Politics & Stuff

[Fulham Broadway 16,411]

Similar maybe but not the same. Because in the US, those lobbying groups are the ones who create the legislations and make the decisions and basically run the country. Neither party would ever dare piss off either or all the money goes to the opposing candidates. For example, someone like George Galloway would NEVER get elected in the US. I feel there's more room for diversity in the UK. The democracy is not nearly as dysfunctional as in the US.

AIPAC and Friends of Israel both promote the aims of the state and tend to overide any dissenting voices, regardless of how many, which makes democracy farcicle in terms of majority representation. The recent Palestine vote is evident of this. There may be more diverse representation in the UK than the US, but the Greens, for instance are marginalised, and not allowed in tv debates, and figures like Galloway, or the fantastic Dennis Skinner are seen as 'court jesters' in Parliament.

[Stingray 9,441]

Still going strong on the topic guys? [emoji12][emoji106]

[CHOULO19 24,332]

As expected the republicans won the elections yesterday and Netanyahu's bet came through. So to celebrate, he's had his forces today storm the Aqsa mosque and fire tear gas bombs and assault people praying inside injuring many. The "police" wrecked parts of the inside of the mosque and destroyed Qura'ans inside it. This is after the Israeli government made the punishment for throwing rocks at those "police" by any Palestinian 20 years in prison.

Today as well a Palestinian ran over Israeli pedestrians in Al Quds in retaliation for Israeli settlers running over two Palestinians for the second time after an Israeli ran over two 5-yo girls leaving nursery last week killing them both. Of course, the 'terrorist' who ran over the Israelis was killed and the Israeli minister of internal affairs promised that his family's house would be bulldozed as revenge while the Israelis who ran over the Palestinians have not even been charged.

But of course if Palestinians throw rockets or resist in any manner, they are terrorists...

[Fulham Broadway 16,411]

As expected the republicans won the elections yesterday and Netanyahu's bet came through. So to celebrate, he's had his forces today storm the Aqsa mosque and fire tear gas bombs and assault people praying inside injuring many. The "police" wrecked parts of the inside of the mosque and destroyed Qura'ans inside it. This is after the Israeli government made the punishment for throwing rocks at those "police" by any Palestinian 20 years in prison.

Today as well a Palestinian ran over Israeli pedestrians in Al Quds in retaliation for Israeli settlers running over two Palestinians for the second time after an Israeli ran over two 5-yo girls leaving nursery last week killing them both. Of course, the 'terrorist' who ran over the Israelis was killed and the Israeli minister of internal affairs promised that his family's house would be bulldozed as revenge while the Israelis who ran over the Palestinians have not even been charged.

But of course if Palestinians throw rockets or resist in any manner, they are terrorists...

Interesting but not unexpected. All we have on the BBC is the retaliatory attcks by Palestinians. -and there was me thinking zionist control of the media was a bonkers conspiracy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29911702

My muslim friends at work told me a few days ago about the Al Aqsa mosque, one of three of th emost important mosques in the World.

[twobanger 13]

The democrats spent millions of dollars and sent people who worked the b o campaign here to Texas to try and "turn Texas blue". They failed absolutely hilarious fashion. They did worse than they did in the last election, with no democrat running for statewide office getting more than 39% of the vote.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Interesting but not unexpected. All we have on the BBC is the retaliatory attcks by Palestinians. -and there was me thinking zionist control of the media was a bonkers conspiracy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29911702

My muslim friends at work told me a few days ago about the Al Aqsa mosque, one of three of th emost important mosques in the World.

It's the second most important place for Muslims after only Al Qa'ba in KSA. Israelis are not allowed inside and haven't been since 1967.

It's just one more provocation. In October only, settlers and Israeli police (there is absolutely no difference between the two) killed 10 Palestinians and injured about 150 among many other provocations. Read this: http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/ten-palestinians-killed-israelis-october-plo-report?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Netanyahu is taking advantage of everyone being too busy with ISIS and Syria and Iraq and is carrying out the plans that we all already know Israel have: taking over Al Aqsa, destroying more Palestinian houses, building more settlements. Even the Arabic media bar 2 or 3 are not doing more than mentioning the events in the news.

[Fulham Broadway 16,411]

It's the second most important place for Muslims after only Al Qa'ba in KSA. Israelis are not allowed inside and haven't been since 1967.

