BF2S Forums Look Out Great Britain, Your Appeasement Is Showing!!

lowing wrote:

Cam, there are definitions of appeasement that have nothing to do with demands. I have posted them. If you refuse to accept that, then there really is nothing I can do about that.

I see no reason in polling a predominantly European socialist forum. Your collective opinions does nothing to change mine.

You wish to use the term appeasement to draw on its negative connotations. There is nothing negative about the actions of the British government here. As such, the hullaballoo surrounding 'definitions' is irrelevant because even in the capacity you've used it in - the special lowing definition - it deters from your argument owing to the fact that rather than being a negative thing it is actually a positive thing.

Main Entry: ap·pease 
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpēz\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ap·peased; ap·peas·ing
Etymology: Middle English appesen, from Anglo-French apeser, apaiser, from a- (from Latin ad-) + pais peace — more at peace
Date: 14th century
1: to bring to a state of peace or quiet : calm
2: to cause to subside : allay <appeased my hunger>
3: pacify conciliate; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles

Nobody aggressed. Nobody demanded. Nobody compromised principles.

You can continue to use your bastardized English but it really has no place in a debate forum that relies on precision and accuracy of English to explain ones views. Many people call you a racist even though you are not a racist - you just give certain impressions/illusions that you might be. Many people call you a Nazi even though you have nothing whatsoever to do with National Socialism, hatred of Judaism or any such traits. What those people are saying is completely misleading and unfairly denigrates your opinions. You can't just use words as you please and expect to be taken seriously.

PS This site is American and frequented by all manner of individuals. And I never expected you to change your mind - you always prefer to keep a wrong opinion in order to save face.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-24 01:35:57)

I just read the full article... I don't think trying to define what to call the radical islam guys...is the biggest part of the article...
It looks like Muslims that act in a radical or perceived radical way will be dealt with by the govt... Thats a slippery slope... sure to offend... lol

I think it's good that they are addressing the problem though and hopefully the govt will root out the right evil people...without peaceful muslims going batshit...

From the article....

"In her speech, Miss Smith said extremists who use the internet to radicalise young children would be pursued in the same way as paedophiles.


She will meet members of the online industry in the next few weeks to decide how to crack down on Al Qaedainspired sites.


Illegal material will be tracked down and removed using tactics already deployed against online paedophiles. Those guilty of grooming youngsters for terrorism could face prosecution under incitement laws.


Miss Smith said: "If we are ready and willing to take action to stop the grooming of vulnerable young people on social networking sites, then I believe we should also take action against those who groom vulnerable people for the purposes of violent extremism."


Her plans also include a new unit to sift through intelligence gathered by police and security agents.


The unit will be told to "identify, analyse and assess not just the inner circle of extremist groups, but those at risk of falling under their influence".


Young people found to be falling under the spell of potential terrorists will be targeted for help by community leaders and the authorities.


Outdoor activity centres and sports facilities will be sent guidance to stop them being used as meeting places by fanatics after the July 7 bombers were photographed attending a white water rafting centre in Wales."

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2008-01-24 01:54:19)

I can't believe this thread is still here, lol.  30 pages of semantics, the UK didn't appease Muslims.  This is PC, not appeasement Lowing.  Close thread.

lowing wrote:

Boy, you are just as arrogant as Cam, YOU do not decide if my opinion is wrong, I do that. And as such I am not arguing semantics, you are.

Appeasement has a definition that basically amounts to pandering. THis is the context in which it was used. Like Cam, tough shit if you refuse to acknolwedge it, or don't want to hear it.

Cam called it "brainwashing", so tell me why on earth he would see the need to call it that?

Brainwashing them, not brainwashing us. lol. Making a subliminal association in the minds of young Muslims that terrorism is contrary to the laws of Islam. The 7/7 bombings in London were carried out 'in protest at the invasion of Iraq' - a political reason - this move strives to remind any politically motivated young malcontents that by engaging in such acts they are contravening the laws of Islam.

In future use the word 'pandering' - why didn't you just use that fucking word in the first place!??? Don't complain about Mexican immigrants not learning English when you show scant regard for it yourself.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-24 02:51:49)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cam, there are definitions of appeasement that have nothing to do with demands. I have posted them. If you refuse to accept that, then there really is nothing I can do about that.

I see no reason in polling a predominantly European socialist forum. Your collective opinions does nothing to change mine.

You wish to use the term appeasement to draw on its negative connotations. There is nothing negative about the actions of the British government here. As such, the hullaballoo surrounding 'definitions' is irrelevant because even in the capacity you've used it in - the special lowing definition - it deters from your argument owing to the fact that rather than being a negative thing it is actually a positive thing.

Main Entry: ap·pease 
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpēz\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ap·peased; ap·peas·ing
Etymology: Middle English appesen, from Anglo-French apeser, apaiser, from a- (from Latin ad-) + pais peace — more at peace
Date: 14th century
1: to bring to a state of peace or quiet : calm
2: to cause to subside : allay <appeased my hunger>
3: pacify conciliate; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles

Nobody aggressed. Nobody demanded. Nobody compromised principles.

