Sheaf Saint

They already have a military junta and the people of the country are suffering badly for it. The point I am making is that dune believes that only foreign plundering of their mineral resources will help the Burmese people, but historical experience tells us that when multinationals get their hands on resources in poor countries, the people of that country are the very last people to benefit from it (just look at the oil-drilling in Nigeria if you want an example).

Yeah, because it's really helped them so far hasn't it. The capitalist system only works by exploitation of the already poor, and this will always be so. Forgive me if I don't share your belief that capitalism will ultimately prevail for the good of all mankind, because it most definitely won't.

Is that really all you care about dune: the mineral wealth that can be exploited by other nations for their own purposes? Do you really care nothing about the human rights abuses and atrocities that are carried out by the military regime in Burma? Do you actually have one single shred of human decency in you?

Hang on a sec mate. Please don't mistake me for one of the reactionaries who wants to "kick 'em all out". Read my posting history and you will realise that my position is diametrically opposed to that. It was Smirking_Saint who put forward the fact that Mohammed is now the most common boys name in Britain, as if that were a really bad thing. I was merely trying to put it into context a little bit. I can't find any statistics to back this up, but my bet is that for every child born to a Muslim family, the percentage of them being named Mohammed is much, much higher than the percentage of non-Muslim kids being called Oliver, or John, or Jake, or Charlie etc... I'm not using this as a stick to beat Muslims with; I'm just trying to show that the DM report about the amount of kids being called Mohammed is not as 'bad' as they and other people, like Smirking_Saint, are trying to portray it.

The other point here, of course, is that Mohammed (or other variant thereof) is an extremely popular name amongst Islamic families due to the religious connotations, and the percentage of children born to Muslim families being named Mohammed is probably a damn sight higher than the percentage of caucasian children being called Oliver. All this tells me is that Muslim families are less imaginative when it comes to naming their children.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Jn-LeUC-BnU/TNkH05BYkhI/AAAAAAAABkY/0xYW73_UuiM/s1600/untaken_name+IMG_20101105_175841.jpg I truly despair about the mentality of some people, I really do.

How do you know that the 13% of people polled in this survey in July 2006 also supported the remembrance day protest? Again you're making wild assumptions. In fact, how do we know what question these 13% of people were asked? Because that is extremely important IMO. Being asked "Do you believe that the 7/7 bombers have a valid grievance against western foreign policy?" is a world away from being asked "Do you think the 7/7 bombers are heroes who were completely justified in their killing and maiming of innocent civilians?"

That still doesn't show that the demo went ahead with the approval of Muslim leaders dune. Nice try though. Incidentally though, I notice the line in the article you quoted which states "The prime minister told MPs it was down to moderate Muslims to stand up to extremism and tell those with "grievances" against the West they were wrong."... Are they 'wrong?' we may not agree with their methods of making their point, but to dismiss their grievances as just plain 'wrong' is arrogant and dangerous IMO. Has anybody ever stopped to consider the fact that maybe they have a legitimate complaint?

Dune, if these people were really determined to go ahead with their protest, as it seems they were, do you really think they would actually give a toss if their local imam raised objections about it? As usual, you are highlighting the actions of a few and using it to paint a picture of the many. If you can show me evidence that this demo was condoned or endorsed by any leading members of the muslim faith then please do. Otherwise, stop posting your frothing, alarmist claptrap.

...Collaborate and listen Ice is back with a brand new edition!

Here's to my great grandfather, Chief Engineer John Ledingham, who was killed when his merchant navy convoy crossing the north Atlantic was attacked by a pack of German U-boats in 1942; and to his brother (my great, great uncle???) Captain James Ledingham who was killed in action in Broembeck, Belgium in 1917. Neither body was ever found.

Yep, this is my gripe and, so it would seem, Button's too. I'm not completely naive to believe that there are no team orders, as such, going on all the time. But Ferrari with that radio message were basically sticking two fingers up to the rules in a way that would have made Pompey shudder. Really? Perhaps you could refresh my memory in this area then. Since joining McLaren, Hamilton's team-mates have been Alonso, Kovaleinen and Button. Alonso would NEVER have moved over for him, Heikki was never quick enough to be in front of him in the first place and Button has never been asked to make way. So maybe you could tell me exactly when, during Hamilton's McLaren career, the team have radioed his team-mate during a race and ordered him to move over. Yes I agree, but that doesn't detract from what Button has said in his interview. Just because 'they all do it' doesn't make it OK in my book.

Agreed, as shown by the fact that the Brawn did not have the pace advantage in the latter half of the season. But he made sure that he capitalised when he did have the advantage, made no mistakes and got the points on the board; something which the Red Bulls have utterly failed to do this season. Their car is by far and away the fastest on the grid, yet neither of their drivers leads the championship. I still don't see how you can compare the two scenarios. There was nothing illegal whatsoever about Brawn's design. The other teams only whinged about it because they didn't think of it themselves. The FIA ruled that it was perfectly legal, ergo Brawn did not break any rules. What Ferrari did at Hockenheim was a blatant abuse of the rules, reinforced by the fact that they were fined by the FIA for it, and it left a sour taste for a lot of people; especially anybody who had put money on Massa to win.

http://www.planet-f1.com/news/3213/6496227/Jense-Team-orders-could-taint-Alonso-title Have to say I agree with him really. While I do not doubt Alonso's ability as a driver, he comes across as a spoiled brat who throws his toys out of the pram when things don't go his way. He couldn't pass Massa fair and square at Hockenheim so he got the team to order him to let him past instead. If this is ultimately the difference between him winning the title or not then I will be very disappointed.

Did they ever prove that the locals were actually hiding arms though?

You make a very valid point Phil, but how can the coalition or any other educated western societies ever claim the moral high ground over these groups if we are so easily influenced to lower ourselves to their level? In so doing, we are effectively saying that we despise their agenda and their methods, but we are not averse to using their own tactics ourselves to assert our authority over them. That, to me, is a display of double standards.

Biggadee biggadee bong!

I have definitely become a lot more interested in history as I have got older, although I also don't really know the specific dates or anything; I don't personally believe that the technicalities of the subject are important. For me it is all about understanding the essence and learning the lessons of our historical mistakes. For anyone interested in much, much older history, going back to the dawn of civilisation even, there is a very interesting-looking series starting tomorrow night on BBC2. This is the kind of history I have become fascinated with over recent years as it gives an insight into why human society is the way it is now, even if it is wildly different from its humble beginnings.

Indeed, like vegetarians who wear leather shoes.

The words 'torture' and 'civilised' are mutually exclusive. There is no such thing as civilised torture; it is barbaric no matter how you dress it up.

I think you misunderstand my point. I am advocating that torture should never be used in the first place, so the scenario you have described would never arise . However, IF that information has already been extracted, possibly by the intelligence agencies of another country, then it would be utterly foolish to ignore the possibility that it is correct as the consequences of failing to act on information already gained would be far too great, IMO.

In answer to the question: yes they should. I think all of us on here hoped that we could get away with it on a technicality, but deep down we knew that, morally, we deserved the -10. So do Charlton, and if they get away with it on a technicality then we should lodge an official complaint to the FL about it.

Research has shown that torture is a completely unreliable method of extracting information and I do not believe it should ever be used.

http://newsthump.com/2010/11/09/george-w-bush-still-convinced-waterboarding-is-fancy-water-skiing/

Beth Gibbons - Portishead Lou Rhodes - Lamb Both have a truly haunting quality that give me goosebumps each and every time I hear them.