Jump to content

Russia


whelk
 Share

Referendum on Moscow to officially become territory of Wales  

36 members have voted

  1. 1. Referendum on Moscow to officially become territory of Wales

    • Da!
      33
    • Net!
      3


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Why have you brought atheism into it? This has nothing at all to do with atheism.

Sweeping generalisations based on nationality and blanket bans are not a good thing.

If a South African publicly came out in support of Apartheid or a Russian comes out in support of the war then a ban can be justified. But to ban someone for something they have no fault in causing is ridiculous. 

So you are actually saying the Apartheid era banning of Athletes was wrong and shouldn't have happened?

Fucking hell you are an oddball.

Edited by CB Fry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, farawaysaint said:

Sidenote I was born in apartheid South Africa and if I am telling you that banning some of the greatest sportsmen we have ever produced is a good idea I may know more about it than you.

That is deeply flawed.

1) You don't need to be born in South Africa to know Apartheid was abhorrent 

2) Banning someone for something they have no influence over (the actions of their President) is abhorrent 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're on a loser here MLG, your analogies are getting more bizarre with every post. Regarding Wimbledon I think the possibility of a trophy being handed to a Russian by a member of our royal family while we are sending lethal aid to kill their countrymen could look a little... awkward? The LTA did consult with No.10 apparently and this is the line the UK are taking, it's a symbolic gesture of support for Ukraine, not a personal vendetta. It perhaps would have been amusing to see Russian players driven off court by a barrage of strawberries but there it is.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

That is deeply flawed.

1) You don't need to be born in South Africa to know Apartheid was abhorrent 

2) Banning someone for something they have no influence over (the actions of their President) is abhorrent 

But that puts you in a position where you don’t impose any sanctions on anyone except Putin. The athletes get to compete, the oligarchs keep their yachts and the average Russian on the street gets to go to McDonald’s. You can’t separate those supporting the war and those opposing it so you need a blanket policy on the whole country until they change their ways. Every single Russian needs to know they are international pariahs.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

But that puts you in a position where you don’t impose any sanctions on anyone except Putin. The athletes get to compete, the oligarchs keep their yachts and the average Russian on the street gets to go to McDonald’s. You can’t separate those supporting the war and those opposing it so you need a blanket policy on the whole country until they change their ways. Every single Russian needs to know they are international pariahs.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

That is deeply flawed.

1) You don't need to be born in South Africa to know Apartheid was abhorrent 

2) Banning someone for something they have no influence over (the actions of their President) is abhorrent 

Every time anybody posts something you disagree with it is "deeply flawed,". Have you ever thought that on occasion you might be out of touch with the general attitude, and possibly your own position is 'flawed' ?

( Cue response attempting to trigger a circular argument ).

 

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not acceptable to have a country at war competing in international events while their government condones the mass killing and raping of civilians.

In these circumstances most rational people would probably agree that a tennis club ban used as a tool to further pressure their government, is not abhorrent. 

But I suspect I'll be corrected.

 

  • Like 4
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

That is deeply flawed.

1) You don't need to be born in South Africa to know Apartheid was abhorrent 

2) Banning someone for something they have no influence over (the actions of their President) is abhorrent 

You've gone full on batshit recently Matthew. Perhaps have a think before you post some of the stuff that fills your head. Just a thought. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm uncomfortable with the notion that you can make an individual responsible for the actions of a 'ruler' who they may not have voted for and may disagree with their actions.  I understand that sanctions must happen to Russia, and that they have to affect those within Russia, but to penalise individuals competing in events outside of the country without even asking their opinion seems heavy handed.  A better solution might be to give them the option to play as 'independents', giving up their association with Russia, perhaps replacing the flag of their country with some sort of anti-war symbol.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Manuel said:

I'm uncomfortable with the notion that you can make an individual responsible for the actions of a 'ruler' who they may not have voted for and may disagree with their actions.  I understand that sanctions must happen to Russia, and that they have to affect those within Russia, but to penalise individuals competing in events outside of the country without even asking their opinion seems heavy handed.  A better solution might be to give them the option to play as 'independents', giving up their association with Russia, perhaps replacing the flag of their country with some sort of anti-war symbol.  

