Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Kneecap


CaledonianGonzo

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, SheffJeff said:

Both of these links are over 18 months old and in that time alot has changed. On the human Rights Watch website there are countless articles since the one you reference detailing Israeli war crimes and Karim Khan has issued arrest warrants against Netanyahu And Gallant since that article was posted for war crimes in Gaza.

The articles were explaining the law as it  applied to Gaza. I don't think the international law has changed in 18 months. HRW and the ICC have applied that law and found Israel guilty of war crimes. The ICC also found Hamas guilty of war crimes. That gives Israel a right of self defense but not by committing further war crimes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

and I'll say again but I know it pisses people off...I don't think this would be happening unless the Oct 7th attacks had happened.

Victim blaming. And it was happening before Oct 7th. 100s of Palestinian kids were killed before Oct 7 in 2023. It’s been going on Since 1948. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Colorblindjames said:

Victim blaming. And it was happening before Oct 7th. 100s of Palestinian kids were killed before Oct 7 in 2023. It’s been going on Since 1948. 

Yes, but I don't think what is currently happening to Gaza would be happening unless Oct 7th had happened.

You're welcome to disagree, and we'll never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accepting your premise that things have indeed got worse for the Palestinians since October 7th gave Israel a pretext to fully rip off its mask - do you consider the conditions that the Palestinians were forced to live under prior to that - apartheid, malnutrition, arbitrary detention, deprived of rights the rest of the world takes for granted - were reasonable?

 

Would you just nod alonh with it if you lived in a land that became colonised by foreign military?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Accepting your premise that things have indeed got worse for the Palestinians since October 7th gave Israel a pretext to fully rip off its mask - do you consider the conditions that the Palestinians were forced to live under prior to that - apartheid, malnutrition, arbitrary detention, deprived of rights the rest of the world takes for granted - were reasonable?

 

Would you just nod alonh with it if you lived in a land that became colonised by foreign military?

No, I agree and accept all that. 

Simply saying that since Oct 7th the plight of Gazans has got a whole lot worse, you just have to look at the news. It is a whole new level now. Which is why of course Israel is the enemy who is doing this, but people are being brave enough to protest against Hamas.

I had real hope that somehow this latest ceasefire would work and maybe Trump's stupid words would embolden Egypt and others to get involved with rebuilding and running Gaza until some sort of stable Palestinian administration could take over...but instead it is explicitly genocide now, another Nakba. Trump doesn't seem to care, he's busy elsewhere, and the rest of the world does nothing..

 

Drone video shows Gaza before and after war as ceasefire holds

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden was sh*t in relation to Israel and Gaza, but after a good start with Trump and the ceasefire Israel seem to think they have the green light to clear out Gaza and do whatever they need to do without worrying about international rules and laws. Harris would not be allowing this, I am pretty sure of that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, TheDayman said:


Your logic is contradicting itself. You say you support innocent Iranians and Russians, but wouldn’t call yourself pro-Iran or pro-Russia because of their governments. Yet with Palestinians, you've reversed that by saying you can’t be pro-Palestinian because of Hamas.

Either we can distinguish people from their rulers, or we can’t?

Seems to me you're being quite selective with your empathy 🤷‍♂️

 

My logic is the same. Hamas are the Government of Gaza, same as with Russia and Iran. I can never call myself pro-Russia because of their leadership, despite having sympathy for suffering innocent civilians. I have sympathy for suffering innocent civilians in Palestine, but I'm not pro-Palestine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, The_Fish said:

 

My logic is the same. Hamas are the Government of Gaza, same as with Russia and Iran. I can never call myself pro-Russia because of their leadership, despite having sympathy for suffering innocent civilians. I have sympathy for suffering innocent civilians in Palestine, but I'm not pro-Palestine.

 

If we take that most (if not all governments) do and say sh*tty things - up to and including war crimes - as a starting point, then I think you have to look at 'to what ends'.

 

In Gaza, Hamas represent a uniquely immiserated population captive in the world's biggest open air prison and Hamas's goal is to liberate them into a new state and guarantee the right of return for the refugees created by the Nakba. 

 

That's a better aspiration than what's driven Putin to invade Ukraine - who are, incidentally, a far better analogue for the folk in Gaza than the Russians are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

 

If we take that most (if not all governments) do and say sh*tty things - up to and including war crimes - as a starting point, then I think you have to look at 'to what ends'.

 

In Gaza, Hamas represent a uniquely immiserated population captive in the world's biggest open air prison and Hamas's goal is to liberate them into a new state and guarantee the right of return for the refugees created by the Nakba. 

