Jump to content

I wish Glazer would go away!!!


elricko

Recommended Posts

I'm not Anti-Semitic, but that doesn't mean I have to kiss Sharon's Butt like Bush. The American Media has become Islamaphobic (e.g Fox News). Don't hear the same level of condemnation for that.

I saw in the news that United fans want to form an AFC Wimbledon style team called FC United.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply
quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

Oh my goodness, Shaku Bert! Time to put on your thinking cap, sonny Jim.

Do you have friends outside of cyberspace? Being condescending looks bad on you and I've seen you do this to anyone who expresses an opinion other than your own. You see this type of behaviour often on the internet where people essentially lose all social graces because there is no person to person contact. Right off the bat, you come across as a complete weiner, Beaver. Its too bad you can't have dialogue in a mature manner.

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

I find it disgusting that you've suggested that the Guardian is anti-semitic.

Never did. I said that, from an editorial standpoint, the beeb and guardian have an anti-israel bias. "BIAS." Didn't say they were anti-semites. I stand by my statement. A jewish friend of mine provided me with this link.

http://honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/reports/BBC_Living_in_a_Bubble.asp

Jewish people seem to have issue with the "bias" of the beeb and of the guardian.

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

Grow up and do some deeper thinking!

You are coming across as an idiot, Beaver. So, anyone who doesn't think exactly the same way as you is immature and hasn't thought through the issue completely? You are coming across as being arrogant.

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

The situation in Israel is a mess....... Israel could do much better.

OK, and you're suggesting that I made any statement that suggested otherwise. Now I can add "going off half-cocked" in describing you. I said nothing of the situation of anyone in the middle east in either of my posts. Your suggestion that I don't know what's going on in the area is insulting, by the way, as following the happenings in that area is a hobby of mine.

Beaver, with respect to my socialism comment, I admit it was a poor and ultimately failed attempt at humor. My political leanings are to the right, I am proud to say, and I was just trying to put a jab in about the leftist media (the main stream media really does have a left leaning bias, you know!). I admit it wasn't funny or effective. I've never seen fox news, by the way.

Overall, Beaver, I think it is just a shame that you had to react the way you did. You didn't have to pontificate, you didn't have to make out that you were somehow smarter than me (I probably have as many or more degrees as you), we could have even had some fun with the left and right thing! Now we are sworn enemies, you and I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are NOT sworn enemies. That is your decision. You are not my enemy. How typical of somebody who claims to be on the right to quickly reduce an argument to jingoism and black and white ideology. As for your claim that you did not state that the BBC and Guardian are anti-semetic, then what does the following suggest? (By the way, this is taken directly from your earlier post.)

"I hate to do it, but I also think it needs to be said that Glazer is Jewish, and there is rampant and blatant anti-semeticism in the UK media (see the BBC and the Guardian). We, here in North America don't really see much anti-semetic activity, but hating Jews is alive and well in Europe."

Sorry if you find me condescending, but when you toss around inflammatory and ill informed accusations about the anti-semitism in the BBC and Guardian, I take strong issue with it. Don't be so careless. 6 million Jews died because of right-wing anti-semetic beliefs in the second world war. This was heinous and atrocious and should never be forgotten. This is a blight on humanity. A stain and a shame. For you to reduce fair and warranted criticism of Israeli actions in Israel to "anti-semitism" is disgusting and plain wrong. (After all, you are the one who provided us with the Guardian piece that is supposed to be proof of its anti-semitism and anti-Israel stance.)

I don't care what level of education you have. And I don't give much of a damn if you think I'm condescending. I certainly do not post with such vehemence because I have something to prove. I don't give a damn about my ego here. As for my personal life, none of your freakin business, son. YOU raised this issue and if YOU cannot handle strong-worded debate and hard conflict, then I don't think it is wise to declare war on anyone.

As for the main stream media being predominantly leftist: give me a break. In Canada the majority of our daily papers--by a long shot--are owned by right-leaning individuals; Global is a right-leaning TV news channel. In the US, you'd be hard pressed to find any major network that is remotely left-leaning. The major networks are supposed to be more critical--and CNN certainly likes to claim it is--but they have fallen a long ways from the tradition of objective reportage. Fox news, owned by uber-righty Rupert Murdoch, is basically the voice-box for the Bush admin. I won't speak to the UK press, but Murdoch owns a crap load of papers there, so it is pretty easy to see that the right-bias in news media is alive and well in these 3 countries.

