Should Anelka be punished for his actions at West Ham?

[THFC6061]

Where are our friends from the society of black lawyers when you need them?

Yes, a deafening silence from that mob.

Which hardly comes as a surprise.

 

[Hootnow]

Is there much of a difference?

If someone said "I don't dislike the English, I just want them out of England" I have to say, I'd find it incredibly difficult to believe the first part of that, given the fact that they said the second.

Is there much of a difference between the despicable hatred and persecution of Jews which has gone on for centuries and having a moral problem with an ideology which from the very beginning espoused ethnic cleansing of the native population which already lived there, whether THFC6061 wants to call them Arabs, Palestinians or dung beetles?

Yes, I would say there is.

If the English had forcibly removed a portion of the population of England to settle there themselves, using biblical passages as part of the justification, then there would be rather more problem with that ridiculous analogy. As it is, most people have moved well on from the ridiculous notion of the Jews leaving the land, it is not only cruel but also impractical. That does not mean that injustices cannot be pointed out, both past and present.

 

[Hootnow]

Where are our friends from the society of black lawyers when you need them?

Hopefully vanished off the face of the earth.

 

[braineclipse]

I dont think he should be. I cannot imagine he meant what everyone is on their ****ing high horses about. I very much doubt he would be making a gesture in front of the tv public if he meant it in the way all you guys think.

Like I said before, who the **** decided that this would be an anti-semitic gesture?

Besides surely its about intention.

Not a big fan of thought police myself. I don't think it's about intentions. You can't punish people based on what they were thinking, only based on what they did. Same as the Suarez and Terry incidents. You can't punish people for being racists or bigots, you can punish people for their actions.

Or would you say that a DiCanio style fascist salute is fine too, if he only intended it as a political statement? Just about everything becomes allowed then.

 

[Jordinho]

Just goes to reinforce the stereotype that footballers are not terribly bright.

But he's got hipster glasses...

 

[DHSF]

Not a big fan of thought police myself. I don't think it's about intentions. You can't punish people based on what they were thinking, only based on what they did. Same as the Suarez and Terry incidents. You can't punish people for being racists or bigots, you can punish people for their actions.

Or would you say that a DiCanio style fascist salute is fine too, if he only intended it as a political statement? Just about everything becomes allowed then.

I agree, its all about actions but this is an action that is hardly synonymous with a regime that killed millions of Jews. This is an action that some comedian 'invented'and actually not many even knew existed - just some small time comedian. Im ignorant about the action (and dont know the history behind it - i should read up on it) so maybe im underplaying it and not seeing the significance but thats because I see the action AS insignificant. Now if he did a Fascist salute - yes he should be thrown the book at.

I think it is about intention personally, the difference between manslaughter and murder so to speak.

 

[scaramanga]

Is there much of a difference between the despicable hatred and persecution of Jews which has gone on for centuries and having a moral problem with an ideology which from the very beginning espoused ethnic cleansing of the native population which already lived there, whether THFC6061 wants to call them Arabs, Palestinians or dung beetles?

Yes, I would say there is.

If the English had forcibly removed a portion of the population of England to settle there themselves, using biblical passages as part of the justification, then there would be rather more problem with that ridiculous analogy. As it is, most people have moved well on from the ridiculous notion of the Jews leaving the land, it is not only cruel but also impractical. That does not mean that injustices cannot be pointed out, both past and present.

At some point those we call the English did forcibly settle in England. They used a lot less than biblical passages as justification too (not that they mean anything anyway).

I'm not sure at which point we cross the "they've been there long enough, let's leave them" line.

 

[Robspur12]

Not a big fan of thought police myself. I don't think it's about intentions. You can't punish people based on what they were thinking, only based on what they did. Same as the Suarez and Terry incidents. You can't punish people for being racists or bigots, you can punish people for their actions.

Or would you say that a DiCanio style fascist salute is fine too, if he only intended it as a political statement? Just about everything becomes allowed then.

Brilliant post my thoughts exactly.

Quote Originally Posted by scaramanga
Where are our friends from the society of black lawyers when you need them?

Anelka is probably an honorary member so they must be pretty conflicted.

