Quote from: James J SkachThen don’t use terms like “in which Iran is not directly involved.”  It sure makes it seem like you’re making it seem like Iran is, well, the aggrieved party in all this – just standing around minding their business when suddenly these ugly Brits come invading.  

If I had meant that "Iran is, well, the aggrieved party in all this – just standing around minding their business when suddenly these ugly Brits come invading", then I would have said, "Iran is, well, the aggrieved party in all this – just standing around minding their business when suddenly these ugly Brits come invading."

Instead, I said that the Iraq civil war is a conflict in which Iran is not directly involved. Direct or indirect, it's an important distinction. The US has agents in Iran attempting to destabilise the Iranian regime, but they don't have troops there - they're indirectly involved in Iranian civil conflict, such as it is.

Quote from: James J. SkachIran is involved in Iraq. They used this episode as a bargaining chip. It’s not unheard of to find a real shootin’ match to explode out of an incident like this. Why did the Iranians risk it?  They did a cost benefit analysis and found the benefits outweighed the chance of the Brits going off (I’m betting they were actually more worried about the Americans).

I'm certain that's so. Your point? The Iranians are evil because they mix force with diplomacy? If so, there are a lot of political leaders they'll share company with in Hell.

Quote from: James J. SkachSo don’t say one thing, and then try to minimize its impact with some banal statement like “no country is entirely neutral in a conflict.” Iran is either involved or not – otherwise you’re arguing for the “a little pregnant” designator.

Things admit of degrees. Conflicts are one of those. If things don't admit of degrees, then Britain should have declared war on the United States in the 1970s, since the USA was involved in the conflict in Northern Ireland, largely funding the IRA. "The USA is either involved or not - otherwise you're arguing for the "a little pregnant" designator." Of course that would have been absurd. And that's because things admit of degrees. A country can be involved in a conflict, directly or indirectly. The difference is important in international affairs, even if it's not important to you. If it weren't, we'd see a lot more open wars spring up. So thank God our leaders don't see things in black and white like you.

Quote from: James J. SkachKeep on track here, JimBob.  We’re talking about the Iranians and the Brits. I’m not sure what bringing up the US (particularly with the IRA) has to do with whether or not Iran is involved in Iraq.

It illustrates the difference between "direct" and "indirect" involvement in conflicts.

Quote from: James J. SkachI don’t know if the Cubans would get a cuppa (chances are they’d be begging to some to the US), but I doubt we’d inter them for 13 days during which we would parade them on TV, coerce them into making false confessions, etc. Unless of course they were planning to blow up a dirty nuke in Miami...

History seems to show they'd be returned to Cuba - to Guatanamo Bay, there to languish for just enough years that when finally charged, they'd confess to anything just to be able to get it over and done with, and perhaps go home, even if only home to prison.

Quote from: James J. SkachWhat, the Iranians don’t have to live up to the “tantamount to torture” measure?

If our countries treated prisoners of war as the Iranians did for those 13 days, I'd have no complaints at all. These sailors are wailing and crying because they got locked up in cells, and someone told them fibs that their mates had been sent home. Boo fucking hoo. That's normal PW treatment. Fuck with their heads, keep that capture shock going, see what you can find out from them, and get them to confess to whatever you can for the propaganda value.

Nobody was flown to secret prisons in third countries where they were tortured. Nobody had dogs set on them. Nobody was stipped naked. Nobody was beaten. Nobody had their families threatened. Nobody was starved. Nobody was stacked in human pyramids. They all were given access to the ICRC.

They were paraded on tv, sure - but this had a benefit. Firstly, it let their families know they were physically okay, and if psychologically harmed, not seriously. Secondly, it meant the Iranians weren't going to just take them out and shoot them. Once publicly shown like that, the Iranians couldn't do them serious harm. That shuold have acted as reassurance to the sailors.