Finally, if I've been condescending to other posters it has generally been for reasons similar to this one. Canso and Grizz and I did battle on racist remarks (overblown, I admit) but I've immense respect for both these guys and get on with them just fine in all other matters. Mind you, I was not the only one taking them to task, but somehow that gets overlooked. I have in turn been taken to task for "bigotry" (which I'd like to call willful and ironic bigotry, but that is all past now) and have done well to mend fences with my accuser. In fact, I'd suspect that he'd agree more or less with most of what I've said here, though perhaps would not suffer my condescenion very well either. I get on with a good many Voyageurs but cannot handle the knee-jerk, ill informed and childish sentiments that spew from a select few. The Beast is a silly little man, but I have no venom for him. He's dumb as a stick, but I have a sort of affection for him.

There is no reason to be sworn enemies. Like I said, that is your choice, not mine. But if you intend to fling terms like anti-semite around carelessly, I WILL take you on. Anti-semitism is a very real concern: do not diminish it with silly claims.

Shalom, brother.[^]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

We are NOT sworn enemies. That is your decision. You are not my enemy. How typical of somebody who claims to be on the right to quickly reduce an argument to jingoism and black and white ideology.

You and I don't connect very well. The "enemies" comment was meant as a bit of humour to lighten up a serious post.

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

As for your claim that you did not state that the BBC and Guardian are anti-semetic, then what does the following suggest? (By the way, this is taken directly from your earlier post.).

Got me! But I kinda softened the statement by talking about bias. But still, if bias against Jews exists in these media outlets, is it just bias? Or is it anti-semiticism? You can be anti-semetic without murdering 6 million jews. You don't believe that the people that think jews drink the blood of arab babies are anti-semetic? Perhaps they haven't attempted genocide against jews, but they still are anti-semites.

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

when you toss around inflammatory and ill informed accusations about the anti-semitism in the BBC and Guardian,

I stand by my statement. There are many, many jews who would agree with me. I posted a link where a jewish organization took strong issue with the BBC and the Guardian. Read the article and browse the site as well.

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

Don't be so careless. 6 million Jews died because of right-wing anti-semetic beliefs in the second world war. This was heinous and atrocious and should never be forgotten. This is a blight on humanity. A stain and a shame. For you to reduce fair and warranted criticism of Israeli actions in Israel to "anti-semitism" is disgusting and plain wrong.

No you are wrong. I stand by my statements. Fair and warranted criticism is one thing. Persistent villification of one side in a dispute is another thing. What happens when one side is villified, even if it is done so subtly, (you don't need headlines screaming JEWS = BAD) you sow the seeds for the occurence of another holocaust. However, if you disregard the existence of anti-Israel bias in the media, you and I cannot agree in this matter no matter how much we debate. I dunno. Here are some links to one jewish groups annoyance with the Beeb and the guardian. Maybe you'll see where I'm coming from.

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Guardians_of_the_Anti-Israel_Line.asp

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/BBCs_Inspiring_Thought.asp

Here's a link where they provide some really interesting example of bias:

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/The_Dishonest_Reporting_Awards_2004.asp

You may look at these stories and say, "I still don't believe there is bias". That's your right. I choose to believe there is bias. As I said earlier, if the media presents bias against a group subtly or overtly, people can develop attitudes that can lead to violence against that group.

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

YOU raised this issue and if YOU cannot handle strong-worded debate and hard conflict, then I don't think it is wise to declare war on anyone.

Calling me "son" and other things is not debate. Its rude and unbecoming.

Re: the "right" leaning media. You and I will agree to disagree big time here. Izzy Asper was hardly a conservative (he was a liberal MLA). The Globe is a mouthpiece for the liberals and I don't consider the lib's to be extremely right wing. In the US, You have never of Rathergate? If not, I can inform you it wasn't a case of the media trying to get people to vote in a conservative president.

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

There is no reason to be sworn enemies. Like I said, that is your choice, not mine. But if you intend to fling terms like anti-semite around carelessly, I WILL take you on. Anti-semitism is a very real concern: do not diminish it with silly claims.

Like I said, the enemies thing was a joke. and, sorry, My use of the term "anti-semetic" was not careless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be my only participation on this topic, but a) I have heard the same criticism of the Gaurdian from others, so Shaku Bert is not right out of left field (not saying it is right, but its certainly out there) here.

