Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Jackson Irvine Responds to Antisemitism Claims

grazorblade said:
Maybe it was worded badly, but I was responding to this

"Unhinged psychopaths.

Everything is anti-semitism unless you are cheering on the baby murderers"

And relating my experience where in every case Ive seen someone say "i wasnt being anti semitic, you cant even criticize israel without being called antisemetic" they actually said something antisemetic!
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough. I have found the opposite to be true. Not discounting your own experiences. Both can be true.
 
I thought the one Mono posted looked different to the initial one I saw.

Mountain out of a molehill. St Pauli are sweating as their fans have mixed support on the matter. Hannover ultras have a left and right wing section who clobbered each other behind the stadium once. Weirdly they all share the same block.

St Pauli don't want to ward off sponsors but would surely find others. Obviously the club and all those corporate players simply need to tell those overreacting that there's no issue and the conflict isn't even apart of sponsorship arrangements.

Can't people go about things without always making it about something it's not?
 
When I saw the initial post weeks ago I knew we hadn't heard the end of it. A lot of these news stories die down quick enough with a swift statement. This is one that doesn't need any further action. Of course the media keeps churning it. Easy job 'journalism' today.
 
grazorblade said:
every case Ive seen where someone has been accused of antisemitism they said something anti semetic and then completely misrepresented what they said as something innocent like "you cant criticize israel without being labelled anti semitic"
Click to expand...
You must be living under a rock because literally every time Israel gets criticised even if it’s a totally fair and legitimate criticism, you have Zionists jumping up and down crying anti-semitism.
 
AUFC_Fan said:
You must be living under a rock because literally every time Israel gets criticised even if it’s a totally fair and legitimate criticism, you have Zionists jumping up and down crying anti-semitism.
Click to expand...
It's been used enough now that it's lost its meaning like being called a racist or Nazi. I think most rational people can see the difference between a person saying there needs some solution to this conflict compared to someone gesturing a cut throat to the other side at a march.
 
grazorblade said:
every case Ive seen where someone has been accused of antisemitism they said something anti semetic and then completely misrepresented what they said as something innocent like "you cant criticize israel without being labelled anti semitic"
Click to expand...
every case huh

that doesn't sound like complete bullshit at all...
 
AUFC_Fan said:
You must be living under a rock because literally every time Israel gets criticised even if it’s a totally fair and legitimate criticism, you have Zionists jumping up and down crying anti-semitism.
Click to expand...
usually in my experience because it wasn't just criticism (or if it was it was about something that isn't true or wildly exaggerated so blood libel)
 
For the record, the jersey I posted was a quick google search and the only image I found for what was referenced in the article regarding FC Palestine which is a made up entity (NOT the Palestinian national team)... My comment was "IF" that was the jersey he wore than he is stupid not realising it would be inflammatory, especially in a society notoriously guilty about the sins of their recent ancestors.

Im against aggressive irridentist claims of ALL kinds, whether that is Hamas claiming "river to the sea" or Putin claiming chunks of Eastern Ukraine for the Motherland...
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
For the record, the jersey I posted was a quick google search and the only image I found for what was referenced in the article regarding FC Palestine which is a made up entity (NOT the Palestinian national team)... My comment was "IF" that was the jersey he wore than he is stupid not realising it would be inflammatory, especially in a society notoriously guilty about the sins of their recent ancestors.

Im against aggressive irridentist claims of ALL kinds, whether that is Hamas claiming "river to the sea" or Putin claiming chunks of Eastern Ukraine for the Motherland...
Click to expand...
NATO/Ukraine violated the Minsk II agreement which made Russia's actions necessary. Putin had no interest in expanding empire, however his hand was forced.
 
Lupi said:
NATO/Ukraine violated the Minsk II agreement which made Russia's actions necessary. Putin had no interest in expanding empire, however his hand was forced.
Click to expand...
Don't confuse "necessary" with "conveniently justifiable" if you wanna keep up the online persona of "truth seeker"...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muz
Monoethnic Social Club said:
Don't confuse "necessary" with "conveniently justifiable" if you wanna keep up the online persona of "truth seeker"...
Click to expand...
There's nothing convenient about this for Russia, its existential.

It was the USA that started all of this when they took over Ukraine in 2014 by funding a violent coup and installing a puppet government.
 
Lupi said:
NATO/Ukraine violated the Minsk II agreement which made Russia's actions necessary. Putin had no interest in expanding empire, however his hand was forced.
Click to expand...
Total propaganda.

Russia invaded Ukraine’s eastern Luhansk and Donetsk with the use of proxy forces in the spring of 2014. Then, positioned itself as a neutral broker during the Minsk 1+2 peace talks, while in fact being a party and the instigator of the entire conflict. It was Russian-backed militants in the area that violated the various ceasefires dozens of times....
 
Football us life said:
Total propaganda.

Russia invaded Ukraine’s eastern Luhansk and Donetsk with the use of proxy forces in the spring of 2014. Then, positioned itself as a neutral broker during the Minsk 1+2 peace talks, while in fact being a party and the instigator of the entire conflict. It was Russian-backed militants in the area that violated the various ceasefires dozens of times....
Click to expand...
as I was saying, you're too far gone.

if you want to look at the instigator of the conflict you need to go back to the coup. If you cant do that then you're burying your head in the sand to inconvenient truths.
 
Lupi said:
as I was saying, you're too far gone.

if you want to look at the instigator of the conflict you need to go back to the coup. If you cant do that then you're burying your head in the sand to inconvenient truths.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.

The Minsk agreements rest on two irreconcilable interpretations of Ukraine’s sovereignty. Firstly, is Ukraine sovereign? as Ukrainians insist, or secondly should its sovereignty be limited, as Russia demands?

Back in the 2000s Ukraine’s President Yushchenko was trying to implement a trade deal and an association agreement with the EU, something any sovereign country should be able to do.

Russia got annoyed to the point whereby it was becoming concerned about the EU’s expanding profile in the non-Baltic post-Soviet space, it started to actively white-ant Ukraine’s governance.....And while it did not take the prospect of an association agreement seriously at first. But by the early 2010's, with the negotiations at an advanced stage, the Kremlin had come around to the view that it was a realistic threat.

It's the Ukrainian relationship with the EU which could and probably would have been replicated with an association agreement with NATO that has been cause of the entire dispute.

Sovereignty mean sovereignty and Ukraine’s relationships with Western bodies like the EU and NATO should be up to their own discretion and not that of the Kremlin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top