|
|
|
I admit I haven't read all your post, I only relate to your references to Jerusalem, Palestinians, you know  I wanted to put a link t a site which might balance your viewpoint about the situation in Jerusalem and west bank nowadays and show the injustice that is being done to innocent population over the 42 years of Istraeli occupation. This organization B'tselem tries to be fair and balanced in the harm done by both sides, Israeli and Palestinian. I'll read all your post later. http://www.btselem.org/English/
Related link: http://www.btselem.org/English/
|
|
|
|
Snow-White.
My very point relates to fairness and balance in the historical context and you'd have to read the article, think about it (and listen to the vid, too,to grasp one particular (Muhammad's child abuse) within the general (Muhammad's wide-ranging abuses) to get it.
We know everything ----right down to the nitty-gritty fair & balanced or even its opposite ---about Western attitudes and actions toward Islam over the course of history and into the present day. Furthermore, generally speaking, our leaders and figures of prominence/influence bend over backwards to acknowledge and apologise for as much as they possibly can.
On the other hand, it's rare ---incredibly rare --- for comparable Islamic counterparts within the Islamic world ( including in and around Palestine) to even address the history in any fair and balanced manner. According to Islam it's a story, from start to finish, of misunderstood victimhood, with Muhammad and Islam always, but always, the victim. On the whole it's a fabric made up of lies, omissions and Stalinesque-like air-brushing.
However, my main point is wide-ranging and general rather than specific to Palestine. On the other hand if Muslims ( including those in States surrounding Israel) and Islam itself were more honest about Muhammad/Islam in general and even the "Palestine" issue in particular, the chances are that the resolution of the problem would be a few steps closer than it is.
Until then it's a story of uncalled for appeasement. A whistling in the wind genuflection, with the background facts of " history" unfairly, and without balance, rewarding Islam and mocking the West.
Modified by Dermot at Sat, Jun 20, 2009, 07:58:29
|
|
|
|
I really don't know how much of this textual investigation of Islam by non-Muslims that I buy. Moreover, I don't think Islam is very comparable to most of the other great faiths, so they're like the twelve-toed child in the room. The honesty that will make a difference concerns the "victim narrative" and how much traction that will maintain. The Iranian reformers (and it's fair to call them that, at this point) are using Islam against the Islamists. More precisely, they're using a form of "martyrdom" that's closer to the Christian than the Sunni "suicide-murderer" paradigm. I've always felt that the history of Islam and Christianity were moving in opposite directions, precisely because of this role of martyrdom. And in general Muslim Quietism is much closer to Christianity in other areas as well, including separation of church and state.
|
|
|
|
The vid, at least, was from a native Arabic speaker so there's a fair chance he was once a Muslim though I've no idea really.
As for some of the reformers, yes, I see plainly how they are using Islam against Islamist's in this particular scenario --especially on street level -- but how far that will carry if any get power is very debateable.
Rafsanjani, for instance, is often cited as a reformer and in contrast to someone such as Ahamadinejad , that pov has credibility. He often displays a degree of reasonableness, for example, and wouldn't go out of his way to directly confront the US or the West so things would be safer under him. Would I prefer a Khameni ( with his bent toward Ahmadinejad) as Supreme Leader or a Rafsanjani. Rafsanjani, no question.
On the other hand it's all relative.
He always fully supported the Rushdie fatwa, for example, and this is cited as one of his quotes re the Jews:
" Europe resolved a great problem – the problem of the Zionist danger. The Zionists, who constituted a strong political party in Europe, caused much disorder there. Since they had a lot of property and controlled an empire of propaganda, they made the European governments helpless. What Hitler and the German Nazis did to the Jews of Europe at that time was partly due to these circumstances with the Jews. They wanted to expel the Zionists from Europe because they always were a pain in the neck for the governments there. This is how this calamity fell upon the Muslims, especially the Palestinians, and you all know this history, more or less.[...]The first goal was to save Europe from the evil of Zionism, and in this, they have been relatively successful."
A travesty of proper historical perspective and analysis for what purpose?
Plus, I still think prosecutors are seeking to charge him and others for working in unison with Hezbollah re the bombing of the joint Jewish-Argentine centre in Buenos Aries. 85 killed and hundreds injured. It’s only a charge levelled at him …not yet fully proven but the Argentines are insistent and have been for years and years.
