cosmicway

Do we qualify for Europe if we win the Carabbao cup ? The FA cup ?

Is a law against influencers coming ? Everybody who posts stuff in the internets is an influencer. Some make big money, others probably nothing. Consider this statement: "Palmer should be used as a false number nine at Chelsea football club, converging behind Enzo and Jackson" This influences. It could be unpaid or paid. If it is paid then it may be that both parties involved in the transaction, Pochettino and me, keep all their books in order and is declared. But also they may not. The above statement of mine small as it is, should cost about 2.5 euros, nominally. What distinguishes this type of situation from other possible tax frauds, such as selling cds without giving receipts ? It differs in that the cd is something one obviously buys or sells, while the influencers statements we don't know - maybe personal opinions, maybe part of a campaign. Another such statement could be: "vote for Boris Johnson - the hero of Great Britain" Is this from a dyed in the wool but innocent Tory supporter or is it paid political broadcast ? Again it is not obvious. One posssible way of dealing with this is to send the snoops of the tax authority up and down the country and see what they can catch. Another is to make red China - Kim laws but this is a tad uncostitutional, because we have parliamentary democracy. A third and more likely possibility is the preemptive tax. So to post here for example the management of this forum will have to know my name, full adress and all the rest that is required. Then for every post I will be charged say five pounds, as preemptive anti-influencer tax. The forum itself likewise will be charged for stuff they write themselves. This is the new great big brother idea and I believe it's going to happen about a year from now.

haivan asker yurus - surtzuk murtzuk - sahlutz tsapour

Back to normal.

Slaughter of AEK Athens of Ovebro proportions in the Velodrom.

That came after. Passes the ball to enemy forward. Just like Sanchez.

Anybody watching the Marseille match ? Am I right or am I right when I become furious ?

This thing happens with the goalie mistakes: They try to make a clever pass instead of just clearing the ball. But while the opposite attackers are pressurising, his players are trying to find free spaces - they 're not playing man to man. So it becomes disastrous - like with Mendy against Real Madrid. Arsenal just escaped when they made the same error but we did n't and it's different when a defender other than the goalkeeper makes the mistake. When it is another defender who flufs his lines, we have the Gerrard slip situations but usually there is some cover. Poch must prohibit this when there is pressure, at the expense of perhaps missing some good occasions to move the ball downfield. But for Sanchez it was of course even more totally unacceptable because we were 2-0 up fifteen minutes from time and we had no reason whatsoever to hurry. I noted this before.

It does n't make sense to sub Sanchez for this as long as Poch does n't prohibit keepers from playing pass game. Everyone is gifting those giveaways.

So we miss an attack when we are 2-0 up as well if he kicks the ball high. Who the f**k cares ? Why do it, try to make a clever pass ? I might just understand if it was 0-0 even though I 'm against this thing under all circumstances. The keeper has no business to get himself involved with the buildup.

It's not only Sanchez. It was their idiot before with Jackson, Mendy before that and Kepa. It's just stupid play. If a defender makes the same big mistake there is chance to rectify things. With a Mendy pass you are dead.

I wrote here twenty five thousand times the f**king goalkeeper has no business to getting involved with the build up. Just kick the f**king ball downfield. Arsenal had given up the f**king ghost - it was going to be 3-0.

I predict 2-1 victory - with 15 Hitchcok minutes,

That was a Mellberg penalty if one ever saw one.

Not 13 hours, but a couple of hours. 13 hours was is before they started bombarding Gaza. The truth is if there is no amber alert-red alert state anything can be breached and a local incident created. Even the East German wall, by suicide commandoes. They would be able to proceed one or two miles inland. With 9-11 I believe the Americans were idiots because this thing happened: On the 6th of September a group of American airport security officers visit Greece. They found 23 security holes in the new Athens airport they said. For the following two days it was party time for the opposition press. The government (pasok) offered some lame excuses. According to them about half of those security holes were known and could be justified because the airport was brand new. But that leaves 12 security holes. Yet whatever the Greek government did afterwards those know it all American experts returned to America and this thing happened to them. The Al Qaeddas did it with knives hidden in their hand held luggages. After 9-11 we were talking about the events here and one comes and says he flied on the 10th from Athens to Salonica with a long knife in his handbag. I don't remember what he said he wanted it for but nobody searched his handbag - only his suitcase was x-rayed. So the American security were caught with their pants down on 9-11 (and as for the Greek security, well it did n't chance upon them). What the Israelis might have observed and did n't was political movements in Gaza. But maybe there were n't any to observe.

