you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 69 points 4 months ago (26 children)

    Why not? Why allow a country committing war crimes to participate on the global sports or entertainment stage like everything is normal?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (20 children)

    That isn't equivalent because Ukraine did not commit warcrimes. Why shouldn't a country committing warcrimes be blocked?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Who would determine [whether] war crimes were committed?

    Geneva conventions.

    Stop sea-lioning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago

    Someone would have to determine whether the Geneva Conventions were violated. I think it's better for simply the best athletes to compete, not the best athletes from countries which behave in an approved way. Some believe that the US didn't follow the Geneva Convention when it attacked Venezuelan ships supposedly carrying drugs. Yet, the US hosted the World Cup.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (15 children)

    Some believe the US violated international law when it attacked Venezuelan boats supposedly carrying drugs. There hasn't been any investigation. Remember FiFA President Infantino let Balogun play after Trump called. Perhaps some countries have influence. Wouldn't it be simpler to just let the best players compete?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (13 children)

    Simpler, sure. Morally incorrect. America should be investigated for attacking those ships, and if it was found to be a warcrime, they should be held to task.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (12 children)

    But was there an investigation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (10 children)

    That's the point, there was no investigation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (9 children)

    Ok? I....I agreed there should be? I'm not sure what your point here is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (7 children)

    This argument is ludicrous. Something either is or is not moral, and is or is not illegal. Being caught and convicted doesn't change that. It was illegal. It was immoral. It should be investigated. Countries that commit warcrimes should be sanctioned, and countries with influence should not be above the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    Ok? This is likely true. What is your point? It is not easy or convenient. But easy and convenient do not make right or wrong, moral or immoral, legal or illegal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    No, but is simple and fair compared to disqualifying countries but not others which have influence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    So disqualify the countries with influence. Not as simple. Still fair.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    How are you going to do that? Trump called FIFA president Infantino and Balogun's one-match suspension was ended.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 26 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    We don't exclude them because of politics; like, because we don't like their policy on women's rights.

    We exclude them because they belligerently attacked their neighbour and reject their neighbour's right to exist peacefully.

    That's different. It's less "we don't like that kid so he can't play in our sandbox" and more "he attacked that other kid with a rock so he can't come over because he's a fucking criminal".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    What about attacking Venezuelan boats supposedly carrying drugs?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    What about Iran? So hypocritical lol. It's really the neighbor that did Russia in, attacking a country halfway around the world is totally fine. Because they are not white, pray to the wrong god and speak funny.

    I'm so tired of everyone complaining about fascist MAGA. Complain more about fascist liberals.

    Russia bad lol... hosts "soccer" world cup in the fucking fascist USA. Fucking priceless grumble grumble

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Let’s include Palestine then.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    Yes! Let's make them a country and include them in the Olympics and the UN. We already had borders drawn up but I'm sure they'd want to bargain for a more equitable and contiguous space given their shit-bag neighbour.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago* (17 children)

    International sports events are INTERNATIONAL, if you play so far outside the rules as Israel is doing, you don't deserve to participate in international events as a country.
    Of course by that standard we shouldn't have participation from Russia and USA either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    There's no means of determining what actions disqualify a country?

    You really think Russia was banned from IOC participation for no clear reason and that it wasn't explained at all? There are some very simple means you can employ to determine what actions disqualified them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Don't pretend like you'd read such a list. You just said you had no way to figure out why a country would be banned from an international competition just one comment ago. If you couldn't even think of reading an official explanation, we're supposed to believe that a list that would be published in the same place would result in you being better informed?

    It's pretty dead simple to ban a country from competition for being warmongering and genocidal. What would be complicated?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Proving it. Also, some countries have influence. Is there anyone investigating the US over attacking Venezuelan boats supposedly carrying drugs?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (5 children)

    What does that have to do with you not knowing that when countries get banned from international competitions, it's easy to find out exactly why, and that having such policies is pretty simple?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

    Remember the US attacked a Venezuelan boat, and some survived but was attacked again. Would use consider this an action that should result in a ban?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    Oh so suddenly you found the means of determining what actions disqualify a country now?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    Well, if that is a disqualifying act, why wasn't he US barred from participating in the World Cup?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    There is no means of determining what actions disqualify a country.

    That is blatantly false, it's actually very easy to determine. For instance starting a war attacking another country unprovoked, could be a rule. Not committing genocide could be another rule.

    How do you arrive at the weird conclusion that such rules would be impossible to determine?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    There are obviously means of determining which actions disqualify a country. We know that because the fucking Russians were fucking disqualified. There were criteria, they met them, and they got banned.

    That's what a ban is. That's how basic shit works, troll. JFC.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)