Mr Shankly

I'm being serious - just going from what I have witnessed myself.

I didn't watch the entire game tonight - so I didn't hear the songs. I'm not saying it didn't happen though.

I'm talking about my time in the stands - I must have always sat in a quiet end at Celtic Park.

I'll be honest, I haven't heard the orange bastard song for ages - that's unacceptable - and so is fighting with the police. I didn't know about that.

EDIT: Where did you see/hear the Celtic fans were fighting with police and stewards?

The commentator on sky mentioned the fighting. The BBC sport website also mentioned it, stating "Trouble then broke out in the Celtic section of the ground between fans and police."

No - it's not having a go at Aberdeen fans. The Aberdeen end is the only other end I've stood in apart from Celtic so it's the only comparison I can make.

My point is - and I use Aberdeen fans as an example because I'm discussing it with Aberdeen fans on this site - that Celtic (and Rangers) fans get accused of being so fucking heinous all the time, but what I've heard from the only other set of fans I've ever sat with (and I've done it quite a few times), they are every bit as bad as the Celtic fans and sometimes a bit worse. I'm sure if I sat in amongst Hearts fans, Dundee Utd fans, Hibs fans etc it would be the same.

My argument is that all teams have a set of bellends in their stands, and is not confined to Celtic and Rangers. Another example tonight from Hearts fans acting disgracefully - worse than anything I've seen from Aberdeen fans.

Are you being serious?

From the TV coverage it was clear that there were thousands of Celtic fans singing IRA songs, singing FTQ and singing about orange b*stards. Ive been a season ticket holder at Aberdeen for the past couple of seasons and although I have heard the odd idiotic comment, you will not get hundred, or thousands of fans singing the sort of bile Celtic fans sing on a regular occasion.

It is also the case that Celtic fans were fighting with police and stewards inside the ground tonight, but I have no doubt that it will be swept under the carpet.

Yes' date=' yes I do.[/quote']

Well, you might be, if you had both CD's, but you only have one, therefore your opinion is worthless.

Do you really think you are entitled to have an opinion on the music community when you are the proud owner of Now thats what I call music 31?

Al Jazeera 06 February 2006

Iran's largest selling newspaper has announced it is holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

"It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust' date='" Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper, which is published by Tehran's conservative-run municipality, said on Monday.

He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.

"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he asserted.

lol[/quote']

It is quite shocking that someone would find the idea of cartoons denying the holocaust being printed funny, especially considering the Country where they will be printed is a clerical-fascist State that is holding a conference for holocaust deniers and whose own President is a denier.

What I do find strange, though, is that the Iranian press need to have a contest to find someone to draw an anti-Semitic cartoon when anti-Semitic writers and cartoonists are everywhere in the Middle East. Even after this cartoon debacle, the Arab media are ready to blameIsrael and Zionists for their publication in Denmark and the rest of Europe.

Damn those zionists!

I wrote, “I haven’t read any statements from him before he came to power saying that he wanted to invade Iraq,” and you replied to that with “look harder” and provided examples that ostensibly disproved that claim. Of course, as you admit, no such words exist, therefore I fail to see why you bothered replying to my post as my statement was 100% correct, especially in the context of Bux’s assertion that “Bush has been trying to invade Iraq for years, I hope we can agree on that part at least”.

No' date=' you're right, but when he admits to considering a policy of "take him out" what do you think it means?

[/quote']

I’m not sure about the exact context of that quote; I believe he was asked what would you do if Hussein was developing WMD, so it is hardly surprising he would say such a thing considering the record of the Hussein regime for supporting terrorism and attempting to invade his neighbours, but, again, it is not evidence that he was wanting to invade Iraq.

Well Mr Tanned I stand by both my statements, although my second statement was slightly misleading and I will explain why later on.

First and foremost, I am discounting what Dick Cheney had to say for himself in 2000, as he is quite irrelevant to what I said, as I explicitly referred to George W. Bush.

To support your claim that I should have looked harder to presumably find evidence that Bush called for an invasion of Iraq prior to being President, you provide an excerpt from one of the debates between Gore and Bush during the campaign for the 2000 Presidential Election, which even you admit does not call for an invasion of Iraq!

To be honest I do not know why you even bothered replying to my post, surely if you were trying to find misleading statements in the thread Buxs posts would have been a good place to start. Unless, of course you believe that the US Government carried out the 9/11 attacks or that there is a World Government going to take over to enslave the Worlds population.

