Heartland

I'll just add my (unpopular, I guess) opinion and say that I am pleased The Sisters have managed to look past the hysteria and plan a gig in Tel Aviv. No government is perfect, and most of the many Israelis I know are hip, cultured folks who will surely enjoy the gig.

@ Bismarck - your view is the mainstream on this thread. Music loving Israelis need not be inconvenienced by the atrocities of their government.

The vast majority of Israelis themselves show no signs of being bothered by the occupation and war crimes, the western powers support it with weapons, you have the privilege of being unaffected by it so can remain aloof with the cool kids about it.

Who does care? Countless millions actually which is why the US government wants to criminalise the BDS movement.

Glad your israeli friends are so hip.

greenmurphy wrote:Glad your israeli friends are so hip.

greenmurphy wrote:@ Bismarck - your view is the mainstream on this thread. Music loving Israelis need not be inconvenienced by the atrocities of their government.

The vast majority of Israelis themselves show no signs of being bothered by the occupation and war crimes, the western powers support it with weapons, you have the privilege of being unaffected by it so can remain aloof with the cool kids about it.

Who does care? Countless millions actually which is why the US government wants to criminalise the BDS movement.

Glad your israeli friends are so hip.

His view actually seems to be the majority opinion. That's actually democracy. Countless millions? On which facts is that non-figure based?
Sorry, but you are resorting to polemics here.
I agree with you that the politics of the Israeli government are despicable, but I stay with my opinion that boycotting is the wrong way, as long as culture, sports and a few other things are concerned. We can both of course agree on weaponry, no need to sell them those.
And btw who are the good guys in this story? Certainly not the PA/Fatah or Hamas...Or do you believe that?

dinky daisy wrote: Just as long as they're not smiling and shaking hands with dictators.

is there anybody boycotting U2 for Bono' handshake with Putin?

dinky daisy wrote:
Just as long as they're not smiling and shaking hands with dictators.

is there anybody boycotting U2 for Bono' handshake with Putin?

Yes, sir. I do.

greenmurphy wrote:...occupation ... war crimes ... western powers ... privilege....

Your skillful deployment of buzzwords has inspired me to change my views.

Boycott Eldritch!

Spiggythecat wrote:

dinky daisy wrote: Just as long as they're not smiling and shaking hands with dictators.

is there anybody boycotting U2 for Bono' handshake with Putin?

Likewise. I boycot U Two so much that when their is played i even mute radio.

One should boycott u2 for their tax avoiding constructions, but that means one should boycott ireland and the netherlands. It becomes a never ending story, with arguments for all options.

In the end it is no proper way to impose ones believes on a band (or anything else one likes, even admires), it is only a shot in the dark and a shortsighted act of compensation.

But, exemptions exist, obviously

Bartek wrote:I boycot U Two so much that when their is played i even mute radio.

Me too.

Didn't Eldritch boycott France for most of the 80' and 90's?

Interestingly,

http://www.simonandschuster.co.uk/books ... 1849839037

Also, rather terrifying.

Suleiman wrote:Didn't Eldritch boycott France for most of the 80' and 90's?

Interestingly,

http://www.simonandschuster.co.uk/books ... 1849839037

Also, rather terrifying.

I saw a documentation about getrude bell yesterday, exactly touching this topic. Pritty interesting what britain seeded back then. Of course not the only similar example (e.g balkans states)

Isn't that the case of drawing borders of African states and bloody outcome? Isn't that the case of Pakistan, India and Kashmir and antagonism between these countries over Kashmir? Isnt' that the case of drawing borders of Mittel Europa countries after WWII and mass uprtooting, for example Germans living in new-demarcated-borders Poland?

The book is more about Britain and France fighting a proxy war in the Middle East when they should have been fighting on the same side in WWI, WWII.

Britain supported freedom fighters/terrorists against French rule in Syria and France supported Zionist freeedom fighters/terrorists in Palestine. This resulted in, amongst other things, the assassination of a British MP and the King David Hotel bombings.

Didn't Eldritch boycott France for most the 80's and 90's?

AFAIK, he did. Isn't becuase of that silly UK/GB - France squabble?

And btw. i'm familiar with Britain and France fighting over middle east. Similar to that was the Great Game over central Asia, but it was Britain vs Russian Empire.

Bartek wrote:AFAIK, he did. Isn't becuase of that silly UK/GB - France squabble?

That's the point I was trying to make. This 'silly' squabble left us with the Middle East we have today. When I watch the Doimion video I imagine Eldritch playing GB and Morrison France, but I guess that's just me.

i always thought that it has orgins way back in history, Hundred Years' War and after and even before.

Bartek wrote:i always thought that it has orgins way back in history, Hundred Years' War and after and even before.

Or 1066!

Crécy! Agincourt! Wars of the Roses!

after the second world war britain was basically playing a caretaker role in palestine. in traditional end-of-empire style they did what they had previously done to the fuzzy-wuzzies (who didn't like it up 'em) and anyone else who's country's usefulness had become outweighed by it's internal troubles.....they bravely turned their tails and fled, leaving the locals to fight it out amongst themselves. probably wouldve worked too (you know -successfully like the partitionof india ) if shhhhhhhh! hadnt tooled up the shhhhhh! [s] in exchange for a puppet-state with access to the regions shhhhhhhh! [/s] to compensate for the holocaust.

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:n exchange for a puppet-state

I hear Empire Down

Enjoy the puppet show...

Yeah, but what about MY LAWN!

However, prior to WWII it was all about protecting British access to Suez. See "A Line In The Sand".

Furthermore, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful".

@Suleiman:
1) shit innit?
2) thats right.
3) very true.

Suleiman wrote:However, prior to WWII it was all about protecting British access to Suez. See "A Line In The Sand".

It was about oil even more