Still, it’s true that there plenty of Western looking/leaning Iranians ---especially of the younger generation and it is demographically a young nation as opposed to old. Overwhelmingly so, in fact.
Interesting what you say about martyrdom. Still, it’s not as if they have any other means to confront forces that hold every martial power at their disposal as opposed to none. So, it’s not as if there’s any choice to be made on the “ philosophical” level.
As for Quietism, well we’ve discussed it before. I agree it’s the best possible hope but , at least in this day and age, it’s a long shot as far as I can see. Not that long shots don’t ever come through. Once in a blue moon they do.
However, to repeat the point I’ve made before it’s not only a long shot within present day Shi’ism but Shi’ism itself is in the minority with regard to the Islamic world. So it’s a minority within a minority in the total scheme of things. Still, where there’s life there’s hope.
Modified by Dermot at Sat, Jun 20, 2009, 16:59:25
|
|
|
|
Here's something just posted on twitter, within the last few minutes:
"No More Velayat-e-Faqih, No More Khamanei, Now is our time for true democracy, Allah Akbar"#Iranelection #Neda This sort of betrays an awareness of an internal conflict within Shi'ah Islam even if the writer isn't necessarily a Quietist himself. The Faqih stepped over a line when they created a theocracy, and then stepped over another when they failed to perceive the resentment that theocracy has built up over 30 years of repression. The failing of the Quietists hasn't been that they eschewed power in the name of Allah, but that they deferred to those who did. I think that's now over. The thing that's relevant here is that the Quietists are a majority within a majority in Iran itself, even if they're only a majority within a minority elsewhere. But truth be told, things are probably way past my kind of analysis.
Modified by Juan Carlo Finesseti at Sat, Jun 20, 2009, 21:58:02
|
|
|
|
However, one thing's getting a little bit clearer. The regime seems to have decided on a brutal crackdown no matter what.
The regimes of Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan and a host of other examples tells us that such things can last for an extremely long time.
It's going to need some brave and daring politicians, clerics and ordinary people ( en masse, most likely) to make a difference beyond a few days and weeks. People have families, homes ...and lives, above all else, ...to weigh in the balance alongside their yearning for freedom and their disgust for the theocracy.
This major expression of dissent ( which approached close to a wholesale uprising) will have it's role to play in how things sooner or later pan out, though. That seems definite.
But truth be told, things are probably way past my kind of analysis
And mine. Apart from everything revolving around two words I've just used. Sooner. Later.
It could pan out any way imaginable, I guess, including sooner than we ever thought possible or longer than we ever thought imaginable.
What a life, eh ? What a time. In the meantime, if the regime nukes itself up then both people in Israel and people in the majority of Arab States, and beyond, will be sitting upright in a state of heightened alert.
Modified by Dermot at Sat, Jun 20, 2009, 22:42:17
|
|
|
|
Actually they've got quite a problem on their hands. A massive crackdown would be "televised" by the new media. Imagine if there had been video cell phones at Amritsar. So they've got to figure out a way to be brutal and scary without being witnessed. So they take pot shots at individuals in the crowd, mark the doors of demonstrators so they can come back after they've returned home to beat them up or worse... all behind closed doors, or they follow people to hospitals or take over ambulances, and again harm them behind closed doors. The strategy of Secret Police everywhere.The problem is that the demonstrators can develop tactics against all of this. They can take the injured to the Canadian Embassy. They can stay out, instead of returning home, at least until the marks on their doors have been erased. And the pot shots only serve to inspire rather than suppress. There are too many for that to work. If they can't mass exterminate, they're stuck. Again, perhaps my imagination is lacking, but I just don't see how they win. But "compromise" isn't a word that totalists really understand, nor can they afford to compromise. Hence, it'll get worse unless the armed forces decide to just back someone else. The ratchet may just slide back to Rafsanji for awhile, which would settle things down, but the Faqih will never really be in control again. That ship has sailed.
|
|
|
|
You're right. I agree that Mohammad was a monster. Most people don't have a clue about Islam.
But, frankly, Dermot, I'm getting sick of your hate of Obama. But, to be fair, I guess you hate Obama as much as I have disliked Bush/Cheney. I think I'm right, you think you're right, and never shall we meet. But, he's my president.
