UN workers killed in Afghanistan

Nodin · 04-04-2011 10:07PM

partyatmygaff wrote: »

*sigh*

To put an end to his rubbish...

Compare Richie's posts here and Richie's posts in threads about Christianity.

For example, in the many threads about RCC Child abuse cases he has no qualms and does not hesitate in condemning the abusers. Yet here in a thread where innocent people were beheaded I have heard surprisingly little condemnation despite his 27 posts. In fact, I have seen none whatsoever. Rather strange, don't you think?

I admit perhaps defense was not the best word to use. Perhaps lack of condemnation or the usual scorn would have been better.

And that's that.

Defence was the wrong word to use, but at least you manned up, somewhat.

partyatmygaff · 04-04-2011 10:08PM

Nodin wrote: »

Defence was the wrong word to use, but at least you manned up, somewhat.

Fine with me.

Fixed your post, somewhat

Now if you'd man up to your double standards... we'd all be happy.

Nodin · 04-04-2011 10:12PM

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Fine with me.

Fixed your post, somewhat

Now if you'd man up to your double standards... we'd all be happy.

As I said, I don't think it undeserved, given the numbers that knew (and we know that they knew - thats not speculation) and did nothing. You can call that what ye will.

twinQuins · 04-04-2011 10:12PM

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Explain what you are doing here dragging up an old thread? If it is not to personally attack me then what is your purpose?

I have a low tolerance for hypocrites; especially those who have engaged with me in the embarrassing fashion you did on that thread.

I also see you bringing up RichieC's post history so you should have no issue with anyone else doing the same with yours.

Arguably you're personally attacking Nodin. Of course, it's okay when you do it, right?

You don't really seem to understand that the words "evidence" and "answer" are disparate do you?

You don't really get my point, do you? I made a reasonable request which you fobbed off with much theatrics. You, now, again in a rather spectacular fashion make sly insinuations that Nodin is attempting to deflect you from the issue.

When I took issue with you dodging my requests it is because you felt they were unreasonable but when you do it, it's fine.

Less of the caustic posts, if you please.

Can dish it out but can't take it, hmm? If you don't want me to take issue with your ridiculous accusations then perhaps you should refrain from making them.

In fact, you know what? Put me on ignore and never speak to me again.

No, I think I'd rather not. There are far worse posters than you who I haven't put on ignore quite simply because it amuses me to point out these inconsistencies.

partyatmygaff · 04-04-2011 10:17PM

Nodin wrote: »

As I said, I don't think it undeserved, given the numbers that knew (and we know that they knew - thats not speculation) and did nothing. You can call that what ye will.

When people speak of Priests they generally speak of priests of today. Can you justifiably stereotype all priests serving today as being paedophiles?

twinQuins wrote: »

I have a low tolerance for hypocrites; especially those who have engaged with me in the embarrassing fashion you did on that thread.

I have a low tolerance for people who cannot use the search function.

I also see you bringing up RichieC's post history so you should have no issue with anyone else doing the same with yours.

That was relevant to this thread. You just butted in to this thread with an irrelevant personal attack on me.

No, I think I'd rather not. There are far worse posters than you who I haven't put on ignore quite simply because it amuses me to point out these inconsistencies.

Fine, then i'd ask that you never mention my name again nor make another post directed at me or referencing me again. A very reasonable request by all means.

Nodin · 04-04-2011 10:26PM

partyatmygaff wrote: »

When people speak of Priests they generally speak of priests of today. Can you justifiably stereotype all priests serving today as being paedophiles?

For a joke, yes.

In serious discussion, no, nor have I. In twenty years, it will be different.

twinQuins · 04-04-2011 10:26PM

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I have a low tolerance for people who cannot use the search function.

If you make a claim then you back it up.

That was relevant to this thread. You just butted in to this thread with an irrelevant personal attack on me.

Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware we were operating under the notion that it's okay for you to do something but not okay for anyone else to do it.