For contrast, see the treatment of Iranians seized by the USA, and held in limbo, described here. Note that the families are asking for video of their people made prisoner. A recent film of someone reassures you that they're alive and not seriously harmed. Do the Geneva Conventions say you can't make that video public? Probably. Would the families care, so long as they knew their loved ones were safe? Nope. Would I care? Nope. The Conventions' aim is not to prevent any pictures at all being broadcast, their aim is to prevent things like, as I said, PWs being dragged along in a victory parade and pelted with rotten cabbage. Smiling and sucking up to their captors, it's embarassing for them, but they'll live. It's not the sort of thing I'd bother having war crimes trials over.

It seems that most of the sailors weren't trained to deal with capture. Reading a BBC account here, Leading Seman Turney talks about them coming in and measuring her up for a coffin. It's classic stuff - don't threaten, just hint and let their imaginations do the rest. (Actually, they were probably just measuring her for clothes, btu she her woodcutting and assued it was for a coffin - if they realised this, I'm sure they'd encourage it.) Most infantry would be told about this sort of thing, sailors not so much.  Note that Capt Air of the Royal Marines said, "I think it [selling their stories to the newspapers] can be part of the process to get things off their mind. To be honest, it didn't seem that traumatic at the time to me and I don't think it's going to affect me in a terrible way." That'd be because a Royal Marine is trained to deal with exactly this kind of psychological manipulation after capture.

If that was the worst we did to our PWs, frankly I'd be delighted.

Quote from: James J. SkachWhat if it had been the US?  Would the world remain silent while the Americans paraded them on TV? Wouldn’t the world be up in arms over televising (obviously coerced) confessions about the minor sin of crossing the border?  Of course.

I dunno about the world, but I wouldn't give a shit. I'm more worried when the prisoners are kept hidden away somewhere. Amnesty International had a slogan once, "it's amazing what they won't do when they know you're watching them." Things being public may be embarassing for the prisoners, but at least it limits the terrible things that may be done to them. No regime in the modern day is going to have them smiling next to the President, and then put electrodes on their testicles afterwards. I'd rather have them on tv than in secret prisons.

Quote from: James J. SkachSo don’t let the Iranians off the hook now, it just weakens your position when you claim Geneva abuses by others, like, say, the US. Reasonable people might not agree on where the line is, but either side is only bolstered by applying the standard consistently. Otherwise next time you harp on US treatment of enemy combatants, you’ll get written off as the guy “who ignored it when it was the Iranians doing it.”

If we're talking about where to draw the lines, and consistent standards, I have those. If the USA captures people, does them no physical harm, taunts them a bit and keeps them in cells alone and tells them their mates have gone home, does that sort of stuff - I don't care. If they want to parade farmer Achmed next to the US President, and have Achmed stand there and say how grateful he is to Meestur Boosh for his good treatment, and then send him home without a fucking scratch, where he can sell his story to the newspapers for a six-figure sum (like Leading Seaman Turney has), well then I'll say, "go USA!"

But secret prisons, detention without trial, kangaroo courts, torture, and uninvestigated homicides in those secret prisons - no. That's too fucking far.

I'm not worried about minor shit which is merely embarassing to PWs. I'm worried about major shit which properly-trained soldiers couldn't be expected to handle.

All countries have committed war crimes. During the Iran-Iraq war, both countries committed hideous war crimes against one another. In the Iraqi civil war now ongoing, war crimes and crimes against humanity are being carried out by insurgents every single day. That absoluely dwarfs what we've done to PWs. But what we've done to PWs dwarfs what the Iranians did. We at least have committed felonies, theirs have only been misdemeanours.

I hold us to higher standards than that. We have to be better than our enemies - well, we have to be if we're going to go around claiming the right to invade countries for their own good!

Sadly, we are not better than our enemies. If we had a major war with Iran, I've no doubt we'd be better than them in treatment of prisoners of war. Judging how they behaved in the Iran-Iraq War, they'd be dreadful to PWs. But at this stage, we're not better than them in treatment of PWs. We're much, much worse.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf things don't admit of degrees, then Britain should have declared war on the United States in the 1970s, since the USA was involved in the conflict in Northern Ireland, largely funding the IRA. "The USA is either involved or not - otherwise you're arguing for the "a little pregnant" designator."

