thorbotnic

I presume that they're in the country at the invitation of the Ukrainian government... Unlike the Russian troops in Ukraine, of course. If I was a citizen of of Baltic state, recently escaped from a century of Russian domination and subjugation, I would be looking in terror at the fascistic megalomania gripping the Russian government and seeking friends anywhere I could...

Michael Green is a fvcking lizard

Guam v North Korea in Taiwan, 2009 or 2010. The entry fee was 5 receipts (just normal retail receipts, you can use them to enter a govt lottery in Taiwan). Guam got a doing

Annexing Crimea and supporting the secession / annexation of Donetsk etc makes zero economic sense. All it will do is drive the rest of the Ukraine closer to the EU and disrupt trade. Putin's pet idea of the Eurasian Union is on the ropes as a result of his actions in Ukraine, too. China took advantage of Russia's increased dependence on them as a commodities customer (with Europe obviously looking for alternatives) to drive a much better deal on their new pipeline. Etc etc.Russia's economy is, as we all know, utterly dependent on exporting oil and gas. Putin had more then a decade to diversify but did nothing.

They're not as right wing as Vlad, as far as I can see. They haven't annexed another sovereign state's territory in the name of protecting a minority group, unlike him... And some other famous right wingers from history

Still think that Litvinenko's death had nothing to do with the Kremlin, Part? You and Funster and the other contrarianists on here may or may not be right about the casus belli and morality of the situation in Ukraine... But Russia massively violated international law in Crimea, regardless of other actions in the east of the country. No amount of whataboutery re the US can change that.

[quote name="Wine bibber" post="93446" timestamp="1423595710" SCOTLAND HAS NO STATE SPONSORED CHILD ABUSE. You're implying that Britain does (which may well be true) in which case Scotland absolutely does - it being part of Britain. Weren't you just saying you can't have the good bits without the bad?

Would Scots not continue to be British (culturally) post-independence? That's what was promised at length during the campaign. My feelings on the matter is that horrible deeds were committed in the name of Britain during the imperial era, as was the case for most European countries. Which European country was 'worst' is a matter for endless debate, but largely moot- any of the powers could have committed any of the abuses, had they been the controlling force at the place and time in question. Scotland and England played a full part in these imperial atrocities, and had they been independent countries (based on the prevailing European culture at the time) likely would have done too. This shows that to equate the current independence debate with recognising the acts of the British empire, or seeking to disassociate Scotland from them, makes little sense. It's a form of self-loathing that does nobody any good. I can understand why it's comforting to see an new independent Scotland as being an anti-imperial gesture, but it's a fairytale.

Are you serious? In what possible way was the use of Jerusalem in that advert pro-England? Did you even SEE the advert?

No. I just think there's more nuance to the world than the good / evil dichotomy you seem to perceive. And I also think that you'd feel very differently, and present an entirely different argument, should certain historical events have gone differently and it had been an (exclusively) Scottish empire that ruled 1/3 of the globe.

Had the British empire had been an unparalleled force for good in the world, many posters here would still seek to attack it. Because it was British. Not defending it, not saying other empires were better or worse - just saying that it's obviously not going to be dispassionately debated on here

The British got the idea for the Boer camps from the 'reconcentration' camps used in the Spanish-American war. So no, they do not share the honour. Who is defending any form of concentration camp?

That concentration camps were not invented by the British was quite clearly my point

A complete aside, but this isn't true.

Because people will discount his death as an accident

If you wanted to bump off a known nuclear smuggler and cover your tracks, wouldn't using nuclear material be the perfect choice?

His best work was done during the Asquith government

I remember that article you linked to a while back about how the SNP seem to be becoming slightly peronist... Hit the nail on the head for me

I think Scunnered would opine that 'what's the point in independence if it makes the working class worse off / no better?'

But... but... You said we'd have to let you use it?! Because of the balance of payments and oil revenue, you recall.

Wouldn't all this nonsense have continued exactly the same, given Scotland would've kept using the exact same money?

According to Ashcroft's polls after the referendum, that isn't true.

Were you allowed to sit together with your wife? Did you ever come across a female imam or 'community leader'? The inherent sexism in Islam (along with many other religions) is more than enough reason to dislike it.

Anybody who isn't sure of the existence of god does not believe in god, and is therefore an atheist. Although I very much dislike that term - I don't believe in the vast majority of imaginary things I could believe in, but only when it comes to god is there a label applied.An agnostic is by definition an atheist. Your faith, that is to say belief in revelatory truths, has inspired countless acts of inhumanity. You believe you are Right and others are Wrong, and that's all there is to it. Here's the thing, though - revelation is a falsehood.

If they're agnostic or atheist (the same thing), how are they Muslim? I suspect the fact that they're not Muslim may have an effect on why they don't take offence at pictures of Muhammad.