Maurituis?????damn i need a break like that,,,,,

Who wud've ever thought the US in the top 11, damn how times change,,,,,,,,it looks a fair ranking to me,,,,maybe England above Mexico, Portugal in 17th??????thats gotta be wrong,,,,,,

brother Jackson just doesnt have that ring to it, but hey if its true, it can be a path to islam as we know it,,,which has been the case for many former Nation of Islam members who realised the truth, i hope he does embrace the 'real' Islam, ia

Its the last thing drivers really need, more laws making driving more chaotic,,,, yr fone needs to be attached to the front dash area so u can see who yr calling and whos calling u, yr hand must be free and on the wheel and guess what, the wireless handsfree are like £80+, who wants a long wire stretching from the dash to yr ear??? :rolleyes: oh well, i always thought i was illegal neway, so no diff to me

http://www.soyouthinkyouknowfootball.com/?lbid=8497&startaction=autostart&ref=challenge#

what does the OG stand for neway? Original Gangsta? Old Guy? Old Gentleman? Oday Gaboobay?

US accused of double standards after granting Saddam prisoner-of-war status By Robert Verkaik and Rupert Cornwell 17 December 2003 The US administration was accused of gross hypocrisy yesterday after granting Saddam Hussein the legal rights that for more than two years it has denied the 660 detainees held in Guantanamo Bay. The treatment of Saddam as a prisoner of war under the terms of the Geneva Conventions and the promises he will be given a fair trial contrast sharply with the status of the "illegal combatants" picked up by the coalition forces in the war against terror. The decision has been made by the Pentagon irrespective of whatever role Saddam may have had in orchestrating the resistance to the occupation, including the suicide bombings which have claimed the life of the UN representative Sergio Vieira di Mello and those of many Iraqi civilians. Insurgents have also killed almost 200 US soldiers since major combat ended in May. While the Americans have consistently referred to the deposed dictator as a sponsor of world terrorism and guilty of crimes against humanity, the Guantanamo detainees still do not know the charges upon which they are being held. Peter Carter QC, chairman of the Bar's human rights committee, said that the Americans and the Iraqi provisional council had guaranteed Saddam access to a lawyer, the right to be tried within a reasonable period and adequate facility to prepare his own defence. "As a prisoner of war they can only interrogate him for the purposes of a specific crime. I'm not sure that under international human rights laws they can even ask him about the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction," said Mr Carter. The category "illegal combatant" confers no such rights on the Guantanamo Bay detainees. Louise Christian, a lawyer representing some of the families of the detainees, said: "I think it's appalling that someone like Saddam Hussein, who many people believe has committed crimes against humanity, is enjoying a privileged status in relation to people who are not in that category at all and have no advocates to argue for them." She added: "Human rights apply to everyone and I think it's right that Saddam should be given the benefit of a fair trial. But that right should also be afforded to those still being held in Guantanamo Bay." Instead of flying Saddam to Camp X-Ray, the American authorities have wasted little time in in effect designating him a prisoner of war. The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, confirmed yesterday that Saddam was being accorded "the protections of prisoners of war". He defended the Pentagon's release of a videotape of Saddam after his capture, saying Iraqis needed to see proof he was "off the street, out of commission". Mr Rumsfeld rejected charges that the videos breached the Geneva Conventions, which bar PoWs from being displayed publicly as objects of ridicule, saying that "by a reasonable definition of the Geneva Convention", Saddam had not been treated in a demeaning fashion. Some US officials have suggested Saddam's PoW status could yet be revoked. But international human rights lawyers say that is now impossible. Yves Sandoz, an academic and a former senior legal adviser at the International Committee of the Red Cross, said Saddam benefited from protection under the Geneva Conventions as the head of his country's army. "It's very clear in the Geneva Conventions that they apply to specific people, and to Saddam Hussein as supreme chief of the armed forces, from the moment he is captured and until he is freed," said Mr Sandoz. "A prisoner of war can be sentenced for war crimes, that's clear, and he can be prosecuted for crimes committed before the conflict." Lawyers said the prospect of a public trial could backfire on the West if Saddam decides to call evidence of international compliance in his bloody war with Iran. He might also employ the defence used by the prominent Nazi Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg war crimes trial, when Goering argued that it was not a crime to wage an aggressive war. Further questions are also being raised about the competence of the Iraqis to conduct a fair trial in accordance with international standards. Stephen Jakobi, the director of Fair Trials Abroad, said the Iraqis were ill-prepared to hold a war crimes trial on the scale now being proposed. Some Muslim lawyers questioned the legality of Saddam's detention. Hussein Majali, president of the Jordanian Bar Association, issued a statement yesterday making it clear that he considers the former Iraqi president to have been unlawfully deposed in April, and unlawfully captured by US forces over the weekend. "The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is the legitimate president of Iraq because the [uS-led] occupation does not have any legality," argued Mr Majali. "The Jordanian Bar Association considers President Saddam Hussein as the head of the resistance to liberate a dear part of our occupied Arab land." He urged the world, and Arab leaders in particular, to provide Saddam with "the legitimate protection he deserves as a leader of a liberation movement against occupation".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3295123.stm

