Thanks, certainly a very interesting read. And actually not surprising if true given typical Arab tribalism.
@2cents would you be able to throw some light on the Saudi UAE rivalry, and if it's just a marriage of convenience?
Saudi Takeover - Claim deal done
- Thread starter NWRed
- Start date
- Status
@2cents would you be able to throw some light on the Saudi UAE rivalry, and if it's just a marriage of convenience?
Feel free to email the Danish Immigration Service who compiled that report.
I’m in agreement that every government should be secular, but there’s a secular government in the U.S and I’m not sure our government adversely effects quality of life less than yours. We’re definitely right up there with citizens dying needlessly as a result of how the government operates. Is Sandy Hook or Las Vegas any less horrific than a beheading?
Yeah, don't really care about their report, too busy to care.
The question isn't whether the acts are horific or not but who directly organized them. In one case the beheadings are part of the official procedure while in the other you could argue that the state could have limited the chances of these events to occur while not actually being able to claim that these events would have never happened.
I’ve just always found it a strange term. Anybody who criticises in anyway is labelled as an Islamaphobe and leading on from that a racist who hates foreigners and brown people. It’s just never made any sense to me.
That’s exactly what an Islamic state would say.
Oh please just lookup Christianity in Europe through the ages. Feck me even the Catholic church is still covering child abuse all over the world. Still people go to church all over the world from actors to politicians. It's even funded by the government in many countries. USA went to war in Iraq with Bush Jr telling other countries that if they wouldn't go with it they would be against God. It was a war that was based on religion and hate.Talk about hand feeding people fear
Who would want to be owned by a state that kills people for converting from Islam?
If we go towards homosexuality it was forbidden in the UK until 1967 and men weren't allowed to have sex in a hotel in the UK until 2000.
So these countries just started to open up lately we should at least give them a chance to catch up shouldn't we? Buying Utd will definitely shove them into the limelight.
Yup, this is very true. 9/10 billionaires who can actually afford to buy us would treat us the same way Glazers are, no one is stupid enough to spend billions on United and not expect anything back.
But the Saudis are very much different to this I think. They will probably expect something in due time, but would be happy pumping in money instead of taking it out for a good while. Not a lot of people can do this. But they can, cause they have loads of feck you money and it won't be a bad investment for them considering the brand value and fanbase we have worldwide
I'm ambivalent to the idea of the Saudis owning United, but you don't seem to grasp the distinction between a group of Americans owning the club and the US government owning the club.
I've read many of the post; I wonder to want extent this alleged "purchase" has had on exits, purchases etc. If true, i'm neither in favour or not in favour of SA, it'll be interesting to see what happens in January and the summer.
The state allows people to continue to be slaughtered via policy. The state allows people to die from curable diseases by denying access to medicine and treatment, and assigning monetary value to the lives of its citizens. If your argument is that this is somehow better because it theoretically could have been prevented, your argument borders on the comedic.
Really good points - and I'm far from a fan of the Saudi regime.
I just think that unless someone is boycotting the U.S government, then the notion of boycotting Saudis buying Utd is ridiculous.
You compared an events organized by the state with acts committed by individuals. While in the second case you can blame the state for not protecting people properly, you can't claim that the state created these specific events. It's not about being better, in one case people the state is the organizer, in the other it isn't.
And I don't want United to have anything to do with the US government or any governments particularly the UN security council members, they are no better than MBS and his family.
Precisely the point I was trying to make thank you. Imaginary lines in the sand drawn on moral high ground that is taking on water.
What's the latest on how women are treated there?
Yep, it's easier just to separate the sport from the politics. If people really feel so passionate to stop supporting United, I wonder what they do outside of this? I mean do they stop using anything to do with Saudis, or any other "oppressive and human rights" states/countries etc.
If you want to get technical, beheadings are technically punishment. What did the kids in Sandy Hook do to get blown to bits in their classroom? Do you think it’s better to be treated as collateral damage to lucrative deals with an arms lobby? Gtfoh already.
Can’t wait for our new overlords
I wonder what they’d do if they found out which two nations had a hand in establishing S.A as it stands today. I won’t tell if you won’t.
No, thats what any emotionally intelligent and self aware person would say. It's called empathy.
Last edited:
Exactly - genuine racists and ‘Islamophobes’ would surely l absolutely adore theocratic states like Saudi, because nothing else oppresses and brutalises Muslims like the them.
The biggest issue most normal people have with them is their rabid, perpetual human rights violations of people within the faith; forced marriage, zero tolerance of homosexuality, modern slavery, no way of opting out of the faith without paying with your life. These are all crimes against humanity that simply shouldn’t be accepted in the modern world.
