Who won? (Israel and Hezbollah)

[budullewraagh]

Phi, I really have no reason to believe that Bettina is not bigoted. Tetrahedrite compiled plenty of quotes from Bettina that seem to indicate that she admits it herself.

 

Quotes like this:

The islamic religion is flawed and dangerous and all I see is death.

seem to allude to bigotry.

 

Now, as for the issue of puppetry, allow me to further my claims:

Any ruling body wishes for the support of the governed. Ideally, they would get their way without having to answer to the public. Questioning the actions of one's government keeps one from becoming narrow-minded and frees the individual from potential tyrrany. Bettina has continuously ignored the facts that I have presented, more than once saying "I wonder what side your on," assuming that there can only be two polar-opposite ideologies in a debate concerning terrorism, which is exactly the ideology that those neoconservative extremists who are in positions of power wish for her to have. Her expression of her wondering "what side" I support is not only ridiculous considering the fact that I have clearly explained my position on multiple occasions but also terribly offensive in that it reeks of a "holier-than-thou" attitude. On many occasions Bettina has offended myself as well as others and frankly, I'm fed up with it, which is why I said that I had nothing more to say. Unfortunately she further insulted me and egged me on, prompting my "offensive" but completely accurate response. Once again, seeing as I will not convince certain individuals and seeing as the debate continuously moves in circles, I'm through with this it so long as I am no longer insulted.

[Phi for All]

Where is the evidence you presented? I started with page one and scrolled page by page til this post and I have not seen any "evidence" - links or whatever.

 

I understand the lack of need to present evidence when dealing with fairly universal knowledge and facts' date=' but you're arguing a point that is going to have to be substantiated by news stories or something because no one believes it. It's really that simple.

 

I have a sympathetic ear for your side of the debate, because there are always three sides to every story. But you're going to have to put aside your agenda long enough to collect something factual to build on.[/quote']See budullewraagh's post #25, lots of links, click the blue words.

Phi, I really have no reason to believe that Bettina is not bigoted. Tetrahedrite compiled plenty of quotes from Bettina that seem to indicate that she admits it herself.

This is a tough one for me, since I also believe that it is wrong to judge an entire group on the actions of some of it's members. Terrorism and the fear it engenders have largely made us numb to reactions like Bettina's. Too many are saying that, since a disproportionate percentage of terrorists are Islamic, that means Islam is to blame for terrorism. That wouldn't be allowed here if you said that, since a disproportionate percentage of US prison inmates are black, that means blacks are to blame for crime. It worries me that this prejudice doesn't bother enough people.

 

I hate the idea that we are making more enemies every day by condemning Islam instead of terrorism. Part of what separates us from terrorist animals are the ideals we adhere to. If we forget our ideals or cast them aside to fight fire with fire, what makes us different?

 

Regardless, I will be conferring with the Admins on policy regarding Islam and the Racist/Prejudice warning and it's implementation, but I know we don't need to flame or use ad homs to make our points. Respect your fellow SFNers, please.

[Phi for All]

Sounds like a results oriented philosophy. We are afraid of the 1.6 billion Muslims so, for god's sake, let's not be critical. Maybe it will take a few Bill Cosby type Muslims who have the courage to address the problems. In the mean time, our self censorship is going to keep us from winning any war of ideas.

Interesting interpretation, but only accurate if "afraid" means leery of biting off more than we can chew for no reason.

 

If one jerk in a motorcycle gang of twenty starts hassling me, which is smarter, try to single him out so I can fight just him, or start talking about how his whole gang is no good? Is it even right to assume the whole gang will jump me? What if most of the gang thinks the guy is a jerk, too? Maybe I'm just "afraid" to be stupid.

[Bettina]

Budullewraagh. I enjoyed the debate with you but since your post brought the attention of moderators it bothered me immensely. I didn't expect you to take it so personal since I felt I was just jabbing you. I'm a spirited and passionate debator and sometimes unsure of my limits. However, you and Tetrahedryte are right, I do have issues with the Koran, Islam, Islamic radicals, Islamic terrorism, Islamic oppression of women, the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas, and things that are just plain evil.

 

I don't want anyone getting into trouble defending me so cool it please and thanks very much for the defense. There is another forum I belong to with a religious and political section that I post in and I will take my more "spirited" comments there. I promise you moderators and administrators that from now on I will take deep breaths before I post in the religious and politic forum and be much more tamed. Thanks for not giving me a warning.

 

So, budullewraagh, you no longer have to answer my question because I won't be debating anything overly sensitive with either you, or Tetrahedryte again. I just can't do that and risk any more hard feelings.

 

Anyway, I'm going to play a Multiplayer game now in honor of Pluto.

