herzogian

I've been hearing this quite a lot today: Find the head, attack the root etc...but i am afraid the solution isn't quite that simple. Even if they get boots on the ground and are able to chase IS away from their territory there's no promise of succes.On the contrary chances are that within a decade a new movement will stand up. Like fighting a hydra two new heads replace the old one. We've seen this in the past, the old strategies in dealing with radical movements in the Middle- East simply don't work. The so-called "WAR ON TERROR" declared by Bush and his buddy Blair have failed big time. The attacks yesterday in Paris, thursday in Beirut, the Russian plane in Egypt, they are all proof of this failure. Most important thing right now is not to jump into simplistic conclusions or actions. Something has to be done, no doubt about that, but how and what is not something that can be decided in haste.

First of all, thank you for your insightful and again very nuanced answers. Looking back at my initial post it gives away the stereotipical way in how I view countries in the Middle-East and how I put every country there under the same umbrella. I considered such bombings to be an everyday thing which of course they are not. I can not even begin to fathom how shocked everyone is and what this means for your country. I sincerely hope this will remain 'just' an isolated incident. Regarding terrorism, you're right it is a very dubious term. Even the United Nations has struggled to come up with a good and sound definition. Propably one of the reasons is that some definitions would also include Israel or the USA themselves as terrorist organisations. To answer with a cliché: one man's terrorist is another man's freedomfighter. If I read your assesement, in a sense, this also is the case in Lebanon. Hizbollah started and grew stronger as a reaction to the war(s) with Israel and this, obviously, also is the reason why Israel and its allies want to view it as a terrorist organisation. Always easier to have public opinion behind you when you can frame your enemy as a terrorist, the same is happening in Turkey right now with the PKK. Regarding framing Hizbollah, or even broader in this case, Lebanese people as terrorists, this short story which maybe will interest you: In Belgium there is a famous political activist and columnist of Lebanese orginin, Dyab Abou Jajah, who during the war in 2006 went to Lebanon to help. Though he was allready a contested figure in our country, due to the fact he doesn't exactly mince his words, upon his return the far right, Vlaams Belang, used his involvement in that war as a way to frame him as a extremist to take away his Belgium citizenship. Luckily thing cleared out and he is now quite a respected talkshowhost and columnist in our country. This is not how the story ends however. Just recently with the elections of a new Labour leader some media used a meeting between Jeremy Corbyn, Jajah and Lebanese MP Hussein Hajj Hassan as a way to frame Corbyn as a dangerous fool who deals with terrorist organisations. Since Jajah is a rather well-known figure in Belgium this story was debunked quite rapidly but a lot of people fell for it and still believe it.

Sadly Clinton has al the money and media behind her while they're doing everything they can to frame Sanders as an old, weak and crazy leftie who has zero credibilty.

Our conversation suddenly became very topical since there just was a deadly bombing in Beirut.Hope everything is ok and that there aren't too many casualties. That's also what I wanted to ask you about actually, the political situation. Is sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni also a big issue in Lebanon? And what do you think about Hezbollah? Though it is a recognized and participating political party in your country , countries like the USA, France and the Netherlands classified it as a terrorist organisation. How is this viewed in Lebanon? At last, what do you think about their involvement in the Syrian civil war ?

The republican debates are great comedy central material, though the democrats with cyborg Clinton and a few non-figures aren't that much better. Pitty Sanders doesn't stand a chance. On another note, don't want to be impolite but are you really Lebanese? (some people on here 'carry' flags just because they like their appearance) Cause I was wondering about the current situation there under Hezbollah and how the war in Syria and the migrant crisis are felt. Coverage about Lebanon has always been contradictory, though R.Fisk, who lives there too, manages to shed a more 'positive' light.

Naah, he's propably searching on Ebay for this kind of thing:

Though you're nitpicking quite a bit you are right. Fußballer des Jahres is comparable to the FWA footballer of the year, which Hazard also won last season.

