Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Well as I've always suspected, Iran has been

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Well as I've always suspected, Iran has been

    Originally posted by MarionDeputy View Post
    I would begin to bomb every nuclear reactor, water purification center, power station, military base/key military weapons and weapons production sites that I could. Factories, oil production facillities, anything that helps their military or economy I would destroy. Until they no longer had the capabillity of producing weapons and training that could be given to the insurgents.

    I also think the strategy in Iraq must change, our military needs to secure the boarders first, and put more pressure on Iraq to work on the internal stuff.

    It's not an easy question to answer....
    I've read your post over ten times, and your proposal to bomb the hell out of the Middle East boggles the mind.

    C'mon you haven't begun to think this thing through. This ain't war games; this is real life.

    To make the U.S. military a permanent presence in the Middle East under hostile conditions is to assure a death toll of American troops in the tens of thousands. A half of million troops wouldn't begin to be able to accomplish what you propose once all out war breaks out in the Middle East.

    This is not an outcome that the citizens of this country will accept. And our unilateral actions would make us the pariahs of the world.

    The depth of your opinion is on a par with the the thinking of the Muslim fanatic. Only difference is those guys are willing to blow themselves up. God help us.

    We already have lost 3,000 troops to a botched war brought on by a bunch of cowards or nitwits who weren't willing to ask the American people to do what had to be done to accomplish what they set out to do. Let's not compound matters by adding to the stupidity. It is too late to force a democracy on the people of Iraq. We may be a world super power, as some like to brag, but what we need is to know the limitation of our power. A little humility, respect for others, and common sense are much needed now. The answer is not to expand our presence in the Middle East outside Iraq with bombs and economic deprivation.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Well as I've always suspected, Iran has been

      sixthman, I have to wholeheartedly agree. When the Chinese came to the defense of North Korea in the Korean war, Truman had the option of nuking the hell out of China. He had many, many respected generals and people in the state department begging him to pull the trigger and level Beijing. The choice was clear: America was losing in Korea, and bombing the hell out of China with our thousands of nukes would have certainly changed things. Thank god he did not. In fact, he said that the reason wasn't military, it was that he couldn't live with killing 25 million Chinese civilians. He also said he just couldn't sign the document starting WWIII. Not everything Truman did was right, but boy that was. Let's hope this crowd in charge now has as much sense.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Well as I've always suspected, Iran has been

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        The single biggest mistake Rumsfield made in this war was to not give enough troops to secure the borders & I'm sure that there has been nothing but a constant supply since day one going on.
        We can't seem to find the manpower to seal our own southern borders, so I don't see how anyone thinks we could have successfully monitored the borders in Iraq.

        The single biggest mistake made by TPTB was thinking we could successfully occupy Iraq on the cheap. We disregarded our own studies that showed 400,000 troops wouldn't be enough manpower to successfully occupy Iraq.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Well as I've always suspected, Iran has been

          Originally posted by sixthman View Post
          I've read your post over ten times, and your proposal to bomb the hell out of the Middle East boggles the mind.

          C'mon you haven't begun to think this thing through. This ain't war games; this is real life.

          To make the U.S. military a permanent presence in the Middle East under hostile conditions is to assure a death toll of American troops in the tens of thousands. A half of million troops wouldn't begin to be able to accomplish what you propose once all out war breaks out in the Middle East.

          This is not an outcome that the citizens of this country will accept. And our unilateral actions would make us the pariahs of the world.

          The depth of your opinion is on a par with the the thinking of the Muslim fanatic. Only difference is those guys are willing to blow themselves up. God help us.

          We already have lost 3,000 troops to a botched war brought on by a bunch of cowards or nitwits who weren't willing to ask the American people to do what had to be done to accomplish what they set out to do. Let's not compound matters by adding to the stupidity. It is too late to force a democracy on the people of Iraq. We may be a world super power, as some like to brag, but what we need is to know the limitation of our power. A little humility, respect for others, and common sense are much needed now. The answer is not to expand our presence in the Middle East outside Iraq with bombs and economic deprivation.
          So you would suggest sitting with our thumb in our mouth while we wave our other finger at them saying "No, No, No"?

          These people(middle eastern fanatics) only understand violence, anything else is a show of weakness. Crush their abillity to make war, and support terrorism, and maybe the non-fanatics have a chance to over throw these ridiculous governments.

          A little humility, respect for others, and common sense are much needed now.
          How can you say that to me? Tell it to the terrorists and the state sponsored countries that brought us 9/11. Tell that to the survivors families. Humility, respect and common sense are traits of a free democratic society, not some theocratic dictatorship. You put no responsiblity on them at all.

