» I did say the failed coup would have no difference on polls. Westminster lives far too much in a bubble. 3 hrs ago

» CAMPAIGN to stop Rod Liddle being made editor of the Indy! http://tinyurl.com/ybz54uy (please RT!) 3 hrs ago

» I'm shocked (not)! RT @DaveSemple: More examples from @BickerRecord of Tom Harris' moral hypocrisy - http://bit.ly/5QoECx 9 hrs ago

» Thread of the week RT @libcon: All the full lol-plot pics (32!), with new 'Mandelkitteh' http://bit.ly/7bop1H 14 hrs ago

» Ugh! If Rod Liddle ends up editing the Indy, it'll be the last time I'll be buying or linking to the newspaper. 1 day ago

More updates...

  • Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sonia Afroz
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • MT and friends
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
    • Women Uncovered
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sajini W
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown

  • Technorati: graph / links

    Cricket, politics and stupidity

    by Sunny on 4th August, 2006 at 4:56 PM    

    If examples need be provided that the police and our friendly Islamists are doing an idiotic dance together, then this is it.

    A match involving the Israeli cricket team in Glasgow has been abandoned amid fears of demonstrations over Israel’s campaign in Lebanon. Organisers, the European Cricket Council, said it was cancelled because of public safety issues.

    Osama Saeed, of the Muslim Association of Britain, said of the decision to drop the match: “This is fabulous news, though we would wish that the decision had been taken earlier by the organisers on the grounds of principle rather than practicality.” [BBC News]

    Needless to say Osama Saeed is an idiot. Would he be saying the same thing if Iran were excluded from the World Cup for their human rights abuses? Or if Pakistan were barred from playing with England or India for their own government excesses? No. I suspect he would be crying Islamophobia like he always does over everything. He also doesn’t understand another point.

    Our idiotic police should have let them legitimately demonstrate while the match went ahead. But they stopped for the simple reason because they believe in their own racist way: “These wogs are just going to cause trouble and start a riot because that’s what they do at every opportunity. Let’s just stop the match for everyone’s sake.” Hence the use of “public safety” terminology. Of course he doesn’t realise this but that is another matter.

    Keep religion out of sports. Is that too difficult to understand Osama? If you’re going to have standards then apply them consistently or else you look like a fool.

    Update: It looks like the weekend matches still went ahead. Despite promises of “mass-protests”, 70 people turned up and behaved peacefully. That’s how it should have been.

            Post to del.icio.us

    Filed in: Religion, Sports

    50 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs

    1. Amir — on 4th August, 2006 at 5:23 PM  

      Too right,

      Well said Sunny. :-)

    2. Arif — on 4th August, 2006 at 6:05 PM  

      When should you call for a cultural or sporting boycott?

      There are different ways of looking at this:

      1. When it fits into a bigger principle.
      2. When it is likely to be effective.
      3. When it raises awareness of issues which people ignore when they are raised in political forums.
      4. When the sportspeople are in some way complicit themselves with abuses.
      5. When the team represents a country you have a particular problem with and you can’t contain yourself from expressing it.
      6. When the country has a team selection procedure which is racist or otherwise oppressive.
      7. When the country has a policy which unfairly treats sportspeople from other communities.

      I think sporting boycotts have been called for against Israel, as against Zimbabwe. It is worth asking what the rationales are before making a blanket condemnation of a nonviolent political strategy.

    3. Amir — on 4th August, 2006 at 6:22 PM  


      Unfortunately, not everyone is as rational or as open-minded as your self. The MAB don’t oppose the war so much as they’re supporting the other side. Israel – let me remind you – is the most hated and vilified country in the world, and anti-Semitism is making a comeback in a very radical way. Any demonstration (or boycott) would be counter-productive and anathema to Jew-Moslem relations… which is worrying considering that British-born Moslems are (according to virtually every poll) the most anti-Semitic Diaspora in Western Europe.

      More importantly, if we were to take your boycott principles to their reductio ad absurdum, there would be no England-Pakistan cricket match… or any cricket match for that matter!