The reason people don't talk about the "evils" of Mohammad and Islam is because it's a religion. People, particularly, Americans, have become practically hardwired to be "tolerant" of any religion, including Obama. Bush never condemned Muslims. He never did that.
Obama's the president of the fucking United States. He can't go around condemning a religion that billions of people practice around the world, and as a result of that practice, most don't ever hurt anyone. The president of the United States simply cannot do that. He is the most powerful man in the world, after all. Even your politicians bow and kowtow to the United States president, whomever he is.
But, you may be happy to learn that President Obama's approval rating took a 15 point dive this week. It's probably due to the fact that he won't fulfill his promise to allow gays into the military and the propaganda that the Republicans are spewing out against health care reform.
I really like Obama. A lot. At least he's able to behave like a real human being. But, like many others, I'm able to clearly be rationally critical of him without personally attacking him, making up racist names, like you, PatC, Juan and others on this board feel so free to do.
Whatever happened to the standard of rational and logical discussion on this forum?
And please, don't give me a tome to read. Posting on forums isn't the only thing I do in my life.
Cynthia
Modified by Cynthia at Sat, Jun 20, 2009, 10:26:40
|
|
|
|
But, you may be happy to learn that President Obama's approval rating took a 15 point dive this week. It's probably due to the fact that he won't fulfill his promise to allow gays into the military and the propaganda that the Republicans are spewing out against health care reform. Actually, I think it's his congenitally "tepid" response to the most significant event of the 21 Century so far: The Iranian Green Revolution. It sort of deflates his image.
|
|
|
|
Actually, I think it's his congenitally "tepid" response to the most
significant event of the 21 Century so far: The Iranian Green
Revolution. It sort of deflates his image.
You think it's the most significant event in the 21st Century? It's only been a week and one day since the Iran election. I think 9/11 is the most significant event in the 21st Century so far.
That's not why the polls are down. Anyway, I know the Republicans wrote a non-binding resolution supporting the Iranians but the White House had them tone it down. THey must have forgotten that Bush/Cheney isn't in office anymore.
How about that 25% approval rating on the Republicans this week? That's historically significant.
Modified by Cynthia at Sat, Jun 20, 2009, 17:59:21
|
|
|
|
It's the most significant event of the 21st Century not because the Green Revolution itself will have such far reaching consequences, but because the veil over authoritarianism has been rent forever. Some people see this and some don't. As for Teleprompter Jesus, sometimes his congenital tepidity is an asset, but not now. I think it's fairly obvious that US clandestine forces are deeply into this, both in terms of organization and funding. And for all I know Obama is playing it just right, at least in terms of American FP interests. But he really doesn't know how to "emote" in public, and it's clearly losing him support. It's difficult to argue that his disinterest is calculated, when he can't seem to ever get beyond it.How about that 25% approval rating on the Republicans this week? That's historically significant. It could be politically significant, at least in the short term. "Historically significant" seems a bit over the top for a single poll result. The Democrats gained seats in the House with an even lower overall approval rating. It's like used car salesmen. Nobody admires them very much, but we all buy from them.
|
|
|
|
What's this bullshit about " hate Obama" ...I don't hate him you idiot....I severely criticise him for many of his policies ---especially those relating to Islam and a lot of his bullshit, hypocrisy and appeasement resulting from that. That means a lot to me whether you fucking like it or not, so tough.
To actually hate someone, though, would include wishing him real harm ---which I certainly don't and have never once expressed such a thing --- and it would also include personal denigration of him to the appalling levels that people used to do re Bush and other politicians ( from Palin to all sorts of others)....a little chimp or a Hitler and much, much worse etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
There are many ways I think Obama is an ok sort, his family etc, but I don’t want to spend my time saying how much I like him or dislike him just for the sake of it. I link everything I say about him to the policies I strongly and vehemently object to.
I genuinely do think Obama could be a narcissist ....there's certainly a lot of ways that that could be fairly credibly illustrated so, no, that doesn't even get close to the sort of personal denigration of a politician YOU'VE often indulged in on more than one occasion.
