Jordan Henderson Moves to Al Ettifaq

[Stan]

2 minutes ago, Spike said:

There is no such thing as 'Islamic people'.

Someone going from closet racist to outright racist

 

[Beelzebub]

U.K is ours only. We will outbreed you all ! Zindabad

[Spike]

Just now, Stan said:

Someone going from closet racist to outright racist

 

Oh no my lack of decorum has been found out

 

[Spike]

3 minutes ago, Beelzebub said:

U.K is ours only. We will outbreed you all ! Zindabad

India and Pakistan should have a land war in the UK to save their own countries the collateral damage.

[Stan]

25 minutes ago, Spike said:

Oh no my lack of decorum has been found out

 

I didn't mean you

 

[Spike]

16 minutes ago, Stan said:

I didn't mean you

 

lol the way you edit my post made it seem like you were taking the piss

[Stan]

32 minutes ago, Spike said:

lol the way you edit my post made it seem like you were taking the piss

I haven't edited your post? 

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Stan said:

I haven't edited your post? 

You literally deleted half of it in the quote box mate

[Stan]

28 minutes ago, Spike said:

You literally deleted half of it in the quote box mate

Technically, no. I highlighted that bit and did 'quote selection' 

[Michael]

9 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

he has managed to piss off the scousers and the mackems over at RTG where you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

the meltdowns tend to tell me a lot about people.  when someone posts that Ukraine has the right to self determination and autonomy but then attacks Arab nations for self determination and sovereignty with the second oldest civilisation known but when it rubs up the West the wrong way you see the closet racists come out.

 

Ukraine does indeed have the right to self determination, what the people want for their country is what should happen. The Arab country's in the Middle East which have monarchies, are mostly supported and held in high regard by their local populations. You will find that the vast majority of the people of Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and the UAE are all really proud of their monarchies. This is what I saw when I was in the region and from what I have read.

Even in Saudi Arabia, I'd say that most of their population support their monarchy, however, there is a small percentage of the population that are not happy with their leadership. Bahrain is probably the main country in the region that has a significant number of locals who are not happy with their king. But again, the issues in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, are mainly sectarian issues, as religion obviously plays a big part in that region.

[Michael]

7 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

I am not sure how a large amount of islamic people migrating into the UK where they will at some point have political power and overhaul the UK constitutes as racism,  they already did that in sweden,  next is france.   

Muslims will never take control of any European nation. They literally make up a small percentage of the populations in Sweden, France and the UK, with muslims mainly concentrated in the big cities. Also contrary to what some muslims claim, relatively few locals in those respective countries ever convert to Islam. So there's hardly any threat of the West losing it's traditional identity from Islam. If anything, the West is more likely to lose it's traditional identity from other sources and other movements.

[Dr. Gonzo]

3 minutes ago, Michael said:

Ukraine does indeed have the right to self determination, what the people want for their country is what should happen. The Arab country's in the Middle East which have monarchies, are mostly supported and held in high regard by their local populations. You will find that the vast majority of the people of Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and the UAE are all really proud of their monarchies. This is what I saw when I was in the region and from what I have read.

Even in Saudi Arabia, I'd say that most of their population support their monarchy, however, there is a small percentage of the population that are not happy with their leadership. Bahrain is probably the main country in the region that has a significant number of locals who are not happy with their king. But again, the issues in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, are mainly sectarian issues, as religion obviously plays a big part in that region.

My experience has been that most people in the Middle East might like governments of other nations, but typically hate their own governments. And a lot of them won't be so keen to tell you that while they're in their own countries due to the laws that punish people for saying things that don't make it seem like their ruler is fantastic.

[Michael]

7 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

Is it not because the west are trying to steal the oil reserves like you did in Iraq under the auspices of something higher and mighty.  It is hard to criticise a nation that the UK and US have bent over backwards to protect for decades,  and only when it becomes a political talking point to sway virtuous voters to put people into power they then talk about "human rights" or "democracy".   How much has been done to make the Arab states pariahs since 2020?  not much.

The West has an identity crisis,  calling out everyone else yet we have seen reforms to target political opponents,  censor and control what information gets out, the use of political bodies to protect themselves and harrass people.   Support for an authoritarian against another authoritarian.   You can only criticize authoritarianism if you yourself have the moral authority to do so.   The west does not and in many cases has carried out its own violations. 

The solution is one of talk without threat,  you would probably find that their would be more reform to western like standards if it wasn't veiled behind threat of power, withdraw of support or some form of political leveraging. 

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an illegal war in my opinion. We should never have gone in to that country under the false guise of them having weapons of mass destruction. More than a million people were killed in Iraq as a result of the invasion and Iraq is currently lead by kleptocrats with increased poverty spread throughout the country. So we got rid of a tyrant, only to replace him with other nasty pieces of work. 