As you admit, no where in that excerpt does Bush lucidly call for an invasion of Iraq, what he does do is state that he would like to see the end of Saddam Husseins tyranny in Iraq. That is hardly a controversial statement. In fact, if he refused to say that he would like to see the end of Husseins tyranny in Iraq then he would have struggled to win Texas let alone Florida in the 2000 Election.

If you do equate wanting to see the end of a dictator to an invasion of a Country the fact that both Gore and Bush probably called the end of Castros tenure during debates on foreign policy disputes that. Unless you think that the US are going to invade Cuba in the near future. (When I say probably, I mean both candidates would have had to call for the removal of Castro to have any chance of winning the pivotal State of Florida).

On that same point many people in the anti-war movement have stated that they were against the War with Iraq, but were happy to see the end of Saddam Hussein, therefore you can ostensibly support the removal of Hussein, but not an invasion of Iraq.

I presume you were against the war, but are happy that Hussein has been removed from power?

Regarding my second statement, In fact, he (Bush) campaigned on a right-wing isolationist foreign policy, I must admit that my language was slightly misleading.

When I used the term right-wing isolationist it does appear to make Bush comparable to someone like Pat Buchanan and others like him in the US. That definitely was not my intention as they are extreme isolationists who I believe still write articles today about why the US should not have entered the Second World War. Instead of the term right-wing isolationist I should have used moderate isolationist or neo-isolationist as many of Bushs views regarding foreign policy during the 2000 campaign definitely took that form. For example, one of Bushs biggest campaigns regarding foreign policy during the 2000 Election was for the removal of US troops from the Balkans.

Also, there are numerous quotes form Bush during the campaign to suggest he would have a somewhat isolationist foreign policy. For example, I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops, But we cant be all things to all people in the world. I am worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. I dont think nation-building missions are worthwhile.

Maybe you should read Bux's posts now...

Are we still in your Bush doesn't need to cheat mode? Or do you accept that he is a devil worshipping faggot' date=' who uses the Evangalists vote to get him into power, becasue his office knows; That's all they need. [/quote']

Doesn’t every politician have core supporters to get elected? If you didn’t know, religion is quite important in America and therefore both political parties try to get their support.

The point in Murdoch's senasationalist doings' date=' is simple really. [/quote']

Your ramblings on Rupert Murdoch have reminded me of an interview with the so-called left-wing American actor Tim Robbins where he complained about the American media, and in turn praised the quality of the UK media. He said something along the lines of Murdoch’s press is destroying political debate in the US and he commented that he wished the US had quality UK newspapers such as “The Times”…

Regarding Murdoch, if there was not a demand for trashy right-wing media then there wouldn’t be Fox News or The Sun, but there is, so I guess you will have to deal with it. Anyway, do you think that someone who wanted a balanced view on the Iraq situation would have looked to Fox or The Sun for enlightenment? I think not.

Of course the enlightened, like you, read “independent” websites where far right-wing whackos associate with so-called leftists and anti-Semites to get their opinion about the World across.

“It is the American Government that is evil, no it is the Zionists, yeah, but, no, but, yeah, but…the Zionists control the US Government…SHUT UP! The US Government was behind the 9/11 attacks…there is no jihadist movement…they are just fighting imperialism.”

Bush Snr has been trying to invade Iraq for years' date=' I hope we can agree on that part at least. [/quote']

Don’t you mean Bush Jnr?

I haven’t read any statements from him before he came to power saying that he wanted to invade Iraq. In fact, he campaigned on a right-wing isolationist foreign policy.

If you are referring to close allies of Bush, such as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, then yes they signed a letter to President Clinton in the mid-90’s calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein, which is not actually an usual act considering Saddam Hussein’s record of tyranny. Surely everyone is happy Saddam Hussein is not in power in Iraq anymore, then again…

Bush is telling us that our freedom is under attack constantly from the Iraqi's and that we have to fight back and protect ourselves.

I never heard Bush say “Iraqis” were a threat to America; he made it clear that the State of Iraq with Saddam Hussein in power was a threat to the West. Of course' date=' that threat was probably exaggerated, but considering Hussein’s record in power, it was not an unbelievable premise that Hussein could be a threat to the West and his own neighbours.

So the problem from a corporate scale is : Iraq harbors the 2nd highest amount of oil in the world, next to the saudi's. Without Oil, the wheel of civilisation in the U.S. will grind to a halt, obviously.

