Soccer: What does this warrior's salute really mean?

[seriousstan]

Do the cameras tell us lies? Italian policemen, magistrates and soccer officials are examining images to determine whether Paolo Di Canio should face criminal charges for stirring old fascist leanings with his celebration of a victory for SS Lazio over AS Roma in the febrile Roman "derby" contest last Thursday.

The so-called Roman salute - stiff right arm and flat palm - that this appears to be was not, according to Di Canio and his agents, at all a political gesture, and certainly not intended as incitement to the known neo-fascist faction of hard-core Lazio fanatics in the north stand of the Olimpico Stadium.

"Paolo just wanted to celebrate with the fans," Moreno Roggi, the player's agent, insisted as the debate continued this week. "A photographer using a camera that takes 500 frames a minute just caught this moment in the celebration and made it look as if the right hand was held in that position."

To many in Italian society, Roggi defends the indefensible. There is television footage as well as still-frame photography of the "celebration." There is a polemic across the political strata as to the player's salute to his worshippers. There is a parliamentary debate on which is the more dangerous - to prosecute the captain and idol of Lazio or to allow what is perceived as a public exhibition of the outlawed Benito Mussolini fascist salute.
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/01/12/sports/soccer.html

[rooboy]

1. Prosecute him.

and if the fans can't behave themselves, play Lazio's matches in an empty stadium.

[SweetLeftFoot]

69. Mark Bosnich

Remember hgis goose-stepping in front of the Tottenham fans? Classy. Di Canio is a maniac - very talented maniac - but a nutter all the same.

Paul Gascgoine was not censored when he pretended tp play a marching flute in front of Celtic fans though.

[Renew Deal]

2. Here is a picture

Mussolini was a fan of Lazio

http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s22/e6873/sport_lng0_spo22_evt6873_sto674101.shtml

[Telly Savalas]

80. Interesting link...

I hadn't heard that Simon Inzaghi was now playing for Sampdoria. That diving little prick.

[ze_dscherman]

3. So, why had he tattoed "dux" on his arm?

That's the latin word "Duce" was derived from.

[tkmorris]

4. Di Canio's biography contains this

"I think he was a deeply misunderstood individual. There are two aspects to my fascination with Mussolini. The first is the way he faced difficulties and overcame them ..... Mussolini's other great quality was his patriotism. Like me he was a nationalist ..... He deceived people, his actions were often vile or calculated. But all this was motivated by a higher purpose. At stake was the fate of a nation ... What fascinates me, and this is probably where Mussolini and I are very different, is the way he was able to go against his morals to achieve his goal."

Di Canio is said to have dedicated the book to Mussolini but I cannot confirm that is true.

[neweurope]

5. Prosecute him. Bad enough that we have someone like Berlusconi

nobody seems to be able to do something about. The nazi salutation cannot be tolerated.


----------------------

Remember Fallujah!

Bush to The Hague

[BBradley]

6. He should be able to salute any damn way he wants, fascist or not.

[rooboy]

7. Ever been to a soccer match where there were ethnic tensions?

I have. And they aren't fun places to be, especially when a player taunts the crowd.

Using your logic, burning crosses would be a-ok as well.

[BBradley]

10. No, I don't accept your comparison

Saluting is far different from going out of your way to burn a cross. Even so, A government should not be able to prosecute you for expressing yourself, no matter how much society disagrees with that display. A government should hand out no repercussions for an expression of ones thoughts and ideas. One's ideals are one's own and should be able to be expressed freely and without fear of governmental reprisal. If you disagree with that, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

[rooboy]

22. Look at this picture.

<snip>
This is Bobby Despotovski, Bobby had a high profile year not only because his great soccer playing skills - but also because of his brilliance in making this hand gesture to his opponents fans.
As a result, riots occurred, and three people were injured. This achievement may have been overlooked in the Australian of the year award simply because it's hard to spell this guys name.
</snip>

This dickhead gave a Serbian salute to enflame the passions of the ethnic Croatian fans on the other side.

This is worse than going into a crowded theatre and yelling "FIRE". There is a HUGE difference between free speech and incitement. People die in this shit.

[BBradley]

26. Okay, so you go out of the way not to blame the real perpetrators.

The fans started the riot, and you don't blame them, you blame some soccer player.

