1_man_army

In virtualdub you can do things like that.

Sorted now. You'll just need to copy & paste it to get to the page. Stupid censor.

There have been a few, one guy broke in and had a conversation with the Queen before being captured. There was the Fathers for Justice guy and the Fan Man landed on the roof (the same nutter once landed in the ring during a Heavyweight title fight). So yeah, you're right. Aha thats awesome, "had a conversation with the queen". As for the Greenpeace people, I don't really care, but am a bit surprised they managed to get up there in the first place. Here's the wikipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Fagan_incident

There have been a few, one guy broke in and had a conversation with the Queen before being captured. There was the Fathers for Justice guy and the Fan Man landed on the roof (the same nutter once landed in the ring during a Heavyweight title fight). So yeah, you're right.

It's a worrying security issue but you're ever so sightly over-reacting by talking about life sentences and hanging.

England vs USA will be a tough one for the Scottish public, neither nation are good winners so it's basically a contest of who will annoy us least if they win. I'll go with USA just on the basis that they are further away. Why is it that England always get easy groups in the first round anyway? They seem to have amazing luck in the group draws for tournaments...if only they had that kind luck in penalty shootouts :razz: . I think Spain will win this one, any squad that can keep Fabregas as a bench warmer is amazing. That being said, you can't count out Argentina (despite their poor qualifying form) or Brazil. I would absolutely love an African nation to win it though, I would have had Ivory Coast as an outside bet but they got the group of death.

As Jeffwilson99 said, the key word in the topic title is say. Everyone would like to think they would do the right thing and make the right choices in life but when faced with the situation (whatever it may be) their actions may be different than they would have hoped. This does bring up a wider point though, it's the perogative of every generation to bash the younger generations. Every generation does it to their younger groups because they have a nostalgic memoryof their own generation that doesn't necessarily have any basic in fact. For example, here in the UK everyone says today's youth is far more violent than they were in the past but in previous generations had football violence up and down the country, tax riots and violence between mods and rockers. Also violent crime is at a record low (even with better reporting).

Usually when somebody is arrested (I'm not sure about in military cases), their status is recorded. So if somebody is arrested with say a broken nose for example, it is recorded when they're processed. If that is the case in the military system then it can be easily proven whether it was done while he was in custody or not. I'm not condemning the men, I don't know whether they did it or not. My point is a basic matter of principle; nobody is above the law and that the rule of law applies in all cases regardless of who the victim or the perpetrator is. That is the point that has been made by many people in this thread.

Tell that to the Police Lenin.

If these Marines did assault the detainee after capture then they weren't making a tactical decision that had pros and cons though, they were just beating a detainee. Your comparison doesn't work. If they weren't assaulting the guy or if it was necessary in order to catch him then they'll have no worries because they'll know they're innocent. Also because they're in the military I would presume they'll be judged be members of the military. People seem to be reading more into this than they really need to, the marines either; A) comitted an assault or B ) punched a man in the process of detaining him. The fact that the people being accused are marines or that the man is a suspected terrorist is entirely irrelevant to the facts of the case. This isn't a political decision or a witch-hunt against these guys, it is a matter of basic law and if they are innocent they will most likely be found not guilty, if they did commit an assault then they will most likely be found guily. That is the basic function of any legal system and it happens every day in most nations.

These kind of instances feed directly into the extremist anti-western propaganda that is produced by groups like Al Qaeda. These people already portray things in a way that makes western forces look like brutal, oppressive occupiers who want to rape murder and pillage islamic nations. That is why it's so important that they're seen to hold themselves to the letter of the law and if a law was broken there should be a punishment. To excuse people give extremist groups great propaganda and helps them to recruit more young disillusioned kids to fight their fight, this so-called War on Terror won't be won or lost on the battlefield, people need to believe that what is being offered to them by the western forces is better than what is on offer from the extremists and giving forces a free reign to do as they please will never allow that to happen. Now in this specific case, there has to be a distinction made; was he punched during capture or after capture? There is obviously a subtle difference between the two - if the incident happened during an attempt to capture and it was neccessary to punch the guy to get him then okay, there might be a grey area. If it was after the guy had been captured and was subddued then it is assault under the letter of the law. This kind of brings me on to another thing, the hysteria created when the issue of terrorism is brought up. People seem to think that it's alright to completely ignore the rule of law that nations have had for hundreds of years when it comes to terrorist suspects. People talk about how western-style democracy is the ideal - with our fair and transparent legal systems and human rights however, we're basically trying export those ideals to the nations we have liberated. Yet we then go and throw the=ose very ideals out the window with things like Guantanamo Bay. We don't even put the guys into a position where we can bring them to justice because of their "enemy combatant" status - they should (on a case by case basis) be dealt with as common criminals or as war criminals but instead we make up a legal position to get things all our own way but we ignore how badly that position looks on the outside and how it again feeds into the hands of the extremists. Sorry I've went off on a mini-rant and veered a bit off-topic but it really all does tie together in the grand scheme of how things.

