Yeah - they’re not good people.
Would you be okay with state or state-backed ownership?
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
- Status
Yeah - they’re not good people.
That says more about the lack of morals amongst Geordies and city fans. Most football fans would happily have Putin buy their club if it meant winning a few trophies.
Noted.
That’s a fair position that I can respect.
For the record, I’ll get giddy if/when the Glazers sell whether it’s SJ, SJR or Zillifeckingacus
Respect for having the debate, especially from my admittedly unreasonable starting position!
Noted.
That’s a fair position that I can respect.
For the record, I’ll get giddy if/when the Glazers sell whether it’s SJ, SJR or Zillifeckingacus
Respect for having the debate, especially from my admittedly unreasonable starting position!
Same here mate I'm delighted they look to be finally fecking off. The cnuts have destroyed what was the best run club on the planet.
I'm not excited about Jim's bid anymore as the details of his proposal have got worse the longer this has went on. Jassim's would be great and I'd be 100% behind it if it really was just some wealthy bloke who wants to spend his Dad's money. Though sadly I don't believe he's anything other than a front for a the Qatari state but I live in hope that he isn't.
And I'm not against state ownership specifically from the middle east, I'd be against United being owned by any country looking to use United as a political tool.
But the very same people who get giddy at the prospect of Qatari ownership,
might very well be people who do tons of stuff for mankind- be it feeding homeless people, helping the elderly cross a road safely, volunteering for the environment and whatnot...
while at the same time, turning a blind eye to the fact that Qatar is shady as feck and is involved in many horrendous stuff around the world.
How would you rate the morals of these people?
to me, there's nothing superior in loathing the idea of Qatari ownership (where I'm at as a supporter). It's just so that in this specific subject my nerves are hit and this makes me belong in the category that for some is 'the right one'. But then, I also ignore plenty of stuff in my personal life that I should protest for/against.
I constantly ignore the majority of stuff that has to do with basic human rights in my country and surrounding.
just living my life. making ends meet. blah blah.
and that's true for every poster around here.
Agreed. I bet EtH would get giddy when GW scoring 50 goals for United. And he'd get giddy also if he has 300m to spend on players every seasons under Qataries.
But I won't be judging that he's not a "good people" though.
How would I rate the morals of hypothetical people?
Yeah because as human beings we only have so much bandwidth. And can't be actively aware/against every injustice in the world. But there's a difference between choosing to ignore something and actively supporting it.
What you've described is normal human behaviour and will be the position of everyone against state ownership. Conversely it quite often isn't the position of a lot of the pro Qatar fans who engage in whataboutism and insist that unless you care deeply and protest against every injustice in the world then you have no right to voice your concerns about any of them. A stupid argument that is regularly pushed on here.
Who?
MG I think.
Never seen someone initial the syllables in a person's surname before.
It’s a new level of cryptic.
So according to your logic, if someone is a good husband, a good father, a good son and a good friend, does charitable work or sponsors a charity, but supports Qatar bid, then he is a bad person.
The moral high horse of some posters is ridiculous.
I know a few MAGA people who are like that, yet support Trump and want to overthrow the government.
You can be good and all kinds of bad at the same time, simple.
Supporting the Qatar bid is, well all kinds of hypocritical and/or pathetic.
Why pathetic? If you want your club to win so bad you are willing to overlook the atrocious behaviour of the State trying to buy the club, well that is pathetic. Nothing going on in your life perhaps.
Gason Wreenwood
Tbf you and Wum are getting tedious with this and it’s becoming divisive.
You’re now responding to decent, well put, nuanced posts from people who want the best for Utd and happen to have a different view than you and you’re telling them they’re ‘bad people’.
It’s binary and divisive and reeks of throwing your toys out the pram.
@ScholesyTheWise showed earlier that you can be anti-Jassim without acting like a pompous, sanctimonious bellend and tbh it seems increasingly likely that this approach will be needed by a lot more people if the takeover goes through.
I think the problem is that everyone is trying to fit everything into a nice box. Life never ever turns out that way. Most of us will have contradictory ways. And not binary.
Thats why you find the dogmatic views of many here -- unwilling to accept our own contradictory views.
Last edited:
Which sport/club will you move on to when SJ finally owns the club?
No. That is literally not what I said.
Gason will probably be playing in Serie A by September.
Probably preparing him to make a comeback at United?
Feed them to the wolves
Glazers in
Doubt it, just kicking the can down the road for the next owners to make the decision most likely.