[Jack_DeLeon]

34. I agree with you...

its pretty ignorant to blame a person for the actions of others in situations like this.

[rooboy]

38. The American court system doesn't agree with you.

If someone is adequately provoked, they can be found not guilty in a court of law due to diminished responsibility.

Let's see how fans would react at the superbowl if a muslim player celebrated a touchdown by raising both arms and collapsing them in a salute to the WTC attacks. I wouldn't consider that appropriate regardless of his political beliefs.

And the 50,000 people who would tear him apart would agree with me.

[BBradley]

64. And they wouldn't be justified in doing so.

I'm going to leave this thread for good now. We are getting nowhere. I just want to assure you that I'm well aware of the political reality. What I was talking about was what should be. I never said that the display was appropriate. I never said I agreed with it. I said that it should be able to be done. We disagree, but I respect your opinion.

[AZCat]

67. Well, thanks for keeping the discussion clean

Thanks to all of you, actually. This is one of the "cleanest" threads I have ever participated in - everbody was reasonably respectful of others and no-one was name-calling. It's quite refreshing!

[Jack_DeLeon]

13. No I havent...

that being said I dont see why freedom of speech and expression in Europe should be restricted just because Europe's rednecks like to go to soccer games.

[neweurope]

8. No he should not. We have laws against this in Europe.

We have them for a reason and they have been serving us well. Society has to make absolutely clear that Fascists will never be tolerated again.


--------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[BBradley]

9. I'm sorry but that is wrong.

Society should educate and frown upon such ideas and behaviors, but denying people the right to express themselves (No matter how much you disagree with them) is just plain wrong. Maybe I've just been indoctrinated with American Garbage like freedom of expression.

[AZCat]

12. We are limited in our speech here

You can't advocate overthrow of the government, for example. That's not too different from banning fascist symbolism in Europe.

[Jack_DeLeon]

14. Sure you can...

freepers do it all the time, they certainly did during Clinton.

[AZCat]

23. It is most certainly illegal

It is covered in US Code, Title 18: Section 2835. Advocating Overthrow of the Government


For a synopsis of what is commonly known as The Smith Act:
The nation's most recent sedition law was adopted in 1940. The Smith Act, as it is known, prohibits the advocacy of the violent overthrow of the government. Following a series of trials and two Supreme Court rulings in the 1950s, the law has become a relatively benign prohibition. The high court ruled in 1957 in Yates v. U.S. that to sustain a conviction under the Smith Act, the government must prove that the defendants advocate specific violent or forcible action toward the overthrow of the government. The government found it impossible to prove this in the 1950s, and the Smith Act has not been invoked to punish an act of expression for more than 40 years. The Supreme Court made its last important attempt to reconcile the First Amendment and the law of sedition in 1969 when it ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that advocacy of unlawful conduct is protected by the Constitution unless it is directed toward inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.


So the Freepers are covered unless they actually mean it. If they're just whining then they are probably okay.

[BBradley]

15. And again that is wrong.

As I said in post 10, If you disagree with me in this, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

[neweurope]

16. Yes we will have to agree to disagree. You cannot say something

is "wrong" when it has served a society extremely well. There is no absolute "right" or "wrong". What works is good, what doesn't isn't. We also have strict laws against hate speech in Europe and I am very much for it. And I never have felt constricted. We have some experience with hate speech and fascism on this continent and do not plan to repeat it. The US however just seem to be making their own experiences.


---------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Jack_DeLeon]

27. sounds like a concept from the book 1984...

European's had problems with certain actions. So to stop said actions they restrict speach.

[AZCat]

30. Or 1798...

The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in the United States in 1798. Granted, they were thrown out, but that didn't stop us from passing another set of acts during WWI, and finally settling with the Smith Act in 1940 (which is still in place, albeit weakened).

My point is that it isn't something out of fiction, or limited to Europe - we have tangled with the concept several times here.

[dutchdoctor]

19. This is not freedom of expression

We have freedom of expression laws in Europe too, but there are limits...
Freedom of expression ends when you use it to incite hatred and actively stimulate people to commit hate crimes. I guess you forget how powerful that Nazi symbolism still is to some in Europe.
When you bring the Nazi salute to these Lazio fans that are known for their extreme antisemitism you are telling them it is OK that they regularly beat up foreigners and Jews.
This guy should know that and should be prosecuted.

edited for spelling

[BBradley]

20. Freedom of expression does not end anywhere.

You either have the freedom to express yourself fully, or you do not.

