The Gooner Forum

Cus

I do not agree that outbursts of racist sentiments from the upper classes are not condemned.

Prince Harry and Prince Charles got slated for their recent use of so called "funny" nicknames.

Carol Thatcher lost her job.

Racism has pre-dated European colonialism by thousands of years.

It is probably in the Bible.
(I say probably because there is a debate as to whether Miriam's slander of Moses's wife was based on his wife being Black, or simply her looks.)
That would have been about 3,3000 years ago.


Muslim Arabs used slaves ( and sill do) 900 years before European slave routes began, there are currently 2M Black Iraqis, descendants of slaves brought there over 1000 years ago.

The European upper classes used slave plantations, but there were West African tribes already using slavery at the same time.

There were plenty of working classes British people helping out on those plantations, and manning the slave ships, and in the British army stationed in the colonies.

Middle class merchants and administrators benefitted economically from the slave trade too.

All classes were involved.



Galasso

The international media printed what they wanted to print, but seeing as how their journalists were not in Gaza, how accurate was it?

The so called bombing of the UN school...trumpeted by news organisations across the globe, was nothing of the sort.

Link below, plus short summary of article.
Full article is available for purchase from link website.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/acces ... lse+report


UN: IDF did not shell UNRWA school. 'Clerical error' blamed for false report
Jerusalem Post - Jerusalem
Author: TOVAH LAZAROFF; YAAKOV KATZ
Date: Feb 5, 2009
(Document Summary)

At the time UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called the IDF attack "outrageous" and demanded an investigation.

On Tuesday, the UN's Office for Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) slipped a "clarification" notice on the head of its weekly field report from Gaza.

"We know of at least three terrorists among the dead," one official said. "It is clear that there were more people, killed but Hamas has been covering up their identities."

Having read the full article, it is now clear that the Israeli artillery fire was on an area next to the school, and all casualties were from outsde the school. Some in the school were injured by shell casings that came over the wall when the shells disintegrated. No one was killed in the school.

The UN chief in Gaza now admits that, and says that the Israeli military spokeman was the one who said they had shelled the school, a statement made in error.

The article you asked about is below.

Institute of Strategic Studies report summary:

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/acces ... aws+of+war.



US study: Israel did not violate laws of war.
Gaza operation won't necessarily translate into long-term; benefit, author says
Jerusalem Post - Jerusalem
Author: ETGAR LEFKOVITS
Date: Feb 6, 2009

(Document Summary)

The analysis of the 22-day conflict in Gaza by Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies finds "impressive improvements in the readiness and capability" of the Israeli Defense Forces since the war against Hizbullah in Lebanon in 2006, and unequivocally states that Israel did not violate the laws of war despite the large number of civilian casualties among the Palestinians.

"[Israel] did deliberately use decisive force to enhance regional deterrence and demonstrate that it had restored its military edge," the report states. "These, however, are legitimate military objectives in spite of their very real humanitarian costs."


You might want to attend this meeting?

http://www.iiss.org/events-calendar/thi ... what-next/



Skipper

Just because Prince Harry once wore a Nazi uniform does not mean he is an anti-Semite.
There must be context added. It was to a fancy dress party.
He is a serving member of the armed forces, many of whom were killed by Nazis, and his own family served in those forces in World War Two.
It makes him a prat to wear that uniform, but not neccesarily shows any political or racial views of his.

Keith Moon, the Who's drummer, wore a Nazi uniform and walked around in a Jewish area of London in the 1960's. He was chased off by a man wielding a meat cleaver.

Moon may or may not have been a racist, but he was certainly nuts, and it seems possible that he felt it was a prank, rather than a statement of racial hatred.

Cus Geezer wrote:

flash gunner wrote:I dont see the need for threads like this on a football forum it only causes arguments as no one will change their view, a view backed up by above quote from Skipper about chatting to g*d

Except it isn't a football forum, this is the basement.

The football forum is under the one marked "Arsenal chat", this as stated is "Anything non-football or Arsenal related".