      Amir :-)

    4. don — on 4th August, 2006 at 6:27 PM  

      A lot of boycotts have been called against Israel, regardless of the current situation. I think you have missed Sunny’s point that the decision to cancel the match was based on the logic that;

      a. This protest will inevitably be violent.

      b. So we’d better give them what they want.

      For the record, I’m in favour of boycotting Israel, but only if that means Israel is the benchmark and we also boycott any nation who cannot demonstrate a better human rights record. And that’s a lot of boycotting.

    5. raz — on 4th August, 2006 at 6:51 PM  

      Disgraceful. The targetting of Israel disgusts me. India and Pakistan have very poor human rights records - should they be banned from playing England?!

    6. Zussy — on 4th August, 2006 at 6:55 PM  

      Osama Saeed and the MAB are little more than bully boy bigots and fanatics. Not a surprise given that they are ipso facto the extreme right wing theocratic-politico vanguardist Muslim Brotherhood in disguise, with their rancid ideology and idiotic lickspittling of Qutb, Banna and Maududi.

      Welcome to the future - when Islamists hold the whip hand and violence is never more than one hint or rhetorical speech away.

      (No surprise that the synagogue was vandalised with Hezbollah slogans in Glasgow yesterday)

    7. raz — on 4th August, 2006 at 6:58 PM  

      “Israel – let me remind you – is the most hated and vilified country in the world”

      Actually, I reckon Pakistan is hated and vilifed more than Israel is.

    8. Zussy — on 4th August, 2006 at 7:03 PM  

      raz when was the last time you saw anybody in England objecting to Pakistan playing cricket here? Or called for a boycott of Pakistan, or in which discussion about the ‘right of Pakistan to exist’ is common currency in the intelligentia, the religious fanatics and their epigones, in every country around the world? And dont mention right wing Indian nationalists, that is just one nation in a conflict. Chauvinism and hysterical hatred of Israel occurs everywhere.

      You might have a point that Pakistan is unfarly maligned, it probably is, but the scope and scale of demonisation does not come close to the way that Israel is traduced universally and specifically.

    9. raz — on 4th August, 2006 at 7:21 PM  

      I never said anything about Indians. Pakistan is also despised in the West and in many Muslim countries as well. I have often heard discussions about whether Pakistan should have been allowed to exist, and the ‘dismemberment’ of Pakistan is a frequent topic. In the West, anti-Pakistani sentiments are common amongst BOTH left and right wing supporters -’terrorist nation’, ‘failed state’, etc. There have been many advocates of military action against Pakistan from the whole spectrum of political thought. The Western media, which is often castigated (rightly in my opinion) for demonising Israel, is far more harsh on Pakistan. At least Israel has some supporters in the media (especially from conservatives). Pakistan is universally attacked from all corners. You would be hard pressed to find very many positive articles about Pakistan from the press. 95% of it is anti-Pakistan. At least Israel has some supporters.

      We’re getting off topic, but I’ll say this: Both Israel and Pakistan have their flaws no doubt, but neither deserves to be demonised in the manner they are.

    10. xyz — on 4th August, 2006 at 7:55 PM  

      Sunny, I’m a bit confused. Some months ago Reformist Muslim posted about Sania Mirza deciding not to partner with her friend, Israeli player Shahar Peer in a planned match in Bangalore because she didn’t want to upset a tiny-tiny minority of conservative Muslims in India who had objected to her choice of profession and her choice of attire. RM and you approved of her move and said it was a move that demonstrated “principled pragmatism” and “maturity.” This, despite the fact that India and Israel have good diplomatic relations, are not involved in any current conflict with each other and that the player in question is a friend of Mirza’s.

      Here’s what Reformist Muslim had to say:

      “I actually think it’s the type of principled pragmatism which those who challenge the status quo sometimes need to undertake. Make a principled point by playing in tournaments in other parts of the world but don’t unnecessarily create a big fuss which is then exploited by conservative elements in your country when you are already a highly controversial figure.”

