Jump to content

kick it off

Members
  • Content Count

    10,416
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Posts posted by kick it off


  1. [quote user="RvWs 4 year contract"]My dislike of Israel has NOTHING to do with the fact that it is a Jewish state.Israeli forces kill innocent people daily, restrict the movement of an entire people and jails most of them for no reason as well.I''m not anti a Jewish home land but I AM anti a state that kills innocent people purely because they happen to be Arab/Palestinian. [/quote]
    Exactly.
    Anti-Zionism, not anti-semitism.
    There''s nothing racist about it.
    But some people don''t seem to grasp that and have to make wild accusations of Anti-Semitism.
    And in response to YellowBirdie''s point re: Palestinians killing Israelis - yes it happens, and yes it is wrong. However if I were being kept in concentration camp-eque conditions then I would fight back with everything I had too. Israel has systematically targetted women and children and committed war crimes such as rounding up Palestinian civilians, into a house, then shelling it with a tank. Palestine has fired some rockets over the border. Israel killed more innocent civilians in 5 minutes of the 2009 war, than Palestine have in the last 20+ years combined. If Israel wants peace, they hold all the cards in the deck to get that done, but that''s not their agenda unfortunately.
    Being Anti-Israel has nothing whatsoever with racism or anti-semitism. Just to do with the difference between right and wrong. The problem is, people get all too sensitive/passionate about the issue which prevents reasonable discussion and debate (myself included). If I''m a racist for being against the actions of Israel''s, then you''re a racist for supporting the slaughter of Palestinians. It cuts both ways and is a nonsense card to throw out there, as I''ve clearly stated I have no problem with Israel existing as a Jewish homeland, even though I don''t believe they have a right to that land, but I have a problem with the way they exist.

  2. [quote user="littleyellowbirdie"]Nothing pseudo about Israel. Possession is nine tenths of the law and that lands their''s now even if it wasn''t before, same way as it was grabbed off the Jews who lived there back in biblical times.  [/quote]
    Even forgetting the fact that your argument is based upon a historic land grab that never happened, would you feel the same if Germany invaded and occupied England? "Oh well, guess it belongs to them now, we''ll just give up and start learning German".

  3. [quote user="littleyellowbirdie"]Nothing pseudo about Israel. Possession is nine tenths of the law and that lands their''s now even if it wasn''t before, same way as it was grabbed off the Jews who lived there back in biblical times. They got invaded and grabbed a bit more in fighting back, a bit that was supposed to be Palestinian, except everyone glosses over the fact that Syria had nicked that part for itself before the six-day war. Plenty of sympathy for the Palestinians of course and it''d be great to have a peaceful solution, but it won''t happen.

    Everyone complains about Israel not respecting UN mandates, but the fact is those nations that invaded Israel weren''t respecting UN mandates either. And after the crap the Jews have had around the world over the centuries I''ve no problem with being hard-nosed in defending their interests so it can''t happen again.

    Anyway, back to football. I quite agree I wouldn''t want an Israeli investor. We''d just end up with kidnapped players and bombs at the stadium.[/quote]
    Remember the possession fact and be just as ambivalent if someone nicks your car will you?
    There is absolutely no historical evidence to support the exile. Not one single account has ever been found. For such a momentous event, you would think at least one person would have decided to write about it. In fact the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests the Jews stayed where they were, which doesn''t exactly fit with your land grabbing theory (presuming you meant the fabled Roman land grab). The vast majority of Jews now in Israel have absolutely ZERO connection to that land, even through ancestry. Even Israel''s first Prime Minister believed the Jews of that region/time remained on that land and later converted to Islam and are now known as "Palestinians". It is only over the last 100 years that this myth of the "Jewish people" has emerged. Before then the only thing that Jewish people had in common was their religion, they did not exist as a seperate "people". 
    They did not "get invaded" - the six day war began because Israel launched airstrikes on Egypt. Egyptian troops were being mobilised on the borders, but there was no invasion. 
    So because my family were in the holocaust, I have a right to go round slaughtering people who had nothing to do with it too? This really p**ses me off. Israel would happily have you believe the only ones who suffered in WW2 were the Jews. Where is the homeland for the disabled?
    I think the UN mandates everyone "complains about" Israel breaking, are the ones such as the convention of human rights, rules of war etc. Israel has consistently abused human rights, used illegal weaponry (White phosphorous on civilian populations etc) and routinely committed genocide. The army even had T-shirts printed with disgusting slogans such as "one shot, two kills" with a picture of a pregnant Palestinian woman between crosshairs, underneath it.You have no problem with that because they are "defending their interests"? If so I''m shocked at your lack of humanity. The only reason they get away with it is because America lets them. Any other nation would have been invaded (ironically by the Americans) for the atrocities that have been committed in the name of Israel.
    How exactly is destroying people''s homes, blocking access to food/water and builiding/medical supplies "defending their interests"? Even assuming they have a right to exist as a nation, and to defend that nation, denying people water/food is not defending their interests. Unless their agenda, and therefore their interests are more focussed on eradicating Palestinians. Hardly a peaceful way to go about your business.
    I have no problem with Israel existing (even though it is a pseudo-nation that is not supported by archaeological evidence), but I do have a problem with the way they exist.