It's just one more provocation. In October only, settlers and Israeli police (there is absolutely no difference between the two) killed 10 Palestinians and injured about 150 among many other provocations. Read this: http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/ten-palestinians-killed-israelis-october-plo-report?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Netanyahu is taking advantage of everyone being too busy with ISIS and Syria and Iraq and is carrying out the plans that we all already know Israel have: taking over Al Aqsa, destroying more Palestinian houses, building more settlements. Even the Arabic media bar 2 or 3 are not doing more than mentioning the events in the news.

Scant, if any, mention about the two five year old girls deliberately run down and killed by an illegal Israeli settler. http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/22094

I have just watched sky, itn, and bbc main news and it doesnt get a mention - just the Palestinian who drove the van into israelis. This then makes the Palestinians appear to initiate the violence.

[Fulham Broadway 16,411]

On September 29, an Israeli settler ran over and injured 6-year-old young Palestinian girl Islam Basim al-Amour in al-Dairat area south of Hebron.

On August 7, an 8-year old Palestinian girl was also run over by Israeli settlers near Hebron and moderately injured.

A week after that incident, on August 14, a 23-year-old Palestinian man was run over and killed by a settler car in the central West Bank.

In all incidents, witnesses and residents said they believed Israeli settlers deliberately hit Palestinians.

Back in 2013, an Israeli settler ran over a seven-year-old boy with his car as he walked to school in the West Bank town of Abu Dis.

Hate crimes by Israelis against Palestinians, referred to as “price tag” attacks, are common in the West Bank, and are rarely investigated or prosecuted by Israel.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Scant if any mention about the two five year old girls deliberately run down and killed by an illegal Israeli settler. I have just watched sky, itn, and bbc main news and it doesnt get a mention - just the Palestinian who drove the van into israelis. This then makes the Palestinians appear to initiate the violence.

The five year old girls were run down a couple of weeks ago. Einas Khalil died immediately and her friend, Tolin Asfour is still in critical condition.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/10/20/Palestinian-girl-hit-by-Israeli-car-driver-dies.html

Yesterday morning, a settler ran over Ibrahim Hamdan while he was walking to work.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=737533

Of course all the 'investigations' by the Israeli police say both were accidents. Forget treaties and peace talks, if we want the peace in Palestine all it takes is a few good driving tutors for those Israeli settlers...

[CHOULO19 24,332]

On September 29, an Israeli settler ran over and injured 6-year-old young Palestinian girl Islam Basim al-Amour in al-Dairat area south of Hebron.

On August 7, an 8-year old Palestinian girl was also run over by Israeli settlers near Hebron and moderately injured.

A week after that incident, on August 14, a 23-year-old Palestinian man was run over and killed by a settler car in the central West Bank.

In all incidents, witnesses and residents said they believed Israeli settlers deliberately hit Palestinians.

Back in 2013, an Israeli settler ran over a seven-year-old boy with his car as he walked to school in the West Bank town of Abu Dis.

Hate crimes by Israelis against Palestinians, referred to as “price tag” attacks, are common in the West Bank, and are rarely investigated or prosecuted by Israel.

That's nothing, in October alone, settlers burned down the Abu Bakr El Sidiq mosque, broke into several houses and defecated in them and wrote racist statements on the walls, dumped waste water on Palestinian fields in Bethlehem, stole money from two houses in Jerusalem, attacked olive pickers injuring some of them and torching and uprooting over 600 olive trees....etc.

Of course, no one arrested in any of the above...A third intifada is just around the corner.

[Fulham Broadway 16,411]

That's nothing, in October alone, settlers burned down the Abu Bakr El Sidiq mosque, broke into several houses and defecated in them and wrote racist statements on the walls, dumped waste water on Palestinian fields in Bethlehem, stole money from two houses in Jerusalem, attacked olive pickers injuring some of them and torching and uprooting over 600 olive trees....etc.

Of course, no one arrested in any of the above...A third intifada is just around the corner.

Wouldnt go so far to say thats nothing, but know what you mean.

The problem is the corporate, and dare I say it zionist influenced media ignores all this -until the desperate Palestinian resistance of firing pathetic rockets. Then the latest US weaponry paid for by US tax payers , and indirectly by You and Me if youve ever bought a McDonalds, Starbucks, General Motors vehicle etc is unleashed on innocent women and children by Israel. Slaughter, devastation, denial, "they started it", gaza appeal, more illegal land grab....

