Gary Lineker - foot in mouth again

[onegrumpyoldwoman]

I wish this guy would stick to football or selling crisps

Most recently, he gave an interview to Medhi Hassan (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/12/lineker-appears-to-call-oct-7-attacks-the-hamas-thing/ ) where he appeared to minimise the October 7th Hamas attacks as “the Hamas thing”, whilst falsely stating of the war in Gaza “I can’t think of anything that I’ve seen worse in my lifetime”. This statement is absurd hyperbole given that Mr Lineker was born in 1960 and has hence lived through major wars such as Vietnam, Iraq, Iran-Iraq, the Soviet and Western interventions in Afghanistan, and the Syrian Civil War, all of which have cost hundreds of thousands, in some cases millions, of lives.

I do not believe that it is compatible with Mr Lineker’s role as a presenter on Match of the Day, and hence an employee of our national public broadcaster, which is supposed to be politically impartial, for him to take such outspoken stances.

@IbisDancer
However, common article 3 also states that it does not apply to other forms of violence such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence. This abstract definition has made it difficult to make a clear distinction between a mere disturbance and an armed conflict,

What the actual fuck? Are you suggesting Rwanda was a "mere disturbance"? Are you sure it didn't escalate into a kerfuffle at times?

What situation?
You listed wars (armed conflicts) in your OP, and Gaza is a war.
Rwanda wasn’t a war.

What critieria are you applying to say his comment is patently false and hyperbole since he did not claim the “war on Gaza” was the worst genocide he has seen, but rather worst war he has seen.

No, I’m quoting the IHL definition of noninternationalised armed conflict. It’s not my opinion and you can’t say I am suggesting anything as I did not write it,
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1697/defining-armed-conflict-in-international-humanitarian-law

You listed wars (armed conflicts) in your OP, and Gaza is a war.
Rwanda wasn’t a war.

Rwanda was literally a civil war. The genocide was an event that happened during that.
How can anyone not know this, why do you think the genocide happened?

So it’s Gaza on Gaza!

The genocide was 8 months after the civil war ended with Arusha peace accords. It happened during a power vacuum after the president was assassinated. How do you not know this?

genuine question (with a question mark) for @onegrumpyoldwoman
Would you have the same opinion on Linekar et al expressing an opinion like this if he was completely pro Israel?
If so then fair enough

There you go OP, loks like he hasn't broken his contract. So you can froth at the mouth all you like, doesnt mean he should be sacked.

That's ridiculous. He's not been paid by you to do that interview. It's in his own time, he's expressing his own thoughts, on a subject that's nothing to with his BBC job, he's not a newsreader. Was he wearing a BBC badge? Is it OK with you if a BBC cameraman talks about Gaza down the pub? Would you be complaining if he trotted out "Of course, Israel's got the right to defend itself"?

Even if you agree with his comments on Gaza to describe the terrorist attack on 7th October as 'that Hamas thing' is disgusting. Over 1000 died horrifically innocent people injured physically and mentally, the bereaved whose life was changed forever was not a fucking "thing". None of this was their doing. They also deserve respect.

As always in situations of war and conflict the innocent suffer and the leaders on both sides sit back in complete safety, comfort and make money out of it.

You quoted an article explaining the difference between an armed conflict and a "mere disturbance" and thought to apply that to the Rwanda genocide. So yes you are suggesting Rwanda was a mere disturbance.

Regardless, Lineker didn't say this was the worst armed conflict he'd seen in his lifetime he said “I can’t think of anything that I’ve seen worse in my lifetime”.

The genocide was 8 months after the civil war ended with Arusha peace accords. It happened during a power vacuum after the president was assassinated. How do you not know this?

Yes because the peace accord was broken due to the president's assasination! If a peace accord is broken, then war has broken out again.
You're splitting insane hairs to somehow prove that this was different/less bad because.... an international definition? Lack of Israeli involvement?
Either way, the minimisation is pretty breathtaking.

@Auvergne63 Why post an article on him defecating on the pitch? It is irrelevant.

I disagree.

To behave like that shows complete disrespect to other footballers (including his own team-mates) who have to play on the same pitch.

He admits he was unwell with diarrhoea the night before but still went ahead and played because he wanted to. No respect for others it seems.

Just gross.

https://talksport.com/football/699510/gary-lineker-soiling-himself-england-1990-world-cup/

Yes.

Celebrities seem to think their personal views about all sort of things matter more than the "man in the street". They need to know when to button up.

I never said he should be sacked, I said he should be gagged.

No, I’m not saying anything is less bad at all. I am saying the Rwanda genocide was not a war. It occurred after one civil war and before a second civil war, not during a civil war. Some historians view the second civil war as a restart of same civil war, but either way all historians I have read agree that the Rwandan genocide did not occur during or as part of a war, but between civil wars or during a period of peace where a longer civil war stopped. The second civil war or restart of civil war occurred after the genocide was mostly done and one goal of that civil war was to stop it.

This doesn’t make it less bad in any way.

Genocides are usually done without a war going on between the two peoples. The Holocaust wasn’t a war between Germany and Jewish insurgents/terrorists or a Jewish state, one party was the state and the other were just regular civilians.

Right so you are posting articles about him unrelated to your OP but getting upset when being called out on it. It clearly is a smear campaign because you disagree with his views.
I doubt you would be doing the same if he was fiercely pro-Israel.

… edited because wasn’t very nice of me,

I really don't like the tone of your thread OP. Bringing up an unfortunate incident about him having diarrhea for god's sake.

Nasty.

^ That is your opinion, which you are free to have.

If anyone who behaved in such a gross manner was fiercely pro-Israel, I would be embarrassed for Israel and I would certainly say so.

I'm not afraid to say, that IMO, some politicians in the Israeli Parliament are right-wing nutters, but as far as I am aware none of them have taken a dump on a football pitch.

Granted I'm younger than Linekar but I can't remember seeing anything this bad in my lifetime in terms of the sheer number of children being killed. However the news is much more prevalent now than it was when I was younger.

Not sure what point you are trying to make posting this. Not unusual for sports stars to get caught out in very visible situations. Posting this says more about you tbh

I didn't bring it up.

Don't engage if you find it distasteful.

And, yes, I agree that diarrhea is "nasty" and people who have it should stay at home.

I didn't post that clip.

So when someone says something people don't like, it's apparently fine to bring up a time they were embarrassingly unwell in public over 30 years ago...