[Siderite]

Personally, I am not a fan of being reliant on the Americans or at the behest of Russia if we scrap the deterrent. Nuclear disarmament is only viable if done multilaterally, otherwise no-one will agree to it.

[Siderite]

That came out harsher than I had intended. What I mean is, essentially, is that Israel isn’t the pertinent focus when discussing this topic. I don’t think speaking about other instances demonstrates care for what is a worrying course of action from Russia. I would rather oppose both this and things like Khashoggi. The answer to any hypocrisies would be to demand opposition to both, not solely focus on the hypocrisies in the case of Navalny and the west’s reaction.

[Siderite]

As will this by those who seem more bothered about talking about Israel on a thread about Russia.

[Siderite]

Stockport were averaging higher attendances than us in their final season in the NLN.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Rene Artois, Deereyme66

[Siderite]

[Siderite]

I think Dean’s contract is up at the end of the season. If so, I hope the end of the season is the limit, because whatever league we’re in next season, I don’t see him doing well. He shouldn’t get an extension in my opinion.

3 users thanked author for this post.

bartonscorpion, another fed up fan, Rene Artois

[Siderite]

WonderGoals wrote:

Whitehall looks like he can’t really be bothered. I wonder if his agent has been in his ear about clubs interested in him or he’s been told he’ll have to take a pay cut this season so feels less inclined to give a shit ?#

Whatever’s going on he needs benching.

Even when doing well, I don’t recall Whitehall having a good all round game from the games I watched. Now the midfield has been stifled, his weaknesses could have been exposed.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe

[Siderite]

I am assuming IA is poking a jibe at Awaywego by suggesting a trouble maker at the game was his grandson.

[Siderite]

I agree with 64 here. The scheme was nothing more than a money making trip for Dave and will cost the club. The deal seems good, so I don’t get why those who care for the club’s future would sound off about not getting more when they might have been left in the lurch after Dave’s ponzi schemes. I appreciate it’s only some moaning.

[Siderite]

I mean it’s not exactly hard to work out from your views, is it?

I wonder if you would say reports on Netanyahu assassinating an opponent would be the ‘client media’ losing their minds and distracting from Ukraine? I somehow doubt you would. For some reason, the only important thing you ever talk about Putin is something completely unrelated. I don’t think the ‘hypocrisy’ is all from one end. Even though the context is different.

[Siderite]

A highly likely assassinated political opponent is big news and deserves condemning regardless of what’s happening elsewhere. The rights or wrongs of war in Gaza does not take anything away from other issues elsewhere.

[Siderite]

I was being sarcastic to poke fun at that mindset.

[Siderite]

If you don’t want to get as much from the club, not regarding how it impacts the club, you want the club dead.

[Siderite]

I hear that some on the Facebook page aren’t happy and want more?

[Siderite]

I haven’t argued against discussion, I just disagree with you (I was stating my opinion, I am not saying you must agree with it, and saying in my opinion after everything is clunky – and I should know about that ;-) ), which is also vital to be allowed in a debate and discussion.

I haven’t said that Palestinians don’t come from there. Jews have also lived there in some number for centuries and the first record of ‘Hebrews’* as a distinct entity dates back to 1,000 BC in what is now Israel. Both have a big claim, so two states is the only viable solution, especially since one state is likely to cause issues to whoever doesn’t get the state.

*who would then form the Jewish religion through the forthcoming centuries

[Siderite]

There has to be some hope and encouraging grievances will not lead to it.

The Native American comparison isn’t a good one, since Jews will rightfully point out that Jews came from there, so have some claim of nativity to that land. Also, one is probably more tolerant than the other in some ways currently. Israel has a strong Muslim population, Gaza doesn’t have a single Jew, and any Jew there would risk their life. Gays are tolerated more in Israel, they might be killed for their sexuality in Gaza because it’s against Allah. This is not the opinion of every Gazan, but many, including Hamas. Hamas too have a goal to destroy Israel and kill Jews, so I can only raise an eyebrow if the culture within Gaza is supposed to be so much more tolerant. That said, Israel has its problems with racism, as West Bank shows, and the nutty settlers, but the idea this is all one way is false.

[Siderite]

Their land was the British Mandate. Before then it was the Ottoman Empire. In it contained many Jews, and both would argue that they had a historical claim to the land. Hence why a two state solution is what is supportable, I think. If history will record facts, it will be to record that the initial two state solution was rejected and that the conflict which led to uplift was driven by such rejection and the years of resistance that has brought nothing but pain and hatred since. Sure, you could argue that the uplifting was bad on the part of Israelis, but it’s not one sided, as evident by the uplifting of Jews from elsewhere and the victims of the ‘resistance’ who are innocent civilians. Israel isn’t the only country formed by such partition, Pakistan is another, and much of the Middle East was created with what many see as artificial boundaries. Peace won’t stand a chance if historical grudges are carried on.

[Siderite]

Personally, I don’t think the idea of civilians dying are fake. However, Hamas’s stats of 30,000 civilians dead and 0 militians dead is silly. Most likely, that total constitutes civilian + militant. I think the actions taken to reduce civilian casualties could be better, especially as we don’t know what will happen with those in Rafah and the number of civilians killed is tragic to say the least. Yet Hamas get much of the blame too. We don’t even know what killed all the civilians. Hamas claim it’s all Israel, but their rockets regularly misfire and likely killed some at al-Ahli (plus others less documented). Never mind their recklessness and cruelty in starting the conflict itself.

