PistoldPete

1 hour ago, Comrade 86 said:

Asinine semantics. 

Really/ Is that your considered opinion, just resorting to random insults? Germany killed millions of civillians in the Second World War. So did the Allies. You think there is no difference?    

2 hours ago, DerbysLane said:

In your opinion, how many children is it acceptable to kill in order to kill one member of Hamas?

Nice try. Strawman arguments will not get you anywhere with me.  

19 minutes ago, ramit said:

When the majority of those killed and wounded are civilians it is outrageous to claim that is not on purpose.

You can call it reckless , even potentially a war crime if you prefer, but they do not on purpose kill civilians . 

1 hour ago, ramit said:

So many of the killed and wounded in Gaza are children.  Israeli authorities say they are only going after Hamas, but that is not true, it is indiscriminate bombing of civilians, there can be no justification for such heinous acts, none, that is not defending yourself, that is murder, of kids.

 No it really isn’t. They are going after Hamas. Precision bombing is not that precise and that will result in tragic loss of civilian life. But they are not going after civilians it is ridiculous to claim that. 

1 hour ago, Mostyn6 said:

as someone mentioned my connection/friendship with both Jaymie and Gareth, here is one of them. Someone will still call him anti-semitic for this though.

Anti semitic isn’t the first word that occurred to me on reading that. 

Just now, ariotofmyown said:

I was just thinking the same thing, Murdoch isn't Jewish is he?

The BBC is publicly owned.

The Daily Mail controlling shareholder doesn't seem to be Jewish, and the Rothmere ownership had their famous support of 1930s Germany too.

The Guardian seems to maybe have some Jewish links in it's ultimate ownership, but has the reputation for being more critical of Israel than more right wing outlets.

Isn't the route of much anti-semitism that Jews were historically allowed to lend money, whereas Christians weren't. And as there is a lot of money to be made in finance, Jewish people punched about their weight in becoming rich and successful?

 

There are plenty of successful Jews in all fields. So what is what I say to that. But some people seem to have a problem with it. 

4 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

Rupert Murdoch's mother was Jewish. 

I think she may be dead. 

11 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

I don't believe I've said any of those things, but happy to be corrected.

Here is my quote

"I don't doubt that there have been Hamas attacks, but with everything Israel has reported for at least the last 15years (I've been paying attention), what they report as severe attacks are nowhere near, what they report as attacks in previous years have been children throwing stones from 1/2 a mile away (and being shot dead by Israeli forces). There is plenty of footage of this.

For clarity, Hamas is real, but the media is so one-sided and the media is literally all owned by Israel so all the reporting is biased.

If you want to justify a war, you create/embellish/exaggerate something to create rage."

The media groups in Uk who have biggest influence are BbC and Rupert Murdoch. Neither are Jewish. 
 

So “literally all owned by Israel” isn’t a creation/ embellishment/ exaggeration on your part to create rage? 

34 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

where? Facts aren't anti-semitic just cos the subject may be Jewish.

Saying The Jews having too much control over anything is not a healthy comment to make in historical context. Even without the history so what? Also there’s  another trope that everything is a conspiracy involving Israel, the Americans, the West etc. All the capitalists sticking together. And conspiracy theories generally like 9/11 being faked or the work of Israel to get support from America etc etc. it really isn’t healthy and has some pretty sinister overtones, not just the work of harmless crackpots. 

11 hours ago, GboroRam said:

I don't think it changes anything, increasing the scale. If the IRA had killed a thousand, I'd still say wiping out catholic areas is criminal and needs publicly calling out as such. 

That’s your view. If it is a war crime then I assume there will be consequences for Israel if it is true. 
 

the alternative view is that of there is civil war involving mass genocide, it may be the least bad option to separate communities. The partition of India was very much regretted by almost everyone, but things could have been much worse if the nation had descended into civil war. 

1 hour ago, Mostyn6 said:

If this is aimed at me, I stand by the comment, but will not argue your beliefs. If you choose to believe what you're told, then that is your right.

Oddly, if you look at the video posted by Rev above, you'll see an Israeli PR guy refuting video evidence highlighting war crimes by Israel. 

Do you not find it odd that they order Palestinians to leave the land they desire, under the guise of wanting to crush Hamas, as if Hamas couldn't just leave with the civilians to avoid being crushed.

This has been planned for a long time.

I don't doubt that there have been Hamas attacks, but with everything Israel has reported for at least the last 15years (I've been paying attention), what they report as severe attacks are nowhere near, what they report as attacks in previous years have been children throwing stones from 1/2 a mile away (and being shot dead by Israeli forces). There is plenty of footage of this.

For clarity, Hamas is real, but the media is so one-sided and the media is literally all owned by Israel so all the reporting is biased.

If you want to justify a war, you create/embellish/exaggerate something to create rage.

It was certainly aimed at you . Others were prepared to assume you had been living under a rock.

i wasn’t and i was right. You have doubled down. And then hit with another anti semitic trope. Shame on you. 

