James R: The S.A.M Issue

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Gustav, Sep 7, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gustav Banned Banned


    take a moment to comment please
    that is of course if you still consider yourself a member of this community
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    I am very busy at the moment and can't afford to devote lots of time to dealing with the problem of SAM. I will make a few comments later when I get a spare moment.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. noodler Banned Banned

    Note: "the problem of SAM"...
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gustav Banned Banned


    of course
    post at your convenience
    this aint no fast food forum
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Ok. I have a little time to spare now.

    S.A.M. has become a problem on sciforums and I'll try to explain why. First, let me say a few very general words about the Israel/Palestine situation, which provides the context of this problem.

    In Israel/Palestine we have two distinct groups both claiming an inalienable right to the same land. The basis of the claims on both sides is historical - an ongoing connection with the land dating back into the mists of antiquity. Those who want to be more definite about things may also cite arrangements going back to the creation of Israel as a modern state following WWII, or to what happened in 1967. Quite clearly there is much that can be argued as to the "rights" of each side to the land in question, as is demonstrated in all debates, both on sciforums and elsewhere. The vested interests involved make it very difficult for the casual observer to sort out who may be in the right. Many of the arguments commonly put by supporters of one group or the other are spun to the nth degree and cannot be considered objective.

    There is ongoing conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. On the one hand, we hear claims about an Israel right of "self-defense" against Palestinian terrorist forces who do not recognise Israel's right to exist. On the other we hear claims about the Palestinian right to resist illegal occupation of their rightful land and the right to self determination. There is ongoing armed conflict. People are killed all the time on both sides, although the Palestinians bear the brunt of the killings due to Israel's technological superiority (due in no small part to the support of the United States).

    If you live in Israel or Palestine, it is hard to look at the conflict as an unbiased outsider would. Maybe your family has suffered loss due to the fighting. Maybe you have lost friends. Maybe you're just surrounded by a community that pushes the views of one side on you, and you're never exposed to the view from the other side. One result of this is a tendency towards radicalism. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have elected uncompromising, hard-line governments. Outside of Israel/Palestine, supporters of one side or the other are often equally or more hard-line than people who actually live there. The foreigners have nothing directly to lose by taking an uncompromising position; it's mostly academic for most of them and they can afford to push an "all or nothing" solution to the conflict that is unrealistic and will never happen.

    The only way that the Israel/Palestine situation will ever be resolved is by compromise (leaving out the possibility of genocide of the Palestinian people). This means stopping the yearning for a return to some imagined "glory days" of the ancient past where your side had it all and facing the reality of today. It also means understanding and empathy with the point of view of the other - something in very short supply at the current time. It means asking what is fair for both sides, and not just for your side.

    Neither Israel nor the Palestinians can claim the moral high ground in this messy and continuous conflict. On the Palestinian side we have continual terrorist attacks against Israel. On the Israeli side we have military oppression of the Palestinians and the building of ever more settlements encroaching more and more into Palestinian territory. Even during supposed periods of negotiation towards a settlement, these things still go on.

    Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are unified blocks of like-minded people. There are hard-liners on both sides that want the other wiped off the map. There are moderates on both sides that want a fair settlement. There are people who just want to live in peace. There are people who hold grudges new and old. There are those who cannot forget the past or forgive the other for it. There are those who prefer that there is no progress towards peace.

    The Israel/Palestinian conflict does not exist in a vacuum. The Israeli cause is inextricably bound with the Jewish religion, while the Palestinian cause is tied to Islam. International support for one side or the other tends to line up according to the predominant religion of the supporting state.

    Hate will never solve this conflict. The only possible solution is compromise. Each side must give up part of its ambit claim in order to secure peace and stability. The barriers to such a compromise are almost insurmountable. There is so much history, so much hatred, that rising above it all is all but impossible. In a sense, the people most intimately affected by any "solution" may be the worst people to expect to negotiate such a solution. Many of them do not really want any solution in which they have to give ground.


    Let us turn to sciforums.

    Unusually, I think it important that I declare my own position on Israel/Palestine clearly here. Although I constantly receive complaints from supporters of both sides that I am biased towards the other, the simple fact of the matter is that I have no vested interests either way. I am not a Jew. I have no Jewish relatives or Palestinian relatives (or Arab or American for that matter), at least as far back as I have traced my family tree. I do not assert that one or the other side is blameless in the conflict, or that one side or the other has an absolute right. I acknowledge that both sides have undertaken and are continuing to undertake acts that are illegal according to international law, which is perhaps the closest we can come to an objective standard of behaviour to expect from states.

