Moderators: MiNeRvA.
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
MDS_Geist,
Your constant manipulation of irrelevant tangents are getting old. No one called you thickheaded. I said you were being thickheaded - as in stubborn and unwilling to see other points of view. I've attempted to point out how ludicrous it is to argue that we no longer need to worry about making nice with Muslims. (Do I need to waste time saying this is my opinion? Most of everything posted in this forum is opinion.) You twist the definition of being politicaly correct and substitute another word for no other reason than to be difficult. Would it change my point if we insert your word instead? You know what I meant, but want to waste time arguing semantics. THIS is an example of how I get my ASSUMPTIONS that you "seem to like to argue". Twisting what has been said to deflect the point is irresponsible and immature. It's a given that I don't know you and EVERYTHING that we write about is based on our impression of previous posts.
"Insane fool" was an example of taking words out of context. You used both of them in your post directed at me. Was I to take it that you think I'm an insane fool as you did with thickheaded?
and
What's your point? I followed it w/an example. Stop wasting time being difficult.
Yet another example of being difficult.
I think anyone who is following this would know what I meant by hypocritical. You choose to discount the Crusades w/no facts to support your declaration.
Who assumed anything? I asked you a question. You chose to ignore it w/another deflection/irrelevant tangent. The West's point of view...us against them....Our stance against theirs... Are you unwilling to admit that we may be doing things wrong too? BY MY IMPRESSION - your posts would seem to say otherwise. |
||||
|
On Site Archivist |
To an offender? Sure... if someone says to me "Chunk, your a jerk" I can accept that as criticism. If, however, someone tries to chop off my head because I'm walking to school, there's not many other cheeks to turn. Should this girl (the lone survivor of four Muslim school girls attacked with machetes by Muslims) have turned the other cheek?  Apologists for Muslim extremists, in my own personal opinion, are absolutely bonkers, and anyone can take that as a personal insult if need be.
Source: Assyrian Intl News Perhaps your right, ROT... If I'm an Iraqi Christian, I should just turn the other cheek when a group of thugs want to stab me multiple times for something someone else has said. Please... 
|
|||
|
Chunk. I did read your posts. I almost always find value in what you have to say. I'm a big fan of Grover too. Neeeeeear........................................... FAAAAAAR............................................ Seriously, I wasn't referencing your comments about Muslim-on-Muslim crime. Ooh, just read your second reply. Not quite as civil. Actually, I wasn't stating that people being attacked should turn the other cheek. I was simply inquiring as to how YOU all live your lives. As the answer to the question gives me some insight into the reasons behind your statements. Nice attempt at an irrelevant spin though. Almost made me look like more of a dumbarse than I actually am. EDIT: If you'll notice, I lobbed that one up for you.  I still like Grover tho.  Regardless if his representation is trying to slam me.In response to Stryche's comments about Geist's "foolish", and "insane" references, welcome to my world. I know that nobody wants me on their side, but I feel you. I'm glad it's not just me that finds it insulting when someone comments that your opinions or comments are foolish, childish, ignorant, or silly. And as for the witty retort bubbling up in your mind right now referencing the term, "big baby", or the phrase, "get over it", empathise with people a bit. What is your response when people "break the forum rules" and call you names? Face to face, this would be a whole different ball of wax. But if we all are going to write to one another like this, we should really add a forum rule which states, "don't be a EDIT wankuh". |
||||
|
|
On Site Archivist |
You mean like this? Picture... What are they doing, you ask? Partially burying her, so that when they stone her, she can't defend herself. Nice, isn't it? Can't remember if it was this thread, or another one, but someone was slamming Geist for "ignoring" the Crusades... so, let me bring this up. (numbers were gathered by ReligionOfPeace, but individual sources were still given) More people are killed each year by Islamists than in the entire 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition. (source) Northern Ireland your thing? More civilians were killed (by Muslim extremists) in two hours on Sept 11 than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. (source) Think the KKK was bad? I agree it's a dark spot on American history, however, Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the KKK did in 50 years. (source) So, go ahead, let's talk about what happened during the Crusades... think it will compare? |
|||
|
I think the reasoning behind the "Crusades" reference is to bring up the comparison to the "He hit me first" theory that it is acceptable to respond to violence with violence.
|
||||
|
|
Moderator |
Which last time I checked is still an insult, as well as an assumption. Not agreeing with someone does not mean you do not see or understand their point of view.