Also, I know Bush never criticised Muslims and I never claimed he did but I did claim he misrepresented Islam falsely as some overall " religion of peace" ....and for your fucking information, miss fucking know-it-all, if you can’t tell the difference between Islam as a religion and Muslims as people then that's your problem not mine.
And point me to some " racist name" I've called him you slandering, lying tosspot. Don't play the fucking " racist " game with me when it's NOT REMOTELY TRUE. If you had the slightest decency you'd apologise but I won't hold my breath. All I’ll say is, stick your pathetic "racist" and " hate" jibes up your arsehole.
Whenever I do criticise Muslims it's directed at those ---and unfortunately they exist ---that take Islam to the limits Muhammad would have expected and demanded. Such criticism, though, also, by its very nature, includes speaking up for OTHER Muslims who are a victim of those limits.....whether based on their gender, sexual orientation, desire to leave the religion or whatever.
Actually, though, I’d add that I’ve probably known and mingled with more Muslims, Blacks, other races and types of people ----and been on intimate terms with plenty from any/all groups ---- than you’ve probably had hot dinners, and of all those, not even a single one would even, for a split second, think of brandishing the “ racist” label or " hate" label to make a point against me. You, though, on your high fucking “ now I’m emotional and angry so I’ll say whatever shit I like” horse, toss it in there just for good measure and don‘t think twice about it. Arsehole.
Whatever happened to the standard of rational and logical discussion on this forum?
What, such as libel about racism and hatred ? Go to hell, hypocrite.
And please, don't give me a tome to read. Posting on forums isn't the only thing I do in my life.
Nor is it mine you insinuating piece of work. I multi post here, though I admit I need to cool it, but I have plenty of life and plenty of living/breathing real fucking people to live it with. You on the other hand multi-post for years on end on the ex forum. Your real point is WHAT exactly? I make too many posts but you don’t????
I’ll write a tome or won‘t write a tome. You fucking read it or don’t. It’s not like I give a fuck or anything.
See I can be angry and outspoken, too, when it called for. And boy do your prissy, preachy fits deserve it …BIG TIME.
Modified by Dermot at Sat, Jun 20, 2009, 14:01:05
|
|
|
|
In the post you responded to ( while highlighting Obama, rightly, for going the extra mile in bowing to Islamic sensibilities at the expense of the West and at the expense of true historical perspective) everything I said related to a collective Western disposition to airbrush history. Indeed, I specifically mentioned Bush/Blair in that regard.
Not only that but I added the following:
" but denial and the airbrushing away of historical fact is indulged in by pretty much all Western leaders and orgs."
Also, your point about
" He can't go around condemning a religion "
doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's nothing but a feeble excuse you're drawing on. It all depends. Islamic forces throughout the world oppress Christians and severely criticise it. They humiliate the pope, murder and harass ordinary Christians based purely on irrationality, spite and a cultural demand for praise without criticism regardless of truth. The works. Rights of Christians all over the shop are trampled on in the Islamic world. If the leading voices of the West, including the POTUS, aren't going to raise a voice and counter with proper, honest perspective, then who EXACTLY is?
It's incumbent on Bush, Blair, Obama or any prominent Western voice not to ignore matters by lying and/or omitting to mention such outrages BEFORE they go around arse-licking. They could quite easily make positive points about a lot of Muslims while being true to the real, and overall, state of play and by standing up for WESTERN values and the religion that predominantly is held in esteem in the WESTERN world. We'll be waiting a long time if we expect respect from Islam if we can't even honestly respect our own corner, our own sensibilities. Hence American troops burning Bibles, en masse, in Afghanistan to satisfy Islamic demands not to spread Christianity, while giving Islam every opportunity under the sun to spread in the West. Imagine the global, colossal outrage if ONE copy of the Koran was symbolically set alight. Still, appease Islam or insult millions of Western Christians. Why, sure, let's deeply insult Christians.
No, In fact it's the first duty of Western leaders, as far as I see it, to stand up for the West. At least while Islam is getting away with so much intolerance and discriminatory behaviour.
So if Obama goes the extra mile to what is already an abomination , damned right he should be severely called to rights over it.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter if there are ten Muslims worldwide or a billion. If the Islamic Nations and Islamic leaders see fit to denigrate the West, its values and even its main religion then of course they should be countered regardless of how many ordinary Muslims don't harm anybody. Did that same standard of appeasement apply to communism? There were millions and millions of ordinary folk within the communist realm who didn't harm anybody. So?
