Thug

2 minutes ago, meregreen said:

No.

Oh really? I suppose the didn’t attack the Liberty and blame the Arabs either.

5 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Israelis were in connections with wars that they didn't start themselves

Didn’t Israel ‘strike first’ in 1968? And then try to lie about it?

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

In some cases, sure. The moment you put up a Nazi symbol or start talking about gassing Jews, or waving posters around like in Poland where someone’s got ‘clean up the world’ with a David’s star in a bin we’re past that. 

I implore anyone who doesn’t believe this to go and look at the marches themselves, some of the chants and posters being thrown around are Moseley-esque.

I absolutely hate this.  If you’re going to march against oppression and racism, don’t bring oppression and racism with you.  (But more importantly don’t harbour these bullshit ideas in the first place)

These people absolutely should be arrested and prosecuted.  Not the brightest people, especially when you look around and look who’s marching WITH you.

I do think (and certainly hope) these were a minority of idiots who go along just to cause trouble or drag the narrative off track.

One betting site quoting 33/1 for Emery as their next manager.

Which was a little worrying, until I saw Southgate at 16/1

Ay that point I remembered bookies ain’t got any more of a clue than anyone else.

8 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

He's talking about how Amnesty skirted around the issues surrounding Russia's war crimes in Ukraine and struggled with the realities of Russia bombing Ukrainian cities to oblivion, parroted Russian propaganda like saying Ukraine had placed troops in civilian areas. In that case, they should probably also consider where Hamas is.

To me, it really doesn't matter if you're Ukrainian or Palestinian, if an occupying force is bombing civilians indiscriminately it's a war crime no matter who donates to Amnesty, or in this case, is/was on the board of Amnesty. 

More on the subject

But then again Amnesty clearly struggles with comparing situations, a termobaric mlrs rocket fired into a whole block of civilian buildings in Mariupol was considered a military action by them then due to Ukraine maybe being close to 10 kms from the building.

Thanks for this (I’m referring to the entire post)

And thanks for the part in bold in particular.  I sometimes feel that this sentiment isn’t present in what I read, and that is what gets my back up to be honest.
 

I’m going to see if I can find the full report to have a good read.

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Well now you mention it, have a look at the report they did on that other big war that's going on at the minute. They aren't currently infallible either and I say that as someone who has put on gigs and donated the profits to them in the past. They did used to be very trustworthy but now I'm more questioning of their reports too now.

Would be an interesting read about the other big war.  Do you mind linking?

10 minutes ago, ender4 said:

I don't think that maths work but i can't work out why.  1.3 children per couple doesn't give you 40% of the population being children. 

The UK is around 2.0 children and we don't even have 25% of the population as children. 

Because 1.3 children per couple is assuming that everyone who is not a child is a parent.

That is not likely to be the case.

Let me apply the maths to your example.

if 18% of the uk is a ‘child’, the that would leave 82% as an adult.

let’s assume the population of the uk to be 70,000,000

82% = 57,400,000 adults

18% = 12,600,000 children 

change adults to couples: 28,700,000

at your average of 2.0 children thus would suggest that 57,400,000 children.  Which is obviously not 18% of 70,000,000

So that’s why the maths doesn’t work 

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

i've not seen the link to the amnesty report yesterday:

 

 

Amnesty international?  Meh. Who listens to these guys? Probably Russian/Iranian funded.

Just look at their previous damning reports about Israel.  Obviously biased.

Nothing to see here, move  along.

9 minutes ago, bickster said:

Likely Russian intelligence asset, treat with caution.

Yh, stick to US sources.
Proper legit stuff.

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

Nope, I was missing the invisible ink. None of that is what you said in response to the poster

All of that was implied by my response.  Doesn’t take a lot of thought to work that out to be honest.

‘I’m trying to work out if mass murder was collateral damage or not’

’Well, I hope you’re never collateral damage.’

Im still not sure what part of that you took offence to.

