best sport ever.

speed walking > cricket

no cricket is better. i've tried both.

chinese checkers > cricket

hmm ya

you're supposed to say no.

oh... no!

not fun anymore. let's talk politics. do you think pakistani isi is behind any recent terrorist attacks in india? do you think "al qaeda" is behind any of them?

don't think Al Qaeda was directly involved with the huge terrorist attack by the LeT on Mumbai but i could be wrong. the general feeling is Pakistani ISI discreetly support the LeT but there isn't enough evidence to point fingers.

america is trying to convince indian leaders that it's al qaeda, right?

no clue about that, sorry :(

hmm. seems to me like united states is trying to make india a U.S. client state. like israel, saudi arabia, UK etc.. idkwtf for though. absolute middle east domination?

India isn't in the Middle East and the UK is hardly a USA "Client State"

yea im sure uk democratically decided to help usa with iraq.

That doesn't make the UK a USA Client State. All it means is that the UK government decided that it wanted to invade Iraw as well, it's not like there was any strong arming on the USA side of things, Blair and co were very willing to do it.

idk how it isn't a client state when it's been disseminating U.S. elite propaganda for decades.

You know what, you've convinced me which such a solid argument based on nothing at all.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/speeches/

What about it?

so many speeches that are pro U.S. power. sry i got lazy and just posted that. later on i'll make another post.

What you're seeing as the UK being a US client state is nothing more than the shared heritage and values of the two countries being represented in similar approaches to politics, economics et cetera.

I often hear/read/see speeches from American politicians praising the UK too and UK politicians also often praise many European nations on all sorts of things.

idk man, i think if uk were not a huge slut to u.s. corporate power, then there would be a lot more coverage of u.s. atrocities and there would be a lot less bias(toward u.s. ruling class and its propaganda) in your media. for example, when i watch bbc and hugo chavez gets mentioned, bbc always throws in "self styled dictator." the guys a democratically elected president that the people of venezuela actually like. they like him so much that they revolted, rioted and overthrew the dictator that the cia installed after the cia overthrew chavez, in 2002.

wtf does uk have to do with chavez?

The media is a joke in this country, seemingly no research is ever done and usually it's just a dross opinion of some journalist graduate (Who happens to be a total moron).

Looking on the BBC website I can't see any such references made about Chavez but I don't doubt they've said such things. The BBC often has things that's complete rubbish on it (In terms of facts and opinions).

All I can say is the BBC, while public funded is not controlled by the government and acts as an idependant channel so anything like that is purely the opinion of some people/someone at the BBC.

The UK & USA seem to stick together on opinions though, just the USA being the much bigger power probably makes it look like the UK is just doing as it's told.

do you read the private eye? great publication imo, they do alot of great analysis and really expose public and private sector hypocrisy etc. and all in a non partisan way...

oh and its funny aswell.

I got this years compilation book thingy

Your example has nothing to do with a lack of reporting of "u.s. atrocities" - of which there's plenty.

obviously. it's an example of bias in their coverage.

Not bias but factual.

What attrocities has the US enacted that hasn't received mainstream coverage in the British press?

Not bias but factual.

he's not a dictator. he's a democratically elected president. the government of venezuela has the most popular government in the western hemisphere. if the people in venezuela are getting what they want, that means washington isn't. this is why they consider chavez a threat.

What attrocities has the US enacted that hasn't received mainstream coverage in the British press?

how often does the iraqi civilian death toll get a mention in british media? how often do the words "human rights violations" get used when british corporate media mentions the united states? how often hear the words "imperialist war?" how often do you hear about american missile attacks killing innocent civilians in pakistan and afghanistan? how often do you hear people calling the iraq war fundamentally immoral and illegal instead of just calling it a failure?(very much like the coverage of vietnam)

how often does the iraqi civilian death toll get a mention in british media? how often do the words "human rights violations" get used when british corporate media mentions the united states? how often hear the words "imperialist war?" how often do you hear about american missile attacks killing innocent civilians in pakistan and afghanistan? how often do you hear people calling the iraq war fundamentally immoral and illegal instead of just calling it a failure?(very much like the coverage of vietnam)

Fairly often to be honest.

To be fair on the BBC not a single Chavez article on their website mentions anything other than him being a highly popular president.

It is funny that he singles out the beeb, given that they’re regarded as socialist communist leafy lefties (:

You hear it all the time, near every day there’s an article, op ed or story relating to at least one of those… what British media outlets do you regularly visit lo?

"Leftist" and "populist" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1925236.stm - you're living in a fantasy lo

bbc youtube channel everyday. that's all of the british media that i pay attention to.