What can i say,,,,,sick,,,,,,,, What i found astonishing is the way they lie, lie and lie,,,,,on that programme last night, they lied thru their teeth like it was normal and they were soo convincing,,,,,, :eek:

How can i 4get Imran Khan and Wasim Akram??? damn my memory is slowin up,,,,, :rolleyes: Relaxing on a summers sunday afternoon watching good cricket on the telly sipping ice cold fruit juice,,,,,,,

Dont really know, names like ViV Riachards of the Windies, Ian Botham, Curtly Ambrose, Lara is up there,,,,,,

Good to hear yr a fellow Cricketer, Lara and Tendulka,mmmmtricky one, I think they are equal, cant seperate the two, but i think the main man these days is Rahul Dravid,,,he has an abundance of finesse that the other two lack,,,,,,,

i know most of u are like, wtf is he talkin bout, but its a good sport when u get into it,,,,just wanna highlight the Aussie defeat to India, and ma boy Rahul Dravid doing the biznezz,,,,,, Was this Test cricket's greatest comeback? Australia 556 & 196 India 523 & 233-6 India win by four wickets By Jon Culley 17 December 2003 Australia, still reeling from England's triumph in the Rugby World Cup, may be in a state of national shock again after India's staggering comeback victory in the second Test match in Adelaide yesterday but the world champions can console themselves at least with having participated in another of the greatest Test matches in cricket history. India's four-wicket win, completed in the early hours of yesterday when the man of the match, Rahul Dravid, cut the leg-spinner Stuart MacGill to the boundary for four, joins the tied Test in Brisbane in 1960, England's stunning win at Headingley in 1981, the West Indies' 308-run chase at Bridgetown in 1999 and the Centenary Test at Melbourne in 1977 among the finest matches ever played, all of which featured Australia. There are others worthy of inclusion and India's achievement at the Adelaide Oval will refresh the debate. Certainly, there can be little dispute that it deserves to be spoken of in the same company, given the extraordinary position from which Sourav Ganguly's team recovered. Australia are the first team to have lost a Test match after topping 500 in the first innings since they did so themselves against England more than 35 years ago. Having watched helplessly as Australia piled up 400 for 5 on the opening day, going on to reach a daunting first-innings total of 556, in which Ricky Ponting made a brilliant 242, India's captain, Ganguly, was himself a casualty - run out for two - as the tourists' reply wobbled precariously at 85 for 4. But India turned the match around with a 303-run partnership between their vice-captain, Dravid (233), and VVS Laxman (148), remarkably conceding a first-innings deficit of only 33 before Ajit Agarkar produced the best bowling of his career, finishing with 6 for 41 as the home team collapsed to 196 all out in their second innings. Chasing a target of 230, India began the final day apparently cruising at 37 for 0 only to be pushed hard by a determined Australia before Dravid came up with the key innings, keeping his head to make a patient 72 not out. Ganguly and Australia's captain, Steve Waugh ,were united in lavishing praise on Dravid after the right-hander enjoyed the finest moment of his career. Ganguly said: "He batted like God here once again and I'm not surprised the way he's played. I've always said he was one of the greats." Waugh added: "He has a great technique and a great