Britbillsfan

So the reports that 7 members of the intelligence unit handling the interrogations have been charged and that the official report into the interrogations indicated that Dilawar (the unfortunate taxi driver with no terrorist connections who died in custody) was beaten and hung from th ceiling by a chain for four days were wrong? And that a further 21 personnel were under investigation in the deaths of Dilawar and Habibullah and could face charges was also incorrect?

Of the 31 I've seen fully I would consider 21 to be solid choices (I might not agree with them fully, but I can see the argument for the inclusion), and 10 that should not be there. Some are really in the WTF? category. Singing Detective - Top 100 TV series definitely. But it was not a film. But 'The Fly' and 'A Hard Days Night'.....awful when LA Confidential, Seven Samurai, Ran, Usual Suspects are not there.

Not flaming but I think Moulds and the decent coaches we now have can provide the necessary leadership. Other than that I can not really see him being any real improvement either in the short or longer term (lack of production from Reed and Aiken not withstanding).

Yeah, I knew about Wild Dogs, but they aren't really that big...... Mind you Chimps are exceptional hunters as well, and man of course, so those two are big and better than hyenas.

Leopards are solitary. Female Cheetahs are as well. Male cheetahs tend not to be, they will go around in a group (normally 2 or 3 litter mates) with a much increased hunting teritory (with more female cheetahs in it, of course) and will kill any other male cheetah that strays into their territory. So it is possible for them to hunt cooperatively. Best big cooperative hunters in Africa though are hyenas. Far better at it than lions despite their respective reputations.

Vincent only started the first three games, McGee the other 13 last year and McGee saw plenty of action in those games anyway. So I do not think 'freshness' will be an issue.

Tea - meet computer screen.

Well there is a kind of hierachy in all terrorist groups, and there are still a number of serious players of the core AQ group out there, otherwise international attacks would not occur. Whilst the west has put a 'number' on the senior members of the gang it is quite true that that would not reflect a true seniority. But a group that has run numerous complex international operations will produce some individuals who are more aware of the group's plans and would have more useful intelligence, and would be recognised within the group as 'senior'. That being said all terrorist groups traditionally have had a method of promotion from within (and only the most talented live long enough to get promoted) and I can not see AQ being THAT different. What specifically appears to be the issue here is a confusion as to which Libyan al-Libbi was caught in Pakistan, and it is not helped that the spelling of these Arabic names can get altered when it is anglicised (eg: Gadafi/Qadafi the head of Libya - he uses both, and others besides). So when an Libyan AQ member called al-Libbi got caught a lot of people immediately thought of al-Liby, including intelligence guys as mentioned in the report. The OTHER al-Liby is a very senior player and his capture would be a major coup against AQ. Of course the other thing that causes confusion is that Al-Qaeda has a core group of its own operatives but the majority of the scumbag actually belong to other terrorist groups that it is affiliated with (nothing new in the terrorist fraternity, the old Palestinian & European groups used to co-operate with training camps, sharng of expertise and this is still evident today with the training of FARC in Columbia by the old IRA). As these groups have their own heirachy the situation can not help but be confused.

Overall I like the Bills depth this year. We have some areas of concern but that is pretty much the same accross the board in the NFL. Nice little analysis, thanks.

That is true for just about everywhere the US has extradition treaties for.

Stop eating cheese prior to going to bed.

Ruddy terrorists causing confusion by having nearidentical names.......even so the guy is relatively important compared to the low level trash that is more often swept up.

The teachings on the virgin birth and ressurection are not universal amongst all 'Christians', non-Western churches tended not to follow these ideas, and indeed there are those who see Christ as a prophet and not the Son of God. (Which then leads to others claiming they are not Christians). The 'virgin birth' comes from a Greek translation from Aramaic, a very bad translation at that. The term used, according to a number of top theologians, means 'woman of marriagable age' and it is possible that the (mis) translation was a deliberate one in order to 'prove' Christ's divinity, due to the internal politics of the various early churches. The ressurection is another puzzler. Like the virgin birth it to was not a predominate belief until the adoption of it by the Emperor Constantine. It is also a little strange in that the crucifiction as described in the Bible is NOT a punishment the Romans would have used, and there is plenty of evidence in how they did actually crucify people. The idea of a crucifiction was to be utterly terrifying, and whilst the suffering endured in the Biblical version would be extreme it is only a half effort (!) The Romans believed very strongly in the rule of Law, and thought that fear was an excellent way of containing malcontents. The practice of crucifiction actually had the poor victim dying in agony (no nice spear / sword thrust) and then the body would be left hanging for the flies, crows and dogs to eat (when it would have fallen apart). Very unhygeinic but considering it denied proper burial/cremation rights (both of which were common within the Empire) that most subject peoples thought necessary to reach the afterlife also very scarey. And with no body the rest of the ressurection story as it is written becomes impossible. So in effect the idea of crucifying someone was to kill them in the most painful way possible to instill fear, and then to try to deny them their afterlife, even more terrifying to those who might otherwise oppose Roman rule. The fact that the Bible has all sorts of changes to the punishment leads me to believe that it was written in the way it was in order to 'prove' Christ's divinity. The fact the Bible also did not mention how unusual the alleged punishment of Christ was (as it was described) reinforces this. (BTW - I do believe Christ was a good man, unjustly executed and actually crucified (as per the normal Roman practice). Just do not believe in the God / divinity aspects).