Jawohl! Fußballer des Jahres, last one to win was De Bruyne.

Good performance though he still misses that something more he had last season, most likely caused by a lack of confidence. Hope he can build on this performance and won't let the result get him down too much. Chelsea needs him, sparkling, flashing and going for goal.

Besides the fact that we lost and really, really needed a win I thought this was a fairly good performance. Everybody showed heart and was willing to put in the extra effort. We have been playing better since the Liverpool game, sadly it doesn't show in the result. Our attacking compartment was going at it quite hard but they missed that extra bit of creativity. No Willian freekick or Hazard magic to save us today. Only player really below par was Costa, we need a reinforcement.

Your reaction seems more emotional than rational. Understandable since you're propably a huge Mou-fan, but a bit unfair towards Carneiro. As an employee she has every right to fight the way she was handled by her employer. While strictly speaking the employer is not Mou, he is in an important position and was instrumental in her departure from the club. Every employee has the right to challenge such situations be it the Chelsea team doctor or a factory worker. This has nothing to do with egocentrism or a cry for attention, it's about justice.

Carneiro isn't in de club anymore so she can sue however andere whomever she likes. Apparently there must be a chance that she could win this case otherwise she wouldn't have taken it to court. Imo considering the vile way Mou handled her dismissal, she has every right to do so.

The TTP is atrocious. Mostly because it is portrayed as a positive free trade advancement while it's real aims and consequenses are kept secret from the public. Those agreements are pretty much decided above our heads and we don't get to have a say in this, thus it is a perfect example to counter my quote that raised your brows. Yet I mostly reacted to popular conspiracy theories wherein our world throughout history is secretly ruled and held docile by a small powerfull group of people, an assertion which is far too simplistic and has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. I should have nuanced my post a bit more though, luckily you did that most adequatly in yours. So I pretty much agree with everything you say. Though you raise two interesting examples, which maybe I don't know enough about. Charlie Hebdo, (are you perhaps referring to: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/28/emmanuel-todd-the-french-thinker-who-wont-toe-the-charlie-hebdo-line) and the recent events regarding the migrant crisis. In what way are they an example of 'powerful people' trying to decieve the public?

I know Gramsci's cultural hegemony-concept. He makes a good point of course:the rulling social classes influence the dominant cultural values, and also policymaking, no doubt about that. But I have two remarks about this, first of all you have to keep in mind that Gramsci wrote his work in a different 'era'. Class distinction was much broader then. Now, while there still obviously are distinctions, they are quite different. The middle class has become far bigger and far more diverse than they used to be. And it is mostly them that have this 'hegemonic' influence on cultural values. If you read papers like The Guardian you'll see that most writers are middle class, heck even most commenters are middle class and whether you want it or not that influences our perception. My second remark, and I return to my first post directed against Ashburner, is that these are not really intentional processes. I'm nitpicking quite hard here but I really think this is important. People often seem to think that powerfull people come together to decide how they can fool and dominate us. This is far too simplistic. That is not how people and history work. These divisions have been in the works for a long time and have been institutionalised quite deeply, partly because a lot of todays institutions have been created in the 19th century and haven't been changed a lot. Neverthless I agree with most of the things you say in your last post. Good shout bringing up Gramsci. Hope more people may decide to read his work, can't be bad. Now really have to work. Far too much coffee for me.

I don't deny that there is something like institutionalised racism. Especially in the USA but also here in Europe it is very prominent and a very hard problem to tackle. But I really doubt that this is an active or intentional policy, not in this day and age. About the divide and conquer, or rule in this case, I'm also quite sceptic at least about the things you sum up. Religious differences and violence have existed long before there where even modern democratic goverments. It is not in the goverments interest to incite these kind of things cause it could have very negative consequenses for themselves. Gender inequality has existed for ages too, it also is an institutionalised problem and again I doubt that this is an active and intentional policy. If anything gender inequality and racism have been fought back quite hard in the last century and improvements have been made. I don't want to sound as a complete apologetic for governments though. It's not because something is institutionalised that they are completely innocent. And I'm also not saying that governments are completely trustworthy. Concerning socio-economic issues you certainly have a point. 'The rich' are protected as much possible. But I sincerely doubt they are able enough to pull of an active divide and rule-policy ala ancient Rome. People aren't that easily fooled anymore.