      And what you said:

      “Sometimes its best to just whether the storm, say nothing much, and do what you want anyway. I believe Sania is showing some maturity.” [although in choosing not to play with someone she wanted to partner with, Sania wasn't really doing what she wanted anyway]. And it wasn’t really a storm, but a couple of imams who condemned her about her dress. It had absolutely nothing to do with Israel.

      So why castigate the British police? Aren’t they also being pragmatic by trying to head off criticism or worse from a minority of local conservatives? How is their action any different than Mirza’s capitulation to a vocal minority in India? In fact she cancelled her match with the Israeli on far less provocation and very little possibility of violence than the current case could have caused (given the high level of tension right now between Israel and the Arab/Muslim “world”). What she should have done is gone ahead and played the match and weathered any legitimate criticism or protests from that minority, the advice you give to the police.

      Not that I support the cancellation of the Israeli team’s cricket match. But there seems to be an inconsistency here. Both involve dragging religion into sports and cancelling events because of a very small minority, not because of a country’s (India’s or Britain’s) foreign policy (such as the widespread boycott of South Africa during the apartheid years or Arab countries who have no diplomatic relations with Israel). Thanks.

    11. Bikhair aka Taqiyyah — on 4th August, 2006 at 8:22 PM  


      Forget keeping religion out of sports, why not keep uglies and women out?

    12. sonia — on 4th August, 2006 at 10:24 PM  

      ah i thought the fuss about zimbabwe and cricket was silly too, but then it was all tied to sanctions. i still thought it was silly. i daresay saeed is getting ahead of himself and probably wants sanctions against israel.

    13. Sajn — on 4th August, 2006 at 11:01 PM  

      Is boycotting no longer a legitimate form of protest in a “democratic” country?

    14. Zak — on 4th August, 2006 at 11:17 PM  

      Playing SPorts against each other is a form of of warfare..they should have settled their issues on the field. Still Zimbabwe created a precedent..

    15. don — on 5th August, 2006 at 12:16 AM  



      The point is that the event was cancelled for reasons of public safety. So either the law is just assuming that any protest on this issue will be violent, or they have reason to think so.

      Personally I boycott a shed-load of stuff, often can’t remember why. But I don’t present a threat to public safety. Did this?

      For the record, I supported the direct action against the SA cricket tour, back in the day.

    16. Refresh — on 5th August, 2006 at 1:07 AM  

      The Israeli cricket team needed to be boycotted. More of the same please.

      Direct action - until the IDF is back behind the 1967 borders. And consider that as a generous concession.

    17. Amir — on 5th August, 2006 at 3:21 AM  


      If it’s any consultation… I love Pakistanis. Pakistan is a fucking amazing place in so many ways. I spent two weeks with my mate in Karachi. Absolutely fantastic. :-)

    18. Amir — on 5th August, 2006 at 3:24 AM  

      Raz… if only you were Prime Minister.


    19. Amir — on 5th August, 2006 at 3:28 AM  

      Refresh… I’m so shocked you wrote that. :-( Where do you come from, girl? Tell me, and I’ll give you a lowdown on your country’s humanitarian record. You won’t feel so self-righteous once I’m through with you. :-)

      In any case, I feel really depressed. :-(

      Thank you Sunny for writing this article.

    20. Katy Newton — on 5th August, 2006 at 7:23 AM  

      No, Refresh, it is not a generous concession. Israel is an established sovereign state and the pre-1967 borders are its own land upon which it can do what it likes. You might not like the way it came into being but it is not a “generous concession” to allow it to exist; and whilst you and I agree on a lot about the Middle East, I do not like your habit of referring to Palestinian and Arabic “generosity” in “allowing” it to exist. It exists despite the Arab states around it, not because of them. They weren’t able to wipe it out. Remember?

      Deal with the fact that Israel exists and find a solution to the current problem. That’s where progress lies.

    21. Refresh — on 5th August, 2006 at 9:23 AM  

      Amir, UK.

      You should not be shocked. You should not seek to weigh up injustice in one country with another’s. Massacres here with those of the Native Americans for example.