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Do you have any evidence to help anyone come to their own conclusion? Or do you just believe one side of the narrative regardless then assume that to be true, as that doesn't appear to be a very objective. Poster is correct in saying it's almost impossible to determine what is the actual truth. Calling someone out for saying he's finding it really hard to work out what is truth from lies seems a bit daft if you ask me. It's not conducive to an intelligent discussion really is it?

You’re missing the point.

poster is indeed correct about it being almost impossible to know the truth, except where both sides report the same things.

IDF have accepted that they did indeed bomb this site.  (I can see that the term refugee camp is being disputed so I shall not use that, as it is irrelevant to my point.) 

evidence:

approx 1 minute: ‘can you confirm it was an Israeli attack…’ ‘yes I can’

Not disputed, right? Ok.

Now to my point in my response to OP.

Imagine op’s neighbours are drug dealers.

Lets even say the neighbour pops over to visit op sometimes.

On what planet would it be ‘ok’ to kill op, his family, his dog, destroy all his property because the neighbour decided to be next to op at the time?

Its irrelevant.

Thats why I said I hope that he is never a victim of collateral damage.  I sincerely hope I never have to read about how op was in a bank when a bank robbery was taking pace and the police bomb the entire bank to get the robbers.

I dread the thought of op and his family being blown to bits and us discussing on Villatalk whether the police were justified in bombing the bank and asking each other for evidence of what was the bank robber thinking.

Does that make it clearer?

I guess we should also ignore amnesty international nowadays.

anyone else been criticising Israel nowadays that we should ignore?

2 minutes ago, a-k said:

Nowadays that they elect certain countries with horrible human rights records to their Human Rights Council. Has nothing to do with what they say about Israel.

Like Israel you mean?

3 hours ago, a-k said:

wouldn't really pay attention to anything that goes on at the UN anymore, it's a joke organization nowadays

Nowadays that they don’t agree with what Israel say or do?

Ok.  

6 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Sounds like this is another of those incidents that had multiple angles to it. The status of "refugee camp" is disputed by many because it's actually a city with buildings.

Then the Israelis are claiming they didn't strike the civilian areas, but an underground stronghold that unfortunately had lots of ammunition in it and blew up, collapsing the tunnels and taking down all those buildings, after having warned the citizens to leave.

Personally I haven't seen enough to work out what the truth really is here, but there definitely seems to be a bit more to it than simply "refugee camp blown up by Israel".

Is it actually a refugee camp? Did Israel give warning? Could the citizens have feasibly left even if so? Did Israel really target just a military installation and the rest was an accidental by-product? Did they know the destruction it would cause and do it anyway?

The propaganda and spin from both sides is almost impenetrable I'm finding.

Really?

Ok.

I sincerely hope to god you’re never an accidental by product of anything.

24 minutes ago, bickster said:

Have a word with yourself. It's amazing how you managed to type that yourself and post it on a football forum

It's also antisemitic as defined by the IHRA working definition of Antisemitism

 

Ok my bad.  Didn’t realise that the organisation I referred to did not exist. 

I shall retract that part of my post, with an apology.  The rest still applies.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Here’s mine.

Edit; I believe there are outside influences on our politicians. [ I initially referred to this outside influence as a particular organisation that has since been pointed out to me that could be considered anti-Semitic.  This was not my intention, so apologies to anyone that I offended.]

The hypocrisy of some people is so mind boggling that it makes you wonder if people are just deliberately doing it.

’Israel has a right to defend it self’. this defence apparently includes killing non-civilians.

Let’s rewind to October 6th.

Palestinians are being terrorised daily by Israel - fact.  Do the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves? Does this include killing Israeli civilians? I would say no, and no. Neither is ok. 

Neither is defence.

It doesn’t take more than a few brain cells to figure out what is happening is not ok. For anyone to stand up and say it is ok on ANY level needs to examine their inner morals. If anyone believes that Israel’s actions here are going to end Hamas, they’re lying to themselves.