It wasn't just in the 70's.  If any posters from the States have ever been in a Irish bar on St. Patricks day and, without thinking, stuck money in a collection tin that someone was rattling around, there's a pretty good chance you've helped the Provo's in their attempts to blow me up.  Not that I'm bitter or anything - we've all done stupid things when we're drunk

Small point JimBob, but, as an Englishman of Irish descent, I think it's important to distinguish between the honorable men and women of the Irish Republican Army and the bunch of Marxist thugs who took their name.  I think "Provo's" (short for Provisional IRA) is a better word unless you're actually taking about the comrades of Michael Collins

Quote from: JimBobOzNote that Capt Air of the Royal Marines said, "I think it [selling their stories to the newspapers] can be part of the process to get things off their mind. To be honest, it didn't seem that traumatic at the time to me and I don't think it's going to affect me in a terrible way." That'd be because a Royal Marine is trained to deal with exactly this kind of psychological manipulation after capture.

I think that's the biggest lesson that the Navy has to take from this.  Some level of SERE needs to be given to all service members in a combat role.  As has been shown, it makes the difference between just going "lads, I think we're going to be executed." and vomiting in fear when you here a weapon being cocked behind your back

Jimmy B:

Just want to correct one of your misapprehensions. The AVERAGE Iranian actually LIKES the USA and Americans. Not enough that they won't go to war with us if we did something stupid like invade.

Now, I'm not Iranian, not even by descent, so I'm strictly speaking second hand here, but their attitude to the US is fairly well documented.



that said: Who the fuck cares if it the damn 'sea border' is out of date. It doesn't put Iran in the right. It was a naked political ploy. They won a major battle without a shot fired.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf I had meant that "Iran is, well, the aggrieved party in all this – just standing around minding their business when suddenly these ugly Brits come invading", then I would have said, "Iran is, well, the aggrieved party in all this – just standing around minding their business when suddenly these ugly Brits come invading."

You say that JimBob.  But you're a bit of a stickler for being very clear on the Internet as it doesn't translate to normal speech very well, yeah?

So what I'm saying to you is that what you wrote to mock Nox (a worthy effort, no doubt) implied that.  Oh, you may claim it's not what you meant to say, but you're better than ignoring what your words imply, aren't you? So why did you use "Iran is not directly involved" and "across" for?  I went back to rread it yet again, and it's interesting to note that leaving the word "across" out is very close to wht I offered as an alternative. So why use the word "across?" It's either a mistake, or it's meant to imply the Brits were in the wrong, or....what?  I'm open to your explanation.

Quote from: JimBobOzInstead, I said that the Iraq civil war is a conflict in which Iran is not directly involved. Direct or indirect, it's an important distinction. The US has agents in Iran attempting to destabilise the Iranian regime, but they don't have troops there - they're indirectly involved in Iranian civil conflict, such as it is.

What would it take for you to be convinced that it's a little more than not being neutral or being "indirectly" involved in Iraq when there have been Quds members captured? Iran is directly involved in Iraq in both personnel and equipment.  To claim some sort of neutrality that would allow them to treat the Brits like Allied pilots shot down over Switzerland is a bit – disingenuous. Besides, a better comparison would be if Switzerland forced the planes to the ground and took the pilots captive because they claimed the pilots violated air space. If your claim is based on the fact that there are no declared hostilities it just ends up perverting the Geneva Conventions as it favors those who don't declare War.

Quote from: JimBobOzI'm certain that's so. Your point? The Iranians are evil because they mix force with diplomacy?

Nope. But you can't feign outrage when someone wants to mix force right back. When he puts one of your guys in the hospital, you put one of his guys in the morgue. And be consistent. It's OK for Iran to use force as part of their diplomacy; it's OK for others to do the same. My point is Iran mixed force in so they can and should expect reprisal. Often a shooting match breaks out.  To act indignant or outraged that it gets suggested is silly.
 

Quote from: JimBobOzThings admit of degrees.