This is for kids. I can accept that 9-11 was CIA's fault and they should have resigned and maybe Bush too (n.b. I have an extraordinary story about this). But not in this is case. If the state of military readiness is below amber alert anyone can create a small skirmish near a border town (and it was a small skirmish albeit very deadly). It depends on the border geography also. If there is no natural border such as a river something can always get through.

The West bank and the Gaza strip were in Arab hands prior to the six day war of 1967 and that war was to destroy Israel and toss it into the sea ! So the argument goes "crikey, that did n't work but give us back those lands". Certain negotiations were held nevertheless but the Palestinian side rejected (and incidentally they were not known as Palestinians back in 1967 but as "Arabs of Palestine", by Israel's friends and foes alike). It is evident that the Arabs and at least Hamas are trying to do the same thing now, wipe out Israel. They look forward to some major force to come forward and help them do this, the same way they used to think of Egypt as a major force. Without Israel what is today's Israeli land going to be ? A Kim like muslim state no doubt. Don't tell me Putin is not behind all this through his proxies Iran.

I actually think I make perfect sense. I don't have a Cambridge proficiency degree in the language of Shakespeare, during GCE years I was throwing paper planes to the teacher so I have n't got a GCE in English either. But because I listened to the BBC, the horse racing commentators and the football commentators I think Oxford Union would make me nowadays leader speaker (for the nays or the yays - it depends). I do have a membership card of Oxford Union somewhere. Anyway I digress. This thing with Mossadeq happened in the early fifties. Although probably not the saintly figure you portray him as, he was the legal elected president of Iran and the Shah was the product of a coup d' etat. Neverhteless during Shah years I met many Iranians, men and girls and they were quite decent guys. The girls were very beautiful and we all know that Iranian women are the most beutiful. None of them wore a jihab of course. Not all but most of those Iranian guys were against the shah and they wanted democracy to be reestablished in their country. There was one strange exception. One who was studying Maths and he was going about with a Quran preaching. We thought he was a strange individual. That one had a Malaysian friend who was more or less acting the same, but I never exchanged words with the Malaysian. Khomeini fooled the Iranians and instead of democracy brought about this. You know the story with the American hostages. Those days there were some Iranian government ministers who did n't like it and protested. Khomeinism had not taken a firm foothold yet but was about to. Those ministers were put into mince meat machines by the Ayatollah. So yes, it was American-British mischief making in the beginning of days. Same with Bin Laden. The late departed Bin Laden enjoyed a spell as American hero because of Afghanistan. They even sent a Time magazine reporter to interview him and you can google the story. The reporter said at the time "ok, yeah - he seemed like a bright fellow to me - but oh mi god strange as hell".

