pap

What, like that paedophilia in the establishment you didn't think was a problem? Which of those two things do you refute, then? She did say those words during the interview. She was assassinated shortly afterward. I'm not actually linking the two - as we've seen today, difficult getting much of a coherent picture of Pakistan. Bhutto had political enemies all over. I'd have thought the issue of Bin Laden's corporeal existence would have been hugely relevant to the US. It was among the reasons for going into Afghanistan. Thing is though, you're right. It's irrelevant, and actually pretty harmful to some of the follow-up plans that the US had, such as the invasion of Iraq or a continued presence in Afghanistan. I'm rooting for the official story on the end of OBL, though. The most wanted person on the planet. Forces ostensibly storm in, shoot him in his jim-jams, put the corpse in a box and drop it into an ocean. It's a brilliant and bizarre ending to proceedings. I was expecting a predictable court-room drama as the denouement, played out in an international court or something, in keeping with the values of Western democracies and upholding precedents like Nuremburg.

One can hope. I've never been entirely sure of where Pakistani loyalties lie. If there is one good thing to come from this horrendous attack, it will hopefully harden the resolve against the Taleban.

We haven't learned from our mistakes. The Americans have been on the world stage for a century. They can look within that century and find numerous examples of what can go wrong you try to conquer another country. The Phillipine insurrection and the guerilla war against the Viet Cong are just two. We know that you can't kill terrorists to death to solve terrorism. Trying harder basically involves genocide or collective punishment, whichever works soonest. Collective punishment didn't work, so we're left with genocide. You sure you're ready for that level of "committment"?

No, but Pakistani kids are being killed by drones on a regular basis. I wonder, where do you get the idea that the Taleban are going to get destroyed? We tried that, with the full conventional force of the world's most technologically advanced nation. If it didn't work then, it's unlikely to work now.

State sponsored terror isn't any less terrifying for the victims. The drone collateral damage rate is around 95%. This event is an aberration that has rightly raised the heckles of decent people. Drone strikes are business as usual.

That's a boll*cks argument, imo. At the end of the day, this is a technologically country of almost 70million people. If existing financial firms don't fancy operating in that climate because they don't like the tax regime, others will.

Forgive me fellow posters. I am about to sin. What the actual f**k? Low alcohol beer? On a par with decaffeinated coffee and possibly worse. I hated beer as a kid. Naturally, I acquired the taste but I still view it as f**king pointless without the alcohol component. Consequently, I just don't get what people get out of low alcohol beer. If you need to be a real man when unable to drink, just rip a telephone directory in half or something. (they are much smaller these days).

Cop out, imo. These firms enjoy all of the benefits of operating in the UK, but bear few of the costs. HMRC is a vastly powerful organisation which is directly responsible for letting a lot of these firms off fúcking huge tax bills. From that perspective, it seems that all HMRC has to do is not let them off.

Yup. That'd be us. Whether we have the capacity to do it remains to be seen. Personally, I think the British public will remain as apathetic and misled as it has ever been, but there are some interesting things happening in the background which could act as a social catalyst. The bread and circuses thing has worked fine until now, but I do wonder how effective it'll be once the bread is removed.

Nonsense. Taxing these firms is one of the few solutions he has suggested.

Depends on who you believe. Benazir Bhutto said Bin Laden died in the early 2000s. She was dead a week after making the claim.

Shall I just quote the entire article next time, just so that you don't have the tiniest of platforms to make this semblance of a point?

Which is one of RB's points. He has no faith in it. Doesn't believe in it. The media are doing a top job of attempting to stifle his message, judging by the comments on this thread, but I wonder, which of his comments do people take such issue with? Huge corporate tax-dodging is something he speaks of loads. Who is actually opposed to that, bar the shareholders of those corporations avoiding tax? Now if he was positing himself as some kind of political leader that has aspirations of becoming PM, then fair play to those calling for him to stand - becoming an MP is surely the most credible way to achieve that aim. That's not really his game though, is it? Seems to me as if he is more interested in raising awareness of the huge inequalities in our system.

The fact is that near half of all terrorist prosecutions in the US are the result of entrapment. There is a whole army of extremists camping out in Iraq, whereas once there was just one dictator to deal with. Incidentally, much of the "evidence" that was presented by Colin Powell at the UN was concocted boll*cks from one of the people they tortured, not that it really makes much difference. The US had pre-9/11 plans for going into Iraq, as far as going on to describe who'll get the spoils of war. Bush's cabal was always going into Iraq.

They've a funny way of going about it. Multiple choice question, aintforever. Have US actions since 2001:- 1) Increased the chances of creating more extremists 2) Reduced the chances of creating more extremists ?

What did Martin Bell achieve, exactly? He went into Parliament on an anti-corruption ticket. Did he sort all that out, then?

And whelk didn't read beyond the headline More than a shrug. Almost 30% of people didn't believe that it was justified, despite the word "torture" appearing nowhere in the survey.

Wasn't really thinking of you KRG, but props for your honesty. Speaking of which, I think envy is the main reason people don't like him, particularly on a medium like an Internet forum, where every poster is here to express an opinion and be heard. What Brand does is much like anyone here does. The only real difference is that millions of people will be on Brand's content almost immediately. You might be lucky enough to get a "THIS" here, whereas Brand was so inclined, he could put out a YouTube vid detailing all the best dumps he's ever had and still get more attention than the most eloquently expressed opinion on here. The nine million quid probably doesn't help the whole envy thing either.

Actually, I think saint lard is entitled to his opinion, as he is entitled to bring it up if he feels vindicated. He'd probably get more joy on the Reading forums though.

To save a bit of time, would those that don't like Russell Brand answer one question honestly? Are you at all envious of the bloke?

To what end, though? To pointlessly placate those that still believe in a system he doesn't believe in and don't like him anyway? From KRG's linked article:-

Yeah, this. And stop posting my images as if they are your own. That goes for Steve Grant too, and although I have to admit a certain satisfaction in the pair of you bathing in my reflected glory, I'm tired of explaining that I'm the originator of the image when someone re-posts it for my delight.

Does it? Let's examine Brand standing, shall we? Option one is to stand on his own account, the only feasible option to gain a seat without compromising many principles. Of course, he'll be up against the campaign machines of the other parties, but let's say his fame gets him enough of the novelty vote to gain a seat? What then? He's a voting bloc of one, so he'll have no real power. If he continues to do his videos, he'll invariably miss some Parliamentary business and get labelled a hypocrite (again). Option two is to stand under another Party's banner which would mean a degree of compromise, staying on message, etc. I'm sure there are other routes, but the implicit idea you're floating, that you have to be in Parliament to have or express ideas about the political system, is a load of bunk. Brand is as free to express his opinions as people are not to listen to them.

Yeah, that would have been this bloke:- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/question-time-audience-member-who-defended-nigel-farage-is-ukip-meps-brother-9922648.html UKIP MEP's brother. Props to btf.