Palestine

[MaltRam]

1 hour ago, Alph said:

Consonant please Rachel. And a vowel. Er, another consonant please...

R A S I C T 

Your time starts, now!

Sorry, who's a racist now?

[Alph]

1 hour ago, MaltRam said:

Sorry, who's a racist now?

It was a joke at Rachel Riley's expense after her latest rant. 

[Highgate]

7 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

Well there is a gap in opinion between the more conservative rural areas of Iran and the more liberal urban cities. However, I think Iran's reaction yesterday- with morality vans dragging women into them for not wearing their hijab and threatening with court action activists who are criticising the regime's response speaks to a certain nervousness about the potential for an internal backlash. 

 

This isn't even the Iran of 2005-2008 under Ahmadinejad where despite the green revolution's claims of vote rigging Ahmedinejad's more conservative values probably did win enough votes in the rural areas to carry the election. The guardian council have been much more aggressive in recent years in striking candidates from the lists and election turnout has fallen to below half. 

Yeah, nothing to disagree with here.  Seems perfectly plausible to me that the Iranian regime is trying not to look weak in response to Israeli aggression while at the same time it wants to suppress any dissenting voices regarding it's policies among it's own population.  Those two points don't seem like a contradiction to me. 

I don't think anyone needs any convincing on how awful the regime in Iran is and how unfortunate Iranians are to have to suffer through it. 

[MaltRam]

1 hour ago, Alph said:

It was a joke at Rachel Riley's expense after her latest rant. 

So I googled. It wasn't racist. It was ill directed. There are a significant number of Islamic fundamentalist out there who want you and I dead, the more brutally the better.  It's not racist to acknowledge the fact.

[Alph]

1 hour ago, MaltRam said:

So I googled. It wasn't racist. It was ill directed. There are a significant number of Islamic fundamentalist out there who want you and I dead, the more brutally the better.  It's not racist to acknowledge the fact.

At this point I could point out it was a joke because for starters it would be Islamophobic. Then I could go through the history of Rachel Riley wildly making accusations of Antisemitism while just speaking the simple truth about Muslims (the argument works the same for Douglas Murray and Julia Hartley Brewer) 

But I can't really be bothered. Yesterday you wasn't happy I stayed into politics by mocking Lord Cameron and today it's a mild Rachel Riley joke that wouldn't even be good enough for a Ricky Gervais sketch. To be honest I thought it was as good as Crewtons very decent Iran diversity board comment. Guess not. 

I'll stick to plastering and moaning about genocide/ethnic cleansing 

[Ram-Alf]

Source...Sky news

US believes Israel planning 'narrow and limited strike' inside Iran - reports

The US is expecting Israel's military response to the Iranian strikes to be limited in scope, sources have told CNN. 

A senior administration official and another source familiar with the intelligence said it appeared Israel was considering a "narrow and limited strike" inside Iran. 

One of the sources said the US has not been given official information on what the plans might be. 

"We would hope that they would give us some warning so that we're prepared to protect our personnel, not just military but diplomatic throughout the region," the administration official told the American broadcaster.

"But there's no guarantee they will give us a heads-up, and they know when they give us a heads-up we're likely to again register our objection to whatever they're about to conduct."

The official added the US was "confident that there will be de-escalation" if Israel does not respond. 

"But any additional move now opens up a series of other possibilities, some of which are quite frightening," they said.

[Stive Pesley]

18 hours ago, MaltRam said:

So I googled. It wasn't racist. It was ill directed. There are a significant number of Islamic fundamentalist out there who want you and I dead, the more brutally the better.  It's not racist to acknowledge the fact.

I dunno - it feels kinda racist when, the moment there is an attack where someone goes loco and kills a bunch of people, before the motive or the identity of the killer is known, for someone to state on a public forum that it was an islamic terrorist

[Crewton]

33 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

I dunno - it feels kinda racist when, the moment there is an attack where someone goes loco and kills a bunch of people, before the motive or the identity of the killer is known, for someone to state on a public forum that it was an islamic terrorist

Islamophobic rather than racist surely? Equally inappropriate, but not the same. Many islamophobes may be racist too, of course, and vice-versa, but you can't assume one from the other without evidence.