You can do whatever good deeds you need to do to satisfy yourself, but you are still supporting a regressive aristocracy taking over a cultural institution without question. It's no wonder the world is regressing back to a feudal society.
Ironic that you are just like the extremist Trump supporters - ignorant to the facts and spreading fake news about Sheikh Jassim
Plus a large dose of racism thrown in for good measure ...
I don’t think I’m the one overlooking facts about Qatar, mate.
You won‘t be able to accuse me of racism based on one unfortunate offensive term I used: criticizing a country for wrongdoing doesn‘t make you a racist. Like being critical of Israel‘s treatment of Palestinians doesn‘t mean someone is anti-semitic.
I think overlooking homophobia homophobia and human rights violations is
hard to explain to people affected by it.
‚I just want my club to win‘.
Our world is imperfect to put it mildly, but lines should be drawn somewhere.
Let's be clear, you were not taking abot a country in that racist post (for which you were lucky to just get a temporary ban IMO) - you were specifically talking about Sheikh Jassim
You also spread absolute lies about who Sheikh Jassim is
I haven't seen anything from you to apologise or retract these lies and defamatory statements
Or perhaps you think all Qataris are 'mysogenistic homophobic goatfeckers'? Or maybe all Arabs even?
Aligns you closely to the most extreme of Trump supporters
Kindly post what I have said about Sheikh Jassim that is not correct?
I have a problem with homophobes and human rights violators, be they Arab, white or green.
I kind of don't want to judge books on their covers and see room for growth, but it still irks to see something like this. Still, with something like Glazers or any big money corporation, etc. you don't get that much more certainty surrounding human rights. One of the reasons Saudi Arabia gets to violate its neighbors is still their partnerships with the US and many European countries, partly through rich organizations trying to stay rich. So, at first glance INEOS would be a more comfortable transition, but is that story so much better?
The biggest actual problem with being an ambassador to a state is that all your capability to be critical of human rights anywhere just drops and you'll have to cross your fingers the attention will also awaken a global concern for the state of that state's governing. But that's the same as global climate's approach of hoping technology will bail us out soon of having to give up all comfort.
The biggest actual problem with being an ambassador to a state is that all your capability to be critical of human rights anywhere just drops and you'll have to cross your fingers the attention will also awaken a global concern for the state of that state's governing. But that's the same as global climate's approach of hoping technology will bail us out soon of having to give up all comfort.
And your thoughts on petro-chemical companies that displace communities? & of whom a cursory search of ‘oil refineries and cancer’ return multiple articles on the health risks posed by such practices, not really great for human rights when people rock up & ruin where you’ve lived for generations. . .
It’s funny how posters like yourself virtue signal about human rights in one instance but remain so ignorant in others. You’re the worst cause you don’t actually care about the things you claim to, you’ve suddenly gained an interest, read a little & mouth off. Then when that doesn’t work, you make posts like the one that got you banned because it’s not really about what you claim.
You know nothing about what I know. Certainly INEOS is not clean, that does not mean I sanction crawling into bed with an autocratic abusive state.
My preference would be for fan ownership.
As long as it's not Glazers MK2, I don't give a toss about State ownership as long as they don't play fast and loose with the rules like City have. As for the human rights debate, well everybody in this country will have bought something from China who have the most shocking human rights record. Almost everything you buy will have a connection with China directly or indirectly. India too is a basket case when it come to human rights and they own Jaguar Land Rover and Steel Works so your beans come in steel cans made by an Indian company.
As do I and I'm sure the vast majority of those fans who prefer the Qatari bid do too
I already quoted your lies and misinformation above, in the same post with your casual racism
And I note you haven't retracted or apologied for the racist comment you were banned for, so clearly you stand by your Trumpesque descrimination - huge hypocrisy to then start talking about any kind of moral stance
Last edited:
Goatfeckers? The man deserves a perm ban.
If you feel like that - does that mean that no one can ever criticise anything ever then?
*Goatfecker* it was aimed specifically at Jassim - as was calling him a ‘mysogenist’ and a homophobe. He was personally attacking Jassim with this.
Also spreading untrue garbage that he’s the son of the former Emir and in line as ‘the next one’.
No offence to anyone, and this is of course just my dumb opinion, but let’s not kid ourselves, the thread title is about state ownership but the discussion is mostly about Arab ownership with the thought that Arab’s are bad / immoral / unethical and the notion that supporting a team that they invest in therefore supports their immoral / unethical activities and tarnishes us with their crimes.
Does that sound about right?
