European playoffs WC 2014 Qualification

[KC McElroy]

World Cup is nothing without me' - Ibrahimovic

Following Sweden's defeat to Portugal in a World Cup play-off the attacker made the incredible claim that Brazil 2014 will not be worth watching now that he is not involved

Sweden international Zlatan Ibrahimovic has made a startling assertion that the 2014 World Cup will not be worth watching following his side's elimination from the play-offs because he will not be there.

Ibrahimovic could not prevent his side's hopes of making it to Brazil from being dashed despite scoring a double, as Cristiano Ronaldo stole the show with an outstanding hat-trick to win the match for Portugal in the second leg play-off 3-2 (4-2 on aggregate).

The 32-year-old, who admits it might be his last attempt to reach a World Cup, says the major tournament being held next June will not be worth following now that he will not be involved.

"It was probably the last attempt to reach the World Cup with the national team for me. One thing is for sure, a World Cup without me is nothing to watch so it is not worth while to wait for the World Cup," he said to his app Zlatan unplugged.

"Congratulations to Portugal, but both teams deserved to get to the World Cup.

"The disappointment of course is great now that the World Cup in Brazil will remain a dream for the Swedish national team."

LOL judging by the Uruguay-England game this is one very confused Bosnian!!!!

[hzv]

ibra is bosnian. he will watch bosnia in the world cup and cheer for them. he can be born in a country adopt their customs and take their passport and even play for their national team but he will always be boisnian even though he never spent a day there. look at davari,zandi,dejagah,ghoochnejad....i know iranians who were born in canada dont speak farsi,never been to iran,their parents dont practice iranian customs and culturally are canadianized but when you ask the kid what nationality he has he says iranian. that affiliation that occurs with a country you never visited and a place you know nothing about is blood. your last name says more than your passport. any naturalized players who play for other national teams fantacized at some point about representing their country. that affiliation and love for a country no matter how lowly a country and how small and insignificant is blood. it lasts and is in explainable.

[KC McElroy]

I could also make assumptions about your arguments like you did of mine, but I will accept simply disagreeing if that is what it is determined for us to settle on

That would probably be best because while I still believe you are just messing with me, even if you aren't I doubt other one of us will convince the other of their point.

[rugs]

Talk about citizenship and let me know the answer to the same question.

I don't know the specifics of US or Canadian law, but I think they are the closest to my opinion. In that if you live in a country for a certain amount of time and show that you are a member of that society/tribe/group then you can gain citizenship.

I also believe in the marriage and birth laws in Iran for citizenship. It allows those outside of Iran to enter society and be a part of it if they choose.

On a side note would anyone who has an affinity for things of another country be considered to belong to that country in your opinion?

No. I believe in the tribe. You live with the tribe to become a part of it. That defines a person in my opinion.

Actually now that I think about it I will not continue this discussion as this is a mirror image of your previous discussion of trying to convince us that Canada did not exist until the 1980s. I don't believe you are having a discussion and trying to prove your point but rather are just arguing for the sake of argument which should have become apparent to me after you claimed guns, knives, samurai swords and machetes don't hurt people.

Well you are wrong and twisting my words. I said Canada was a different country with different laws and a different name after the Canada Act, which is true.

You claimed electricity to be man made and I pointed out it wasnt.

Don't blame me for flaws in your argument. This whole thing is about you claiming Zlatan is not Swedish, when in fact he is. So I was playing the role of devil's advocate and then added my own opinion when you asked for it.

But on the off chance that you are genuine in your belief that Zlatan is not Bosnian, I will leave you with your insistence that the individual needs to have an affinity for things of the country in question. I don't know how much more affinity one can show than trying to be one of only 22 individuals to represent the said country.

There you go again. I did not say Zlatan was not Bosnian. I said he was Swedish because you claimed he was not Swedish. I am arguing for him being Swedish, not not being Bosnian.