[tkmorris]

33. I hate to break out the old chestnut

but what of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre? Doing such a thing creates a situation where people will likely be harmed in a real way as a direct result of the words used and the person exercising their "right to free speech" is expected to know this and refrain, within reason.

This is only the most famous example, there are many, many, circumstances in which expressing ones self in a socially irresponsible way brings real harm to others, or at least creates a reasonable expectation that such harm could occur. Most of Europe views these sorts of gestures as exactly that sort of situation and historically, they have been correct.

Free speech is not, and has never been anywhere that I am aware of, a limitless right. It comes down to your rights ending right at the tip of the next mans nose, which is to say that when exercise of your rights infringes upon the rights of others.

[BBradley]

43. To that I say it is the responsibility of those who panic...

To control themselves. I think you're confusing what is practical and convenient to society, with what a right implies.

[tkmorris]

48. With all due respect

I don't think I am confusing anything at all. Rights, however one might define them, cease to be so when the executor of said right endangers the wellbeing of others.

Could I for example, sneak up on someone on the high dive at my local pool and scream in their ear unexpectedly? If they fall, breaking a leg say, am I not culpable in some way?

Let's put our sneaky screamer into the cockpit of a 757 executing a delicate landing. Can he attempt to scare the bejeebus out of our duped pilot at the critical moment?

Let's place him at the scene of a tense standoff between police and a scared and slightly paranoid man hold his family hostage at gunpoint. This time let's have him throw a few firecrackers into the no man's land. So what if people get shot, it's free speech right?

I don't think so myself. Fortunately for us all, neither do our lawmakers.

[BBradley]

52. Even if I make that concession, expressing oneself politically

is still a different ball-park, and I don't think the comparison is an accurate one.


*Edit*

The ability to express oneself politically should be upheld even if one's opinion would instigate the death of another. One cannot help having a certain opinion, but one can help how one reacts to anothers opinion. It is the perpetrator of the death or injury that should be punished, not the person expressing themselves.

[AZCat]

54. Threatening to overthrow the government (political speech)...

is a threat to all of us that share your country, and that is why that particular form of speech is restricted.

Supporting Naziism in Europe is analogous to advocating the violent overthrow of the United States here.

[BBradley]

56. To that I would say

Overthrowing the government against the will of the majority is dangerous to the people. Threatening to harms no one.

[AZCat]

59. The Supreme Court has sort of danced around this...

See my post above (#23) for a quick summary of the history of the most recent sedition act, The Smith Act. To put it simply: it's illegal if it is likely to lead to action, but otherwise you are probably within your rights.

However, the most recent internal threat the U.S. had was in the middle of the nineteenth century; the Europeans have undergone a more recent scare. I can certainly understand their dread of a repeat.


Edit: Spelling

[neweurope]

57. You have just proven that Hitler was as innocent as a newborn baby.

I congratulate you :)


---------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[BBradley]

60. Yeah, I'm hitler's bitch.

Get real. There's a difference between using the government as a tool to kill millions of people, and expressing a political opinion. Prosecuters argue that people should be killed every day, should they be thrown in jail for this? It's the action, not the idea that should be criminal.

[neweurope]

63. "It's the action, not the idea that should be criminal". Wrong.

Hitlers ideas - not only his government - were responsible for millions of deaths. If a lot of people had not been influenced by his ideas these murders would and could never have taken place.

-----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[BBradley]

66. Thought Crime eh? A persons thoughts and ideas are his own.

Believing something is not criminal. Should not be criminal, and if you think the opposite, we are enemies.

[neweurope]

70. We were not talking of thought but of airing these thoughts - speech.

And since it is very clear that we think totally different let's end this now please :)

--------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague

[BBradley]

76. I agree, good discussion, nice speaking with you.

[leftynyc]

81. You're speaking from a very ethno-centric, American

point of view. What part of IT'S AGAINST THE LAW IN EUROPE do you not seem to understand or respect?

[BBradley]

84. Have you read all my posts in this thread?

I said more than once that I'm fully aware of the political reality of the situation. What I was expressing was my opinion on the matter. Which is well within my rights. So before you accuse me of not respecting or understanding a position why don't you read the thread, and stop treading on ground that was already covered more civilly a few hours ago. Thank you.