temperament. We always knew he was a good player but now we're going to have come up with a new plan to get him out." Dravid now has 16 Test hundreds, including four doubles, and a career average of 56.54. His 233 in the first innings was the third highest score by an Indian in Test cricket, the largest overseas, and the fourth highest by a foreigner on Australian soil. He compared it with his 180 in the Calcutta Test in 2001, when India also produced a staggering recovery to beat Australia. "This would definitely have to be my best Test performance," he said. "But I look back on Calcutta and it still gives me such joy. I have great emotion, but maybe when I've finished and I have a chance to sit back this victory will mean a lot as well." The Test at Eden Gardens two years ago was dubbed the "Miracle of Calcutta" after another rare moment of frailty interrupted Australia's otherwise triumphant march as they set a world record for squandering a first-innings lead to lose a Test. They forced India to follow on 274 runs behind before another brilliant stand between Laxman and Dravid, who put on 376, sent Waugh's team to their first defeat in 19 Tests. India's triumph yesterday was their first in Australia since their success at Melbourne in February 1981 and Australia's first defeat in Adelaide since England won by 106 runs in the fourth Test in 1995. Australia are the first team in more than 35 years to lose a Test match after scoring more than 500 in their first innings, since West Indies did it against England in March 1968. But in a series in 1894-95, Australia scored 586 in the first innings against England in Sydney only to lose after enforcing the follow-on. Australia will point out in mitigation yesterday that they were without their front-line bowlers, Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne and Brett Lee, and suffered another setback before lunch when the pace man Jason Gillespie left the field with a groin injury. Gillespie had given Australia a good start when he trapped Akash Chopra leg before wicket with the total on 48 but limped off soon afterwards. MacGill kept Australia in the game when he had Virender Sehwag stumped before lunch, then Sachin Tendulkar went lbw before tea without offering a shot. Simon Katich held a sharp catch at gully to get rid of Ganguly and the pace man Andy Bichel dismissed Laxman and the wicketkeeper Parthiv Patel after tea but the magnificent Dravid, offered two lives by Adam Gilchrist on nine and Ricky Ponting on 20, kept his cool. Although India have still won only six Tests out of 69 on foreign soil, three have come in the last two years. Last year they beat England by an innings and 46 runs in Leeds and the West Indies by 37 runs in Trinidad. For Australia it is the first time in almost 10 years they have been 1-0 down in a home Test series since losing to South Africa in the second Sydney Test by five runs in January 1994. Australia have not lost a home series since going down 2-1 to the West Indies in 1992-93.

By Kathy Marks in Sydney 20 November 2003 Animal rights activists claimed yesterday to have fed pig meat to 70,000 sheep awaiting shipment to the Middle East in an effort to render them unsuitable for consumption by Muslims. I would love to read the rest of this article but u have to pay for it,,,,,,,http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/story.jsp?story=465412 They ban meat from Somaliland and then this is what happens to them,,,,,arabs :rolleyes:

By Eric Silver in Jerusalem 17 December 2003 In the best "now it can be told" tradition, Israel revealed yesterday that it planned to assassinate Saddam Hussein in a daring commando raid deep inside Iraq in 1992. The chosen site was close to where United States forces took him alive on Saturday. The operation, "Bramble Bush", was aborted after a missile killed five soldiers during a dry training run in southern Israel. Their commander mistakenly fired live ammunition. Ehud Barak, who was the army chief of staff at the time, was observing the exercise with much of his top brass. Yitzhak Rabin, the Prime Minister in 1992, had approved feasibility studies, but his government never approved the assassination. The training disaster was widely reported and two officers were court-martialled, but the military censor has only now allowed the target to be identified. The mass-circulation Yediot Aharonot reported yesterday that two Sikorsky helicopters were to drop the commandos with Jeeps into the Iraqi desert the night before the funeral of one of Saddam's uncles. They were to drive to within range of the family cemetery near Tikrit, the dictator's hometown. A team of four men was to advance to within a few hundred metres of the target. Once they had spotted Saddam, distinguished by the uniform he wore on formal occasions, they were to radio his location and the hit squad would fire a television-guided missile. The troops were ordered to fight to the death. "At no stage," the newspaper reported, "would they surrender, and they would choose suicide rather than be taken prisoner. But it was important that one person would not emerge alive, Saddam Hussein." Planning for Bramble Bush began soon after the 1990-91 Gulf War, in which 39 Scud missiles were fired at Tel-Aviv from Iraq. Israel yielded to American pressure not to retaliate during the war, but felt it had to do something later. "The main motivation," a senior officer involved in the planning told Yediot , "was revenge for the missiles ... It was inconceivable that this man could get away with firing missiles at population centres and come out unscathed." The raid was carefully planned, with intelligence agents tracing where the dictator went in person and when he used doubles. One night, they are said to have spotted two "Saddams" visiting different mistresses at the same time. Major Nadav Zeevi, the former intelligence officer for the mission, told Israel's Army Radio that the funeral was chosen because "we realised we would have to find something that was emotionally so important to him that he would not send a double". * Iran is the world's "number one terror nation" and is plotting relentlessly to attack Israeli targets, Avi Dichter, the head of the Shin Bet security service, said yesterday. He called on the US, the EU and Russia to restrain the country. Israel has in the past accused Iran of sponsoring militant groups, but he also said that "Iran has marked the Israeli Arabs as a potential fifth column for them to exploit".

By Nyier Abdou in Cairo 13 December 2003 Every year, I try to pull together the various strands of my extensive Cairene family for a family portrait. These pictures have become a chronicle of many things - the birth and staggering growth of new generations, for one. In the past few years, the most noticeable trend is the covering of the women in the family. Four years ago, one or two headscarves could be spotted in the crowd; today, only one or two women are without one. The increasing number of women wearing the hijab has brought about a radical change in the image of the Egyptian woman. As young, urbane women increasingly take the veil, age-old associations between hijab and the traditional religious conservatism dissipate. "It's not a matter of old women getting veiled, just out of a habit," says Nesrine Samara, project manager at the new English-language magazine Jumanah, a fashion bible for veiled women due to launch this month. "It's not a matter of just covering up; it means a lot of other things." Ms Samara, a 27-year-old marketing executive, is a political science graduate of the American University of Cairo. Smartly dressed in camel boots, a long coat and a bright orange scarf, she resists the notion that being veiled is simply about being modest. Women are increasingly taking the veil as a way of identifying with the larger culture of Islam, she argues. But it's not just a statement of identity, it's a fashion statement. One friend spent weeks scouring shops offering a dizzying array of brightly coloured, lavishly printed material to find a scarf that would perfectly match the dress she was wearing to her cousin's wedding. At a trendy café in Cairo's Zamalek district, well-dressed veiled women gossip while seated on plush couches over a late lunch or huddle over lattes, their laptops open on the tabletop. This is the dawn of the "new hijab". The trend, however, is fraught with contradictions. When it hits the stands, Jumanah will bump up against magazines such as the English-language glossy, Enigma. The cover of Enigma's December "Glamour Issue" bears a lusty picture of the Romanian designer Ramona Flip wearing a lacy black dress with a deep-plunging neckline. Speaking of Egypt's pioneering feminists such as Hoda Shaarawi, Ceza Nabarawi and Nabawiya Moussa - who famously unveiled after a trip to the International Women's Suffrage Alliance congress in Rome in 1923 - Ms Samara notes: "The first thing they did was take off the veil, as a statement. It was political then, and for a long time, it was only the daring, the educated and the freedom-seekers who were not veiled." Does the return of the veil imply a backward trend in Egyptian feminism? The question is a contentious one, but for progressive Muslim women like Ms Samara, the suggestion that the veil is somehow reactionary or oppressive is antediluvian. Putting on the veil has, in fact, become as bold a statement as taking it off once was. "When you're veiled, it's not because you're a sex symbol, or because you're sexy, so you have to cover up," she says. "It's the contrary. It's something that tells you, you're a woman. You're not a figure. You have to be treated as an independent mind, something of bigger value than just wearing a short, tight skirt and showing off your legs. I see it as a privilege that Islam tries to tell a woman that you are more than a figure." But Ms Samara and other marketing colleagues who had taken the veil found that it could be difficult to be both fashionable and veiled. The group saw a large market virtually untapped and founded Jumanah. The credo "Veiled is beautiful" is emblazoned on the front of the Winter 2004 issue. Inside the models are all covered up, but in the new fashionable hijab. Rasha Saad, 33, who began wearing the veil three years ago, is pleased to find a magazine dedicated to wearing the veil with style. She notes that in the past few years local fashions have been more compatible with wearing the veil. There is a difference between attracting attention and just paying attention to one's appearance she says. "If you're wearing tight clothes, that's something different. But just trying to wear something that looks good, there's no problem in that."