Time out.  This is not meant as mocking or patronizing; I'm honestly curious.  Is "admit of" an Australian thing? I've never heard it used that way before. So I'm generally curious if you or anyone else knows. OK, back to the discussion at hand.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf things don't admit of degrees, then Britain should have declared war on the United States in the 1970s, since the USA was involved in the conflict in Northern Ireland, largely funding the IRA. "The USA is either involved or not - otherwise you're arguing for the "a little pregnant" designator." Of course that would have been absurd.

Actually, no, it's not.  If the United States Government had backed the IRA in Northern Ireland, Britain would have had cause. Did people in the US, private citizens, give money to the IRA?  Sure did.  And as far as I know the US Government, if it had knowledge of such, tried to put a stop to it. Again, a better comparison would hold if a bunch of private Iranians had accosted the Brits.  But it wasn't, it was the Iranian Navy.

Quote from: JimBobOzAnd that's because things admit of degrees. A country can be involved in a conflict, directly or indirectly. The difference is important in international affairs, even if it's not important to you. If it weren't, we'd see a lot more open wars spring up. So thank God our leaders don't see things in black and white like you.

Nice rhetorical trick.  The fact that we disagree about where the line is means I only see things in black and white.  See, you can have sex, that doesn't necessarily make you pregnant.  You can even have successful fertilization of the egg.  That doesn't make you pregnant, either. A series of things has to occur to make you pregnant. But once you are – you are. That part is black and white.  I'm surprised I have to explain this to you, JB – you've got a SO and everything. You're just leaving out all the rest because it makes you feel good to say "I see shades of Gray, I'm so evolved."

Quote from: JimBobOzIt illustrates the difference between "direct" and "indirect" involvement in conflicts.

No, it's an attempt to obfuscate with examples that have no impact on the discussion at hand.

Quote from: JimBobOzHistory seems to show they'd be returned to Cuba - to Guatanamo Bay, there to languish for just enough years that when finally charged, they'd confess to anything just to be able to get it over and done with, and perhaps go home, even if only home to prison.

Nicely implied "everyone in Gitmo is innocent and just confessing....blah blah blah" bullshit. History shows that if you take part in a battle against the US as part of a non-standard conflict without uniform our recognized military structure, bad shit is going to happen to you. And if you support the people who do the same, best of luck to you. None of that applies to Cubans who "wander across into poorly-defined border area."

Quote from: JimBobOzIf our countries treated prisoners of war as the Iranians did for those 13 days, I'd have no complaints at all. These sailors are wailing and crying because they got locked up in cells, and someone told them fibs that their mates had been sent home. Boo fucking hoo. That's normal PW treatment. Fuck with their heads, keep that capture shock going, see what you can find out from them, and get them to confess to whatever you can for the propaganda value.

Wow, you really are a mean SOB, JB. Except, of course, that they weren't POW's. They weren't enemy combatants.  They weren't any of those things.

Your assumption appears to be the Brits got what they deserved, anyone in Gitmo is a horribly mistreated innocent farmer just caught up in the mad world around them.

Quote from: JimBobOzNobody was flown to secret prisons in third countries where they were tortured.

Jury is still out on that assertion. There's lots of "reports" that this occurred.

Quote from: JimBobOzNobody had dogs set on them. Nobody was stipped naked. Nobody was beaten. Nobody had their families threatened. Nobody was starved. Nobody was stacked in human pyramids.

As I've said, can you tell me how many will be brought up on charges for threatening the British prisoners? I mean, I know the reference is to Abu Ghraib. Do you know people were put in jail for that?  Enough? I'd say no. But at least some effort was made to correct the wrong.  I'll ask again – anyone being brought up on charges for the mistreatment of the Brits? Nah...pssst...it's a secret, but those aren't Amercians, so we don't get quite as upset about those abuses.

Quote from: JimBobOzThey all were given access to the ICRC.

Can you provide a source for this?  I honestly went looking and couldn't find one. As far as I can tell, they weren't given ICRC access – at least that seems to be implied by this.

