Comments on: FIFA’s Weird Standards

By: bryan

bryan — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:04:30 +0000

Actually, I’m glad the USA doesn’t have a toe-hold on Association Football, because then it would probably become shit. Budweiser who, along with Coke and McDonalds, do a lot of sponsorship in this sport even make joke adverts about it (You do the football, we”ll do the sponsorship).
I do pity the fact that you may have never seen the true on-field artistry of the Brazilians, or Beckham, Rooney, Pele, Zidane, Thierry Henry, van Nistleroy, and etc. A long list of great players and teams and games. I support England (where I live), then Eire (my parents’ country) then the other three home nations. England won the World Cup in 1966, the rest never have. I don’t just like a sport because we are the best in the world at it; a criticism levied against the most popular US sports.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 06:04:21 +0000

There is no way on God s green earth that that statement could be interpreted to mean that they were considering a positive action.

The results speak for themselves. What action did they take?

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 05:04:31 +0000

zadura: Have you got relatives working at the UN or something?
If it’s really upsetting you when I say the UN is full of anti – semites; and it is, I won’t say anything about the maaahvelous UN.
Durn, some people have some strange hangups, but UNaphilia, that’s a new one on me.
pathologically incapable of arguing without resorting to analogy.
First of all, using analogies is a perfectly acceptable means to either make a point or to teach. Why you would use a totally inappropriate adverb like “patholological” to describe their use is totally beyond me.
Do you always feel the need, like some Freudianesque Norm Crosby, to misuse psychological terms?
Oh, no! I’ve gone and used another analogy!

By: z_adura

z_adura — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 01:04:28 +0000

Frank, you are simply pathologically incapable of arguing without resorting to analogy. How else can explain you going from arguing about whether FIFA is anti-semitic to trying to untangle baseball and the Ivy League. There is a false equivalence. Just because your front yard is flat doesn’t mean the earth is flat and FIFA =! UN.

If you don’t like the fact that FIFA is paying to replace a field in Palestinian Territories, fine. If you don’t like the fact that they have long, long supported Israel, fine. If you want to call them anti-semitic, fine. Argue the merits of each of these points if you haven’t given up on them, but please do not continue to equate them either in means or ends with the UN.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 01:04:03 +0000

Even you don’t believe that.

This thread is becoming more and more fantastic (in its conventional meaning) by the minute.

There is no way on God’s green earth that that statement could be interpreted to mean that they were considering a positive action.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:04:15 +0000

FIFA said Friday it is considering possible action over the air strike.

And they did take action. Only it wasn’t “against” anybody. They offered to rebuild the soccer field.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 22:04:46 +0000

If, indeed, the IFA claims that the media reports which suggested that FIFA was about to place sanctions on Israel& completely unfounded , I think that means the reports were unfounded, in their opinion;

Great Scott!

What do you mean, “if”? Frame gave you a link. You can look at the IFA website for yourself and see that they think the “media reports” (the NRO article) was unfounded. In fact, the IFA seems to think the NRO dirtied the reputation of a FIFA official who has been very supportive of soccer in Israel.

That’s not good enough to do away with the “if”, Frank?

Just a few posts back, you were insisting that the “condemnation” of Israel must have existed on the FIFA website–and that FIFA had “memory holed” it–because one writer insinuated it.

Incidentally, doesn t the Jerusalem Post count as a news outlet, or are they making the story up, too?

Never mind that the NRO story is substantially different from the J-Post story. The Post story doesn’t claim that there was a condemnation. It doesn’t claim that FIFA is considering action “against Israel.” And the Post article quotes the IDF as saying the Gaza soccer field was deliberately targeted to “send a message” to Palestinian civilians, something that the NRO fails to mention.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 22:04:40 +0000

Feh. Bad tag.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:04:53 +0000

If, indeed, the IFA claims that the “media reports which suggested that FIFA was about to place sanctions on Israel… ‘completely unfounded’ , I think that means the reports were unfounded, in their opinion; not that they hate Israel.
But that’s just me.
zadura: Give it up already. I have neither a “paranoid need to criticize FIFA,” nor any other kind of “need” to criticize FIFA. {Aside: exactly how is a need “paranoid”? Discuss.}
If A does B to C, and D does B to C, then A’s behavior is similar to D’s, irrespective of the types of organizations they are.
When Major League Baseball discriminated against blacks, were they doing something different from the Ivy League Schools were doing, when they discriminated against blacks?
Or was it different because one is an informal organization of educational institutions, and the other a bunch of colleges?
Incidentally, doesn’t the Jerusalem Post count as a news outlet, or are they making the story up, too?
And, by the way, the UN is sensationally anti – Israel, so if it seems that FIFA is, too, it’s a perfectly legitimate comparison.
Why are you pretending that I’m finding anti – Israel organizations all over the landscape, when all I’m saying is that FIFA applied a double standard to Israel, and so has the UN.
Both statements are true. It takes no particular expertise in logic to say, “A is true, and so is B.”

By: frameone

frameone — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:04:00 +0000

I guess the Israel Football Assocatioan hates Isreal too:

“Israel Football Association Chairman Izhak Iche Menahem said on Saturday that media reports which suggested that FIFA was about to place sanctions on Israel in response to last week`s bombardment by Israeli artillery of Gaza`s main stadium were “completely unfounded” …

It should be noted that ties between FIFA and the IFA are
excellent as are relations between senior officials from both bodies.

Indeed, the IFA has very close and continual dealings on a close personal level with FIFA President Sepp Blatter, General Secretary Urs Linsi and with Champagne.

Menahem, emphasised that Champagne is a true friend of Israeli Football, his wife is Jewish and he always tries to help the IFA.