    What I see on sciforums is similar to the mix of opinions on Israel/Palestine that I would expect to see on many western-based forums of this type. There are a few very vocal hard-liners who are apparently able to see only one side's point of view, who believe that one side is totally in the right and the other side is totally evil. There are some moderates, too, but they inevitably contribute less to the discussions for a number of reasons, not the least being their frustration with the single-mindedness of the hard-liners. I see white Americans here who support Israel. I see Muslims here who support the Palestinians. Why? Religion, patriotism (supporting their own government's position), racial identification - many reasons.

    The danger in taking sides on this issue, and the same holds equally for many other issues, is that one becomes subject to confirmation bias. You start looking only for material that supports your view while ignoring anything that might tend to challenge it. You start believing that, yes, one side really does have Right on its side, and the other side really is evil. Soon, your side can do no wrong. The other must not be allowed to exist. There can be no compromise.

    I said above that this conflict will not be resolved by hate. If you notice injustice from one side perpetrated against the other (and there are plenty of examples from both sides), then joining the haters will not help progress towards a solution. I would say it is incumbent upon the "armchair observers" watching this conflict from afar to be realistic and truthful about what is going on from both sides. If being too close to the conflict causes a person to lose perspective, then it is the duty of those who are far from the conflict to try to maintain perspective, not to join in the hate.


    Let us turn now to S.A.M.

    It is quite clear that SAM has joined the haters on sciforums. She is not the only one, but with a post rate 8 to 10 times that of most regular posters here her hate is among the hate that is most prominent here.

    We could count the number of prominent haters on sciforums over time. If we did so, perhaps we'd find that the number of haters of Muslims rose after the September 11 attacks of 2001. Since such haters often simplistically associate Islam with Palestine, a Muslim-hater is easily turned into a Palestine-hater.

    Perhaps it is also true that there has been a backlash against the Muslim-haters. SAM decided at some point that if she couldn't beat the Muslim/Palestine-haters, then she'd join them. Only she would become a Jew/Israel-hater, and that would restore the "balance". It is unlikely that SAM's opinions changed due to anything on sciforums. More probably, sciforums only prompted a pre-existing hatred to bring itself out into the open.


    So, where does this leave us? It seems to me that at present we have on sciforums two groups of haters. SAM leads the Israel-haters, mostly through sheer number of posts. Some liberals who have Palestinian sympathies are inclined to join her crusade against evil Jews when it suits their wider agendas. On the other hand, we have the Palestine-haters led by Buffalo Roam. On that side we have support from a number of mostly-American conservatives who regard support of Israel at all costs to a good match to their wider agenda.

    Where is the problem, then?

    The problem is that all semblance of intelligent discussion of the Israel/Palestine conflict has disappeared from sciforums. All we have here now is two groups of haters determined to paint the "enemy" as unremittingly evil and their own "side" as in league with the angels and rightly entitled to all that they claim for themselves. Nobody is interested in a solution, for a solution would require compromise and for a hater there can be no compromise.

    There are voices of reason on sciforums. There are moderates here who make sensible assessments and suggestions. But they are being drowned out by the haters, who I guess would post 10 times as much: posts full of bile and propaganda and demonisation of the other.

    What are the moderators to do? What am I to do as an administrator? Perhaps we should simply expunge the haters and start again. Maybe we ought to ban the haters from posting on the Israel/Palestine situation at all (i.e. let them post in non-political forums only). The problem with either of these solutions is that I can already hear the cries of "censorship!" and "what happened to free speech?!".

    What is clear is that something needs to be done. The hate, especially on this single issue, has escalated to the point where it is driving people away from sciforums and dissuading new members from joining up. When the hate is led by the poster with the highest post count and highest posting rate, the problem is even more serious. sciforums is becoming the SAM-spews-her-hate forum, and that is unhealthy for the forum's present and future.

    Clearly, SAM is not the only hater here. She is just the most visible, and so tends to attract the most comments, moderation etc.

    I have not decided what to do about this problem yet. I am thinking about it. The moderators as a group are discussing it. There is no clear consensus yet. I have little time right now to make this a priority, so it may have to wait.