Fine, then i'd ask that you never mention my name again nor make another post directed at me or referencing me again. A very reasonable request by all means.

And I would suggest if you've a problem with me, you put me on your ignore list.

Oh and hey, since you've no problem ignoring reasonable requests I'll take it you'll have no problem with me ignoring yours.

partyatmygaff · 04-04-2011 10:30PM

Nodin wrote: »

For a joke, yes.

In serious discussion, no, nor have I. In twenty years, it will be different.

As a joke? You consider calling people guilty of no crime paedophiles as a joke?

Not to derail the thread even further but surely you see something wrong with calling innocent people paedophiles whether a joke or not.

partyatmygaff · 04-04-2011 10:32PM

twinQuins wrote: »

If you make a claim then you back it up.

Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware we were operating under the notion that it's okay for you to do something but not okay for anyone else to do it.

And I would suggest if you've a problem with me, you put me on your ignore list.

Oh and hey, since you've no problem ignoring reasonable requests I'll take it you'll have no problem with me ignoring yours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KaOrSuWZeM

Ah... the sound of white noise.

twinQuins · 04-04-2011 10:37PM

Hey I'm just happy to have exposed your hypocrisy.

partyatmygaff · 04-04-2011 10:39PM

twinQuins wrote: »

Hey I'm just happy to have exposed your hypocrisy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KaOrSuWZeM

Ah... the sound of white noise. Nothing beats it.

twinQuins · 04-04-2011 10:43PM

Hey guys, let's see if he quotes my post again to continue his childish insult.

jackiebaron · 04-04-2011 10:46PM

Without offense but if you are still trying to get something that basic right then something tells me you are not very experienced with Arab culture. As a matter of interest, can you answer the rest of my question (As in from the section of the post you quoted)?

Without offense?

What I'm about to do here now is to focus on one of your pieces of input at a time.

Read exactly what you just wrote....premising it with "without offense".
How would you expect to deliver such a sneer and yet expect also to have your "without offense" qualifier carry any weight?

We'll get back to all your other issues and arguments in time but until then can you address this statement of yours? Why did you make such a comment?

partyatmygaff · 04-04-2011 10:52PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Without offense?

What I'm about to do here now is to focus on one of your pieces of input at a time.

Read exactly what you just wrote....premising it with "without offense".
How would you expect to deliver such a sneer and yet expect also to have your "without offense" qualifier carry any weight?

We'll get back to all your other issues and arguments in time but until then can you address this statement of yours? Why did you make such a comment?

It's not a sneer. It was a simple statement. You said "The fact that you refer to this area of the World as the "Middle" East belies the fact that you are not actually from this region.". That's quite wrong. In fact, I quite regularly hear the phrase "Al sharhk il-awsat" which means "The Middle East" on Arabic news channels and in films e.t.c. This led me to doubt your knowledge of Arab culture the same way you doubted me, hence the perceived sneer.

jackiebaron · 04-04-2011 11:16PM

SamHarris wrote: »

Citations from a reliable source please.

Sam, it's been cited in Rashid's book about the Taliban in 2000. This is a source that I've have been only thus far been able to glean. Please read rather than scoffing:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bl_tft.htm

Apparently Ron Paul was privy to these talks as well.

The invitation by the Clinton Administration of the Taliban to Texas is, however, well documented.

Nodin · 04-04-2011 11:18PM

partyatmygaff wrote: »

As a joke? You consider calling people guilty of no crime paedophiles as a joke?

Not to derail the thread even further but surely you see something wrong with calling innocent people paedophiles whether a joke or not.

It helps remove the church further from the position it held for far too long in this country. There was a time nobody would dream of questioning them. Them days is thankfully gone.

jackiebaron · 04-04-2011 11:19PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Sam, it's been cited in Rashid's book about the Taliban in 2000. This is a source that I've have been only thus far been able to glean. Please read rather than scoffing:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bl_tft.htm

Apparently Ron Paul was privy to these talks as well.

