BF2S Forums Search

Happy New Year Ladies!!

Jay wrote:

Have Bono Perform at a few benefit concerts And this thing is in the bag

lol. We'll give him the Nobel prize for tosspottery after.

Jay wrote:

That's because the solution is simple. Make it a single country, Have the international community put pressure on Israel to give Palestinians equal rights like that which was done to end Apartheid, and whoever breeds more wins.

I'm honestly beginning to come to that conclusion myself. That is an absolutely off-limits concept to the right wing of Israel however (and Hamas obviously).

This forum isn't as responsive as it once was...

The international community has found various ways to pressure/marginalise Iran, North Korea, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, etc., some methods effective, some not so much. Globally, few people disagree that the state of Israel don't exactly adhere to the straight and narrow of international law. How can the world effectively apply pressure on Israel (in the same manner as pressure is applied to similarly unruly members of the international community like Iran) to get them to stop eating away at Palestine? Time is running out for Palestine. If hawkish right-wingers continue to occupy the political foreground in Israel for much longer the consequences could be dire - hopeless situations produce extreme responses, rightly or wrongly. Why does Israel seem to be exempt from the standards that others are held to? If the answer is realpolitik then that is extremely depressing. It would be nice if we could return to morals and principles.

That's the first time I've seen what he actually got jailed for. Absolutely ridiculous. I'd be in a maximum security penitentiary at this stage.

CC-Marley wrote:

cunt

Has to be cunt. No other word carries such potency.

Daybyday wrote:

Hi, well for Irish people Bydgoszcz is good cause it's not that far from Gdansk and from Poznan.
Also as far as I know all the hotels are selling rooms over 400% of normal price....Irish fan village has been cancelled,
there is Carlsberg fan zone http://www.facebook.com/Carlsberg?sk=ap … 9971290262  tickets are in hold now, next draw in 24 days
Malta Camping is sold out, there are now other campsites (places in trailers etc...) like http://campingpoland.eu

don't know what would be the best for you

Thanks for tips. Managed to get accommodation in Sopot for the Gdansk match then a few nights in Torún and finally one night in Poznan (which was absolutely extortionate). All hotels. Also managed to get tickets to all of the matches on the UEFA ticket resale portal so everything is looking good!

HaiBai wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Me and half of Ireland are heading to Poland for the EURO 2012 championships but there's one big problem - getting tickets and reasonable accommodation. Anyone else venturing over? Any Poles with advice on where to stay/not to stay? We're staying in Torún between the matches in Gdansk and Poznan - should we be going to Bydgoszcz instead?

im going.

gdansk is beautiful.  most of my family comes from poznan and it's a cool city as well.  bydgoszcz is also cool.

never been to torun so i can't comment on that

How on earth do you pronounce Bydgoszcz?

coke wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

It can be pretty lame but it'll be a great pissup. Having Spain and Italy in your group doesn't really bode well. Strangely, Ireland tickets are like gold dust whereas you could go onto the UEFA ticket resale portal right now and get tickets for all three England matches, all three France matches, all three Sweden matches and all three Danish matches.

Yeah but you have Stoke players, so you might win!

Walters is a legend.

Ask her 'How's your fanny for a lodger?'.

Journalists take risks to highlight issues the rest of the world need to know about be it famine, war, crime, whatever. This can be a valuable service to society. People who climb mountains don't provide any service to anyone.

It can be pretty lame but it'll be a great pissup. Having Spain and Italy in your group doesn't really bode well. Strangely, Ireland tickets are like gold dust whereas you could go onto the UEFA ticket resale portal right now and get tickets for all three England matches, all three France matches, all three Sweden matches and all three Danish matches.

Me and half of Ireland are heading to Poland for the EURO 2012 championships but there's one big problem - getting tickets and reasonable accommodation. Anyone else venturing over? Any Poles with advice on where to stay/not to stay? We're staying in Torún between the matches in Gdansk and Poznan - should we be going to Bydgoszcz instead?

Songhua please.

SEREMAKER wrote:

You've picked a nice part of the year to vist NYC

Sunscreen and light clothing at the ready.

SEREMAKER wrote:

nice .... just NYC or you making a east coast tour

My youngest brother moved to NYC so I'm paying a long weekend visit en route to Canada. My gf is from Canada but lives in Ireland. Inlawsorama.

SEREMAKER wrote:

Poe is Back !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Heading ye're way tomorrow. 9am flight to NYC.

Surely it should be 'nobody is doin' nuffink for us'.

Rainbow Islands on Sinclair ZX Spectrum 128K +2 is quite high up the ranks as are Cloud Master and Fantasy Zone II on the Sega Master System. Street Fighter II on arcade was pretty awesome. Wipeout 2097 on Sega Saturn is up there. PC legends include Half Life, Half Life 2, GTA San Andreas, Fallout 3, Civilisation IV or V and BF:BC2. Overall winner: Half Life 2.