[MaltRam]

3 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

I dunno - it feels kinda racist when, the moment there is an attack where someone goes loco and kills a bunch of people, before the motive or the identity of the killer is known, for someone to state on a public forum that it was an islamic terrorist

Fair point, but at the risk of quibbling that wasn't exactly stated. Implied, sure.

I feel like we shut people and ideas down far too readily these days, and this is another example. See Dawn French's comments yesterday around JK Rowling.

 

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, MaltRam said:

I feel like we shut people and ideas down far too readily these days, and this is another example. 

Sometimes yeah, maybe but this is not an example at all. She deleted the tweet herself once it became clear that she was 100% wrong, and left totally exposed as having said something hugely prejudiced. She wasn't "shut down" or "cancelled".  And this is from someone who is very vocal about perceived anti-semitism (to the point of also shooting herself in the foot when she said that she "didn't look like a typical jew"!). You'd think she might be a bit more aware of religious stereotyping

There are certain topics where we really need to all learn to think about what we are about to say before we say it.

Sadly some people seem determined to say controversial stuff just for the publicity

[Gaspode]

9 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Sometimes yeah, maybe but this is not an example at all. She deleted the tweet herself once it became clear that she was 100% wrong, and left totally exposed as having said something hugely prejudiced. She wasn't "shut down" or "cancelled".  And this is from someone who is very vocal about perceived anti-semitism (to the point of also shooting herself in the foot when she said that she "didn't look like a typical jew"!). You'd think she might be a bit more aware of religious stereotyping

There are certain topics where we really need to all learn to think about what we are about to say before we say it.

Sadly some people seem determined to say controversial stuff just for the publicity

So all the many thousands of tweets calling for Channel 4 to sack her aren't shutting her down or cancelling her? Strike me that that's exactly what they are.....She's clearly a bit of a gobshite (shades of Gary Lineker about her) who ought to have learnt to keep her opinions to herself by now but should folk lose their jobs for having different opinions?

[Crewton]

32 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Sometimes yeah, maybe but this is not an example at all. She deleted the tweet herself once it became clear that she was 100% wrong, and left totally exposed as having said something hugely prejudiced. She wasn't "shut down" or "cancelled".  And this is from someone who is very vocal about perceived anti-semitism (to the point of also shooting herself in the foot when she said that she "didn't look like a typical jew"!). You'd think she might be a bit more aware of religious stereotyping

There are certain topics where we really need to all learn to think about what we are about to say before we say it.

Sadly some people seem determined to say controversial stuff just for the publicity

She said that ironically, though perhaps unwisely, when the interviewer asked her what her Jewish identity was, as a way of explaining why it hadn't been picked up by the media until she "came out". Ever since she criticised Jeremy Corbyn, she's had the dog's abuse from his supporters and has her detractors picking over every aspect of her life and utterings looking for any reason to criticise her, repeatedly writing to Channel 4 demanding they sack her.

She may not be blameless in all of that, but there are scores of people who really need to look at themselves too.

[Alph]

1 hour ago, MaltRam said:

Fair point, but at the risk of quibbling that wasn't exactly stated. Implied, sure.

I feel like we shut people and ideas down far too readily these days, and this is another example. See Dawn French's comments yesterday around JK Rowling.

 

Having open conversations is fine. So long as we are willing to have open conversations about everything. 

The problem with some people is they can't tolerate criticism of Israel without making accusations of deep Antisemitism. But then they want the freedom to have these open conversations. 

What's wrong with talking about Muslim men coming into Europe from the Middle East into Europe (can't remember the Douglas Murray quote) that "they're unworthy of" and the dangers of Islamists? 

Well, nothing. Provided you are comfortable to sit down and talk about Israel without screaming antisemite. 

Rachel Riley accused social media of being a cesspit of Antisemitism.She photoshopped the picture of Corbyn arrested in SA protesting against Apartheid. She is isn't shy accusing people of being racist/antisemtic. Yet gets to pick what's racist and what isn't (see the British Jews refusing to play British Arabs comment). There's a whole history of double standards with her. So she doesn't want an open conversation. Neither does Douglas Murray. 

There was an interview on Sky between Owen Jones and some Israeli influencer. At one point he said to Owen Jones "why do you care so much". This has been the smear of Pro Palestinians for a long time. Implying or saying outright that it's motivated by Antisemitism. Even aimed at "self hating Jews". 

Imagine, if this was a story about  something to do with a banker. And a celebrity jumped to the conclusion that the greedy banker was probably a Jew. She wouldn't call that a conversation starter. She'd be right too. 