The invitation by the Clinton Administration of the Taliban to Texas is, however, well documented.

Actually, Sam, my dates are a little wrong. It was 1997 that the Taliban leaderships were wined and dined in the US to discuss Caspian-IO access for pipeline"s:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

partyatmygaff · 04-04-2011 11:23PM

Nodin wrote: »

It helps remove the church further from the position it held for far too long in this country. There was a time nobody would dream of questioning them. Them days is thankfully gone.

Wait, so calling innocent people paedophiles is now a protest against the Catholic Church? There's a difference between criticism and protest and calling innocent people something as vile as child abusers.

For a man who claims to fight against unfair stereotypes you sure don't seem averse to using unfair stereotypes to fight your battles.

himnextdoor · 04-04-2011 11:39PM

SamHarris wrote: »

Next time a guy burns a Koran in Afghanistan and is lynched, you can return to this analogy. Have people lost all sense of spatial awarness?

If that guy out of Jackass had burned a Bible, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have been lynched.

SamHarris wrote: »

No he does not have a share of the reponsibility for the actions of extremists - he does have responsibility of being a bigoted douche. No more no less.

No, the extremists are responsible for their actions and pastor Terry Jones is responsible for his. And their 'free-will' action combined to cause the death of UN workers.

If that 'bigoted douche' had not done what he did, people who are dead would still be alive. And he knew what he was risking.

Of course he's culpable; for his part in it.

yammycat · 04-04-2011 11:42PM

himnextdoor wrote: »

If that guy out of Jackass had burned a Bible, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have been lynched.

No, the extremists are responsible for their actions and pastor Terry Jones is responsible for his. And their 'free-will' action combined to cause the death of UN workers.

If that 'bigoted douche' had not done what he did, people who are dead would still be alive. And he knew what he was risking.

Of course he's culpable; for his part in it.

That makes sense all right, how about this , if you ever post in this forum again I am going to do very very bold things, lets see if you post again.

partyatmygaff · 04-04-2011 11:45PM

Himnextdoor, don't do it! He's a raving lunatic and he'll follow through with what he says. Don't reply. Do you want to be responsible for what he does?

sock puppet · 04-04-2011 11:47PM

himnextdoor wrote: »

If that 'bigoted douche' had not done what he did, people who are dead would still be alive. And he knew what he was risking.
[/I]

Or perhaps the insurgents would have simply directed their resources elsewhere. Lets face it when have they needed an excuse to kill before?

SamHarris · 05-04-2011 01:15AM

himnextdoor wrote: »

If that guy out of Jackass had burned a Bible, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have been lynched.

No, the extremists are responsible for their actions and pastor Terry Jones is responsible for his. And their 'free-will' action combined to cause the death of UN workers.

If that 'bigoted douche' had not done what he did, people who are dead would still be alive. And he knew what he was risking.

Of course he's culpable; for his part in it.

Get back to me when that happens - dozens of deaths in a Western country over a book burning. Regardless, it's moot.

So you are arguing that people should not be insulted who are unstable? that it should be ILLEGAL for people to insult Islam as the inevitable consequences of their actions will be the deaths of someone, somewhere? That would take some convincing for other people, and thankfully will never happen in the US.

himnextdoor · 05-04-2011 01:31AM

partyatmygaff wrote: »

He's a raving lunatic

You said it. :cool:

himnextdoor · 05-04-2011 01:51AM

SamHarris wrote: »

So you are arguing that people should not be insulted who are unstable? that it should be ILLEGAL for people to insult Islam as the inevitable consequences of their actions will be the deaths of someone, somewhere? That would take some convincing for other people, and thankfully will never happen in the US.

Hm! Is that what I said?

The murderous mob that murdered those innocent UN workers who were murdered in a most murderous way by the murderers that murdered them are very naughty boys.

Are we clear?