As for what happened to the land, the original UN plan was supported by Israelis, opposed by Arabs who started the conflict. Following conflict ended up expelling civilians, yes, and that is something which should be acknowledged and respected for future peace plans. However, Jews would equally say that they were expelled from Yemen, Libya, Iraq etc too. As they were from Europe, so where were they to go?

[Siderite]

No, I am against the idea that Labour Friends of Israel is some controlling monolith any more than Labour Friends of Palestine or other similar groups are. Ascribing power to a Jewish involved group is the same old story. I am sure this time the conspiracies that Jews have undue power is true.

I have not said anyone criticising Israel is inherently racist, but if they go into antisemitic canards, they are indulging in such.

[Siderite]

OK. The problem is that whenever I see claims that antisemitism is just criticism of Israel, it’s usually followed by the example which is a picture of Netanyahu drinking the blood of children or something (such as some of the placards at the marches). This is a claim that has been used against Jews for centuries and I think there are ways of criticising Netanyahu without using such hateful stereotypes, nor do I think the some of the people who use it are so unaware of the history of the ‘blood libel’. It’s not that I particularly care for Netanyahu here, but this kind of imagery hurts many Jews because they see it as an attack against Jews for who they are, since this claim has a long association with such attacks on Jews. Many Jews will look at this and see it as an attack on Jews, not Netanyahu alone. Much is the same for the other claims I see. I think it should be more than possible to criticise Netanyahu without this.

I agree that Netanyahu let people down, he was so fixated on his own power maintenance that he ignored threats from Hamas. The ultimate responsibility still lays with them though, and both Hamas and Netanyahu are major barriers to a 2 state solution.

[Siderite]

Iron Age wrote:

64 wrote:

I think the Herod in the bible is just an antiseptic trope, bearing in mind he was written after the supposed death of the Christ character.

“Antiseptic trope”. I liked that one.

Herod the Great, son of Antipater who was an ally of Julius Ceaser, friend of the Romans. Not a popular leader to his people.

My point still stands, is it antisemitic to criticise anyone in power in Israel?

I have answered that so many times, I have called Netanyahu a fascist (gets ignored – maybe it doesn’t suit the narrative) but so many times things like blood libels are made and it’s that I call out, and I get told that’s ‘legitimate criticism of Israel’. It’s possible to criticise Netanyahy, but maybe don’t go into antisemitic tropes? The left says so for dealing with anti-Muslim bigotry, and don’t make snide comments about the butcherous regime of al-Hakim or something.

[Siderite]

I see. If I don’t think Netanyahu is the most evil man on the planet I must support his actions. Nuance is dead.

I don’t think Stalin was as evil or as war mongering as Hitler (it’s a low bar). That must make me a Stalinist.

[Siderite]

Yeah, yeah, antisemites have been claiming that Jews have undue influence over politics for centuries and used that to justify attacks on Jews (as we see now when attacks on Jewish buildings get excused as ‘legitimate criticism’). I am sure this time it’s because of ‘legitimate criticism’ when they same people use the same arguments of those from the past.

[Siderite]

I have no recollection over what that past conversation involved. However, if it is racist to use crude stereotypical language and images of a black African dictator (it is), it is the same for Netanyahu. Yet criticising blood libels against Netanyahu gets met with claims that it’s “legitimate criticism of Israel” from the ‘anti-racists’ who would never dream of excusing such against other groups.

“Can’t even use racial slurs against the Zionists these days. It’s political correctness gone mad.”

[Siderite]

Why evacuate Gazans to other places? All that could be done in Gaza City if that was the motive and not evacuating would allow more deaths; it would not be more dangerous with air strikes. It doesn’t make sense and is frankly deluded in my opinion, as is the claim Netanyahu is the world most dangerous man when you have Putin and the Ayatollah involved with more global meddling.

[Siderite]

Aye, callous disregard. My question still stands. Seems a lot of effort to evacuate if they were intent on killing everyone. Why bother if that was the full motive?

[Siderite]

Heath wrote:

I do know you haven’t answered what “us” means or if you continue to support the Israeli action.

Us – UK.

[Siderite]

Siderite wrote:

Also, I am not saying it is the same as WWII, but the OP is making an argument about numbers of casualties. I am pointing out it isn’t, so judging the Israel-Palestine conflict against Bin Laden is as false as WWII is with Israel-Palestine conflicts. If numbers alone mean all, then WWII along with the other post-WWII wars you ignore, means we could be judged worse than Bin Laden. Which I find silly.

OP says Netanyahu is bigger ‘murderer’ than Bin Laden. I point out that other conflicts have killed more civilians,including ones which are surely honourable, but don’t make us worse than the likes of Bin Laden. I even said that it doesn’t make Netanyahu honourable, but this is a poor metric to use when comparing warfare with terrorism of Bin Laden whose specific aim was to kill civilians (and not just because of callous disregard).

I don’t see why ‘supporting Israeli action’ or not is relevant to my point. I can’t be bothered when I do not think there has even been an attempt to understand, nor do I think such a question is in good faith. I have spoken of issues regarding Rafah and civilians, so I would think that should be some hint that I have issues with how the war has been conducted.

[Siderite]

She is a desperate troll out for attention. Her comments on Kate Garraway’s husband were awful too.

[Siderite]

Heath wrote:

“but this doesn’t make us worse”.

Had a chuckle at the high horse reaction. Read some of your own posts.

Who are “us”?

I am not the one making snide comments without trying to understand the point and score points. I was disagreeing. Is saying liberal culture found in the UK is superior to Islamism represented by Bin Laden is on my high horse? Or is a worldview that subjugates gays, women, non-Muslims etc and launches terror against those it sees as in opposition to its faith really equivalent?

[Author]

Posts