Oceania At Last, a view I can agree with

Oh how good it must be to be an admin hey ?

Whenever someone has the balls to disagree with you, you can just ban them.

If it was you Stinrab (and I'm not saying it was) then you are a coward also.

 

I'm still trying to recover from the fact that SM and I agreed on something

And I just wanted to say that as tense and weird as this thread got, that I was glad to find some intelligent discussion and comment from all sides of the argument from a bunch of Star Wars freaks like us.

 

SM's banning is in discussion, so no one jump the gauntlet yet.

 

actually, i think stinky was far more tolerant than many would have been. he could have banned him at the outset, for using the term raghead.

 

I was not involved in the banning. I wasn't even around when it occurred.

 

In any case, I object to the banning. I don't think it was justified at all. I think SM's use of that term was wrong and he admitted that but Stinrab's stubborn refusal to replace the term with asterisks only fueled the matter. It was a small request and one that several people appeared to agree with. Sure you felt that you didn't need change it to but the fact is that an admin's responsibility is to the regulars on the forum which you ignored in this case.
It's my opinion that SM was unfairly dealt with. That's all I'll say on the topic of the ban and I hope that the decision is reversed.

 

Off-topic, but anyway

This ban has nothing to do with my actions towards SM. Nothing. It has to do with his use of racist terms. Another admin was a bit less leniant than I.

And with my editing of the posts. Two reasons why I didn't do it straight away;

1. I assumed SM had already changed them back after bringing the issue up. I didn't realise until he flat out said it (about 20 posts later) that it hadn't been changed

2. I didn't change it then because I felt that the alterations did *nothing* to the original meaning. The posts do no insinuate muslims, like SM suggests, but muslim extremists. If you could find one of the altered post which shows otherwise then by all means...


I could've handled it better, I know. But so could SM. He took a little issue, re-interpreted it and then blew it out of proportion.

Can we please get back on topic now? This thread has already been plagued with enough interuptions

 

Notice how as much as we disagree with each other, as much as is said, as much as we debate....everyone seems to bind together when an injustice, such as a banning, is made towards another of us?

Just something to think about...

EDIT: Just to state my view on the matter, I think banning someone for these reasons is wrong.

EDIT 2:
An afterthought

"Nothing brings people together like a common enemy."

 

So how is everyone today--- can we change the subject and get back on track this thread looks like something from the JC.

Whatever is about to happen, will take place because a group of people with lots of money and a fanatical religious belief took years to plan and accomplish a set goal. Does this make them brave or heroic----NO. It simply means they stuck to the task.

A person willing to put their life at risk to help/save others displays the ultimate act of unselfishness, that person or group should be held in the highest of regard when the actions required have caused their death.

A person willing to die and take as many as possible with him/her is a human being that no longer lives by moral standards. They are people who respect nothing but their own belief.

They are not cowards in the true meaning of the word but in the years leading up to the action they caused, they lived like it. They hid, they deceived, they showed fear because they tried so hard not to get caught. So although they did not die as cowards, they were cowards until they boarded those planes.

Then with the action they caused they became unholy, and I doubt even their God would forgive them. I hope they rot in hell because that would be the greatest insult of all--to them.

 

Okay, I've been away for a few days (ill and all), so please forgive me while I go off topic for a little second...

Quite frankly, I think this is another case of simple misunderstanding and crossed wires going far too far... And I'm not just speaking on the side of Sith Magician, I think there were errors on both sides.

As for the banning, I think that was cowardly and highly uncalled for. A simple "sorry I screwed up" and returning the post to it's original form would have sufficed.

I realise this is quite possibly going to get me flamed (not that I see the point because I'm probably not going to see it for a few days if I'm lucky), which would just prove my, and many other people's, points that sometimes people's heads get too big for the simple advisory position that they hold.

And if I do get banned for this, then it was nice knowing you all because I really don't see the necessity for me to continue posting on these boards if this is the kind of administrative dictatorship that allows injustices to go unaccounted for.

Yes, that may seem a lot of ranting and raving over something that is already in discussion, and I do apologise, once again, for straying off the topic line, but I felt I had to lend my voice to this discussion...