    In the meantime, I would welcome any thoughts and suggestions that the non-haters among the membership have on this.
  9. draqon Banned Banned

    isnt it clear that mods here are taking the side of Israel and not Palestine, SAM is not taking that side, thus the problem arises.
  10. Gustav Banned Banned


    i have no comments nor suggestions yet
    just questions

    then perhaps you can impart some of that clarity of vision to me.
    give me your reasons, by way of examples, why you consider her to be a "hater"

    since this is sci, anecdotes will not suffice. give links to the same sources that allowed you to reach your conclusion

  11. Gustav Banned Banned

    once again, james
    post at your convenience
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I can only speak for myself, to say that I'm not taking sides, except against the mindless haters on both sides.
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    I clicked on SAM's profile and looked at the list of threads she has started. Of the 25 of those in which she has posted most recently, we have, for example:

    Anti-American hatred, anti-American propaganda, anti-Obama propaganda, loaded question, etc.

    Anti-atheist hate. Misrepresentation of atheist positions. Trolling.

    Opening provocation for another anti-American, racist, anti-Christian trolling session.

    More anti-atheist propaganda and trolling.

    Anti-American, anti-Obama propaganda and hate.

    Jew baiting.

    Anti-Israel propaganda.

    More anti-Israel propaganda aimed at stirring up hatred and stereotyping all Israelis.

    The old canard that "the Jews" get special treatment they do not deserve. (They only deserve to be hated and despised.)

    Disingenuously denying her antisemitism, while at the same time making sure that the topic of antisemitism stays at the top of the thread list. Provides an opening to post more anti-Israel/Jewish propaganda later on in the thread.

    More propaganda for the cause.

    More hate. Implying that Israel intends a genocide of the Palestinians and is carrying it out.


    These are only a minor sampling of the continuous stream of hate-motivated posts issuing from SAM.

    Most of her threads attack one or more of the following targets: Israel, "the Jews", the United States and/or its President, atheists, sciforums moderators/admins. The threads are invariably full of selective fact-quoting and deliberate distortion of positions she does not agree with, combined with deliberate trolling for angry reactions so as to gain an excuse to post even more inflammatory material.

    SAM deflects direct questions that may prove uncomfortable by answering questions with more questions, by changing the subject, or simply by ignoring them.
  14. draqon Banned Banned

    so James R., your course of action would be to "silence" her? What will your course of action be against this "propaganda"? Will you be the one issuing a perma-ban?
  15. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Draqon, you are kind of missing the point, I'm not sure if it's purposeful or not but it's missed none the less. For a long time we have made acceptions for SAM and her prolific post count, obviously you know she use to be a very good moderator here in her area, the problem was that she allowed herself to be goaded from the position and became a hater. Some of it was obviously directed at the moderators that moved against her and her radicalist views while some of it was obviously directed at those that baited her.

    I have to admit within recent years her charm is becoming overwhelmed by her bigotry. This forum is suppose to be free of bigotry and when ever we attempt to remove it we end up with bigots acting like charlatans and claiming that we are bigots for removing their brethern.

    This website does not care about race, colour or creed. The moderators while they might confide personal viewpoints from time to time, know that no matter what they think to act arbitarily requires them to act with the interest of the forum at heart and not that of their own person viewpoint. (Sometimes a moderator might have overstepped the line once or twice in regards to following their own regime, however this is something that gets dealt with and has never been left unchecked.)

    When we Cesspool, delete or close threads that are "Radical", it is because you can't discuss a subject with a "Radical", their reasoning and decision is already marred with their position on the subject at hand. (Hence a Radicalist)

    If you can't understand that, then obviously you have your own agenda which is likely something that will conflict with the moderation here because it will likely be against the forum as a whole and we can't allow that.
  16. Gustav Banned Banned

    lets start with the first

    it appears that you are just throwing some slogans at me.
    could you please justify your characterizations of the quoted post (and thread)

    as it stands, i cannot fathom what you are talking about
    what is it that you and everybody else sees and i dont?


    since you are here....

    hatred and propaganda? why?
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2009
  17. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Compromise is not an appropriate solution in many circumstances.

    Are you going to compromise with a street criminal who's about to knock you down and take your wallet?

    The law doesnt compromise with criminals and neither should the Palestinians, who's life and liberty has been confiscated by invaders from Europe.
  18. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Sam was always a problem here from the get go.