 

[braineclipse]

I agree, its all about actions but this is an action that is hardly synonymous with a regime that killed millions of Jews. This is an action that some comedian 'invented'and actually not many even knew existed - just some small time comedian. Im ignorant about the action (and dont know the history behind it - i should read up on it) so maybe im underplaying it and not seeing the significance but thats because I see the action AS insignificant. Now if he did a Fascist salute - yes he should be thrown the book at.

I think it is about intention personally, the difference between manslaughter and murder so to speak.

The action doesn't have to be synonymous with Nazism to be bigoted or racist in nature.

Isn't the difference between manslaughter and murder if you planned it or not? Planning a murder is an action, it's possible to separate the two.

I don't think the FA is capable of accurately deciding exactly what Anelka meant by this. Either you can perform that action or you can't. If some douche steps up and does it ironically next week he should get the same punishment as Anelka and they should both get the same punishment as John Terry if he did it.

 

[Hootnow]

At some point those we call the English did forcibly settle in England. They used a lot less than biblical passages as justification too (not that they mean anything anyway).

I'm not sure at which point we cross the "they've been there long enough, let's leave them" line.

Exactly my thinking. The Palestinians/ Arabs/ ****roaches had been there for hundreds of years and this was deemed not enough time to 'leave them'.

The reality of course is that pretty much every single country is made up mostly of residents who are relatively recent immigrants. In light of this, the International community understand how difficult it would be to move people off and 'give it back' to people who last lived there thousands of years ago. So last time I checked, there wasn't too much drive to ethnically cleanse White Americans and Australians and give the land back to Native Americans or Aborigines for examples.

The difference? Most of this settlement, invasion and ethnic cleaning occurred hundreds of years ago, when it was the relative norm. 65 years ago? It really wasn't.

 

[scaramanga]

Exactly my thinking. The Palestinians/ Arabs/ ****roaches had been there for hundreds of years and this was deemed not enough time to 'leave them'.

The reality of course is that pretty much every single country is made up mostly of residents who are relatively recent immigrants. In light of this, the International community understand how difficult it would be to move people off and 'give it back' to people who last lived there thousands of years ago. So last time I checked, there wasn't too much drive to ethnically cleanse White Americans and Australians and give the land back to Native Americans or Aborigines for examples.

The difference? Most of this settlement, invasion and ethnic cleaning occurred hundreds of years ago, when it was the relative norm. 65 years ago? It really wasn't.

Although this settlement (or invasion/ethnic cleansing if you like hyperbole) has happened. So at what point do we stop attempting to remove said people? Especially when those who claim it didn't want the vast majority of it until people they wanted cleansed from the planet started living there.

 

[mudshark]

The first two statements are incredibly wrong and I don't know why you keep on spouting this hateful ******** on here even when you get called up on it over and over again.

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/01/shared-genetic-heritage-of-jews-and.html

The last statement is also incorrect. This sign, having done a bit more reading on it, is clearly anti-semitic and Anelka should be heavily heavily punished for it. But conflating anti-zionism and anti-semitism is a coward's way out of criticism.

Hear, hear. Equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is standard sleight-of-hand for the Israeli right and their supporters, though. They would love them to be regarded as synonymous and make every effort to see that they are portrayed as such in the media.

 

[JerusalemMan]

Where are our friends from the society of black lawyers when you need them?

Keeping quiet until a Spurs player gets involved...
Or our fans.

 

[Hootnow]

Although this settlement (or invasion/ethnic cleansing if you like hyperbole) has happened. So at what point do we stop attempting to remove said people? Especially when those who claim it didn't want the vast majority of it until people they wanted cleansed from the planet started living there.

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcibly removed from their villages and towns, with some villages completely disappearing. What do you call that if not ethnic cleansing?

Also have a look at some early zionist quotes, including from Mr herzl himself, about their plans for the native population.

And this is becoming quite a theme for you scara, making sweeping statements based on your own prejudices. The people living there, from all over the region, rose up for their independence in the first world war, egged on by the British who promised them self determination if they rose up against the Turks. This of course turned out to be complete ********, when the British not only decided that they'd rule but also that they'd allow mass Jewish immigration into the region. This wasn't the only revolt by the people of the area against their rulers, either in the 1900s or indeed the 1800s. This of course doesn't fit into your historial narrative and is thus completely ignored.

I find it quite hilarious that all the arguments presented by you are exactly the arguments that a Palestinian would have said at the time.