 

I read a comment (think it was in the letters to the editor) in the paper over here, and they said, that if it was proven that Osama Bin Laden (sp?) was proven to be behind the attacks, then he shouldn't be killed, but instead due to his absolute hatred of seemingly all things American, locked up and subjected to a steady diet of U.S. pop culture... Baywatch, Dallas,General Hospital,Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys etc

 

What Mutley said...
I think that's what I was trying to say but I didn't say it that well.

 

Well I think the banning was unfair but for me to go back on topic (im acyually saying that? what am i thinking?) mutley and Soniel both have points but I think we need to find another word other than cowardly. It still gives people the wrong idea on what you are trying to say. Okay so sofar we've had cowardly which doesn't exactly work, we've had determined that does work because of the amount of foreplanning and subterfuge this must have taken. Im also thinking perhaps maybe Zealous? Im mean religion may have been a factor as to why the people who hijacked the plane were willing to die. Anyway its a thought

 

Well I'm not sure what word would be a good one to use but I certainly think it was cold blooded.

 

I doubt you can some it up in just one word. People have different interpretations of the same word (case in point, look back at the way stinrab and Sith interpretted the term "raghead"). So one person may call the acts as cowardly, that might suffice as a suitable way to explaing they way they percieve them.

Personally I'm still looking for a way to describe the attack on New York (I only refer to New York because that's where civilians died, the Pentagon was a military target). What they did was cold-blooded, but the way they executed their plan, and the accuracy they had in carrying it through is definately something to marvel. They (apparently) went so far as to play the stock market with the knowledge that the WTC towers would be attacked, more evidence of their intellegence and planning.

 

I wasn't saying it gets pinned down to one word it can't. I was just suggesting words than can be used to help to try and describe it

 

As much as I disagree with what the terrorists did, I do think that they were brave. I mean sacrificing your life for what you believe in is one of the bravest things you can do IMO, regardless of what those beliefs are.

 

True I think there is also a biiiiiiig gap in the way western culture thinks and the way people in the taliban regime think. This would account for the fact that most of us seem to think this is some sort of cowardly act (Im not talking about the people posting here im talking in more general terms) but for the hijackers this could have been some sort of honour in being the first ones to strike against america. Its entirely possible that the americas called it a cowardly act just to 'save face' as it were

 

I have only just read this thread, although I have heard much about it... Going all the way back to one of the earlier posts by Ki-Bara-Mundi about the songs being banned on US radio stations...

I have read somewhere that this a myth and there is no list, although I have read a copy of the so called "list" and I find it rather amusing that The Cure's song 'Killing an Arab' hasn't been banned... But hey, that's just me...

 

Human rights and civilian welfare must the first concerns to any coalition engaging in military actions in Afghanistan. To do so would demonstrate a respect for the variations and differences in religion, culture and race that has been missing during the Taliban's regime.

The international coalition must continue the food drops to minimise damage to civilians in Afghanistan (and the region which is having serious economic and agricultural problems).

From my personal perspective the calling of a jihad by the Taliban and Bin-laden is a terrible thing. As an atheist I find it utterly abominable for religion to be either a rallying point, motivation or excuse for war. Again as an atheist I have been hoping for some time that Western society can act to weaken all theocracies or other governments where religion plays a domineering role for instance the Taliban or the Vatican.

Of course the primary goal must be to ensure compliance with the UN's human rights charter. This higher goal must come before any religious or cultural concerns or those for a single nations domestic security.

Just my bit....

 

not much has changed in the last 500 600 years since medievil times religon still has an iron grip on the world

 

As far as music goes, there's a DJ discussion forum I get on about as much as this forum. There's a big thread on there about songs not to play. I personally think it's pretty stupid but I think it's more for the benefit of the US DJs. I think their crowds can be a bit more sensitive about what's played and the DJs have to be aware of that, regardless of how stupid it may seem to them.

 

Not only should they continue with the food drops but they should also be providing economic support to any group in Afghanistan that doesn't violate human rights conditions from this point on. America should also be promising to rebuild the infrastructure in Afghanistan if and when the taliban regime is removed and a democratic replacement is instituted.
I believe this will help secure the world from future acts of terrorism.

 

This is unbelievable, I actually agree entirely with Bob.
He's absolutely right, it's the only acceptable path.