Right .. there are probably protests and marches being organised against Syrian participation .. so as well as the fact that Syria is governed by a Hitler clone and policed by gangs of psychotic murderers and all the Syrian 'athletes' are probably state sponsored puppets .. we don't need or want them in this country
If Syria are banned we need to look closely at a lot of other countries, starting with China. But it seems they are seen as too important to upset. It stinks, but that's politics for you.
If Syria are banned we need to look closely at a lot of other countries, starting with China. But it seems they are seen as too important to upset. It stinks, but that's politics for you.
There is a very big difference with what the Syrians are doing and what the Chinese have done.
The Syrians are systematically slaughtering their own people to stay in power, its one of the most awful things we have seen any government do for many years.
The Chinese are an authoritarian government who brook no dissent but in the years 23 years since Tianamen Square they have not done anything like what Assad and his cronies have done in the last couple of months.
The Chinese do treat their people in ways which the west finds unconscionable but [since Tianamen] they are a long way from being as barbaric as this arsehole in Damascus - the one that we and the Yanks have helped prop up for decades along with his old man.
Over the years, I've moved from idealism, through pragmatism and realpolitik into a more hopeful stance. Given that the UN continues to fade into weakness and ineffectiveness, now more than ever we need people from all over the world to come together and exchange thoughts and information. The crowd may be relied upon to boo any flags that are causing offence at the time. No bans at all for me.
Depends how you look at it. From a government point of view, yes they should be banned. From an individual athelete's point of view - what have they done? Unless they are personally involved with the atrocities that are taking place - it seems a bit harsh. I don't think by participating in the olympics syria is going to gain anything positive in terms of the way people view what is happening there. You could even say that if they are still allowed to go, that what is going on there will get even more publicity as it will be talked about at every single event someone from syria takes part in. If they get banned - it's not going to be mentioned a few days after the decision. I have to say, if I was an athlete from a country commiting atrocities, i would be devasted as to what was occuring in my country, and then added to that the fact that i am then not allowed to compete in my sport because of that.
It is disgusting what is happening there, but i don't think by stopping individuals competing in the olympics will change that. They have already been lambasted by pretty much every country in the world and still they continue.
That being said - i can understand why it would be an extremely difficult decision to make
South Africa was banned from Olympic competition back in the bad old days of apartheid.
Therefore, applying the same logic, other repulsive, oppressive regimes, such as Syria, should also be banned.
However whether it was, in the case of South Africa for example, or is, in the case of Syria for example, right for sport to involve itself in politics is a separate question.
Not sure, but after hearing about the massacre of 34 women and 48 children and the way in which they were murdered, I can't see why Russia are against any UN intervention.
Yeah, after reading the story in papers this morning about how that massacre occurred and what happened to the children, my heart says a ban is the very least that should happen. (edit - that sounded flippant. Games, throwing, dancing, wrestling and running and stuff seems ridiculous to talk about in the wake of what happened).
Not sure, but after hearing about the massacre of 34 women and 48 children and the way in which they were murdered, I can't see why Russia are against any UN intervention.
Sadly, i suspect the answer will likely lie in the origin of the weapons that were used.
Hard on the Syrian athletes - possibly but their rights to compete do not compere with the importance of not allowing Assad and his regime any sort of good publicity or inclusion in the international community. Ban is essential for me.
Let the athletes run and lock up any government official that travels to watch and charge with war crimes. Ditto any other countries condoning/supporting genocide within their midst.
China claims Tibet as being theirs and occupy/control it - but they are not shelling or machine gunning hundreds of people to death, including women and children.
China has a very troubling regime and I don't doubt they would pull out all stops to stay in control if they had to - but they have done nothing in recent history to compare with Syria, not least because they know they appreciate the repercussions would be huge.
Tough one this and a very interesting debate. My natural inclination is towards supporting a ban, as we have seen that this can have a beneficial effect in isolating countries on the international stage and forcing a dialogue on the issue. Len brings up a very good case in point in SA of course who were banned but have moved forward massively since.
On the other, if we are getting into the business of using sport as a force for good, why stop at Syria? There are dozens of currupt, evil, disgusting regimes out there commiting crimes against their population every day, it just so happens that this one is particularly high profile at the moment.
Would banning them actually achieve very much more than letting them take part and, as someone else pointed out, letting the world make their feelings known wherever a Syrian athlete or official is appearing? Tough on the individual of course.
On balance I don't really know and glad I don't have to make that call.
I can't see why Russia are against any UN intervention.
Syria provides the Russian Navy with a base on the Mediterranean. If a different government were in power in Syria, this base may no longer be available. Whether this is factor in the Russian government's thought process, who knows.
That massacre is one of the most atrocious things I've heard about in recent times. A ban is absolutely right. I'd be in favour of much tougher sanctions.
There is a differnce between vetoing action and perpetrating atrocities - of course they shouldn't be banned. But the IOC should ban Syria.
I agree regarding there being a difference. However, I am surprised that anyone who believes that Syria should be banned, can confidently assert that those vetoing action against Syria should not be banned. Surely those applying the veto potentially could be considered to be effectively allowing the perpetration of atrocities.
A factor that I don't think has been mentioned is the potential for a Syrian athlete to make a statement (like Tommy Smith's clenched fist) against the Syrian government.
Comments
What about the Countries that vetoed action against Syria, should they be banned?
Who will decide what Countries are or are not acceptable?
The Syrians are systematically slaughtering their own people to stay in power, its one of the most awful things we have seen any government do for many years.
The Chinese are an authoritarian government who brook no dissent but in the years 23 years since Tianamen Square they have not done anything like what Assad and his cronies have done in the last couple of months.
The Chinese do treat their people in ways which the west finds unconscionable but [since Tianamen] they are a long way from being as barbaric as this arsehole in Damascus - the one that we and the Yanks have helped prop up for decades along with his old man.
It is disgusting what is happening there, but i don't think by stopping individuals competing in the olympics will change that. They have already been lambasted by pretty much every country in the world and still they continue.
That being said - i can understand why it would be an extremely difficult decision to make
Therefore, applying the same logic, other repulsive, oppressive regimes, such as Syria, should also be banned.
However whether it was, in the case of South Africa for example, or is, in the case of Syria for example, right for sport to involve itself in politics is a separate question.
A horribly distressing fact of life.
Same as FIFA, money talks not opinions.
China has a very troubling regime and I don't doubt they would pull out all stops to stay in control if they had to - but they have done nothing in recent history to compare with Syria, not least because they know they appreciate the repercussions would be huge.
On the other, if we are getting into the business of using sport as a force for good, why stop at Syria? There are dozens of currupt, evil, disgusting regimes out there commiting crimes against their population every day, it just so happens that this one is particularly high profile at the moment.
Would banning them actually achieve very much more than letting them take part and, as someone else pointed out, letting the world make their feelings known wherever a Syrian athlete or official is appearing? Tough on the individual of course.
On balance I don't really know and glad I don't have to make that call.
There is a lot going on in China and Tibet NOW which we in the west are unaware of.
I am with Bournemouth here - glad I don't have to make the decision.
A factor that I don't think has been mentioned is the potential for a Syrian athlete to make a statement (like Tommy Smith's clenched fist) against the Syrian government.