Right, so that gives you a great overview of the British media.

Do fuck off.

that's all that i watch, atm. that doesn't mean i haven't watched or read other british news. the other news sources in britain don't seem at all different to me, in the same sense that i don't find a difference between fox news and cnn.(they try to appear to be left vs right but they're exactly the same in terms of how much corporate bias there is) i used to read the guardian a lot and have had read several articles from various online british news sites.

i don't have the time or the will to do an in-depth institutional analysis of the british corporate media.

Here's a start http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22245

I like reading the comments to the political blogs on the bbc website, you always get some conservative person droning on about how left wing biased it is et cetera.

Comments in the Comment is Free section of the guardian always a good way to kill time at work =)))

completely to the contrary of all that i have seen of bbc. of the news channels on youtube, i watch bbc the 2nd most.

I've never seen the BBC YouTube channel (I barely use youtube at all)

i don't watch television so i get all my news online.

I don't watch much TV either :P

Kinda, mainly it's because Standard Oil still runs America, and well, they want the oil. So they start wars, which they profit from regardless who wins, 'cause the V.P. was primary shareholder of Haliburton, so god knows how many millions Cheney made with the decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
So, to perpetuate their monopoly on the planet, any and all resources deemed worthwhile are taken by force.
That's why they want India to think it's 'Al Queda'.

AMIRITE? AMIRITE? AMIRITE? THEY DO THAT, DON'T THEY? I KNOW THAT THEY DO IT, JUST TELL ME MR. INDIA!

geez, let it go. :E

go play cricket, mashbox.

cricket sucks.

u sucks

me > Sporting Lisboa

syphilis > u

you dont understand terrorism do you ?

most of the islamic countries have a huge network of terrorism lying in them, it is hard to understand to decipher who's behind who. Al queada people dont walk with a name card hanging around their neck , do they? and in times like these when they are hunted its convenient for them to form liasons/ work under / supervise over other groups, and in that situation you throw in Pakistan, a state which is currently ..no one knows who is in control.. the government ? ISI ? insurgents in different provinces ? how much more messy can it get ?

IMHO the biggest nightmare is insurgents getting hold of pak nukes, and it can easily happen.

U.S. is essentially funding this by buying oil from middle east where the money for terrorism originates and they started it too...by arming up mujahideens in afghan war against russia. The way things are going they might turn pakistan into a shit hole like afganisthan and thus bringing 100 more years of misery and grief.

got more questions ?

my turds have a better understanding of the middle east than you.

the problem is your turds have a better understanding not your brain, maybe you need to eat ur turds so that it reaches ur brain.

butcher>aids>turds

yeah , in order of worthlessness.

well played by the edit there :D

ya

you dont understand terrorism do you ?

right.

most of the islamic countries have a huge network of terrorism lying in them, it is hard to understand to decipher who's behind who.

not really. that's what the corporate media says. there are a lot of islamic countries, outside of the middle east, who aren't accurately described by this statement. i dare say even the one's inside the middle east aren't accurately described by your statement.

Al queada people dont walk with a name card hanging around their neck , do they?

wtf are you insinuating?

and in times like these when they are hunted its convenient for them to form liasons/ work under / supervise over other groups,..

only people i see that are "hunted" are innocent civilians and militants that are trying to defend their land, in countries that the U.S. is terrorizing.

..and in that situation you throw in Pakistan, a state which is currently..

it was the purpose of me asking the question.. i wanted to confirm , via ashr's input, if people in india thought pakistani isi(pakistani equivalent of cia. formed by cia.) were behind terrorist attacks happening there. which is what all the independent media i've seen about terrorism in india has to say.

..no one knows who is in control.. the government ? ISI ? insurgents in different provinces ?

i'm sure u.s. corporate power have much more say in pakistani policy than any other groups or individuals.

how much more messy can it get ?

ww2ish.

IMHO the biggest nightmare is insurgents getting hold of pak nukes, and it can easily happen.

it won't.

U.S. is essentially funding this by buying oil from middle east where the money for terrorism originates and they started it too...by arming up mujahideens in afghan war against russia.

one country, one situation. taliban wasn't a threat to u.s. security anyway. we only invaded afghanistan because the elites would be unable to get support for the iraq war, if we had only invaded iraq.(and that was the plan on 9/12/01)

The way things are going they might turn pakistan into a shit hole like afganisthan..

who are they? only answer i could agree with, at this time, is u.s.