Rugs I have seen your posts and arguments before and while at times I may disagree with them but I always give you credit for having an opinion and backing it up. That's not the case this time (talking about tribes, Kaebi's ethnicity vs nationality, tracing Ando's lineage back to the 1600s when Iran has only been a country in the modern sense for about a century, the weapons example, acknowledging dual nationalities but then taking it back, the affinity factor for establishing a nationality, etc.) which is why I believe you are just messing around and why I will not respond any further. If this is in fact your genuine opinion then we will just have to disagree.

I think you are not getting my argument. I am using those examples to show the flaws in your blood argument. That is why I used the Ando and Kaebi as examples. That is also why I discussed the "tribe". I know people in Iran who are not born of Iranian parents but have lived in Iran all their lives and are more Iranian in my view than the Iranians I saw in the US.

But like I said, I am taking the position against your argument that Zlatan is not Swedish because he is not of Swedish "blood". I disagree with that idea and I was waiting for you to give a convincing argument, that is why I gave answers to all your questions. I could also make assumptions about your arguments like you did of mine, but I will accept simply disagreeing if that is what it is determined for us to settle on

[KC McElroy]

Not talking about citizenship and speaking only in terms of a tribe and belonging to a group, I wouldn't consider them Iranian. If they had an affinity for things Iranian, then you could group them as Iranian-American.

Talk about citizenship and let me know the answer to the same question.
On a side note would anyone who has an affinity for things of another country be considered to belong to that country in your opinion?

Actually now that I think about it I will not continue this discussion as this is a mirror image of your previous discussion of trying to convince us that Canada did not exist until the 1980s. I don't believe you are having a discussion and trying to prove your point but rather are just arguing for the sake of argument which should have become apparent to me after you claimed guns, knives, samurai swords and machetes don't hurt people.

But on the off chance that you are genuine in your belief that Zlatan is not Bosnian, I will leave you with your insistence that the individual needs to have an affinity for things of the country in question. I don't know how much more affinity one can show than trying to be one of only 22 individuals to represent the said country.

Rugs I have seen your posts and arguments before and while at times I may disagree with them but I always give you credit for having an opinion and backing it up. That's not the case this time (talking about tribes, Kaebi's ethnicity vs nationality, tracing Ando's lineage back to the 1600s when Iran has only been a country in the modern sense for about a century, the weapons example, acknowledging dual nationalities but then taking it back, the affinity factor for establishing a nationality, etc.) which is why I believe you are just messing around and why I will not respond any further. If this is in fact your genuine opinion then we will just have to disagree.

[rugs]

I could address the other things you have mentioned including the 2nd post about bullets and knives but I wanna zero in on the bolded part. When you say they would be more American than Iranian, does that imply that you are acknowledging that they are in fact Iranian (although in your opinion not as much as they are American)?

Not talking about citizenship and speaking only in terms of a tribe and belonging to a group, I wouldn't consider them Iranian. If they had an affinity for things Iranian, then you could group them as Iranian-American.

[KC McElroy]

You keep mentioning reality, but the reality is that Zlatan is Swedish. The reality is, for many countries including Iran, "blood" is not a determining factor for gaining citizenship. That is the reality.

The problem is, your reality is not a reality. Just like the "shooting people in blue shirts" is not a reality.

This idea of blood ties based on some arbitrary date of when a country become a country is not a reality either. Is Teymourian Iranian? The earliest his ancestors came to Iran would be 1607. What about Kaebi? His "blood" is Arab.

How about a non-Iranian women who marry an Iranian and under law becomes Iranian? Is she Iranian?

As for my opinion: People can be multiple things (Azari-Kurd) for example. That said, people can also be multiple nationalities. Given what you are discussing, tribe might be a better word to use than nationality given that nationality is based on law and not opinion. So as far as tribes go, people can belong to multiple ones. I believe the one they are closest to is the one they are.

So, if someone was born to Iranian parents and currently lives in the USA, they would be more American(tribe) in my view than Iranian. If they come back to Iran and live in Iran, then they would be more Iranian. Now these groups have branches down the chain, you can say "Iranian-American" or "Azari-Iranian" etc based on how and who you choose to group yourself with.

So in summary, Zlatan was born and raised in Sweden. He grew up as a part of that tribe. That is what is familiar to him. So the reality is, he would associate himself with that group more than he would with the group his parents once belonged to.