I have to concur withs some of what you have said here, a lot of our(well it's mainly the Americans, lets be honest) meddling in the foreign affairs of other countries has lead to chaos and not necessarily improved their nations. Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan are a case in point. We do not hold the moral high ground on a lot of issues, which is why I think we should leave other countries be and let their own people sort out their issues. Only when a country is attacked illegally by another country should we intervene, but we shouldn't meddle in their local affairs in my opinion. The US is a major culprit with this, be it in the Middle East, South America, Africa or Asia, they are always intervening in the politics of other countries that don't tow the line to their liking.

[Michael]

27 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

My experience has been that most people in the Middle East might like governments of other nations, but typically hate their own governments. And a lot of them won't be so keen to tell you that while they're in their own countries due to the laws that punish people for saying things that don't make it seem like their ruler is fantastic.

I have also seen and met plenty of visitors from the countries I mentioned in the UK, who say that they are very happy and proud of their leaders. It seems to be the general consensus of the people from those mentioned countries. That's just from what I have experienced and analysed.

It's true that in some of those countries insulting the monarchy or leadership could land them in some trouble. But such laws are not unique or restricted to those countries. Many countries all around the world have such laws, even here in Europe, we have many countries where insulting the monarchy or leaders can be punishable by law.

European countries where insulting the head of state can land you in prison – POLITICO

 

 

[Spike]

15 minutes ago, Michael said:

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an illegal war in my opinion. We should never have gone in to that country under the false guise of them having weapons of mass destruction. More than a million people were killed in Iraq as a result of the invasion and Iraq is currently lead by kleptocrats with increased poverty spread throughout the country. So we got rid of a tyrant, only to replace him with other nasty pieces of work. 

I have to concur withs some of what you have said here, a lot of our(well it's mainly the Americans, lets be honest) meddling in the foreign affairs of other countries has lead to chaos and not necessarily improved their nations. Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan are a case in point. We do not hold the moral high ground on a lot of issues, which is why I think we should leave other countries be and let their own people sort out their issues. Only when a country is attacked illegally by another country should we intervene, but we shouldn't meddle in their local affairs in my opinion. The US is a major culprit with this, be it in the Middle East, South America, Africa or Asia, they are always intervening in the politics of other countries that don't tow the line to their liking.

You know what’s even worse? It wasn’t a ‘war’. The USA never declared war and hadn’t since WW2 I believe.

[Rick]

So, yeah….go football!!

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Michael said:

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an illegal war in my opinion. We should never have gone in to that country under the false guise of them having weapons of mass destruction. More than a million people were killed in Iraq as a result of the invasion and Iraq is currently lead by kleptocrats with increased poverty spread throughout the country. So we got rid of a tyrant, only to replace him with other nasty pieces of work. 

I have to concur withs some of what you have said here, a lot of our(well it's mainly the Americans, lets be honest) meddling in the foreign affairs of other countries has lead to chaos and not necessarily improved their nations. Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan are a case in point. We do not hold the moral high ground on a lot of issues, which is why I think we should leave other countries be and let their own people sort out their issues. Only when a country is attacked illegally by another country should we intervene, but we shouldn't meddle in their local affairs in my opinion. The US is a major culprit with this, be it in the Middle East, South America, Africa or Asia, they are always intervening in the politics of other countries that don't tow the line to their liking.

I agree with you - although I wouldn't forgive the UK so quickly for the meddling of foreign affairs. Or France, for that matter, with Africa. I also wouldn't necessarily say it's the West either that hold all the guilt - there's also Russia and China with their own economic imperialism in the Middle East & Africa.

But yeah, Bush and Blair deserve a special place in hell for what they did to Iraq, if hell is real. And if hell is real, Putin will be right there next to them. Hopefully having large objects and hot pieces of coal shoved into their bumholes.

1 hour ago, Michael said:

Many countries all around the world have such laws

Yeah and those laws are absolutely pathetic tbh. We should be very happy to live in countries that don't have pitiful monarchs and rulers who are unable to handle even the mildest forms of criticism.

[Michael]

8 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I agree with you - although I wouldn't forgive the UK so quickly for the meddling of foreign affairs. Or France, for that matter, with Africa. I also wouldn't necessarily say it's the West either that hold all the guilt - there's also Russia and China with their own economic imperialism in the Middle East & Africa.

But yeah, Bush and Blair deserve a special place in hell for what they did to Iraq, if hell is real. And if hell is real, Putin will be right there next to them. Hopefully having large objects and hot pieces of coal shoved into their bumholes.

Yeah and those laws are absolutely pathetic tbh. We should be very happy to live in countries that don't have pitiful monarchs and rulers who are unable to handle even the mildest forms of criticism.

 

Very true, France, the UK and the US have all intervened in other countries affairs for various reasons, such as economic interests, ideological conflicts, humanitarian concerns, or strategic alliances. However, it can be argued that the US has done the most damage by meddling in other countries affairs, because it has the greatest influence on other nations due to its military, economic and political power.

The US has been involved in numerous foreign interventions throughout its relatively recent history, ranging from covert operations to full-scale wars. Some of these interventions have been justified by the doctrines of containment, preemption, or responsibility to protect, while others have been driven by imperialist or exceptionalist ambitions. The US has often acted unilaterally or with a few allies, bypassing or undermining international institutions and norms. The US has also supported or opposed various regimes and groups based on its interests or ideology, sometimes with disastrous consequences for the people and stability of those countries.