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

No need to hide who posted it, it was me. And I will apologise, I certainly didn't know I'd posted anything antisemitic. 

I find it hard not to make a comparison with the persecution of the Jews in the 30s, and the attacks on Palestinians now. Perversely, the people who were receiving the persecution now have a state apparatus doing the persecution of Palestinians, in the name of driving out Hamas. I mean, would we have said any different if the UK state had blown up whole catholic areas of Northern Ireland, with the intention of driving out the IRA? 

Of course the actions of the Israeli state aren't the actions of all Jews and I don't think anyone is suggesting they are, but can anyone deny there's horrible echoes here, with over a million people fleeing for their lives? It feels very wrong. 

There's a lot of support in the west for Israel and it's hard to say much negative without being cast as antisemitic. I don't believe I am, but perhaps I don't quite agree with the current definition of antisemitism. Offending posts have been removed and I'll try to be mindful of the guidelines as to the definition of antisemitism. Apologies if anyone took offence. 

Thanks Gboro I get that, appreciate it. You will know that often racism is not always intentional. 

Comparison with IRA is not really valid.. they never murdered 1,300 people in one go did they? The Hamas attacks (like those on 9/11) are a different game altogether. I do think it is a reasonable view that Israel's response is not proportionate. Any loss of civilian life is tragic. But given the history, I also get why they would not want to be restrained or tolerant. 

I hope and believe that ~Israel's action will stop once Gaza is evacuated. I do not think they are expansionist or empire building. They are just trying to secure a buffer zone for their own security. That's what I hope anyway.     

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

For me - your comments are eminently sensible, BUT the IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism

So by that yardstick we have technically had an anti-semitic post on the forum.

But that's just an illustration of how difficult the issue is to navigate. If the Israeli government do end up being proven to have committed genocidal war crimes against innocent civilians in retaliation for the Hamas butchery - criticising them for that becomes akin to anti-semitism. A deeply weird position to find ourselves in

If you read the full IHRA definition with examples, you will see that criticism of Israel (government) can be justified, and if they were guilty of war crimes it certainly would be. But it has to be proportionate and no more than you would other countries who do similar. Did everyone who criticises Israel criticise Iraq when Saddam Hussein was systematically murdering a million  people in his own country? I don't remember George Galloway (for example) doing that.  

3 hours ago, i-Ram said:

Sorry to read this. I remember him pretty well on the pitch, because occasionally he did some magic things. I remember him better as a Landlord of one of my locals, when I used to live in Haywards Heath. Great character, and kept a good beer. RIP Gerry 🐑

Typical Tommy Doc, sold one of his better signings pretty quickly. 

17 minutes ago, David said:

Have you witnessed any antisemitism on this forum? I can't say I have as they would be banned as it would not be tolerated. 

I haven't seen one person defend Hamas, not one.

They are terrorists. Forget forum rules, if anyone was to glorify what they have done/doing in anyway, the next knock at the door could be from the Police.

Dropping bombs, capturing and murdering innocent civilians is wrong, doesn't matter which side of the conflict they are coming from. It's wrong.

Criticising those actions is not antisemitism, nor is it islamophobia.

Just a final point, there is absolutely no reason this topic should even come close to UK party politics.

We have had one poster say there was no evidence of the Hamas attacks. We have had one poster liken Israel to the Nazis . Both are anti semitic posts in my view. The first akin to Holocaust denial the latter well tone deaf would be putting it mildly. 

As for Uk party politics I am afraid to say that that does seem to influence people’s view of Israel. People live in echo chambers and what they choose to believe is influenced by their party politics, sadly. 

22 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

Have any examples to share? Otherwise, all you have really done is set up a false opposition to then justify your counter view which - if unsupported - is fundamentally flawed.

We will risk straying into politics which is verboten on this forum. There has recently been a high profile  investigation into anti semitism in the Uk, that is all that I will say. 

1 hour ago, David said:

Egypt are reported to be reopening a border for safe passage.

Good, some good news for once. 

12 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

What I saw last night as people were forced out of their homes en masse then obliterated during their 'safe passage 'window would suggest otherwise very strongly.

Israel are obviously not targeting civilians. Why are other countries not helping to provide a safe passage? 

2 hours ago, GboroRam said:

I don't see how it can only be antisemitism. 

Are antisemites using the situation to call for death to Israelis? Yes, of course. 

Is the deaths of thousands of civilians a suitable response to the death of thousands of civilians?

I just find it utterly unavoidable that treating a nation as third class citizens causes an angry backlash from extremists. It's stirring the hornet's nest - there was never going to be anything other than a call for extremist response. 

Whatever you believe, I can't see how killing thousands of innocent bystanders is justifiable. But Britain, the US and other western supporters of Israel are prepared to ignore international censure and still get behind it. 

Well even here there is for me evidence of bias. People have talked about Israel's "indiscriminate " killing of civilians.  That is nonsense. The harsh reality of war is that civilians always end up as casualties. But they are not targeted (as Hamas did with their attacks). You cannot compare it as being a like for like, as if one was as bad as the other.  