I could address the other things you have mentioned including the 2nd post about bullets and knives but I wanna zero in on the bolded part. When you say they would be more American than Iranian, does that imply that you are acknowledging that they are in fact Iranian (although in your opinion not as much as they are American)?

[rugs]

Please also address the bullet, knife, samurai sword and machete.

I don't see the relevance. You brought up electricity suggesting it was man made, which it is not.

But I guess you can say touching an outlet without electricity would be like touching a bullet, knife, samurai sword or machete. I imagine most people have touched one or the other and are fine.

[rugs]

You are in fact repeating exactly what I said before and what I am still saying. This isn't a criticism of laws but personal choices in regards to reality. I understand this is the law but I disagree with it as the law goes against reality. If a law says it's ok to shoot anyone wearing a blue shirt, I will accept it as the law but still be disgusted by anyone who acts upon this law and shoots random strangers in blue shirts as opposed to refraining from doing so based on their own personal decision (which will still be lawful as the law doesn't say you MUST shoot such people). As I said before, I don't plan on doing anything against this law to change it, I'm just voicing my disgust over it as it contradicts reality. It still doesn't mean people can't act according to reality and still not break the law (not choosing a national team other than the one they have by blood). My disgust isn't directed towards FIFA for having such a law, it's directed at the individuals who take advantage of such a law and in essence give a middle finger to their heritage and ancestry. All the other scenarios you gave were also about laws, which as I said is not my concern.
I realize this is becoming a long post but just to clarify my position consider this: You see someone stab and kill someone. The guy goes to court where lawyers will throw in all kinds of legal arguments around. Regardless of such legal arguments and the court outcome, nothing will change your personal opinion: based on reality, the suspect killed someone else.
Since this is a discussion between the two of us, and I have voiced my opinion (and not the law) about it, please give me your opinion about this scenario, regardless of what the law says: Is someone born outside of Iran to Iranian parents who has never set foot in Iran considered Iranian? Again, your opinion on it, not the law.

You keep mentioning reality, but the reality is that Zlatan is Swedish. The reality is, for many countries including Iran, "blood" is not a determining factor for gaining citizenship. That is the reality.

The problem is, your reality is not a reality. Just like the "shooting people in blue shirts" is not a reality.

This idea of blood ties based on some arbitrary date of when a country become a country is not a reality either. Is Teymourian Iranian? The earliest his ancestors came to Iran would be 1607. What about Kaebi? His "blood" is Arab.

How about a non-Iranian women who marry an Iranian and under law becomes Iranian? Is she Iranian?

As for my opinion: People can be multiple things (Azari-Kurd) for example. That said, people can also be multiple nationalities. Given what you are discussing, tribe might be a better word to use than nationality given that nationality is based on law and not opinion. So as far as tribes go, people can belong to multiple ones. I believe the one they are closest to is the one they are.

So, if someone was born to Iranian parents and currently lives in the USA, they would be more American(tribe) in my view than Iranian. If they come back to Iran and live in Iran, then they would be more Iranian. Now these groups have branches down the chain, you can say "Iranian-American" or "Azari-Iranian" etc based on how and who you choose to group yourself with.

So in summary, Zlatan was born and raised in Sweden. He grew up as a part of that tribe. That is what is familiar to him. So the reality is, he would associate himself with that group more than he would with the group his parents once belonged to.

[KC McElroy]

What if a person recieves blood transfusion from a native being?

If a Swede (let us call him/her a descendant of the vikings) donates his blood to Ibrahimovic, does that suddenly make Ibrahimovic a Swede?

By your logic he will suddenly have Swedish blood in him, which makes him fully eligible to represent the Swedish NT.

When you get a blood transfusion, do you consider yourself blood related to the person who has given you the blood? If so, then your answer is yes.

[Raptor]

Not the country whose blood he has.

What if a person receives a blood transfusion from a native being?

If a Swede (let us call him/her a descendant of the vikings) donates his blood to Ibrahimovic, does that suddenly make Ibrahimovic a Swede?

By your logic he will suddenly have Swedish blood in him, which makes him fully eligible to represent the Swedish NT.

