Good morning.
The good news is in the clip below as Hugo Lloris saves a penalty conceded by an Arsenal player and taken by an ex Arsenal player. Laurent Koscielny did his best to put Pedro’s shin into a different part of the stadium from the rest of him and the resulting penalty was saved well by our new boy.
I know we’ve seen little of him, but he looks right to me.
Lloris
The bad news is in the clip below and you’ll not be shocked to know that it relates to the nasty treatment that Danny Rose (and others) were subjected to last night.
UEFA president Michel Platini has already threatened Serbia with expulsion from Euro 2012 before a ball was kicked; because of their hooliganism and racist fans. Clearly they thought he was bluffing. Which is funny, because I think he was bluffing.
If Platini does do any more than make a dull speech and call for a low key enquiry resulting in a notional fine I’ll be pretty surprised.
But all football’s governing bodies are the same. Bathed in cash, basking in their own self importance. It’s 2012 and we have two Internationals scheduled. One is marred by right wing thugs and the other is allowed to degenerate in farce as a roof that takes just 20 minutes to close is left open for hours in torrential rain.
I wonder, just much more of a ride the people at the top of football family tree can take fans for before the money begins to dry up?
Serbia
Relegate chelsea to the serbian 1st division. They should fit in there.
^^The Voice of Reason^^
Amen brother
Stoke would fit in very well too….
Just seen that shit about modric talking about how bale could play for madrid…Back off, we’re not all turncoat motherfuckers luka. Shut your mouth and get back on that bench.
He wants someone to keep him company on the bench as that is where Bale would end up! Bale will not dislodge the poser from the left wing.
I do believe there are rules about this type of tapping up by players that are usually hard to enforce but when the rat-faced moron comes right out in the press with it, it should be fairly easy to nail him forit…over to you Daniel ;)
It’s not tapping up. Tapping up is speaking to the player directly and personally, Modric hasn’t done that. Any body can talk to the press, doesn’t mean anything.
If anyone listened to Keyes and Grey yesterday, they’d have heard Martin Chivers saying how Jimmy Greaves tapped him up during an England international.Our Jimmy brokered the deal and paved the way for Big Chiv to join our ranks-Tapping up is nothing new as is evident that the year was 1968 and the rest is history-also on todays programme Clive Allen talks about his transfer to the Goons, which appeared to be a covert way of them getting Kenny Sansom via the backdoor the year 1980-so again nothing new
Talking of racism, i must protest HH. My widget is purple and it may imply or be construed as me being purplish! Sir, I am offended to the core as any insinuation of being Purplish,is an affront to my total un-purpleness, is it because i am from Miami! you have gone too far Harold, my politically correct attornies will be contacting your legal dept shortly. I hear that the ACLU has an office in England now. :angry:
Even your zmilies are racist, other than 1 green and 1 pink one the rest are yellow! Damn you sir and your racist site….
Got married in Miami, liked it a lot…. :daumen:
The marriage? Or Miami?
Official statement by the Serbian FA:
“[The Serbian FA] absolutely refuses and denies that there were any occurrences of racism before and during the match at the stadium in Krusevac.
Making connection between the seen incident – a fight between members of the two teams – and racism has absolutely no ground and we consider it to be a total malevolence.
Unfortunately, after the fourth minute of the additional time and the victory goal scored by the guest team, unpleasant scenes were seen on the pitch.
And while most of the English team players celebrated the score, their player number three, Danny Rose, behaved in inappropriate, unsportsmanlike and vulgar manner towards the supporters on the stands at the stadium in Krusevac, and for that he was shown a red card.”
I swear I haven’t just made that up.
That’s like a statement made by The Third Reich after the 1936 Olympics saying there is no anti-semitism in Nazi Germany and blaming Jesse Owens for waving to his family after ascending the winners rostrum to receive his gold medals.
thats priceless. and why did danny rose behave in that manner? the serbian fa dont seem to be interested in that particular question, the answer of which is …because he was being racially abused…this is why nothing ever changes…
^^That press statement written and delivered by Herr J. Goebbels c/o Reichstag 17, Belgrade.