Then by all means, please show how it is ludicrous. The West is "making nice" at times to the point of stupidity. I love animals, but that doesn't mean I'm going to offer my throat to a wolf. [that's an analogy, I'm not calling human beings wolves or other animals]
I didn't twist anything, nor am I doing anything "to be difficult." Those are again unwarranted assumptions on your part. If you meant "being polite" then you should have said so. "Political correctness" is something else entirely.
No, that's again an unwarranted assumption. You said "politically correct" and I responded to that. That rubric also covers such things as "personhole" and has reached the point of absurdity. Political correctness has given us the term "Islamophobia" and legitmized it so that it is coming close to being a criminal act for not wanting to be blown up.
Not everything is necessarily an assumption, but you are again assuming that I'm trying to twist things. The only reason I'm bothering to respond to that repeated point is so that you understand that I'm using terms as I understand them and clearly we have some differences there. I'm doing it without insulting you and would appreciate the same courtesy.
If you could show me where I called you an "insane fool" I'd appreciate that. Pointing out where you called me thickheaded is quite simple since you have done it on multiple occasions.
So your example was telling me that you were trying to see my point of view? That's nice. This is an Internet forum, by most definitions a waste of time. You really should stop with the assumptions.
No, that's a statement of acknowledgement. You're reading your own meaning into it. Don't do that.
I've been following this and fail to see the hypocrisy here. My statements on the Crusades are clear and irrefutable. They do not apply to the present time and climate. You might want to look up Vatican II and recall the change in direction in the Catholic Church including apologies for prior persecutions.
Your question was not relevant to anything that I had posted and seemed to be indicative that you had assumed my point of view from the phrasing of your question. I have never claimed or implied the West or anyone else was perfect. That you are infering it from my posts is more indicative of your reading into it than anything I have said. In this case, the West is not responsible. ROT, your choices, your problems. I find it odd that you continue to harp on things that you have even admitted. But enjoy your world. You want empathy from me? I've always had that. Again, your issues to deal with. The Right to command is bought with Duty, the Privilege of rank is Service. |
|||
|
|
On Site Archivist |
It wasn't meant as an attack directly to you (although you were the one asking for diplomacy), it's more for the generic "we're not better than they are, Americans are the bad guys" people. If you do include yourself in that group, then... 
The folks in the Towers on 9/11 are how WE all live our lives... yet, WE'RE not the people being attacked? I am under attack, every day, because I'm an American (usually call myself a Texan, but for this argument, I'm sure it's the same thing  ). There are people in this world, right now, who if given the opportunity, would stab me to death because I'm a Christian. Or blow me up because I'm an American. Or fly a plane into my building because I'm from the West. Sorry, I'm under attack, and I'm not turning the other cheek.
Now, I might sound like Geist a little here, but that's not my intent. I'm merely stating my beliefs, and my opinion, and how fervently I disagree with "apologists" and "anti-Americans". I don't know you, so I'm not judging you, personally, just groups of people, and then the offense should only be taken if you include yourself in the groups mentioned. Fine line, I know, but I'm sincere about it.
Thanks for not holding it against Grover... FAR....... NEAAAR.... |
|||
|
|
On Site Archivist |
I'm not picking on you, really... It's proportionate violence. If someone punches you in the arm once, you're not supposed to punch them in the throat every day for the next 20 years... |
|||
|
|
Moderator |
Well, you could try asking why. The "he hit me first" argument doesn't apply here. If the crusades were a month ago or even fifty years ago that might hold a little bit of water. But they happened in response to being attacked and went from there. They have been over and done with for a very long time. This argument would work better if it were Jews or Lutherans trying to make it since the Crusades against them continued later on than Crusades against Muslims. It would still be absolute **** and not work, but would be slightly less invalid. Sometimes it is acceptable to respond to violence with violence. I don't think that is acceptable to do so after hundreds of years. I certainly don't think it is acceptable to consider violence the constant strategy. The Right to command is bought with Duty, the Privilege of rank is Service. |
|||
|
I understand that you feel that way. I was replying to Chunk in an effort to clarify that the Crusades were brought up to point out the retalliation aspect, and not in an effort to compare death tolls.