I love it how people complain about the subject matter but open the thread nonetheless despite it being clearly marked in the title.

Cus i can open any thread i like and comment about any thread i want to but fair enough slag each other off all you want after all one of you will come round to the others way of thinking eventually wont you? NO!!!! didnt think so, all that will happen is it will become personal someone will be offended and a mod will lock it worth all the bullshit in between isnt it

skipper wrote:Quartz...so guy wears an uniform that's responsible for death of millios of Jews in WW2...and you're not sure if he's anti-semite or not???

Skipper,

I can only imagine that you're playing devil's advocate in an attempt to wind people up. I doubt very much that Prince Harry is anti-semitic ( ) and somehow I doubt you do either... you're just trying to get a reaction.

I would love to challenge some of your views, but it's impossible... you've been so aggressive on other threads that the MOD's felt they had to lock them... and if I do challenge you on this thread, then no doubt you'll react agressively and offensively AGAIN... and the thread started by Cus will be locked... AGAIN!

If you have an opinion, great - share it! but choose your words carefully, as we don't want ANOTHER thread locked!!

skipper wrote:

Simon wrote:

skipper wrote:

Reason I'm asking is that i've been labeled anti-semite on this very forum for daring to get upset about Israel's murderous and criminal behaviour in Gaza, yet Harry seems to be 'badly advised' about wearing Nazi uniform at some posh wankers upper class party!?

It all boils down to hypocrisy as you rightly pointed out...

As I've said before, working class is there is to be spat on...

Skipper
you previously outed yourself as a racist and an antisemite not by criticising the policies of the Israeli Government or the actions of its army but by your use of paranoid Jewish conspiracy theories, your comparison of Jewish members of this forum with Nazis and your repeated refusal (despite many requests for clarification from you) to condemn or see any problem whatsoever with the murder of civilians, including babies, who were deliberately targetted by terrorists just because they were born Jewish.

I hardly think you're the expert in race relations here, but for the record racism is deplorable whichever class it emanates from (whatever "class" is supposed to mean these days).

I never called you Nazi, but I'll tell you who was a Nazi: A guy who said "100 times repeated lie becomes truth"...by my count you've got another 96 times to repeat lie in bold...and no abusive PMs this time around, Simon, please...

Quartz...so guy wears an uniform that's responsible for death of millios of Jews in WW2...and you're not sure if he's anti-semite or not???

Says it all really...

With respect, I'm not sure if he is either. I wore the "Freddie Starr" Hitler uniform once for a fancy dress party and I'm not anti-semite, or anti any other race, religion, colour or creed for that matter.
I tend to dislike administrations and policies but not necessarily individuals. It is sometimes very difficult to seperate the two but I often manage.
Some American (not sure who) said it was a good thing that Bush had advisors that disagreed with him. Without them he would have nuked Iraq. Not because he is evil but because he is an idiot. If you look at some of the evil regimes throughout history evidence often points to those around the main figure being worse than the icon we all hate. Hitler, Mugabe, Hussain etc. were the figureheads of regimes. That doesn't resolve them of responsibility for what occured but often overstates their personal role. Don't get me wrong, they're all guilty as hell, but they rarely make all the decisions.
If your view is on one side of an argument it is very difficult to see the other view. It's good practice to take a step back and try to look in from the outside. Rarely will you find fault solely on one side.
The modern world in which we live is driven by our need to be percieved in a manner that suits us all individually. When politicians/royals/celebs etc. jump on a particular bandwagon you have to realise that they are trying to pointscore to suit either a current or future need that they have for themselves. They rarely actually care about the individual or the situation. Much of what is said/done is also about intent. I call Rebel a 'Pikey' not as a racist slur but as a term of 'fun abuse'. He accepts it as that just as I do when Gus calls me an 'Orange toga wearing monk'. No offence is intended and none is taken. You also have to consider the intelligence of the individual making the statement. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Jade Goody had no idea that what she was saying could be perceived as being racist. The same applies to Harry with his hitler uniform. People sometimes do things in total innocence without considering the outcome.

g88ner wrote:

skipper wrote:Quartz...so guy wears an uniform that's responsible for death of millios of Jews in WW2...and you're not sure if he's anti-semite or not???