Let’s keep in mind that the term ‘ethnic cleansing’ is in our vocabulary thanks to Serbia. This is a country that had a war criminal (a real one, not hyperbole like people use with Bush/Blair) for a president – who invaded parts of neighboring countries that contains Serbian minorities, and went around rounding up anyone who wasn’t Serbian, executing them, and burying them in mass graves. They generally spared women, and they were supposed to only kill boys over 12, but the UN said that most boys over 9 were rounded up with the rest and killed.
This wasn’t in 1945, this was 15 years ago! Why Serbia is even allowed to host football matches is beyond me – as is why anyone would express surprise. Serbia? Racism? Ya don say!
excellent post
Lets keep in mind that the Security Council is a load of phlegm. 5 Permanent members, anyone of which can veto anything – the UN is supposed to be about democracy but time and again it blocs preventative action when it is most needed.
CAN WE GET SOME SUBSTANCE PLEASE!!!!!!
how much do you have?
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of aggressive war “essentially an evil thing…to initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Article 39 of the United Nations Charter provides that the UN Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and shall make recommendations or decide what measures should be taken in accordance with articles 41 and 42 to maintain or restore international peace and security. I think that resolution puts Bush and Blair firmly in the dock.
I knew when I made the parenthetical reference to Bush/Blair someone would have to take the bait. You may not like these guys (I can’t stand Bush, but I once gave credit to Blair for only being a minor-league tosser, which, what can I say, shame on me).
But last I heard, Iraq was not being annexed by the UK or US – the type of ‘war of aggression’ referenced by your Nuremburg quotation. In fact, there is a functioning democracy there now, your ‘aggressors’ are gone, and the real war criminal that was in charge – the one who used chemical weapons to ethnic cleanse the Kurds out of the place – is gone.
By your logic, we’ve got a whole other bunch of war criminals in France who got aggressive in Libya last year, too, by exceeding the UN mandate and attacking Qaddafi’s troops directly (not authorised by the UN).
None of this means that you should have been pro-war or pro-Bush or whatever, but you are talking about the political side in Britain or the US that you don’t agree with. Using exaggerations and out-of-context quotes to try to equate those people with psychopathic mass murders like Hitler and Milosevic is disingenuous and absurd. I understand why you do it; what they did was bad on a number of levels and it makes you angry.
But you are cheapening the term ‘war criminal.’ You can be against the war, or even of the opinion that it was against the UN Charter. But don’t be ridiculous. Bush and Blair did what they thought they had to do – it isn’t like it helped their legacy. Calling them war criminals is like saying, far example, ‘The way refugee seekers are treated in Britain is a modern-day Holocaust.’ Okay, it’s bad how they are treated, but no it is not! Hyperbole is useful but tends to cheapen.
And if it isn’t hyperbole, and you are 100% ingenuous, then you aren’t much of a lawyer if you think the UN language you quoted puts anyone ‘firmly in the dock.’ Uhh, no it doesn’t, not by a long shot. Even a secondary school debater can argue the vagueness of the definitions, the dubious jurisdiction issues, the existence of several other already-approved resolutions which Iraq had already violated (including the terms of cease-fire of the last war), the commercial corruption of the other members of the security council, and myriad other issues.
So just say: you hate Bush and Blair. But saying they are war criminals just cheapens the term. The other side can say, well these other guys we don’t like are war criminals too! And pretty soon everyone is a war criminal in the eyes of their detractors. And you’ll have a fuckjob like Milosevic saying, I’m no different from them!
@Spursgator
Hmmm. Being a ‘war criminal’ doesn’t merely mean you indulge in ethnic cleansing. It simply means that you commit or rather preside over acts which go beyond the normal ‘rules’ and ‘standards’ of military engagement in conflict. Such acts include torture of prisoners, murder, and or abuse of civilian populations. Did Bush preside over such acts in the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq? Without any doubt, yes, he did.
No, America didn’t invade a neighbouring state and seek to ethnically cleanse another population. But they have illegally invaded a number of countries – under the auspices of a threat which didn’t exist and all the while setting up arms and trade deals for the benefit of their own country – and have used illegal methods of conflict and interrogation and consistently flouted several international laws throughout. America repeatedly used air strikes against densely populated civilian areas in Iraq. It’s also worth noting that they have considered themselves immune to international laws on war crimes since they don’t actively recognize them.