..and thus bringing 100 more years of misery and grief.

like the misery caused by united states intervention, over the last 100 years?

i dare say even the one's inside the middle east aren't accurately described by your statement.

obviously all occupants of those countries are not jihadists but jihadi elements flourish since almost all islamic preachers constantly remind of western oppression, and in countries like those religion does control a lot of things unlike the countries where things are kept separate.

I wish it was a story sold by U.S. but unfortunately it's not. It's the way things are.

i'm sure u.s. corporate power have much more say in pakistani policy than any other groups or individuals.

that is exactly where the problem comes in, a policy is only worth when there is a governing body on which u can impose it, u r right in your statement but US can only impose policies on the pakistan goverment and maybe I.S.I. but they are not in control any more. ( they were in the 90's). You can not impose policies on a hydra headed creature, 1-2 heads might listen to you but not all.

lol
you watch Fox News, don't you? Admit it.

source: 24 ? ;)

I don't think us buying oil has any direct influence on funding terrorism...Probably more so our military purchasing thousands and thousands of kilos of heroin...Why burn the poppy fields when you can just buy them? :(

go?

cup stacking>go

I wonder if it's even worse than baseball, I haven't been able to watch a full match of any of the two.

Does anyone actually know how to play cricket? I don't think so.

i do and i'm not too bad at it either.

Stop lying to yourself.

come over to India sometime and i'll show you. actually... just get off the plane and ask the first guy standing next to you. he'll know how to play cricket.

I like it when they have programs about India on TV and you always see kids playing cricket in the middle of streets £££

street cricket is the best. it's something that almost every Indian kid experiences :D i miss those days.

Same thing in za :)

That's true, and cool :P

Great fun to play.

Cricket is definitely better than Baseball. Summer of cricket is the best.

who the fuck said anything about baseball?

I did.

ice capades>cricket

baseball sucks

curling>cricket

Cricket is actually fun to play, but ive never watched it before and dont ever intend too!

rps>cricket

Cricket?! Nobody understands cricket. You gotta know what a crumpet is to understand cricket.

aids>crumpet

I think cricket is good because it takes so long that you can have a huge barbecue session meanwhile.

soccer>cricket

*grabs beer, lawnchair*
hey Raist! i got a good spot to watch from here!

doesn't last for days though

real football>soccer

you mean american football? lol no fucking way, and I'm not even a soccer fan

real football>barbecue

die in a twin tower of cheeseburgers you infidel!!!

cheeseburger>cricket

agreed

what do you think about the u.n. trying to limit free speech and make it illegal to publicly defame religions?

It sucks, but don't say the UN as a whole, rather a group of States. However as long as the some countries oppose this (like Western countries), it can't be made illegal for them in international law.
edit: btw cricket > religion :D

right on.

mormans>cricket

cricket > CS

I don't think people from the country of NFL should be telling the rest of the world anything about what is good or bad about sports.

Also, seeing as the cricket debate won't be going away any time soon lets start another.

Rugby>all

Thankyou and goodbye.

world of warcraft>rugby

Larvi's music posts > world of warcraft

agreed

Right, only the rest of the world should tell us what is good or bad about sports. Obviously we care about sports outside our country

hi>lo

pl>uk

lolo > lo

amazing thread you got there... inequalities and politics..who would have thought?

cancer>lolograde

domination at its best !!

by obv at least 2x

Cricket is too complex for simple american minds

I concur.

my thread>urs

my country>urs

usa>rugby

kebabs>tacos

tortilla chip+salsa>kebab

Are you mad?

pepsi>coke

dr pepper>pepsi

pepsi = coke

therefore dr pepper > coke

i dont even like soda

polka>techno

opinion != fact

linkin park > techno

oooer, you have me there I am quite partial to dr pepper

cherry coke>dr pepper

diet pepsi twist > cherry coke

2 > 1

cricket = bizarro baseball

cricket came first, ergo baseball = bizarro cricket

unless someone is trying to cave someones head in that it's pretty shitty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgY7R8J7ENY

like so?

u shitty

I DONT LIKE CRICKET

screamo>reggae

Mars Volta > At the Drive-In

dunno either of those shit noises..

>sparta

American cruise missiles > sand niggers.

my dick > urs

> > <

< < >

Cut your hair fucking hippy.

no, chav.

Never been called that before <:O)

first time for everything, fucking slag.

Johnny Unitas > Lo

richard simmons > gladius

you dont even know what my hair is like =(
btw: Marouane Fellaini > *
http://www.sporza.be/polopoly_fs/1.485332!image/181058697.jpg

don't want to know what you look like, fucking hair nazi!