Sup, you could have proceeded with arguments against what he was saying but what would have been the point? Argue with him to the point of him conceding the supremacy of logic/rationality/empiricism? He's happy with his own perception of reality and, like you, I would have let it be. In any case, he would have stuck to his guns to the last. I have intelligent worldy friends who are happy not to question things upon which their beliefs are based. If it makes them happy then why should they question it?

lowing wrote:

Well I think Turquoise spoke out of turn. Truth is, most Americans don't give a flying fuck what happens to Egypt, as long as whatever happens does not cost us at the gas pump or force longer lines at airport security. Indeed the vast majority of Americans last week, had never heard the name Hosni Mubarak, much like the vast majority of us never heard of Osama Bin Laden before 911. We are talking about a nation of citizens so self absorbed and stupid that a significant percentage of us has no idea what the significance of DEC 7th 41 is, or what the 3 branches of our govt. are.

I think you're right. When I spent a summer in Wisconsin back in 1999 a man once asked me if I was 'getting the train back to Ireland'. Americans do take notice, as do citizens of any nation, when the price of food, petrol or life in general goes up. Will developments in Egypt affect those? In all honesty, probably not.

/aside: I'm not insinuating all Americans are as ill-informed as the man who asked me about the train.

Trotskygrad wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Personally, I've seen that most Americans I know take a stance similar to my own in that they support the revolts, but they worry what government will take Mubarak's place.

Why would Americans be worried what takes its place? Is America a militarily weak nation bordering Egypt or something?? Are Americans averse to self determination and 'power to the people' in the context of a nation of desperate underemployed, underfed subjects of a kleptocrat, just looking for some bread and a job?

because it might be Anti-American, ofc

Which effectively equates to trading principles for self interest, which I recognise of course is part and parcel of reality.

Turquoise wrote:

Personally, I've seen that most Americans I know take a stance similar to my own in that they support the revolts, but they worry what government will take Mubarak's place.

Why would Americans be worried what takes its place? Is America a militarily weak nation bordering Egypt or something?? Are Americans averse to self determination and 'power to the people' in the context of a nation of desperate underemployed, underfed subjects of a kleptocrat, just looking for some bread and a job? Or is the real reason that they don't want true Arab sentiment electing leaders because the middle east is where a large percentage of the world's oil comes from and decades of mistreatment by western nations (backing brutal dictators/stooges, overthrowing democratically elected leaders, invading nations on shoddy grounds or simply 'in the national interest' (Suez)) has utterly alienated the Arab street from the west? That's not to say Arabs hate the west either. It may shock a lot of people to realise that they want all the things we have: TVs, iPhones, the internet, nice cars, good food, etc. Perhaps if we treated that part of the world with parity of esteem rather than viewing the region as 'peoples we must exert control over' we might foster better relations with them.

The valuable lesson here is that you can't keep people down forever. Fair play to the Egyptian people for finally getting the gonads to go out and do something about their plight. Depending on how this plays out middle eastern diplomacy may need to be rewritten from scratch. It's amazing how no political analyst really foresaw this. I predict a democracy in Egypt where the 'big bad' Muslim brotherhood obtain a minority of the vote. El Baradei for president. I was beginning to despair of the Arab attitude of 'insh'Allah' - 'if Allah wills it' - sitting on their tod moaning but never taking any initiative. Hopefully Arab politics will become more representative of their people and respond to the problems in their societies.

Prediction:

Army refuses to follow orders when Mubarak gives the go-ahead to violently repress the popular uprising, Mubarak finished. Gets on a plane to Switzerland and lives a life of luxury in exile.

Kmar wrote:

No I am not. In fact i'd like to see the us cut aid to them all. The geopolitical gain is nill or even worse. Watch the video I posted in this thread..

I did and I agree. I am definitely an opponent of creating and maintaining dependency (especially so if it is for self-interest that is ultimately to the detriment of the citizens of the other nation).

Kmar wrote:

right.. The arab states have also attacked Israel collectively.. so says history.

Are you arguing/implying that the US is responsible for Israel's security in the context of their situation and that it is incumbent on the US to provide aid equal to or greater than that given to any group of potential enemies Israel might have (Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia/Egypt/Jordan/Lebanon/Syria/Turkey/Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia/Qatar/Bahrain/Yemen/Oman/Kuwait/Afghanistan/Pakistan)?

Kmar wrote:

Btw we give much more to arab states.

Collectively maybe but not on a single nation basis (other than Iraq) and not on a per capita basis.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

I think it's severely retarded. The world gives them a country in which to live in the late 40s. Then throughout the decades their territory is slowly stripped away from them.

