B94villa

Should have worn socks.

Single combat.

Lol. You've ruined it for everyone now!

That's assuming Grealish had anything to do with the article being published . Because otherwise he just went to watch a game of football and someone else wrote something about him.

Was it.........In Utero?

Kurt Cobain

He's got a book coming out...

Onomatopoeic, innit?

Have the police got any leads? Enough to give them a ruff idea Improved. As the great Andrew Townsend would say, "Better!"

Doing stupid things for stupid reasons is a pretty catch-all description of humanity generally, so not sure how helpful that is for the purposes of this discussion. I think you know what I'm talking about though. If Islam specifically means that Muslims are impossible to live peacefully alongside, how to you explain the medieval exodus of European Jews to the Maghreb when fleeing Christian persecution? Or the Ottoman administration being made up of highly educated Christians and Jews? Or that Sharia law was one of the first to recognise a woman's right to divorce an abusive husband? Even Mohammed allowed a thriving Jewish community to establish itself in Medina (admittedly it didn't end well, again for political not religious reasons). All this at a time when the enlightened Christian kingdoms of Europe bathed once a month, burnt the mentally ill at the stake for witchcraft and believed that polyphony was the work of Satan. The obvious criticism of this is that these are historical and not current examples. However, they are examples of what a unified and largely secular Islamic society could look like. Most of the conflicts we see today that are held up as proof of these people's barbarism are the result of artificial borders created with no regard for the religious, cultural and tribal affinities of the people who live within them. This is not an accident, it is an age old Imperial trick which can be seen all over the world that serves a crucial purpose in keeping the local populations divided while they cast their eyes on the larger geopolitical prize, whether that be trade routes in previous centuries or oil and the "energy corridor" currently. That is so say nothing of decades of active clandestine involvement in destabilising any government or movement that doesn't kowtow to whatever measures international financial interests deem fit to impose on them. Fast forward to the present. Even crazy old Iran, with all it's death to the west posturing and rogue state status, seems more interested in avoiding a nuclear holocaust than the self appointed world policeman of the United States. They recently put to the UN a motion that would see all fissile material put into a central independent bank with a regulatory body responsible for loaning it out and ensuring proper use. The US and Israel vetoed the idea.

I disagree . Their horseshit ideology is very much the root of the problem. Then why hasn't the Muslim world always looked like it does now?

That's a fair point, and it's an easy trap to fall into. The point i was trying to make is that if someone said Christians and Jews are responsible it would be deemed anti-Semitic or anti-Christian. It's worth pointing out that the people who make policy and shape the narrative aren't coming at this problem from an Atheistic perspective, usually from a hardline and incredibly right-wing Christian/Jewish one. After all, we only started responding to ISIS when a Christian minority was threatened. Oddly, they weren't a part of the discussion when they were dying from sanctions or air strikes.

Would you hold up the Old Testament as proof that Jews are bloodthirsty maniacs? Of course not. I'm not defending one Abrahamic sect over another, as far as I'm concerned none of them should exist, but as I said earlier, religion is not the root of the problem, just a useful weapon.

Because most Muslims don't really believe it. In the same way that most Christians don't think their god wants you to rape your daughter and ban menstruating women from temples. Read the Old Testament, and then read a history of the Jewish kings. I think you'd struggle to find a bloodier religion anywhere in the world. Also, in all these cases it's pretty much the same book.

I think Islamophobia is understandable (but not justified) really. Everything you read or see on telly is pretty much aimed at producing that reaction. The alternative would be to blame the statesmen and "peacemakers" that are happy to sacrifice their own citizens to further their own agendas, and that wouldn't do.

Sorry mate, simply not true, and anyone who has lived in or studied the Middle East will tell you as much. You don't see that level of hatred towards Buddhists, Hindus or Sikhs, even though demographically Eastern Muslims are in much closer contact with them. None of those religions have a fraction of the historical (and current) responsibility for the issues in that region that the West does. The reason these places gravitate towards religious extremism is because political dialogue has failed the general populations, due in large part to the West's continued support of repressive dictators who dismantle any attempt at peaceful revolutions using torture, mass executions etc. if the West and Israel was opposed to Islamic fundamentalism they wouldn't have had a hand in training/arming amongst others the Mujahideen, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, ISIS, the Northern Alliance, and numerous Islamist militias in Lybia. They do so because these groups do their dirty work for them, crushing dissent, radicalising the population to perpetuate the East v West crusader narrative, and taking care of any moderate government that makes demands like nationalisation of their country's energy production or secular pan-Arab unionism. The general populations of these countries know this only too well. After all, Saddam Hussein and the Sauds have killed far more of their own people than Hamas and Islamic Jihad. What's the difference? The vast majority of people living in these places would love a bit of our democracy, just without the map-drawing and carpet bombing that inevitably comes with it whenever colonial interests are threatened. Remember that not only are Arabs fully aware of the historical issues we conveniently ignore, but they also live through them.

(It really does)

Best squad in the league lol. Biggest maybe.

Chelsea would kick lumps out of him, no doubt. Late sub against the big boys then get his confidence up against the lower teams would be the best course of action imo.

The gaal of it...

Not sure black armbands send out the right message.

Must have missed Terry and Suarez playing for Villa! In all seriousness though I can't see it hampering a move if we want rid. There are plenty of clubs and leagues willing to turn a blind eye to that kind of thing. All of this of course depending on the allegation being true.

How very racist

Was going to say. Even though I'd keep Vlaar as skipper for reasons of continuity and loyalty (or bribery), you'd have thought Big Phil would be first choice when Concrete doesn't start. No disrespect to Gabby, but he's not the same kind of motivator.