[BBradley]

24. Also, why not just go straight to the source, and prosecute him for

thoughtcrime. Afterall, Fascist rhetoric begins with fascist thoughts.

[rooboy]

25. American freedom of expression eh?

I DARE YOU to make a threat against the life of the president on this board.

[Jack_DeLeon]

28. So you are claiming...

that holding up your arm at a certain angle is the equivalent of specifically threatening the life of a specific individual?

That being said I'm sure if I did threaten a specific individual on this board I would suffer no criminal reprecussions. However I'm certain the forum moderators and admins would take action against me.

[rooboy]

35. My point is that you DO NOT have freedom of expression...

to say or gesture anything you like. There are rules in civil society that are there to prevent physical harm to others. Nazi/Fascist salutes at soccer games are a danger to people's physical wellbeing.

[BBradley]

36. Can you tell me where I said that he has the right?

My original post said that he SHOULD.

[rooboy]

40. You said this...

"Maybe I've just been indoctrinated with American Garbage like freedom of expression"

and I pointed out that you're talking shit, because you don't have it.

[BBradley]

45. And I addressed that in post 29.

[Jack_DeLeon]

37. Bullshit...

there may be laws against it but I do absolutely have the right to express myself in any manner I choose.

[tkmorris]

41. May I ask what by what authority you have that right?

If this "right" you speak of was not authorized to you by the law of the land in which you live, by what authority do you claim it? Was it given to you by some Deity? Is it inherent to the human condition? Where does it come from?

[Jack_DeLeon]

42. What rights people have....

and what rights various world governments say they have are completely different things.

[tkmorris]

44. Ah, but you didn't answer the question

If your "rights" are not granted you by your government than from where pray tell do they come? How do you know what they are? Where is it written?

Truly, it seems as if you feel you have whatever rights you claim unto yourself.

[Jack_DeLeon]

49. Governments dont give rights...

they restrict them.

People have the right to do whatever they want. Its thier life, thier body, thier choice to use it as they see fit.

[BBradley]

50. That is besides the point.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence did he justify his position on why certain rights were self-evident?

[tkmorris]

62. Well done, well done

Indeed, it seems to me that there ARE in fact rights which are "self evident", as you pointed out. However, unlimited expression of free speech opens a tremendous can of worms. See my post 48 for examples, my typing skills are such that I really must economize.

Improper exercise of free speech can in fact cause very real harm to people. The trick is in knowing when that is the case. I admit that it is a very difficult thing to call often. Burning a flag, for example, strikes me as proper exercise of free speech. Could it incite a riot? Certainly, but I believe if it does it is primarily an over-reaction on the part of the onlookers who do so. This is an indefensible position and I know it. It falls solidly into a grey area between obvious proper exercise of rights and knowingly abusing said rights with the intent to cause harm (violation of others rights).

That is the problem one gets into with such arguments. There is always a situation imaginable wherein an exercise of one persons "rights" infringes upon the rights of others. Governments role in such matters is deciding what is to the greater good of society while maintaining the rights of the individual as best they can.

[democracyindanger]

65. You can't reason

with someone who, when having the fire-in-a-crowded-theater example put to him, blames the people in the theater for overreacting.

[BBradley]

68. Thank you for dropping in to personally attack me.

Thank you for adding absolutely nothing to the discussion.

[democracyindanger]

71. Not personally attacking you

Sorry you feel that way. When the defense of an absolute right to free speech reaches absurdity, it moves outside the realm of reason.

[BBradley]

75. I'm sorry but..

If the fire was real then the deaths that might result from such an exclamation are entirely justified? Even circumstances where one fears for their life directly causing the death of another is not justified.

Just because I might panic and stomp on an infants skull during my escape from the theatre does not mean that somehow the person who falsely screamed fire is liable for the death that I caused.

[BBradley]

73. I still think

You replied to your own post in your second paragraph. While I myself might feasibly participate in a flag burning, I would not participate in a fascist gesture. I think we differ in that I see no difference between the two besides them traditionally coming from opposite political ideologies. Therefore I defend the right to do both.

[tkmorris]

39. I am sure they would as well

but that isn't the point. The point also isn't whether you would suffer criminal repercussions; I am sure that in fact you would not. But that is mainly because it is quite unlikely that anyone would go to the trouble of prosecuting it. If you voiced a threat you WOULD in fact have committed a crime, right to free speech or not, and I'm sure that you know that.