IMO of those vehemently against ‘Arab / state’ ownership, the litmus test that differentiates those who are just letting loose and throwing stones around in their glass houses and those who are genuinely opposed to such ownership on some kind of honest ethical grounds, is whether or not they hold mortgages, investments, bank accounts, pensions etc. with institutions and where those institutions put their money.
Who of us who has any kind of money in, or does any kind of business with, any minor or major financial institution, can honestly say that we’re not ourselves in some way supporting a situation that’s deeply immoral / unethical.
This could be via an investment in say; British Aerospace selling planes / weapons to Saudi Arabia, a parts manufacturer making castings that end up in cluster bombs, a contractor providing logistic support to one of the US torture camps in Guantanamo or elsewhere, an oil company - say no more, an airline that renders dissidents kidnapped by MI6 to Egypt where local security services can torture them for the USA, a car manufacturer selling limo’s to Russian oligarchs, even a luthier using rare hardwoods taken from tropical forests to make guitars or violins or a food manufacturer that destroys rainforests and drives native tribes and native animals to extinction by using palm oil or kills it’s customers by using high fructose syrup in it’s processed foods or a baby food manufacturers that uses lies in it’s advertising to convince poor women in Africa and India to use compound baby feeds where breast milk is much healthier and the drinking water that goes in the compounds routinely carries bacteria - thus, in effect, killing babies for profit etc. etc. etc.
From what I can see I’m guessing that of those opposing ‘state or Arab‘ ownership for ethical reasons, at least 99% have dirty hands themselves and, of those, at least 98% are choosing to deliberately ignore that so that their ironic jingoistic ranting can be shamelessly engaged in.
And I’m not making any claim that I’m some kind of deeply moral guy either. I openly admit it, my hands are filthy because I bank with First Direct, I have ISA’s with Barclays and I’ve not got a clue as to where every last penny I have invested in pensions via Standard Life end up on their journey around the stock markets.
On this basis I’m not being critical of where other folk have their money but I am suggesting that some honesty might be appropriate and if anyone wants to vent racism against Arabs then they should cease the very obvious and ridiculous farce of hiding their true motives and do so without falsely badging it as a matter of morals or ethics because we all know they haven’t made a moral or ethical stance in the way they live their own lives so are blatantly unfit to be critical of others who do similarly.
PS. Having read that back it looks quite ranty and I apologise for that but the gist of it is, I think, an undeniable truth that needed saying before we gather with our pitchforks and torches to completely deny reality, compound our practiced lies and descend down that slippy slope of stupidity into the depths of a rawk-like delusion.
Does that sound about right?
IMO of those vehemently against ‘Arab / state’ ownership, the litmus test that differentiates those who are just letting loose and throwing stones around in their glass houses and those who are genuinely opposed to such ownership on some kind of honest ethical grounds, is whether or not they hold mortgages, investments, bank accounts, pensions etc. with institutions and where those institutions put their money.
Who of us who has any kind of money in, or does any kind of business with, any minor or major financial institution, can honestly say that we’re not ourselves in some way supporting a situation that’s deeply immoral / unethical.
This could be via an investment in say; British Aerospace selling planes / weapons to Saudi Arabia, a parts manufacturer making castings that end up in cluster bombs, a contractor providing logistic support to one of the US torture camps in Guantanamo or elsewhere, an oil company - say no more, an airline that renders dissidents kidnapped by MI6 to Egypt where local security services can torture them for the USA, a car manufacturer selling limo’s to Russian oligarchs, even a luthier using rare hardwoods taken from tropical forests to make guitars or violins or a food manufacturer that destroys rainforests and drives native tribes and native animals to extinction by using palm oil or kills it’s customers by using high fructose syrup in it’s processed foods or a baby food manufacturers that uses lies in it’s advertising to convince poor women in Africa and India to use compound baby feeds where breast milk is much healthier and the drinking water that goes in the compounds routinely carries bacteria - thus, in effect, killing babies for profit etc. etc. etc.
From what I can see I’m guessing that of those opposing ‘state or Arab‘ ownership for ethical reasons, at least 99% have dirty hands themselves and, of those, at least 98% are choosing to deliberately ignore that so that their ironic jingoistic ranting can be shamelessly engaged in.
And I’m not making any claim that I’m some kind of deeply moral guy either. I openly admit it, my hands are filthy because I bank with First Direct, I have ISA’s with Barclays and I’ve not got a clue as to where every last penny I have invested in pensions via Standard Life end up on their journey around the stock markets.