 

Bettina

[Jim]

Budullewraagh. I enjoyed the debate with you but since your post brought the attention of moderators it bothered me immensely. I didn't expect you to take it so personal since I felt I was just jabbing you. I'm a spirited and passionate debator and sometimes unsure of my limits. However' date=' you and Tetrahedryte are right, I do have issues with the Koran, Islam, Islamic radicals, Islamic terrorism, Islamic oppression of women, the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas, and things that are just plain evil.

 

I don't want anyone getting into trouble defending me so cool it please and thanks very much for the defense. There is another forum I belong to with a religious and political section that I post in and I will take my more "spirited" comments there. I promise you moderators and administrators that from now on I will take deep breaths before I post in the religious and politic forum and be much more tamed. Thanks for not giving me a warning.

 

So, budullewraagh, you no longer have to answer my question because I won't be debating anything overly sensitive with either you, or Tetrahedryte again. I just can't do that and risk any more hard feelings.

 

Anyway, I'm going to play a Multiplayer game now in honor of Pluto.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

While it's always a good idea to take deep breaths, I do hope you will continue to express your opinion and "call it like you see it." Incidentally, 53% of the British public now feel threatened by Islam, not just Islamic fundamentalists. Hopefully, we still have a home for this rather sensitive viewpoint shared by the majority of the British public.

 

The findings were revealed as Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, conceded that the multi-culturalist approach encouraged by the Left for two decades had probably been a mistake and could have contributed to the alienation that many young Muslims said they felt and experienced.

 

...

 

"In our attempt to avoid imposing a single British identity and culture, have we ended up with some communities living in isolation from each other with no common bonds between them?" she asked. Miss Kelly said that diversity had been "a huge asset" but she acknowledged that the wave of immigration, the highest in British history, had brought fresh challenges. These included the importation of "global tensions" and the growing alienation of white Britons worried by the pace of social and cultural change.

 

After years when many on the Left have either shut down the debate on cultural diversity or sought to avoid it, Miss Kelly said: "We must not be censored by political correctness and we cannot tiptoe around the issues."

 

Well and timely said, Miss Kelly.

[Jim]

Interesting interpretation' date=' but only accurate if "afraid" means leery of biting off more than we can chew for no reason.

 

If one jerk in a motorcycle gang of twenty starts hassling me, which is smarter, try to single him out so I can fight just him, or start talking about how his whole gang is no good? Is it even right to assume the whole gang will jump me? What if most of the gang thinks the guy is a jerk, too? Maybe I'm just "afraid" to be stupid.[/quote']

 

Let's see if we can come up with a better analogy: Imagine an alternate universe in 1800. One of the Gangs of New York City is headed by a charismatic leader claiming a direct connection to God. He knows God's will and is the chosen one. Followers flock to this leader and call him a prophet and holy man. His word becomes law and he uses their beliefs, as he sincerely believes God demands, to control the government by waging a holy war against rival gangs and then anyone who would oppose his will in any matter of government. This man becomes not only the undisputed gang leader literally worshiped by his followers but the dictator of New York. His religion spreads, in part due to conversion and in part due to holy war, to the entire eastern seaboard and eventually claims this nation. He wages wars against other countries and then controls almost all of the Americas.

 

Fast forward 106 years: The gang has moderated its tactics. They have peaceful churchs, undergo civic missions but are still in effective control of the civilian government in the Americas. Unfortunately, a portion of this Gang's members still remember the founder's words and actions. Most apply a liberal, peaceful interpretation to the founder's intent, but some, yielding to the eternal primitivistic urge of humans to go back to a time when things were good and pure, do not shrink from the tactics of their leader.

 

Fast forward 100 years: The areas controlled by the Gang's religion is in decline. Other, more liberal nations, have eclipsed the Gang in every measure of governmental success except the survival of the government. In areas of science, wealth generation, military power, the areas controlled by the Gang suffer. Tensions erupt between the Gang and the liberal democracies of the Africas over disputed territory. Wars are waged through proxies and many Gang members starts to resort to violent means. Outwardly, most Gang members deplore these measures but, in some small way many feel empowered by the losses of those who have eclipsed the One true religion.

 

Now let's go forward another 20 years and imagine that citizens of Gang states are starting to question their belief. Due to technology, they can read for themselves the literature of their centuries long antagonists and many come to understand that the strength of their historical enemy flows from their freedoms, indeed, their ability to seperate government from their own religions.

 

Would the members of the African liberal democracies be helping their cause to never fully discuss problems of the Gang. Oh, they may mention it indirectly, but the Gang members reading the internet never really hear any of the free peoples of the world say that the Gang MUST separate its government from its religion (particularly the religions historical attempts to coerce belief by infidels through holy war) if it wishes for peace and for advancement.

