The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Obviously their are very strong feelings across the democratic world regarding the actions of yesterday.
Clearly there are extremist factions responsible who need to be brought to justice, and people harbouring them and funding them who also need to be punished.
However, the vast majority of people from all races would condemn the actions of yesterday. This is the work of mad extremists, not the work of the general public of any country or religion.
Please TAKE CARE not to allow your comments to be racist, and have a heart for those affected by avoiding any flippant comments or warmongering statements.
We are not prepared to allow anybody to use the forums to incite hatred of any form whatsoever.
Clearly there are extremist factions responsible who need to be brought to justice, and people harbouring them and funding them who also need to be punished.
However, the vast majority of people from all races would condemn the actions of yesterday. This is the work of mad extremists, not the work of the general public of any country or religion.
Please TAKE CARE not to allow your comments to be racist, and have a heart for those affected by avoiding any flippant comments or warmongering statements.
We are not prepared to allow anybody to use the forums to incite hatred of any form whatsoever.
Page:
VenomByte wrote:
> The difference between a regular fan and these hooligans, is that while both will let their emotions take over after a good result, only the hooligan does so after a bad one.
I have no complaint against the genuine fans. I would like to know if Wookiee considers the racist thugs who set out to disrupt football matches in the same light at the "fanatics" who dance in the street.
The soccer thugs are criminals. The fanatics dancing are not.
> The difference between a regular fan and these hooligans, is that while both will let their emotions take over after a good result, only the hooligan does so after a bad one.
I have no complaint against the genuine fans. I would like to know if Wookiee considers the racist thugs who set out to disrupt football matches in the same light at the "fanatics" who dance in the street.
The soccer thugs are criminals. The fanatics dancing are not.
The fact that it is a competitive sporting event inspires the rivalry. Hope we win. Hope they lose. Stronger feelings if you're more patriotic - and strong effects.
VenomByte wrote:
> But patriotism does inspire the 'us against them' mentality.
Did
> you see English holligans causing disturbances in the street after
> the germany game? No, because we won. It's the defeat that inspires
> anger.
The difference between a regular fan and these hooligans,
> is that while both will let their emotions take over after a good
> result, only the hooligan does so after a bad one.
That isn't true Patriotism though, is it. Patriotism is a feeling of being part of a people or a country. It has nothing to do with being against other countries. You can love your own country and still love other countries too.
> But patriotism does inspire the 'us against them' mentality.
Did
> you see English holligans causing disturbances in the street after
> the germany game? No, because we won. It's the defeat that inspires
> anger.
The difference between a regular fan and these hooligans,
> is that while both will let their emotions take over after a good
> result, only the hooligan does so after a bad one.
That isn't true Patriotism though, is it. Patriotism is a feeling of being part of a people or a country. It has nothing to do with being against other countries. You can love your own country and still love other countries too.
But patriotism does inspire the 'us against them' mentality.
Did you see English holligans causing disturbances in the street after the germany game? No, because we won. It's the defeat that inspires anger.
The difference between a regular fan and these hooligans, is that while both will let their emotions take over after a good result, only the hooligan does so after a bad one.
Did you see English holligans causing disturbances in the street after the germany game? No, because we won. It's the defeat that inspires anger.
The difference between a regular fan and these hooligans, is that while both will let their emotions take over after a good result, only the hooligan does so after a bad one.
VenomByte wrote:
> Tony wrote:
> Wòókiee Møn§Ý€R
> wrote:
> as
> long as people this fanatical exist, they are
> a danger.
Would
> this include England Football
> Hooligans?
Noooo, you're mistaking fanaticism with lively
> patriotism ;)
It does raise an interesting point. Any form of Nationalism (and by this, I mean believing in one group of people being the only true people and that everyone else should suffer or even die because of this) is wrong, as is hooliganism of any kind, whether caused by football or anything else.
Being patriotic does not include injuring or killing people simply because you don't agree with their colour or origins.
> Tony wrote:
> Wòókiee Møn§Ý€R
> wrote:
> as
> long as people this fanatical exist, they are
> a danger.
Would
> this include England Football
> Hooligans?
Noooo, you're mistaking fanaticism with lively
> patriotism ;)
It does raise an interesting point. Any form of Nationalism (and by this, I mean believing in one group of people being the only true people and that everyone else should suffer or even die because of this) is wrong, as is hooliganism of any kind, whether caused by football or anything else.
Being patriotic does not include injuring or killing people simply because you don't agree with their colour or origins.
VenomByte wrote:
> Noooo, you're mistaking fanaticism with lively patriotism ;)
Rubbish - I'm comparing "fanatics" who dance in the street at the horrors of yesterday, with thugs who deliberately set out to terrorise people at football matches and stir up racial tension.
Who's worse?
> Noooo, you're mistaking fanaticism with lively patriotism ;)
Rubbish - I'm comparing "fanatics" who dance in the street at the horrors of yesterday, with thugs who deliberately set out to terrorise people at football matches and stir up racial tension.
Who's worse?
I agree wholly with loki - you can't punish ill-informed idiots for celebrating. That's not a crime.
But if their country is effectively at war with the US, then the US and the Western World must decide what action to take against that country.
By the way, if I were a Palistinian then I reckon I might be a "bit miffed" at having my house torn down (or worse) by Isreali forces in occupied land touting weapons provided by so-called democratic countries.
But if their country is effectively at war with the US, then the US and the Western World must decide what action to take against that country.
By the way, if I were a Palistinian then I reckon I might be a "bit miffed" at having my house torn down (or worse) by Isreali forces in occupied land touting weapons provided by so-called democratic countries.
Turbonutter wrote:
> What you've got to consider is, what are the gains of killing
> terrorists. If, say, you kill 10,000 terrorists because they killed
> 40 people, then that's wrong. However, I doubt that 10,000
> terrorists were involved yesterday, so in my opinion, neutralising
> the people responsible for this, althought not morally right, is the
> best course of action.
Thus martyring them and encouraging more attacks. Unfortunately, killing terrorists as an example only serves to entice other terrorists, or would be ones, to take action. Capturing them and then making them appologise (if possible) on international TV would be the ideal situation, but if that is not possible, then keeping them locked up in only the most basic conditions would serve as both a sentence and a reminder to others without making the original terrorists seem like gods or martyrs to their faith.
> What you've got to consider is, what are the gains of killing
> terrorists. If, say, you kill 10,000 terrorists because they killed
> 40 people, then that's wrong. However, I doubt that 10,000
> terrorists were involved yesterday, so in my opinion, neutralising
> the people responsible for this, althought not morally right, is the
> best course of action.
Thus martyring them and encouraging more attacks. Unfortunately, killing terrorists as an example only serves to entice other terrorists, or would be ones, to take action. Capturing them and then making them appologise (if possible) on international TV would be the ideal situation, but if that is not possible, then keeping them locked up in only the most basic conditions would serve as both a sentence and a reminder to others without making the original terrorists seem like gods or martyrs to their faith.
Tony wrote:
> Wòókiee Møn§Ý€R wrote:
> as
> long as people this fanatical exist, they are a danger.
Would
> this include England Football Hooligans?
Noooo, you're mistaking fanaticism with lively patriotism ;)
> Wòókiee Møn§Ý€R wrote:
> as
> long as people this fanatical exist, they are a danger.
Would
> this include England Football Hooligans?
Noooo, you're mistaking fanaticism with lively patriotism ;)
Wòókiee Møn§Ý€R wrote:
> as long as people this fanatical exist, they are a danger.
Would this include England Football Hooligans?
> as long as people this fanatical exist, they are a danger.
Would this include England Football Hooligans?
Page: