«

[efthimios]

Originally posted by plix@May 9 2006, 11:54 PM

You're just as free to misrepresent what I say as I am to make wild claims about you.* You said "Islam" and "revenge," thus you hate Muslims!* Mods! Mods!

You are an *****, no question about it. Either bad bad sense of humour or you really believe that I hate muslims. I am afraid it is the latter.

Originally posted by plix

Your own interpretation of the term aside, you went beyond offense and questioned the administrators of the forum.* That's what really prompted my response.* You're not American; I am.* You aren't a native English speaker; I am.* You mistook a generic name mentioned in something I wrote as prejudicial and complained that the admins were ignoring bigotry aimed at Americans.* That's ridiculous and that's why I made the response I did.

I didn't mistake any name, I don't like what you said and I do find it offensive, even if you find it hard for someone who is not american to actualy give a muck about the country. I don't know, perhaps it was more your elitist attitude that pissed me off more, since the common american cannot figure out what is going on, while you with your higher whatever can see through the mist. My comments after what you said (six pack etc) were not directed to the administrators only because of your specific post, but because very negative comments (and yes, far far far worse than what you said) take place here every few weeks to months. If we started a thread about how fascists warmongers, whatever "nice", any european nationality/country, including of course the ones that admins/mods are from, then all would shout FOUL. But any negative comments, reaching or even passing racist comments (not yours specificaly) that are directed to the USA or americans, they are fine, because it is so cool to blame the USA for everything muck under the Sun.
BTW, are you trying to get a VIP or do you regularly suck up on mods? (honest question)

Originally posted by plix+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (plix)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Look, as I said before, I don't generally complain about less-than-absolutely-perfect English from non-native speakers as I respect the fact that they speak a second language (far better than I speak any foreign language).* I'm not trying to criticize your English skills.* I am, however, reality-checking you as I don't like being accused of making bigoted comments about my own nationality by someone who misunderstood the nature of the term in the first place.[/b]

Actualy it looks like that was my mistake, that I didn't make it clear that I wasn't only referring to your comment, which of course is very mild (and yes I still consider it bad), no matter if you are american or martian.

Originally posted by plix@

That appears contradictory to me, but then again, the paragraph from which that is taken shifts doesn't really attempt to make a coherent point.* The most obvious contradiction is the one about Al-Qaeda.* Listing Al-Qaeda as a reason for invading Iraq and then claiming that Joe Sixpack was never led to believe that said invasion was related to the events 9/11 is about as contradictory as you can get (that is, unless you're claiming that Al-Qaeda wasn't responsible for 9/11).

FFS, READ MY POST AGAIN. I am not talking about LISTED reasons, pretexts, rumours, reading tea , I am talking about REASONS, why it actually happened. And it was never Al-Qaeda, as it was never revenge against the hits of 9/11. It might help some people to see it like this (supporters of certain regimes, people who dream and think that the poor (insert your favourite nationality related to accusations about terrorism) are innocent and just want to live their lives, that have of course no bad feelings about USA, or at least wouldn't have if the USA hadn't invaded Iraq.
UTTER BULLSHIT.

<!--QuoteBegin-plix

Further, I'd like to note that you've many times accused me of falling for "wide[spread] misinformation" and of not having my "facts straight" yet you have yet to actually mention or demonstrate where such is the case.* Hell, you're still -- in the very post to which this is a response -- arguing points I made several posts ago.* Posts, I might add, which you attacked as being ill-informed and illogical.[/quote]

Twice. Each case directly after you posted that "information".
Yes, I am still arguing points you made several posts ago, the problem is that as soon as someone mentions/counter argues something that you are wrong or you find difficult to explain, you pass it, then, as of now, claim it points you made several posts ago that should be let alone in the long long past...
Perhaps you could please provide the facts as to how the whole situation is a war on islam?

Originally posted by plix

Sadly, "War on the Middle East" is nearly synonomous with "War on Islam" from the perspective of a western power. Things are further complicated by Sunni-Shi'a tensions in an already embattled region.

You don't make any sense. How is war in the middle east synonymous to war on islam? Perhaps to people who want it to present it as such, yes. I love it when you take your own view on a matter, then place it as fact, especially when you are talking about something as different as a war in a region to being the same as a war on a whole religion. LOVE IT!

Originally posted by efthimios+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (efthimios)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
When you say that fear and nationalism with the events of 9/11 were used, you don't think that it too sounds like another way of saying revenge?[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-plix
I said the fear and nationalism of the American people after 9/11 was used as political leverage in launching an attack on Iraq.* Never did I mention revenge.* Maybe the general populace was interested in revenge -- I don't know -- but that has nothing to do with the political motivations. [/quote]

I don't know, I still find the mix of fear with nationalism and reaction to an attack, leading to a war , as revenge. Perhaps I am wrong.

[efthimios]

Originally posted by rlbell+May 10 2006, 02:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rlbell @ May 10 2006, 02:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-a1s@May 10 2006, 12:46 AM

still you have to admit the facts that Israel is the only non-offcialy-islamic country in the region as well as being exempt from invasion are more than a mere coincedence.

It is not enough to be non-oficially-muslem to avoid invasion by the US. Israel is not the only non-officially-muslim country in the middle east. The other three that I can name off the top of my head are Egypt, Syria, and Iraq (while Saddam Hussein was still in power). The key to not being invaded by the US seem to be nuclear weapons (North Korea) or a large voting bloc of americans sympathetic to your cause (Israel). [/b][/quote]
The other 3 are islamic countries, the vast majority of their population is muslim. :blink:

[Playbahnosh]

Efthimios in action I just remembered the heated discussions we had about piracy and copyright

[rlbell]

Originally posted by efthimios+May 10 2006, 05:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (efthimios @ May 10 2006, 05:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

It is not enough to be non-oficially-muslem to avoid invasion by the US. Israel is not the only non-officially-muslim country in the middle east. The other three that I can name off the top of my head are Egypt, Syria, and Iraq (while Saddam Hussein was still in power). The key to not being invaded by the US seem to be nuclear weapons (North Korea) or a large voting bloc of americans sympathetic to your cause (Israel).

The other 3 are islamic countries, the vast majority of their population is muslim. :blink: [/b][/quote]
But the countries are not officially muslim. In fact, their seperation of church and state is more extreme than that of the US. In the most liberal of the three countries (Egypt), muslim extremists are attempting a campaign of terror to drive away tourists and force government to become islamic. I am sure that if the Baathists thought that they could have gotten away with it, they would have closed the mosques. Secular governments are uncomfortable with the existence of religious leaders, and Islam is not especially tolerant of secular governments. In its extreme forms, there is no such thing as secular authority.

Whatever government the US leaves behind in Iraq, when it leaves, it will be much more muslim than the one that the US toppled, even if it is not a theocracy, like Iran.

[efthimios]

Originally posted by rlbell+May 10 2006, 12:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rlbell @ May 10 2006, 12:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

The other 3 are islamic countries, the vast majority of their population is muslim. :blink:

But the countries are not officially muslim. In fact, their seperation of church and state is more extreme than that of the US. In the most liberal of the three countries (Egypt), muslim extremists are attempting a campaign of terror to drive away tourists and force government to become islamic. I am sure that if the Baathists thought that they could have gotten away with it, they would have closed the mosques. Secular governments are uncomfortable with the existence of religious leaders, and Islam is not especially tolerant of secular governments. In its extreme forms, there is no such thing as secular authority.

Whatever government the US leaves behind in Iraq, when it leaves, it will be much more muslim than the one that the US toppled, even if it is not a theocracy, like Iran. [/b][/quote]
rbell I do not disagree with the spirit of what you say, the problem is that the world islamic means muslim, which they are. I agree that Iraq (pre war), Syria, Egypt, Lybia have secular governments (to a degree of course) and are not theocracies or anything similar, like Taliban Afghanistan, Iran (though less so now thankfuly), Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps a better term would be secular non secular, than islamic.

[xcom freak]

Efthimios, nice save, iwas preparing something for you

[Tom Henrik]

Closed due to highly inflammatory attacks made by one member towards another. That person can now look forward to having a nice 40% warn increase.

I hope you are happy, now. Seeing that we do actually respond to things when we must do so.