To Chunk, I can think of huge amounts of Americans that would slit your throat if they had a chance because you're a different color than they are. Do you consider yourself under attack by these people as well? Maybe you could just concede that there are people out there who are nutbars. They don't neecssarily need to be hunted down and killed because they "would" kill you if they had the chance. If that were the case, we need to clean up OUR own backyard. |
||||
|
MDS_Geist and/or crtChunk72, In his apology...didn't the Pope say that his intent wasn't to offend anyone and only to point out the incompatiblity between faith and war? Please answer this question. |
||||
|
|
On Site Archivist |
Umm, yea? If I was a black man living in the South during the 60's, yes, I probably would. Do you remember the OJ Simpson trial? And the White cops trial? There was a lot of racial tension during that time, and I was working in a "downtown area" during these events. One day, after a certain event, a small race-fueled riot broke out a few blocks from my occupation. The rioters were targeting people much like myself... are you saying I wasn't under attack?
No doubt!  I concede...
Are you serious? If someone wants to steal my wallet, that's one thing. If someone wants to break into my car, that's one thing. If someone wants to end my life, that's another. I'm telling you, if my life is being threatened, I will fight (to the death) to defend it. I will not go quietly into the night... |
|||
|
 |
Well the Moors (Muslims) invaded Christian Spain in 711, the 1st crusades were in 1095, so who hit who first? Completely irrelevant of course. The problem is the extremists are living in those times still (in their heads anyway). And the "moderate" muslims? Well, in the UK, when asked to speak against the fundamentalists, they said if they were allowed to live according to Sharia law then the attacks might stop. Nothing like a spot of blackmail, eh? Give us what we want and we'll stop bombing you. As for the Pope's comments regarding Islam and violence, a Muslim cleric somewhere said, without a hint of irony, that those who insulted Islam should expect violence in return. Way to prove the Pope wrong  And then there's this scum |
|||
|
There's a difference between an individual accosting you with a gun, and a group of people "wanting you dead". The operable word being "you". because when I refer to it, I mean "you" as in ANY PERSON that the perpetrators have a gripe with, because of certain factors that you might employ, say religion or lack thereof.
I am not referring to YOU, as in Chunk. The lover of little fuzzy purple creatures. "And I'm CUTE TOOOOOO". Ok, let me stop. When I say, "They don't necessarily need to be hunted down and killed because of the fact that they would kill you if they had the chance." I am referring to they, as ANY GROUP who might have a gripe with your race, creed, sexual orientation, what have you. So I will rephrase using an example. If you're a white person, and you walk through Hunter's Point in SF in the middle of the night, chances are you will run into a group of people that will kill you just because you're white. Doesn't matter how much money you might have. The wrong group would kill you, and have fun doing it. Certain groups have no regard for human lives, and feel that specific other races don't deserve a second thought. Would you agree? So is it fair to say that these people, who "would' kill you if they had the chance", all need to be hunted down and killed? There's no doubting that there are f-ed up extremist people all over the world. But wiping out a group, 1. is not possible, and B. won't keep people from wanting you dead. I hope that's more clear. I've re-read it a number of times, and I'm not sure how it came out. Oh, and once again, to Buzz, this Crusades business is not my argument. I was clariying to one person, the probable reason why another person (not I) brought up the Crusades. |
||||
|
|
On Site Archivist |
We disagree, I see. If there's a group of people in a make-believe country near Australia who want all Texans dead, then I'm threatened. If, however, they can't get out of their make-believe country near Australia and the chances of me running into any of them are remote, then my chances of being accosted go down. If my chances go down, the threat level goes down. Are there people who want me dead? Yes... Are they going to accomplish their mission? No, not likely... How big is the threat? Not very big... Is it still a threat? Yes. Now, some other people want all Americans dead. They live far away. However, they have proven tragically that they actually can succeed in their mission. They've proven it time and time again. So, their threat is larger. Now, I have two groups of people who want me dead. One group is in isolation, the other has shown the willpower to carry out their acts. I'm more concerned with the more immediate threat.