Blood for oil, eh? Surely now that Iraq is an emerging democratic Country, (it would be a democratic Country, if not for the Jihadists and ba’athists intent on making Iraq a totalitarian State again) the Iraqi Government and people will be able to benefit from its oil wealth and trade with the West. Unlike before, where the economy was wholly privatised to the bank account of the Hussein family or in various Middle-East Countries where oil wealth is used to buy palaces and to fund extreme Islamist ideologies.

The Problem from a 'Joe Bloggs' point of view is.. The towel heads just blew up our trade centres and attacked our way of life. We won't stand for that - This gives the Government 2 advantages' date=' 1) Our People are scared into believing that a war is going on. 2) Army recruitment will triple.

Reaction - As I said before about the WWI + WWII, the people are mentally and physically driven down by the corporate whore that leaves them with only one Question: What are [i']they going to do about it?. .. They being the ame people who made the problem in the first place. (There's so much evidence out there that will astound you cloud.. Like bomb on the bottom of the planes, bombs on every 20 floors, security ID system going down 2 days before the attacks..for the 1st time ever for security upgrades, the pentagon "plane" that was actually a missile)

So the US Government was behind the 9/11 attacks, yes very logical, indeed.

Could you explain why Bin Laden took responsibility for those attacks? If the US carried out the 9/11 attacks, who carried out the attacks on Bali, Madrid, Jordan, Turkey, London and numerous other places that have fallen foul of barbarism? Who are beheading and deliberating killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan today? A teacher in Afghanistan who committed the evil sin of educating a girl was beheaded only last week. Of course, the teacher should expect such an action. I mean the teacher is obviously a Western collaborator and committing an evil sin against “Islam”.

I'm just sick to the skin of me trying to convince you all of the truth...

The Truth?

I don't need to "qualify" the statement' date=' it is simple enough libertarian theory, as espoused by John Stuart Mill. Liberty should only be curbed when it infringes upon another. There is a balance of rights in our society, and certain rights automatically outweigh others. [/quote']

It seems someone has been reading Roy Hattersley in the Guardian recently

I believe Mill was more of a utilitarian than a libertarian, although both ideas have been closely connected through the years. However, I think it would be near impossible to find someone that classifies themselves as a libertarian (note the lower case l) today that would support a Government ban on smoking in public places. I have no doubt that they believe that it is the right of the owner of an establishment to decide whether to ban smoking in their property or not.

Is the solution to this problem not obvious?

Simply, there should be no smoking ban enforced by the Government, but instead, business owners should be allowed to decide whether to ban or allow smoking in their establishments. If there is a market for non-smoking and smoking establishments, which I am sure there is, then people who want to smoke will be able to go the establishment that allows smoking, whilst someone who does not want to share the room with a smoker can go to the non-smoking establishment.

It is known as a free market

Does anyone know if these two girls are the same girls featured in the Louis Theroux documentary, When Louis met the Nazis?

If I remember correctly, the two girls in the program did sing at numerous neo-Nazi rallies and had a very psychotic mother who home schooled her children, which involved her own alternative view of American history.

Some of the responses to this article, though, are a bit disgusting. I mean, rape? You should be ashamed of yourself for writing such a thing!

Thats an interesting chart position for a song that one of the band members of Arctic Monkeys described as a bit crap.

What? Sanction Israel? And have Dubya miss out on the millions of Jewish Republican voters in the US....nae bloody likely.

Considering the majority of Jewish Americans usually vote for the Democratic Party I do not think Bushs policies regarding Israel has anything to do with elections.

Anyway, this is Bushs final term in office, so I do not think he cares too much about gaining millions of voters.

I am giving up drinking as I have a beer gut. So anything to get fitter suits me. Plus I won't be hungover either.

What! No more pints of cider for Narc?

What a load of nonsense. These people aren't motivated by ideology' date=' they are motivated by all the shit that the west has done to them over the last 60 years.[/quote']

Western foreign policy in the Middle East has helped Al-Qaeda recruit many followers around the World, but it is very nave to suggest that it is only reason Al-Qaeda exist.

The sad fact of the matter is that people in the Al-Qaeda movement would primarily like to see a global Islamic State, which would be governed under Sharia Law.

Your comment makes Al-Qaeda sound like some benevolent organisation standing up for the Muslims around the World who are being tyrannised by the West, but nothing could be further from the truth.