The Muslims can FUCK OFF. They don't need that tiny bit of land, it's a freaking desert and of no benefit to them. Anybody who wants Israel off the map is racist. I am using the world seriously this time, as I rarely use it for anything other than joking around.

Just about everybody hates the Jews. They should be given their own country and left the fuck alone. I'm sick and tiered of all these treaties and shit that have slowly taken away their territory.

Edit: And if the U.S. cuts aid to Isreal then there will be another little thing taken away, then another, then another, etc.

Interesting reading of history. Israel started out with no land, took more than the League of Nations/UN had planned (and created hundreds of thousands of citizenship-bereft refugees in the process) and then annexed or occupied further territory when those that had been adversely affected by its birth geared up to fight them for what they had done. Nobody here is really advocating wiping Israel from the map. If they are a proper nation then they should be big and strong enough to stand on their own two feet (or pay back the money they're given with interest). If they can't then they're no better than any of the rest of the 'poor us, we need a handout because we can't cope' sub-Saharan nations in Africa.

Bottom line is this: the only thing Israel ever gave away was Egypt's Sinai peninsula in exchange for a peace agreement. Gaza is an open air prison. Describing having 'given it back' to the Palestinians is a joke in the context of the fact that all access and egress from it (including the passage of goods) is under the control of Israel (who incidentally thoroughly destroyed the airport just to make sure there was no direct international access from the air).

You do realise that AIPAC will never let that happen in a bazillion years?

It's fucking baltic here. Parts of Ireland got -18oC last night when it usually goes below freezing only once in a blue moon.

Outlaw taxation (or should I stay state thievery). Also compulsory Christianity on pain of being sent to the gallows.

A muslim cut my head off once. I got better though.

Also, how were these 'states' sustaining themselves? Fedexing food parcels and fresh axes from Paris?

Keeping those states would have been like trying to take a city on a coastal hill stacked with defenders directly from a stack of transport boats in Sid Meier's Civilisation IV. No chance.

Kmar wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

This is quite a bizarre controversy for outsiders looking in. The constitution of the US being poo-pooed by some on a single-issue - an Islamic cultural centre that is not, as stated in certain media outlets, on the site of ground zero. Truly bizarre. Almost as bizarre as believing that Barack Obama is Muslim.

Here's a binary argument for the binary minded hard right (a classic ruse of the hard right): Either you believe in freedom of religion or you don't. Your call.

Freedom of religion is a false argument here. People are not claiming that the Mosque should not be built (legally). The oppositions position is that of, just because you can, should you? The irony is that the proposed mission of the Islamic center is to promote tolerance. I can think of no better way to do this than moving the Mosque/Center down the road.

The opposition are fully entitled to that opinion. Can you specify exactly how far away from the proposed location would be acceptable, if the planners of the mosque were prepared to heed this vocal group? I guess I find it hard that such a tolerant society would be so broad-brush and reactionary to be enraged by such a thing, given that it isn't Islam that is attacking America, it's Al Qaeda. They are not the same.

In less tolerant societies such as those in the middle east can we expect them to follow the example potentially set by America: have groups seek the eradication or prohibition of all American business from their lands (or at least out of plain sight) for their political and military interventions in their region and their unflinching support for the state of Israel, a state that displaced hundreds of thousands of Muslims from their homes? I'm sure they probably do protest McDonalds and Starbucks (as icons of the American empire) and the like in some places because of the blood and trouble America have caused them, but tbh that isn't really an example I'd be interested in following. 'Freedom is our weapon' (stupid catchphrase but essentially 'Lead by example'). I just find the opposition argument on the mosque inane. Fair enough they have the right to make their point but where does it stop - anytime anyone wants to build a mosque anywhere in America should we expect a protest or plea for a relocation because it lies close to the family home of some fallen soldier? Should there be a committee for the appropriate location of Muslim buildings? I just think this would be a bad precedent to set for historically impressive American 'lead by example' tolerance. This whole thing is media-generated hype reaching fever pitch among those with whom the message resonates (and perhaps a few floaters) in the run up to mid-terms, in my opinion. And just as my opinion isn't really that relevant on a great many things, including this, I don't see how this issue affects anyone other than the residents of lower Manhattan and perhaps those who lost loved ones on 9/11 and that are emotionally charged on this issue as a consequence. I don't know why the opinion of someone in say Boise, Idaho, would be any more or less relevant than my opinion on this (i.e., not very).

One other thing I find odd: I'm guessing (very possibly incorrectly) that the opposition is majority right wing/republican. I'm guessing the majority of right wingers/republicans hold strong religious convictions (generally Christian). Doesn't Christianity preach forgive and forget and love thy neighbour (whosoever they may be)? Too many contradictions.

