atinymonkey

Dealt with? I humbly beg to differ on that. I know/trained with/have met/prodded with sticks the solders that trained them. I don’t see that as a point to dispute. We may argue that we did not provide them with currency funds but we did fund them with arms, supplies, intelligence, trade routes etc. One news report from the period:- http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/afghanistan/afghan_12-27-85.html A representative from the Taliban, when Bin Laden was not allied to them:- http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/afghanistan/hashimi.html Interestingly, the above report details the Talibans attempts to have Bin Laden put on trial for terrorism. Co-operation was not avaliable from the West.

I agree with the other comments, but I'm sure we not only directly funded the Taliban in the Afghan/Russian war, but we also trained and armed them. We didn't use the UN as an intermediary, not for that period of time.

Answers in hindsight:- Still no link. Actually, whatever happened to Al Quaeda and the 'War on Terror'? You would have been right, but apparently national security was never an issue. We misheard Bush, he was talking about metaphorical weapons. Apparently, the high ranking defectors never existed. Plus, nobody ever mentioned them. Sorry. I just felt a before/after view would be funny

No, I don't watch foreign films.

Some of them might be.....

1) "Saiyûki" 2) "Miu meng yan che" 3) "Chu long ma liu" 4) "Shinobi no mono" 5) "Siunin Wong Fei-hung tsi titmalau" 6) "Wu dun ren shu" 7) "Ciao maschio" 8) "Long zhi ren zhe" 9) "Da no tien gu" 10) "Jûbei ninpûchô"

If you hit a diamond with a lump hammer, on an anvil, it will shatter into dust. They are not that hard, sudden shocks shatter them the same as toughened glass.

Oddly, I own a copy of the Get Shorty screenplay.

Have you tried the homework forum?

Warlocks, most probably. I bet the milk curdled and the dogs barked. Iron nails, that's what you'll be needing.

Well, it is a little on the crazy side of Christ lovin'. Piltdown Man? 'Evidence'?

No. Martin said that. Wow, you are sharp.

No. I don't. I've provided evidence of societies views on homosexuals though the years. Homophobia has only been prevalent in the west for a 170 year period, after society was convinced that homosexuality was wrong. This was not always the view of society. Your also completely ignoring the myriad of societys that exist and have existed. In the Roman Empire, it was expected that you had both male and female lovers, the same as in Greece, the same as in Japan. Your making the mistake of thinking your own perception of homosexuality is new, it is not. Society is not being original, it's simply returning to it's previous system of values.

If there are 6 men with knives and your on the outskirts of Paris, you keep your head down.

foible - kink Mink [hide]It's foible, the 's' is redundant.[/hide]

Your taking the rather large assumption that we know Schrodngr's_cat's real name. If you have personnel messages, usually people use the PM system.

Who, what and why? Try and make some sense.

No, what you said was society had no concept of homosexual love. You based that on an opinion the society viewed homosexual relationships as a series of 'one night stands'. What I'm saying is you don't have the faculties to back up such an opinion, nor to do have anything to substantiate such an erroneous position. Take one of the people from the list, W. H. Auden. Read his poem, "Funeral Blues" (1936):- http://tomasz.ii.uni.wroc.pl/auden.phtml And bask in the realisation that the concept of a man loving a man is indented throughout society, past and present.

Please, for the love of the giant zombie lobster Jesus, don't ask physicists to explain their explanations. I'm sure there is a law about that somewhere.

I think you can get 5-year tattoos now, they fade after 5 years just as you don't want it anymore, after you’ve turned into a corporate suit.

I wish you would think before you post, backing up your random opinion is foolish if you cannot substanciate what you think. Ok, facts, some historical homosexuals. Just some of the A's here, plenty more kicking around:- Abd Al-Rahman - Born 1880 Died 1901, The Afghani king Abu Nuwas - Born AD 756 Died 810, An Arabian poet Alexander I - Born 1777 Died 1825, The Russian czar Alexander the Great - Born 356 Died 323 BC, Macedonian king Alexander VI - Born 1431 Died 1503, A Pope Al-Hakem II - Born AD 961 Died 976, Cordoban ruler Al-Mutamid - Born 1069 Died 1090, The Ruler of Seville (Spain) Amunullah Kahn - Born 1919 Died 1929, An Afghani king Anacreon - Born 570 Died 490 BC, A Greek poet Hans Christian Andersen - Born 1805 Died 1875, A Danish author Anne Ioannovna - Born 1730 Died 1740, The Russian empress Antigonus II Gonatas - Born 276 Died 239 BC, A Greek king Antiochus I - Born 280 Died 261 BC, Another Greek king Aristotle - Born 384 Died 322 BC, A Greek philosopher Ashikaga Yoshimitsu - Born 1368 Died 1394, A Japanese shogun W.H. Auden - Born 1907 Died 1973, A British poet Saint Augustine - Born AD 354 Died 430, A Roman theologian Augustus - Born 31 BC Died AD 14, A Roman emperor Sourced from http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~wyatt/celebs-list.html If you like, you can wander off and find any literature or resource that directly backs up what your saying. Anything. Seriously.

This is where I buy my journals from:- http://www.aspinaloflondon.com/ If you want to look at different styles of binding they are a good place to look. They do make bindings bespoke, but don't bind books for you.

Nope, not really. The Lord's title is tied to the Land granted to him by the title, i.e. the Lord of Harewood. If the son inherits Harewood, then the title comes to him by default. However, if Harewood is sold then there is nothing to tie title to inheritance. Some bluebloods have been laying claim to titles after the land was sold, which is not how the system was supposed to work. If it did I'd be Lord of Liverpool, and the title would be worthless.

What is the ISDN number?

Even 10ft evil death Ninjas? Whoa, that's super liberal.