Celtic Supporters Thread (contains GB chat)

Blatant lies

 

The board: Don't bring Palestine flags to the game tomorrow or there will be consequences!

GB: Bring Palestine flags anyway

The board: Okay you are all banned

(Two week later)

Someone: Hmm it looks like Israel are committing genocide against Palestine

The board: By the way, that GB ban was nothing to do with Palestine. They had done some other things that annoyed us.

Double Dutch: Eats Celtic boards * and says it's delicious

 

* me scraping the barrel now. Just admit it mate, you tried to make up a blatant lie and got caught out. Inventing wee jackanories won't gloss over it am afraid.

 

I don't know what you're talking about. I think you're the only person on here that believes the narrative that the board are trying to twist.

 

The Celtic board are pathetic Tories who clamour for the approval of the others in their circle. They shat themselves with the Palestine display because they feared the reaction of media outlets and institutions riddled with their kind, Tory genocide apologists, who will never call out a rich allied nation, and banned the Green Brigade. They of course realise that these institutions and media outlets mean * all to the fans, the people who populate the stadium and pump money into the club and have to embarrassingly send out the world's longest club statement to supporter's emails lying through their teeth to insist it was never about Palestine because, like your standard Tory pig, they never actually own up to the rationale of anything they do, they insultingly just play their little game, even when you see through their bullshit

 

It's no rocket science mate, take your time.

 

Think this covers my reply for you -
The Club statement makes it crystal clear it was not to do with the flags, so you can either believe it or not, your choice, but Im not going to spend ages going over it.

Stick to rambling on about the orcs, even in this thread you bring them up ffs, as this seems to be your main priority.

 

I sometimes think they've taken too much control of the atmosphere.

 

‘victory to the resistance’

Hamas (UK: /həˈmæs/ hə-MASS, US: /həˈmɑːs/ ⓘ hə-MAHSS;[58] Arabic: حماس, romanized: Ḥamās, IPA: [ħaˈmaːs]),[59] an acronym of its official name, the Islamic Resistance Movement (حركة المقاومة الإسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah), is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist[60] political and military organization governing the Gaza Strip of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.[61] Headquartered in Gaza City, it also has a presence in the West Bank (the larger of the two Palestinian territories), in which its secular rival Fatah exercises control.

Yea i can see how it doesn't necessarily follow…… Im just not sure in what parallel universe I would need to be in.


The board have made errors in dealing with this, for example, asking that no Palestinian flags be displayed was daft as that played into the gb's hands, as we can see from those lumping onto the Palestine flags being the reason for the ban as they ignore the safety breaches etc.

 

No bother mate

 

Just checked the actual wording of the email

Abuse of matchday access at Celtic Park in advance of the match against Atletico Madrid on 25 October and another unauthorised display, breaching the restrictions previously communicated, including circumvention of safety and security procedures and the migration of many members of the group (some of whom were wearing face coverings) out of the Rail Seating Section across the North Stand prior to kick off;

So the board obviously feel they've taken liberties. I'm in no way defending the board they're bunch of * but I tend to think the Palestine display is the straw that has broken the camels back tbh. The initial banner on it's own probably deserves punished as it was daft as * when you add it in to the consistent pyro and the other things mentioned in the list I can understand why action has been taken regardless of how much I think the board are hypocritical * when it comes to the Palestine display.

 

That parallel was posted at the time. I've seen it before. It's just circumstancial evidence, though. It's entirely possible that "resistance" was meant in its generic sense on the banner. I'm not saying you're definitely wrong (what you are saying is entirely plausible and might turn out to be right); but I don't see where you are getting this sence of certainty from.
I think we largely agree apart from that.

I think when the evidence is not strong, people (including both of us) tend to interpret it in terms of their current views and it takes much stronger evidence to change those views (this is a feature of our reasoning not a bug). You came into this with a low opinion of the GB and I came into it with a high opinion. We were always going to interpret the situation differently until much stronger evidence becomes available; but I think we can both agree that the other's point of view is not crazy and we can both agree on what kind of evidence would sway us.

 

I came into this not seeing a problem initially, feel free to go back and look, until I discovered the relevance of ‘resistance’. So saying I came into this with a low opinion and that this would cloud my judgement now is frankly utter *. Was I happy they consistently felt the need to use sparklers, no I wasn’t, and there are reasons for that, but there is a massive difference between that even and hamas.

 

That’s not what I said though. You haven’t been able to argue against anything I’ve said thus far in fact.

Anyway, any chance you can answer why you think they weren’t banned before the Atletico game if they were such a safety concern? The fact you’ve dodged this a few times would suggest that your answer wouldn’t suit your theory so don’t want to post it.

 

They said that aye. What I’m saying though, is that if a group were able to “break in” to Celtic Park on a Champions League night, have the time to set out a display which I’m assuming would take the best part of an hour depending on how many “broke in”, then leave the ground before re-entering for the game, we need to be asking serious questions about our security. Not as if there isn’t enough police around on a match day that could have intervened if Celtic notified them.

 

There are some problems with this way of reading it, though.

First of all, by the strictest definitions, Israel haven't been committing genocide. They have been committing atrocities and are (arguably) attempting ethnic cleansing; but they have been comitting a slow-motion ethnic cleansing against Palestinians in the West Bank for a lot longer than a few weeks, so that's not really new.

Secondly, the group have refused to clarify the banner we've all been talking about and to clarify that they don't support HAMAS. HAMAS have also committed atrocities and their explicit, public goal would also necessarily involve ethnic cleansing.

Thirdly, the board chose not to ban the group for that game, knowing they would fly those flags. That doesn't make much sense if they have a big problem with Palestinian flags.

Fourthly, IIRC the first ban was before the Atletico Madrid game (but afer the banner) and also cited safety concerns.

 

I'll take the word of the UN over yours mate: https://www.un.org/unispal/document...rn-demanding-a-ceasefire-to-prevent-genocide/

 

I'm not saying it clouded your judgement. As I said, it's a feature not a bug. I'm not even claiming that your judgement is cloded in any way! What I'm saying is that IMHO there is radically more uncertainty here than you think.

 

The initial statement definitely accused them of breaking in. I guess that's another thing that they've pulled out their * and had to backtrack on.

 

The GB were at the Atletico game. The board embarrassingly begged fans not to show support for Palestine, which was ignored, then they got banned after that game. If safety was as big a concern as the reasons they gave, why weren’t they banned already?