[AZCat]

46. I think you're taking it a bit too lightly...

Threat to Bush ("Kill Bush") on billboard gains Secret Service notice

Secret service visits Blogger - Anti-Bush rant goes bad

Secret Service pays visit to Boulder High



That sort of stuff is taken VERY seriously, and is not for jokes.

[tkmorris]

51. I was speaking to his notion.........

of threatening another poster here, not the Shrubmeister Incarnate. You are right, that one would get him a vacation in beautiful tropical Cuba.

[BBradley]

29. What's your point?

I still hold, and many others do as well, the right to express oneself fully as an ideal implied in the first amendment of the Constitution.

The issue isn't whether something is illegal or not. The issue I brought up is whether it is right. I do not believe it is right in anycase to abridge anyone's political expression.

[leftynyc]

79. It's very simply against the law there

Don't like it, work to change the law.

[Jack_DeLeon]

11. I agree...

Its called the "roman salute" and was around long before Nazi's used it. Hell we used to use it in the US too.

I support freedom of speech and expression. Government censorship of anykind is wrong.

[neweurope]

17. "Its called the "roman salute" and was around long before Nazi's used it."

True. But everybody knows that that soccer guy meant it to be a nazi salutation. That's the difference. He has been defending Mussolini in the past, even admiring him.

Government censorship... it's not government censorship. It is the law that the state gave itself. In a democracy such a law cannot be called censorship. We are very, very free societies. But hate speech, children porn and fascist symbols are forbidden and (almost) all of society think that this is very right.


-----------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague

[BBradley]

18. It is censorship. Just because you agree with it doesn't change the action

[neweurope]

21. Doesn't really matter to me if you call it censorship. I agree with

the law a hundred percent.


-------------------

Remember Fallujah!

Bush to The Hague

[Jack_DeLeon]

32. There is nothing wrong with that...

plenty of people agree with censorship. Its not so unusual that you would agree with some of it.

What I find funny is how some people will come up with all kinds of excusing and euphemisms to make it seem like they arent supporting censorship.

[Jack_DeLeon]

31. Government laws that censor arent censorship?

:crazy:

What kind of crazy ass doublethink is required for your statement to make sense?

[neweurope]

47. For us it is no censorship. Every political party - we have a lot of them

- can print and say what they want. Pretty much everybody can say and print what they want. But Nazi parties are NOT considered to be of the normal political spectrum. Nazi thinking is responsible for the biggest crime of the last century and perhaps of all times. Society has agreed to never allow this again. For us this is not censorship but one of the pillars the state rests upon.

Pedophiles (I hope that's the word) are another example. Some of them have openly claimed they feel "censored". As long as the children "agree" they claim they can show them posing etc. I do not think so. Society has to state with all means that using children sexually is a crime. If you want to call this "censorship" - ok. I support this "censorship".

Somebody who instigates murder is as bad as the murderer and in some cases worse. Hitler to my knowledge never killed anybody with his own hands. Would you call him innocent? - That soccer player instigates racism and hatred against Jews and foreigners. I am glad that we have laws that forbid this. I'm even proud of it.

I find it honorable that you defend the freedom of speech and expression of even nazis and rednecks so much - at a time when that freedom of speech and expression is being used almost exclusevely AGAINST YOU. But when the day comes - it will come and soon - when YOU are suffering you will see where this has led you. We in Europe have made that experience already.

---------------------


Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague

[BBradley]

53. Thanks you sensei, but I will stick by my ideals.

[neweurope]

55. By all means :) You will have time contemplating them in the Gulag.

----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[BBradley]

58. I hope that was a friendly jest.

Nowhere did I say that I agree with such an expression, think it cute or appropriate. I merely said I believe it to be something which one should be able to do. If they put you in the Gulag for that in Europe then maybe you guys are a little more backwards than I thought.

[neweurope]

61. I was speaking of American Gulags... and yes, it was a friendly

jest. Well, it was also an anxious jest. Already the mainstream media are using their rights for free expression - they are using it exclusevely against you. And I see hard times ahead.

We cannot do more than to agree to disagree. You say in fact that freedom has no bounds. I can never even get close to that kind of thinking. Freedom starts having bounds when I begin to live even with one person. And the bigger a community becomes the less individual rights I have - because the rights of the others have to be contemplated, also.