The World then goes ''Ahhh, isnt it terrible ?'' and fuck all is done. Then the Israelis torment and humiliate and prod with a stick all over again, so the cycle perpetuates itself

[Viper22 2,418]

Effectively, most likely there won't be drinking at the stadiums and there won't be half naked women. Other than that I'd imagine would be considered as an exception including homosexual players. Unless they start making out with their teammates on the pitch, I don't think the Qatari government would make any issues. After all, they want to send out the message that they can handle all that and host WCs and major events, but they'd still want to 'protect' their people from publicly seeing acts which they consider immoral/sinful.

I have a problem with it as well in principle. But the morals that you and I share may be the dominant in the world in the sense that they are the ethics of the most powerful countries and most of the people with internet access and who study and discuss ethics and philosophy and sociology, but the fact is, there are more humans on earth who do not hold those morals than who actually do. We don't like to think about it, but there are billions out there who belong to societies, or parts of societies, who are not 'with us in the current moment in history' because their societies have had an evolution different than that of our societies and left them unaffected by the changes in the 'globalized' morals. Yes, I know that wasn't explained well at all, but point is, you can't just shove all those people to the side and say I don't want to deal with them.

PS: I didn't mean that you in particular were taking things out of perspective or portraying them unfairly, but talking about the general view point of the public.

The lack of drinking is fine, we deal with it at European games so we can deal with it for a world cup. The lack of half naked women is ok too, as long as it doesn't go too far (women having to wear trousers/long sleeves shirts) as it'll be bloody hot whenever they host it.

Thing is, i'm not gay and never will be (it's not something that interests me) and tbh I myself wouldn't like 2 men making out in front of me (although then again I don't like public displays of affection anyway). But I don't feel that anyone should be persecuted for their choices in their personal life especially if it doesn't harm or affect anyone else. I mean it's not like seeing 2 men kiss will make anyone gay who wasn't in the first place anyway, I don't know what they're afraid of? If there is some kind of meeting halfway then that would be ok for me - gay people can attend and have no fear of violence or persecution and have protection from the local authorities as long as they agree to with-hold any public displays of affection until they are in private.

It's not about morals, it's about freedom to think how you like without fear of violence or persecution.

I know you didn't mean me specifically, I just wanted to back up my point.

P.S Moved this to the politics as i'm sure you've realised so as to not clog up the international thread.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

The lack of drinking is fine, we deal with it at European games so we can deal with it for a world cup. The lack of half naked women is ok too, as long as it doesn't go too far (women having to wear trousers/long sleeves shirts) as it'll be bloody hot whenever they host it.

Thing is, i'm not gay and never will be (it's not something that interests me) and tbh I myself wouldn't like 2 men making out in front of me (although then again I don't like public displays of affection anyway). But I don't feel that anyone should be persecuted for their choices in their personal life especially if it doesn't harm or affect anyone else. I mean it's not like seeing 2 men kiss will make anyone gay who wasn't in the first place anyway, I don't know what they're afraid of? If there is some kind of meeting halfway then that would be ok for me - gay people can attend and have no fear of violence or persecution and have protection from the local authorities as long as they agree to with-hold any public displays of affection until they are in private.

It's not about morals, it's about freedom to think how you like without fear of violence or persecution.

I know you didn't mean me specifically, I just wanted to back up my point.

P.S Moved this to the politics as i'm sure you've realised so as to not clog up the international thread.

Yes on all of the above. But you're still kinda missing my point. I share all of those beliefs with you, so I can't 'defend' the opposite beliefs, nor is that the point here.

You're saying, or rather implying, that because what you said above makes complete sense to you and me it should be 'transferable' as general knowledge and facts to anyone and everyone. But that is not the case. Our cultures and societies have had to go through (often painful) experiences and evolutions to arrive at the current moral standards and ethical norms (well, your societies goes through them, mine just copies off your cultures). But there are A LOT of people living in societies that have not gone trough that evolution or have not been influenced enough by globalization to adapt these norms from the societies that have.

You can't blame those people for holding those beliefs even though you find them wrong, because they were born into those beliefs. You just have to hope that the natural (at least to us) evolution of morals and ethics catches up with those sets of beliefs eventually.

Regarding people going to the WC in Qatar, I think there will most likely be some kind of compromise because neither will be aiming for or even want to change the beliefs of the others. Qatar does not want to end out an image of itself that it has a backwards barbaric culture and the visitors wouldn't want to piss off the authorities of the country they are in.

