NationStates Jolt Archive

Well I'm not advocating killing my own civilians, only Lebanese civilians. That makes all the difference.

No, it does not. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Actually, have a week off. Advocating murder is so totally against the rules.

This was said in OceanDrives post...to which I have to say this:

No, it does not. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Actually, have a week off. Advocating murder is so totally against the rules.
TG...I dont think this is advocating murder...atleast traditionally..what he said was no different than a cry for "If they attack an American ship..I hope we bomb Lebanon to teach them a lesson, that will make me feel better".

I honestly dont see the problem in saying that, and even if you disagree with it, it IS the mindset of a large majority of the American people.

Its also no different for what we do in retalition to 9/11. Its an official policy. Its not like he said I want the American military to go in and call the dune coons just to make me feel better.

....Its obvious you dont agree with him, nor me...but just listen to what I have to say.

I feel I need to stick up for DCD because I feel that this is Tactical Grace abusing his mod power because he doesnt agree with the guy. Saying "We should retaliate to Hezbollah attacking an American warship by killing abunch of Lebanese" is not "advocating murder" but instead, a real official policy, one that Israel is pretty much using at this time.

Anyway, I just thought I'd bring this to peoples attention.

Its starts more or less around post #17. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=492279&page=2)

He specifically used the word 'advocate', 'killing' and 'civilians' in the same sentence, while specifying which ones - Lebanese. I don't care whose official policy, standard military response or majority opinion it is. You cannot advocate killing any specific group here. This has been made clear numerous times before.

Whether I disagree with his politics or not, is irrelevant. Try inserting some other group in there, national, ethnic, religious, political, etc, and see how much sympathy you get. Abusing my power? Hardly. More like, consistency.

He specifically used the word 'advocate', 'killing' and 'civilians' in the same sentence, while specifying which ones - Lebanese.

I would too if a missile hit a ship belonging to my country. I owuld be calling for blood. Oops. I guess I'm advocating murder now.

I don't care whose official policy, standard military response or majority opinion it is. You cannot advocate killing any specific group here. This has been made clear numerous times before.

Even though he stated a fact that most people would be howling for blood at just such an attack?

Whether I disagree with his politics or not, is irrelevant. Try inserting some other group in there, national, ethnic, religious, political, etc, and see how much sympathy you get.

Actually..on here? quite a bit. I see calls to kill off Jews, Christains, Muslims, any and all other religions with supporters for just such a call. No banning there.

Abusing my power? Hardly. More like, consistency.

We already know you abuse your power.

I would too if a missile hit a ship belonging to my country. I owuld be calling for blood. Oops. I guess I'm advocating murder now.
And you would get the same punishment, were you to specify the blood of civilians belonging to a particular group.

Even though he stated a fact that most people would be howling for blood at just such an attack?
It does not matter how much popular support there would be. Were some major event to happen that results in widespread calls for collective punishment of any group, you would see a lot of thread locks and a lot of forum bans. The impact of the 2004 US elections on the forums is a good example of what happens when people get carried away with their emotions. People may feel entitled to their hatred, but they will find boundaries are imposed on its expression.

Actually..on here? quite a bit. I see calls to kill off Jews, Christains, Muslims, any and all other religions with supporters for just such a call. No banning there.
Actually, it is very rare, and those who make attempts to do so are usually disposable n00b trolls who get a forum ban before anyone remembers their name. And if some slip through the net unreported, then that would be because you saw the alleged abundance of calls for genocide and mass murder, and failed in your social obligation to report it.

We already know you abuse your power.
Pfft. :rolleyes:

So... If I said the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima in WWII was a good and justified strategy, I would get a forumban. This was a strategic decision to kill Japanese civilians.

So... If I said the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima in WWII was a good and justified strategy, I would get a forumban. This was a strategic decision to kill Japanese civilians.
That is a historical event, and treated in history as a legitimate act of war. So, no.

But were you to call for the killing of Japanese civilians to claim a blood price for some current event, then yes, you would.

So... If I said the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima in WWII was a good and justified strategy, I would get a forumban. This was a strategic decision to kill Japanese civilians.