You can continue to use your bastardized English but it really has no place in a debate forum that relies on precision and accuracy of English to explain ones views. Many people call you a racist even though you are not a racist - you just give certain impressions/illusions that you might be. Many people call you a Nazi even though you have nothing whatsoever to do with National Socialism, hatred of Judaism or any such traits. What those people are saying is completely misleading and unfairly denigrates your opinions. You can't just use words as you please and expect to be taken seriously.

PS This site is American and frequented by all manner of individuals. And I never expected you to change your mind - you always prefer to keep a wrong opinion in order to save face.

"pacify conciliate".......the key word in that version is "ESPECIALLY" as into punctuate but necessarily exclusive to aggression. YOu yourself said that this action is smart to improve relations. YOu ust feel that there is a need to pacify the Muslims in order for you to make this statement, or at least see a need for improvment

"to bring to a state of peace or quiet : calm"..GB is most assuredly trying to insure this state of relations with the Muslims......I do not see a reference to the phrase"AGRESSOR "DEMANDS" here.

"to cause to subside"......referes to any isolation or undue negitive opnions of the Muslim community that GB feels it might be causing in using the term "Islamic Terror"...again no reference to "AGRESSOR DEMANDS " here either.

This is the context in which I used the word appeasement. I personally disagree with this, you happen to agree with doing this to improve relations. That is another argument, but as for the term APPEASEMENT< it ised correctly in the context of which I use it. TOugh shit if you do not like it.

I have never said GB was appeasing the terrorists, that was you and your followings words. not mine

Last edited by lowing (2008-01-24 02:59:17)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

"pacify conciliate".......the key word in that version is "ESPECIALLY" as into punctuate but necessarily exclusive to aggression. YOu yourself said that this action is smart to improve relations. YOu ust feel that there is a need to pacify the Muslims in order for you to make this statement, or at least see a need for improvment

"to bring to a state of peace or quiet : calm"..GB is most assuredly trying to insure this state of relations with the Muslims......I do not see a reference to the phrase"AGRESSOR "DEMANDS" here.

"to cause to subside"......referes to any isolation or undue negitive opnions of the Muslim community that GB feels it might be causing in using the term "Islamic Terror"...again no reference to "AGRESSOR DEMANDS " here either.

This is the context in which I used the word appeasement. I personally disagree with this, you happen to agree with doing this to improve relations. That is another argument, but as for the term APPEASEMENT< it ised correctly in the context of which I use it. TOugh shit if you do not like it.

I have never said GB was appeasing the terrorists, that was you and your followings words. not mine

So the context you used it in was not negative? You meant it as in 'conciliation' as opposed to the 'Chamberlain-Hitler "Peace In Our Time"' type of appeasement?

Both: It is used negativly by ME in the sense that I do not agree with it, but that is another argument.( it is also sthe argument that I wished to debate all this time). YOU have used it as a positive in the sense that it shows GB taking the high road and trying to improve relations with the Muslims. "and what is wrong with that", argument.

but In a word yes..... as a conciliation

Last edited by lowing (2008-01-24 03:29:31)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

and where are the stats that shows how many Americans were killed in the name of God or Christianity? Remember CAM, it is a violent intolerant religion. Post stats on violent religion deaths, lets see who is on top?

General homicide levels are comparable in both America and most middle eastern countries. I would imagine that the percentage of both homicide counts that are religiously motivated are negligibly small - let's face it, terror attacks occur at such low frequency that they would hardly dent the homicide statistics given. Your attempts to characterize a billion people by the actions of a small percentage of a homicide count comparable to that of the US is probably the largest stretch you have yet made on this thread.

What I find shocking is that homicide levels in countries that are ostensibly third world developing countries should be comparable to those of western nations. Having said that, even when I was in the West Bank I felt completely comfortable, safe and was welcomed with typical Muslim hospitality.

As did I on base in Iraq, with the workers that were Muslims, but again you need to differenciate the religion ISLAM which is a violent religion and Muslim individuals who need to be sized up one at a time as we do with every other individual.

The religions teachings are violent and its prophet WAS violent. I still maintain moderate practicing Muslims are not practicing their faith as intended.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYS3PCBsJjE

please recognize the difference., in what I say and what you think I say.

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

You might wanna stop trying to steal Cam's thunder, you have contributed DICK to this thread unless insults and name calling is constructive debating tactics. Oh wait, YOU ARE a socialist/liberal .never mind.

When discussing semantics how important is it that i am a socialist/liberal, does it make my arguments lesser ?

Where exactly did i steal Cams socalled thunder ?

I happen to agree with Cam on almost all issues so is it wrong of me support a post he writes once in a while rather than posting the exact same content ?

And if you bother to read the thread again you will find out i have contributed with my own thoughts about the issue with constructive posts on nearly every page and on many pages several times.

Where exactly did i insult you, or is it insulting when having another opinion than yourself ?

Have it not struck you that you are actually wrong about the semantics in this thread when the people that usually supports your view either are absent or for a change agrees with me and Cam?

Boy, you are just as arrogant as Cam, YOU do not decide if my opinion is wrong, I do that. And as such I am not arguing semantics, you are.