Whatever happened to the standard of rational and logical discussion on this forum?
I am being rational and logical. You're just arguing from a point of view of being in the tank for Obama which leads me to remind you of your hypocrisy once again. When you were in the tank for Clinton you were far more disparaging of Obama than even I was/am.
Oh right, I also remember that when Obama wasn't " your President" you took great umbrage with Joe over his bringing up the " racist" argument vis-a-vis Obama.
Hilarious.
Modified by Dermot at Sat, Jun 20, 2009, 16:25:33
|
|
|
|
Temper, temper Dermot. You didn't call Obama the name, but you didn't make one little peep when PatC or PatD did. Obamugabi. It's racist to call him that. And I'm not going to explain it to you because I already did explain it to PatC (another name-caller) extensively and he turned purple over it. So if you want to know why it's racist just look it up in the archives.
You're a nasty name-caller, Dermot. But, I'm glad you lost your control today (again!) so now I know what you really think of me, and I'll never bother to communicate with you on this forum again.
Your posts are always way too long and way too boring as a result. Good writers know when to stop, and when less is more. You go on and on and on in all of yours. And your posts about Obama are always hateful. So there. Mine weren't hateful, mine were negative because I was backing Clinton and it took me a long, long time to warm up to Obama (I'm not in his tank).
What an insulter. You remind me of someone...
Modified by Cynthia at Sat, Jun 20, 2009, 18:01:56
|
|
|
|
I thought your rant to Joe was terrible and mean, too. It was uncalled for and uncivil. PatC did it to Joe too. Couple of bullies.
Nothing Joe did warranted your nastiness towards him, but I guess you want to be the only one besides Juan who posts here anymore. Keep it up and you will be.
Modified by Cynthia at Sat, Jun 20, 2009, 18:07:04
|
|
|
|
You didn't call Obama the name, but you didn't make one little peep when PatC or PatD did. Obamugabi.
I don't recall ever making a wordplay on Obama's name, or even saying much about him, apart from wishing I'd backed him for President back when Niall Ferguson tipped him as a possible when the odds were 500/1.
My basic position, I guess, is that I'm a Western Exceptionalist, & that's something that most people aren't these days. That doesn't mean that I look down on others because of the colour of their skin, just the content of their minds.
I like a joke too. What's wrong with that?
|
|
|
|
Miss nanny blowhard- bullshitter accused you of it so that's all that's important. 
|
|
|
|
Please accept my apology, Pat. I was wasn't thinking straight after reading Dermot's verbal abuse.
|
|
|
|
Modified by Dermot at Sat, Jun 20, 2009, 21:24:00
|
|
|
|
You didn't call Obama the name
Right but you said I did. Liar.
Not one little peep when PatC or PatD did.
I am my own keeper, and always have been, and I’m responsible for what I say not what you, Pat C, Pat D, or anyone under the sun, says.
On occasions I comment as I see fit and on others I don’t. Hence I remained silent on the many occasions when you ( and others) , for example, have insulted politicians ….and in your time you’ve outspokenly insulted Obama, Clinton, Palin, Bush and a whole lot more, I’m sure. Other times I've let my views be known. I'm not beholden to " nanny Cynthia" in the slightest.
According to your “logic”, my silence meant I concurred with your or others view when in “ politician insult“ mode.
Your nastiness know no bounds, though, when you’re well and truly cornered without a shred of “ rationality or logic” to make a reasonable argument.
And make no mistake, There isn’t a shred of truth to your disgusting jibe that my criticism of Obama is in the slightest way racist or hateful. You’re lying. Live with it.
Saying " I must have hit a nerve" is a sneaky, slimy pile of crap. You made me fucking angry and extremely annoyed, that's what you did. Then I honestly expressed my anger to you. And even though I've cooled down now, the fact that you've decided to repeat your snide accusations means I retract nothing.
It’s true, though, that I think Obama gets a “ free pass”. It’s true that I find him fundamentally “ shallow”. It’s true that I think “ It’s nice he can a read a teleprompter”. It’s true that I think “ that's the most basic job qualification for the job he seeks “. It’s also true that I think “ He can whip up a crowd. But, he doesn't speak off the cuff very well. He stammers a lot and it's annoying to try to follow what he's saying.”