Quote from: JimBobOzThey were paraded on tv, sure - but this had a benefit. Firstly, it let their families know they were physically okay, and if psychologically harmed, not seriously. Secondly, it meant the Iranians weren't going to just take them out and shoot them. Once publicly shown like that, the Iranians couldn't do them serious harm. That shuold have acted as reassurance to the sailors.

This would fall under the "you sure have a lot of rationalizations to avoid saying it was wrong."

Quote from: JimBobOzFor contrast, see the treatment of Iranians seized by the USA, and held in limbo, described here. Note that the families are asking for video of their people made prisoner. A recent film of someone reassures you that they're alive and not seriously harmed. Do the Geneva Conventions say you can't make that video public? Probably. Would the families care, so long as they knew their loved ones were safe? Nope. Would I care? Nope. The Conventions' aim is not to prevent any pictures at all being broadcast, their aim is to prevent things like, as I said, PWs being dragged along in a victory parade and pelted with rotten cabbage. Smiling and sucking up to their captors, it's embarassing for them, but they'll live. It's not the sort of thing I'd bother having war crimes trials over.

That's all you interpretation of them. It's a nice, rosy picture you've painted.  But it's still all just your explanations for why the Iranians weren't really that bad.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt seems that most of the sailors weren't trained to deal with capture. Reading a BBC account here, Leading Seman Turney talks about them coming in and measuring her up for a coffin. It's classic stuff - don't threaten, just hint and let their imaginations do the rest. (Actually, they were probably just measuring her for clothes, btu she her woodcutting and assued it was for a coffin - if they realised this, I'm sure they'd encourage it.) Most infantry would be told about this sort of thing, sailors not so much.  Note that Capt Air of the Royal Marines said, "I think it [selling their stories to the newspapers] can be part of the process to get things off their mind. To be honest, it didn't seem that traumatic at the time to me and I don't think it's going to affect me in a terrible way." That'd be because a Royal Marine is trained to deal with exactly this kind of psychological manipulation after capture.

I love it.  It's the Brits fault they were treated badly! It was all really in their heads!

Quote from: JimBobOzIf that was the worst we did to our PWs, frankly I'd be delighted.

Yes, well, our POW's, which aren't POW's, did more than "wander across into a poorly-defined border area" now, didn't they.

Quote from: JimBobOzI dunno about the world, but I wouldn't give a shit. I'm more worried when the prisoners are kept hidden away somewhere. Amnesty International had a slogan once, "it's amazing what they won't do when they know you're watching them." Things being public may be embarassing for the prisoners, but at least it limits the terrible things that may be done to them. No regime in the modern day is going to have them smiling next to the President, and then put electrodes on their testicles afterwards. I'd rather have them on tv than in secret prisons.

See above reationalizations...

Quote from: JimBobOzIf we're talking about where to draw the lines, and consistent standards, I have those. If the USA captures people, does them no physical harm, taunts them a bit and keeps them in cells alone and tells them their mates have gone home, does that sort of stuff - I don't care. If they want to parade farmer Achmed next to the US President, and have Achmed stand there and say how grateful he is to Meestur Boosh for his good treatment, and then send him home without a fucking scratch, where he can sell his story to the newspapers for a six-figure sum (like Leading Seaman Turney has), well then I'll say, "go USA!"

What, exactly, do you think goes on in Gitmo? I mean, really?

Quote from: JimBobOzBut secret prisons

Again with the secret prisons? A lot of talk, not so much on the facts; not you, per se, but there's a lot of accusations with the "we'd know more but they are secret prisons, after all."

Quote from: JimBobOzdetention without trial

Who is being detained without trial? When did enemy combatants get the right to a trial? Are you talking in a regular old courtroom in the US or something?  You've lost your fucking mind.

Quote from: JimBobOzkangaroo courts

Wait – if they're not getting trials, how can they be can a kangaroo court?

Quote from: JimBobOztorture

Wherein the people doing the torture are brought up on charges. Unless, of course, we're talking about the "tantamount to torture" standard which only applies to the US and the West.

Quote from: JimBobOzuninvestigated homicides in those secret prisons

Secret Murders in Secret Prisons with Secret Investigations! If a prisoner is secretly murdered in a secret prison – does a tree fall in the woods? You're starting to sound like Nox.