          If you grab the tiger by the tail, you had better have a plan for dealing with it's teeth.
          "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

          --Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Well as I've always suspected, Iran has been

            Originally posted by MarionDeputy View Post
            So you would suggest sitting with our thumb in our mouth while we wave our other finger at them saying "No, No, No"?
            Nobody, nobody, nobody has ever said anything like this. This is the worst kind of Strawmanning.

            Originally posted by MarionDeputy View Post
            These people(middle eastern fanatics) only understand violence, anything else is a show of weakness. Crush their abillity to make war, and support terrorism, and maybe the non-fanatics have a chance to over throw these ridiculous governments.
            This could be a quote from any dictator in history. This is exactly the opposite of what you say later that democracies are supposed to behave. See...

            Originally posted by MarionDeputy View Post
            Humility, respect and common sense are traits of a free democratic society, not some theocratic dictatorship. You put no responsiblity on them at all.
            And how do you "put responsibility" on another country? By attacking it?


            Originally posted by MarionDeputy View Post
            If you grab the tiger by the tail, you had better have a plan for dealing with it's teeth.
            Somebody should have said this to Bush before he went off half cocked aggressively attacking countries.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Well as I've always suspected, Iran has been

              Ok Sixthman and 3ball,

              What would you guys do to curb the insurgency?

              How would you go about firming up the Iraqi government?

              How would you deal with a Syria or Iran that seems hell-bent on torpedo-ing any peacful stabiliazation?

              How would you deal with Al Queda?
              "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

              --Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Well as I've always suspected, Iran has been

                Originally posted by MarionDeputy View Post
                Ok Sixthman and 3ball,

                What would you guys do to curb the insurgency?

                How would you go about firming up the Iraqi government?

                How would you deal with a Syria or Iran that seems hell-bent on torpedo-ing any peacful stabiliazation?

                How would you deal with Al Queda?
                Fair enough. First of all, let me say that I definitely don't have all of the answers. A big part of what we need to do is empower the people that are good at this kind of thing and give them a mission that maximizes our chances of success within a moral/ethical framework that we can live with.

                As to Iraq, I would bow to the wishes of the vast majority of the Iraqi people and begin withdrawing troops immediately. It's their country, and we have absolutely no right to be there if they don't want us there. That said, we need to recognize that we have a huge moral obligation to help the people of a country that we basically destroyed by propping up their dictator and then bombing the hell out them. I would pay massive reparations, in the billions a year, and I would pledge humanitarian support until the country is back on its feet. I would support democratic reformers there are anywhere in the world that support is needed.

                Al Qaeda is a criminal organization that needs to be ended. I would fight them on a law enforcement basis, and work in an incredibly concentrated way to form international partners to bring them down. I wouldn't invade any more countries, as that doesn't seem to be particularly effective.

                The most important thing we can do to help stabilize the middle east is to stop standing in the way of a Israel/Palestinian settlement. I would announce immediately stop all aid to Israel, political, financial, and military until they completely withdraw from all occupied territories and cease military incursions into Palestine. At the same time I would pledge $1 billion a month for 5 years to Palestine for each month that goes by without terrorist attack. For any month with an attack, they get nothing.

                I would make security guarantees to Iran, Syria, and North Korea with the condition that they halt their nuclear programs and submit to inspections. I would also end OUR nuclear programs and pledge to destroy 99% of our nuclear capabilities in 10 years and submit to inspections.

                I think there are bad people in the world, and we need to act powerfully against them. On the other hand, we can't become the bad guys ourselves in doing so. Law enforcement in the United States isn't perfect, but it is pretty damn good. And most of our police, etc. do a pretty good job of treating citizens humanely in the process. (The prison system is another story.) We need to become an actor in the world that WE would accept. In other words, we shouldn't be engaged in anything that we wouldn't allow, say, China to do also. Otherwise we are hypocrites. By and large, scaring other countries into cowering to our will has not been a good solution, and it definitely does not work in the nuclear age.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Well as I've always suspected, Iran has been

                  So basically you are buying your way to safety.

                  Now when every other terroist driven country in the wolrd decides to play the "we'll not attack for X amount of months in exchange for X amount of dollars" what will you have us do then? I'm assuming pay them as well.

                  Now at the end of your five years of bought peace, what will you do when they say that we cannot stop paying them because they need that money to exist for humanitarian reasons? I'm assuming you'll pay more.

                  Again I'm going to assume you've done a poll to every Iraqi & it showed you the vast majority of them want us gone. So when we leave & the Iranian led Shiea in the south decide that it's time to get some payback for all of the years Sunni brutality you'll be ok with that because we are out of the country. Or when either side decides that the Kurds in the north were to friendly to America and decide it's time to lay out a few villages you'll be fine with that as well because we are gone.