  4. [quote user="Herman "]

    [quote user="the bristol nest"]So an Israeli shows interest in reading. Why does this have to become an anti Delia thread? What''s more offensive is the casual antisemitism. What a shower.[/quote]

    Disliking Israel doesn''t mean anti-Semitism.

    [/quote]
    +1.
    Israel is the only nation in the WORLD where you can get citizenship based solely on your faith. If that criteria was replaced with skin colour, everyone would be up in arms about it. My own personal view, which I''m fully entitled to, is that the STATE OF ISRAEL is abhorrent due to the consistent massacres and human rights abuses they have committed throughout the duration of their history. They have effectively turned Palestine into a concentration camp (and yes, I don''t give a f*** if you find that distasteful, several of my family were slaughtered by the Nazis in the holocaust and my Grandfather survived Mauthausen, so if anyone has a right to say that, it''s me).
    I am not anti-semitic, I have absolutely no problem with Jewish people. Citizens of the state of Israel, by and large buy into the propaganda machine that Netanyahu and his cronies deliver, and they keep voting right wing facist war-mongers like him into the Knesset. I have a problem with Israel in the same way most people have a problem with Nazi Germany. I would have no problem having a Jewish owned club, but I would have a problem with an Israeli-owned one, unless the buyer had publically aired disgust for the actions of Israel previously.
    I''m not anti-semitic, but I am anti-Israel. There''s nothing more anti-semitic than Zionism.

  5. I would prefer Derby to stay down as I live there so incredibly convenient away day for me.
    However, I bloody hate QPR and would much rather see Derby go up than them. It''s a double edged sword for me.
    Looking forward to it though, should be a cracking game!

  6. I''m a little bit confused as to why everyone is determined that the board appointed Neil because he''s cheaper than the other options. Realistically, a manager''s salary compared to player acquisition and wages, is absolute peanuts. At club''s that are not destitute, I doubt that the salary of the potential manager is prohibitive very often.

  7. I''m mildly amused at the binners desperately clutching at straws. McCarthy''s record is mediocre at best. Yes he kept Wolves up, but did it playing appalling football for the most part. 
    Regardless of records, when a player signs for a club, it''s the same as any of us going for a job, you meet the man/woman and make a judgement on what it would be like to work under them, do you buy into their ethos etc. Yes McCarthy''s record is infinitely longer, but he comes across as a miserable tw@ whereas Adams comes across as passionate, driven etc. I know which I would rather work for, regardless of CV. When you factor everything else into the equation (including what the city they''ll be living in is like) then it''s a no-brainer. That''s even if the scum were fishing in the pool of players we''ll be looking at (which they won''t be despite having that arms-dealing ticket tout as their "sugar daddy").

  8. [quote user="Champions"]I''d be pretty pissed if my club chose not to hire a proven Champions League manager, to be fair.[/quote]
    I''d be pretty pissed off if i were deluded enough to think the Goldfish bowl, one team division, of pub league standard football was an attractive enough option to keep anyone half decent for very long.

  9. Dunno what BHA''s set-up is, but West Brom have Richard Garlick as Director of Football (succeeded Dan Ashworth when he went to the FA), who is responsible for player transfers. Their "manager" is more of a first team coach role than a traditional managerial position and has been for several years. That''s why they''re still signing.

  10. Just seen the article linking him.
    Would be very, very happy with this appointment. thought he did well with Leverkusen and has the pedigree as a player to attract players, and the contacts in the game to be very successful.
    Hope this one pans out.

  11. Can anyone clarify who Moody was responsible for signing last summer? The players bought prior to last season weren''t too bad, but last summer''s transfers were a car-crash for Cardiff. Obviously Moody was sacked in the off-season, can anyone clarify when, and if he was responsible for the signing of say, gary Medel, or Cornelius, or whether it was that random kid who bought them in?
×
×
  • Create New...