Right wing versus Muslims and radical Muslims versus Europe Once upon a time, fifty-sixty years ago there was the Arab-Israeli conflict but there was nothing religious about it. The extreme right wingers were operating in Europe, just like they do now. Their targets were no longer the Jews really (but some rhetoric was kept alive). They were after the black people and the Asiatic peoples, Also the junta crowd. Those had no involvement whatsoever with race or religion. They were after the parliamentary institutions and the trade unions. In the eighties Ayatollah Khomeini enters the scene. Turns Iran into a fanatical religious siitic state. But -more or less- it was confined within the borders of Iran so no great worry. Basically the muslims were the dears of the west. Turkey were considered the pillar of the NATO alliance in the east. In 1974 when they invaded Cyprus the NF extremists in Britain were shouting for them (yasasin Turkiye, yasasin Rauf Denktash). Things did n't change in the nineties. The fanatical muslims were US allies in Afghanistan, Bosnia. A strange episode takes place in the year 2000. It was the time Bill Clinton was lame duck president and G.W. Bush was the elected president. Hillary made a trip somewhere, South America or Europe - I don't remember and when she returned and landed in New York airport she yelled to the journalists "happy ramadan everybody". Ramadan coincided with November-December that year, but in America it is not of course usual to greet people with "happy ramadan". So that was a demonstration of multi-religious unity by the Hillary. But one year later we all know what happened. Meanwhile in the middle east things had started to change in the Palestinian camp. The Soviet Union and its advisers were no longer, so new political forces started to appear - islam oriented this time. The thing escalated and it went beyond Palestinians and their conflict with Israel: Bombs-assassinations, assassinations-bombs. No longer could it be attributed to the traditional racism of the westerners. This exists and it accentuates things, but it was the islam fundamentalists who became terrorists. The extreme right wingers responded in kind. Without abandoning their old ideas (antiblack-antisemite-antidemocracy) they found a new target and of course they are mostly anti-muslim these days. The communists rejoice in this. You may call them remnants of communism because USSR is gone, but it's the same people as before. They relish in division and hatred hoping this will bring down capitalism. What we saw last week is only the last episode and Israel is asked to capitulate not on the basis of some UN decision or American pressure, but to cold blooded - nazi like terrorism. Well, don't expect them to do that.

Early Hamas broadcast:

Do you know why WWII really ended ? It was n't the fall of Berlin, it was psychology. The objective of the nazis was to win the war and capture Los Angeles, San Francisco, Manhattan also and all the lands further east. Fight for an independent Bradenburg - Saxony Anhalt was a joke even to the diehard SS troopers. So they all said "ich nein nazi general, ich sozialei demokratei". These days it is even more prohibitive of course. While in 1940 a country the size of Germany could conceivably conquer the world given a strong military, nowadays it is impossible. From the French side grand empereur if he was around today would say the same thing. In Japan a similar thing apparently happened, as well as the emperor saw the light to Damascus and converted. This war however how to end it ? By securing what military objectives ? I know not of a single Arab who tolerates Israel. There is a nuance of attitudes regarding the use of violence but they are all anti-jewish and anti-semitic. I have talked with people from the oil rich gulf states. There is n't a single Palestinian living in the proximity of Israel who would n't use a bazooka or portable rocket against Israeli people given the chance. And if they ever win they will bring nukes from Iran in the region - acting as Putin client states (formerly Soviet client states) they want to drive the Americans out of middle east and the med.

I don't propose that Belgium should make an apartheid state against muslims, but suppose they knew all the Abdesalem Al Guilanis who live in Belgium and are members of Isis. Should they make an "apartheid state" against them or not ?

There is a difference between civilian victims during war and terror. Take for example the blitz. The blitz was terror bombing. But the Germans were also after military targets, on the Thames. It was by and large terror bombing -they bombed Saint Pauls- but they had some justification and all the others who performed similar actions offered some justification. The infamous bombardier Harris also offered some justification. Yet if any of those German pilots or RAF pilots were on the ground and they saw a child would they kill it in cold blood ? No way. So Hamas terrorists are not the only kinds of terrorist but they are the ultimate and most depraved. They beheaded small children and their moms who were defenseless and pleading for mercy. The videos and the pictures they published themselves. So Israel will be fools if they do not eradicated them from Gaza and anywhere else they are hiding.

D day was a war crime. Many soldiers died but not only soldiers. In the town of Caen that was heavily fortified by the Germans the French civilians were all but wiped out by the British bombardment. We don't call it a war crime, the French don't call it a war crime. We/they call only the nazis war criminals because they started the war. You can't take away a nation's right to defend itself against invaders. I don't see how a two state solution will stop Hamas-Hezbollah firing rockets like they do now. They don't even want this to happen, they will sabotage it. Only Blinken offered an idea of solution.

So for the sake of argument you expect -would you- Turkey to attack Greece, Greece wins and repels the enemy but no single Turk suffers a nose bleed. Istanbul - Izmir - Ankara stay in one piece. Won't happen but can it happen ?