And what’s hilarious, is that self-styled ‘Liberals’ completely ignore them
Manchester United football club is in some way, a beneficiary and by product of colonial Britain and her empire. The Glazer family are a by-product of USA which has administered some of history's most horrific policies. Saudi Arabia is a new nation and which also practices some deeply questionable policies.
I'm choosing not to make a distinction because I think doing so is a convenient fudge.
Last edited:
It can get a little dicey when our own governments have also been installing such regimes for decades.
Again and for the last time, at no point did I told you that one event was better than the other. I told you that one event is an official action of the government(the punishment that you mentioned) and in the other case it's not. Now you can go around and pretend to be upset about something that only you said.
Bigots don't like being called out shocker.
Am I to understand what you’re saying is policy is not a direct action of the government?
Let me see if I can up with an example of brutal regimes the U.S and G.B helped rise to power. *thinks*....It’s on the tip my tongue...ah yes, Saudi Arabia.
Sorry if this has already been covered, I haven’t been following this discussion. Historically they clashed over the borders, and ultimately the British, as guardians of stability in the Gulf, had to mediate. Saudis generally being considered the aggressor. This was before the Emirates (known then as the Trucial States) were united as the UAE.
Since the oil boom they’ve far more interests in common which transcend whatever tribal enmity still exists, although I’m sure these are still expressed through other mediums (perhaps like football?). Today their main bond is based on hostility to Iranian and Muslim Brotherhood influence/expansion in the region. Even so they have sometimes pursued alternative agendas, especially in the current Yemen war where they are at odds. By most accounts it appears that Muhammad bin Zayid has been something of a mentor to Muhammad bin Salman, and has heavily influenced the so-called ‘modernization’ campaign in SA.
I’m unsure how any of this might be reflected in the proposed Saudi takeover vis-a-vis our rivalry with City, since it’s unclear exactly which Saudi, if anyone, plans to buy us. Assuming it’s MbS (or a frontman for him), I’m sure the desire to challenge the Emiratis would explain it to some extent, although I’d say the bigger factor would be the rehabilitation of the Saudi image in the Western world, as part of the current reform program.
No you are to understand that there is a difference between giving the order to kill people and having a legal environment that may lead to killings. For the simple reason that in the second case the government didn't tell you to kill. Now it doesn't mean that one is good and the other is bad, it simply means that in one case the governement is entirely responsible for the death while in the second case the governement, the electorate and the actual perpetrator share the responsibilies to various degrees.
It's simply a different case and you will point the finger at a different group of people.
All of the things City fans used to say about us were true.
IMO the results in the case of my country are horrifying enough that render how we arrived there is utterly irrelevant.
You needed City fans to tell you supporters of a football club would relish its success under most circumstances that don’t involve direct cheating? On that subject, if this were to happen, we could put a chimpanzee in charge of FFP compliance.
Empathetic to what? Brutal regimes? Anti gay? Anti freedom? The Regressive left really has got its knickers in a twist these days and lost all sense of liberalism.
Its a big issue these days. People seem to defend Islam to uphold some sort of liberal values. It’s a massive paradox.
Regressives don’t like being called out on their lack of critical analysis.
That majority of Utd fans are glory hunters and all of our nagging about oil money were hypocritical? Yes.
This place has been depressing. The slow descent into RAWKish nostalgia were one thing, now openly discarding the thinnest of veneer about having a moral compass just because your team may win something.
It's always relevant though, in the case of the US the context is dire but it's a complex and long process that created it, it's by understanding it that you may fix the issue in the future, it's a mix of totally changing the mentality of the american society regarding freedoms and their limits, it's about changing the mentality of society regarding lobbying and the links between political leaders and industries. It's a societal and institutional problem, you can't ignore one of them if you want to fix the problem but that's for an other thread.
No. Empathetic to understanding that what you think you say is not important, the only important thing is what people you intend your comments for, think you said. And I think everything you have said is Islamaphobic.
You lack any ounce of empathy. No amount of word twisting or whataboutism will change that.
Brilliant, but innocent people are dying as a result of government policy, many of them children. You may be capable of ignoring that bottom line but I’m not. They are simply evil doers working within limitations of their system. You can dress innocent loss of life up however you choose to do so. They may not directly execute anyone, but they sit in their mansions paid for by gun lobby money while the children of the have nots get slaughtered in their schools. How’s thT for complex? Evil is evil
We fundamentally disagree then. People have the right to an opinion on topics, and if others are offended or hurt by it than so be it. In the pursuit of truth you will always piss someone off.
I'm not ignoring it and to be fair it's weird that you keep acting as if I have suggested anything like that.
You’re creasing some sort of nonsensical moral hierarchy when one does not exist.
- Status