Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

Dr. Gonzo

Moderator
  • Posts

    24,406
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96

Dr. Gonzo last won the day on May 2

Dr. Gonzo had the most liked content!

Reputation

8,198 Excellent

Team

Recent Profile Visitors

21,864 profile views
  1. Oh shit they arrested someone else for this? Good, these people are absolutely fucked up. I saw something about this almost a year ago: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-65951188 - I remember reading this part: and thinking "what the fuck is wrong with people?!" I hope everyone involved with this animal abuse ring gets locked up.
  2. I think overall his stock is higher than it was after they sacked him then brought him back tbh. I don't really know what West Ham expected Moyes to deliver if they thought he wasn't delivering enough - their fans act like they're some institution to football because of the world cup in 1966... but they're not exactly a club that's got a long history of success. Moyes delivered them their first trophy in god knows how long. He's got a win rate of 45.75% - which is higher than every West Ham manager in history, other than Trevor Brooking as caretaker boss (who didn't have a full season). I can understand wanting to "upgrade" and tbf I think Wolves did better than expected under him. And his win rate at most clubs/national setups he's been with is pretty impressive (although he's not got a great record with Real Madrid, but he didn't even have 15 matches with them)... I'm not fully convinced Lopetegui is an "upgrade."
  3. Is it really leaving by mutual consent if it's also when his contract expires? Isn't he simply just not getting a new contract and leaving when his contract is up?
  4. Didn’t know that… but makes sense tbh
  5. Pretty sure he's giving those examples on purpose because they're famously places where rights for homosexuals/transexuals are horrible lol.
  6. Yeah I agree with @6666 on this one. War crimes are war crimes, they should be challenged and some form of justice should be given to the victims of said war crimes. It doesn't matter who commits those war crimes. The only good thing, and I mean literally the only good thing that came from the US coalition invasion of Iraq was Saddam Hussein facing some accountability for a fraction of his war crimes. And even then, it wasn't really enough - nor did any of the nations that were 10000% complicit in those war crimes really have to pay for what they'd done (in fact, ultimately in the end all they really did was destabilise Iraq enough to let ISIS be born...). So even in instances where there's some semblance of "justice" with regards to horrific crimes against humanity, it's often fractional... and never really comes close to bringing closure for the victims of these crimes. And this minimal sense of justice being dolled out... it only ever really happens too when it's a country and/or person that has ultimately no sway on geopolitics. Saddam Hussein faced justice (for just a fraction of his crimes) because he'd lost control of Iraq and was found hiding in a hole in the ground. Or that guy from Sudan who's currently on trial at the ICC for his crimes in Sudan... he's only on trial because he turned himself in. So the circumstances where Netanyahu and IDF generals actually face some consequences for their crimes... it's just not happening. Generations of Palestinians had their futures stripped away and have been consequently subject to some insane extremism that leads this conflict to be in the perpetual state of violence it's been in. The best time to hold a nation and its leaders accountable for its crimes against humanity is the second it starts happening - but if that's not possible, those crimes should be prosecuted ASAP while the living memory of those crimes is fresh in the memory. Does the fact the US, Russia, and friends, have routinely gotten away with war crimes justify Israeli war crimes? No. Does Hamas not following the rules of war justify Israel not following the rules of war? No (in fact, Israel is a sovereign state - Hamas is a collection of terrorists with corrupt billionaire leaders; it's 100% reasonable to hold Israel to a higher standard than we hold terrorists to. Does the world staying silent on the Uyghurs in China justify Israelis and Palestinians trying to bring genocidal rhetoric to civil discourse on the world stage? No, it doesn't. That others have gotten away with serious crimes against humanity is no fucking reason at all to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses. Israel shouldn't be getting a pass just because other countries with nukes got a pass. War crimes are war crimes, all human rights violations should be punished. And honestly Netanyahu should be thankful that if he does face justice, it'd be at the ICC, rather than at the hands of the generations of Palestinians who's families he's destroyed and who's futures he played a part in stealing. But the chances of him ever facing justice are so minimal, sadly. Because countries that have nuclear weapons (or are good friends with countries that have nuclear weapons) routinely get away with their crimes against humanity. But if the crux of the argument for Israeli war crimes being permissible is: we should only go after Israeli war crimes if we're going to take all war crimes seriously... it's just a shit argument. Yes, we should take all war crimes seriously. "You don't care about Hamas's own crimes against humanity if you want Israel to face consequences for theirs." No, I very much do care about Hamas's crimes against humanity and think they should face consequences just like Netanyahu and IDF leaders should. We should take every crime against humanity seriously. We shouldn't just be picking or choosing what crimes are permissible and what crimes aren't because of biases we might have about a particular conflict. They're crimes against humanity - we're all humans. We don't live in a perfect world, but just accepting the status quo isn't going to make the world any better. The only way for the world to do better is if governments of the world start demanding a better world - and part of that is actually holding countries, even the richest and most powerful countries, accountable for their crimes against all of us. Standing by and justifying the unjustifiable is how people lose their humanity and sends people on a slippery slope towards being violent extremists.
  7. We’ve been pretty poor lately, I’ve got basically no expectations. Especially with Spurs confirming the CL for us over the week.
  8. Lib dems are just mild flavoured tories, like labour's become... but not quite as mild as labour. But them being popular is preferred to tories, even though I think they're really just more dishonest than your average tory.
  9. So is he a terrorist & a nonce, or just a nonce? Either way, lock him up.
  10. If it was for the UCLA counter protest, I think it's a good thing to look into and question for sure. People should know if public figures and their wives are funding domestic terrorism.
  11. Is she donating the counter protest group that conducted the attack in UCLA? Because honestly, was a form of terrorism: unlawful use of violence & intimidation, against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Textbook definition. Probably won't hear it called "terrorism" though in the media though because it wasn't brown people doing it.
  12. Are the other things really noteworthy though? Police wanting to keep journalists away from seeing them do things that aren't legal is pretty common in the US tbh. I guess the president of Harvard being stupid is fairly noteworthy. But then you take a look at what's happening at some of these big name universities in the US and it really begs the question "have these schools let their standards slip?" I think they have, honestly. These students can't even direct their ire at the right organisations to direct their ire at... they can't be that smart. There's no false equivalency, both sides have demonstrated they both have plenty of bad actors in their ranks that have no interest in really furthering any cause other than promoting division. I suppose it's a microcosm of the views of the leaders of the sides actually involved in the real conflict. And the students of US universities have also demonstrated that regardless of which side they're on, they're not really great at protesting in a way that's actually going to effect the change they want to see. Americans were less unruly during the protests over things that actually impacted the human rights of Americans: BLM & abortions. The passionate willingness for these people to fuck themselves over in the long run so that they can take a side in a conflict with two demonstrably evil sides half a world away is nothing short of insanity.
×
×
  • Create New...