Celtic Supporters Thread (contains GB chat)

Did the Bhoys manage to make it out of the stadium before picking a fight with someone or fighting among themselves? They usually struggle with that.

They’re *, wannabe ultras who don’t hold a candle to the GB or any other ultras group. Constantly causing trouble and a pain in the * to be around. It’s a shame they wouldn’t stay away tbh.

 

St.Pauli fans allegedly had a banner saying "From Gaza to Glasgow, fight Anti-Semitism". If the banner is real it's equating our fans' support of Palestine with anti-semitism, which is of course inaccurate. Given the history of Germany it's easy to see why Germans would be reluctant to criticise Israel.

 

Good on them for having the balls to say it.

There is a worrying growth in anti-semitism around the world, and it’s being disguised by things like anti-zionism etc. But many people are smart enough to see through this thin facade.

And yes, unfortunately some of our own fans are showing this worrying trend imo. This again, is the problem with allowing yourself to get sucked in by ignorant tribalism… some people within a group are going take it to extremes and devolve into naked prejudice and hatred of the “others”… it’s human nature particularly in large groups sadly.

 

There’s no goalposts being moved. I just happen to think that the suggestion Michael Davitt “wouldn’t like us now and would support Israel” is nonsense.

 

St. Pauli and Hapoel Tel Aviv have close ties. I’m assuming it stems from there.

 

Master Bateman back to criticise fans this time instead of the team.

 

I would say the exact opposite is true.. you can't criticise Israel without being branded antisemitic..

 

You genuinely think being against Zionism is just a front for anti-semitism? I honestly could not give a * about any kind of religion, but what I do give a * about is neo-colonialism and the forced removal of people from land they've lived on for generations. Nothing justifies that.

 

Then you must believe they are just morons/stupid then. I don't.
So because I don't believe them to be, thoughtless, morons and while it is circumstantial evidence, together its entirely adequate for a reasonable person to arrive at this conclusion based on the above.

 

This made me laugh more than it should have done tbh

 

Not at all. I think you'd have to be a moron to support a terror attack that killed 1,400 mostly civilians by an organisation whose carefully planned communications strategy is largely based on locating their major assets under civilian infrastructure like hospitals* in order to provoke mass casualty events of Palestinian civilians and cause understandable outrage throughout the Arab world (and non-West in general) that will perpetuate violence for generations to come. If they support a group that does that, that makes them morons for me.

That's why I want to see concrete evidence before believing it.


* Which doesn't let the IDF off the hook for their responsibility one bit. If HAMAS have arranged it so that you can't kill one of their senior commanders in the short-term without knowingly killing hundreds of civilians, you have to wait. Going ahead is still a war crime and your responsibility regardless.

 

Hundreds of Palestine kids and innocents being murdered every day by the Israeli war machine, free speech squashed, and international law flouted and ignored and saying anything about it makes you anti-Semitic apparently. Judging a repressive state by its actions is what's happening.

The only balls involved here are the bollocks you are talking.

 

If its true that Liel Abada confronted the celtic board. His national manager Branded celtic fans anti-semetic and said abada demanded the condemnation of GB which could have led to their ban from celtic Park like his national team manager has suggested then his time at celtic is done and should be sold in the next window!

 

I have had to use the un-ignore button to understand/properly follow this and while I can't speak for DD here but from my perspective the point is very clear - Twice what I said was purposefully twisted to misrepresent what I actually said, seems like that has been missed, or blatantly lied about to be more accurate, which is a regular and common theme for this individual poster to indulge in. I said "doubt" and "likely" whereas the contrarian try hard implied I said "would". So I absolutely did not say he would support Israel today, i just said he would likely support them. This was/is based on what he himself (Davitt) actually said/declared himself to be. Whereas what I have been accused of claiming is based on nothing more than a misrepresentation of what I actually said. A lie in short.

Tbh this is the total depth of analysis that was required at this stage tbh.

However, we can go further as you have done. So you are, obviously, correct to say its impossible to know what davitt would back today, given he is long dead, but it could well be argued, seeing as he declared himself to be a zionist, that he would remain one. So maybe give him some credit for standing by what he believed to be right..and seeing as he had a history of standing by his choices.. however misguided we now believe that to be*. You say he might have changed his mind due to the injustices we see today.. well I imagine the Zionists also believe they see injustices and that only confirms what they believe, he would also have seen the plight of the Jewish people and especially during the second world war.. more confirmation for him, in fact that could have simply reinforced his belief. Not so ridiculous now.

*Irrespective of what he would today think I'll be honest I couldn't really give a * if he was on my side or not as I'm capable of making my own decisions on the subject.. whereas some folk incredibly seem to be looking for additional credence/comfort from discovering he, may have, agreed with them... based on what, the fact he laid some grass and believed in Irish independence .. deary me. Talk about being bereft of individual thought.

Anyway Im looking forward to discovering whatever point was being alluded to with the question - "I wonder how Michael Davitt would see today's Celtic" Although I suspect it was nothing more than just pure * dullard waffle

 

Does anyone know where/when this interview was?

Very interesting if true, how our (Tory) board respond to this.

 

Indeed only an utter moron would come out and openly say this... However a non moron would be able to imply it and thats exactly the position we are in now.
Look at yourself RR if I replied to this post by simply asking - do you support hamas = You would, without hesitation, immediately say no, not ignore it.
To further highlight what I have just said - You have also went to the bother of adding a paragraph to clearly state the IDF absolutely still have a responsibility to not kill civilians, which every * posting in here must surely not need told.be aware of.. because if they didn't understand that there is zero chance they will have a grasp on any of this.

 

Israeli media mate claimed abada confronted the board too

 

Edit

To be honest, mate, I don't have a position on what he would think today. He's not a man who I think much about and you undoubtedly know more about him than I do; I was just defending Murphy from what seemed to me an unfair attack (not from you) by pointing out to the other person that none of us really knows for sure.