    No, she didn't join the haters, she started the whole the ball rolling. She joined along with a handful of Islamic propagandists shortly after 911 and now we are here. It is the Islamic propaganda that Sciforums welcomed and now has to endure as one of it's primary problems. This problem did not exist prior to their joining.

    It's one of the main reasons why I stopped moderating here as it was clear the admin team here lost their marbles when they welcomed the propagandists, nurtured and protected them. And, now you have the fruits of your labor to deal with.

    You brought this on yourselves, James. There is no one else to blame.
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    For a minute there, I lost myself

    I'll call.

    I'm an American, James, and that's a fair question. Republicans are backing away from Afghanistan right now, starting to rally around the idea of "Obama's Vietnam". Their argument has to do with the mounting strain on troops, the increasing cost of war, the climbing casualty rate (last month was the deadliest for our troops), and the dimming prospect of progress.

    What isn't particularly high on their agenda is civilian casualties.

    CBS News posted a story today at its WorldWatch blog, "U.S. Strike an 'Enormous Coup' for Taliban":

    On Friday, a German ground commander called in a U.S. airstrike on two stolen fuel tankers in northern Afghanistan. Dozens of civilians had gathered around the tankers and Afghan officials say 70 or more were killed by the American bombs.

    Official investigations have ramped-up to determine which of the two NATO allies — German or the U.S. — made the tragic error that led to the misguided strike. But, regardless of the inter-NATO finger-pointing, the real consequences won't wait for the investigation findings. Nor can the real work to try and make amends to the Afghan people.

    CBS News consultant Jere Van Dyk is an expert on the Islamic fundamentalist movements in Afghanistan and Pakistan who has travelled extensively along the volatile border region ....

    .... "We have a terrible tragedy on two levels," Van Dyk told CBS Radio News. "One, so many people were killed. Secondly, it's a coup for the Taliban. It's a black mark for NATO and its allies."

    Van Dyk said the deadly airstrike couldn't have come at worse time for American military strategists ....

    .... "American military commanders have said they have to now start from scratch. They have to start all over. They have to change their tactics entirely if they are going to win this war," said Van Dyk.


    CONTENT WARNING: CBS News story includes an unsettling image of an airstrike victim.

    The core questions of that thread—"What should Americans do? What should be the role of the masses in military adventurism?"—are more than valid, James. They're essential. And Americans kind of dance around this subject.

    What thread was that splintered from? What is the original context of that topic post?

    And yes, we do allow our atheists to be freaking insane bigots. So, you can say that S.A.M. has joined the haters, or whatever—a dubious assertion in itself—but the difference between our endorsement of one hater and rejection of another would appear to be a matter of whose affiliation we prefer.

    Americans are very familiar with the assertion that this is a Christian nation. Our "old money", including many major movers and shakers who wield or have wielded in the past great influence over the shape of the nation are WASPs. I've often joked that people need to get past the "Jewish" conspiracies and deal with the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

    In 1954, we officially adopted the motto "In God We Trust" for our currency. This was a deliberate statement of our Christianity against the evil, godless Communists.

    Furthermore, I would ask you to take a look at that "trolling session". You do realize that two people tried to give useful answers at the outset. (And think about that; for all the shit we've given Draqon over time, yeah, he wrote a post that was not without its utility in that discussion.) I would suggest the thread's degradation began with one of S.A.M.'s opponents by going on a personal attack. But it's S.A.M., isn't it? So you don't fucking care, do you?

    It's an interesting question. Perhaps the setup could have been more smoothly written, but there are plenty of people who believe science because it's science—and there are reasons to do so—but don't study it.

    Gee, thanks, James. You just called American liberals anti-American, anti-Obama hatemongers.

    Good one.

    Despite String's response, these are all fair points. He criticized the period on the links, but there are a few points to be made there. To the one, so what if the civilian casualty link is old. It's not like the problem has stopped. Our man offered no evidence to suggest that it has. To the other, there are still questions about whether the administration will actually manage to close Guantanamo anytime soon. And to yet a third, the president does intend to keep the Guantanamo spirit alive, as he plans to continue detention without trial. He did announce that. Publicly. Nationally.

    And as to rendition, which S.A.M. failed to provide a link for, which earned her a not-so-subtle hint about the forum rules? It's not exactly an extraordinary assertion. President Obama is continuing extraordinary renditions.