For those that don’t understand what I’m saying, answer these two questions honestly in your own hearts.  Put everything else to one side. 

1) if Hamas were hiding in Israel, would the ‘IDF’ be bombing Israeli civilian infrastructure, saying that it’s not their fault that Hamas were using human shields? 

2) if Hamas were hiding under your house, would it be ok for the IDF to bomb your house and kill your family?

I’m not expecting answers.  Quite frankly, I don’t want to hear any more bullshit excuses for murder.

14 minutes ago, Rustibrooks said:

I was also shocked that Ukraine abstained from voting on this, you know considering the same thing is more or less happening to them. (Although there’s not so much of a concern of a humanitarian crisis over in Ukraine as far as I know)

It’s appalling.

I suspect that their hand was somewhat forced by showing solidarity with just about the only country that can support them against Russia.

Regardless, it’s an absolutely disgusting look, and my sympathy towards them has just shrunk by a considerable amount.

27 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

It could. However since that internet survey a few days ago there have been a number of elections that have happened, and it doesn't seem to have had any material impact on Labour's vote share. Some of them in areas with large Muslim communities. 

Also the national polls that have been released since don't seem to show any significant change. You'd think that if the UK's Muslim vote was deserting the Labour Party en masse that wouldn't result in Labour +0 or Labour +1 like most of them have.

It's definitely going to have some impact. I just think that some isn't going to be all that much.

 

I’m sick of the conservatives.

I just want my vote to make a difference.

I can’t stand Starmer, but my god Sunak and his cronies needs to be gone as a bigger priority.

1 hour ago, ender4 said:

So what will be the plan when the Israeli army cross over into Gaza?

I have my theories.

Im going to get a few angry responses, but I genuinely think Israel will absorb a large part of Gaza. 
 

If they retreat quickly after mission accomplished and let the people return I shall happily admit I was wrong.  But a new ‘buffer zone’ which gradually gets filled with settlers is where I shall hedge my bets.

3 hours ago, Thug said:

Honestly I wouldn’t agree with this in the slightest.

wow, I totally misread what @magnkarl wrote! 
100% agreed. Lol.

The point I was trying to make was that not voting Labour and voting a different party could potentially spread the anti-conservative vote about a bit, and keep the tories in charge?  Haven’t really looked at the which seats are likely to be affected the most?

11 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Don't see it personally. It's not like the muslim vote is ever going to go to the conservatives because of Israel. The Tories are ten times more supportive of Israel than Labour is. 

Honestly I wouldn’t agree with this in the slightest.

EDIT: completely misread what you’d written and 100% agree with the bit in bold! Apologies.

1 hour ago, MWARLEY2 said:

Earning 3 times as much as Unai. Only in football can mediocrity be rewarded 

To be fair, I’d rather be paid nothing and be Unai, than be paid loads and be shit.

History will not remember how much a manager was paid.  History will remember what they achieved.

17 hours ago, limpid said:

I think you'll find that's just one party. It wouldn't apply if the Count Binface achieved a majority.

We don't have a written constitution. It's all by tradition and that's why the Conservative Party have got away with so much stuff. They just shrug when they get caught and don't have the morals to resign.

Labour Party rules:

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/rulebook-2020.pdf

page 8, clause VII

Quote

The leader and deputy leader shall be elected

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_leadership_of_Keir_Starmer

The Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer began when Keir Starmer was elected as Leader of the UK Labour Party in April 2020

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Liberal_Democrats_leadership_election

The 2020 Liberal Democrats leadership electionwas held in August 2020, after Jo Swinson, the previous leader of the Liberal Democrats, lost her seat in the 2019 general election.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election

The 2021 Green Party of England and Wales leadership election was held from August to September 2021 to select a new leader or leaders of the Green Party of England and Wales
 

Now I’m getting confused, that’s all four major parties that elect their leader?