By Marie Woolf, Chief Political Correspondent 17 December 2003 Cherie Blair has risked offending one of Britain's closest allies in the Middle East by highlighting the "appalling image" of Saudi Arabia and saying it is seen as treating women not as equals but "some sort of other". The Prime Minister's wife, speaking at an event to promote Muslim women in public life, made her remarks in front of the Saudi ambassador to Britain, Prince Turki al-Faisal. She made a plea to change the "perception of Islam being backward-looking, oppressive - somehow not as good as Western Christianity". Mrs Blair, who is a practising Catholic, also risked offending members of her own faith by saying: "Some of you know my own religion has not always been in the forefront of women's rights, and indeed still isn't sadly." Mrs Blair highlighted Saudi Arabia's reputation for gender discrimination, straight after a speech from the kingdom's ambassador. Addressing him directly, she said: "I am so delighted that His Royal Highness came from Saudi Arabia because as I said to your wife when I met her Sir, I said that Saudi Arabia's image in the world is appalling and we need to do something about that, we need to help you do something about that. Part of the reason it's appalling is that perception that you treat your women like they are not equals but some sort of 'other'." She added: "And I know that that is not in fact the reality. You have many strong women." The ambassador said he was not affronted "at all" by her remarks. Yet she amazed many Muslims attending the dinner on Monday evening in the House of Lords. Mrs Blair was reflecting the official view of the Foreign Office, which in its most recent human rights report expressed "deep concerns about Saudi Arabia's failure to implement basic human rights norms," including rights for women.

rocko, i saw yr boys get beaten pretty badly by India in the cricket,,,,,,

Jazakallahukhara bro! "You may feel fundamentally, ethically or religiously, opposed to the idea of student loans, but they are now an unavoidable element of higher education funding." Thats just the way it is these days. You try convincing an 18 year old who has just started uni and comes from the endz not take out a loan £5000 a year. Temptations usually take over. To be honest i thought the loan was interest free, i'm sure that what alot ppl aslo thought. May allah forgive all those who either take or pay interest unintentionally,,,ameen.

Its the 21st century and the popular WORLD RELIGION today is called MODERNITY & LIBERALISM and there lord is the MIGHTY BUCK. Religion is only practiced by most people when it is convenient and on a part time basis. Yeah like Christmas,,,,,,politics is their ruler,,,walaahi when u see white ppl talking seriously about politics, its disturbing,,,,,

good point, she highlited how Catholics preach goodness but are totally diff in real life, they tried brushing this under the carpet, like they do with alot of things,,,,,

^^^oh i think hes this, oh i think hes that,,,, give the guy a break, god knows the truth, there things coming out each day, lets not follow the blind folded shephard (media) into the water,,,,

Isnt she actually condoning what they did (the priests)by performing there. If she believed in this issue so much surely she could have declined the offer and instead given out her message of disapprovement through the media (well she is with sony/columbia i think).

^^^lol wanna know all the gossip ey? wlc back bruv

La Liga and Seria A are considered tougher/higher/better calibre than the Prem,,,,,,,theres yr answer right there lol@rocko, yeah thats Ronaldo right there,lol