Quote from: JimBobOzI'm not worried about minor shit which is merely embarassing to PWs. I'm worried about major shit which properly-trained soldiers couldn't be expected to handle.

Of course you're not – unless it's the Americans who are doing it – then it's TANTAMONT TO TORTURE!!!!

Quote from: JimBobOzAll countries have committed war crimes.

And there we have it – the relativist theory of international relations. Combined with the Black and White Argument and we have the simple formula.  If America does it – BAD!!! Anyone else – eh, it's not a big deal...

None of which is to say we or the Brits should have gone gonzo on them - I don't agree it was that point yet. But to just write off what they did because "it's not as bad as the Americans" or "it was the Brits fault for not being better prepared" is just...well...it's beneath you JimBob.

And the real reason the Iranians do this shit (it's a theory I've heard before, along with osme other interesting ones).

EDIT: While I reserve the right to change my mind, I'll leave the last word to JB - these posts are too damn long.  I guess if you write enough, people just get worn down into submission...it's torture, I tell ya...

Quote from: SpikeJimmy B:

Just want to correct one of your misapprehensions. The AVERAGE Iranian actually LIKES the USA and Americans. Not enough that they won't go to war with us if we did something stupid like invade.

.

So? The average iranian doesn't run the country, so his opinion is irrelevant. The government is what decides what iran does, so it's what matters.

The average german wasn't in favor of the holocaust, it happened anyway. The average iranian may not be in favor of iran getting into a war, but if the government is, that's what'll happen.

Quote from: Dominus NoxSo? The average iranian doesn't run the country, so his opinion is irrelevant. The government is what decides what iran does, so it's what matters.

So one should blame US citizens for everything the US goverment does?

QuoteThe average german wasn't in favor of the holocaust, it happened anyway. The average iranian may not be in favor of iran getting into a war, but if the government is, that's what'll happen.

Actually the last thing the Iranian goverment wants is a war. But then again you're the guy who wants/hopes for a genocide against Muslims, so I wouldn't expect a guy like you to appreciate the nuances of foreign policy. (But off course when it comes to your views on Muslims, you do have your fans)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RSo one should blame US citizens for everything the US goverment does?



Actually the last thing the Iranian goverment wants is a war. But then again you're the guy who wants/hopes for a genocide against Muslims, so I wouldn't expect a guy like you to appreciate the nuances of foreign policy. (But off course when it comes to your views on Muslims, you do have your fans)

Regards,
David R

Actually there could NOT be a "genocide" against muslims, you typing abnegation of intelligence. Genocide is directed against a race, not a religion.
Islam is a religion, not a race, so you can't commit genocide against islam.

Now, "Theocide" would be the intentional destruction of a religion and the killing of all its followers, as the catholics practiced against the Gnostics, the Cathars, etc.

There are millions of Muslims around the world who go about their lives, day by day, and are no threat whatsoever to the US or anyone else. When you go after "Muslims" you fail to make a distinction between those folks and the rabid, violent hate mongers we are really against.

That does no one any good.

Skach, I must give you credit. You must be a man of great honour, to be so profoundly embarassed by the conduct of Western forces, to go to such efforts to defend them - when even your own head of state has said our forces have done wrong - and to go to such efforts to compare normal treatment of internees/PWs with horrendous mistreatment.

To be so embarassed, to wriggle and quibble so much about it all, shows great honour. I salute you.

Now add to your honour courage and humility, and you will be the most admirable of men. Courage and humility are required to sort it out when we've fucked up, otherwise we keep fucking up.

On the other hand, the continued presence among us of a poster who advocates genocide, and when pressed on it, has as his only defence is that it's not genocide if it's only Moslems, does no credit to this place.

It's worth noting that several of our posters live in countries where "incitement to genocide" is a crime. So if you remove porn and IP piracy because it might get you into legal trouble, then you had better consider what to do about people who incite genocide. Or else allow porn and IP piracy. Give me a day, I can install Bitorrent, download some rpg book scans and put them up. Speech should be free, right?

