So it is about offending someone? Or offending words? Fuck that shit.
Poll
Are the "freedom fighters" winning?
| Yes | 16% | 16% - 15 | ||||
| No | 43% | 43% - 40 | ||||
| Not Sure | 19% | 19% - 18 | ||||
| Don't care | 12% | 12% - 12 | ||||
| Null | 8% | 8% - 8 | ||||
| Total: 93 | ||||||
LOL, gunna have to do a lot more to "annoy" me than censor me. If you wanna "annoy" me put up Bubbalo. He rattles my cage all the damn time. That is a compliment to Bubbalo by the way.UON wrote:
The original thread was closed QFE'd of a comment that said "Are we going to do this every time somebody blows something up?" i.e. are we going to have a separate "See! Proof that Islam is an irredeemably violent religion" thread every time another bomb goes of in Iraq...usmarine2007 wrote:
Hey, he corrected the first one. But that was not the reason given.....UON wrote:
Guess that's the difference between wording a thread as a topic for debate (good) or as an insult to forum members who dare to defend the vast majority of Muslims as non-violent (bad).
"First of there are numerous (open) threads about the war in Iraq, the problems in Israel, condemning the ignorance of an American or all in general. Without making a judgment on any of these statements, shouldn't it be enough that these discussions or statements can stay within those threads." - =RobinHood=
It didn't say "Don't discuss this topic in any way shape or form", both closes imply that if it had been worded to pose a distinctly different debate scenario it would have remained open. We had long running threads on the "Muslim Problem" as ATG so eloquently put it (again, now changed) and Islamophobia, so if the article was just being used to back up an argument from those ongoing threads then that is where it belonged. At least, that's what I think happened. Might be alot simpler than that, maybe there is an admin note that says "annoy lowing whenever possible, please".
Last edited by lowing (2007-02-04 19:39:14)
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=63013UON wrote:
The original thread was closed QFE'd of a comment that said "Are we going to do this every time somebody blows something up?" i.e. are we going to have a separate "See! Proof that Islam is an irredeemably violent religion" thread every time another bomb goes of in Iraq...usmarine2007 wrote:
Hey, he corrected the first one. But that was not the reason given.....UON wrote:
Guess that's the difference between wording a thread as a topic for debate (good) or as an insult to forum members who dare to defend the vast majority of Muslims as non-violent (bad).
"First of there are numerous (open) threads about the war in Iraq, the problems in Israel, condemning the ignorance of an American or all in general. Without making a judgment on any of these statements, shouldn't it be enough that these discussions or statements can stay within those threads." - =RobinHood=
It didn't say "Don't discuss this topic in any way shape or form", both closes imply that if it had been worded to pose a distinctly different debate scenario it would have remained open. We had long running threads on the "Muslim Problem" as ATG so eloquently put it (again, now changed) and Islamophobia, so if the article was just being used to back up an argument from those ongoing threads then that is where it belonged. At least, that's what I think happened. Might be alot simpler than that, maybe there is an admin note that says "annoy lowing whenever possible, please".
How is this angle "offensive"?
How can I not be allowed the question as to why killing your countrymen to condemn the presence of America in Iraq makes sense without being censored?
Sure, the terrorists are winning, but look at what they're fighting for. Iraq is a shitty country that isn't worth our money or our lives. Fuck 'em, we need to leave.
My 2c:
Locking threads is a form of censorship, as it prevents response to a topic within the original thread, thus necessitating the creation of a new thead. Sometimes its necessary, sometimes it isn't. Moving it to PMs would have a detrimental effect upon the free exchange of ideas and arguments. And come on, you have to admit closing a thread slagging off Iraqis/Muslims whilst allowing "Americans are fat" threads to continue is a bit biased, and not the sort of neutral style of moderation which should be taken in a publicly accessible forum...
Locking threads is a form of censorship, as it prevents response to a topic within the original thread, thus necessitating the creation of a new thead. Sometimes its necessary, sometimes it isn't. Moving it to PMs would have a detrimental effect upon the free exchange of ideas and arguments. And come on, you have to admit closing a thread slagging off Iraqis/Muslims whilst allowing "Americans are fat" threads to continue is a bit biased, and not the sort of neutral style of moderation which should be taken in a publicly accessible forum...