Skipper,

I can only imagine that you're playing devil's advocate in an attempt to wind people up. I doubt very much that Prince Harry is anti-semitic ( ) and somehow I doubt you do either... you're just trying to get a reaction.

I would love to challenge some of your views, but it's impossible... you've been so aggressive on other threads that the MOD's felt they had to lock them... and if I do challenge you on this thread, then no doubt you'll react agressively and offensively AGAIN... and the thread started by Cus will be locked... AGAIN!

If you have an opinion, great - share it! but choose your words carefully, as we don't want ANOTHER thread locked!!

...only one way to find that out, only one way...

Skipper, If you carry on with this offensive behaviour I'll not only lock the thread, I'll have site admin ban you from here.

Either debate things in a rational manner or don't debate at all. Overt aggression and threats will not be tolerated here.

Be warned.

listen,

i was only telling 88 that there is only one way to find out if my reaction to his supposed challenge of my views is going to be agressive and that is to for him to challenge my views...but obviously judgement on my behaviour is already out, so what's the point?

Fair enough, you obviously didn't articulate yourself very well on this occasion. No judgement has been made on you, I simply reminded you that we don't tolerate aggressive comments here. The statement you made sounded to me like a threat. If it wasn't intended that way fine but be aware of what you are typing and keep things civil. Nobody here wants to opress your views and you are very entitled to air them.
On the whole we have a pretty good community here and we'd like to keep it that way. If there are threads that you feel you cannot be objective on, or cannot keep your temper with, then I would suggest avoiding them altogether.

Carry on but remember "Spuddy is Watching You"

Ok, fine...

skipper wrote:Quartz...so guy [Prince Harry] wears a uniform that's responsible for death of millios of Jews in WW2...and you're not sure if he's anti-semite or not???

You've thrown this question at Quartz a couple of times, so - assuming you weren't on the wind up - please explain why you believe Prince Harry is anti-semitic.

My opinion...

To say someone is anti-semite is to accuse them of discriminating against or being prejudice toward Jews. So by implying Harry is anti-semitic, you are surely suggesting there was malice and conviction behind his statement... that he did it through his hostility toward jews!

Is that really what you believe Harry was doing???

Personally, I find that very hard to accept.... surely, he just made an error of judgement, no??

g88ner wrote:Ok, fine...

skipper wrote:Quartz...so guy [Prince Harry] wears a uniform that's responsible for death of millios of Jews in WW2...and you're not sure if he's anti-semite or not???

You've thrown this question at Quartz a couple of times, so - assuming you weren't on the wind up - please explain why you believe Prince Harry is anti-semitic.

My opinion...

To say someone is anti-semite is to accuse them of discriminating against or being prejudice toward Jews. So by implying Harry is anti-semitic, you are surely suggesting there was malice and conviction behind his statement... that he did it through his hostility toward jews!

Is that really what you believe Harry was doing???

Personally, I find that very hard to accept.... surely, he just made an error of judgement, no??

yes, that's what i believe. his p**i remark just proved to me that Harry is institutionaly rascist, but why is that surprising considering his upbringing? WE are all subhumans, looking from their perspective.

I think problem here is something else. A majority of people in UK see Royal Family as something positive and therefore faultless...and every uncomfortable situation is always seen as some kind of misunderstanding, mistake, bad advice and so on...


Now hypoteticaly speaking, if Harry or anybody else showed up at fancy dress party in a Hamas T-shirt, how would that be percieved?

Good question and if you don't mind I would like to answer that.

If he turned up at a party in a nazi costume, or even a fairy princess it would be pretty obvious that he had just selected a costume from a shop rail. Going in a Hamas t shirt would show thatb he had gone out of his way to procure one and was clearly making a political statement.