      I have seen those sorts of comparisons for as long as I remember being on the internet

      Nothing has changed for the better, even since the fall of the apartheid state. We have had distractions along the way - and the eye has been off the ball.

      It is no surprise that given what we have been seeing in the occupied territories since at least 2000 and now in Lebanon that people will demand sanctions and boycotts are used as legitimate form of popular protest.

      The idea that once a reputation for brutality is earned, and maintained people will come to just accept it as ‘facts on the ground’ can only work for so long.

      Enough I say.

      Katy it is not a habit - it is an observation.

    22. Vikrant — on 5th August, 2006 at 9:36 AM  

      Well half the Israeli team consists of Indian Jews….

    23. Vikrant — on 5th August, 2006 at 11:47 AM  

      Yikes, Desis started the Cricket league in Israel. Now thats a news to me…


      Of 11 guys, 5 are Indians!

      # Jacky Divekar
      # Sanjay Gupta
      # Mahendra Jaiswar
      # Benzie Kehimkar
      # Avi Talkar

    24. Courtney Hamilton — on 5th August, 2006 at 1:04 PM  


      I agree with you sentiments here. The biggest losers were cricket fans. I’m opposed to any political involvement in sports. Should we stop building for the future London Olympics, all because the USA and Israel will attending?

      All politics should be kept out of sport.

      Best wishes.


    25. Sunny — on 5th August, 2006 at 3:08 PM  

      xyz - That was pragmatism regarding her own safety, not because I didn’t want the match to go ahead. Plus she is in a country where people go crazy and start a riot over the drop of a hat. Here it’s different. Saeed and his mates may not like them coming over but they can’t start a riot over it.

    26. El Cid — on 5th August, 2006 at 4:14 PM  

      I think there are some crossed-cables between Katy and Refresh re Israel’s 1967 borders. Read it again love.
      I am coming to the view that a boycott of Israel is in order. Question is, what sort of boycott?
      Let’s face it, Israel is way too full of itself with its military might and they are behaving like brutal bastards. Their tactics are not unlike those of the Guatemalan Spanish-descended elite against native Guatematelcos in their 40-year guerilla war that began in the 1950s. Basically, they adopted a scatter gun approach by targetting the communities from whence the guerillas came because they were unable to get to the guerrillas themselves. Inevitably, support for the guerrilla movement grew.
      It’s not unlike Nazi tactics in occupied France (Oh dear, yet another reference to WW2). Suffer a couple of casualties at the hands of the French resistance? No problem, round up 20 villagers and shoot them. Ruthless but efficient only in the very short-term.
      Just imagine the British razing County Armagh because it was a hot-bed of IRA republicanism.
      Fucking stupid if you ask me.
      “If you are ferocious in battle, be magnanimous in victory,” as Machiavelli once said. It worked wonders for Bismark, allowing little ol’ Prussia to gradually unify Germany. Imagine what it could do for Israel. Only they continue to humiliate the adversary even in peace, drunk on the weaponary at their disposals, until it gets too much again and the logic of war takes over and the politicians return to their Irgun terrorist instincts.
      If you are Jewish, British and a regular poster on PP, don’t come back to me with the same ol’ bullshit tribalism. I couldn’t give a toss about this damn cricket game. Do you really think that our country — that’s OUR country (not Spain, or Israel, or India, or Pakistan or Outer frigging Mongolia) — should allow the transportation of weapons to Israel? I think not. That’s one boycott I would certainly vote for.

    27. Katy — on 5th August, 2006 at 4:36 PM  

      El Cid, what the fuck are you talking about? I haven’t said anything about the cricket game or about boycotts. I told Refresh that I didn’t think Israel should feel grateful for being “allowed” to exist within its 1967 borders. I don’t care if people boycott the cricket game or not. That’s their right.

      Now why don’t you try reading what I say and responding to it in future, instead of dismissing my viewpoints on the basis that I’m Jewish and therefore incapable of reason?