Slimy and not trusted Blair? Well that would make you think like most Brits, despite him still getting elected As for WWII - Probably would have had the communist Iron Curtain end at the English Channel without Pearl Harbour......

In hindsight it is easy to say we were left out to dry but considering the politics of the time (and in the previous World War) it is not at all surprising that America did not join the allies until much later. The Isolationist movement after WWI was extremely strong and there would have been enormous repercussions had FDR led you into war prior to the attack by the Japanese. As it was he ensured Britain had the material to fight the war 'alone' (Although at that time the UK was the only nation in the Nazi firing line after the fall of France we did still have allies (the Empire) and could draw upon a large amount of manpower). Of course this had to come at a price (if it was not for us giving the designs of jet engines as part of the deal Boeing/Airbus would only be bit layers in the aircraft business without havnig to pay the (now non-existant) UK equivalent huge license fees to use the tech, for example), the use of bases around the world, 'lend-lease', etc. There was a huge myth at the time that the first war was caused by a cabal of evil arms manufacturers, the industrial military complex, and they forced America's hand (which ignored the Prussian Imperialistic ambitions & racism (later to reappear in an even more nasty form under Hitler), plot to attack America by helping Mexico reclaim the territory America had grabbed from her prior to the civil war and the unrestricted submarine warfare of Prussia/Germany). In all FDR is NOT seen in the UK as someone who let us down, and although there is still some grumbling about the Americans always arriving late overall it is just typical Brits taking the mickey as we are generally well aware that the leadership at the time in the US did all that was practical given the political realities in America. After all in the same way you did not really want to go to war neither did we, and tried very hard to avoid it (leading to the Munich agreement, and then the catastrophes that followed).

Well you lot could always start to follow cricket..... (ducks and runs)

To be honest there would not be a single serious politcal leader (or leader in waiting) that would not have done the same over Afghanistan, but Blair is a solid orator and got the things that needed to be done fairly efficiently. There were differences over Iraq, but again the main opposition would have gone in as well (if not for the exact same reasons...).

Well, he is disliked. The is a majority against the war (and of those that support the war precious few are Labour party supporters). But his main opponent's unpopularity would probably have had him losing to Dracula in the Transylvanian elections, let alone a sharp political operator like Blair. No real alternative = another Blair election victory.

Whilst I would never call Blair a moron, despite disliking what he has done to the British political system (something most electors are unaware of because the other parties do not use it enough in their favour), this is essentially correct. Blair's three wins have come over a Conservative party in all sorts of disarray. John Major was dealing with the legacy of the fairly widespread dislike of Thatcher at the end of her time in power plus the huge amount of political infighting in his own party, William Hague was still fighting the internecine political infighting within his party and his successors Ian Duncan-Smith (one of the key artichets of that infighting) and Michael Howard were both too disliked on a personal level for them to have any real chance of winning (IDS got kicked out before he could get to run an election campaign he was so useless) As Chicot indicated the Liberal Democrats are starting far too far back to have a real chance of winning (the last Liberal government was in the First World War) and this will be the cae for the next election also, barring a political miracle. (I will not go into the ins and outs of the British political system , good and bad, as this would mean a post that would make FFS posts on football seem like one sentence soundbite).

Whilst that is true, and their one truely great policy decision was to place interest rate control out of the hands of politicians (who manipulated it for election purposes and not just the economic ones), they did take over from the conservatives who had built up an extremely strong economy for them to take over (John Major's period in control, not Thatcher's). The Tories lost power because the party had become disliked and despised, not because of economic mismanagement, and people felt 'the need for a change'. The Labour party under Blair is no longer the politics of envy band of socialists that it once was (one of the more famous quotes from prior to Thatcher was from one of their chancellors 'We'll tax them until their pips squeak' referring to the wealthy - who promptly left the country or dumped all their earnings in off shore tax havens, destroying investment in this country's industry). All the unpopular decisions regarding the economy were taken by the tories (and they did make some boobs, for sure), labour since they have been in have continued those policies ever since and reaped the benefits (especially from the elimination (just about) of militant trade unionism that made the UK a byword for innefficiency and strikes). Blair has benefitted greatly from the great disintergration of the Conservative party in the last decade. It is easy to win an election when the opposition as busy looking at their own colon all the time. The other parties are unelectable (still) for differing reasons so Blair gets a (just about) free ticket to the top job.