So let's end this please. We will not be able to find a compromise on this.


-----------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[RuleofLaw]

86. Actually its not censorship!

Censorship is the banning or deletion of information before it is disseminated to the public.

For instance, in Denmark, the constitution bans censorship. But we have laws that prohibit hatespeach.

just for clarification.

[BBradley]

88. So you have laws that stop people from saying certain things...

How is this not censorship?

[RuleofLaw]

89. They can say it, but may face a penalty.

But you cannot be prevented from saying it.

For instance, I can write in a book that the prime minister has killed people, and the government cannot prevent me from publishing it. But, I can be sued for libel afterwards for saying it.

There is a difference, however subtle it is.

[SweetLeftFoot]

72. How?

True. But everybody knows that that soccer guy meant it to be a nazi salutation.

Everybody knows Israel did 9/11 ...

Everybody knows the government is covering up UFO activity ...


I don't know that Di Canio meant it at as a nazi salute. I know he is a crazy bastard though.

[neweurope]

74. He has written about his fascination with Mussolini and he has

"dux" tattooed on his arm.

"There are two aspects to my fascination with Mussolini. The first is the way he faced difficulties and overcame them ..... Mussolini's other great quality was his patriotism. Like me he was a nationalist ..... He deceived people, his actions were often vile or calculated. But all this was motivated by a higher purpose."

Believe me: He has made it clear to all of Europe that he IS a fascist.

--------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[SweetLeftFoot]

77. Doesn't sound to me

like he is one-hundred per cent behind Mussolini. When he played for Celtic he was very eloquent about the vile nature of the sectarianism he'd encounter during Old Firm games.

I think he was doing it to annoy the Roma fans more than anything. A stupid thing to do either way.

[T_i_B]

78. Di Canio used to play for the team I support

I case you are wondering I support Sheffield Wednesday. And I have to say that I was never a big fan of his. (incidentally, he was signed for us by Ron Atkinson, and we all know about his track record on these matters :eyes: )

He left Wednesday in acrimonious circumstances after pushing over the referee in a 1-0 win over Arsenal and oddly enough, once he packed his bags we played OK for the rest of that season. He's not a good person to have round any football team, if only because he is a bad influence in the dressing room.

Wednesday have slipped some way since Di Canio and Carbone played for us but I'd take Kenwyn Jones over Di Canio any day.

[HuckleB]

82. It wouldn't surprise me, but has anyone seen a video of the incident?

Di Canio's history is quite clear, but still pictures don't tell the story. Did he stop in the salute, or was he caught raising his arm to wave. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it was indeed a salute, but I don't trust the soccer press in Europe either.

[neweurope]

83. Look at the picture (nr. 2) and tell me that's waving...

...and it has been reported everywhere here in Germany. And not only in the soccer press which I don't read.

-----------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague

[HuckleB]

85. So you haven't seen a video?

It's been reported that the police are looking at video. Doesn't the European press have video of this?

[neweurope]

90. They probably do - I haven't seen it because I neither have

a TV nor am interested in soccer in the least. But evidently half of Europe has seen this. I have seen a number of different pictures meanwhile in the press and what the man has done is not waving of any kind. It is the fascist salutation with totally stretched arm and hand. Which is forbidden, basta.

Lazio-fans are moreover known for their sympathy for the neo-nazis (they have sported swastikas and pictures of Mussolini) and so is this soccer player.

----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[ausiedownunderground]

87. In Iraq Soccer is Peace - But the American's don't get it?

I have a good friend whose cousin is an Oz special force in Iraq. It's his Third time there and he spent one in Afghanistan as well before. He is absolutely "screaming out" that football or Soccer is a weapon of Guerilla "Mass Destruction". The "kids" love Football and so do the Guerilla's. In Battle in Iraq the Kid's "just appear" and start playing football or Soccer, to the unanitiated, during the middle of a "firefight". Firefight - stops! Nobody shoots kids. Playing football in a tiny alley or one of Baghdad's main streets. The US forces keeping talking about this "Game" that keeps Iraqi kids obsessed and the rest of "The Coalition of the Willing" troops happy. Football is "Saving heaps of lives in Iraq"!!!

[Blue_Tires]

91. Lazio has long had a history of racism