Appeasement has a definition that basically amounts to pandering. THis is the context in which it was used. Like Cam, tough shit if you refuse to acknolwedge it, or don't want to hear it.

Cam called it "brainwashing", so tell me why on earth he would see the need to call it that?

You still haven't answered all the questions ... and in what way am i arrogant, you are the one that dodge all arguments being unable to see matters from a different point of view ...

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

oh now lowing look

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=91152


It seem Christianity is also an evil religion!  And what are the rest of Christians doing to stop this?  Nothing they just stand back and "appease" these guys by saying "it's their right to protest".

You can't judge everyone based on what a small group of people do. Especially if it doesn't even represent their beliefs.

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

oh now lowing look

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=91152


It seem Christianity is also an evil religion!  And what are the rest of Christians doing to stop this?  Nothing they just stand back and "appease" these guys by saying "it's their right to protest".

You can't judge everyone based on what a small group of people do. Especially if it doesn't even represent their beliefs.

I take it you haven't read the other 27 pages then, it was sarcasm.....

lowing wrote:

As did I on base in Iraq, with the workers that were Muslims, but again you need to differenciate the religion ISLAM which is a violent religion and Muslim individuals who need to be sized up one at a time as we do with every other individual.

The religions teachings are violent and its prophet WAS violent. I still maintain moderate practicing Muslims are not practicing their faith as intended.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYS3PCBsJjE

please recognize the difference., in what I say and what you think I say.

You need to differentiate the modern interpretation of Islam from the archaic and completely obsolete interpretation used by a tiny minority who cherrypick certain suras that are over-ridden quite clearly by other suras. By your argument Jews are not proper Jews because they don't stone rape victims to death as per the provisions of Leviticus!!!!!!! It's ludicrous!!!!!

Again (I posted this about 10 pages ago but I guess you didn't get the message):

In brief, war is permitted:

- in self defence
- when other nations have attacked an Islamic state
- if another state is oppressing its own Muslims

War should be conducted:

- in a disciplined way
- so as to avoid injuring non-combatants
- with the minimum necessary force
- without anger
- with humane treatment towards prisoners of war
- Muslims must only wage war according to the principles of Allah's justice.

Islam allows war in self-defence (Qur'an 22:39), to defend Islam (rather than to spread it), to protect those who have been removed from their homes by force because they are Muslims (Qur'an 22:40), and to protect the innocent who are being oppressed (Qur'an 4:75).

The idea of a total and unrestricted conflict is completely unIslamic:

"Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors."
Qur'an 2:190

Islam bans the killing of non-combatants, or of a combatant who has been captured.

Abu Bakr (the First Caliph) gave these rules to an army he was sending to battle:

- Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path.

- You must not mutilate dead bodies.

- Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man.

- Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful.

- Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food.

- You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.

Now desist from ignoring evidence that is compeltely contrary to your assertions and that quash your assertions outright. Every religion has embarrassing articles in their deeper recesses - that's why I find them all so archaic and silly - it's the modern interpretation of them that counts. Cherrypicking one or two suras from a largely metophorical book (much like the Bible or Torah) for some political end is not practicing Islam. You have to adhere to the kinds of principles outlined above to be a true Muslim.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-24 05:37:59)

CameronPoe wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

oh now lowing look

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=91152


It seem Christianity is also an evil religion!  And what are the rest of Christians doing to stop this?  Nothing they just stand back and "appease" these guys by saying "it's their right to protest".

You can't judge everyone based on what a small group of people do. Especially if it doesn't even represent their beliefs.

Brilliant - OBS EstebanRay has done in one post what I've tried to do in 28 pages: explain to an American right winger the error of the OP arguments. My hats off to you sir.

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

But seriously, the crazy muslims of the world are annoying.

You sir need to come to terms with the contradtions in your mind.

I said the crazy muslims. I didn't say all muslims are crazy.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Both: It is used negativly by ME in the sense that I do not agree with it, but that is another argument.( it is also sthe argument that I wished to debate all this time). YOU have used it as a positive in the sense that it shows GB taking the high road and trying to improve relations with the Muslims. "and what is wrong with that", argument.

but In a word yes..... as a conciliation

This conciliatory measure also has the intended effect of dividing and ostracising those with extremist tendencies from the Muslim community by emphasising the fact that what they do is unIslamic. This CAN ONLY BE good. As [TUF] Catbox showed with his references to the article the British government are taking a tough and pro-active line on pursuing and preventing terrorism of middle eastern origin. So I don't really get what you disagree with. Disagreeing with their actions doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

And that, I think, is why even your own 'following' haven't come out in droves to back you up. I was quite surprised in fact to see [TUF] Catbox post what he did given that he is on the other side of the argument from me in 99.9% of debates.

Great so after 28 pages, we are in agreement this is, be it right or wrong is appeasement. I just want to clarify this because it seems sooooooo important to get the verbage correct here before we move on. Cam, you have conceded that a few of the definitions can in fact be used in the context of which I have used the word?

I do not have a following Cam, I am not well recieved in this forum. You on the other hand could shit in a punch bowl and convince 75% of this forum to drink it.