It’s also true that I think as I do “ not because he's black. That's absurd -- has nothing to do with my criticism of him. I don't buy that argument that critics are engaging in racism.” It’s also true that my main criticism of him ( much of which I honestly reckon is happening as we speak) centred on foreign policy issues so that’s why I wouldn’t have voted for him whether “ “holding my nose tightly “ or not.
It’s also true that I haven’t changed my opinions about him much, at all, neither as a politician nor regarding the agendas he wishes to push through, especially overseas.
However, ongoing, even vehement criticism, does not hatred make. Neither does sarcasm or satire when It genuinely fit’s the bill. You can’t cite a single example of my racism in relation to Obama nor my hatred of him because not a single example exists.
You’re a dishonest blowhard with the gall to carry on your accusations even though they lack zero evidence.
Oh, yeah, It’s also true that everything above in quotes are your exact words of yore. So you changed your opinion of him. I didn’t. Big deal.
And everything I said about you is based on what I think of you purely as a result of what you initiated into the discussion re what you think of me i.e. someone fundamentally motivated by racism and hate .
You honestly have the gall to expect my thanks as opposed angry, insulting scorn for such a LOW blow? Dream on. Again you deserved what I gave back to you. Don’t now try make out I attacked you first or that you're some hard done by victim.
Nothing Joe did warranted your nastiness towards him, but I guess you want to be the only one besides Juan who posts here anymore. Keep it up and you will be.
As for Joe, it wasn’t anything to do with bullying. I called him on his serial plagiarism. Period. You too, among others, then called on him on it, too. I never insulted him, I wasn’t mean, there was certainly nothing uncivil about it. I didn’t tell him to fuck off and never return. I invited him to explain and engage. That isn’t bullying bozo. Get a dictionary and look up racism, hatred, bullying etc.
As for my writing. Your attempt to hurt by having a dig has failed. My main purpose in writing is to make my case. Period. I don’t care what people think of it other than that. Whether too long, boring or whatever. There are plenty of times when I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment of it myself, for that matter. That’s because my life doesn’t depend one iota in “ proving” what a “ good” writer I am.
So your lies and false accusations re racism, hatred and bullying show you up, not me. Attacks on my writing skill glide over me like water off a ducks back. What else you got, Miss blowhard? Zilch just like you had zilch to begin with.
Talking of mean, though, NAR immediately comes to mind. Now when you both had your shindig, I kept out of it because 1. At the time , I genuinely, in different ways, had respect for you both and 2. I reckoned you’re both adults and you can thus argue the toss with each other without my intercession or involvement. It wasn’t anything to do with me.
Bear in mind, though, that you often made the point of saying stuff like “ Where’s Nar?” and “ I really miss Nar” and stuff like that when he was having a sabbatical.
Also, bear in mind how polite, kind and considerate Nar always seemed to be toward you over the long term. So putting aside the constant ideological divide between the two of you -- which is fair enough --- you said to this man, who had not only served his country in dangerous and extreme situations but also then went on to educate himself and take up a second career ( and thus paid taxes whatever rate at which they were set or however low he prefers them to be set ...he pays them ) and, I’m sure, took care of his loved ones etc, to boot ….you just had to bluntly tell him :
“ The problem with Republicans is that they don't give a shit about the American people and whether they have boots or straps to pull up. You guys just love the fact that you're all okay and fuck the rest of us.”
Nice. What are friends for ( whether online or offline) but to share some mutual respect, eh?
Plus your comments to him re POW’S running for Pres where you twisted his stated opinions etc.
Then when he was obviously hurt and annoyed enough that he declared he was quitting for good, you had to have one final little “ preaching sermon” at him didn’t you.
So you made a point of calling this basically decent man a baby etc, etc and told him to learn from you and your superior world-view. The guy probably has more worth in one of his toenails than your entire being ...you, sitting there, judging and sermonizing to him in blowhard fashion.
As I say, I kept out of it, but I knew then and know now who I was rooting for in that particular shindig and it wasn't you. Still, though, I didn't allow that one incident to permanently turn me off you.