And since you moved this to the politics thread, I think it's absolutely hilarious that the western media is making a huge fuss about those moral differences when it comes to the world cup, but NOTHING is said about those issues when Qatar and KSA (who is very similar and even more 'conservative') are the two countries that buy the most weapons from the west and sell the most oil to west in the world.

"We can trust them with trillions of dollars worth of weapons, but a world cup? Not with those backward beliefs of theirs!"

[Viper22 2,418]

Yes on all of the above. But you're still kinda missing my point. I share all of those beliefs with you, so I can't 'defend' the opposite beliefs, nor is that the point here.

You're saying, or rather implying, that because what you said above makes complete sense to you and me it should be 'transferable' as general knowledge and facts to anyone and everyone. But that is not the case. Our cultures and societies have had to go through (often painful) experiences and evolutions to arrive at the current moral standards and ethical norms (well, your societies goes through them, mine just copies off your cultures). But there are A LOT of people living in societies that have not gone trough that evolution or have not been influenced enough by globalization to adapt these norms from the societies that have.

You can't blame those people for holding those beliefs even though you find them wrong, because they were born into those beliefs. You just have to hope that the natural (at least to us) evolution of morals and ethics catches up with those sets of beliefs eventually.

Regarding people going to the WC in Qatar, I think there will most likely be some kind of compromise because neither will be aiming for or even want to change the beliefs of the others. Qatar does not want to end out an image of itself that it has a backwards barbaric culture and the visitors wouldn't want to piss off the authorities of the country they are in.

And since you moved this to the politics thread, I think it's absolutely hilarious that the western media is making a huge fuss about those moral differences when it comes to the world cup, but NOTHING is said about those issues when Qatar and KSA (who is very similar and even more 'conservative') are the two countries that buy the most weapons from the west and sell the most oil to west in the world.

"We can trust them with trillions of dollars worth of weapons, but a world cup? Not with those backward beliefs of theirs!"

I feel well out of my depth here, but i'll plow on.

I do get what you're saying now, the born into beliefs and brought up with them is a good point. But then people in civilised countries can do that and once they commit crimes (you could argue that homophobia/racism are moral crimes) we deal with it by separating them from the rest of society (through imprisonment) for general societies safety (as well as their own in some cases). So surely if Qatar can't agree to let openly homosexual people into their country to watch/compete in a worldwide tournament then I do think that they shouldn't be invited to host said tournament until they go through the experiences and so evolutions you mentioned.

I'm not saying they have to have even similar beliefs (they can disagree completely with gay people for all I or even probably the gay people care) as long as they don't show those opinions in a violent or abusive way. It's not like gay people are going to have a gangbang in the middle of the pitch or make plays at Qatari gentlemen, it won't effect them or their culture in any way. So once they have changed enough to at least display their opinions in peaceful non-violent ways (if at all) then of course we can go there, once again with the caveat that gay people don't take the piss and show affection in public.

If there is a compromise like we have both mentioned then it will be fine I am sure and will if anything soften people's opinions of Qatar (and possibly muslims in general) which is a very good thing.

Well yeah the Western media is anything but consistent and I think you'll find that most people who disagree with them having the world cup disagree with them having weapons supplied by us too. But our opinions matter less than a cow's shit so...

[CHOULO19 24,332]

I feel well out of my depth here, but i'll plow on.

I do get what you're saying now, the born into beliefs and brought up with them is a good point. But then people in civilised countries can do that and once they commit crimes (you could argue that homophobia/racism are moral crimes) we deal with it by separating them from the rest of society (through imprisonment) for general societies safety (as well as their own in some cases). So surely if Qatar can't agree to let openly homosexual people into their country to watch/compete in a worldwide tournament then I do think that they shouldn't be invited to host said tournament until they go through the experiences and so evolutions you mentioned.

I'm not saying they have to have even similar beliefs (they can disagree completely with gay people for all I or even probably the gay people care) as long as they don't show those opinions in a violent or abusive way. It's not like gay people are going to have a gangbang in the middle of the pitch or make plays at Qatari gentlemen, it won't effect them or their culture in any way. So once they have changed enough to at least display their opinions in peaceful non-violent ways (if at all) then of course we can go there, once again with the caveat that gay people don't take the piss and show affection in public.

If there is a compromise like we have both mentioned then it will be fine I am sure and will if anything soften people's opinions of Qatar (and possibly muslims in general) which is a very good thing.

Well yeah the Western media is anything but consistent and I think you'll find that most people who disagree with them having the world cup disagree with them having weapons supplied by us too. But our opinions matter less than a cow's shit so...

