The cite on the China stuff is about the most questionable thing offered as a “cite” I’ve ever seen.
That’s pretty much it, except for allegedly spurious claims that were made about various countries. Of course, cite whatreallyhappened.com all day, that is a ‘rightthink’ (left, actually) nutball organization.
I wonder then, why do all the allusions, and direct calls for, violent Communist revolution go unchecked? I’ve only seen those a few dozens of times on the SDMB.
**
Not too shabby at ‘twisting’ yourself.
THe OP suggested that giving peace a chance was not a rational stand, and pulled out various things from around the world, taking the position that Israel is totally justified (a subject of much debate around the world and here), that Iraq (the country) is a sworn enemy of the US and must be eradicated (again, the subject of much debate around the world and here), and added China to the mix (on the basis of very slim evidence as well - hell GWB hadn’t even listed China as one of those ‘axis of eeeeee-vile’).
It certainly wasn’t an appropriate OP for MPSIMS. And did call for war. And, as we’ve noted in recent events, calling for war on a nation state can indeed involve the deaths of innocent civilians. Especially (as with Afghanistan,) since our position is the Saddam is a leader who is oppressing his own people, which would give a sort of ‘innocent civilian status’ essentially to the populace as a whole. (let alone China)
While I agree that it is basically true that any war will involve the deaths of civilians and that fact alone is not the only consideration, Beers position on the OP is pretty justifyable.
no more simplistic than to call out the war wagon for any nation that pisses us off, either. (China?? like I said, that’s not even in GWB’s top 4)
a matter of quite a bit of opinion and speculation at this point, it would seem.
-well it’s certainly difficult to do so with a certain statesman going round and round on TV issuing statements about how Iraq is next (paraphrased), wouldnt’ you agree? and given the deafening silence of support for the position world wide, we certainly would be seen as the aggressors in the situation despite yours and GWB’s statemetns.
wring,
The fact that things are matters of opinion (the focus of most of your recent post) does not make the holders of opinions on these matters vile and hateful.
And the fact that someone believes that war is in some cases unavoidable does not mean that they are calling for the slaughter of millions.
Other than calling my comments about Israel twisted, you’ve not really addressed them. Best as I can figure, your reasoning is that since whether Israel is justified is the subject of much debate around the world, it follows that someone who seems to be completely on their side is being hateful. I stand by my position here.
you are channeling december (aka - as soon as you don’t say Israelisfullyjustifiedinalltheydo, you’re ‘pro Palestinian’)
The OP was calling for out and out war on multiple nations, with very little in the way of evidence to suggest that there was any rationale, and given that out and out war does mean innocent civilians will die, you don’t see that can be seen as ‘hate speech’?
I stand by my comments as well.
That’s not a cite. That’s an advert. I’d prefer to see evidence.
With all due respect, wring, I think you have to reach a bit to turn a call for war into hate speech. That is, the goal of a war (regime change, or self-defense, or whatever pretext I’ve forgotten to mention) is not the death of innocents (at least, this is the case with most wars). The result of a war is obviously that, among other things, innocent civilians will die (some people often seem to forget this, which is a good reason to think they’re somewhat barmie), but I would suggest that if the intent is not to harm innocents that it doesn’t fall under the category of hate speech.
It’s not “I hate those @#&(!@#&!@ [insert nationality of choice here], so let’s kill 'em all,” which is obviously hate speech, it’s “we should go to war with [insert nation of choice here] for the following reasons,” and unless those reasons boil down, basically, to hating the people of that nation, it’s not hate speech, is it? Or is it just that I use the phrase “hate speech” to mean the too literal “speech motivated by hate,” whereas y’all mean “speech which leads to hateful results and is thus hateful”? I would call the latter a strange definition, but if it’s the one everyone is using, who am I to argue with the accumulated wisdom?
Whether it’s hate speech or not, of course, is immaterial to those who lose their lives, and it’s still reckless, irresponsible, and vile.
No. Sorry wring, but I don’t think calling for war is the same as hate speech. While I don’t agree with the OP and I don’t think his ideas/cites/whatever are sound, I really disagree with you and Uncle Beer on the “hate speech” thing. A call for war (however misguided) is not the same as racism.
Err…on preview, just pretend I copied G8rguy’s post and added a “Me too”
Fenris
Okay, I might not be the brightest light on the Christmas tree, but all I see in Oicu812’s original thread was a call for war on Iraq, supported by some questionable cites. How, exactly, does this make him different than George W. Bush? This is a subject of a great deal of debate right now, and as much as I oppose Oicu182’s position, I can’t imagine how you could construe it to be “hate speech,” or why stating a position contrary to a moderator’s warrants a thread closure, let alone the scorn UncleBeer heaped on the OP.
“hateful rhetoric” (which is the phrase he uses here), then, vs. “hate speech”.
and I still say it is.
If I were to posit that we should invade Canada w/all out war 'cause dammit all that flannel is causing me to sneeze and make me look less attractive, I’d be engaging in hateful rhetoric (as well as looking quite like a loon, which may in fact be the national bird of Canada, which is where this all started).
In any event, the original thread deserved closure.
Well, we can at least notice that the oic is rewriting events in his mind. The President has yet to ask for a formal declaration of war.
Well I’ve seen much worse threads around here. IMO the thread certainly deserved to be moved to the Pit but not closed.
I totally disagree with the OP, but I didn’t see it as hateful, misguided maybe. It was nothing on some of the anti Afghanastan stuff that was allowed to float around last September (understandably).
Me too. Want to compare lists?
You seem to have lost track of the train of logic here. I have neither said nor implied anything at all about anyone who doesn’t say that Israel is justified in all they do. It is you who have implied that someone who is “completely on [the] Israeli side” is hateful.
I’ve already addressed your other comment (as have others).
Izzy you questioned my stance IRT Israel.
it wasn’t relevant. You insisted that I was meaning something re: Israel, hence my claim that you’re channeling our wintery friend since I refused to outrightly declare a stance on Israel.
others have commented on other points, I’ve not agreed. I suspect we’re at a standstill - I don’t really care about the OP in general or their aborted thead specifically. I had no problem w/the thread closure, saw it as a war mongering, fact missing piece of crap. But I’ve already spent more time than it was worth defending Beer’s closure of the gig.
You refused to declare a stance? What you did was justify UncleBeer’s claim that the OP was hateful by noting that he “also mentioned thet Israel/Palestinian conflict (seeming to be completely on Israeli side).” From which I inferred that you considered that to be a hateful position. Seems like a stance to me. Feel free to clarify.
To me, any stance on the I/P conflict in which there is exactly one ‘bad guy’, 100% totally responsible, and the other ‘guy’ is 100% good, is a hateful (and unrealistic) position.
hence doesn’t matter which I view as ‘less horrible’.
Well that would depend on how you defined 100% right or wrong. If someone believed that no Israeli had harmed any Arab since time began, and that the only good Arab is a dead Arab, I would agree with you. (A similar position would be true of just about any other conflict.) But if someone merely believes that one side is far more right than the other, to the point that the imbalance is a factor in dealing with the sides - nothing hateful or unrealistic at all.
In this case, I don’t see how you could take anything out of the OP that we are discussing that is even remotely approaching the level of one-sidedness needed to make it unrealistic, let alone hateful.
And what the hell would this board be without the loons? Boring, boring, BORING!!! If this board consisted entirely of reasonable, rational, loving people, we’d all give up and go somewhere else.
I say take every thread that advocates bombing into the Stone Age those goat-felching <insert nationality or ethnic group here>, move it to the Pit, and let the rest of us have fun coming up with witty ripostes.
Otherwise, I’ll have to spend my time being a troll on the GodIsLove.com board. 
No, here’s how it works. You make the claims - you find the reputable cites. Until then, we get to judge whether an unsubstantiated claim in a student resolution and a quote from an online advert for a book really count as evidence.
[sub]hint - no they don’t[/sub]