[KC McElroy]

It's like the Fifa hejab discussion from a year or so ago. If I remember correctly you made the argument that even though people disagree with Fifa's decision, one must respect FIFA's laws and it was Iran that was in the wrong for not respecting the law and if anyone had any problems they should try and change the law.

In Qatar's case, even though some may disagree, it's the law that decides.

Iran has its own laws and so does Qatar and so does FIFA.

For Iran, it's not the Iranian born outside of Iran, never having set foot in Iran, that claims he is Iranian. It is Iran that claims he is Iranian. For example, that person cannot travel to Iran with a non-Iranian passport if their father is or was Iranian. Iran considers them Iranian and therefore must travel with an Iranian passport.

As for "blood", even Iran doesn't consider blood as a measure of being Iranian because if only your mother is Iranian and not your father, you won't be considered Iranian. There were talks of changing that law but i'm not sure if it ever changed.

Also in regard to "blood". If you are an Iranian man and marry a non-Iranian woman, she can become Iranian although she has no Iranian "blood".

You are in fact repeating exactly what I said before and what I am still saying. This isn't a criticism of laws but personal choices in regards to reality. I understand this is the law but I disagree with it as the law goes against reality. If a law says it's ok to shoot anyone wearing a blue shirt, I will accept it as the law but still be disgusted by anyone who acts upon this law and shoots random strangers in blue shirts as opposed to refraining from doing so based on their own personal decision (which will still be lawful as the law doesn't say you MUST shoot such people). As I said before, I don't plan on doing anything against this law to change it, I'm just voicing my disgust over it as it contradicts reality. It still doesn't mean people can't act according to reality and still not break the law (not choosing a national team other than the one they have by blood). My disgust isn't directed towards FIFA for having such a law, it's directed at the individuals who take advantage of such a law and in essence give a middle finger to their heritage and ancestry. All the other scenarios you gave were also about laws, which as I said is not my concern.
I realize this is becoming a long post but just to clarify my position consider this: You see someone stab and kill someone. The guy goes to court where lawyers will throw in all kinds of legal arguments around. Regardless of such legal arguments and the court outcome, nothing will change your personal opinion: based on reality, the suspect killed someone else.
Since this is a discussion between the two of us, and I have voiced my opinion (and not the law) about it, please give me your opinion about this scenario, regardless of what the law says: Is someone born outside of Iran to Iranian parents who has never set foot in Iran considered Iranian? Again, your opinion on it, not the law.

[KC McElroy]

But an electric outlet without electricity is of no harm. So you need electricity, which is not man made, for the outlet to be of any harm.

Please also address the bullet, knife, samurai sword and machete.

[rugs]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I'd like to see some of these counter arguments pop up the next time we play qatar. Or the next time a PFDC member born and living outside Iran and having never set foot in Iran claims he is Iranian.

It's like the Fifa hejab discussion from a year or so ago. If I remember correctly you made the argument that even though people disagree with Fifa's decision, one must respect FIFA's laws and it was Iran that was in the wrong for not respecting the law and if anyone had any problems they should try and change the law.

In Qatar's case, even though some may disagree, it's the law that decides.

Iran has its own laws and so does Qatar and so does FIFA.

For Iran, it's not the Iranian born outside of Iran, never having set foot in Iran, that claims he is Iranian. It is Iran that claims he is Iranian. For example, that person cannot travel to Iran with a non-Iranian passport if their father is or was Iranian. Iran considers them Iranian and therefore must travel with an Iranian passport.

As for "blood", even Iran doesn't consider blood as a measure of being Iranian because if only your mother is Iranian and not your father, you won't be considered Iranian. There were talks of changing that law but i'm not sure if it ever changed.

Also in regard to "blood". If you are an Iranian man and marry a non-Iranian woman, she can become Iranian although she has no Iranian "blood".

[rugs]

An electric outlet is an invention. So is a bullet, knife, samurai sword and machete. If ever a law comes out that says these items will not hurt you, I will disagree with it and stick with reality.

But an electric outlet without electricity is of no harm. So you need electricity, which is not man made, for the outlet to be of any harm.