Indeed, Champagne was personally involved in the decision in 2004 to allow Israeli national teams and clubs return to host matches on home soil.

“Israeli football has not forgotten and will never forget the support
of Jerome Champagne and of FIFA`s officials. The IFA and FIFA will continue to maintain the spirit of sport and will continue to work for good coexistence and peace between the nations in the region,” Menahem said.

The IFA wishes to emphasise that it always views positively FIFA`s requests to assist the Palestinians and has often intervened with the Israeli authorities to help arrange travel permits for Palestinian national team players to travel to international matches.

The IFA also tries to assist in other matters concerning Palestinian sports and their sports officials.”

http://www.israel-football.org.il/articles/index.asp?story=853

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:04:58 +0000

Doesn t this argument imply they don t care if people play in Kibbutz Karmiya?

It might.

On the other hand, it might imply that the Israeli soccer field wasn’t destroyed. Or maybe that it wasn’t targeted (it was hit with a Kassam, after all). Or that the people at the Kibbutz can still play.

Or it might mean that FIFA is a bunch of pro-Palestinian, Jew-hating, terrorist-supporting, Nazi-loving fascists.

Which seems more likely to you?

By: Hedley

Hedley — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:04:07 +0000

If the Palestinians don’t have a nation then how do they have a prime minister? How is it that they have just elected a terrorist organization commited to the destruction of Israel to rule (and thus, the Palestinian people are declaring that they are commited to the destruction of Israel)? Who are the Saudis paying all those millions in aid to?

So if a nation doesn’t exist the UN is barred from issuing a Resolution condemning the terroist actions of a particular group of people? The UN issued a Resolution declaring 2008 the Year of the Potato but they can’t condemn the Palestinian terrorists?

By: z_adura

z_adura — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:04:31 +0000

Frank, it’s not worth noting all the logical fallacies that creep into your arguments, but it might be worth pointing out that you are “arguing by analogy.” It doesn’t help you. It gives the appearance of a lame argument, which you have. Just because FIFA has jurisdiction over many countries does not make it like the UN. Neither should it be branded with any of the UN’s faults nor praised for any successes.

FIFA has recognized and supported soccer in Israel since its inception in 1948, and Israel participated in World Cup preliminaries since 1949. If FIFA or any of its representatives ever “condemned” Israel for bombing an empty soccer field in Palistinian Territories, they sure didn’t make a very public demonstration of that fact. They simply set out to rebuild the field. I fail to see why you have a paranoid need to criticize FIFA. You don’t do anything for Jews, Israel or your own argument by trying to find a bogeyman in every international organization.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:04:46 +0000

Here’s the difference between FIFA and the UN:
One organization involves kicking each others’ balls, and although they are an international organization, they really have little or nothing to do with changing international policy.
The other organization sponsors the World Cup.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:04:08 +0000

zadura: Who said I was unable to “separate the UN from other international organizations”, and I don’t see why it would be “bizarre,” if the behaviors are identical.
So yes it is an appropriate target.
Once again, we have one of those lame liberal defenses: This isn’t really important, so just go along with us.
As if I would (need or want to) follow your recommendation. Why?

By: AlexCorrigan

AlexCorrigan — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:04:43 +0000

Correction for message below: the Palestinians have a nation, but they do not have a state. Big difference.

By: AlexCorrigan

AlexCorrigan — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:04:23 +0000

Next you ll say that the UN hasn t issued nearly annual resolutions condemning Israel for their zionism while mentioning nothing aboutblowing up discos, weddings, buses, etc.?

Between 1955 and 1992, the UN issued 68 resolutions against Israel. How many have been issued against the Palestinians? NONE. Why? Because the Palestinians don’t have a NATION; they are an occupied people. The occupation is illegal, and the way it is handled is also illegal. At any rate, since the Israelis are the occupiers, they have certain responsibilities that they have been illegally ignoring.

If you want to see the UN issue resolutions against the Palestinians for the actions of some of their pissed-off and desperate people, then you should write your congressmen and ask them to demand that Israel end the occupation. Then you can demand that the U.S. help build a sovereign Palestinian state, as it helped build Israel. Once the Palestinians have their state, then the UN can issue resolutions against any violence they carry out against Israel.

By: JWG

JWG — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:04:05 +0000

I guess they should have sent a letter to the Palestinian ambassador too. If Palestine had any ambassadors.

http://www.palestine-un.org/dir/emb.html

They asked for an explanation of why the Gaza soccer field was hit because they want people in Gaza to play soccer! Imagine!

Doesn't this argument imply they don't care if people play in Kibbutz Karmiya?

By: bryan

bryan — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:04:17 +0000

In 1863, some men met in the Mason’s arms in London to thrash out the rules for what the rest of the world calls football. They became the Football Association. the original rules stopped players from attaching gutta percha or nails to ones boots (football wars in medieval times allowed anything).
THIS IS THE WORLD’S MOST POPULAR SPORT. It’s fairly simple to play. American football is like ww1 trench warfare IMO (back a little, forward a little), and seems constantly to be stopping.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 04:04:53 +0000

There’s plenty more than that wrong with the NRO piece.

The writer complians that FIFA didn’t raise a fuss about Uday Hussein torturing the Iraqi soccer team. What the writer forgets to mention is when that information became known.

The writer says FIFA plans to “take action against Israel,” but he doesn’t quote any person or any document that actually says so.

The writer claims that the Afghan soccer coach witnessed Taliban executions during soccer games, but quotes an article that reports that soccer has “finally returned” to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban.

And Frank: FIFA is not part of the UN, or vice versa.