    28. El Cid — on 5th August, 2006 at 4:40 PM  

      My bad, no crossed cables, you were right to face down Refresh’s “concession” quip. Misread it. However, everything else I said still stands.

    29. Katy — on 5th August, 2006 at 4:51 PM  

      Well, all right then.

      *combs hair in manner of The Fonz*

    30. Refresh — on 5th August, 2006 at 4:58 PM  

      Katy, El Cid, yes it was just that a quip. But a lot more behind it. And it comes from the attitude of absolute arrogance that sustains the current brutality.

      How, if not by being a part of the region, is Israel going to exist? If it does not recognise the harm it has done to all those around it. And revels in it.

      Yesterday I saw passing interviews of two mourners at the funeral of an IDF soldier. The first insisted that the war on Lebanon needs to continue - “its the last war”. The second said “for every Israeli life we must take 1,000, no 10,000 Lebanese lives”. Is that an attitude that prevails amongst 10, 20, 30%? And its not the first time we’ve come across it, is it?

      And we want to beat ourselves up about a cricket match?

      So if my comments throws that in sharp relief then so much the better.

      Yes boycotts and sanctions to the limit - as we did with South Africa. IDF behind the 1967 borders.

      Any reasons why not? Any reasons why when the PA recognised Israel it then had to be decimated? Certainly no gratitude.

      Think it through. Call it ‘tough love’ if you will.

    31. Sid — on 5th August, 2006 at 4:58 PM  

      The problem with cultural and sporting boycotts is that ultimately, they’re self-defeating for the boycotters, who will appear lumpen, philistine and fundamentalist.

      Those who are want to protest these Israeli bombardments will have to pick their battles.

    32. Chairwoman — on 5th August, 2006 at 5:24 PM  

      Refresh - On behalf of Jews everywhere, I am grateful that the PA recognised Israel. OK?

      BTW did Israel actually reduce the PA by 1/10?

    33. Katy — on 5th August, 2006 at 5:24 PM  

      And its not the first time we’ve come across it, is it?

      No, indeed it isn’t, Refresh, we see the same sort of sentiments from the Palestinians, the Lebanese and the Syrians all the time. I don’t blame them. War is hard.

    34. Katy — on 5th August, 2006 at 5:25 PM  

      I am not sure why the Syrians got in there. They are not at war with anyone, whatever I think of their president’s agenda. Sorry about that, Syrians.

    35. Refresh — on 5th August, 2006 at 5:30 PM  

      Chairwoman, OK.

      So lets re-build, sort it out on the basis of UN resolutions. Get giyus.org to stop spreading hatred.
      Agree reparations. Set up a truth and reconciliation commission. Lots to do, and I would happily spend the rest of my available time supporting this activity.

      Not sure I understood your question though.

    36. Katy — on 5th August, 2006 at 5:33 PM  

      Look at the Chairwoman brokering the Middle East peace process!


    37. Chairwoman — on 5th August, 2006 at 5:37 PM  

      Refresh - get your people to call my people, we’ll sit down and hammer out a deal. I’ll even get my Parker Duofold out for the occasion.

      Decimate - reduce by 1/10th. It was how the Romans disciplined their army, execution of every 10th man.

    38. Refresh — on 5th August, 2006 at 6:01 PM  

      Chairwoman - communications infrastructure down. STOP. Travel difficult. STOP. Send Katy’s mum. STOP. Location neutral. STOP. Speaker’s Corner STOP. Time and date ? STOP.

    39. Chairwoman — on 5th August, 2006 at 6:09 PM  

      Refresh - As soon as Katy puts air in the tyres of my mobility scooter you have a date.

      You’ll recognise me, I’m the fat old Jewish bird with the holocaust haircut.

    40. Refresh — on 5th August, 2006 at 6:15 PM  

      Chairwoman - excellent.

    41. Sunny — on 5th August, 2006 at 10:31 PM  

      Now that we got the Middle East locked down….

      El Cid…

      Do you really think that our country — that’s OUR country (not Spain, or Israel, or India, or Pakistan or Outer frigging Mongolia) — should allow the transportation of weapons to Israel? I think not. That’s one boycott I would certainly vote for.