Last edited by Pubic (2007-02-05 02:45:58)
Null. If I could nice and accurately predict the future, I'd be more popular than Nostradamus.
Don't forget we are guest here. I would suggest respecting the appointed mods discretion. I have had topics closed for what I thought to be silly reasons, but that is their right. If you have a problem or a question talk to the mods about it, no need to complain to the members here.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-05 02:45:39)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Sorry this confuses me are the freedom fighters winning their battle in retaking Iraq????!!! The US army still hasn't got the road from the airport to Baghdad under control and you are saying they have got all of Iraq?
No, the liberals and euroweenie's will be happy to know that it would appear the fight has turned in favor of the terrorists. in my humble opinion.spray_and_pray wrote:
Sorry this confuses me are the freedom fighters winning their battle in retaking Iraq????!!! The US army still hasn't got the road from the airport to Baghdad under control and you are saying they have got all of Iraq?
Above QFTlowing wrote:
At least we now know why Saddam was such a tyrant, he had to be or his country would wind like it is now. It is clear that these people can not handle freedom, democracy, free will or responsibility. They NEED someone to, NOT govern them, but to out right fuckin' HANDLE them.Kmarion wrote:
If they wanted them out they would fake the peace, get the withdrawal and then recommence the civil war.CameronPoe wrote:
The Mehdi Army - Shi'a freedom fighters want the Americans out... and I'm pretty sure the Sunni freedom fighters (Ba'athists) aren't exactly on speaking terms with the Americans either... the only ones who particularly like the Americans are the Kurds... but then again the Kurdish islamic extremist group Ansar-Al-Islam probably doesn't...
One thing is for sure when there is an exit American policy makers are not going to suggest returning to Iraq.
America grossly over estimated the appreciation these people would have for their new found freedom when released from the clutches of Saddam and his sons. He had to have his thumb on these people, now we know. The cage has been opened, how do we corral the animals back into them, with the morality, appreciation of life, respect and tolerance for others that we hold sacred, and so despised by the people we try and help?
I hate to say these people... But it is true... Animals pure and simple... causing chaos.. in the name of what? What they think GOD told some guy... (not even the son of GOD just some guy name mohammed) some 2000 years ago... Is there even the remote possibility that someone could have messed up the story since then? Try telling a very specific story in a group and see what it sounds like by the time it gets around to you again... (fun game for parties) These animals are simply using Islam as a rallying cry because they know most (not all) Muslims are not much more than sheep. Seriously look at the rest of the third world muslims... They just do whatever some IMAM tells them to... If its beat your wife... or kill someone... so be it... does that sound like a group with much more intelligence than a flock of sheep...
Do I have to do it again?
First, while I'm deciding, there are some things I want to say:
1. What do you define a 'win'? Them embracing democracy in 5 years. To change their millennium old system of government at the drop of a hat? Get realistic.
2. The reported story was not a "they attacked the USA" story, it was a typical 'Mr.Shiite hates Mr.Sunni, so he kills Mr.Sunni." At the moment, some couldn't give a shit about America. All they want to do is kill their countrymen because of a minor difference in their version of Islam. It's called a civil war. America can't do shit to stop them.
3. By putting freedom fighter in quotation marks, were you trying to imply some sarcasm?. A freedom fighter and terrorist are the same thing. It is all about perspective. As the saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter."
I'll be back in an hour or two. We'll see then if it gets closed.
Mcminty.
First, while I'm deciding, there are some things I want to say:
1. What do you define a 'win'? Them embracing democracy in 5 years. To change their millennium old system of government at the drop of a hat? Get realistic.
2. The reported story was not a "they attacked the USA" story, it was a typical 'Mr.Shiite hates Mr.Sunni, so he kills Mr.Sunni." At the moment, some couldn't give a shit about America. All they want to do is kill their countrymen because of a minor difference in their version of Islam. It's called a civil war. America can't do shit to stop them.
3. By putting freedom fighter in quotation marks, were you trying to imply some sarcasm?. A freedom fighter and terrorist are the same thing. It is all about perspective. As the saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter."
I'll be back in an hour or two. We'll see then if it gets closed.
Mcminty.
No copying my writing style, it might make people confuse us.mcminty wrote:
Do I have to do it again?