Whether or not it is the right of pastor Jones to burn a copy of a Qu'ran that he bought with his own money is not the issue; the fact that he bought and burned one is.

Let me put it another way, what pastor Jones did was at best, a diplomatic faux pas and at worst, reckless endangerment.

Let's be fair though, America 'allowed' this mess to get out of hand. I mean, if pastor Jones had been immediately arrested for something and an instant public apology had been issued to Islam then there might have been a different outcome.

SamHarris · 05-04-2011 02:14AM

himnextdoor wrote: »

Hm! Is that what I said?

The murderous mob that murdered those innocent UN workers who were murdered in a most murderous way by the murderers that murdered them are very naughty boys.

Are we clear?

Whether or not it is the right of pastor Jones to burn a copy of a Qu'ran that he bought with his own money is not the issue; the fact that he bought and burned one is.

Let me put it another way, what pastor Jones did was at best, a diplomatic faux pas and at worst, reckless endangerment.

Let's be fair though, America 'allowed' this mess to get out of hand. I mean, if pastor Jones had been immediately arrested for something and an instant public apology had been issued to Islam then there might have been a different outcome.

Completly disagree, they did exactly what they should have done, comdemned him for the burning and defended his right to do the burning.

If a country was forced to make a "publi apology" everytime a citizen did something Muslims/ some other group deemed offensive somewhere in the world, there really would be very little done.

So basically you don't think free speech is a good idea? Thats your perogative but to most people it is one of the most important rights they can have.

himnextdoor · 05-04-2011 02:48AM

SamHarris wrote: »

Completly disagree, they did exactly what they should have done, comdemned him for the burning and defended his right to do the burning.

If a country was forced to make a "publi apology" everytime a citizen did something Muslims/ some other group deemed offensive somewhere in the world, there really would be very little done.

So basically you don't think free speech is a good idea? Thats your perogative but to most people it is one of the most important rights they can have.

I'll try another way.

Suppose a guy loses his job but is too ashamed to tell his wife and so he decides to jump off a high building. A negotiator turns up to try and talk him out of it.

Now, along comes pastor Jones and says, 'I know this man and his wife is having an affair; I should tell him'. The negotiator says, 'No, don't. It might cause him to react badly' and asks the pastor to stay out of the negotiation.

So the pastor leaves and returns with a megaphone and informs the guy who lost his job that his wife is being unfaithful. The guy jumps.

Okay, the guy committed suicide by jumping off the building but the pastor pushed him.

Oh! And the pastor is having an affair with the man's wife.

himnextdoor · 05-04-2011 03:28AM

SamHarris wrote: »

Completly disagree, they did exactly what they should have done, comdemned him for the burning and defended his right to do the burning.

The situation in Afghanistan is very volatile and such situations need delicate handling. Pastor Jones can actually be said to have undermined America's 'war-effort' and as such he could be arrested for treason.

philologos · 05-04-2011 07:15AM

yammycat wrote: »

That makes sense all right, how about this , if you ever post in this forum again I am going to do very very bold things, lets see if you post again.

Excellent post. If someone threatens your liberty with the consequence of attacking others and you continue to live and act freely. Is it earnestly your fault if that person unleashes their anger at others?

ScissorPaperRock · 05-04-2011 07:50AM

yammycat wrote: »

That makes sense all right, how about this , if you ever post in this forum again I am going to do very very bold things, lets see if you post again.

Jakkass wrote: »

Excellent post. If someone threatens your liberty with the consequence of attacking others and you continue to live and act freely. Is it earnestly your fault if that person unleashes their anger at others?

Let's be realistic here. There was no need for him to burn the book, and it was clear that it would offend a substantial population and was likely to cause a backlash. It is not like posting on a website. The website is not the pillar of an entire belief system.

In saying that, if there was a real threat that people might die if you posted on this website, would you really start blabbering about liberty and go ahead and do it anyway?

I think I could live without it, just like he could have lived without burning the Koran.

UN workers killed in Afghanistan

Comments