Yup...
If I'm working in Hunter's Point (never heard of it, don't mean offense if you live there), and I have to travel that way every day, and this is the environment, then I do believe something has to happen to increase my security.
So, what do you do? Say "Now, stop it. You're not being nice..."? We agree there is a problem, we don't agree on the solution. It's clearing up... My solution isn't necessarily to "wipe them all out", it's that I agree with Geist that this is beyond diplomacy and that we need to stop apologizing for their over-reactions. "You" hate "me", I get that. Leave it at that, and we're cool... however, "you" want to threaten my very existence, then "I'm" not going to apologize to you and wonder how you're feeling. I'm going to stop your aggressions... What was your method for dealing with this "problem" that we both agree exists? |
|||
|
For one, my point was solely that we should take some accountability for the frustrations of the Muslims. You have moved on to the point of "what do we do about the people that have a problem with us?". My second point was that ALL Muslims are not fanatical Muslims.
My point was not that we should apologize to anyone for anything. But that we should simply realize that we may be partcially to blame for Muslim angst. Hence my references to our actions in the Middle East. But I will address the point that you branched off to, having to do with what do we do about these people. For one, I do not feel that this is beyond diplomacy. As it has been stated by both sides on this forum, the Muslim leaders are the ones that feed their people their information. Our bombing of civilian areas does not help the situation, because it provides the Muslim leaders the ability to say to their people, "Look at this! This was unprovoked! Christians and Jews did this to us because they hate Muslims! We are assisting their recruiting efforts. Yes, I realize the reasoning behind our reaction to their action (bombing civilian areas because they launch rockets from those areas). But the Muslim community as a whole does not. Can we agree on this? Therefore, it is not a people that needs to be wiped out, but a group of fanatics that needs to be burned at the stake and served cold with warm pig. And again, I have no problem taking away a Muslim's birthday if it means I'm going to keep him from killing me. But let's be clear who has all the information, and focus our efforts on attacking those who are dispensing the inaccurate information. Our ability to reason allows us to make these distinctions. We need to make use of this ability. |
||||
|
|
On Site Archivist |
Ok, I'm catching on...
And I have provided ample evidence that we are not to blame for school girls getting decapitated, mothers and daughters being raped for going to school, and what not... I do not accept any accountability for that at all. Our differences seem to be based off of "why do they hate us". Do they hate us because we allow women go to school and because our TV has half-naked women living with men in "Big Brother" and "The Real World"? I'm not making any apologies for that. Do they hate us because militant Muslims have killed over 9,000 innocents this year while we have killed under 100? Yes, we have killed 100 innocents. The people who are outraged have killed 9,000... of the people they're trying to recruit. Should I apologize? I apologize that under 100 civilians have been killed, but I'm guessing it's not enough and a War Against Chunk will still be the only satisfactory result. EDIT #2: In case you wanted more specifics, I referenced those numbers in a post over here...
I'm not sure I said that, and if I did, then I would be wrong. I don't think all muslims are militant, but even those who are not will not condemn those who are, and I do find that to be disturbing.
... because "our" women are half-naked and we have co-ed housing... Personally, these are some of my favorite parts of Western culture!!
When the militants are in charge, it's beyond diplomacy. When nuns are being gunned down outside a children's hospital, because of a quote from a medieval text, it's beyond diplomacy.
I understand, so we're simply losing a war of information. We can't get the message out, but that doesn't mean that we're not doing the right thing.
We agree!!!!!!  I've been saying I want to stop those who want to kill me. I believe here we are saying the same thing...Where we disagree, then, appears to be with diplomacy and "why do they hate us". You want to try diplomacy with those who want to kill us (as they are the ones in charge, and you can't have diplomacy with people who don't have any power, can you?) and I don't. I believe the time for diplomacy with those who try to kill us is over, as it has failed. EDIT #1: Do you see the pic in my sig? It's an American soldier, cradling a little Iraqi girl, who just minutes before was crowding around a military convoy as they were handing out candy. What happened? An Insurgent detonated an explosive device, killing several children. The thing we're losing most is an information battle... we care, they don't, and yet they keep recruiting sympathizers. |
|||
|