And if they win their national media/ propaganda crows about how great their nation and especially their President is.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Manuel said:

I'm uncomfortable with the notion that you can make an individual responsible for the actions of a 'ruler' who they may not have voted for and may disagree with their actions.  I understand that sanctions must happen to Russia, and that they have to affect those within Russia, but to penalise individuals competing in events outside of the country without even asking their opinion seems heavy handed.  A better solution might be to give them the option to play as 'independents', giving up their association with Russia, perhaps replacing the flag of their country with some sort of anti-war symbol.  

There are victims in any war. Spare your sympathies for those that deserve it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

And if they win their national media/ propaganda crows about how great their nation and especially their President is.

It's been done already with this Olympic Athletes of Russia doping bullsh*t. It's an absolute non-punishment and utterly meaningless, as you say they just carry on like nothing happened.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

And if they win their national media/ propaganda crows about how great their nation and especially their President is.

That's a possibility but I think it could be overcome by the measures that effectively renounce the country, which they must accept before playing.  No flag, anti-war symbol etc.  Why aren't they showing our flag? Russian viewers would surely ask.  Perhaps there are better measures that we could think of for them to renounce the war but I'm sure it could be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Manuel said:

Surely we should be looking to reduce the number of victims.

We are, this is all about trying to pressure Russia into ending the war. If enough people suffer enough hardship, they may start to question whether Putin's narrative really has their best interests at heart. Just for context, Russian suffering is not playing at Wimbledon or flying to Ibiza on holiday. Ukrainian suffering is being raped and killed. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

We are, this is all about trying to pressure Russia into ending the war. If enough people suffer enough hardship, they may start to question whether Putin's narrative really has their best interests at heart. Just for context, Russian suffering is not playing at Wimbledon or flying to Ibiza on holiday. Ukrainian suffering is being raped and killed. 

I get that.  I just think it might give individuals who happen to have been born in that country the opportunity to publicly renounce what is going on, which might also produce some pressure.  I understand it's easier to have a blanket ban and perhaps it will send a stronger message.  Perhaps that trumps the rights of individuals from that country to have their own perspective on the matter and to have that aired.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Manuel said:

That's a possibility but I think it could be overcome by the measures that effectively renounce the country, which they must accept before playing.  No flag, anti-war symbol etc.  Why aren't they showing our flag? Russian viewers would surely ask.  Perhaps there are better measures that we could think of for them to renounce the war but I'm sure it could be done.

The narrative in Russia would simply be that the Western conspiracy has led to their athletes being blackmailed into renouncing their heritage. You have to remember that exposure to non-state controlled media outlets is practically non-existent. The vast majority of the Russian population believe that they are fighting a war of liberation to free their Slavic brethren from expansionist NATO/EU aggression aimed at destroying Russia's national identity.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

The UK had an illegal war in Iraq, should Tim Henman have been banned from tennis because of the actions of Tony Blair?

What a thick as shit analogy. 
 

Russians aren’t banned from competing in Russia are they? 
 

Many countries were involved in that Iraq war in one way or another.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

What a thick as shit analogy. 
 

1) Russians aren’t banned from competing in Russia are they? 
 

2) Many countries were involved in that Iraq war in one way or another.

1) How is that relevant to my post?

2) Again, how is that relevant to my post? 

I think you've imagined I've said something I haven't actually said. You may need to look closer to home for your first statement!

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

Think Wimbledon decision is wrong personally. Fair enough to ban Russia from Davis cup etc but on tour players are playing as individuals not officially representing their country.

That misses the point. If Russian people feel the pain, particularly profile people, that will lead to pressure on the Russian government. Frankly, I don't understand how anyone can advocate the need to be all sweet and kind to Russian sports people when their government are smashing the shit out of Ukraine and its people. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, egg said:

1) That misses the point. If Russian people feel the pain, particularly profile people, that will lead to pressure on the Russian government.

2) Frankly, I don't understand how anyone can advocate the need to be all sweet and kind to Russian sports people when their government are smashing the shit out of Ukraine and its people. 

1) Perhaps... in a proper democracy. But Russia is effectively a dictatorship, Putin isn't going to lose an election and be voted out of power by the people. A military coup perhaps might do it!

2) How about because they aren't one and the same? Sports people aren't the government! They have spent their lives training for sports events, the actions of Putin shouldn't ruin it for them. A ban is deserved if they openly support the war, but otherwise you are punishing the innocent for the actions of the guilty. In what other walk of life is that acceptable?