To put it another way, it isn’t hyperbole to call someone a murderer because they have only killed one person while a serial killer has killed 20, it’s just terms of law. There are plenty of instances where the US has been in contravention of war crimes laws.
As for Bush and Blair doing what they ‘felt they had to do’ and qualifying that point by saying it didn’t ‘helped their legacy’ – it’s a pretty weak argument, isn’t it. I’m sure that most war criminals thought they were doing something worthwhile, or felt compelled to do it. And I’m also fairly sure that few of them emerged from such acts with an enhanced ‘legacy’. Besides which there are plenty of people in the US who would repeat the exact same actions over again, chief among them Bush and his team I would imagine. So perhaps it did enhance his legacy with the people who’s opinions mattered to him. And Blair, another religious maniac with a heightened / delusional sense of his own importance and benevolence, has raked up an estimated wealth of £60m, mostly since leaving office, and reportedly earns up to $250,000 for his lectures on globalization and faith, so there are clearly plenty of people for whom his war involvement did not tarnish his reputation either. *
* according to wiki ;-)
Very well thought out riposte, but I don’t believe for one minute that the objectives of Bush and Blair were to install a “functioning democracy”. Bush had his own agenda for the attack on Iraq. Whether it was to gain revenge for what was seen as a failure by his father, whether it was to extend the influence of American imperialism, or to draw a line in the sand of Iranian influence is a moot point. The fact that Blair went along with it, lied to parliament, took my vote and gave me two fingers is nothing compared to the suffering of the people who felt the wrath of “shock and awe”. Even when the evidence flies in the face of everything these liars told us at the time they are still in denial. You say “then you aren’t much of a lawyer if you think the UN language you quoted puts anyone firmly in the dock”. I have never claimed to be any kind of lawyer but the principles outlined at Nuremberg were designed so, that the apocalyptic events of 1939-45 would never happen again. Why people were put on trial from 1946 for war crimes is something over the last 50 years I have tried to understand. It wasn’t just one charge “war crime”, it was a whole gamut of things such as Werner von Braun’s rocket building programme, which used slave labour, to the horror of the extermination camps in Poland. I find a child who has his or her air sucked out of their lungs by a firestorm by “allied” forces to be equally as monstrous as Serbian troops rounding up children, taking them to a field and shooting them. The perpetrators of both atrocities are guilty of a monstrous crime. I’m sorry if you think I’m cheapening the term “war criminal” with the examples I have listed above. But I do believe that with the taking of innocent lives there must be a reckoning. As for hating Bush and Blair, I don’t have any hate in me. That does nobody any good at all. I’m sorry we can’t get together over a drink because I really believe that we have more in common than against.
CAN WE GET SOME SUBSTANCE PLEASE!!!!!!
how much do you have?
(very sorry for the interruption but it had to go hear.You can now go back to what you were doing)
Bush & Bliar are not war criminals. They are mass-murdering war criminals whose foreign policy objectives have destroyed the lives of millions of men, women and children in Afghanistan and Iraq- the effects of which show no sign of receding.
Those who diminish their crimes by arguing over the petty semantics of what ‘war criminal’ means or comparing them to others who have committed war crimes either are not fully aware of the devastation and destruction unleashed on the people of Afghanistan & Iraq or they simply don’t give a sh*t!- or may it be a simple case of appeasing their own guilty consciousness because they gave their personal mandates to those warmongering imperialist lunatics in Westminster and Washington?
The other usual trotted out defence by Iraq invasion apologists is the ‘Saddam gassed the Kurds’ and ‘we’ got rid of him. Yes , Saddam gassed Kurds in 1982 & 1988. Who supported, aided , abetted and sold weapons to Saddam between the late 1970’s up the late 80’s? Who supplied him with the gas? Who trained his troops in how to use the gas? Who prodded him and supported him in declaring war on Iran? (death toll: 1 million). Who controls the distribution of Iraqi oil now?
Every empire in the history of mankind has disintegrated (usually from within).
The US is slowly digging it’s own grave and it has no one to blame but itself. Do we in this country want to go down with them?
