Yes. But violence against visiting fans is common too.
But they don’t do the things andros was referring to, or anything like it. The fact that people routinely say those things and they never actually happen provides the context which shows they are not meant literally.
If there were angry sports fans calling for a riot, people would be less inclined to interpret them figuratively, despite their being “White and American”.
Please show me evidence that those Turkish asshole footy supporters bombed Paris. Or were, indeed, anything but asshole footy supporters.
Strange, I am unable to detect the theological component in the phrase “death to America” and maybe because I am not an extreme right wing American, it is not hard for me to see the perfectly secular and non-Muslim reasons for any number of the Iranian factions not to be very friendly to the American government, these little matters of supporting coup d’etats and murderous torturing dictatorships with the thin veneer of the pseudo-secularity.
Seeing this of course does not mean I agree with the Iranian political factions that take this line, but one must be some kind of blinded Ideological robot or grossly dishonest to pretend such a thing is (or I guess the Venuezuelans, the Argentines, the Cubans, the other Latin Americans who chant such slogans are in some strange way Muslim too).
The idea that the Palestinian groups wishing to destroy or defeat the Israel is particularly Muslim and indicative of some thing specifically Muslim is also one of those strange things that Americans of a certain blinded political tendency have convinced themselves of for their own ideological reasons. The Arab Christian led Palestinian factions - indeed the ones founded by and within the community, have sought the same objectives and indeed were the first to use organized terror tactics, drawing on the fashionable extreme Left model then.
Citing them is only proof of a narrow, sectarian American ‘Christianist’ view of the world - or being robotically wedded to the political faction that follows that.
Of course I highlight again seeing this does not mean I agree with these views (to call for destroying Israel, maybe when I was a hot youth I could have, but like many I hope for the peaceful solution with the 1967 borders)
The Agitation-Propaganda discourse adopted by the Phobic tendency is interesting for its Circus Mirror aspects, but it is false - it is reducing the not-black-and-white points made to the Cowboys (who have fallen too many times from their horses) understanding as of course what has been said is not “no religious component” or understanding or it is either or, what has been said is there are other motivations lensing through a religious discourse.
And of course it has also been said that it is quite simple minded (if not even actively dishonest) to look at the constitution of the DAESH and not understand that to take their Agitation Propagandas simplistically at face value, when evidence of their own “impure” actions is then like insisting in a donkey like fashion that one has to accept the Agitation Propaganda of the Communist Party China at its face value…
But the ideological robots following set and simple algorythms, perhaps they can not process.
Disdain,
So the Iranians mean it when they chant “Death to America”, because they think they have a legitimate grievance. However, a Muslim terrorist who chants “Allahu akbar” and thinks he has a legitimate grievance doesn’t mean what he says. Is that what you are saying?
Maybe we get this strange idea from Hizbollah’s original charter in 1985, which read in part -
Or the original charter of Hamas -
But of course they didn’t mean any of it. 
Regards,
Shodan
Wow! Talk about a hair-raising and hateful expression of blood lust and murder!
So when George W says that God told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think this was the driving factor that led to the invasion of both countries?
I mean, which was it? His imaginary sky friend? Or the imaginary weapons of mass destruction? Enquiring minds, etc.
“Who’s that lying on the seafront…
who’s that lying on the shore…
It’s Norman Tebbit and his wife, and she’s paralysed for life…
And they wont be going to Brighton anymore!”
As sung by the “bhoys” in the Jungle at Celtic’s first home game after the Brighton Bombing. You have to give it to them, they didn’t have a lot of time to put that together. Should we interpret this as proof that all Catholics supported IRA atrocities during the troubles?
Conversely, lordd knows there were plenty of Ranger songs mocking Bloody Sunday, and the famines, so should we take that as proof that all Protestants supported british atrocities in Ireland.
Both the White House and Mahmoud Abbas say that this did not happen. But that is rather beside the point - did Bush not mean what he said when he said he was going to invade Iraq?
If Iran says “Death to America”, is this not meant seriously? When a Muslim terrorist says “Allahu akbar”, does he mean it? How does the fact that Bush meant it when he said he would invade Iraq affect that?
Regards,
Shodan
ISTM that you’ve lost track of the discussion here.
My comments were not about whether “all” of any group supported anything. The question being discussed was whether chants of these sorts should be interpreted figuratively or literally.
I’m not familiar with the incidents you refer to, but it sounds as if someone made mocking references to actual injuries, deaths etc. Consistent with what I’ve said here, I think it’s reasonable to assume that those people did support those bombings and atrocities etc.
As to how widespread support for these bombings was, it would depend on how widespread expressions of this sort were. I have no idea. Do tell.
There used to be a lot of proof of his sincerity, but they’ve all been buried by now.
The discussion started with this:
Any clearer to you know why I then provided examples of Celtic fans (catholic) and Rangers fans (protestant) acting in a similarly fuckwitted manner. They’re not doing it because they support terrorism. They do it because they like to cause massive amounts of offence to rival supporters.
You’re misrepresenting the exchange.
I was responding to a specific point made by andros. If you want to respond to those other people you quoted, don’t drag me into it.
And yet, I’m not sure you have responded to it. Why do we not take Portland Timbers fans seriously when they act like hideous assholes, but we must take Turkish fans seriously when they do? Those Turkish fans are not terrorists any more than the Timbers Army are. Unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary?
Look, was it offensive to shout over a moment of silence? Sure. And I do not condone it. If someone next to me at a Timbers match were acting the same way, I’d at very least tell him to shut up (and depending on my BAC might take a swing at him). I don’t expect the same cultural standards around the world (even though I consider my anti-racism, anti-homophobia, pro-multiculturalism stance to be the superior one), and within the variance of societal acceptance I don’t see much difference between soccer fans being pricks here or in Turkey. Difference in degree only. Doesn’t mean they actually support death or mayhem.
I addressed this in post #215 (& subsequent follow-up posts).
Ah yes, you said that it was different because we in the Timbers Army do not *actually *throw people on bonfires after we shag their women and drink their beer.
Please, then, show me the evidence that the Turkish fans in the above article have committed acts of violence. If it’s so different, show me those Turkish fans who bombed Paris. Show me any evidence at all that they are* anything other than pricks*.
Seriously, help me out here. Because what I’m *hearing *is that they are Muslim, and therefore violent, and therefore we must consider them terrorists when they act like pricks. And I really hope that’s not what you’re saying.
.
You just had to go get her started on all that Algorythm [sic] and Tribes bullshit again, didn’t you, Shodan? I can almost follow what she’s saying (I assume Ramira’s a she, I’ve heard her referred to this way without rebuttal) until she starts with that nonsense.
Reread the post. That’s not what I said.
I did not say because “we in the Timbers Army …”. I said because “no one …”.
The rest of your post is premised on your reformulation, and thus moot.
It is a pity that someone as cogent and clear as yourself is so frequently misunderstood.
I explained the general phenomenon to Kimstu, earlier in this thread.