If Muslims turn to extremism because of injustice, then why are they not concerned about the treatment of Muslims in Sudan, where Arab Muslims have slaughtered Black Muslims because of land and racial prejudices? Why is Al-Qaeda in Iraq killing barbers because they give Western haircuts or indiscriminately killing innocent Iraqis? Nothing benevolent and anti-imperial about that.

In fact, Al-Qaeda is pro-imperialism. For example, when East Timor gained independence from Indonesia in 1999, Osama Bin Laden was outraged because he believed East Timor to be an integral part of an Islamic State in Indonesia, even though it was bloodily invaded in 1975, with the backing of the US and UK, I may add.

Clerical Fascists

Errr... Pure fascism is fundimentally opposed to organised religion. Islam is an organised religion. Those bombers were religious fundimentalists. Ergo they are not fascist' date=' although they are on the far right of the political spectrum. They are closer to 'Christian' fundimentalists (those that are most contradictory in favouring both PRO-LIFE and PRO-DEATH policies. This is where you let the baby live then execute it when it turns 16 for a murder it didn't commit. Especially if it's black or a foriegn national) which are often mistaken for white supremascists because again these are both somewhere far past the right edge of sanity. [/quote']

Fascism is open to interpretation. Mussolini would be quite rightly described as a fascist, but followers of 19th Century economic liberalism may call someone like Franklin Roosevelt a fascist or the Scandinavian welfare States examples of Fascist economies, because of the State intervention of those economies.

Regarding fascism and religion, the two have quite a long history where many different faiths associated themselves with various fascist movements in the World. For example, in Croatia and Spain.

My basis for calling the bombers fascists was regarding totalitarianism. In my opinion, there is no doubt that these bombers believe in a totalitarian ideology, of course a totalitarianism where religion would be allowed, but only one religion. Therefore, I guess, what I should have called the bombers was clerical fascists, which is a term that has been used to illustrate organisations, such as Al-Qaeda, who merge fascism with religion extremism.

Personally I think it's good the bombers died as a result of their own attack - the attack is not good' date=' nor is the damage or deaths caused - had they lived the rest of their lives would have been hell and I think that probbaly a lot of people would be in favour of them recieving execution - which would be interesting to see Tony Blair's reaction and actions - and the probably Al Queda linked backlash... whome would probably present threats based upon the bombers fates. etc.[/quote']

That is a good point regarding the death penalty. There is already popular support for the death penalty in the UK, and if these bombers were not killed then I guess there would be an increase in support for the death penalty, which would be a travesty for our Country.

Anyway, the point I was originally trying to make, which I regret making now, was that all fascists should be treated equally. If someone makes a celebratory comment regarding the death of John Tyndall, they should also make positive comments regarding the deaths of the four suicide bombers who by all means are fascists, unless of course someone does not believe the Al-Qaeda movement to be fascist, which would be nonsensical to say the least.

The point suggesting that because the bombers killed over fifty people nullified any point of making a celebratory comment regarding the bombers deaths is again, nonsensical, because if a BNP member bombed a mosque and died in the process of killing scores of innocent civilians, there is no doubt that the BNP bomber that died would be greeted with a remark, such as, One down

Just to clarify, I do not care that this guy is dead, and I also do not care that the four bombers are dead either. It would have been better for their family and society if these people chose different lives and had political views and carried out actions that would make the World a better place, but unfortunately they didnt, and therefore they have paid the consequence and by no means, do they deserve anyones sympathy.

The fact they took well over fifty people with them kind of nullifies that point. I think that it was more a case of the innocent being fifty-plus down' date=' rather than terrorists being four down...[/quote']

It doesnt nullify the point at all. Therefore, did you or did you not make a comment saying it was good that the bombers died or think that it was a good thing that the four bombers died?

There has been quite an interesting discussion on this topic and most points have been covered, but there is one subject that, maybe, surprisingly has not been mentioned, which I would concisely like to address.

The subject that I am referring to is the London bombings. Did you post or say comments like, Four down in reference to the deaths of the four suicide bombers who took away the lives of innocent civilians? If not, why?

But it's not their aim to kill innocents' date=' is it? [/quote']

Surely it is irrelevant to the victims if they were deliberately targeted or not? Anyway, regarding the Iraq War, there was quite a lot of evidence showing that US snipers deliberately killed numerous residents of Fallujah.

