Is

That the assistant referee managed to get 4 big calls wrong in favour of Arsenal?

1) Gave a corner when it was blatantly obvious that it was a goal kick. Also, there were two players between him and the ball, so how he could see beyond doubt that it came off the Norwich player is baffling. He clearly just guessed, but you are supposed to favour the defending team if you're not sure.

2) Gave a penalty to Arsenal despite the fact that there was a whole crowd of players between him and the ball so his view of the incident would have been minimal at best. On top of that, it is something you see at every single corner or free kick in a game and Giroud was tugging Kamara's shirt too. Also, the referee who was directly in front of it didn't see a foul, so how could the linesman, 50 yards away?

3) Didn't give a foul when Giroud kicked the defender in the back whilst 'winning' a header for Arsenal's third.

4) Didn't give Walcott offside despite the fact that he was directly in line with the incident, there was nothing blocking his view, and none of Walcott's body was actually onside.

All seems a bit fishy to me. One or two calls is to be expected if you're having a lucky day, but 4? And they happened conveniently whilst Arsenal were in desperate need of goals at the end of the game having failed to score for 80 minutes.

That's 3 times recently now where he has been shown to be fouled on the replays afterwards, yet the idiot refs decide to book him for no reason. Against Liverpool it was a foul by Agger. Against Fulham it was a foul by Sidwell. Against Sunderland it was a foul by Gardner. There was definite contact in all of them and no other player would get booked for diving there. It is this ridiculous witch hunt in the media and by idiots who see that he's been booked and don't bother to watch the actual incident and see that it's a foul.

When you see the absolute joke penalty that Walcott got and the assault on Bale in the area today?

http://www.idfblog.com/2012/12/12/how-do-goods-get...

This is the truth, unblemished by Palestinian lies.

And haven't won a trophy for 8 years?

Hamas had already fired 14 rockets over, including 3 immediately after the ceasefire, so why would anyone say that Israel broke it? Also, the IDF fired warning shots first to tell the Palestinians to go back, and then fired at their legs, so not to kill them. They went into a no-go zone and tried to breach the Gaza fence, which is technically a breach of ceasefire anyway, so what did they expect to happen?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-204444...

There are some moronic atheists out there who say things like 'believing in God is the same as believing in Santa', 'religion is blind faith and ignorant' and 'I don't believe in a man sitting in the clouds who watches over us', when none of these things are true. They seem to completely miss the concept of God as something that is beyond the realms of what we can understand and omnipotent and say that it is the same as believing in Santa when the two are completely different. Why don't they see that we are constantly questioning our religions in order to gain a better understanding of them? It is stupid to say religion is blind faith because for most people, you learn about religion and then decide whether you believe in it or not. It is a choice based on the evidence provided by religion, which is the opposite of blind faith. Why is it so hard for atheists to see that religion and science can go hand in hand? For example the story of creation for the first 6 days could have been the millions of years of evolution and the 7th day when man was created could have been the point when the first man evolved from apes. Why do atheists seem so sure that there is no possibility of there being a God when there is no evidence against it and there is no way of knowing for certain? Surely it is just stupid to say that there can't be a God,

We are protected by the ozone layer. This is because at a certain wavelength range, UV light breaks the ozone bond into O=O and an oxygen free radical, and at a different wavelength range, UV light causes ozone to reform. This means that the ozone layer absorbs UV light at both these wavelengths. Is it just a coincidence that UV light is only harmful to us at these wavelengths that are absorbed by the ozone layer or is there a possibility that it could be divine intervention?