And she didn't even apologise. She basically said she was wrong this time but usually....

Open conversations? Fine. But open across the board. Talk about the links between certain crimes and race/religion if that's somehow helpful. 

The hypocrisy of accusing the West of having deep rooted Antisemitism while wanting the freedom to open fire on Muslims. That's what separates Murray and Riley from, I assume, your view. 

[Archied]

5 hours ago, Alph said:

Having open conversations is fine. So long as we are willing to have open conversations about everything. 

The problem with some people is they can't tolerate criticism of Israel without making accusations of deep Antisemitism. But then they want the freedom to have these open conversations. 

What's wrong with talking about Muslim men coming into Europe from the Middle East into Europe (can't remember the Douglas Murray quote) that "they're unworthy of" and the dangers of Islamists? 

Well, nothing. Provided you are comfortable to sit down and talk about Israel without screaming antisemite. 

Rachel Riley accused social media of being a cesspit of Antisemitism.She photoshopped the picture of Corbyn arrested in SA protesting against Apartheid. She is isn't shy accusing people of being racist/antisemtic. Yet gets to pick what's racist and what isn't (see the British Jews refusing to play British Arabs comment). There's a whole history of double standards with her. So she doesn't want an open conversation. Neither does Douglas Murray. 

There was an interview on Sky between Owen Jones and some Israeli influencer. At one point he said to Owen Jones "why do you care so much". This has been the smear of Pro Palestinians for a long time. Implying or saying outright that it's motivated by Antisemitism. Even aimed at "self hating Jews". 

Imagine, if this was a story about  something to do with a banker. And a celebrity jumped to the conclusion that the greedy banker was probably a Jew. She wouldn't call that a conversation starter. She'd be right too. 

And she didn't even apologise. She basically said she was wrong this time but usually....

Open conversations? Fine. But open across the board. Talk about the links between certain crimes and race/religion if that's somehow helpful. 

The hypocrisy of accusing the West of having deep rooted Antisemitism while wanting the freedom to open fire on Muslims. That's what separates Murray and Riley from, I assume, your view. 

Open conversations are not the done thing these days Alf ,,, extremists on both sides of every argument can’t have they’re views challenged because in the main they know they can’t defend theyre position so name calling and shouting matches are the modus operandi 

[BatRam]

dont know if someone has mentioned it , but the hardest geezer finished his run of the length of Africa other week. The finish line was ruined cause of some moron waving a Palestinian flag in his face during the finish.

[Ram-Alf]

24 minutes ago, BatRam said:

dont know if someone has mentioned it , but the hardest geezer finished his run of the length of Africa other week. The finish line was ruined cause of some moron waving a Palestinian flag in his face during the finish.

And a couple of people ushered away wanting their picture taken in London with the Kings Guard on horseback while holding a Palestinian flag...Armed Police soon put a stop to it, Picture never got taken.

 

[Alph]

Israel retaliate to Iran's retaliation to Israel's retaliation to Iran's proxy sponsored retaliation to Israel's retaliation to the more general Arab retaliation to the Israel's retaliation to the more specific Palestinian retaliation to Israel's retaliation to... I've lost what year I'm in tbh

[Archied]

32 minutes ago, Alph said:

Israel retaliate to Iran's retaliation to Israel's retaliation to Iran's proxy sponsored retaliation to Israel's retaliation to the more general Arab retaliation to the Israel's retaliation to the more specific Palestinian retaliation to Israel's retaliation to... I've lost what year I'm in tbh

So have both sides in this conflict and there in lies the problem

[cstand]

On 16/04/2024 at 11:29, Alph said:

Consonant please Rachel. And a vowel. Er, another consonant please...

R A S I C T 

Your time starts, now!

This, what is racist today post reminds me why I hardly ever read this thread anymore. 

If you disagree with my opinion on this conflict you must be a racist attitude is exactly why no solution will be found any time soon.

Over and out 

 

[Crewton]

2 hours ago, Archied said:

So have both sides in this conflict and there in lies the problem

Iran have played it down so far, presumably for PR purposes to emphasise to their population and the outside world that Israel can't damage them, so it'll be interesting to see if that's an end to the direct tit-for-tat or not.

I expect exchanges of attacks between Israel and Iranian proxies will continue unabated.