                  As to treating Al Quida as a criminal group like you would the mafia. I'm sorry but that didn't work before & it won't work now. I know your not going to like this but by aggressively attacking & killing Al Quida members around the world we have stopped them cold here in the U.S.

                  You will never EVER convince me that is has nothing to do with aggresively attacking them.

                  What security guarantee's are you making to Syria, Iran & North Korea? I'm assuming that if your way were to ever be tried, & I pray to God it never is, we won't need to make any guarantees to them because we will be scaling back our military to the size of the California National Guard. Or are you saying that we guarantee their safety? So if someone attacks them we will fight for them?

                  By acting powerfully against bad people in this world what do you mean? I can only envision your world view of having a Interpol agent deliver them a court notice. Or did you have something else in mind.

                  I know you don't mean take out the bad person because then I would have to ask you what you would do if that bad person was being given refuge in a country.

                  Just out of curiosity, & I mean no disrespect, do you work at a college or go to college?


                  Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Well as I've always suspected, Iran has been

                    Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                    Fair enough. First of all, let me say that I definitely don't have all of the answers. A big part of what we need to do is empower the people that are good at this kind of thing and give them a mission that maximizes our chances of success within a moral/ethical framework that we can live with.

                    As to Iraq, I would bow to the wishes of the vast majority of the Iraqi people and begin withdrawing troops immediately. It's their country, and we have absolutely no right to be there if they don't want us there. That said, we need to recognize that we have a huge moral obligation to help the people of a country that we basically destroyed by propping up their dictator and then bombing the hell out them. I would pay massive reparations, in the billions a year, and I would pledge humanitarian support until the country is back on its feet. I would support democratic reformers there are anywhere in the world that support is needed.

                    Al Qaeda is a criminal organization that needs to be ended. I would fight them on a law enforcement basis, and work in an incredibly concentrated way to form international partners to bring them down. I wouldn't invade any more countries, as that doesn't seem to be particularly effective.

                    The most important thing we can do to help stabilize the middle east is to stop standing in the way of a Israel/Palestinian settlement. I would announce immediately stop all aid to Israel, political, financial, and military until they completely withdraw from all occupied territories and cease military incursions into Palestine. At the same time I would pledge $1 billion a month for 5 years to Palestine for each month that goes by without terrorist attack. For any month with an attack, they get nothing.

                    I would make security guarantees to Iran, Syria, and North Korea with the condition that they halt their nuclear programs and submit to inspections. I would also end OUR nuclear programs and pledge to destroy 99% of our nuclear capabilities in 10 years and submit to inspections.

                    I think there are bad people in the world, and we need to act powerfully against them. On the other hand, we can't become the bad guys ourselves in doing so. Law enforcement in the United States isn't perfect, but it is pretty damn good. And most of our police, etc. do a pretty good job of treating citizens humanely in the process. (The prison system is another story.) We need to become an actor in the world that WE would accept. In other words, we shouldn't be engaged in anything that we wouldn't allow, say, China to do also. Otherwise we are hypocrites. By and large, scaring other countries into cowering to our will has not been a good solution, and it definitely does not work in the nuclear age.
                    I can't condone buying peace, which seems exactly what you are suggesting. If somebody repeatedly punched you in the nose, would you pay them to stop, or would you break their arm so they couldn't punch you anymore?

                    Your idea about giving the Palestenians 1 billion a month is outrageous. Although I agree, that the Israelies are definitiely part of the problem, do you know what would happen if we gave them 1 Billion each month? They would stock pile billions worth of weapons and then go after Israel with it. It's been proven time and time again. The PLO has liquidated humanitarian aid in the past just to buy weapons. Until the Palestinans concede that Israel should not be wiped off the map, I can give them no support. Israel made some major concessions in the last couple of years of by forcing the removal of settlers from the contested lands, only to be thanked by a new rash of terrorist attacks from Hamas.

                    Going after terrorists using only law enforcement is a mistake as well. If we found out where Bin Laden was today, I wouldn't want the FBI HRT team going to try to arrest him. I would want to see an unmanned drone drop a Hellfire missle down his hole. Arresting people, gives them rights, both legal and humanitarian, these are not rights that the terrorists would ever give us.