 

That's a better aspiration than what's driven Putin to invade Ukraine - who are, incidentally, a far better analogue for the folk in Gaza than the Russians are.

 

That's a great point. And blaming Hamas is really not unlike Trump saying Zelenski started the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, clasher said:

 

That's a great point. And blaming Hamas is really not unlike Trump saying Zelenski started the war.

 

Anyone who's not noticed that Israel is now a passion project of the international far right, in the same way that Russia itself is, is simply not paying attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

 

If we take that most (if not all governments) do and say sh*tty things - up to and including war crimes - as a starting point, then I think you have to look at 'to what ends'.

 

In Gaza, Hamas represent a uniquely immiserated population captive in the world's biggest open air prison and Hamas's goal is to liberate them into a new state and guarantee the right of return for the refugees created by the Nakba. 

 

That's a better aspiration than what's driven Putin to invade Ukraine - who are, incidentally, a far better analogue for the folk in Gaza than the Russians are.


Hamas are a terrorist organisation who’s founding charter sets out their aim to destroy Israel. 
 

They have received billions in aid and used it to re-arm and build tunnels, rather than on trying to improve Gaza. 

 

I’m very supportive or Ukraine, but I have sympathy for innocents on all sides. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The_Fish said:


Hamas are a terrorist organisation

 

This is a simple, declarative statement, but it belies the reality that the majority of countries globally don't designate them as such.  It's only really in Europe, the US, Canada, Australia i.e. the West that this considered an incontestable fact.  Brazil, India, China, all of Africa, etc think differently.  Even New Zealand until a couple of years back.

 

Given that Hamas have never - as far as I'm aware - operated outside of Palestine, do you think there's a political game afoot regarding such designations?

 

As for the charter and the money -  the former has already been covered extensively here and for the latter it's hardly unusual for any country to spend heavily on 'defence'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The_Fish said:


Hamas are a terrorist organisation who’s founding charter sets out their aim to destroy Israel. 
 

They have received billions in aid and used it to re-arm and build tunnels, rather than on trying to improve Gaza. 

 

I’m very supportive or Ukraine, but I have sympathy for innocents on all sides. 
 

I agree entirely. As someone said above though, Israel are by all measures, currently worse terrorists. They are the ones committing genocide, hence the justified anger and focus against them. When people counter israel criticism/justified hate with "what about hamas" - well yeah, we know hamas are bad, but our government is funding and supporting israel murdering innocents and explicitly engaging in ethnic cleansing, therefore "what about the bad people that are opposing them" almost feels irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Physical_graffiti said:

I agree entirely. As someone said above though, Israel are by all measures, currently worse terrorists. They are the ones committing genocide, hence the justified anger and focus against them. When people counter israel criticism/justified hate with "what about hamas" - well yeah, we know hamas are bad, but our government is funding and supporting israel murdering innocents and explicitly engaging in ethnic cleansing, therefore "what about the bad people that are opposing them" almost feels irrelevant.

Is our government funding and supporting Israel? I know we have arms contracts with them, but actually directly funding them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Is our government funding and supporting Israel? I know we have arms contracts with them, but actually directly funding them?

well I suppose it's how you define it, but no the UK government doesn't ever directly 'fund' any other country i.e. "here's a bank transfer of £X". Even foreign aid to third world countries is generally done in the form of projects to develop infrastructure etc. We engage in £5billion of trade with israel.

 

In terms of direct support for their genocide, we provide arms to them, and directly engage in military support - the RAF conduct intelligence gathering flights over Gaza from their base in Cyprus and share with Israel. The patterns of these flights can be linked to specific attacks (e.g. one on a refugee camp). Note - the UK say these flights are to locate hostages.

 

TLDR; by "funding" I mean through trade, arms and military support

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Physical_graffiti said:

well I suppose it's how you define it, but no the UK government doesn't ever directly 'fund' any other country i.e. "here's a bank transfer of £X". Even foreign aid to third world countries is generally done in the form of projects to develop infrastructure etc. We engage in £5billion of trade with israel.

 

In terms of direct support for their genocide, we provide arms to them, and directly engage in military support - the RAF conduct intelligence gathering flights over Gaza from their base in Cyprus and share with Israel. The patterns of these flights can be linked to specific attacks (e.g. one on a refugee camp). Note - the UK say these flights are to locate hostages.

 

TLDR; by "funding" I mean through trade, arms and military support

Well there should be no excuses and all those should be at least suspended. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...