It's not so much about the clothing but about the lengths undertaken to wear it.

Quartz

Thanks for the links.

Just a note from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies website:

Founded in 1962 by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke, at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to finding ways for America to sustain its prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world

You quote an organisation like this and dismiss anything that remotely criticises Israeli policy - even though the BBC goes out its way to give voices to each side (listen to its world service reporting). Why don't they make the report free and available worldwide? How independent is the report with a mission statement like the above? How does America sustain its prominence?

Just be fair Quartz or you just come accross as a Israeli propogandist - and then I just switch off.

skipper wrote: Now hypoteticaly speaking, if Harry or anybody else showed up at fancy dress party in a Hamas T-shirt, how would that be percieved?

Ok…

If “someoneâ€

SPUDMASHER wrote:Good question and if you don't mind I would like to answer that.

If he turned up at a party in a nazi costume, or even a fairy princess it would be pretty obvious that he had just selected a costume from a shop rail. Going in a Hamas t shirt would show thatb he had gone out of his way to procure one and was clearly making a political statement.

It's not so much about the clothing but about the lengths undertaken to wear it.

Absolutely. But what I don't understand is when did Nazi uniform became 'fashion item' and not political statement? In 1977 with Punk? Surely that was done (swastikas) by angry working class youth trying to provoke puritan UK public...

Now, upper class t**ts doing 'colonials and natives' I can't see how was that supposed to provoke anyone!?

Galasso wrote:Quartz

Thanks for the links.

Just a note from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies website:

Founded in 1962 by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke, at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to finding ways for America to sustain its prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world

You quote an organisation like this and dismiss anything that remotely criticises Israeli policy - even though the BBC goes out its way to give voices to each side (listen to its world service reporting). Why don't they make the report free and available worldwide? How independent is the report with a mission statement like the above? How does America sustain its prominence?

Just be fair Quartz or you just come accross as a Israeli propogandist - and then I just switch off.

Yes, the report I quoted from is from an American policy unit.

As such you may say it is biased, but what report of that nature has been produced by a so called "neutral" country?

Is there such a thing?

(Was Switzerland neutral in World War Two?

In name only.)

The bulk of the report was printed in the newspaper, but now the paper is charging for access to it's internet archive.
I guess the full report is available at a cost as there are academic and military demands for it, and those clients have to pay, to pay for the cost of the report?



American foreign policy clearly embodies their belief that capitalism and democracy are the best forms of living and as such should be exported to the rest of the world.

If anyone has found a better way of living, I have yet to see it.

Whilst acknowledging that there are inherent flaws in capitalism, not the least as epitomised by the current world economic problems.

If you wish to live under Communism or Sharia then that is your choice, but I do not wish to do so, nor have them forced on me.




It is not fair to say that I dismiss anything that remotely criticises Israeli policy.

What I do is to fight Israel's corner against what I believe has been a sustained process of anti-Israel bias in the media, particularly the BBC.

I do not find their coverage impartial, too many times they will lead with a headline such as "Israel attacks Gaza" or use a phrase such as "Israeli Aggression" when it is to describe an Israeli military retaliation to a Palestinian attack.

I also fight against a policy adopted by Hamas, of a PR war, fought on the net and on the TV screens.
One in which Palestinian civilian casualties are encouraged and exaggerated by Hamas in order to stimulate anti-Israel feeling.
A mode of operation hideous to me.

Yet such is the evil embodied in this, that a further part of that PR campaign is to then go on and accuse Israel of allowing terrorist attacks in it's civilian areas, so as to justify continued spending on the Israeli military, in order to allow Israel to somehow try and accrue a territorial empire.

It is a deeply cynical campaign.

One that takes no account of the fact that if Israel did not have to spend such a vast amount of it's GDP on military matters, it would be a lot more prosperous.
Not least relieving the additional economic and emotional cost of a significant chunk of it's workforce from a month's military reserve duty each year.