That's a new one, racism is organised by the Illuminati, lol. Well I hope you're having a laugh. If not, good luck!

Mou did the honorable thing yesterday, no hitting out or punishing of players, no he protected them. Finally a positive approach, maybe there's still a glimmer of hope. Pool will be quite decisive. An important match cause both Mou and Klopp are looking for vital wins. If we win this could be the beginning of a resurgence, if we lose it's further down the spiral for Mou, for the team and even for the fans. The vitrol and squabbling is quite prominent on the forum these days. Let's all stand in unison saturday!

Save that last attempt at being funny, I agree with you.

So you wouldn't play him anymore because he doesn't live up to the 'star expectations' eventhough he's propably still a better option than Kenedy and Traoré. That would be stupid. Not saying that it wouldn't be a good idea to give these young ones more chances. It would give them more space to grow and Hazard a chance to take a break. But I really doubt they will ever be a better option, even now.

You are saying it yourself, 'I think'. So you're condemning a player on the basis of pure speculation. There are no credible indications that he's going to or wanting to go to Real. I don't know about his attitude really, on the field and in interviews he seems quite aware of his bad form and he seems willing to change it. My guess is that he himself doesnt really know what is going wrong right now. Chelsea are in crisis and we're searching for scapegoats. The two most important people who won us the title last season, José and Eden, are now the easy victims.

I envy your telepatic gifts. Looking in Hazards head, knowing what drives him and all that...

I fear that match will come too soon for Hazard. He looked absultely shattered after his pen. They (player and coach) have to figure out how to 'fix' him.

We knew, he knew, everybody knew. Pitty, this will be devestating for his confidence. Hope he can get out of this.

Goalkeepers 1. Asmir Begovic -7- Good keeper, saved us a couple of times but feel a lot more confident with Courtois in the goal. 13. Thibaut Courtois x Defenders 2. Branislav Ivanovic -3- Definitely our worst player. 5. Kurt Zouma -6- Solid defending, a lot of promise though he still seems erratic at times 6. Abdul Baba Rahman -5- Also very erratic, isn't afraid of going forward, didn't get enough chances 24. Gary Cahill -6.5- Reasonably good performances. 26. John Terry -5- Slow, not the Terry of last season 28. Cesar Azpilicueta -8- Our best defender, confident and a good fighting spirit. Midfielders 4. Cesc Fabregas -6- Not as good as first half last season, still has his qualities though he is very slow 7. Ramires -6.5- Better than last season, fighting spirit and the occasional flash goal. 8. Oscar -5- Know he's talented but don't know how , bit vague I know but so is Oscar. 10. Eden Hazard -5.5- Slump, no confidence, not enough willpower, though i still got THAT feeling when he is on the ball. 12. John Mikel Obi x Didn't really notice him. 16. Kenedy -6- A lot of promise, didn't get enough chances. 17. Pedro -5.5- Had a good start, dissapointing afterwards. 21. Nemanja Matic -5- Is this the same Matic? 22. Willian -8.5- Without a doubt our best player atm. 36. Ruben Loftus-Cheek -6.5- Promising young player, has shown that he is able, has to get more chances. Forwards 9. Radamel Falcao -5- Not that different from ManU Falcao, didnt get a lot of chances though 18. Loic Remy -5 19. Diego Costa -6- Has to concentrate more on scoring goals.

He is but unlike Hazard second half of last season Willian isn't able to carry us to victory, he is not a match-winner. Don't want to downgrade his good performances though, the team's recent form has a lot to do with that too.