blandy

Yes, that's a much better and wiser parallel There are a few things here. Firstly, the actions of Israel in terms of land theft, repression, killings, disproportionate force, targeting people, shooting them, destroying schools hospitals, olive groves, farms, collective punishment, punishing families for the "crimes" of their relatives.. the list is endless and disgraceful. It's an utter stain on humanity. Total agreement there. It's been abhorrent. The Nazi comparison though...there's the big elephant in the room, the monumental horrific scale of genocide, the targeting of all Jews, Gays, minorities, communists, other stuff mentioned before...it's just a totally different scale, and picking (relatively) smaller examples from their other appalling acts..I just don't think it's right to use "of course, I'm not saying everything the Nazis did, just the property theft and the ...whatever". It's impossible to ignore the murder and eugenics and etc. on millions of people, almost none of whom had done the slightest thing to warrant a fraction of the cruelty. There are obviously Arabs, Palestinians and people of various minority groups living happy, peaceful lives in Israel, they are not picked out and marched off to concentration camps...all this we all know. So as bad as many actions have been any comparison with the Nazis is just...at best misguided and at worst maliciously offensive. Dave's right as well, Israel didn't used to be as extreme as it is. There was a lot of communal, liberal, open, engaged spirit and ethos. It's so sad it's spiralling into worse behaviour and it's ingrained it seems.

We gonna keep doing this till one of us hits a lean period. (it'll be me, I've nearly run out)

I wasn't going to go down this road, but I just can't help myself

Have an orange juice and calm down.

Ah, OK. I think I get your point. What I was trying to do was to say that the example of anti-semitism from the IHRA that people take issue with - "the state of Israel is a racist endeavour" - is basically saying that if someone were to claim that (in effect) "Israel has no right to exist, because setting it up, it's very foundation was racist....ergo it is an illegitimate state, the people there have no right to be there...and therefore they get and deserve what's coming to them" - that kind of thing is anti-semitic. I agree with them it is. I'm trying to say, however that saying and criticising the Israeli Gov't (or any other part of the establishment) has done a racist thing is not anti-semitic, under the IHRA (or any other) definition. Is that clearer?

The NRA lobbies for "gun rights" in the USA, it is a one nation internal lobbying group on a single issue. The IHRA was set up in Sweden, has 30+ democratic nations as members and is devoted to education research and remembrance about the holocaust. They're not a body selling anything, or promoting anything. The comparison is wretched.

You might not think it's subtle - but it's too subtle for me to even notice I did what you say I've done. I don't really get your second point here, at all. Sorry. What you've written, the way I read it..., well it doesn't come across well at all.

Why is it not OK to say that? Who gave you this authority to determine what I may say? To be clear, it's not "me" saying it's "not OK". I have no authority, not do I want any. It's the IHRA definition and examples which say it's not OK. Many organisations and bodies have adopted that definition, and their disciplinary processes etc. give them authority to act if/when members then breach that definition. It doesn't prevent anyone saying anything, but it does identify it as anti-semitic and allow follow up action to be legitimately taken, similarly to other definitions and rules about racist language and behaviour more widely.

No. partly, No and No. There are no (sensible) parallels to be drawn between the Nazis and Israel. It's beyond ludicrous. Sure the modern State of Israel came about following WWII, but not solely just because of WWII or because of the Holocaust, though those events clearly and undeniably had a massive influence on the situation. The state of Israel is not a racist endeavour, it's almost the opposite. I agree that the current Government of Israel has enacted a recent law that appears to me to be racist. Some IDF soldiers and other individuals are undoubtedly racist. I suspect there is institutional racism in parts of Israeli (and Palestinian and British and American and German and French and. Italian and Malaysian....any where else there are humans.. .etc). society. None of that however means that the existence of the state of Palestine, Britain, America, Germany...etc. is " a racist endeavour. The IHRA is right with their example. It's OK and allowable to criticise and condemn the Israeli Gov't for implementing a discriminatory and racist law. It is not OK to say that Israel as a nation is somehow fundamentally in just existing "racist" (despite or because of the good or bad actions or laws of it's democratically elected Gov't).

Look, I claim no expertise in any of this, and as you say we’re just discussing. In a way there are parallels with debate about “political correctness”. There will never be a universally admired set of rules. However we can all think of examples of people using the “you can’t say anything these days” and then uttering some offensive tripe. Like I say I’m no expert, but the actions of the Nazis led to the murder of millions in gas chambers, human experiments, branding with stars and a realm of other grotesque acts on not just Jewish people, but other minorities too. Then obviously there’s the whole world war business... Now as cruel and oppressive as Israel’s actions have been, surely critics of those acts are wise enough that they can avoid comparing Israel to the Nazis, not only because it’s ludicrous, but also because such hyperbole signals a tendency towards anti-Semitic tropes as defined by the IHRA. Like I said, as with political correctness, there are things you genuinely shouldn’t say and there are people (usually ~ists) who use that to make themselves out as some kind of free speech martyrs. Whats wrong with Labour, or me or anyone else going “ok, the IHRA definition isn’t one I wholly agree with, but I recognise that it was drawn up by people wiser than us in these things, is widely accepted and doesn’t prevent me from criticising what is going on with Israel, sure I can’t call Israel or Israelis “nazis”, but actually, yeah that’s a real life Godwin’s law thing anyway and it is wildly inappropriate, so I’ll pick some different words” Or in rather shorter terminology “let’s not be a dick”.