      What was this all about? I didn’t say anything about weapons to Israel. I was talking about stupid cricket boycotts!
      And while we’re on weapon transportation, maybe someone could get Iran to stop sending weapons to Hizbullah too. That would be nice, no?

    42. Amir — on 6th August, 2006 at 12:57 AM  

      El Cid,

      I’m shocked. I usually value your opinions because I think they’re thought-provoking, witty, and soberly-written. On this occasion, however, I think you’ve done yourself a grave injustice, and underneath it lies ugly prejudice.

      (I) “If you are Jewish, British and a regular poster on PP, don’t come back to me with the same ol’ bullshit tribalism. I couldn’t give a toss about this damn cricket game.”

      I am not a Jew. I have no Jewish acquaintances. I have no connections whatever with Israel. I just recognise an affront to national sovereignty when I see it. I thought it legitimate, and a service to the truth, to put right the inaccuracies and to take advantage of the forum to ensure that Israel’s position (often misrepresented by opponents and critics) was accurately expressed. Anyone who wishes to challenge my statements (or Katy’s) is as free to do so as I am to make them. I really cannot see what I have done wrong here.

      Another thing: you tacitly assume that there is such a thing as a ‘neutral point-of-view’ (NPOV). I understand the intention all too well, but think it laughable and bound to fail, much like the supposed ‘impartiality’of the British Broadcasting Corporation, which consists of a lot of social liberals doing their best to avoid making any openly partisan statements, while skewing news, current affairs and culture to suit them. I do not believe any such a thing as a ‘neutral point-of-view’ has ever existed, does exist, or will exist. The truth does exist but has to be discovered, often through arduous effort. The idea that it will be discovered by people trying to pretend that they have no opinions is absurd.

      In any case, is it not essential to remember how this conflict began, no matter how tragic its consequences? It was deliberately initiated by Hezbollah, after stockpiling missiles, apparently siting them in civilian areas…and clearly using them against civilian targets in Israel. Is it not essential, if there is to be a long-term, durable, sustainable peace, that the problem of Hezbollah be addressed, so that people on both sides of the Lebanese-Israel border can live in peace?

      (II) “Let’s face it, Israel is way too full of itself with its military might and they are behaving like brutal bastards.”

      You feel that Israel has been wrong to target infrastructure? But when a terrorist army like Hezbollah amasses 13,000 missiles primarily from Iran and Syria, what is Israel supposed to do but cut off the supply routes? This means bombing the airport and roads to ensure no missiles get through. It also helps prevents the kidnapped Israeli soldiers from being transported to Syria or Iran. (Of course… on a previous thread, I have criticised Israel’s excessive resort to aerial bombardment – arguments I shall not repeat here. A ground offensive is, in my opinion, far more penetrative and comes across as ‘nobler’ on the PR front.)

      I am not quite sure what you mean by ‘full of itself’? Compared to the imperialistic hubris of Great Britain, the United States, Australia, and, yes, Spain (or the isolationist arrogance of France, Russia and the EU)… Israel’s aspirations are modest by comparison. This is not a war of choice. It is a defensive military response to one of the most powerful, well-equipped, and well-backed armies/proxies in the Middle East, which is openly hostile to Israel’s existence and the Jewish people.

      (III) “Their tactics are not unlike those of the Guatemalan Spanish-descended elite against native Guatematelcos in their 40-year guerilla war that began in the 1950s.”

      Not once do you mention the 60 or so Israelis who have perished during this baleful conflict. By all means,… grieve and grunt over the horrific loss of life in Lebanon and the partial destruction of civilian infrastructure… but please, stop accusing others of tribalism when you yourself have chosen to wear the tribal spectacles of ‘worthy’ and ‘unworthy’ victims… is there no room in your super-grand-narrative for the Jews and Israeli Arabs. Comparing the IDF to Guatemalan war lords is so stupid it beggars belief and is not worthy of a response.