First, while I'm deciding, there are some things I want to say:
1. What do you define a 'win'? Them embracing democracy in 5 years. To change their millennium old system of government at the drop of a hat? Get realistic.
2. The reported story was not a "they attacked the USA" story, it was a typical 'Mr.Shiite hates Mr.Sunni, so he kills Mr.Sunni." At the moment, some couldn't give a shit about America. All they want to do is kill their countrymen because of a minor difference in their version of Islam. It's called a civil war. America can't do shit to stop them.
3. By putting freedom fighter in quotation marks, were you trying to imply some sarcasm?. A freedom fighter and terrorist are the same thing. It is all about perspective. As the saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter."
I'll be back in an hour or two. We'll see then if it gets closed.
Mcminty.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Of course I put freedom fighters in quotes. Had I asked the question in a neo-con slanted way it would have been closed. By asking in a lib slanted way the thread stayed open. I read that article in lowings post wich got closed. I feel, as well as he does, that this news needs to be out there. But seeing how mods are politicaly biased I sanitized the question. Anyways, my opinion is that we are trying the best we can to calm the region. I feel humans when they reach a certain lowpoint can not be trusted to determine their destiny. We feel it our duty to bring them out of the dark ages and into the light. We will not let Iran or Syria or any other of our enemies determine the future of Iraq. That is the power we have bieng a super power. The end.mcminty wrote:
Do I have to do it again?
First, while I'm deciding, there are some things I want to say:
1. What do you define a 'win'? Them embracing democracy in 5 years. To change their millennium old system of government at the drop of a hat? Get realistic.
2. The reported story was not a "they attacked the USA" story, it was a typical 'Mr.Shiite hates Mr.Sunni, so he kills Mr.Sunni." At the moment, some couldn't give a shit about America. All they want to do is kill their countrymen because of a minor difference in their version of Islam. It's called a civil war. America can't do shit to stop them.
3. By putting freedom fighter in quotation marks, were you trying to imply some sarcasm?. A freedom fighter and terrorist are the same thing. It is all about perspective. As the saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter."
I'll be back in an hour or two. We'll see then if it gets closed.
Mcminty.
As I have said, One man's child molester is another mans good time. I don't follow that thinking TBH.mcminty wrote:
As the saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter."
+1, lowinglowing wrote:
At least we now know why Saddam was such a tyrant, he had to be or his country would wind like it is now. It is clear that these people can not handle freedom, democracy, free will or responsibility. They NEED someone to, NOT govern them, but to out right fuckin' HANDLE them.Kmarion wrote:
If they wanted them out they would fake the peace, get the withdrawal and then recommence the civil war.CameronPoe wrote:
The Mehdi Army - Shi'a freedom fighters want the Americans out... and I'm pretty sure the Sunni freedom fighters (Ba'athists) aren't exactly on speaking terms with the Americans either... the only ones who particularly like the Americans are the Kurds... but then again the Kurdish islamic extremist group Ansar-Al-Islam probably doesn't...
One thing is for sure when there is an exit American policy makers are not going to suggest returning to Iraq.
America grossly over estimated the appreciation these people would have for their new found freedom when released from the clutches of Saddam and his sons. He had to have his thumb on these people, now we know. The cage has been opened, how do we corral the animals back into them, with the morality, appreciation of life, respect and tolerance for others that we hold sacred, and so despised by the people we try and help?
Although I think of it more of an incapatibility problem. It's not that they can't "handle" freedom and democracy, it's just that the way their culture and society is set up prevents them from being able to run one. It's like trying to run a Windows video game on a Mac computer... it just won't happen.
Wel there is some truth to that saying. Often times we think of the enemy as being "100 percent terrorist driven", when there are a lot of them just fighting for freedom from occupation.usmarine2007 wrote:
As I have said, One man's child molester is another mans good time. I don't follow that thinking TBH.mcminty wrote:
As the saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter."
It's happened during other times in history, in many countries. I'm not saying we should appease the real terrorists, but we should be more careful who we label as a terrorist.
For example, say you went to a mall, and asked someone about an Iraqi fighting against the USA in Iraq. Their answer would most likely be "Oh, you mean a terrorist?". It's our way of simplifying the issue, instead of actually naming the groups responsible, lots of people just assume anyone who fights against the USA is a terrorist. Which simply isn't true...