Sorry if I'm sounding too 'philosophical' about this, but to me, it is at some point a question of morals and the relativity of truth.

Anyway, the obvious difference in your comparison is that first, criminals are a very small minority in their society, so even if they are 'born into crime', they are still actually fighting against the moral standards of their society and environment. It is completely different when you are born and every single person you know believes for a fact that homosexuality is a crime and a sin. It is so hard for a single person to change such belief especially when it is related to a religious doctrine. The change has to come collectively (and slowly) for the whole society.

The other difference is, crime is not a belief. In fact, morals such as don't steal, don't kill...etc. are universal because they are transferred genetically. No one, even criminals, believes that killing or stealing is right even if they are doing it. Usually they make up excuses that they genuinely believe: "The real criminals are the banks that steal from the people, I'm just a small criminal in comparison" "I was forced into killing to survive, it's society's fault." "They are criminals/killers too, I'm just doing justice"....etc. While sexual freedom is not a belief shared by all. Those people born in such conservative societies genuinely believe that homosexuality is what is immoral.

As for the way they express those opinions, meaning how they deal with homosexuals, it's not any more violent or abusive as it was dealt with in most of the west 100 or even 50 years ago! We are so immersed in our current reality that we fail to see even our own history except through the eyes of this moment instead of the reality of that time. It's the curse of being human...

[CHOULO19 24,332]

^^

Again, though, I'm not defending those beliefs or even saying that you have to accept them. I'm saying that you can't deal with all the people that hold those beliefs as criminals, especially when there are so many of them around. We can and should try to change those beliefs but we can't criminalize those who hold them if the reason of why they hold them is purely cultural and sociological.

[Viper22 2,418]

Sorry if I'm sounding too 'philosophical' about this, but to me, it is at some point a question of morals and the relativity of truth.

Anyway, the obvious difference in your comparison is that first, criminals are a very small minority in their society, so even if they are 'born into crime', they are still actually fighting against the moral standards of their society and environment. It is completely different when you are born and every single person you know believes for a fact that homosexuality is a crime and a sin. It is so hard for a single person to change such belief especially when it is related to a religious doctrine. The change has to come collectively (and slowly) for the whole society.

The other difference is, crime is not a belief. In fact, morals such as don't steal, don't kill...etc. are universal because they are transferred genetically. No one, even criminals, believes that killing or stealing is right even if they are doing it. Usually they make up excuses that they genuinely believe: "The real criminals are the banks that steal from the people, I'm just a small criminal in comparison" "I was forced into killing to survive, it's society's fault." "They are criminals/killers too, I'm just doing justice"....etc. While sexual freedom is not a belief shared by all. Those people born in such conservative societies genuinely believe that homosexuality is what is immoral.

As for the way they express those opinions, meaning how they deal with homosexuals, it's not any more violent or abusive as it was dealt with in most of the west 100 or even 50 years ago! We are so immersed in our current reality that we fail to see even our own history except through the eyes of this moment instead of the reality of that time. It's the curse of being human...

I do like a good debate but like I said I'm well out of my depth here. And you've just proved it to me!! I either don't understand enough (both about the issue or my opinion on it) to argue my point convincingly or I'm wrong and have been convinced so .

So I'll just come to the conclusion that what you're saying is right, I can't find any issues I disagree with in there tbh so I'll admit you're right. We just have to hope that Qatar soften their ways either for it before the World Cup.

Except for one thing actually. I think you'd be surprised just how many criminals truly believe that what they're doing isn't wrong (for whatever reason). Not saying they think they're in the right, just that they're not in the wrong. Convincing themselves that they're not. Now obviously that a psychological issue that I'm definitely not qualified to talk about but I'd suggest it's a larger number than people think. That's all.

[Viper22 2,418]

^^

Again, though, I'm not defending those beliefs or even saying that you have to accept them. I'm saying that you can't deal with all the people that hold those beliefs as criminals, especially when there are so many of them around. We can and should try to change those beliefs but we can't criminalize those who hold them if the reason of why they hold them is purely cultural and sociological.

And to clarify again, I don't mean we should treat them as criminals. That was just an (admittedly poor I'm retrospect) analogy that people with viewpoints than differ so drastically are often separated from those that have other views. It was more a suggestion that sometimes separation is the best thing. So not having the world cup there in the first place would solve the problem (not putting homosexuals in that position) or for a country with a gay player to boycott the World Cup. That kind of thing is what I meant, not that they're criminals for their beliefs.