    American liberals are appalled. That's not the change we voted for. That's not the change we believed in.

    I guess that makes us anti-American, anti-Obama hatemongers.

    Jew baiting?

    By the Goddess, sir, I think you're serious about that.

    Has it not occurred to you that the underlying question of reconciling scripture, faith, and practice is something we've spent years browbeating Christianity for around here? Holy shit, James.

    So, you mean, back in the early years when the Religion subforum was the hub of Sciforums' traffic, when people inquired about the violence and bigotry rife among those who believe in the "Prince of Peace", we were all being bigots?

    You know, not too long ago, Madanthonywayne and I discussed the Biblical case for the civil rights of homosexuals. I constructed my argument in favor of civil rights on the Bible, asserting that there was a discord between scripture and practice. I had no idea I was being such a hater.

    Anti-Israeli propaganda? From Ha'aretz? How horribly bigoted was Hypewaders' post immediately preceding that, then?

    So the Israeli Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Strategic Affairs makes a racist argument and attacks the opposition as a "virus"—

    "We again are dealing with the issue of the virus, Peace Now – the elitists, if you may – who have incurred great damage. From my perspective, Jews can and need to live in all of the Land of Israel for all eternity."

    Ya'alon warned against folding to US pressure. "There are certain things we need to say – up to here. When you do things you don't believe in, you enter a slippery slope because they put pressure on you, and you keep rolling downwards."


    —and S.A.M. is being a bigot?

    Ya'alon's statement verges on the Amalek argument: "From my perspective, Jews can and need to live in all of the Land of Israel for all eternity."

    Sounds to me like the war won't end for Ya'alon until the Palestinians are, one way or another, gone. They can move, they can die, they can disappear into prison or whatever. But all of the Land of Israel for all eternity.

    Afraid of peace? Yeah, she might have been wrong about that. Sounds to me like there's only one peace that will satisfy the guy in charge of the nation's strategic affairs. Thus, there is only one peace that the strategy leads to—all of the Land of Israel for all eternity.

    So you're right. It's anti-Israeli propaganda because there's one kind of peace Ya'alon's definitely not afraid of.

    I would, however, ask you how you construe "stereotyping all Israelis".

    Nice deflection. Where in that does S.A.M. say that Jews only deserve to be hated and despised?

    The original point of that thread was about the moderators. In the United States, at least, plenty of people ask the same question about Jews and blacks. For instance, why does a black man get to say "nigger" if it's a bad word? And, yes, I think there are reasonable answers to that.

    Have you ever heard the story of the Family Guy "banned" episode? It was in the third season of the original run. Peter meets a Jewish guy one day, and decides the guy is really smart. And then, of course, Peter goes off the deep end, thinking that if he makes his son Jewish, Chris will get smarter. The episode was officially pulled for concerns about anti-Semitism. If you ever get the chance, find it on DVD and watch it with the commentary activated. The argument put forth by Seth MacFarlane goes something like this: Peter Griffin is supposed to be the stupidest man in the world. The point, then, is that if you believe the kind of crap he's saying, well, you're stupid. If you watch carefully, the jokes about the Catholics are much worse.

    In the U.S., Americans have a couple of complicated standards. How to regard Jews is one of them. The general feeling is that "the Jews have been through enough", and it's time to get the hell off their backs. And, yeah, I agree. I still hear about the Jewish Hollywood conspiracy—it's even a joke among some American Jews at this point—the UN-Zionist conspiracy, the Rothschilds and how some Jew banker is behind every problem in the world, &c.

    But this doesn't mean that someone gets a free pass just because they're Jewish. And this is where the whole mess gets touchy. Because it's really hard to have a policy discussion about Israel in the U.S. because any opposition to Israel bears exposure to claims of anti-Semitism.

    Now, there could be a complicating factor here. S.A.M. did just recently spend some time in the U.S. studying. Perhaps our issues still have an active context in her mind. And, hey, maybe Australians don't have the problem of how to treat issues pertaining to Jews and Judaism. I don't know, but it seems at least some of them do.


    I'm not sure where to start, James. That one's too fresh in my mind.

    Here, let's try this: Do you remember in the last couple years when we tried—nearly begged—to get members to include links in their complaints, so we could more easily find the problem they were referring to? How many times over the years have you followed up on a complaint that described the situation (as opposed to linking to it) and found the complaint inaccurate? Personally, I can't count them all.