 

In the mean time, matters grow worse as the primitivists of the Gang, invoking the old religion, begin to use terror. They destroy the largest sky-scraper in the world which is located in Cairo. They promise death on a larger scale and are given sanction and aid by some allies that share the Gang's religious history.

 

Would it be harmful to discuss this history with the gang's members so long as the free countries citizens expressed appreciation for the Gang's mostly peaceful nature. Would it be harmful to hear that their religion has a history of military conquest that continues to this day? Would it be harmful to call on the responsible peaceful Gang members to exert what influence they could to curtail the primitivists that share their religious bond? Is it possible to intelligently separate the Gang from its entanglement in the past and present with religion? It was founded with religion, was spread with religion and remains to this day, in large part, controlled by religion.

 

What does it mean to say "the problem isn't the religion" for a religious government that exists today, in large part, because of historical conquest and despotism? Is there a problem with a religion when it not only has violent words (albeit ignored by most), a violent history and membership even today attempting to reclaim the dignity of the religion through violence? Is a religion comprised entirely of the words of the founder or, in part, is it defined by the acts and beliefs of its current membership?

 

The first step in solving any problem is to understand it. What we do with that understanding is an entirely different question. To put on blinders for fear of offending the despots of Islam is an insult to those, we don't know how many, in Islamic countries who yearn for freedom.

[aguy2]

Arabs and Jews. Of course there's going to be negative criticism addressed to one race or another.

 

This may not stay true. Many of those that are niether Arab or Jew are starting to say, "A Semite is a Semite, is a Semite.", with the implication being that if we turned the whole middle east into a slag heap, we would thereby 'solve' the problem.

aguy2

[ParanoiA]

This may not stay true. Many of those that are niether Arab or Jew are starting to say' date=' "A Semite is a Semite, is a Semite.", with the implication being that if we turned the whole middle east into a slag heap, we would thereby 'solve' the problem.

aguy2[/quote']

 

Would be great if it worked...

[Rebiu]

Way of base her Phi.

See budullewraagh's post #25' date=' lots of links, click the blue words.

This is a tough one for me, since I also believe that it is wrong to judge an entire group on the actions of some of it's members. Terrorism and the fear it engenders have largely made us numb to reactions like Bettina's. Too many are saying that, since a disproportionate percentage of terrorists are Islamic, that means Islam is to blame for terrorism. That wouldn't be allowed here if you said that, since a disproportionate percentage of US prison inmates are black, that means blacks are to blame for crime. It worries me that this prejudice doesn't bother enough people.

 

I hate the idea that we are making more enemies every day by condemning Islam instead of terrorism. Part of what separates us from terrorist animals are the ideals we adhere to. If we forget our ideals or cast them aside to fight fire with fire, what makes us different?

 

Regardless, I will be conferring with the Admins on policy regarding Islam and the Racist/Prejudice warning and it's implementation, but I know we don't need to flame or use ad homs to make our points. Respect your fellow SFNers, please.[/quote']In my opinion Phi for all you have not understood a word he has said.

[Rebiu]

Budullewraagh. I enjoyed the debate with you but since your post brought the attention of moderators it bothered me immensely. I didn't expect you to take it so personal since I felt I was just jabbing you. I'm a spirited and passionate debator and sometimes unsure of my limits. However' date=' you and Tetrahedryte are right, I do have issues with the Koran, Islam, Islamic radicals, Islamic terrorism, Islamic oppression of women, the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas, and things that are just plain evil.

 

I don't want anyone getting into trouble defending me so cool it please and thanks very much for the defense. There is another forum I belong to with a religious and political section that I post in and I will take my more "spirited" comments there. I promise you moderators and administrators that from now on I will take deep breaths before I post in the religious and politic forum and be much more tamed. Thanks for not giving me a warning.

 

So, budullewraagh, you no longer have to answer my question because I won't be debating anything overly sensitive with either you, or Tetrahedryte again. I just can't do that and risk any more hard feelings.

 

Anyway, I'm going to play a Multiplayer game now in honor of Pluto.

 

Bettina[/quote']I was also offended by your behavior.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This thread is way off-topic, and seeing that most of those involved have decided to leave it, it's closed.

 

Frankly, I'm rather disappointed overall in the behavior shown by many users in this thread, and as Phi said, ad-hominem attacks and flaming will get you nowhere. Let's take time to cool down before we post the next time there's an emotionally charged issue, please.

 

Note: If you feel that this thread should not have been closed, as I am certain many people feel, PM me. This section of the forum seems to have taken a rapid downturn and I'm just trying to make sure things don't implode here.