 

1 hour ago, Alpha said:

Nice try. 

But this is about Israeli occupation. Israeli aggression. Israel. Not all Jews. Not even the Jews that want to live in peace. Not the Jews against Israel movement. Not about British washing our hands of the whole thing and certainly not about who the original people of the land were a couple of thousand years back. 

I've seen the argument a million times. Jews have been persecuted through history. I know. But that is not an excuse for Israel to defend themselves when they kill Palestinians. And it's boring that there are those that try to put that kind of pressure on anybody who criticises Israel. Do you think all Palestinians want all Jews dead? Do you think I'm a Nazi who celebrates the Holocaust? It's not plot armor. It's like the classic gaslighting argument put forward against anyone who's against Israel. How is it relevant? Do you really think people have forgotten the Holocaust? Really? I don't get the purpose of your original comment? 

Just as Hamas can't excuse their crimes by pointing to breaches of international law and excusing the killing of children by saying they're invaders on Palestinian land. I've not tried to justify them

There are people who quite genuinely deny that the Holocaust happened. And people with similar agenda who deny the Hamas terrorist attacks happened (including at least one on this forum for example). There are some who refuse to accept that anti semitism is racism (Whoopi Goldberg for one). The very idea that Israelis could possibly be the victims seems anathema to some. 

People who criticise Israel generally criticise no other country apart from Israel. Why is that? 

So no I do not accept that people who do nothing but criticise Israel are not biased and prejudiced in their views and that, especially given the root cause of that bias  is anti semitism in my view.

1 hour ago, Alpha said:

No, the story for Palestinians did not begin there. But the talk of a land for Jewish people where they won't be persecuted began before even that. 

However, the persecution of Jewish people shouldn't be the plot armor to deflect from their expansion and illegal occupation. 

You don't just get to do the classic anti-Semitism/holocaust cry to excuse their role in this. Even if you're pro Israel you can't deny their aggressive illegal expansion. It's a fact

 

Holocaust cry? What a mardy bum I am crying over millions being exterminated. 

32 minutes ago, Alpha said:

I do love how this story starts with the festival attack. 

It's almost as if the story was written by the genocidal murderer Netenyahu. Defend themselves in the textbook manner the Romans did. Never started a fight but somehow defended the city of Rome into a vast empire

Shame nobody reads the prequel. It's called 70 years of conflict with chapters including "1967", "billions of dollars in military aid", "illegal occupation" and  "Jenin and other refugee camp raids".

My favourite chapter is "please leave within 24 hours"

Oh wait, you can't.

Actually the story began with the Holocaust. Or was the evidence for that not enough for some? 

17 hours ago, Mostyn6 said:

There's no evidence of an attack on the festival, nor any evidence of 20 murdered babies. 

You can look at the photographs( in the Daily Telegraph for example)  if you want to. I don’t want to. 
 

it amazes me how people deny such things and it troubles me what motivation people have for such stubborn denial. 

29 minutes ago, Raich Carter said:

I'm sure this isn't universally the case but if you don't go to the games (thus far this season, this includes me) then perhaps you are less frustrated because you see the results and highlights - both of which are (almost) acceptable.

Whereas when I went to the games last season, I was as angry as many of you lot because the football just seemed so... brainless. For me, the standout managers who had good, solid, sensible games plans (formations, tactics, plays) were TBE, Schteve and Burley all of whom had reasonable success. WeeBilly also had a very clear game plan and success but I really, really don't like the man so I'll leave him out of that list (I'm sure most of you will agree). It pains me to watch 90+ mins of football which seems largely driven by hope/statistical analysis rather than proper patterns of play.

When PW talks, sometimes it feels like he knows what he wants - my fear is that even if that's where we ultimately get, it's probably not going to be what we want to watch.

Having said that, Our Saviour Lord DC isn't daft. He sees what we see (I suspect) but applying business logic to it, even if he doesn't like PW's methods, if we get the results then he'll persevere. DC doesn't strike me as the 'shoot from the hip' type. He's a sensible, steady guy who's used to long term projects so I'd say PW is here for a good while yet. However, I suspect what will make him change Manager is poor results and reduced attendances - hard data points basically.

Even with Rowettball which I hated watching you could at least see a game plan. Let the opposition come at you then get Tom Huddleston launch a quarterback ball forward for Vydra to run onto on the break. Hey presto, we won a lot of games until Vydra got injured. 
 

our game plan under Warne is get it out wide let someone launch the ball skyward and hope someone gets on the end of it. 

22 hours ago, jimtastic56 said:

Warne said last night “We are failing because we are not in the top 6”. He’s not stupid , he knows we have to improve . I am happy for him to continue after all the owner is also. We have to respect fans who are not happy with him. They believe we are so Massive that top 2 is the minimum requirement. The criticism does not upset me .

We are failing because we are not in the top 2. We were bookies favourites in the summer so Warne is failing if he doesn’t get automatic promotion. I mean I would settle for going up via the playoffs but we really should be doing better.