    And all through that debate, all I got from the critics were descriptions. In the late stages, one member started sending me links, and I might actually get to them. But I had enough of it at a certain point because S.A.M. isn't even allowed to ask the obvious question that most of us would chuckle over without someone throwing a screaming fit all over. Had it in the thread, had it in my inbox. It was disgusting. And the outrage was based on a calculated presupposition, that S.A.M. can only be an anti-Semite. Hell, you read what's actually there and it's like, "Well, duh." It was the obvious question. And if an Israeli supporter—or even someone who isn't pre-labeled as an anti-Semite—had asked the question, we all would have just laughed. Because, yes, it was funny.

    And if you look at that thread closely there are a couple of interesting points that emerge. First, S.A.M. responded to a fairly useless response with something substantive. But her concern about being marked for security checks, or children being slaughtered in a war is nothing more than anti-Semitism, isn't it, James?

    The second thing is that Enmos was carrying on a very good discussion with S.A.M. Did you notice that part? Don't blame S.A.M. for the agitators in that thread, like Draqon, Lucysnow, and James R. That simply doesn't stand up to fact.

    More propaganda for the cause?

    Oh, my goodness. A moderate conservative newspaper in Israel calls out an alleged PLO terrorist who, it turns out, doesn't seem to be much of a terrorist at all, thus undermining his otherwise dramatic conversion to support the Israeli cause and ... what was the criticism in the thread? Oh, yes: "SAM is trying to cling to any chink in Walid's story as if finding it would discredit him entirely."

    Yeah. Propaganda.

    A new book on a relevant subject is news. Its central proposition is arguable. That makes it propaganda. Oh, wait. I'm sorry, because S.A.M. posted it, that makes it propaganda. Sorry, my bad.

    The suggestion "that Israel intends a genocide of the Palestinians and is carrying it out" is, at the very least, arguable. The underlying premise is that it is unfair to remove illegal settlements because the trespassers have been there long enough that you would be unfairly uprooting someone from their homeland. This isn't a new argument in history. S.A.M. did note America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. We might also add that Britain isn't giving back the six counties anytime soon. One dimension to consider—and it was overlooked in the topic post—is at what point or according to what standard does that right of possession kick in.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (via Bermuda Radical)

    As I wrote in the genocide thread:

    However, settlement is often a component of genocide, and can in some contexts be viewed as a slow genocide. If, in the end, the net effect is the same—the erasure of a culture and people—therein we find the connection.

    It's still theoretic, but with the way things are going in Palestine, I wonder how long we can afford before we must necessarily put the question on the table.​

    And Amalek is not absent from the debate, either. It's a muddled context at present, with various groups asserting different interpretations from the obvious—exterminate the Palestinians—to more subtle versions, such as a struggle against injustice.

    I'll go with Jonathan Edelstein, who wrote,

    ... I believe that some mitzvot come with expiration dates, and that the commandment to exterminate Amalek is one of them. The range of modern interpretations, however, has fascinating parallels with the varying meanings given to the term jihad by Muslims. To extreme Kahanists, the mitzvah of blotting out Amalek is the foundation for a concept of Jewish holy war, which necessarily presupposes the existence of a theocratic Jewish state to wage such a war. The interpretation of jihad as holy war, to be waged by an Islamic state until the enemy is exterminated or submits, is in many ways almost identical.

    At the same time, the reinterpretation of jihad as personal struggle, which is advocated by many liberal Muslims, has its counterpart in the equation of Amalek with injustice or doubt. Both Jews and Muslims are engaging in the process of adapting a commandment delivered in a more primitive and violent time to the moral values of the Enlightenment. Jihad and the battle against Amalek are often viewed as antitheses by each other's advocates, but they may in fact be two words for the same concept.

    (Boldface accent added.)

    Having a divinely-ordered genocide anywhere in the discussion perks ears and raises eyebrows, James. The question of Israel's intentions over the long term is certainly arguable.

    It's the kind of sampling, though, that leaves the rest of your assessment—

    —in doubt.

    Regretfully, sir, I must disagree with you on this. At the very least, you are attempting to compress four dimensions into two, which necessarily creates a warping effect about what you're seeing. I've told people for a long time what S.A.M. is doing, and why. And it appears we've done nothing about it until you figured out a way to hold it against her.

    I don't know whether to tip my hat or spit in the dirt.

