you were going to commit mass murder in such a way, live on TV across the World and in full view of thousands of people in New York, you would at least do it in the same type of plane. The idea that George Bush would just send in a military plane to crash into the world trade centre and just hope that no one would get a decent enough photo or video of it is just too bizarre to even consider.

LOL at the bloke who swears it wasn't an Airliner, how thick are his glasses!

I think the only feasible false flag attack that could have taken place would be that the planes were hijacked as per the official theory but it was undercover agents from Mossad or similar at the controls of the planes. Just because the arabs were on the planes doesn't mean they flew them.

Can't even fill their shack with kids for a quid! I wonder what excuse the blue few will come up with this time.

There will always be unanswered questions, inconsistencies and nut jobs just making stuff up in things like this but there are way more holes in any other theory I have seen than the Bin Laden one. If you have a theory of who did it, how and why, that stacks up, I would love to hear it.

And how the hell do you put enough explosives in place to bring down the towers but make sure they don't go off when you plough an airliner into it! Then carry out a carefull demolition an hour later when the towers are a burning mess, all without making a large bang. And to make it even more complex the towers must fail just at the point where the planes crashed in!

I cant see a Coppell DOF, Pardew Manager combo working, too similar in standing. I would give it a chance if Coppell was in place first and he appointed Pardew - bringing him in over his head would be a recepie for disaster IMO.

As in all conspiracy theorists you look at snippets of information and ignore all logic. If Bush wanted to blow up the Twin Towers then they simply would have staged another bombing, there is no logical reason to involve a elaborate plan involving robot pilots, demolition squads and shed loads of agents apparently willing to commit mass murder. They would simply sneak a big bomb up a tower then frame a few Afgans before shooting them. The Pentagon - if it wasn't a Airliner, what the hell was it and how did they expect to shoot missiles or whatever at the Pentagon in broad daylight and guarantee no one saw/videod/photographed it. The crash in Shanksville - it would obviously be different to other plan crashes as it was no boubt purposely nose dived into a field at full speed. There was possibly a motive for a cover up here, if the plane was shot down (maybe wrongly), but again I don't see where this would fit into some big conspiracy. I think the most likely explanation is that Bush new Bin Laden was planning something but screwed up so is cover his tracks. Or possibly he let it happen thinking Bin Laden would blow up a plane or something and the US could take the moral high ground (show the US public how bad Muslim extremists really are) and it back-fired big time. Any idea that the US government carried out the attacks if way too unbelievable.

That is one of the most suspicious things about 9/11. My guess is that the CIA don't want people to see their building get blown apart. That may be because Israeli robots were flying the plane, or simply because they don't want people to see the interior of the Pentagon or their people get burned alive. I doubt the CIA are bothered that a few internet nerds don't believe them.

I think it's fantastic how 80's violence was just "boys being boys" and violence today is "chav scum". It's a bit like how old biddies moan about the state of the world today, when their generation lived through the bloodiest most violent century the world has ever seen.

That doesn't mean a great deal, just means the actual suicide bomber was of similar description (arab like) or using his ID (If it is true).

What a dumb thread, even if the louder support does make a difference then we still need to score goals in the first half anyway. I do wonder about some of the posters on here.

Bin Laden admitted it on camera. There is no other motive for blowing the crap out of Afganistan. Iraq is a different matter though.

I've not got anything against Scotland, I think it would be more interesting if they and Northern Ireland qualify. Would be ****ing great if those Argentina ****s don't get through though.

Should be called 102 minutes that changed the World. That was shocking stuff.