      (IV) “It’s not unlike Nazi tactics in occupied France (Oh dear, yet another reference to WW2).”

      Ah yes, of course,… Israelis are just like the Nazis, aren’t they? We hear this sort of tripe ad nauseam from Islamists, anti-Semites, Trotkyists, Leninists, anti-globalists and, of course,… desi-Spaniards living in the United Kingdom. :-) Let me put it to you this way: If the Levant Crisis continued for another 3-4 weeks, the overall death-toll (in all probability) would only be 1/10 of the number who died in an afternoon at Dachau or Buchenwald. Comparing Jews to Nazis is a common trope amongst the Galloway-Livingstone-Pilger crowd, and is designed in such a way as to prod at a very raw nerve in the Jewish community.

      (V) “Just imagine the British razing County Armagh because it was a hot-bed of IRA republicanism. Fucking stupid if you ask me.”

      First class degree in Modern History, hey? I don’t recall the IRA ever acquiring 13,000 missiles primarily from Iran and Syria, while building a network of tunnels and military operation rooms underneath Country Armagh? Were the IRA so powerful that they could force a million British citizens to live in underground bunkers… destroying their infrastructure as they launched rockets with ball bearings attached directly and targeted at civilian homes? Was it the Spanish Prime Minister who famously declared his intention to wipe Britain ‘off the map,’ using Irish Republicans, in the process, as a proxy to fight its dirty regional war? Huh.


    43. mirax — on 6th August, 2006 at 6:31 AM  

      “If you are Jewish, British and a regular poster on PP, don’t come back to me with the same ol’ bullshit tribalism. I couldn’t give a toss about this damn cricket game.”

      I think Elcid deserves the mauling he got for this statement. It’s not just some self-identified jewish posters who are partisan in this debate, it is EVERYONE, including a whole bunch of presumably muslim posters like Refresh and that obnoxious Opinionated Voice bigot and those who are of particular leftish tendency a la Lenin’s tombrobbers.

    44. Refresh — on 6th August, 2006 at 9:13 AM  

      Mirax, partisan - yes everyone is. That is to say everyone has a view. Except you.

      Do you understand why that is? Because we are all affected and endangered.

      “presumably muslim posters like” - you disappoint me. That is what comes up every time when you post. Address the issues. I don’t feel particularly patient towards commenters who watch for the ‘ethnic’ giveaways. You are one.

    45. Katy Newton — on 6th August, 2006 at 10:10 AM  

      I have always quite liked El Cid but recently I’ve found him downright offensive. It’s not the fact that he disagrees with me, it’s the way that he disagrees with me. Disagree with what I’m saying, that’s fine, but do try and find a better reason than “Jews are paranoid”, please.

    46. Refresh — on 6th August, 2006 at 10:20 AM  

      Mirax, can you now see why you too can so easily cause offence?

    47. Katy Newton — on 6th August, 2006 at 10:32 AM  

      Ah, no, Refresh, she made a good point. The best thing to do is just leave people’s ethnicities or backgrounds out of it and look at what they say rather than why you think they’re saying it.

    48. Refresh — on 6th August, 2006 at 10:38 AM  

      Katy, I agree with that totally. But she starts with making that point and then commits exactly the same offense herself:

      “It’s not just some self-identified jewish posters who are partisan in this debate, it is EVERYONE, including a whole bunch of presumably muslim posters like Refresh and that obnoxious Opinionated Voice bigot and those who are of particular leftish tendency a la Lenin’s tombrobbers.”

    49. Refresh — on 6th August, 2006 at 10:39 AM  

      And I genuinely hate that!

    50. Osama — on 8th August, 2006 at 4:34 PM  

      For the record Sunny, this has nothing to do with religion (man you bring religion into everything!). The protesters were part Muslim, but also contained large amounts of the left, and other people just outraged at the current hostilities in the Middle East.

      The US boycotted the Olympics in 1980 after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In 2006, Israel has launched a war of agression on Lebanon. This is not about “human rights abuses” and everything to do with war and occupation.

      More info:

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.