At least my confrontation with Joe was based on his dishonest plagiarising and not some dig about a person being a Rep or a Dem and then twisting some personal attack into it all for good measure.
Like I say, I deliberately chose to stay out of your bust up with Nar for reasons stated above but you were really hitting below the belt against someone who for years had treated you in the most friendly and courteous way. I wonder if it even registered with you. I really wonder.
Two adults had a big shindig but I wasn't involved. The difference now is that I am involved
and I'm not prepared to take your insults or accusations without
telling you what I think in the most honest and the most emphatic means
at my disposal.
Now, though, when taking the piss out of Nar about leaving for good you’re trying to shamelessly play the
“ Nothing Joe did warranted your nastiness towards him, but I guess you want to be the only one besides Juan who posts here anymore. Keep it up and you will be.” game. What irony ...I couldn't make it up if I tried.
The person stopping Joe from posting is Joe. Not me. He chose not to defend legitimate charges of plagiarism. That’s his choice. I don’t have the slightest ill-feeling toward him and never have. I'm not a sheriff keeping him out of bounds. Duh.
I’ll take my break from here because I want to and I'm due to now ( ish) but it won't be because of you or anyone else. Again, I’m my own man. If and when I return I couldn’t give two flying fucks whether you are here or not. Playing the false victim bullshit by claiming I’m trying to chase away everyone bar Juan is the height of childishness, though. Nonsense, that's all. No one's chasing or bullying people away, you idiot, it's a discussion forum.
You called me a racist and a man driven by hate. You could have apologised or repeated it. You repeated it. You insulted me, not just in anger, but in cool afterthought too. You were the one who instigated things and chose enmity, so be it. I won’t speak to you again …it’ll be my pleasure.
However, I’ll comment on any nonsense or emotional, dishonest, disingenuous, irrational, illogical clap trap you spout. Or not. That’s up to me. Not you. And it always will be.
" Touched a nerve ", my arse.
Let some premie turn up next door calling you a hate-monger and see how " silent" you remain. Hypocrite.
Modified by Dermot at Sat, Jun 20, 2009, 21:29:37
|
|
|
|
Haha, too much verbal abuse. I didn't read your post. I skimmed it because that's all it's worth. I know when I'm wrong and I readily admit it. I've had plenty of rants and I've hurt peoples' feelings but then I've come back and apologized. I've been told by people when I've been wrong, even by John, who owns this board.
You really need to learn to keep your posts shorter. This isn't a lecture class, it's a conversation forum.
But, I'm outta here. I'm finished. It's always like walking on eggshells here because of certain men who want to dominate the conversation and belittle those who disagree by telling them their idiots or stupid. Or tossers.
So, you and Juan can have it all to yourselves and enjoy all of your name-calling. Ad hominem argument isn't valid, Dermot. It's quite ironic that it's you guys that taught me how to use rational argument instead of emotional argument and look where you are today: verbally abusing me. Juan does it all of the time too. Mean name-calling just because you guys think you're so much smarter than everyone else.
I won't be the first person (especially women, but there are plenty of men who have given up this place, too) who has left this board because of your ilk. There's a long list of leavers.
Hey, have fun writing to yourselves. And be clear, it's because of you Dermot, that I'm leaving. I don't deserve to be abused like you did to me -- that's ever again in my life.
Modified by Cynthia at Sat, Jun 20, 2009, 21:36:16
|
|
|
|
Pity you didn't read it in one way because it was all true as opposed to your lies but in another way, big fucking deal, eh?
|
|
|
|
My neighbor's dog sneaks into my house and craps on the threshold, and then she has the nerve to complain about the smell, like it's not her damned dog!
|
|
|
|
This isn't your place that I came into to "shit" as you so nicely put it, nor is it mine. But you have denegrated me plenty of times when I've disagreed with you and all you seem to have is name-calling and saying things to me to try belittle me to make me feel stupid. And there are plenty of other women who this is done to here. I'm not stupid. The other women that have tried to post here are also not stupid.
And yes, it's true. There are many women who do not post here specifically because it's so volatile and agressive. So you can have the place to ridicule anybody else you want from now on, but not me.
