International or US-centered topic board?

**Kadagar_AV** · 04-19-2013, 10:50

I came here because it was said to be an international board. I admit that things are WAY better now since some of the old mods quit, but I still do think a general US viewpoint dominates moderation on these boards.

I wrote this in reply to the Boston bombings: View at Your own discretion:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

I don't see any death threats to org. members. No disrespect for newly dead.

I simply state that I think it does USA well to get reminded of the actual impact of bombs, instead of brushing it off as "collateral damage".

I have lost (civilian) friends from US bombs. I have seen forumers applaud these bombs. They were not given warning points, their posts were not deleted, they did not get banned from participating in the thread.

What I am saying here is, either come clear with this being a US centered board, or stop with the false PR of being an international board.

**LittleGrizzly** · 04-19-2013, 14:54

Kad you basically said the attack made it a good day...

I have heard members justify attacks maybe even show pleasure that they were occurring but never have they just called the loss of innocent life a good thing.

Most of the attacks you refer to (the ones Americans 'enjoy') have an actual target in mind, they may not be fully justified, they do however have some justification. Attacks like the Boston one, whilst understandable from a striking back at America angle do not actually have a justifiable target...

There were just innocent civilians, that can never be a good day.

I am sure if a member posted how a US drone missing its intended targets and hitting a busy market place was a good day they would have also got warning points.

**Beskar** · 04-19-2013, 15:00

Because cheering about people getting bombed is unacceptable. I see no posts talking about the recent bombing in Mumbai or Iraq and going "They need to be bombed some more, more lessons to be learnt. It's a great day." You actually posted this theme several times in the thread.

The thing is, your post completely lacks tack, there are people in the topic who have voiced opinions on a similar feel about the nature of bombings and the media coverage, Such as by townhughthom or MRD, but because they were not saying how good it is for people to be bombed. It states in the rules "No matter how heinous the crime a person has committed, their death is not something to be paraded on this forum." It is nothing to do with being "US-centered", it is International and International does not be "Anti-US" where it is acceptable to post of celebrating attacks on innocents.

Also on a strange theme, you are saying how bad it is to be bombed, by promoting bombing ? Would be advocating similar to going on a school shooting spree to warn people on the impacts of school shootings.

**Kadagar_AV** · 04-19-2013, 15:04

A) As the Afghanistan and Iraq war got started, WAY worse things were said by people from the US and western countries.

B) The Boston attacks had a target in mind. The voters.

C) There is no such thing as an innocent civilian, in some peoples eyes. You can dislike or argue with that statement, but to completely disallow it makes the forum NOT international.

D) The high altitude bombings were my actual concern at the time, and what killed my friends. That was a calculated practise, and one that ended because people like me screamed "bloody murder!"

E) Read A again, that is my main point.

**Beskar** · 04-19-2013, 15:17

I was not around the forum for A) and if they were as bad as you say, they would be moderated in the same fashion. I have no taste for bloodlust. As for C), any death in itself is a tragedy, even those borne of necessity.

I do remember one of my first infractions when I was more rash in my own comments, I said "If everyone who favoured the use of weapons and firearms used them on themselves, then there would be world peace overnight". Things were a lot stricter in the past.

Either way, celebrating the killing of people is not allowed, Kadagar.

Edit: If it gives you some comfort, you are not the first who has been moderated for this reason before. There have been a few others and one of them was 'Pro-US' sentiment.

**Kadagar_AV** · 04-19-2013, 15:52

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

I was not around the forum for A) and if they were as bad as you said, they would be moderated in the same fashion. I have no taste for bloodlust. As for C), any death in itself is a tragedy, even those borne of necessity.

I do remember one of my first infractions when I was more rash in my own comments, I said "If everyone who favoured the use of weapons and firearms used them on themselves, then there would be world peace overnight". Things were a lot stricter in the past.

Either way, celebrating the killing of people is not allowed, Kadagar.

Edit: If it gives you some comfort, you are not the first who has been moderated for this reason before. There have been a few others and one of them was 'Pro-US' sentiment.

When I think about it, you are right. I think my error was to compare current moderation with old time moderation, which of course isn't fair as it isn't the same moderator.

I honestly think things have improved a LOT, so thank you for the effort.

This topic can be deleted / closed.

**Beskar** · 04-19-2013, 16:11

It is no problem, I replied to your private message and I hope you haven't experienced too much inconvenience. You are always free to message me when you have an issue.