Equally, honestreporting.com is a site I'd take with a grain of salt personally. Many (most? all?) of their criticisms are of questionable merit. For example, neither the Guardian nor the Beeb refered to Menachim Begin as a (former) terrorist whenever they refered to him, even though he was involved in terrorist acts against Britain. Does that make them anti-arab? Yet when the Gaurdian fails to be aware of obscure remarks made by obscure arabs they report on from time to time, this is held as significant.

Hopefully not too much excitement will be generated about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaku, dude, if you intend to make jokes (ie sworn enemies) then please use a smiley emoticon or make the joke damned obviously funny--it isn't a matter of us connecting, it is a matter of my being able to undertand your intent. I value good natured humour immensely, especially when discussing tough issues, but I've got to know a joke is meant as a joke.

I won't call you "son" anymore. That is not fair fighting.

I will disagree fully with most everything else you've come up with. Yes, you are using the anti-semite term carelessly, even dangerously. Once again, criticizing Israel's inhumane actions--specific actions, mind you--in the Palestinian situation DOES not signify anti-semitism, in the same way that criticizing Todd Bertuzzi's action toward Steve Moore does not signify anti-Italian-Canadianism, or anti-hairy gorrillaism.;)

Let me put the question to you? Do you think Israel is at all responsible for human rights violations etc against the Palistinian people? It is pretty easy for you and I to point fingers at the militant groups (Hesbolah, Hamas etc), but are we aware of what Israel is doing? We need to keep asking those questions. People don't go blowing themselves up because everything is hunky-dorry.

As for Jewish groups and your Jewish friends complaining about the anti-semetic press: give me a break. Sure, it is likely they have a point from time to time, but I've yet to hear one of these groups admit that Israel has any responsibility for oppressing the Palestinians. Come on man, even if you are on the right you need to be more critical. Are you aware that various of the most vocal Jewish groups believe that Israel should belong only to Israel, that the Palestinians should be exiled or at least kept down and out of the way? Do you understand the history here? What it would be like to have the League of Nations give your home to another group, then have that group strip away the majority of your rights and freedoms, your power for self-governance. It is a complicated matter, but Israel can do much better.

Izzy Asper (proper name "Israel") may have been a Liberal MLA, but he was very conservative, and has left the reins of his media empire in the hands of his equally conservative son. The National Post is widely accepted as Canada's conservative paper, and all its regional papers are cut from this cloth. The Federal Liberals are more left than the Conservatives, but they are hardly left. They have been widely viewed as "centrist" for more than a decade. The BC Liberals are further right than their federal counterparts. "Rathergate" was a mistake made by an individual, not the entire network. I will say that ABC, NBC and CBS are starting to get back to their objective--more or less--reporting stance, but they are hardly left. The New York Times and Washington Post are seen as leftie in the US, but in Canada we'd probably see them as pretty centrist, even a bit right. All this to say that the claim that the majority of the media is left is bull****. We need a more critical, less-biassed media, I'll agree, but don't tell me that the left own the media.

Okay, this is as far as I'm going. yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. One last thing: I'll read these links you've provided if you check out a book a good friend of mine wrote. She lived in Israel--on a couple of occasions--and has very interesting stories to tell about Palestinians and Israelis. She wrote the book to be observational, not critical or moralizing. It sheds light on the plight of both sides--actually, there are many more side than just two--and it is a very good read: It is called, "This Heated Place" by Deborah Campbell. Let me know what you think. It isn't meant to sway you or win you over. it is simply illuminating.

Shalom my brother from another mother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ho, bud. Sorry for late response but I was out doing something waaaay more important than arguing with a fellow supporter. I was playing soccer with my 4 year old son.[^]

Anyhow, your point on the smiley is well noted. I've sort bashed people on other forums for doing the very same thing (not using smileys when they're being ironic etc).

Yes, well we will agree to disagree and when you reply to this post I'll will reply no further and you can have the last word.

Some how you have painted me as being controlled by poison zionist laser beams, unable to think anything other than the radical jewish party line. I'm not entirely sure how that came about. I'm not going to get into supporting what I think about Israel and its treatment of Palestinians because I never said what I thought. You sort of put words in my mouth. All I said, and I stand by my statements, is that Israel does not get a fair shake in a lot of the media. I'm not saying that no-one should be prohibited from saying something negative about Israel, or, if they DO say something negative about Israel, that they are rabid Jew hating genocidal maniacs.

