isrodger wrote:Rigger you was the one who took the moral high ground as regards Qatari ownership - fine your entitled to your view. My view is the Dirty money you refer to with reference to workers rights is the tip of the iceberg. The bigger issue being Islamic law and the intolerance that comes with it in the Middle East.
I think you can talk about one without the other.
The two are not intrinsically linked.
Human rights are why I object specifically to QSI.
Whatever the numbers, one person dying on the job when building the World Cup infrastructure is too many if it was a death that could've been prevented.
We're talking about our football club and a third party looking at investing so debating "Arab / muslim" states is irrelevant.
I'm not interested in who's boozing it up or paying for sex or whatever - that's not what this thread is about.
Leonickroberts wrote:
As a regular reader and irregular poster on here I'm tempted to ask the mods to close this thread, it's got totally out of hand and become both racist, xenophobic and deeply personal to other members. Not at all what I love about this forum and it's tolerance and inclusiveness.
Thanks for the input it's important what all members think.
I actually considered if we should close the thread when I read this morning.
Decided at this stage to let it go because believe the possible input of cash from Qatar merits a thread.
However I ask people to think what they post as we can't allow posts that can be deemed racist or irrelevant.
Keep your face always toward the sunshine - and shadows will fall behind you.
I'm not sure why the original poll was allowed to be posted with such a biased viewpoint and with provocative wording. It was hardly surprising that such a heated debate would follow.
MOT1964 wrote:I'm not sure why the original poll was allowed to be posted with such a biased viewpoint and with provocative wording. It was hardly surprising that such a heated debate would follow.
Again its good to hear all members views think reading the comments some see it same way as yourself others differently. That's the problem with policing things and in this instance I'm not sure the wording breaks forum guidelines.
Debate heated or not is one thing but using terms that can be seen as racist or using bad language is clearly against the forum rules.
Keep your face always toward the sunshine - and shadows will fall behind you.
To move this on and talk football does anyone else actually have concerns that they are PSG owners ?
I have two issues :-
1. First this could be a small cash input in return for us giving a few of their young prospects regular game time at a decent level (remember the Championship is arguably the 6th best league in Europe). If that was the case the would not want us promoted but just to become a feeder club.
2. They input the cash big time resulting in Promotion then eventually qualify for the Champions League (possibly to face PSG). Does anyone have concerns that they would have a vested interest in two clubs in the same competition ? Not sure if its allowed to be honest.
On a Positive note :-
Perhaps they see the English Premier as Europe's major league and want to join the party, we take centre stage and PSG become the support act.
Keep your face always toward the sunshine - and shadows will fall behind you.
rigger wrote:I don't think anyone else has mentioned religion at all in this thread apart from ISR.
Why bring up the term muslim at all ?
We're specifically talking here about Qatar but the argument against QSI's investment could extend to any of the petro-states in the area and none of that has to do with the Quran or Islam or religion at all.
Islamic law actually rides roughshod over Women’s, Workers, Religious & Homosexuals rights, however our politicians will happily glad hand the rulers of these countries, whilst protesting against the POTUS!
The bigger issue being Islamic law and the intolerance that comes with it in the Middle East.
ISR, do you actually know anything about 'Islamic law' or Islam as a whole? As has Sgt Pooly mentioned already, there are 2 billion Muslims worldwide - you really do need to be careful making sweeping statements like this about a quarter of the population of the planet. We all need to learn to separate the actions of states and companies from the faith and its followers.
As a regular reader and irregular poster on here I'm tempted to ask the mods to close this thread, it's got totally out of hand and become both racist, xenophobic and deeply personal to other members. Not at all what I love about this forum and it's tolerance and inclusiveness.
I second that, This thread started off okay and then it just went way off topic and descended into personal attacks and also attacks on other races of people. Honestly guys, I love this website and i know everyone tries to keep it clean most of the time, but in the past week, there were some harsh words said (without pointing fingers at anyone).
MOT1964 wrote:I'm not sure why the original poll was allowed to be posted with such a biased viewpoint and with provocative wording. It was hardly surprising that such a heated debate would follow.
That's purely my fault and I hold my hands up - I apologise for the wording and realise now it was heavy-handed.
I probably should have just given these three options :
1. Any investor willing to pump money into the club is fine by me
2. I'm open to any potential investors, but they should be vetted by the club before being allowed to become involved
3. Restrictions should be placed on potential investors to avoid future conflicts of interest and/or any with a record of human rights violations
rigger wrote:I don't think anyone else has mentioned religion at all in this thread apart from ISR.
Why bring up the term muslim at all ?
We're specifically talking here about Qatar but the argument against QSI's investment could extend to any of the petro-states in the area and none of that has to do with the Quran or Islam or religion at all.
Islamic law actually rides roughshod over Women’s, Workers, Religious & Homosexuals rights, however our politicians will happily glad hand the rulers of these countries, whilst protesting against the POTUS!
The bigger issue being Islamic law and the intolerance that comes with it in the Middle East.
ISR, do you actually know anything about 'Islamic law' or Islam as a whole? As has Sgt Pooly mentioned already, there are 2 billion Muslims worldwide - you really do need to be careful making sweeping statements like this about a quarter of the population of the planet. We all need to learn to separate the actions of states and companies from the faith and its followers.
As a regular reader and irregular poster on here I'm tempted to ask the mods to close this thread, it's got totally out of hand and become both racist, xenophobic and deeply personal to other members. Not at all what I love about this forum and it's tolerance and inclusiveness.
I’m sorry but you haven’t read my post have you - I have been absolutely clear in terms of specifically talking about Arabic Muslims. The reference to 2b people is inaccurate - in its widest context the population including migrant workers would be circa 350m. I take it you would agree that KSA and GCC countries fall into this category?
Now for the what I assume you refer to as the racist / xenophobic, however the accurate bit. These countries are governed by the strictest form of Islamic law. The law / state prevents many groups having the most basic of human rights. LGBT right are heavily suppressed, punishment can include death. There is little or no gender equality, and to a larger or lesser degree there is little religious freedom. Individuals are treated completely differently according to their ethnic and religious background. I believe I am factually correct, and I’m happy to give you many examples - however you deem me a racist for highlighting such cases. Clearly if you think these aspects of Islamic law are acceptable you are entitled to your opinion. However you can not in my opinion separate those states, conduct from religion, as their whole legal system and their practices as based upon sharia law.
Now back to the Football - I Welcomed Qatari investment; Rigger opposed it highlighting the Dirty Money and in particular issues re workers rights. I think there are wider issues than workers rights as highlighted above, and shared my concerns. From a purely ethical perspective I probably wouldn’t want any of those states anywhere near LUFC. However our politicians indirectly condone their conduct and continue to trade with them, so maybe I’d be happy to accept their money.
Last edited by isrodger on 10 Jun 2019, 15:44, edited 3 times in total.
isrodger wrote:
Now back to the Football - I Welcomed Qatari investment; Rigger opposed it highlighting the Dirty Money and in particular issues re workers rights. I think there are wider issues than workers rights as highlighted above, and shared my concerns. From a purely ethical perspective I probably wouldn’t want any of those states anywhere near LUFC. However our politicians indirectly condone their conduct and continue to trade with them, so maybe I’d be happy to accept their money.
Sorry ISR you start this paragraph with "Now back to the Football", which part of that is complicated ?
Keep your face always toward the sunshine - and shadows will fall behind you.
If you can hide behind the fact that the government "indirectly condones" the state you "wouldn't want .. anywhere near LUFC" then you must be morally corrupt ...
