As we're unlikely to see terraces again at football, this is the virtual equivalent where you can chat to your hearts content about all football matters and, obviously, Arsenal in particular. This forum encourages all Gooners to visit and contribute so please keep it respectful, clean and topical.
26may1989 wrote:..RaM, that school retreat has obviously left you tired. Cus's quote from the Oxford English Dictionary didn't limit the definition of racism to physical features (just read it: "characteristics and abilities" etc), so your response is wrong anyway. But you continue to miss the central point by a mile - whether you (whom I presume to be white, as well as living in a country without a large Jewish poopulation) like it or not, most people in the UK recognise that **** is a racist term.
Maybe time for you to knuckle down to prepare for those exams...
BET RAM IS RELIEVED ABOUT THAT!! NO-ONE WANTS TO LIVE IN A SHIT COUNTRY!! [/b]
Although I agree with much of what Cus says on the main points, I don't accept his digs at Oz, which are just based on caricatures and assumptions
I didn't say Sydney wasn't multicultural, I said most social observers think Australia is about 20 years behind the UK.
After all London was also multicultural 20 years ago.
But Cus, who are "most social observers"? It's a meaningless basis for an argument. There's bound to be a wide variety of views on something as subjective as this.
And you also seem to assume everything goes in a simple, linear way on social issues like this. I remember looking at France in the 1980s and early 1990s and thinking how retarded they were for not letting Muslim girls and women wear whatever they wanted whenever they wanted, thinking we in the UK were much more balanced and relaxed about things. But look where we are now, many people here are saying exactly what the French were saying 20 years ago. Does that mean things have gone backwards here? Who knows, but it does show that these things are just not as simple as you suggest.
There's no point having a go at RaM on the basis of his nationality, you should just focus on his arguments, which are either right or wrong, regardless of his passport.
There's no point having a go at RaM on the basis of his nationality, you should just focus on his arguments, which are either right or wrong, regardless of his passport.
It wasn't me that mentioned 'factors clouding judgement' it was he.
His defenders cannot reconcile his outburst against his Sri Lankan opponents with his reputation as a "good bloke". Team-mates and associates have described Lehmann's slur as an "out of character" act, committed "in the heat of the moment" by someone who is "universally regarded as a nice guy". Instead it is the Sri Lankans who are rendered villains, oversensitive and unmanly to complain.
Lehmann's supporters cannot understand the difference between calling someone a "*word censored*" and a "black *word censored*".
All ills can be cured if everybody just stops whingeing and swallows the (white, male, resolutely middle-class and anti-intellectual) panacea of 'mateship'.
By raising this, one risks being labelled politically-correct and a troublemaker.
khalid: I know that there are a number of Australians who harbour resentment against Muslims, but that is due to the perceived wrongs that Muslims have inflicted on them. There was a great deal more involved in the lead up to the Cronulla riots than is detailed in that Wikipedia article.
khalid: I know that there are a number of Australians who harbour resentment against Muslims, but that is due to the perceived wrongs that Muslims have inflicted on them. There was a great deal more involved in the lead up to the Cronulla riots than is detailed in that Wikipedia article.
RaM, I said Australians are amongst the biggest anti-Muslims in the world; I didn't mean all of them are.
KHALID,
IN MY OPINION THE BIGGEST THREAT TO MUSLIMS ARE OTHER SO-CALLED MUSLIMS THAT DISTORT THE KORAN AND CLAIM TO BE ACTING AT IT'S BEHEST.
THE SOONER THE 'MODERATE' MAJORITY OF PEACE LOVING MUSLIMS FIND THE COURAGE TO CONFRONT THESE CHARLATANS, THE SAFER WE ALL WILL BE!!
IHH, "peace loving Muslims" is a funny quote. You know Muslims are viewed in the media as either super-peaceful guys or super-evil guys. To say the truth, most Muslims aren't bothered the crazy Muslims so that's it. I am not peace-loving, because it makes sound like some hippy
Damn you, Osama! You are disgrace to all Muslims. From a super-evil guy to a Hippy
THERE'S NO DISGRACE IN BEING A PEACE-LOVING HIPPY. I MEAN YOU WON'T FIND A MALICIOUS BONE IN THE LIKES OF WAYN ...ER..STRIKE THAT!!
ON A SERIOUS NOTE, WE SHOULD ALL BE PEACE-LOVING, WHETHER ONE IS A HIPPY OR NOT.
THAT'S WHY I SHALL BE ADVOCATING THE POLICY OF 'COMPULSORY SMOKING OF SKUNK BY EVERYONE OVER THE AGE OF 16' AT THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION!! IT'S SURELY NO CO-INCIDENCE THAT THE WORD HIPPY IS JUST ONE VOWEL DIFFERENT FROM THE WORD HAPPY? (BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I JUST THOUGHT OF THAT!! )
IN MY OPINION THE BIGGEST THREAT TO MUSLIMS ARE OTHER SO-CALLED MUSLIMS THAT DISTORT THE KORAN AND CLAIM TO BE ACTING AT IT'S BEHEST.
THE SOONER THE 'MODERATE' MAJORITY OF PEACE LOVING MUSLIMS FIND THE COURAGE TO CONFRONT THESE CHARLATANS, THE SAFER WE ALL WILL BE!!
Again we veering from the "****" question, but there's something with this point I must take issue with.
I take you mean the non-peace loving muslims to be the non-fundamentalists.
The Middle East has always been a problem - those causing us problems have not always been the same people.
The fundamentalists were the allies of the west for much of this time, because of their opposition to the like of General Nasser and (who are also moderate muslims not fundamentalists) Saddam and Gaddaffi. Al Qaeda were funded by western intelligence as recent as 1996. The west has stoked up much of this threat toward the moderates in the first place.
I've heard someone here also mention about how democracy is unheard of in the middle east and Iran. Well Iran was a secular democracy until a UK/US instigated coup in 1953 because the Iranian government had the audacity to plan to nationalise it's oil fields at the expense of BP.
This coup lead to the despotic Shah being placed in power until the revolution of 1979, the middle east's road to 'peaceful' secular democracy was kyboshed by western interests.
And the question has to be asked - just how peaceful would you be if foreigners invaded Britain?
And the question has to be asked - just how peaceful would you be if foreigners invaded Britain?
Thats a good point but can be answered quite easily. We already have been through stealth methods and we have sat back and accepted it (at least our government has). In fact our political left wing has sought to positively encourage acceptance of it and in some cases promotion of it.
Thats a good point but can be answered quite easily. We already have been through stealth methods and we have sat back and accepted it (at least our government has). In fact our political left wing has sought to positively encourage acceptance of it and in some cases promotion of it.
I don't think economic migration and military invasion are the same thing are they?
And as for your point about the left wing - the highest numbers of immigration came under the Conservatives in the 1950s, the left tightened immigration throughout the 60s but at least tried to harmonise race relations.
Thats a good point but can be answered quite easily. We already have been through stealth methods and we have sat back and accepted it (at least our government has). In fact our political left wing has sought to positively encourage acceptance of it and in some cases promotion of it.
I don't think economic migration and military invasion are the same thing are they?
And as for your point about the left wing - the highest numbers of immigration came under the Conservatives in the 1950s, the left tightened immigration throughout the 60s but at least tried to harmonise race relations.
Point taken Gus and for the record my comment was only meant to be a bit light hearted.
We've gone way off line on this thread now (I know we do on most threads but at least they normally move towards porn!). Lets bring the debate back around to the thread title and ask 'Is it acceptable?'.
NO-ONE WANTS TO LIVE IN A SHIT COUNTRY!! 