Now hold on there a second, JimBob, that last sentence indicates an activity thatvwould cut into the business of brick & mortar stores - like the one I work at . (yeah I know you were being humorous)

 The rest of the thread?
 Appears to be an overly topical political thread that has now become outdated by current events.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Dominus NoxActually there could NOT be a "genocide" against muslims, you typing abnegation of intelligence. Genocide is directed against a race, not a religion.
Islam is a religion, not a race, so you can't commit genocide against islam.

Now, "Theocide" would be the intentional destruction of a religion and the killing of all its followers, as the catholics practiced against the Gnostics, the Cathars, etc.

Ah but see Nox, I'm on to you (admittedly not really a difficult thing to do). With you, Muslims = Race, probably Middle Easterners, probably African Americans (since if I'm not mistaken they are the largest group converting to Islam at the moment) and off course various Asian ethnic groups...colored no doubt. So when you say for instance this

Quote*Of course there's no gurantee that the iranians won't let another islamofascist terrorist reime take over. But if they're stupid or weak enough to le that happen again after decades of ther current regime then we should just bomb them back to the stone age.

and this:

QuoteIf they kill the hostages, see to it that at least a thousand iranians die for each one of them.

and this:

QuoteYou can't deal with fanatics like you would sane people, you can't deal with barbarians like they were civillized people.

and this:

QuoteWell, if england's got any balls left (Doubt it.) thye'll set up an incident and let a bunch of iranians try to seize another group of sailors, and this time blow them to hell in little pieces.

It leaves very little doubt, that you are not talking about a religion but a group of people who you have issues with. Comitting genocide against the Iranian people for the capture of 15 soldiers may not mean much to you...you after all are racist ...but I for one would rather you peddle your shit, some place else. It's a good thing for you, this board is tolerant of lawncrappers.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JimBobOzOn the other hand, the continued presence among us of a poster who advocates genocide, and when pressed on it, has as his only defence is that it's not genocide if it's only Moslems, does no credit to this place.

I think that it is fair to say that I am not a fan of Dominus Nox.  That being said, the tiff upthread was what to call such an act, not an endorsement of said act.  Again with the rhetorical tricks, JB?

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's worth noting that several of our posters live in countries where "incitement to genocide" is a crime. So if you remove porn and IP piracy because it might get you into legal trouble, then you had better consider what to do about people who incite genocide. Or else allow porn and IP piracy. Give me a day, I can install Bitorrent, download some rpg book scans and put them up. Speech should be free, right?

And it is worthy of note that some of our posters are potentially from countries in which criticism of the government is a crime.  Unless you want your ability to talk about anything interesting threatened by the long march towards covering all objects in nerf foam, I suggest that you do not walk down this road...


TGA

Saying that you're a "RACIST!!!" because you hate islamofascism is like saying you're a "RACIST!!!" because you hate nazis. After all, nazis were predominately one race, so by the "logic" of some people here hating them must be racism...

Quote from: The Good AssyrianI think that it is fair to say that I am not a fan of Dominus Nox.  That being said, the tiff upthread was what to call such an act, not an endorsement of said act.  Again with the rhetorical tricks, JB?

Not really. Any thorough reading of Dominus Nox (as painful as that may be) will reveal he's a fan of genocide. Let's just ask him:

Dear Nox, do you think it's a good idea for the USA to

• kill millions of Moslems in Iran?
• kill millions of Moslems in Iraq?
• kill millions of Moslems in Saudi Arabia?
• and so on?

By "kill millions" I mean whatever means you see fit - bombing from above, lining up beside a ditch and shooting them into it, whatever you like.

Or how about,

Dear Nox, if Dubya were to launch several nuclear missiles at Iranian cities, right now, causing the deaths of, say, eight million Shi'ia Iranian Moslem people, would you a) cheer, or b) be sad and upset? If a), do you encourage Dubya to do it right now?

Quote from: The Good AssyrianAnd it is worthy of note that some of our posters are potentially from countries in which criticism of the government is a crime.

Name these posters.