Re: my Jewish friends not being able to come to grips with Israel doing anything wrong, you are actually correct, if the truth be told. Although I agree that not all settlements are provacative and based on hard-line jewish radicalism, the reality is that many are. And Israel needs to deal with that.

Re: left and right, we really REALLY disagree and thats OK as we live in a big country where there is room for lots of view points. Perhaps we are thinking of different spectrums? For you, is the left hard core socialism, marxism, communism, trotskyism? For me, the NDP and to some extent the liberals are left (actually the libs have no set of guiding policies; they're sluts). But that is just my opinion. You know, we are talking of left and right, but it might surprise you to know that my social views are way more liberal than most people.

By the way I think you took my liberal media comments waaay too seriously. I never said the media is owned by the left, I just think there is a left leaning slant to the media.

Anyhow, I have to go and put my kids to bed. I hope we can talk in the future. About soccer.

Oh, Thanks for the book reference, I'm an avid reader. Got Romeo Dallaire's "Shake Hands with the Devil" and Karen Armstrong's "The battle for God" on the night table right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to get this thread back on target, this is taken from a bbc article:

Much has been said about United's "heart and soul" being ripped out, but Old Trafford was opened up to market forces went it went public 14 years ago - the start of a period of spectacular success.

"Not for sale" is the great rallying call for Old Trafford's faithful, but in reality almost everything at Manchester United has been for sale since that day. A hollow cry from this mega-rich and mega-marketable club.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/4543271.stm

This is essentially my take on this whole issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also the boycott on merchandise...well....hmmm.....ManU sold those rights to Nike....so ManU's got that money in the bank......so who are the supporters hurting.....really.

NFL is looking into if Glazer used the Bucs to mortgage the ManU purchase as he borrowed 540 miilion pounds and the Bucs are worth 425 million pounds. But apparantlly control of the Bucs was transfered to his sons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by argh1

Also the boycott on merchandise...well....hmmm.....ManU sold those rights to Nike....so ManU's got that money in the bank......so who are the supporters hurting.....really.

NFL is looking into if Glazer used the Bucs to mortgage the ManU purchase as he borrowed 540 miilion pounds and the Bucs are worth 425 million pounds. But apparantlly control of the Bucs was transfered to his sons?

Let Glazer do his thing at United, if we are all lucky the team will

drop into division one and that will be that.[:P]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by RealGooner

Anti- semitism may figure for some, but i just think Man U fans dont want this famous club that is based on history and passion to be run by some American bean-counter who has no clue or respect for those passions and traditions. Roman Abramovich loves soccer and just wants to own a winning team, that why he pours money in. Im not sure Glazer loves man U but rather sees it as a meal ticket? I'm with the fans on this one.

Roman Abramovich just started liking soccer a few years ago. He's as much of a corporate shill as Glazer is.

And don't give me that "passion" and "tradition" crap. It's so ironic seeing Manc fans boo hooing about this guy making Man U more of a business than a club.

Hello? Man U fan? You stopped being a football club a long time ago. Stop trying to act like the victim. You know what you were getting into when you went public. Quit your bitching.

I think this whole thing is hilarious. Personally, I could care less what happens, but it would be gut bustingly funny to see Glazer confirm the Manc's worst fears and completely ruin the club.[8D]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Soccer fans,

As you all know, I've been looking to buy the United's of Manchester for a little while now. I've also heard that some of you may not be too happy about me using, sorry, buying the club in order to reach new heights and also, that I may not be a fan. Well fear not, as I'm writing this personal letter to let you know that I'm a genuine fan of you blue devils.

I began rooting for the United's back in 1992 when our little Malcolm JR was practising those Soccer home runs out in the yard. I loved the way you turned defence into offence, and the way that Bobby Shearer used to top half it into the goal bag. Oh man, that play was hot. My son tells me that you even out-zoned your City rivals Southampton in the 4th quarter of the FA World series. As for your current team, that Rude guy is awesome!!!! I see a profitable future at the United, with the young talent of Cristiano Rooney (man, that guy can dance!) and Peter Shilton giving us hope in defeating the evil Russian tyranny which assaults the freedom of our beloved Soccer. With the marketing potential of those Neville brothers and that Pearce dude leading the team, we can all look to achieving our beliefs of a better future. Especially when I add Alexei Lalas and Cobi Jones to the starting 15.

Now to you, the fans.