 

[Yid (Israel)]

This turning to a political debate is just plain stupid. Anelka did a racist act and should be punished, instead we've got "experts" discussing a complicated 70+ years conflict with short statements that makes them sound smart-ish, stating opinions or guesses as facts... please stop.

 

[THFC6061]

Hear, hear. Equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is standard sleight-of-hand for the Israeli right and their supporters, though. They would love them to be regarded as synonymous and make every effort to see that they are portrayed as such in the media.

Zionism is simply the movement for Jews to live in their own state and in their historic homeland.

It has nothing to do with left-wing or right-wing politics.

These days, it has become somewhat unfashionable for those in the West to be blatantly anti-Semitic, so they choose to cloak their hated under the guise of anti-Zionism.

 

[scaramanga]

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcibly removed from their villages and towns, with some villages completely disappearing. What do you call that if not ethnic cleansing?

Also have a look at some early zionist quotes, including from Mr herzl himself, about their plans for the native population.

And this is becoming quite a theme for you scara, making sweeping statements based on your own prejudices. The people living there, from all over the region, rose up for their independence in the first world war, egged on by the British who promised them self determination if they rose up against the Turks. This of course turned out to be complete ********, when the British not only decided that they'd rule but also that they'd allow mass Jewish immigration into the region. This wasn't the only revolt by the people of the area against their rulers, either in the 1900s or indeed the 1800s. This of course doesn't fit into your historial narrative and is thus completely ignored.

I find it quite hilarious that all the arguments presented by you are exactly the arguments that a Palestinian would have said at the time.

They wouldn't be the first set of people in history to be told what they wanted to hear in order to convince them to do something that needed doing.

As for your suggestion of prejudice, I grew up in the UK. Due to how the heavily biased media in this country reports this conflict, the only possible prejudice is to be anti-semitic. My side of events can only be found by looking past what the BBC wants us to believe.

 

[Pirate55]

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcibly removed from their villages and towns, with some villages completely disappearing. What do you call that if not ethnic cleansing?

Also have a look at some early zionist quotes, including from Mr herzl himself, about their plans for the native population.

And this is becoming quite a theme for you scara, making sweeping statements based on your own prejudices. The people living there, from all over the region, rose up for their independence in the first world war, egged on by the British who promised them self determination if they rose up against the Turks. This of course turned out to be complete ********, when the British not only decided that they'd rule but also that they'd allow mass Jewish immigration into the region. This wasn't the only revolt by the people of the area against their rulers, either in the 1900s or indeed the 1800s. This of course doesn't fit into your historial narrative and is thus completely ignored.

I find it quite hilarious that all the arguments presented by you are exactly the arguments that a Palestinian would have said at the time.

You are quite wrong in your assertions. Israel was set up as an INCLUSIVE state where all people of whatever colour, creed, ethneciticy, religion were welcome. Look at the Christian and Moslem Arabs that play a full part in Israeli society today. The Arab nations however were not happy with this and declared WAR. They lost. Why should the aggressors who lost a war be rewarded. That really would be the first time in history. Ethnic cleansing is just plain incorrect and needs to be challenged.

This is however not really an appropriate forum for such a discussion. It is a FOOTBALL forum.

 

[AuroRaman]

His friend is christian I think.

Just had a look, his friend is a member of the national front. I know a lot of European far right groups have moved onto the far more popular topic of Muslims recently but surely people like him appreciate these groups historical views on black people? How can he be close to such a group?

If that's the case, Anelka is either incredibly stupid to make a gesture in support of his friend, or he knew exactly what he was doing and supports the same 'cause'. Actually, either way, he is incredibly stupid and needs to be punished.

 

[Hootnow]

They wouldn't be the first set of people in history to be told what they wanted to hear in order to convince them to do something that needed doing.

As for your suggestion of prejudice, I grew up in the UK. Due to how the heavily biased media in this country reports this conflict, the only possible prejudice is to be anti-semitic. My side of events can only be found by looking past what the BBC wants us to believe.

Spoke like a true colonialist, you really were born in the wrong time scara

I'm not going to get into the BBC debate, each side thinks the BBC is prejudiced against them in this conflict and it is frankly hilarious. Your prejudice is against the Arabs and more importantly Muslims, who you have decided are the sole players in this conflict on the Palestinian side. And I mention the prejudice because this isn't the first time you have waded into this particular discussion, as intelligent as you are, making statements that contradict factual history.