Or bombing the daylights out of terrorist supporters. After all, its advocating the deaths of Muslims.

That is a historical event, and treated in history as a legitimate act of war. So, no.



TG is now a moderator of history and will decide which civilian atrocities were "legitimate" or not.

Or bombing the daylights out of terrorist supporters. After all, its advocating the deaths of Muslims.
Oh stop playing your games.

There is a difference between saying "Let's kill some terrorists in revenge" or "Let's kill those responsible" and "Let's kill some civilians of Country X / members of Religion Y in revenge". Your failure to grasp such patently obvious distinctions is one of the reasons you keep getting into trouble here.

Judging by your post history on the subject of conflict, you are an intolerant individual who makes sweeping generalisations about populations and finds the idea of indiscriminate collective punishment in some way elegant. And you are far from alone in that respect - every side of every debate seems to have its reactionaries.

You are of course entitled to see the world in this way, but you will find you walk close to the edge of what others will find acceptable. Do not be surprised when your carelessness attracts undesired consequences.

Oh stop playing your games.

There is a difference between saying "Let's kill some terrorists in revenge" or "Let's kill those responsible" and "Let's kill some civilians of Country X / members of Religion Y in revenge". Your failure to grasp such patently obvious distinctions is one of the reasons you keep getting into trouble here.

Most of syria wants Israel wiped off the map. I say that Syria should be wiped off the map for supporting the destruction of Israel.

Judging by your post history on the subject of conflict, you are an intolerant individual who makes sweeping generalisations about populations and finds the idea of indiscriminate collective punishment in some way elegant. And you are far from alone in that respect - every side of every debate seems to have its reactionaries.

Now the last line I will agree with but not the first part of it. A government is responsible for all of its citizens and is obligated to keep their citizens under control. It is little wonder that Israel is doing what they are doing to Lebanon as Lebanon is obligated by law to reign in Hezbollah and failed. I show no sympathy to Lebanonese government and hope they come to their census. If not, then screw them.

You are of course entitled to see the world in this way, but you will find you walk close to the edge of what others will find acceptable. Do not be surprised when your carelessness attracts undesired consequences.

From over eager moddies who do not recognize sarcasm?

From over eager moddies who do not recognize sarcasm?
Not all jokes are funny.

Not all jokes are funny.

There's a difference between jokes and sarcasm. :rolleyes:

There's a difference between jokes and sarcasm. :rolleyes:
And there's a difference between reporting something in Moderation and trolling in Moderation. You're getting VERY close to the latter.

Knock it off, lest ye be locked out.

And there's a difference between reporting something in Moderation and trolling in Moderation. You're getting VERY close to the latter.

Knock it off, lest ye be locked out.

DCD did absolutely nothing wrong and it was unfair of him getting a week's ban.

We already know you abuse your power.

I dont always see eye to eye with tactical grace but I dont think he (she? I honestly dont know) particularly abuses power. In fact I reckon he has shown very even accross the board use of his moderation powers. He is of course swift and unapologetic with decisions, I consider this a positive, not all people do. Perhaps this is where the rub is. He might be a bit more abrasive than sensitive folk prefer at times (mad Russian in the UK syndrome?) but Ive never seen him particularly unfair nor moved much by his emotions nor idle despite the facts in any situation where moderation is concerned.

That is a historical event, and treated in history as a legitimate act of war. So, no.
Right...so DCD was advocating something...no, EXACTLY what Israel is doing right now...its not history, but a current event. And he said that should Hezbollah attack America....we should do the exact same thing Israel is doing.

You may not like it, but it is a real politcal/military scenario that is being played out as we speak, and as it being such I see no reason why one could not suggest we use the same scenario should WE be attacked.

Right...so DCD was advocating something...not EXACTLY what Israel is doing right now...its not history, but a current event. And he said that should Hezbollah attack America....we should do the exact same thing Israel is doing.

You may not like it, but it is a real politcal/military scenario that is being played out as we speak, and as it being such I see no reason why one could not suggest we use the same scenario should WE be attacked.

Agreed 100%.

Mods have made their decision (not just TG). I don't think this will help, nor change their ruling. Let it go.