I've been to see the United's play once before, and the respect you pay your team in silently admiring the play out on the pitch was overwhelming. Because of this, I've just purchased a new GBP45 million mansion in the Manchester to be close to you guys. And more good news is I'm planning to add an extra 10,000 seats through corporate boxes so more genuine blue devils can experience the play. What's with the prawn sandwiches I had to eat when I was there? Well, rest assured, it'll be super size prawn baguettes when I take charge. I can't wait to come over to the Manchester isles, as I love the country, especially the beaches and the hot chicks. I hope you can all see my vision of this future, with new shirt sponsors (Dunkin Donuts) and new team name (The Manchester Gloom) I'm sure things are looking bright.

*Further good news for you guys is that I've just agreed a partnership deal with McDonalds, who will help in promoting the Manchester brand. This will involve re-naming the stadium to 'McTrafford' as well as an exciting launch of Manchester Gloom plastic fan toys in every happy meal. Cristiano Rooney will be the face of this campaign and during this; he will be marketed globally as Roonald McDonald.

Take care dudes.

Regards

Malcolm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by RealGooner

Man U fan? Hello? Check my name "RealGooner" and personal info. If u know soccer u will know that I support Man U's biggest rivals of the last decade. Neutral opinion here buddy.

I wasn't addressing you. Just "Man U" fan in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by RealGooner

Man U fan? Hello? Check my name "RealGooner" and personal info. If u know soccer u will know that I support Man U's biggest rivals of the last decade. Neutral opinion here buddy.

I wasn't addressing you. Just "Man U" fan in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by shaku_bert

...I said that, from an editorial standpoint, the beeb and guardian have an anti-israel bias. "BIAS." Didn't say they were anti-semites. I stand by my statement. A jewish friend of mine provided me with this link.

http://honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/reports/BBC_Living_in_a_Bubble.asp

Jewish people seem to have issue with the "bias" of the beeb and of the guardian...

You are completely, totally, and utterly wrong.

There are so many holes in your arguments, it's hard to know where to start.

For a start, it's a bit peculiar, to say the least, that you are referring to a pro-Israeli BIASED website, in order to support your allegations about so-called anti-Israeli bias in the British media.

Hardly balanced or un-biased!

For anyone previously unaware of 'honestreporting.com' it's something of a misnomer, honest it ain't. And as shaku_bert admitted, the link was sent to him by a Jewish friend, again, hardly an independent, objective party.

It is categorically untrue that there is an anti-Israeli bias in the British media. Instead of believing a pro-Israeli lobby group, I think it's more preferable to refer to the results of an academic study carried out by researchers from Glasgow University's media group, i.e. not a political lobby group representing either interest, simply people conducting research into the media.

For an authentic and authoritative source of information, check out:

Bad news from Israel: media coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Greg Philo, some excerpts:

"...There were many examples of the Israeli viewpoint being actively adopted by journalists and built into the structure of coverage. Palestinian bombings were frequently presented as 'starting' a sequence of events which involved an Israeli 'response'..."

"...The extent to which some journalism simply assumes the Israeli

perspective can be seen if the statements are 'reversed ' and presented as Palestinian actions. The group did not find any reports stating that 'The Palestinian attacks were in retaliation for the murder of those resisting the illegal Israeli occupation'..."

"...The analysis found other differences in the manner in which Palestinians and Israelis were described in news reporting. Words such as 'murder', 'atrocity', 'lynching' and 'savage cold-blooded killing' were only used to describe Israeli deaths but not those of

Palestinians. Terrible fates befell both Israelis and Palestinians but there was a clear difference in the language used to describe

them..."

"...There were a number of other imbalances in the way in which the two sides were reported. Israelis spoke twice as much on television news as Palestinians and there were three times as many headlines that expressed the Israeli view as that of the Palestinians..."

"...In our research in October 2000, we found that some television news did report that Israeli soldiers were 'showing absolutely no restraint, firing live ammunition into crowds from twenty metres' (ITN 18.00 22.10.2000). But it was not suggested at this time that

the actions of the army might be linked to a political agenda (i.e. to stop the peace process). In contrast the view put forward by the Israeli Government at the time that Yasser Arafat was encouraging violence for political ends - was widely reported and discussed on TV news..."

"...A news journalism which seeks nuetrality [sic] should not endorse any point of view, but there were many departures from this principle..."