Edited by Matthew Le God
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

1) Perhaps... in a proper democracy. But Russia is effectively a dictatorship, Putin isn't going to lose an election and be voted out of power by the people

2) How about because they aren't one and the same. Sports people aren't the government

You're on full on "whoosh" mode mate. Others have spelt it out and I won't repeat it. I

I'm genuinely unsure if you're just an idiot or deliberately contrary on important/sensitive stuff, but I ain't wasting my time debating with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, egg said:

You're on full on "whoosh" mode mate. Others have spelt it out and I won't repeat it. I

I'm genuinely unsure if you're just an idiot or deliberately contrary on important/sensitive stuff, but I ain't wasting my time debating with you. 

Try giving a response to both my points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) Perhaps... in a proper democracy. But Russia is effectively a dictatorship, Putin isn't going to lose an election and be voted out of power by the people. A military coup perhaps might do it!

2) How about because they aren't one and the same. Sports people aren't the government!

Other than Vlad himself, who else woul;d you sanction ?

Remember, it has to hurt enough to convince them that the "special military operation" might actually not be such a good idea as it seemed at the outset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Try giving a response to both my points. 

I'd rather not mate. Others have made the points and you're clueless on stuff like this so discussion is futile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

1) Other than Vlad himself, who else woul;d you sanction ?

2) Remember, it has to hurt enough to convince them that the "special military operation" might actually not be such a good idea as it seemed at the outset.

1) The oligarchs

2) Hurting innocent tennis players doesn't influence the resolve of the regime to pursue an illegal war of aggression. It punishes innocent athletes who are punished simply for being citizens of a country with an evil dictator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, egg said:

That misses the point. If Russian people feel the pain, particularly profile people, that will lead to pressure on the Russian government. Frankly, I don't understand how anyone can advocate the need to be all sweet and kind to Russian sports people when their government are smashing the shit out of Ukraine and its people. 

Don’t see how punishing individuals based on ancestry who may not currently live in Russia at events where they wouldn’t be officially representing Russia is right or puts the slightest pressure on the Russian govt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

Don’t see how punishing individuals based on ancestry who may not currently live in Russia at events where they wouldn’t be officially representing Russia is right or puts the slightest pressure on the Russian govt.

We see it differently and I struggle to see how anyone can feel a grievance on behalf of a few tennis players when their government are smashing up another country, displacing millions, and its soldiers are behaving as they are. Even if you're right that the pressure will be minimal, why would you give a monkeys about the sports people in the circumstances? Seems the wrong place for sympathy for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kyle04 said:

It's been nearly 2 months now, have any of these sportsmen/women publicly condemned Russia's actions? Genuine question.

There was that lad who did the Nazi salute whilst circumventing the sanctions by pretending to be Italian if that counts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) Perhaps... in a proper democracy. But Russia is effectively a dictatorship, Putin isn't going to lose an election and be voted out of power by the people. A military coup perhaps might do it!

2) How about because they aren't one and the same? Sports people aren't the government! They have spent their lives training for sports events, the actions of Putin shouldn't ruin it for them. A ban is deserved if they openly support the war, but otherwise you are punishing the innocent for the actions of the guilty. In what other walk of life is that acceptable?

OK, responding to both your points;

1) Perhaps the instigation of a putsch/coup by destabilising the country is what the West are aiming for - it is the logical solution. If everybody hurts, eventually they will start questioning the bollocks that state media is spouting and start to realise the reality of the situation, especially the family and friends of those who have been converted into sunflower fertiliser.

2) The entire country has to be seen as an international pariah. As I posted earlier, if they come out and condemn Putin and his SMO then the Russian media will simply twist it as them being forced to deliver a false narrative - yet more evidence of the West's anti-Russian campaign.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, egg said:

There was that lad who did the Nazi salute whilst circumventing the sanctions by pretending to be Italian if that counts. 

Must have been an Ukrainian plant surely, countries overrun with them apparently, nearly 2.2% of the last vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, egg said:

We see it differently and I struggle to see how anyone can feel a grievance on behalf of a few tennis players when their government are smashing up another country, displacing millions, and its soldiers are behaving as they are. Even if you're right that the pressure will be minimal, why would you give a monkeys about the sports people in the circumstances? Seems the wrong place for sympathy for me. 

Because i’m capable of having sympathy for 2 things at the same time. Because I dislike the thin edge of the wedge where it’s deemed acceptable to come after someone for dubious reasoning related to their ancestry.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...