Messages

Presumably lost it in the sun.

Ger Canning had to be told it was a goal, and can't add thinking the lead is nine points instead of 7.  How is he still doing commentary after all these years?

They changed the audio of this for TSG 

Considering the conditions I thought it was an excellent game.

Has Gary Mohan been hiding out in the Himalayas?

I didn't think his barnet could get worse but I guess you've got to respect his commitment to it.

Right result in the end. Definitely the better team. They'll be hard stopped and will be very happy to have the two week break.

Scott Hastings

Did Conaty grab at his hamstring a little bit with about two mins to go? Made a little burst up the left but turned back and laid it off.

Looked like Jarly Óg had a sniff of a chance there. Monaghan boys were out on their feet trying to defend it and didn't have the energy to get up the pitch.

Loughlin is done for the season. Dreadful hamstring tear.

[Heslin substitution wasn't needed and was distracting.]

Hope Westmeath aren't left to rue it. 4 points ahead and a number of big opportunities to close the game out. Heslin substitution wasn't needed and was distracting.

I agree

    

I'd agree with both above without that substitution then Westmeath probably win in normal time.  Doesn't matter now as got the win and well done Westmeath enjoy the celebrations.

First thing he did when he came on was win a ball. He made one mistake. That's not what cost them it in normal time.

A huge contribution from the Baker brothers

Tadgh might as well have been carried off on shoulders after his work to set up the Heslin score.

[Heslin substitution wasn't needed and was distracting.]

Hope Westmeath aren't left to rue it. 4 points ahead and a number of big opportunities to close the game out. Heslin substitution wasn't needed and was distracting.

I agree

    

Comerford just lose it in the sun?

Fair play to Westmeath. They've come out of the traps with far more energy and have been utterly dominant in the air.

This is terrific. And fully deserved.

Hope they can see it out.

[Now you have a position where blaming Israel about apartheid, white phosphorous, genocide, sieges, child murder- all things Israel does- is antisemitic]

You said "It says nothing about criticising Israel being anti-Semitic".

Given that most people's problem with the IHRA definition is EXACTLY this, could you outline which other bit of the IHRA definition you have a problem with, that causes you not to accept it?

That's because most people, such as your good self, choose to, at best, misread or misunderstand what the definition actually says. You argued that Israel is a Jewish community institution ffs. A state is not a community institution. You have f**king idiots on here tying themselves in knots to protest that burning out Jewish ambulances in Golders Green isn't antisemitic FFS. Know what a local Jewish ambulance service is? A Jewish community institution.

And not that I owe you any explanation of anything whatsoever, the particular pieces that I have issues with are the suggestion that denying Jews have the right to self determination is in and of itself antisemitic, or that one evidences this by labelling Israel as a racist state, along with the one about not comparing contemporary Israeli state policy to the Nazism.

As I suspect you well know, the definition expressly states that criticisms of Israel that are thrown at any other country are not antisemitic.

Yeah you're all over the place here.

You stated that 'It says nothing about criticising Israel being antisemitic'.

Then proceed to outline that one of your issues with the definition is that it prevents contemporary Israeli state policy being compared with that of the Nazis... as to criticise it in such a way would make one... antisemitic.

Someone with a brain the size of yours should surely be able to figure out that both of these statements cannot be true simultaneously.

Are you really that f**king thick?

It specifically states criticism of Israel is not by definition antisemitic, provided those criticisms could be and are levelled at other states. The obvious implication being that if you want to criticise Israel for something that you wouldn't or don't do with any other state, you're actively choosing to do it because of, you know, all the Jews that are there.

It then specifically claims that comparing Israeli policy to Nazism is antisemitic. Which I disagree with. Interesting that comparing Israeli policy to Nazism would be considered criticism given how many far right tramps there are on the board in this discussion.

It's not that complicated.

The definition was written in 2014 before Israel went fascist.
Now you have a position where blaming Israel about apartheid, white phosphorous, genocide, sieges, child murder- all things Israel does- is antisemitic. It gives them carte blanche.

Israel only went fascist in 2014? Really?

Antisemitic according to who? Governments and other national and international institutions (a UN commission, for example) have labelled it a genocide.

Given we've been talking about the IHRA definition, I don't recall it (although I may be wrong) coming out and saying that claiming Israel is committing genocide is antisemitic.

Nor for that matter, for all his wriggling and hormones, has Keir Starmer.

It says certain criticism of Israel is, and has unquestionably been used as a shield

Is that the same as "criticism of Israel is antisemitic"? No, it's not.

What has how the IHRA definition being used as a shield by whoever got to do with what the definition says? Who's arguing whether it hasn't.

If you bothered to read the thread, you'd maybe cop on to the fact that my original point was that the assertion that, and I'm admittedly paraphrasing here, "sure Jews can't be victims of antisemitism because most of them are Ashkenazi and they aren't even a Semitic people".

Whatever the intricacies, correct or otherwise, of the IHRA or any other definition, EVERYONE understands that antisemitism = anti-Jew.