    Karma police, arrest this man; he talks in maths,
    He buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio.
    Karma police, arrest this girl; her Hitler hairdo, is making me feel ill,
    And we have crashed her party.
    This is what you get. This is what you get.
    This is what you get when you mess with us



    Reals, Tucker. "U.S. Strike an 'Enormous Coup' for Taliban". World Watch. September 7, 2009. CBSNews.com. September 7, 2009. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/07/world/worldwatch/entry5291587.shtml

    "Ya'alon calls Peace Now 'a virus'". YNet News. August 19, 2009. YNet.com. September 7, 2009. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3764439,00.html

    Keshena, Rowland. "Evolution of a Colonial Settler State". Bermuda Radical. January 10, 2009. BermudaRadical.WordPress.com. September 7, 2009. http://bermudaradical.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/evolution-of-a-colonial-settler-state/

    Edelstein, Jonathan. "Amalek and Jihad". The Head Heeb. January 17, 2004. Archive.org. September 7, 2009. http://web.archive.org/web/20040223124355/http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/archives/020255.html
  20. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Yes, but your assessment of Sam has been complete codswallop as you alone acknowledge it. As intellectual as you may believe you are, you miss the mark entirely when it comes to this type of analysis. Perhaps, Sam is your sock puppet as that would make the only sense of your reasoning.

    Do both, for what it's worth.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. Meursalt Comatose Registered Senior Member

    Kill them all. God will recognise his own.

    It is probably a little too late now, I'm thinking.
    A little boy once, according to legend, stuck his finger in a dyke when he saw a leak. That same boy now is facing a deluge and hasn't the capability to stop it.

    Pity, that.

    I'm sure Gustav and SAM will be very happy. They've successfully trimmed their opposition down to the decidedly average, and will no doubt have a much easier time convincing themselves of their own righteousness as a result.
    I mean, if you can't win a fight, simply make sure the opposition are incapable of giving you one.

    Just one more thing... well, actually, there is a lot wrong with Tiassa's post above, but only a very few have the stamina to contend with misguided idealism for any length of time. I'm not one of them.

    The fact is, Tiassa, that SAM herself probably didn't know what she was doing or why until you gave her the framework to believe in.
    Plenty of people have said what SAM is doing. Plenty have given a theory as to why.
    Yours, apparently, is the only one worth any consideration, and SAM herself has now taken it on board, and made it her motivation.
    Give someone a thought they hadn't had to excuse an action they've taken, and they'll convince themselves in seconds that that thought was theirs from the beginning.

    Phht. Poorly worded, can't be bothered fixing it.
    Bye bye.
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2009
  22. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Tiassa is full of crap. It's always the same threads, the same person who makes them. SAM's threads are designed to express her undying hatred for America, Jews, the state of Israel, and white people in general. She has hatred in her heart and probably that hatred is based on a permanent inferiority complex that she (if we assume we're speaking to an actual woman) as a muslim has been plagued with for a long time. I assert that because it is commonly the success of the USA and the success of the Jews that she most seriously seethes at. The Jews made Israel a viable homeland. From sand dunes, they built Tel Aviv. The Israelis defeated the muslims militarily and culturally. The muslims in Palestine are failures. By extension, this makes SAM and indeed all muslims identify as failures too -- which they may well be. That is why it is always, always, ALWAYS the Israel/Palestine she talks about: it has become the front for the much larger cultural conflict that muslims see themselves losing. This little complex they have is worsened by the fact that their culture teaches them that they are the chosen ones who inevitably win, so to see the opposite happening enrages them. It enraged Norsefire too when he first came to this forum, if any of you recall. The events of today are flying directly against what they've been raised to believe, and they've become even more wretched than ever.

    For the reasons above, it is safe to say that SAM isn't here to learn, nor is she here for intellectual discourse.
    Rationalizing out excuses for individual topics in order to downplay their poignancy, as Tiassa has, while ignoring the much larger theme that belies them all (anti-white, pro muslim -- just try to find one of the opposite) makes no difference in the larger picture. She is clearly here to engage in mindless browbeating and to alleviate the symptoms of a much more serious psychological disease.

    People like that are fucking toxic.
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2009
  23. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    This is a rather interesting seminar from a few years back on open source "poisonous people". http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645#

    Incidentally the term "Filibuster" can be used to describe people that post just to try and undermine the discussion's here.
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page