The coalition forces are trying to re-establish order in Iraq' date=' not chaos as the terrorists are attempting to do. [/quote']

Most Iraqis, I believe, feel that the US and the coalition forces being in Iraq is the reason that there are daily terrorist attacks, and this is the prime reason why a vast majority of Iraqis want the coalition forces to withdraw from Iraq. Therefore, Iraqis believe that the coalition forces are destabilising Iraq, not re-establishing order. What should also be noted is that coalition forces have been responsible for the deaths of many more innocent Iraqis compared to the terrorists.

The idiots on Fox news mentioned some quote from a member of the Italian government and then had a lengthy discussion about last years "Milan train bombings".

FOX News is pathetic. Another idiot on the channel today was talking about how London must remain strong and how the UK must continue with the War on Terror, whilst doing so the idiot then started talking about the Spanish Government pulling their forces out of Iraq, and stated look what happened to them. By doing so, the presenter in question obviously thought that the Madrid bombings took place after the troop withdrawal, but the Spanish troops were removed after the Madrid bombings and there has since been zero terrorist attacks against the Spanish by AL-Qaeda or any affiliated group.

In regards to the War on Terror, I remember having a conversation with someone about it shortly before the invasion of Iraq and I came to the conclusion that the concept of the War on Terror was basically Orwellian. I came to this conclusion because if there are no terrorist attacks, the supporters of the War on Terror conclude that the War on Terror is working, conversely if there is a terrorist attack, like today, they conclude that the War on Terror must continue till it is won.

Terrorism prevention legislation is wholly irrelevant in regards to todays attacks when you have a leader who carries out policies that increase terrorism and the threat of terrorism for your nation.

What is going to be interesting is the populations response to these attacks. Will there be an increase in the number of people calling for British troops to be taken out of Iraq or will there now be more people saying that the troops should stay until terrorism is defeated, so attacks like today will never happen again?

I'm sure most people think the same way as you' date=' myself included. However, there ARE people who donate to make them feel better about themselves. That is a fact of life. And if utilising a little spin encourages that demographic, then what's the problem?

Out of interest what would your 'superior' ways be?

Not directing this at you personally, but I'm a tad dismayed by the perceived negativity towards a movement that is doing it's damndest to produce positive outcomes.[/quote']

It is not a problem. I merely believe it to be slightly distasteful thats all.

I was stating that I do not feel myself to be superior to anyone that does not give to charity. I feel there are many people in the World who look down on people who do not give money to charities for instance, and I am against that type of attitude.

As someone who would like to make poverty history-who wouldnt? - I am merely criticising elements of a movement that may end up doing more harm than good.

This is just one example.

It is recognised by certain experts on Africa and economists that neo-liberal economic policies forced on Africa from the West is one of the foremost reasons why Africa is maybe the only Continent in the World not to have prospered in the past twenty to thirty years, however, no one in the movement has talked out about that. Unbelievably enough, they even support it because the debt relief packages to the 15 poorest Countries that Make Poverty History has ostensibly helped come about have conditions attached to them. Of course, the one condition that is always mentioned is good governance, but what is rarely mentioned is the other conditions such as the liberalisation of markets and the privatisation of basic services. These conditions that are imposed, are deeply unpopular with the vast majority of Africans, as they realise that these policies will continue to make them poor. Whats is the point of them liberalising their markets when the West doesnt? The G8 summit is not going to change that, as I believe the Common Agricultural Policy, for instance, has just been renewed until 2007; therefore trade inequalities are going to exist for many years to come.

Why should that be seen as a negative issue if it gets people thinking about the campaign' date=' who might not normally have been made aware?

The point is being made and there is an additional bit of positive reinforcement there for good measure.

Don't see a problem with that at all.[/quote']

What I stated in my post was merely my opinion. Personally, when I give money to charity or a cause I believe in, I do so to help people less fortunate than myself and to create justice n a World full of injustices. Whilst doing so, I never think that I am a great person and I am superior to people who do not give money to charity, but that is just me. If you or any other person feels differently when giving money to charity or good causes that is fine, it is your right to do so.

If the people of Make Poverty History want to get more people involved in their campaign surely there are superior ways to do so than encouraging people to Make History.

Jeez...I thought it had burned down in the night or something.

It's the church spire the story refers to. Basically it's unsafe and has limited potential for redevelopment as it stands' date=' so it's going to be demolished and a new building put in its place, subject to planning laws.

Mitchells and Butler (the group that owns the TK's pub and club) would be crazy fools to sell their part of the building. And they're not. So they won't.[/quote']

Thank God for that then!

Where else could I dance like a maniac to The Smiths on a Saturday night?