Ok, not football at all, but it matters, eventually.

[ozleeds]

When have I accused any of the mainstream media, including but not limited to the BBC, to be B.S.?

And the account you give of the "incident" is full of conjecture ( No id of those stopped, they may or may not have been armed, the reasons for travel aren't known, they may have been planning a "violent act" but who knows, etc etc etc, and empty of actual facts, what a surprise.

Ohhh don't worry i recall perhaps go back and read your post.
Anyway billy this is for you merry Islam.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/3026864640811284.

[Billyni]

Ohhh don't worry i recall perhaps go back and read your post.
Anyway billy this is for you merry Islam.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/3026864640811284.

Methinks somewhere along the line, you have misinterpreted me.

[ozleeds]

Methinks somewhere along the line, you have misinterpreted me.

How? You said you're my mate, and as mates we share things! e.g., you said to me about my mates when I commented on mulsims so they must be your mates also lol Now look what you started our other mate is in agreement with you god forbid lol

[WTF11]

Was watching a PBS documentary about the aftermath of the Vietnam war. Apparently in the 8 or so years of US military involvement in what many historians consider to be one of the most lethal episodes of military conflict, nearly 60,000 US military personnel were killed.

Fast forward to a time when there were no wars involving American "boots on the ground" anywhere in the world and certainly not in the continental USA, 2016 - 2024. During that period, in the USA over 365,000 people died as a result of gunshot wounds, with over 100,000 of those being homicides.

That means that overall five times as many have died in the USA from gunshot wounds inflicted by owners of legally held firearms than the US military suffered in the whole of the Vietnam war.

In the UK over that same period, the figure was between 225 and 250 (NOT thousands!).

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a widely used slogan, popularized by the NRA and gun advocates, emphasizing individual responsibility in gun violence, though it's debated as a fallacy by gun control supporters who argue guns significantly enable killing. The phrase highlights guns as inanimate tools, but opponents counter that these tools drastically increase the lethality and ease with which people can cause harm, making the object's role crucial, not negligible, as shown by studies suggesting fewer gun deaths with fewer guns.

I know where I'd rather be.

[WTF11]

Methinks somewhere along the line, you have misinterpreted me.

What a surprise that would be!🤣🤣

[norfolk white]

Being a complete novice in world matter or politics, but trump taking Greenland is the same as putin taking crimea.

[ozleeds]

Being a complete novice in world matter or politics, but trump taking Greenland is the same as putin taking crimea.

Or the same as Europe taking the piss.

[WTF11]

Being a complete novice in world matter or politics, but trump taking Greenland is the same as putin taking crimea.

Completely different. Crimea has been at least partially "occupied" by ethnic Russians for a long time, and the annexation by Russia was met with general approval not just by the ethnic Russians, but by he whole of the population who (at the time) saw Russia as more "inclined" towards them than the then government in Kyiv. In addition Crimea was never a separate state, rather a region of Ukraine, and then (and now) Ukraine had no defence pact with other nations which would have deterred Russia.

Greenland is, and has been for longer than the USA has existed, part of the Danish empire, whether Trump or anybody else likes it or not. As part of the empire, Greenland is afforded the protection under the NATO treaty that all members of NATO benefit from, in particular Article 5, which effectively treats an attack on one as an attack on all, hence why Putin wouldn't cross the line into a NATO country, and why he doesn't want Ukraine to join. As long as NATO exists, the US in general and Trump in particular has no need for control of Greenland, the US already has a significant military presence there, as part of the joint defence mechanisms of the NATO allies. As I suggested in a previous post, the ONLY justification for the US to have an interest in controlling Greenland is if NATO were to cease to exist. The consequences of NATO no longer being that deterrent to Putin don't bear thinking about, but such an eventuality is not only possible but probable should Trump seize Greenland without both Danish and Greenlander approval, which he won't get (85% of Greenlanders effectively told him to shove his dollars where the sun don't shine in early 2025). NATO could no longer function when one member country illegally seizes the territory of another.

So no, the Crimean and Greenland situations are very, VERY different.

[norfolk white]

Yep, bit like my daughter always reliant on me to bail her out.

[norfolk white]

I stand corrected