On this basis I’m not being critical of where other folk have their money but I am suggesting that some honesty might be appropriate and if anyone wants to vent racism against Arabs then they should cease the very obvious and ridiculous farce of hiding their true motives and do so without falsely badging it as a matter of morals or ethics because we all know they haven’t made a moral or ethical stance in the way they live their own lives so are blatantly unfit to be critical of others who do similarly.
PS. Having read that back it looks quite ranty and I apologise for that but the gist of it is, I think, an undeniable truth that needed saying before we gather with our pitchforks and torches to completely deny reality, compound our practiced lies and descend down that slippy slope of stupidity into the depths of a rawk-like delusion.
Last edited:
I completely agree with BobFromParvia above but i will go further.
Ask City or Newcastle fans how they feel about being owned by a oil rich state.? Or ask Chelsea fans about Abramovich's ownership? then ask them to give up their trophies and have their records wiped out?
The reality is what we have now is just the tip of the iceberg, most governments including the UK government do business with oil rich states every day of the week, even to the point of selling arms to Saudi to be used in Yemen, how do you think they become so rich and powerful just remember the money they invest is the money we pay them for their oil, for 50 years oil rich states have been using that money buying up alternative tech and burying it in order to keep their oil fields flowing an in doing so killing our planet.
We all in our daily lives do business with oil rich states, if you are so against them, sell your cars any buy a peddle-bike, give up you overseas holidays and cruises, staycation instead, turn off your central heating, and install solar power, an stop using any crude oil based product. Oil rich states own billions of shares in western companies, many of us work for the companies they own or invest it, an lets not forget how Ratcliffe and INEOS make their money.
Either that or we all stop being hypocrites.
Ask City or Newcastle fans how they feel about being owned by a oil rich state.? Or ask Chelsea fans about Abramovich's ownership? then ask them to give up their trophies and have their records wiped out?
The reality is what we have now is just the tip of the iceberg, most governments including the UK government do business with oil rich states every day of the week, even to the point of selling arms to Saudi to be used in Yemen, how do you think they become so rich and powerful just remember the money they invest is the money we pay them for their oil, for 50 years oil rich states have been using that money buying up alternative tech and burying it in order to keep their oil fields flowing an in doing so killing our planet.
We all in our daily lives do business with oil rich states, if you are so against them, sell your cars any buy a peddle-bike, give up you overseas holidays and cruises, staycation instead, turn off your central heating, and install solar power, an stop using any crude oil based product. Oil rich states own billions of shares in western companies, many of us work for the companies they own or invest it, an lets not forget how Ratcliffe and INEOS make their money.
Either that or we all stop being hypocrites.
Last edited:
Absolutely!
And even more pathetic is the attempt to pretend they have some kind of moral superiority while throwing around racist slurs and pure lies
Last edited:
It's been established already by many around here that there's no way to be truly moral about anything.
For me as an Israeli, I'd have to give over the tiny 1/4 of acre I live on for people who're now refugees in Syria
and convince my friends and family to do the same before I could speak.
Then I'd have to go live in the Gaza Strip and defend civilian buildings with my body from plane bombardments. then I'd also have to spend every second of my free time to take part in demonstrations against Netanyahu trying to turn the state into something that has the potential to become a dictatorship. All this, and we still haven't gotten to talk about not using stuff that's been made in China...
How the feck do you win the moral battle with that? You just don't. You do what you can between trying to make ends meet, having some free time etc.
Same for you guys in whichever country you live in.
There's a question to be asked,
whether the strong disagreements that some (most?) Westerners have regarding certain rules a/o traditions in Muslim countries equals Islamophobia. I don't think it always does, and most times it isn't. And this term is thrown around rather loosely. It was the same with the WC in Qatar.
But, this doesn't mean that there's not at least some truth to what you said.
I think, if we were to be potentially bought by the state of Iceland or Finland [who, you'd like to think and probably be wrong about it, have a clean record regarding human rights etc],
You'd still see a lot of fans opposing the idea. There's every chance that you'll see way fewer people calling Icelandic people names that are the Nordic equivalent of 'goat feckers', but who knows. I can imagine the opposition to Icelandic ownership of United to be less vehement and leaning more towards the absolutely bizarre rather than plain wrong, which again solidifies your point to an extent.
Man United is meant to be one of the quickest, most powerful ways to escape the crappiness of our daily world for a couple of hours a week.
Most just don't want it directly related to images of women or LGBTQ being stoned to death. And this link is going to be made in the eyes of people around the world, whether you find this Islamophobic or not.
People just want United to remain rather English and privately owned, hence contributing to the horrors of the world in a more subtle way so to speak.
- Status