mockney piers

Yes Muffin, I was happy with the result, but genuinely dissappointed by the Russian performance, I so enjoyed the Holland game, they were a joy to watch. But they will learn from it and become more consistent with experience and maturity. Oh, and yeah, we're a good looking nation ;-)

There was lots of great movement, particularly in the second half, and Torres made some great runs when chasing the through ball or the old 'over the top', which made his failure to capitalise on them all the more frustrating. When taking on players with the ball, he's been pretty much a disaster sadly.

aA it goes they improved once Torres left the field. He's a talent no doubt, but he's had a poor tournament. Iniesta, Spaniard of the tournament for me, with Senna and Casillas a close joint second, Fabregas third, he changes the game every time he comes on.

They're great. How much cash have the Sally army got? Did they buy/knock down all those houses or did they take advantage of a doodlebug or something?

Funny. Very happy man today, I don't think I've ever had the luxury of watching a team of mine win an important game comfortably, very strange experience. Good luck to the Russians, losing is as important as winning in learning your lessons; they're a young team who will be a force to be reckoned with in South Africa, I'm sure.

I know they're not to everyone's taste, but I can't get enough of these guys The Fiery Furnaces - Duplexes of the Dead

Strike my last remark. I've no objection to the school, or even necessarily state funding of faith schools. I do think that some of that funding should be concomitant upon creationism not being taught in science lessons.

So if a faith school were teaching that all kuffar were fair game in jihad that shouldn't concern me because my kids don't go there? I know I'm exaggerating for effect, but it was a trite point KK. I do recall a time when I was at school where it was compulsory by law to learn a bunch of stuff about burning bushes and parting seas, and singing christian songs every morning, and that was an absolutely normal state school. (though the singing bit was quietly dropped in about 1985 at my school..shhhhh) If a school is continuing that in this day and age it's hardly earth shaking stuff. Plus I never believed half of what my teachers said anyway, I was too busy jumping off a cliff cos my mate said so ;-) *and I'm aware there are only 8 muslim faith schools in the country and they're all jolly nice places, just being facetious really, though it wasn't really very funny thinking about it.....I'll get my coat

Not alot. I think itmight make PMing easier or something

I've had the toasties, they'd run out of the usual stuff, but improvised something for me, and jolly nice it was too.

"South Korean Team looked like they were gonna cause upset!" Believe you me they did!!! "ooh look" said the linesman. "Spain seem to have scored, best do something about that", he pondered. "Aah yes, I'll flag it as having gone out, that'll get the Koreans through". *points flag to goal*

Dulwichmum, have you hacked into MadWorld's account again?

I liked the sign on a pub near work. Watch Euro 2008 here. England can't lose!!!

I was on utata for a while, which is a photography forum. It's a wilfully nice place, in that homebaked apple-pie sort of way, and was so saccharine it actually drove me away. This forum tends to get the balance more or less right, though it can certainly veer. Good moderation policy too.

As a Hammer, England and Spain fan, losing has lost it's power to make me cry (well, not since nasty Liverpool stole that FA Cup off of us!!) Still, I'll always have the Hamlets *hacking coughs*

"That said if you find a better forum for a similar sized community then please let me know where" True dat.

I don't think I did blame them. But the UK often cites cultural sensitivity to Colonialism in Africa as a barrier to intervention. Didn't stop us in Iraq obviously, but hey, what ever works as an excuse. The blame does indeed lay at an awful lot of doors though, the UN, China, South Africa, the EU as well as Britain. I don't think the US cares really does it, and why should it, now to do with them.

I have to agree with quids *gasps all round*. I've slightly fallen out of love with the forum, but will echo all the sentiment about having met some great people, and it has added a whole extra dimension to, at least my perception of, the community in and around East Dulwich. It is a bit samey though isn't it; I hide in the lounge.

was it this one Quids? http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/britain-unveils-plan-to-criticise-mugabe-out-of-office--200806231038/ Or talking of energy, this one? http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/price-of-gas-to-rise%2c-say-men-who-set-the-price-of-gas--200806241045/