Modified by Cynthia at Sun, Jun 21, 2009, 11:21:16
|
|
|
|
I was talking about my neighbor, who seems to have some sort of grudge against me because I'm male, and not ashamed of it. Her dog's sort of cute though. A little female (naturally) blue heeler.There are many women who do not post here specifically because it's so volatile and agressive. So where do they post? Many women don't seem to have a problem with social aggression, they just don't like the terms if they don't have an overwhelming majority. But just for some interesting insights into male/female relations in the current "age of reason"... suggesting the issue mightn't really be "aggression."
|
|
|
|
Many of us are friends of John, Nigel and Moley, so you can catch up to us that way. Much bigger circle than here, that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
My husband served in the military too and he agreed with the many comments being made at the time about McCain's use of his POW status and torture to gain votes. In fact, there were many, many journalists and former military officers who were publicly saying the same thing about McCain during the election. On tv, too, not just on blogs or discussion forums only. I guess they were all being stupid and mean and wrong by the standards of this forum.
My comment about Republicans to NAR was also due to the political times because of the election and it wasn't outrageous at all. NAR over reacted. I've always honored NAR's service to the country and have told him that dozens of times over the years. My point wasn't to insult him personally, but that's the way he took it and he stomped off.
And he completely misread another post I made because I wrote in the second person, using "you" instead of myself and he thought (I think) that I was referring to him. He didn't bother to ask me about it or give me a chance to explain before he blew up. But, I'll be gone now so he can post here again and all the neocons here can be happy as clams together again.
The problem with this forum for me and many others is that it's strictly right wing. Nobody here can voice an opinion that's slightly left of center without being insulted and/or ridiculed, and that happens all of the time. That's why I said it's like walking on eggshells here. The word "left" or "lefty" is a pejorative and anyone who is left-wing is treated like shit.
I do apologize to you Dermot. You're not a racist or a hateful person, but I am sick of your attitude about Obama, but hey, for certain people here, speaking freely is a certainty, for others with the wrong pov, the name-calling begins. In my defense, I do feel quite free to be critical of my country's politicians, but I also try to be sensitive to those here that live in other countries and not insult their politics too much. I think the worse thing I've ever said about Blair is that he was Bush's lap dog. That wasn't original on my part, because that was the opinion held by many, many left-of center folks in the U.S., too.
And PatC continues to be clueless about the "Obamugabi" slur. It's disgusting. I don't think PatC is a racist either, but he feels free to use that term without anyone here but myself calling him on it. How ironic it is that right after the election he so proudly
claimed right here to me that because Obama is "his president now" that he
wouldn't call him any more names. That was short-lived.
In my confusion last night over your many long rants to me I said PatD said racist things. Actually, what he did say, was "In Birmingham the coons hate the pakis even more than whitey does."
I don't think Brits have any idea how offensive the term "coons" is in the U.S. Nobody said anything about the comment so I'll depart saying something about it. It's deeply offensive to blacks in America. I haven't heard that term used since the 60s. It's almost or just as bad as "nigger." And I'm not being "multi-culti" as Juan would say. It's a racial slur. I'm not saying PatD is a racist either, mind you, before you blow up at me again. But he did use a racial slur that nobody in their right mind in the U.S. would ever use. A little lesson in cultural differences, I suppose.
Yeah, this post was almost as long as some of yours.
Modified by Cynthia at Sun, Jun 21, 2009, 11:54:52
|
|
|
|
coon/paki/whitey are all offensive to someone. As the subject was the BNP who I regard as deeply offensive myself, the line was meant to be taken in the spirit of sarcasm.
|
|
|
|
Dermot's posts are never too long or boring. He could go on and on because there're so many stars in the constellations of events he's commenting on. There are so many separate, new incidents daily where the problems of Islam emerge and bear comment, either for what the Muslims say or do or what the rest of us say or do, or don't say or do in response. It's all fascinating for how everyone involved is tested, how our system's are, likewise our political values.
I think the reason you think Dermot's posts are too long is that you simply resist the truth of what he's saying. Obama did something terrible in Cairo. He pandered to Muslims at the expense of truth, at the expense of non-
Muslims, at the expense of Muslim women, even. I also think it's bullshit to accuse anyone of racism against Obama here. That's just a red herring.
But I wonder, who's the insulter Dermot reminds you of?
|
|
|