This ( not you) is really depressing, because it’s utter tosh. Yes there is undoubtedly elements of the Israel state that seeks to deflect, deny, distract, twist etc criticism of Israeli state actions, vile actions, using the horrors of the genocide, murder and victimisation of millions of Jewish people 70+ years ago to “ legitimise” their horrible acts today. Is is absolutely not “disallowed” to say that this vile slaughter and oppression is wrong and inhuman. There are powerful lobbyists and interests that “defend the worst acts of the IDF and etc. The massive problem I feel with this is that the Israeli state actors that perpetrate these atrocities, the individual soldiers and even the seeming ingrained racism within some sections of the Israeli society, particularly the IDF, is NOT the same as “Jews” or even “Zionists”. I’m aghast at how normal, civilised, peaceful, humans are being via distorted revulsion about some other human’s actions tarred with the same brush, and how ingrained it’s got. Even if (hypothetically) it got to the point where chunks of Israeli society were blinded to the inhumanity of what Sections of the security forces were up to, it’s still not “Jews”. It’s “some people”. its ok to voice, shout, scream, abhorrence and repulsion and anger at all the wrongs. No one ( except the aforementioned lobbyists) claims it’s “not allowed”. so, so, lazy. So, so, unthinking, so Corbyn. I loathe it. No offence Chris , it was just that your post allowed me to vent this. You’re not the target of my ire.

Maybe translate into a foreign language such as Ger.... ah! Perhaps not. I see your difficulty. OK, change your name to Jeremy, that should cover you.

Used to go there to a military base. Taormina is really nice and good for a spot of gentle exercise - it's a steep ol' hill. See if you can find the bar with all the carved um, todgers.. Catania is (was) a hole, and a bit "criminally". Corrupt Police. Some nice beaches, good food, good weather, you'll like it I reckon.

Also fair. It is my criticism, to be honest, but I probably personalised what is perhaps generally less specific.

That's fair enough, for sure. But for me their football is not like it's (to me) faster paced, more mobile, better movement, less cautious...etc. But each to their own view

Fair comment - though I'd suggest it suggests they're not a very good team (in comparison with the league). Newly promoted sides are generally doing well to stay up and finish 17- 12th and score at a goal a game or so. Given he's not had much backing from their chump of an owner, you're right, full credit to the FSW.

For the sake of discussion - It's wierd, because if I were in charge of the club (thankfully I'm not) then if I were of the exact same view, I'd agree with you. Thing is though, neither you nor I are in charge. We're just 2 fans with an opnion. The people who own the club - they (currently) do think Bruce has a decent chance of doing what they want to do, and take us up. So our / your view and the owners' is therefore different, right? So should we/you be directing criticism at the new owners along the lines of "you don't know what you're doing, Bruce won't get us up, why haven't you sacked him yet?" And if not, why not? The answer is of course because that would be daft (IMO). Your view, mine, each owner - no one can accurately predict the future in football. It's kind of why "let the dice roll" is the right thing to do given where we are. We think we're right about Bruce, others think they're right. We can't change anything, and things aren't bad enought to get wrought up about it all, so ...let it roll for a while, then maybe the new guys will have a better handle on things and can take a view, as you say, with replacement manager and coaches lined up, a way to handle the impact on FFP of all the compo... and all the rest.

Nor did Wolves...

The style played in some games, for example yesterday against, Chelsea - you're right. But he only does it when faced with demonstrably superior opposition. It's not "current" style, it's one off style in specific circumstances. It's not his default. I can't stand him, and wouldn't want him anywhere near VP, but this point I don't agree with at all.

That's fine. BTW, now Bruce is manager this season, though I don't think (still, as with the previous 2 seasons) he'll take us up, I'd not sack him at this point. Once you've got someone in place, the only time to sack him is if/when he's doing so badly, and with no sign of turn-round that it's unavoidable. Sacking someone during the season based on a complete guess as to how things might pan out would be foolish. So far all my bafflement at his selections, style of play, too often negative approach...at this point, sacking would be wrong, IMO. We just have to let things roll. If it goes bad, he goes, if it goes well he stays.

26 *3 = 78, plus 11 x 1 = 47 games, 89 points, and in your opinion unlikely to be bettered. (I agree) Last season, for comparison, from one fewer game Wolves went up with 99, Cardiff with 90. Fulham third with 88.

No. Let him who is without sin.... We had a small number of Leeds fans come on here, sympathetic to our (then) plight. They told us about their struggles. Simple? Far from it. What was all that business we had last year, with (some of) us muttering about Wolves and signing players and how could the EFL allow it...?

Another 1400 on the way Indie more will follow, as night follows day.