Coldfire’s comment in the original forum was spot on:
[Originally posted by Coldfire]
And to the pit it went, where rants are supposed to go, and where, yeah, it should have been originally posted. So far so good, but then UncleBeer comes along and closes the post and calls it names. While it may not have been the most well-reasoned argument for regime change in Iraq, surely a measure of hate can be directed at, of all people, Saddam Hussein? That’s what the Pit’s for, right?
Also, http://www.newsmaxstore.com appears to be a rather, shall we say, conservative source. Not bad per se, but a quick google on the book that’s mentioned doesn’t yield the assertion that Jiang Zemin laughed at the WTC attacks. Apart from Newsmaxstore, that is.
Bear in mind, the book “Unrestricted Warfare” was written in 1999. It is an analysis of the superpower America from the perspective of two senior Chinese army officials. From the reviews I’ve seen, they don’t appear to be complete lunatics, and give a rather apt analysis. Several sites speak of an interview with the two writers on 9/13/2001, but only yours alludes to the possibility of Jiang Zemin being amused at the WTC attacks. Surely, such an outrageous fact would have been publicised elsewhere.
The additional catalogue Newsmaxstore offers leads me to believe we’re dealing with a less than neutral source here. I’m sorry, but I’m gonna need a better cite before I believe Jiang Zemin laughed his balls of on 9/11/2001.
A clarification: I decided to move it whilst UncleBeer was closing it simultaneously - without knowledge of me moving it. It’s always a judgement call: I gave the OP the benifit of the doubt, while my colleague didn’t. The thread ended up moved and closed. We talked it over per e-mail, and decided to leave it closed.
Lest you get the impression UncleBeer overruled me or something.
Interestingitappearsthatyouhaveconsumedtheitemaswell, though UncleBeer could have chosen softer words, he did say that you could re-post it in the pit if you really wanted to.
So a not-so-thinly veiled rant, the key elements of which are of suspicious veracity, is an acceptable justification for exhorting the U.S. to slaughter potentially millions of innocent Palenstineans, Chinese and Iraquis and somehow this isn’t hateful rhetoric? Your post is a lame justification for the U.S. waging war against all these peoples. And that you do not find vile?
I suggest you re-examine your motivations. I’m impressed at the ability you exhibit to rationalize your hatred.
Oicu812 is certainly NOT the first on this board to call for the wholesale destruction of any number of countries, and threads like that have lived on for days with back and forth arguement.
Perhaps the mods were a bit sensitive today in particular when several people are finding it advisable to sort of dial down the frothing anger and simply reflect and support the country we’re in?
Izzy the OP called for war in the OP of the original thread, then went on to list various entities - including Iraq, China & also mentioned thet Israel/Palestinian conflict (seeming to be completely on Israeli side).
I can see where Beer would interpret that as a call to war on those entities.
Substitute “twist” for “interpret” and I’m with you. Otherwise, no. And even if one could “interpret” a call for war on all those entities, that’s a far cry from “exhorting the U.S. to slaughter potentially millions of innocent” people. Are all people who support any war hateful? Are they all calling for the slaughter of potentially millions of people? (I might add that you seem to regard being “completely on Israeli side” as one of the crimes of the OP. Also hateful?)
The general point of Oicu812 - which I completely agree with - is that it is simplistic to say in any and all circumstances “give peace a chance”, as in many instances the other party will sooner or later force the war of their own initiative. In this case, the US is being driven primarily by the aggressive intentions of others. This does not necessarily mean that the US should attack China (or even Iraq, FTM). What it does mean is that the “give peace a chance” argument is bogus.
To reiterate: there was absolutely not the slightest hateful aspect about the OP of the linked thread. I am not vouching for the accuracy of the various specifics or cites etc. Or dealing with the moderating decision to move or close the thread - only with the justification given by UncleBeer, which is both wrong and defamatory.
