Printable View
Well i can't edit my posts because they don't allow me. I would've probably edited that out right after i posted it. It was a moment thing. Also it was a subject I was very passionate about. I do apologize for not making myself more obvious and understandable.
What I have taken to doing at when writing my posts - is read them twice before hitting the Submit reply button. With the way the server has been eating some of my longer posts on - I have been using Word which allows me even a better ablilty to edit - especially since I can not spell worth a darn.
Proof reading prior to submitting does me a lot of good - and I find myself editing before anyone sees it that way - and hopefully it will keep me from over-reacting to anothers post in the future.
You disgust me. You're a malicious imbecile. That will probably insult you, and it should because that is what it's intended to do. Your point of view on this matter is so astoundingly myopic and inhumane, and the fear of the spread of such stupidity frightens me so, that all I can manage is a reasonably articulate display of personal invective. But I suppose this little tantrum of mine communicates one worthwhile idea: namely, that if you seriously want to fight about this issue and to attempt to claim some speck of moral high ground over it, you had best prepare yourself to deal with a lot of people who not only disagree with you, but think you've taken leave of your sensesQuote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince
Was one of my close friends, an US Army nurse who happened to be at the Pentagon that day guilty of war crimes? An E4 nurse?
There were so many other things you could've said about 9/11 and that was what you chose. Ar7 at least was quick to explain his position. You on the other hand love to post inflammatory remarks constantly and have now reprehensibly crossed a line while simultaneously asking for your warning level to be reduced. Amazing.
If I get banned for name calling, oh well. I'm debating whether this is even the place for me anymore.
Well said, Proletariat. Please don't leave because of him.
Somebody pass BP another shovel, he's about worn this one out.
Kukri, I did get your PM, you said you had taken the liberty of resizing it, and you were hosting it yourselve. And I did respond with a polite thank you....Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Come on guys relax and take a deep breath...
There's no need to turn this into an excuse to flame. ~:grouphug:
If you have a look at the first messages regarding this topic, then it is obvious, that BP never said that he supported terrorism. All he did was bring out the subject that US, as a country, has also been involved in wars and that these wars have caused many more deaths than the above mentioned terrorist attacks. These deaths were caused to civilians not the opposing army, but the people tend to forget about it.
The way I understood his posts, correct me if I am wrong here, was that if such a terrorist attack can make the goverment stop its expansive politics towards other nations, then it was worth it. If such an attack would have stopped the next war then it would have been worth it.
BP's post are actually quite logical and there is a large amount of people who think the same way in the world. Nice examples are pacifist demostrations around the world and even in the US itself. He expressed his opinions using the wrong vocabulary, but was quickly jumped at with wrong conclusions which forced him to reply more aggressivly.
All in all BP never approved terrorism but rather took the side of the countries which have suffered numerous deaths during the wars with US. But because of such a position he was quickly associated with terrorism as terrorism comes from the countries that US invaded.
I understand there are emotions involved here, but you should stop throwing insulting remarks at BP and take time to better understand his views ( and try to look past sometimes bad wording ), after all a large percent of the world thinks the way he does.
Redleg gives good advice we all should follow:
1) Read, then post. Follow the discussion up to the most recent post. Responding to a week-old post that has already been discussed, resolved, and forgotten is regressive and counter-productive.
2) Preview, then Submit Using either the Org's 'preview' button, or your own word-proc software, re-read your words. "Is it necessary?" "Is it civil?" "Does it further the discussion?" If the answer to any of those questions is "No", the post needs more work.
Sorry Fragony, I guess your PM got dropped in one of our recent outages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
In case you missed Tosa's instructions, here is what to do:
Near the top of this page, find the 'FAQ' link. Click it, and scroll down that page to find the 'Pictures in Signatures' link. Click it, read the short page of sigPic policy, COPY it.
Now send a PM to TosaInu. PASTE that text you copied into the PM (this tells him you've read and understand the policy). He will re-authorize your full membership.
BTW, that smaller-sized pic is still available, if you want it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ar7
I will say up front that I did not support the American attack on Iraq as I believed it to be a mistake. The attack on Afghanistan on the other hand was well done and morally justified.
But there is no equivalence between military attacks that result in civilian deaths and terrorist attacks that target civilians. Military and leadership sites, such as the White House and the Pentagon are legitimate targets in a conflict. But the terrorists did not target them because of this, but rather simply as targets designed to inspire as much fear and publicity as possible. They attacked the Two Towers on the same day with the same intent.
As to the civilians who died that day, the terrorists were overjoyed. The Iranians were the only nation that had spontaneous demonstrations AGAINST the terrorist attacks. The Palestinians were singing and dancing in the streets. Compare that with the ridiculous American obsession with smart bombs and precision guided munitions to avoid civilian deaths. As boneheaded as the Americans are at times there is a world of difference between them and the terrorist networks.
War is not, and never has been a good thing, perhaps necessary, but never good, and when nations war, civilians die. A nations leader should know that going in, and make war only for a damn good reason.
Now some would argue that that dispossesed groups have no other way to strike back. The problem with such reasoning is that being on the losing side does not give you the right to butcher civilians. The American troops in Vietnam felt they had no way to strike back at the Viet-cong but this does not justify the massacre at the village of My lai.
If such an attack would have stopped the next war then it would have been worth it. Tell me, what CAN'T be justified with such logic?
And no, most of the rest of the world does not think that way!
Crap a PM, I send an email to tosaina@totalwar.org, is that ok as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince
Jeeze, you're still an ignorant ###k. :dizzy2:
Will someone ban this feces throwing monkey?!?!? Don't you understand those "assholes" in the Pentagon are ASSIGNED there. Like I'm ASSIGNED here at Scott. You my friend are a complete idiot.
Bump up my warning levels if the mods need to, but some things need to be said.
HALT!
Stop, right there. I do not moderate this forum, so have no power here. TosaInu alone has that, and his hands are very full right now.
However, until Tosa can step in here: the next flame will get that poster's account suspended.
This is not a flame, but I wonder if the mods should rethink the sanction of people not being able to edit their posts? Isn't it a bit like punishing speeding drivers by taking away their car's brake pedal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince
I agree, but of course even if you make quick use of the edit button (as I often do) there is always the danger that your post will be read anyway before you manage to edit it quickly enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
As has already been said it is good to re-read it before posting, but mistakes can and do slip by when doing that, in which case the edit function is useful.
Good call Simon Appleton,
It's true what you say, but there's also another side to this. At least mods can see who's speeding. Different people, different opinions and that's going to clash at times.
Unfortunate, but happens. Kiss up or ignore and keep moving.
It's happened, that people posted controversial bits (again and again), people responded and the initiator edited his post. So, we have a flame, often going on and on, who started? The guy who responds looks like a intolerant idiot. Trolling it is called I believe.
The purpose of removing the edit is also to force people to think before hitting submit, you don't have 2 warnings for nothing.
About what's going on here: very bad word choice, no doubt. I can see some don't like the message (even if it was worded properly), there is a statement though. Discuss it, ignore it, but don't spiral down with more bad language.
Enough about this, topic closed.