Last edited by Spearhead (2007-02-06 11:59:52)
Are you likening George Washington to a child molester?usmarine2007 wrote:
As I have said, One man's child molester is another mans good time. I don't follow that thinking TBH.mcminty wrote:
As the saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter."
What?CameronPoe wrote:
Are you likening George Washington to a child molester?usmarine2007 wrote:
As I have said, One man's child molester is another mans good time. I don't follow that thinking TBH.mcminty wrote:
As the saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter."
Actually... JAM just wants us to protect the shia. the Sunni's want us to protect them. where we piss them off is we are not playing favorites and we are going after them all.....now we further pissed them off by sending in the kurds to do what the sunni/shia iraqi military cannot and willnot do, and thats kick the asses of those causing the problems.CameronPoe wrote:
The Mehdi Army - Shi'a freedom fighters want the Americans out... and I'm pretty sure the Sunni freedom fighters (Ba'athists) aren't exactly on speaking terms with the Americans either... the only ones who particularly like the Americans are the Kurds... but then again the Kurdish islamic extremist group Ansar-Al-Islam probably doesn't...Kmarion wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed they are attacking each other for the most part not Americans. An intelligent person would realize that a less violent more stable Iraq would mean a troop withdrawal. Your "Freedom Fighters" most likely do not want Americans to leave. An American presence saves them from having to buy a plane ticket to be a martyr.
We have done missions everywhere and everywhere its the same story "why are you picking on us, its them causing the problems"
--but then again what do i know? im only on the ground fighting, not reading about it on the news websites--
Last edited by CannonFodder11b (2007-02-06 12:14:16)
If we left because of that, we did not fail. They failed themselves and their children.sergeriver wrote:
That could be one side of the story. But there's the possibility they are doing this because a more violent Iraq would mean America failed, and there's a point when you say "I'm leaving this place, this has no solution" and if that's the case they are winning. Perhaps they are thinking this way. Who knows? The place is a mess anyway.Kmarion wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed they are attacking each other for the most part not Americans. An intelligent person would realize that a less violent more stable Iraq would mean a troop withdrawal. Your "Freedom Fighters" most likely do not want Americans to leave. An American presence saves them from having to buy a plane ticket to be a martyr.
Nice way to act so close to Holy Land!
Well you used the old inappropriate child molestation analogy again, which when applied to the American war of independence entails that Washington fills the role of child molester in the eyes of the British.usmarine2007 wrote:
What?CameronPoe wrote:
Are you likening George Washington to a child molester?usmarine2007 wrote:
As I have said, One man's child molester is another mans good time. I don't follow that thinking TBH.
Again...What? The insurgents are not fighting for a country, they are fighting just to kill people in the name of Allah.CameronPoe wrote:
Well you used the old inappropriate child molestation analogy again, which when applied to the American war of independence entails that Washington fills the role of child molester in the eyes of the British.usmarine2007 wrote:
What?CameronPoe wrote:
Are you likening George Washington to a child molester?
Audy Murphey American war herousmarine2007 wrote:
As I have said, One man's child molester is another mans good time. I don't follow that thinking TBH.mcminty wrote:
As the saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter."
Audy Murphey mass killer of German mothers sons.
See?
It's about perspective.
Some of them are, some of them aren't. Don't be ignorant now. Some of them just want the Americans out plain and simple. Some of them have no meaningful agenda whatsoever though.usmarine2007 wrote:
Again...What? The insurgents are not fighting for a country, they are fighting just to kill people in the name of Allah.CameronPoe wrote:
Well you used the old inappropriate child molestation analogy again, which when applied to the American war of independence entails that Washington fills the role of child molester in the eyes of the British.usmarine2007 wrote:
What?
Germans started the war and were exterminating millions of people, Audy helped stop that.ATG wrote:
Audy Murphey American war herousmarine2007 wrote:
As I have said, One man's child molester is another mans good time. I don't follow that thinking TBH.mcminty wrote:
As the saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter."
Audy Murphey mass killer of German mothers sons.
See?
It's about perspective.
See. Perspective.