Article available in full at:

http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/sociology/units/media/israel.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's well known that whenever any journalist subjects Israeli actions to any kind of journalistic scrutiny, the 'anti-semitism' card is played. The holocaust is being misused by some as a 'get out of jail free' card and I find that incredibly distateful and disrespectful to those who went through the holocaust, some of whom survived, and some of whom didn't.

I think the ease with which some people use this excuse belittles the experiences of those who suffered (and I've met holocaust survivors with numbers tattooed on their arms), they genuinely suffered and that should be remembered and should never be repeated. I think it's very wrong for the apologists for the Israeli-oppression of the Palestinian people to equate the two situations.

What happened during the holocaust does not give Israel the right to inflict the kind of persecution on the Palestinians they suffered previously. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Anti-semitism is the ultimate trump card. Any argument on political, economic or social or human rights grounds can be trounced by someone saying 'You're an anti-semite'. Just because someone disagrees with the inhumane treatment of the Palestinian people, that does not make them an anti-semite.

This portrayal of the Israeli government and militant Jewish lobby groups as really feeble and unfairly maligned is, again, totally inaccurate. If anything, the media is actually brow-beaten into representing violent Israeli actions in a positive light (as proven by the academic research above).

Again, some facts. This is not an anecdotal urban myth. I have heard, with my own ears, executives from the BBC and news agencies, describe how they come under fire from a well-organised and persistent pro-Israeli, anti-Paletinian Jewish lobby.

Maybe I shouldn't say this here, because it will confirm to them that their tactics are working?

Executives working for those organisation have described to me how, when news stories cover events in the Middle East, their inboxes fill with emails complaining about the pro-palestinian, anti-semitic, anti-Israeli bias in stories.

The journalists I heard spoke of referring back to the stories, examining and analysing them, and finding no such bias at all. Yes, they might have referred to Israeli soldiers opening fire on stone throwing children, demolishing houses belonging to the relatives of suicide bombers (even though it wasn't the mother, the children, the aunts, cousins who committed the offence for which they are being punished), but the stories were factual.

In fact, as reported in the research conducted by Glasgow University's media group, [details above], coverage was *more likely* to represent the Israeli point of view favourably, the journalists were *more likely* to interview subjects who could put forward the Israeli view than the Palestinian. Those are facts, supported by academic research.

But back to the lobbying. News executives' inboxes are filled by emails from people whom it is clear have not seen or heard the news report in question. Often, there is clearly an 'organised' response, involving 'round robin' emails.

The advent of the internet means that someone can watch a news report in England, and then, for example, 120,000 subscribers to the pro-Israeli US-based honestreporting.com can be alerted to the item and can, with a few clicks of a mouse, cut and paste a standard 'complaint' email and send it to the news editor.

It happens. It happens all the time. There is no such 'bias' in the British media, if anything, the British media tiptoes around the issue, trying to be careful not to offend the sensibilities of the pro-Israeli lobby, because they are so vocal, because they are so well-organised, because they don't miss a trick, or any opportunity whatsoever to register an unjustified complaint, drown out the voices of the oppressed palestinian people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, back to the specific issue of Malcolm Glazer and allegations of anti-semitism on the part of Manchester United supporters.

Again, you are very, very, very, very, very wrong.

As a native Mancunian, i.e. someone born and bred in Manchester, and a life-long Manchester United fan, in fact a third generation Manchester United supporter, I should very much like to clarify something, this is not at all an anti-semitic campaign, as is being reported by some media elements.

In fact, if you check it out, you'll find that many of the people who are raising this issue of anti-semitism are Jewish journalists, not Manchester United fans.

I don't know whether there are underhand tactics being played out by Glazer's supporters, who might figure that it's in their interests to stir up 'the Jewish lobby' and make this into a battle drawn on religious lines, although I do wonder...?

I just know that, from the perspective of Manchester United supporters, this isn't about Glazer's religion or ethnicity. Although some pro-Glazer people appear to be trying to make it an issue, to make Glazer appear more sympathetic or to enable him to garner more support.

I don't know if any of you have ever been to Manchester, but before commenting on this aspect (or non-aspect, as far as I'm concerned) of the story, you might like to do a bit of research about Manchester and the history of its Jewish community.