I just saw this on tv about 10 minutes ago. It must have been unbelievably frustrating knowing that you were conscious and nobody else realising while not being able to communicate. It is terrifying to think of being trapped inside your own body with no outside communication or anything to really stimulate you, every day of the 23 years must have felt like an eternity.

I'll give you one example off the top of my head: Killer Whales throw around the bodies of seals that they've caught up to for ages before and after the seal has died.

That's irrelevant because I'm not a lower life form. And it's not needless, I just believe that anything that could potentially better a persons life (that includes better tasting fish) is fair game [pun]. The fish would still taste the same if it had been killed humanely before being cooked so keeping it alive while you eat it doesn't benefit anyone (except the Chinese restaurant owners who have a gimmick to sell). Also, in light of your views here, I'm beginning severely doubt your first point :wink:

With posts like that Hex it's no wonder you have over 1,300 posts in just under 4 months. Personally I care about the quality of somebody's post rather than the number of posts they have. People who just post for the sake of it are just wasting their own time, I'd much rather read posts by somebody who has something to add to a topic (whether I agree with them or not) rather than somebody just posting rubbish.

I live in Gordon Brown's constituency which is one of the safest seats in the country, my vote is entirely useless. I just hope the election ends in a hung parliament so neither party can do any real damage for a while. Labour has run out of ideas and just jumps from one catastrophe to the next while the Tories just strike me as enthusiastic amatuers. Plus it might be interesting to see the Liberal Democrats weild some power as the king makers in some close Commons votes. So, to clarify - I won't be voting for the Monster Raving Loony Party because I don't want to waste my time and I won't vote BNP because I don't like goose-stepping.

I don't want to see animals suffer needlessly. If animals are going to be farmed for food they should be treated in a humane way as far as possible, I believe hunting should only be done for food or in extreme circumstances as a form of population control. I think animal testing should only be done for medical testing because of the potential benefits that this has in terms of potential cures for diseases, I don't agree with testing cosmetics on animals though as it's unnecessary in my opinion. I don't even believe in bullfighting because I think that is too cruel and unnecessary, I even root for the bull during the bullrun. As for this case, I'm not entireley sure. You made a good point about the make up of the fish's brain and whether or not they can feel pain. The thing about it that really struck me when I read about it yesterday was why someday would want to eat something that is still alive. The thought of eating something that is still breathing and wriggling is what disgusts me far more than the idea of it being potentially cruel. There is a point where trying to eat fresh food just goes too far.

^^ you couldn't care less. The majority of these posthumous releases have been terrible. They're mostly made up of existing verses (many of which were originally scrapped for not being good enough while he was alive) being remixed. This one is following that trend. They're just exploiting a brand name to sell substandard material.

Nope, I screamed like a girl and tried to kick it away while trying to go into the kitchen. It wasn't my most manly moment lol.

My Dad once found a dummy grenade. Of course I didn't know it was a dummy (he did because he was in the army when he was younger) so you can imagine my panic when he pulled the pin and rolled it at me. He thought it was hilarious, I wasn't best pleased at the time though lol.

Generally, most animal analogies don't work in political debates because they aren't treated in the same way as people are treated. They aren't governed by the same rules for obvious reasons and that makes the comparison an awkward one.

A person whose username is one letter away from being one of America's most notorious serial killers and is advocating the death penalty...I'm finding this strangely amusing. To get back on topic, the Dog with rabies analogy doesn't work here - they're put down to avoid the disease spreading just as much as they're put down because of the risk to people / other dogs.

To be fair though, the Scottish accent is the greatest accent to have when you're trying to insult somebody.

I would stay in the box so that I would avoid this thread.

I don't mind seeing the words used but most of the time they aren't used correctly here, that was my point.