jackson33 Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 So, instead of saying "people like moderators," how about you call one out specifically and directly address the issues you have with their attitudes/opinions? no; this is wrong to request and i understand his point. there is an apparent solidarity of moderators, which i DO NOT object to. it is for the visitor to accept this onslaught of judgment or move on. personally i would prefer to see Hov, continue his effort. i cannot imagine what he or his loved one have gone through is Israel or for that matter the rest of that country. kids, women and people with strapped on bombs with the intent to kill for no personal reason (not well educated). kidnapping of soldiers to get convicted prisoners released then refusing the simple release in favor of war and then the constant terror missiles with no expected destinations. there may be some innocents in Lebanon so ill admit some sympathy for them. they have the power, however to rid their country of terrorist, did not and have not done so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dov Henis Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 Dear Buffy, I repeat, for clarity: - The thread is about if/how terror has been changing us, not re its roots (grievences???) nor re how to survive it or how to destroy it. - I'm amazed, flabbergasted by the fervoured policy of some MODERATORS that in conflicts between two parties each of the two has/is contributing causes to the conflict, - and by these MODERATORS' outright or implied attitude/opinion that the Israel-Palestine conflict is a major cause of fundmuslims terror, Israel thus contributing justification to this terror, - and by some MODERATORS' repeated suggestion that the fundmuslims' terror may be handled-overcome-ceased by DISCUSSION with them, with terrorists. Dov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 The thread is about if/how terror has been changing us, not re its roots (grievences???) nor re how to survive it or how to destroy it.Fair enough. Threads sometimes do evolve. I would argue however that attitudes expressed in these digressions do indeed *show* how the War on Terror has changed us! In many cases, example is much better than theoretical abstractions!I'm amazed, flabbergasted by the fervoured policy of some MODERATORS that in conflicts between two parties each of the two has/is contributing causes to the conflict,I repeat, for clarity: Look back at my last post. This is the kind of unfounded, overstated accusation that can get people mad at you. If you're looking for examples of how strong feelings caused by the War on Terror has affected people, it is that it seems to cause people who do not advocate the most extreme measures to be accused of being apologists or outright traitors or "contributing" to the terrorist cause. As Now has hinted as well, its interesting that you don't want to come right out and say that we're all "pro-terrorist," but you sure like implying it.and by these MODERATORS' outright or implied attitude/opinion that the Israel-Palestine conflict is a major cause of fundmuslims terror, Israel thus contributing justification to this terror,I repeat, for clarity: As I pointed out in my previous post, I am saying nothing of the sort, and your insistence on portraying the statements that I and others have made is the same thing is offensive to many. Again, you should look at how you are interpreting the statements of others before you make accusations that the reactions of others are inexplicable.and by some MODERATORS' repeated suggestion that the fundmuslims' terror may be handled-overcome-ceased by DISCUSSION with them, with terrorists. I repeat, for clarity: This is a misrepresentation of the statements being made. You need to understand that this offends people. The fact that Moderators engage in expression of their own personal opinions is the nature of this forum. Moderators are not required to have no or even neutral opinions *except* in situations where they are trying to mediate issues, which occurs as appropriate. Your seeming insistence that Moderators should have no opinion is interesting, but would seem to be primarily a misdirection. Cheers,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dov Henis Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 ...it seems to cause people who do not advocate the most extreme measures to be accused of being apologists or outright traitors or "contributing" to the terrorist cause Re handling terror please elaborate on most extreme and less extreme measures... ... you don't want to come right out and say that we're all "pro-terrorist," but you sure like implying it. Buffy, being a moderator may you consider ceasing guesses and extrapolations of what posters think or want or imply beyond what they write... ...look at how you are interpreting the statements of others before you make accusations that the reactions of others are inexplicable. You are right in this matter. I deserve this admonition for at least one thing, for suggesting that "understanding" terrorists' reasons is tantamount to virtually finding some "justification" for their actions. This stems from my attitude that each and every proven terrorist should be treated as an incurable murderer without any if or but etc., discounts. Your seeming insistence that Moderators should have no opinion is interesting, but would seem to be primarily a misdirection. Not possible that moderators have no opinion. They too are human... It just happens that in this thread I'm irritated by some of their opinions, as it happens that I'm irritated by some opinions of other participants. But having especially high regard of the Forum's moderator position my this case of irritation is more painful to me when brought about by a moderator... Cheers,Buffy And cheers to you too, Dov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 I would like to point out that your categorization of all moderators is very similar to your categorization of all Palestinians... People are people, so why should it be, that you and I we get along so... ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsyCho Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 try to carry a bible in hand while in Saudi Arabia or let your wife show her face in many places. Jackson, I have white caucasian friends who work as translators. They are fluent in Arabic and travel the middle east. Provided that the cultural norms are respected (as in females cover up if that is what the societal norm for the country your in is), then there often isn't a huge problem. None of them have certainly not lost their heads or other body parts, and have been able to visit Mosques. Carrying a bible would be delibrately antagonistic, but most people would probably choose to ignore you. However the same is true for other countries. Try walking through centre of j'berg as a tourist (with or without bible)... You may loose your head, or at least acquire some high velocity shrapnel, causing just a wee bit of damage.. and i don't think that's related to your religious orientation. try to carry a bible in hand while in Saudi Arabia or let your wife show her face in many places. Jackson Have you tried this, or is this what you expect would happen... I don't deny certain individuals in various countries under discussion countries can and will be rude, particularly to western women; but certainly not all. And yes it can be particularly prevelent I know that. But it's like here in the west, we still have homophobism, racism, sexism and extreamism (etc); elements of OUR societies can and will be grossly offensive to visitors, some even violent. That CAN cause people to leave with the impression that ALL westerners behave in that way, if they're so inclined to that way of thinking.... But is it true? Don.... Definitely and absolutely not because of what you ascribe with apparently rich imagination. Why thankyou ;) I've always been complemented about my vivid imagination but I don't think that's what was at issue here. Everytime the conversation gets mildly heated/potentially contraversial with regard to the Israel-Palestine conflict you call us all blind, ignorant and threaten to leave; especially if criticism is directed at Israel. I just wanted to hear some more from your side, as Buffy pointed out we could all benefit. I am not anti-Israel, but neither am I anti-Palestine - and it must be recognised that faults do exist on both sides, it's denial to say that aint so. and by these MODERATORS' outright or implied attitude/opinion that the Israel-Palestine conflict is a major cause of fundmuslims terror, Israel thus contributing justification to this terror, Do you honestly believe that it doesn't stir up the existing hornets nest at all? Even a tiny bit? Possibly? Point being that this forum has repeatedly tried to discuss terror in generalities that you so aptly put: "The thread is about if/how terror has been changing us, not re its roots (grievences???) nor re how to survive it or how to destroy it." And repeatedly it has returned back to opinions and attitudes regarding particular religions. Clearly this is an element of this issue that needs airing because "terrorism" HAS changed many peoples opinions on religion. If you did a free association experiment 10-15years ago with the word terrorist, I'm damn sure IRA would have been a frequent hit. Nowadays, most people WON't say al-quieda or Osma bin Laden, they'll say "muslim" (this has been done by the way), or less frequently Islam. THIS IS A WORRYING CHANGE IN THE ASSOCIATION WE GIVE WORDS. Also the Israel-Palestine is an issue in this debate.. And as part of a discussion all attitudes will be expressed. and by some MODERATORS' repeated suggestion that the fundmuslims' terror may be handled-overcome-ceased by DISCUSSION with them, with terrorists. What happened in Ireland then? It is a reasonable point to debate, how does one open dialogue and move forwards. CraigD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 PhyCho; your describing what we call, enforcement of law. many laws on the books today are no longer enforced. our laws, however by constitution are and cannot be based on religious tone or reason. any point i could make has been made. i could and will summarize that the "war on terror" has NOT changed us and as in my first reply. 