Just some examples of the negative impacts of US intervention are as follows: The overthrow of democratically elected leaders in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Chile (1973) and Haiti (2004). Furthermore, the US has supported brutal dictators and rebel groups all around the world. Examples of this are Somoza in Nicaragua, Pinochet in Chile, Mobutu in Zaire, Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. All of which resulted in mass killings, torture, displacement and poverty.

Moreover, the US engaged in drone strikes and special operations in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, as part of the "war on terror". These strikes violated the national sovereignty of these countries, killed innocent civilians, increased anti-American sentiment and helped to fuel radicalisation. 

Russia and China have indeed also interfered in other countries and they have also supported authoritarian regimes. In addition, they've also expanded their military presence and influence over different countries and regions around the world. 

It's incredible how Bush and Blair, hardly get any criticism for what they have done. It appears as if some murderous leaders are unfortunately able to get away with not being taken to court.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Michael said:

 

Very true, France, the UK and the US have all intervened in other countries affairs for various reasons, such as economic interests, ideological conflicts, humanitarian concerns, or strategic alliances. However, it can be argued that the US has done the most damage by meddling in other countries affairs, because it has the greatest influence on other nations due to its military, economic and political power.

The US has been involved in numerous foreign interventions throughout its relatively recent history, ranging from covert operations to full-scale wars. Some of these interventions have been justified by the doctrines of containment, preemption, or responsibility to protect, while others have been driven by imperialist or exceptionalist ambitions. The US has often acted unilaterally or with a few allies, bypassing or undermining international institutions and norms. The US has also supported or opposed various regimes and groups based on its interests or ideology, sometimes with disastrous consequences for the people and stability of those countries.

Just some examples of the negative impacts of US intervention are as follows: The overthrow of democratically elected leaders in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Chile (1973) and Haiti (2004). Furthermore, the US has supported brutal dictators and rebel groups all around the world. Examples of this are Somoza in Nicaragua, Pinochet in Chile, Mobutu in Zaire, Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. All of which resulted in mass killings, torture, displacement and poverty.

Moreover, the US engaged in drone strikes and special operations in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, as part of the "war on terror". These strikes violated the national sovereignty of these countries, killed innocent civilians, increased anti-American sentiment and help to fuel radicalisation. 

Russia and China have indeed also interfered in other countries and they have also supported authoritarian regimes. In addition, they've also expanded their military presence and influence over different countries and regions around the world. 

It's incredible how Bush and Blair, hardly get any criticism for what they have done. It appears as if some murderous leaders are unfortunately able to get away with not being taken to court.

I think the UK were actually more responsible for Iran than the US, but both culpable in ending the Middle East’s first democracy. Pretty fucked. Operation Boot I think is the name of the mission.

What an absolutely ridiculous transfer thread though lol

[Beelzebub]

6 hours ago, Spike said:

You know what’s even worse? It wasn’t a ‘war’. The USA never declared war and hadn’t since WW2 I believe.

Yes. Same way Russia is declaring it a Special Military Operation. Officially declaring a war will have consequences under UN charters afterwards.

[Honey Honey]

6 hours ago, Michael said:

 

It's incredible how Bush and Blair, hardly get any criticism for what they have done. It appears as if some murderous leaders are unfortunately able to get away with not being taken to court.

It's not really true that Blair gets hardly any criticism. He's spent years as a toxic pariah in the UK for the sole reason of Iraq and had the utter humiliation of the Chilcot Inquiry.

You can make a pretty strong argument that he and Campbell have been able to worm their way back into political life via the platform they got from the People's vote lot. They were struggling to have any heavyweight representation so got Blair on the phone. It has taken the toxicity out of his presence and he will likely now see out his life able to chime in here and there on British politics, which looked impossible just a few years ago. Opponents of anything he says will always fall back to Iraq to put him down.

In regards to criminal proceedings against Blair lawyers have looked at this for years. Under the ICC, the crime of aggression was added on 2010. So applying retrospectively is not going to happen. The laws that did exist would be very difficult and controversial to turn into a conviction, therefore a trial is questionable. Parliament would have to vote a new English law and vote to retrospectively punish. Never going to happen. 

Whilst it's easy to say some get special treatment and perhaps there is a degree of weight in that, it is not entirely about that. 

[Danny]

13 hours ago, Beelzebub said:

U.K is ours only. We will outbreed you all ! Zindabad

If I could upvote this post I would 

[6666]

I think we've all learnt that "Sports Washing" is very much a hypocritical term only reserved for non-western countries. Take your Guardian newspaper. Put it in the bin.

[Beelzebub]

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

A bit bold from Jordan of Arabia.

I think Southgate will keep picking him though because he's got his favourites. But surely if England players in the Serie A aren't deemed as playing at high enough level to play for England, it would be a joke to call up someone who's playing in a retirement league.