By paying a very high price, we’re unfortunately linked with the US,because without their manufacturing capabilities and overwhelming manpower we’d have been beaten by the Nazi’s without doubt.
Forums such as this wouldn’t exist let alone flourish!
That debt,which wasn’t repaid for generations and yet despite our refusal to enter into the US’s war on Communism- was still a gun to our heads, more so in the 70’s when we had to go cap in hand to the IMF or face bankruptcy and total humiliation in the process after years of mismanagement and a heads in the sand economical policy-sad but very true-still, c’est la vie
It was the Soviets who took the brunt of the Nazi’s aggression not the Yanks and as far as ‘internet freedom’ is concerned legislation is being strongly considered to introduce laws allowing for the monitoring of internet use, including email and social networking- not by some tin pot, third world totalitarian regime, but by those chummies in Westminster.
The second part of your overall point i agree with but how long do we have to pay a ‘debt of gratitude’ to the Dumbfuckistanians for? Should we continue to use tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers money & the lives of hundreds/thousands of our servicemen to help support and advance Yankee Imperialism?- not to mention the millions of lives ruined within whatever country Washington has next in it’s sights?
I’ve got friends and family all over the globe and we are a laughing stock. ‘America’s little bitch’, ‘American poodle No.1’ ‘Washington says jump, you lot say how high?’- i’m sick and tired of it, it’s embarrasing and shameful. The worst thing is though, they’re right. Economically, politically, militarily, and dare i say it socially and culturally we may just as well be the 51st state.
When Lyndon Johnson asked Harold Wilson for support (Vietnam), i’m going to paraphrase here, but the response from Wilson was somewhere along the lines of You must be f*cking joking, the majority of the British people just won’t buy it.
Shame ‘our’ leadership over the last 30 years couldn’t follow suit.
Hold on! I think Mr Blair and Mr Bush are top guys and they would never abuse the mandates they were elected on. Colin Powell, Alistair Cambell and Miss’s Rice are the architects of a wonderful world we inhabit together. Last one to leave kindly turn of the lights. Respect comrades, brothers and with sift voice bankers.
Billy.. without turning this into an idealogical debate-The simple fact of the mater is whether we like it or not-in the eyes of the Muslim-Balkan and the rest of the World at large-we are the US’s 51st State and have too many financial links to suggest otherwise.As a Nation, we’ve flogged the family silver long ago and are largely dependant on them. I was always hoping that out links with Europe would become stronger, but it would appear that would take far longer to happen than it would a lessoning of dependency of the US.
If we are the 51st state may we at least have a say in, and be granted the roughly, I would say 135 electoral college votes in the upcoming November US election.
Did Harold Wilson once propose us becoming a 51st of the US?-or was that another Prime Minister? or just something in my memory that’s gotten clouded?
It’s not simple, though. Plenty of fair criticism with regards to Iraq II, and the false premise sold to the public. But, as has been pointed out, Iraq had a maniac in charge slaughtering innocents and wont to fire SCUDS at neighboring countries. Essentially a rogue state.
In Rwanda we see what can happen when the West decide not to get involved. Is what happened there any better that what happened in Iraq?
It’s not easy being a head of state, and I’m don’t think it’s possible to lead your country in wartime (whether it’s a war of aggression or not), without having to make decisions that qualify for a strict interpretation of “war crime”. At least if you care at all about protecting your troops.
Not many people would describe Truman or Churchill as war criminals, but they ordered the slaughter of countless civilians.
The simple truth is that history is written by the victor, but none are free of blame. Some DO have more blame than others, however, and in my opinion trying to wipe out entire ethnicities is worse than trying to remove a madman from power, even if there were avoidable civillian casualties.
For the record, I was against the invasion of Iraq from the start. That’s not where I’m coming from.
His comments reminded me of the idiot Iraqi foreign minister who spouted rubbish about how Iraq was winning the war I’ve forgotten his name but never his lunacy.
Comical Ali. What a genius. Highlight of the war. He defected to moment he got the chance.
http://www.fss.rs/sr/news/newsArchive/story/4828/Public+statement+of+the+FA+of+Serbia.html
Who wrote this? Borat? Fucking hell.