19 fine upstanding well intended believers in Islamic law, traditions and the afterlife with rewards, DID result in our change. guess this is politically correct, certainly the fact is... the pending problems for all people, are in fact real. this head in the sands attitude will not satisfy those bent on ideology changes in the world they perceive as their to do whats needed. even the end of mankind in total would be some glorified climax to their dreams. good is my presidents head severed, Israel gone, women under bondage and bad is any reason to counter these things. i personally do not care, have stated so and will retire to watching others glorify what should be condemned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 i personally do not care, have stated so and will retire to watching others glorify what should be condemned.Where exactly are others doing this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsyCho Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 our laws, however by constitution are and cannot be based on religious tone or reason.Jackson :confused: Well.... IRS sent out a warning letter to more than 15,000 churches and tax-exempt nonprofit organizations throughout the nation. The letter is meant to serve notice that any sort of politicking could endanger their tax-exempt status. The IRS discovered a disturbing amount of intervention by religious groups in national politics in 2004. It determined nearly five dozen churches and charities violated laws against political activities, and there are now 40 active investigations into the politicking of various churches.CNN Sept 27th 2006 Take a look at your political parties, maybe try looking at the rise of Domonism in the US... Sure religion has absolutely no bearing on laws if... er.... how was this put again... the pending problems for all people, are in fact real. this head in the sands attitude will not satisfy those bent on ideology changes in the world they perceive as their to do whats needed. even the end of mankind in total would be some glorified climax to their dreams.Jackson Your at much bigger risk from within... There are wolves infiltrating your political institutions, whose ideological beliefs run along the lines...1) Falsehoods are not only acceptable, they are a necessity. The corollary is: The masses will accept any lie if it is spoken with vigor, energy and dedication. 2) It is necessary to be cast under the cloak of "goodness" whereas all opponents and their ideas must be cast as "evil." 3) Complete destruction of every opponent must be accomplished through unrelenting personal attacks. 4) The creation of the appearance of overwhelming power and brutality is necessary in order to destroy the will of opponents to launch opposition of any kind. Their aim: "Our movement will be entirely destructive, and entirely constructive. We will not try to reform the existing institutions. We only intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them. We will endeavor to knock our opponents off-balance and unsettle them at every opportunity. All of our constructive energies will be dedicated to the creation of our own institutions.....We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moment's rest. We will endeavor to prove that the Left does not deserve to hold sway over the heart and mind of a single American.".......Nice ;) Source: Eric Heubeck's Integration of Theory and Practice Essay from the Free Congress Foundation's Website Now wait a second..:doh: .. Does this sound at all familiar to anyone.. .. Gee, what would one class this ranting as :eek2: . Nevermind, you think, clearly the ravings of no-one important... Or so you thought:Each Wednesday Rove dispatches a top administration official to attend the regular conservative-coalition lunches held at Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation {yup the guy resposible for that rant above - psycho}. When activists call his office with a problem, Rove doesn't pass them off to an aide. He often responds himself. When Weyrich heard a few weeks ago that Bush's budget slashed funding for a favorite project called the Police Corps, which gives scholarships and training to police cadets, he complained to the White House. To Weyrich's surprise, Rove called back. "We've taken care of it," Rove said. "The problem is solved." Weyrich, who says his memos to the Reagan and Bush Sr. White Houses were rarely read, was impressed. "That," he gushes, "is what it means to have friends in the White House."The Busiest Man in the White House -- Sunday, Apr. 22, 2001 -- Printout -- TIME Lets remind oursleves, who is Karl Rove :blink: .... Why Deputy Chief of Staff to President George W. Bush :eek: He has headed the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Public Liaison, and the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives :eek: :) :eek: :eek: :eek: So lets complete this little fugue : our laws, however by constitution are and cannot be based on religious tone or reason.Jackson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 psycho; my point and statement stands. our laws for tax exempt status are a little complicated. they are in the IRS regulations, not in our concept of government/religion. 15k is a very small number of the total, however to maintain status, the institution is not allowed to maintain a political stance or suggest the overthrow of government. they are allowed to support or encourage certain factions which suggest this notion or collect funds for these uses. i might add that the US cannot regulate these units as they can any business or financial institution. in other words the Muslim Mask can continue to deny access to half there population, but cannot send money to a Terrorist group.the money may not sound fair to you, but to us its deserving a tax at least... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Where exactly are others doing this? even in Austin, if you see or hear something that is going to happen and believe it may happen you are obligated by law to report this hear say. in short it makes you an accomplice. to slam a view in my opinion with an attitude of "not my problem" is more or less an acceptance of that action or existence. glorify and acceptance do have different meanings, however in this case with the importance involved makes the difference minor... since i do not argue against open discussion on issues, i will suggest much that has been directed at myself, has included such wording. i have accepted it in the contents of the massage and not argued the implied meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 So, in other words, it was a strawman. That's cool, just wanted to point it out to the readers of this thread. Cheers. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsyCho Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 psycho; my point and statement stands. our laws for tax exempt status are a little complicated. they are in the IRS regulations, not in our concept of government/religion. Fair enough, even avoiding the tax arguments the following points outline a fundamentalist extreme religious group, opertating on your shores, in your institutions, actively having a hand in changing YOUR laws, whose manifesto states (as listed below and I quote): 4) The creation of the appearance of overwhelming power and brutality is necessary in order to destroy the will of opponents to launch opposition of any kind. So yeah, they're not strapping bomb to their chest... But this kind of grandiose rant has existed before, german chappy, know the one? I think I was pointing out that the statement: our laws, however by constitution are and cannot be based on religious tone or reason.JacksonWas false (particularly "religious reason"), and if examined even closer you'll find that many laws have biblical roots, which is generally fine cause it's just sensible that you shouldn't kill, maim or theive.. But that should not detract from the main thrust of the point I was making. This is happening now, and relying on creating: It is a basic fact that an us-versus-them, insider-versus-outsider mentality is a very strong motivation in human life. For better or for worse, this has to be recognized and taken advantage of for the good of the movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 This stems from my attitude that each and every proven terrorist should be treated as an incurable murderer without any if or but etc., discounts. Very well. Terrorists.Probably Terrorists. Now, I'm fairly sure you don't agree with those assesements, preferring to think of those groups as "freedom fighters." Irgun was responsible for the King David Hotel Bombing - a debatedly terrorist act, and the Lehi certainly assassinated a UN Mediator for "bias." Point being - nobodies hands are clean, and while the blood on Israeli hands doesn't justify the blood on Palestinian hands, it makes it harder to draw a discrete line between victim and aggressor. Or perhaps he who fights with monsters... TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 there are no freedom fighters in "Islamic Terrorist" brigades. they are just that, should be thought of and treated as terrorist. the numbers they are now given credit for killing include many more Muslims and any sense of freedom objectives are gone. i have never heard the phase "dominance fighters", but if there were a descriptive one, this would apply. as to Jewish blood, my goodness man, they shed enough threw history to have a freedom from any interference for ever. do not dare come back with Islamic shed, blood or i will come back with a history you will not like. its all documented and shows nothing but dominance control and no respect or tolerance for any other than Islamic men....perioid... i am still waiting for an opinion on how society can be expected to exist with two such, over all opposing views of this existence. look whats going on in Lebanon today, the day after Israel releases millions of dollars to the government of that country. there is plenty of reason to question the motive and minds of terrorist, regardless the handle you give them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDMclean Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 There is plenty of reason to question the motive and minds of terrorist, regardless the handle you give them.... I see your terrorist and raise you a people. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsyCho Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 do not dare come back with Islamic shed, blood or i will come back with a history you will not like. its all documented and shows nothing but dominance control and no respect or tolerance for any other than Islamic men....perioid... :Whistle: :Whistle: :drummer: :Bump2: :Bump2: :note2: :note2: :cheer: :cheer: :Music: :Music: :applause: :applause: :D ;) Ahhhhh..... Right, go on then, I'd like to hear this. I wait for this history with baited breath (remember to state documented by whom) :wave: Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.