"Or Afghanistan for that matter. " "The reasons for the Iraq invasion were more complicated than "for oil". " Well, yes and no. There were lots of strands to the arguments that led to the invasion of each, revenge and the willingness to use military power to show the world it means business being two of the top ones. But the fact that there were (theoretical) plans in place for both prior to 2001 are pretty telling. It's a long term game, ultimately it's about energy security and getting airbases in place where they are needed right in the thick of things. Most planners could easily envisage 'losing' Saudi Arabia just as they 'lost' Iran (and why wouldn't they, propping tortuous totalitarian regimes etc) and Iraq seemed a pretty good basis of operations for control of the theatre. Afghanistan, just like the old great game, seems a pretty good place to serve as a centre of operations to hold on to interests to mineral, gas and oil interest in central Asia. Have you read Craig Murray's book about Uzbeckistan(sp?)? The US doesn't care about the war on terror or Human rights, it's about keeping those leaders on side and out of the Russian sphere of influence. This is a long game where the enemies are Russia, China and even India, but those conflicts are a long ways off yet. Mark my words though, it's just a matter of time, and no power loses it's hegemony without a fight, be it Rome, Spain, France or Britain. It just doesn't happen.

I've talked about Kosovo before. That little policy actually caused a hell of a lot more suffering than it prevented, not to mention encouraged an attempted secession by ethnic Albanians in neighbouring FYRoM who couldn't believe the West opposed their attempted coup there, and it still rumbles on today. That was about flexing muscular humanitarian intervention, a fantastic new idea whereby western powers can carry on the same old gunboat diplomacy and try and look nice while they're at it. Blair genuinely thought he was doing the same in Iraq, not realising the theory was all wrong in the first place. It was much more to do with trying to give NATO a continued role (and Europe a closeness to the US) in a world that no longer needed it. You only have to look at Afghanistan to see how close NATO is to breaking point. If we really do do MHI, as per Kosovo and Sierra Leone, then why the hell not Sudan and Zimbabwe. Zim would last about 5 minutes in the face of a 'coalition' invasion and there would be no insurgency as per Iraq. The majority of the populace, free of the reign of terror would probably hunt down and kill the perpetrators of terror who didn't make it to the Congo, free elections would ensue, then time to go home. Do it..doo eeeet.

Interesting report on the muslim backlash against Al Qaeda's concepts of jihad http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/special-report-is-al-qaida-in-p.htmls-850606.html

Yeah D_C,why not, is God unknowable, probably, but then if we can look in and out and see wonder and music and perhaps echoes of the divine, then spirituality itself isn't completely unknowable. Perhaps ignostic is better in htat the parameters of the debate are a bit pointless because without any idea of what the nature of 'god' is then the starting point of the whole debate is rendered somewhat moot. Of course those with strongly defined faith would claim that that is the case. I'd argue that the great religious personalities would probably have argued strongly against that.

I only found about about "practical atheism" because I sat next to an Opus Dei chap for many years and that's what he said the church would label me.* I don't consider myself an atheist, merely one who considers these matters and has come to no conclusion. I am not atheist in the sense I deny God(s) or even in that I have no place for spirituality im my life, just that nothing on offer makes much sense, so I'm happy enough to pootle along without the need for 'answers', leave alone a tick list of things to do or avoid. I don't know if there's a political equivalent. I've seen what the parties have to offer, and they are institutional and limited. I've looked a the various political tenets and much makes sense, and a lot of it doesn't. It's not that I deny politics, I'm just not going to draw my mark in the sand and say I'm Socialist or I am Libertarian though I certainly have leanings politically, just as I do morally. Whether this is a cultural thing, my upbringing, my nature, my divine nature or predestination, it's not for me to say. Good luck to everyone in whatever you do I say, but if you disagree with me I might you are clearly a heretic and I'm off to get some sticks and a match ;) *Thoroughly nice chap as it happens. I've no idea whether or not he wore a cilice, but I certainly never saw him assassinate anyone.

reading this at the moment http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Transformation-Socrates-Confucius-Jeremiah/dp/1843545071/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214395863&sr=1-1 Very interesting if horribly naive in places, but the strands of development in comparative religion is fascinating reading, especially when the myths and histories are teased apart (something she's better able to do in some places than others) I've promised it to McGabhann, but further borrowage if people would like. ooh, I you a book anyway don't I brendan.