Also, not to be pedantic, but some of the opposition are of the 'Stop the Islamisation of America', 'Don't allow the mosque to be built at all' persuasion (hopefully and probably a very small minority).

This is quite a bizarre controversy for outsiders looking in. The constitution of the US being poo-pooed by some on a single-issue - an Islamic cultural centre that is not, as stated in certain media outlets, on the site of ground zero. Truly bizarre. Almost as bizarre as believing that Barack Obama is Muslim.

Here's a binary argument for the binary minded hard right (a classic ruse of the hard right): Either you believe in freedom of religion or you don't. Your call.

Bring it on.

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Shaking hands is a far cry from counselling.

If shaking hands and counselling are component parts of a job then the same applies. It depends on where you believe the limits of a private enterprises permission to discriminate starts and ends. You may view that permission to be full and free and others may view otherwise. Ultimately everyone will have a personal individual view on the matter. I personally don't want to live in a society that permits discrimination on the basis of creed, race or sexuality. But that's just me.

Umm I don't either, but  I can not lie, I am having a hard time figuring out where you stand on this issue. Can you clarify?

I had a waferthin scan over the OP and the thread. So perhaps the several Duvel I drank from way earlier to about 2.34am Irish time is taking its toll... holidays tomorrow.

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Not at all, it's called being professional. You're not supposed to bring your personal life into work regardless of the job.

QFT. I've had to shake hands with people I politically despise in my job. It's part of my job. If I hadn't, I should have been sidelined/fired.

Shaking hands is a far cry from counselling.

If shaking hands and counselling are component parts of a job then the same applies. It depends on where you believe the limits of a private enterprises permission to discriminate starts and ends. You may view that permission to be full and free and others may view otherwise. Ultimately everyone will have a personal individual view on the matter. I personally don't want to live in a society that permits discrimination on the basis of creed, race or sexuality. But that's just me.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Not at all, it's called being professional. You're not supposed to bring your personal life into work regardless of the job.

QFT. I've had to shake hands with people I politically despise in my job. It's part of my job. If I hadn't, I should have been sidelined/fired.

HaiBai wrote:

mexico/england

the games would've been played out differently

That's bollocks. England and Mexico were both roundly beaten by superior teams.

Why were the US Geological Survey checking out Afghanistan? Doesn't America have more pressing issues to deal with in that neck of the woods? They had a bit of a cheek complaining that China won the rights to a massive copper mine: isn't that up to Afghanistan?

Never underestimate the Germans. Next they'll be annexing the Sudetenland.

11 Bravo wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I see the anti-semite card got played pretty quickly, which in the context of her comments is a bit inaccurate although her comments are fairly controversial and irrational. It's sixty years too late for her suggestion. Plus free speech comes with a 'pay for what you say' when you are employed by those whose revenues could be dented by your comments, that's life.

wow very understanding of you.  now if lowing had said that but about arabs, i bet your response and the response of others would be different.

Not true. If I owned and ran a shop and I found that the personal views of my employee was driving away customers I would be left with no option but to sack them - unless I wanted to make some principled stance on the matter and run a shop with a smaller profit margin or simply become a charity. Lowing says that kind of shit all the time, he's entitled to his opinion, he would however not last long on TV or radio if he aired his views publicly.

lowing wrote:

Gee I coulda swore the UN created the 2 state solution, giving land to the Jews. The Jews decided they wanted Independence, ya know, kinda like Ireland, but different I guess. It was this independence that started the wars.

A TWO state solution imposed on, not agreed upon by, one of the two main parties affected by such a decision. The UN did not create Israel, I didn't see any UN peacekeeping troops marking out borders and calming civil disobedience. Israel unilaterally declared independence in May 1948, it wasn't announced by the UN with a handshake between the leaders of the 'two new states'. Zionist guns carved out Israel, grabbing 'every hilltop' and ethnically cleansing the area so that a stable Jewish majority existed on their claimed territory. Their war of independence couldn't have been more dissimilar than Irelands. For a start Irish people didn't migrate en masse from Eastern Europe to Ireland and declare a state from themselves there to the detriment of the indigenous populations. Second, the British invaded Ireland in two waves and did what Israel did and are doing: creating plantations across the country with settlers from Britain, suspending the property (and many civil) rights of the indigenous people and driving them to the poorest parts of the island. Third, Ireland spent many centuries fighting the just cause of self determination in their own country, politically, militarily and through civil disobedience, until such time as independence was secured. The weak versus an immeasurably strong wave of unwelcome expansionist immigrants. I do concede that one dissimilarity in this is the fact that Israel did not already have a nation, as Britain did. You hit the nail on the head: independence started the wars, as it should have in the name of justice.

At the end of the day our views will never be reconciled on this and the discussion has deviated wildly from the OP (my fault as much as yours). There are plenty of other threads out there where this has been discussed ad infinitum.