[bTW, If any of you fancy making the pilgrimage to Old Trafford, I found an ad in the MEN (Manchester Evening News) recently, with details of a cheap and cheerful budget airline called Zoom offering flights between Manchester and Vancouver/Toronto. http://www.flyzoom.com - and no, I'm not on commission, it caught my eye because I had a friend who was living in Vancouver, who's since returned to Beijing (wish I could fly to Beijing for GBP89!) - but, because we're encouraging a boycott, we don't want to line Glazer's pocket, please wait until after the regime change, and you'll receive a very friendly traditional Mancunian welcome!]

Anyway, back to Manchester's Jewish heritage, which is very longstanding, first synagogue established in Manchester in 18-something-or-other, around 150-200 years ago. Two particular areas of Manchester are very well known to have quite large Jewish communities: Cheetham Hill and Prestwich, in North Manchester, and Didsbury, in South Manchester. In fact, Didsbury has such a large Jewish population, it's sometimes referred to locally (in a tongue in cheek, humourous, non-derogatory way) as 'Yidbsury'. Know you North-Americans sometimes get really worked up about Political Correctness stuff, we still see the funny side of things over here.

Whilst the communities themselves would perhaps be able to inform you of any anti-semitic 'incidents' over the years, and I concede there will have been some, just as there are in any town or city, because there will always be a very small minority of ignorant people, wherever one happens to be in the world. But generally speaking, Manchester is a very well-integrated city, we have nowhere near as much of the anti-semitic trouble experienced in other European countries such as, say, France.

I think that whoever is stirring this issue up is playing a very dangerous game, because the divide isn't along religious lines - I mean, some of the Manchester-based Manchester United supporters are Jewish, they don't wear a yarmulka, you can tell from their names. Many of the fans who support the team at Old Trafford are members of Manchester's Jewish community.

It's very, very definitely not an anti-semitic issue. Agaiin, the divide is not drawn on religious lines, it's drawn along the lines of, on the one hand, people who love football, and who love Manchester United in particular, and on the other, a man and his family who have no love for or knowledge of the game.

There have been other comments suggesting that it's an anti-American feeling, but again, it's not really, it's only anti-American insofar as America, and Americans generally-speaking, do not have an understanding or appreciation of the game. It's not an anti-foreigner thing at all, because if a Brazilian or an Italian or a Spaniard, say, bought a huge stake in the club, I doubt there would have been such an outcry, because Brazil, Italy and Spain are great footballing nations.

It's also about the economics of the deal, but that's also about the football, because it's about the future financial viability of Manchester United. And it's also about the cheek of the proposed deal as well as the fact it's dubious economically. Northerners (people from the north of England) are very well known for being blunt and straight-talking. Again, it's nothing to do with Glazer being Jewish, it's to do with him having the cheek of burdening a previously profitable club with so much debt, and getting the supporters to pay for his shareholding!

If he was a true football fan, and if he was bringing wads of his own money to the table, then Glazer wouldn't have inspired such feelings of outrage. It's not because he's Jewish, it's nothing to do with anti-Semitism, it's because he's pretty damned cheeky to expect Manchester United fans to buy the club for him!

For any journalist to mis-reprepresent this issue as being matter of anti-semitism would be to fall very short of any journalistic standards of integrity and accuracy. It would also be potentially divisive and could inadvertently cause problems where there currently are none, and as such would be highly irresponsible and inadvisable.

For further background information about Manchester's Jewish community, check out the websites below.

Manchester-based Jewish Telegraph newspaper

http://www.jewish-telegraph.com/

Manchester Jewish Museum

http://www.manchesterjewishmuseum.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sympathy in this camp. For Manchester U. or Glazer.

The supporters have had 10+ years to buy up enough control of their team to have made this whole fiasco impossible, and yet they haven't. So here we are. Or rather, they are.

As others have written this is the nature of the game Manchester U found itself in more than a decade ago by going public.

But footie is big business in the EPL and has been for a great many years now so I understand the supporters worries about Glazer's take over. At the end of the day it's the poor fellow who spend a day's wage every other week to see his team play, a team to which he/she shows a dedication you'll never see in the private corporate boxes and seatings, who ends up being pushed to the curb all the while being hit hardest in the pocket book so men like Glazer can feed their egos with whatever it is you feed egos with.

And I don't dought for a second that the supporters worrys are going to prove completely founded.

Enjoy paying for Glazer's take over of your club, lads. I'm sure grand days lay ahead.

P.S. Yeah, thanks Bert. Why don't you just say the Manchester U crowd are anti-Glazer because he's pro-abortion.

Oh FU'K! DUCK!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...