Trust. No one trusts him other than those who will always vote for his party as a matter of blind faith. He will run away from awkward questions involving policy (not unique in that politicans often do this, but he is especially prone (as are his ministers)) to the degree of actually avoiding shows that are very good at asking said questions and reducing question time when he has to face parliament. His style of governing the UK has been a 'presidential' one. There has been sod all debate within the cabinet (where decisions used to be taken as a group) in implementing policy. It is not so much the war in Iraq that has hurt him, but the legal justifications for it, in a situation pretty much unheard of in the UK he did not allow even the rest of the cabinet to see the full advice on the legality on the war, let alone Parliament. So others were left to make decisions based on information he kept deliberately less than complete (ironically he probably would have gotten the go ahead anyway, but that is another story). Personally I don't like him and his chancellor because they have shafted the future of the country by discouraging people to invest in pensions and now there is likely to be real problems 20/30 years down the line when those who would have put money to one side get old. This in spite of advice on what would happen when he messed about with the UK pension system (which was the only sound one in the Europe, long term). I dislike politicians who make decisions that make them look geniuses in the short term whilst being fully aware that there are going to be awful problems caused by said policies down the road. The government has made a couple of very good decisions early on but for the last 6/7 years it has been mostly fluff / micromanagement stuff, not the bigger picture. And taxes are likely to rise again in this government.

The Labour parliamentary majority is a healthy one, in that they will be able to run the government, but not one where they can take for granted their majority (party MPs can and do vote against their parties or abstain (or be on 'urgent business elsewhere' when the vote comes up). In his last two terms Blair has been the most presidential PM ever when the UK has had a properly democratic system in that what he said goes (and this is not how the UK system is supposed to work and I hate how he has run the country), this as a direct result of the huge majorities he has been blessed with (not really earnt, just no real alternative). Blair is saying he will serve out his term, and there is a fair chance he will do so, his successor will be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown. Local MPs do get votes on local issues, but even a very good local MP can lose his seat in parliament for a number of reasons, especially if his partty is really unpopular. Some single issue parties and independents do crop up now and again (this time around it was George 'Saddam Hussein is a great man' Galloway...hmmmm), but it has been a long time since the Liberals/Liberal Democrats have been able to challenge the other two partied with any more than a couple of dozen seats. They are now building up to be a credible party. Ulster has always been split on Unionist (who will form government with the Conservatives on occassion) / Republican lines, and there are seperatist parties that get half a dozen seats between them in Wales and Scotland.

Numbers of seats can be misleading. The actual majority he will end up with will be about as low as could be imagined based on predictions. His parliamentary majority will be down from 166 to 67 (ish), since there are quite a number of different parties in the UK that have seats besides just the conservatives (Lib Dems have about 60 seats, the Northern Irish political parties (unionist and republican), strongly anti-war Respect (a real Socialist party) and the nationalist Scottish and Welsh parties also have a good number of seats between them). So whilst it was a solid performance it was not overwhelming (with the multi party system we have here with first past the post constituencies Blair/Labour only polled about 35-40% of the vote (the precise numbers will come out in the next couple of days)). The conservatives would poll just above the 30% mark, Lib Dems just over 20%. Due to the distribution of voters it would have been possible for the conservatives to have more votes and Blair to have a solid majority of some 40 votes in any case. Blair is NOT liked in the UK. It is just his main challengers are led by men with more severe PR problems - the Conservatives that many find difficult to even acknowledge as a feeling human being (aka the Vampire) and the Lib Dems by 'a nice man not really up to the job of running the country'. If the conservatives had decided on a half decent leader after the last election (they had three real choices and plumetted for the unelectable one) then Blair would no longer hold his job, but because they continue to self destruct the view of many is to go with Blair because the others are complete idiots.

If we have a gay old time would not that mean we will all go to hell?

Think of Libbi and his predecessors in the no. 3 role as generals and it becomes clearer why they are the ones getting caught and killed. As an operations man he has to plan and coordinate (as much as it is possible with such a dispersed command structure) major terrorist operations, and as such these individuals when caught provide vast amounts of data. bin Laden is effectively the organisation's 'head of state', in that he decides broad policy but his 'generals' are the ones that implement the detailed planning to follow in line with that policy. Ayman al Zawahiri has been the no. 2 in al Qaeda for a very long time and can mostly be found beside OBL as they as very close (family ties by marriage as well as their alliance). al Zarqawi is the nasty piece of work operating in Iraq, and is building up his own power base there with a different group that has pledged allegiance to OBL. He MIGHT take over al Qaeda some day or he might go his own way (assuming the scum does not get a bullet in the head at some point) as a seperate terrorist leader. al Qaeda is a somewhat lazy catch-all for a whole slew of Islamic extremist groups, Zarqiri heads one of those groups and others operate in just about every muslim country, but many have very little contact or in common with OBL's organisation except a very similar ideology. al-Libbi was a al Qauda man, though. As for the most wanted list - most of those guys are wanted for previous attacks on US targets (Cole, embassies, 9/11) and a fair few are no more than low ranied foot soldiers who did a lot of the grunt work in setting up those attacks (especially the embassy attacks). al Libbi was not high enough in the organisation even a few years ago to be in on these atrocities and was not directly involved, hence his absense - however he would be someone who needed to be caught and who is very important to AQ.