                    I respect your peacful and pacifist approach, but in the long run I think it gives the terrorists exactly what they want.
                    "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

                    --Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Well as I've always suspected, Iran has been

                      Originally posted by MarionDeputy View Post
                      Arresting people, gives them rights, both legal and humanitarian, these are not rights that the terrorists would ever give us.
                      I completely agree with this statement. So are we terrorists that don't respect human rights? Or are we a Democratic country that does?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Well as I've always suspected, Iran has been

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        Again I'm going to assume you've done a poll to every Iraqi & it showed you the vast majority of them want us gone. So when we leave & the Iranian led Shiea in the south decide that it's time to get some payback for all of the years Sunni brutality you'll be ok with that because we are out of the country. Or when either side decides that the Kurds in the north were to friendly to America and decide it's time to lay out a few villages you'll be fine with that as well because we are gone.
                        Multiple polls have shown overwhelmingly that they want us out ASAP, and exit polls during their election showed the same thing. That said, if you like, we could do a national referendum to make it officially democratic. It may be that terrible things happen after we leave. But terrible things are happening now, and it's their country. We don't get to decide.

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        As to treating Al Quida as a criminal group like you would the mafia. I'm sorry but that didn't work before & it won't work now. I know your not going to like this but by aggressively attacking & killing Al Quida members around the world we have stopped them cold here in the U.S.

                        You will never EVER convince me that is has nothing to do with aggresively attacking them.
                        Reread my post. I DO think that we should deal powerfully and firmly with Al Qaeda. We've been dealing with other terrorist groups on this basis for years, and they haven't attacked us either. There were as many domestic terrorist attacks under Clinton as under Bush.

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        What security guarantee's are you making to Syria, Iran & North Korea? I'm assuming that if your way were to ever be tried, & I pray to God it never is, we won't need to make any guarantees to them because we will be scaling back our military to the size of the California National Guard. Or are you saying that we guarantee their safety? So if someone attacks them we will fight for them?
                        No, we guarantee that WE won't attack them, which we shouldn't be doing anyway.

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        I know you don't mean take out the bad person because then I would have to ask you what you would do if that bad person was being given refuge in a country.
                        We have bad guys in THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW. There are central American terrorists that we are allowing to live in this country to avoid prosecution back home. Should we be attacked?

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        Just out of curiosity, & I mean no disrespect, do you work at a college or go to college?
                        I went to college.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Well as I've always suspected, Iran has been

                          I like this idea better:
                          We send notice that if your country aids or supports terrorists in any way we reserve the right to bomb whenever and wherever we want in your country. And we do it. Rinse and repeat as necessary until the point is driven home that we won't accept state supported terrorism.

                          No payments (silly). No negotiations (stupid). Unilaterally if we have to.
                          No picnics in a field of daisies either.

                          -Bball
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Well as I've always suspected, Iran has been

                            Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                            I completely agree with this statement. So are we terrorists that don't respect human rights? Or are we a Democratic country that does?

                            We are a Democratic country at war with terrorists and those that support terrorism. Wars are fought with the military, not policemen. Sometimes bad things happen to people during wars, sometimes the wrong people get killed. Something our enemies should remember before they fly airplanes into buildings destroying 3000 innocent lives.

                            Just a question I have for you, and I mean with all seriousness and due respect:

                            Do you believe that there are some people out there, bad people, that deserve outright killing with no remorse? Bin Laden, Hitler, child molesters, rapists? Or do you believe it's always wrong to kill someone, no matter what they did?
                            "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

                            --Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Well as I've always suspected, Iran has been

                              Originally posted by MarionDeputy View Post
                              We are a Democratic country at war with terrorists and those that support terrorism. Wars are fought with the military, not policemen. Sometimes bad things happen to people during wars, sometimes the wrong people get killed. Something our enemies should remember before they fly airplanes into buildings destroying 3000 innocent lives.

                              Just a question I have for you, and I mean with all seriousness and due respect:

                              Do you believe that there are some people out there, bad people, that deserve outright killing with no remorse? Bin Laden, Hitler, child molesters, rapists? Or do you believe it's always wrong to kill someone, no matter what they did?
                              Yes, I think there are times when killing is, sadly, appropriate. It is an extreme last recourse to prevent an innocent from being killed or hurt. It is one thing to fight against an invading army or to come to the defense of someone under attack, but killing or torturing a prisoner that is at your mercy, regardless of what they have done in the past, is never ok.

                              To me this is a key difference: it is one thing to fight a war of defense (WWII), but an entirely different matter to start a war or escalate a war (Vietnam, Iraq). One is morally justifiable (although we did some things in WWII that are were not morally justifiable, on the whole it was) and the other is clearly not (Vietnam, Iraq). In one we were fighting back and aggressor, and in the other we were/are the aggressor.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Well as I've always suspected, Iran has been

                                Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                                The most important thing we can do to help stabilize the middle east is to stop standing in the way of a Israel/Palestinian settlement. I would announce immediately stop all aid to Israel, political, financial, and military until they completely withdraw from all occupied territories and cease military incursions into Palestine. At the same time I would pledge $1 billion a month for 5 years to Palestine for each month that goes by without terrorist attack. For any month with an attack, they get nothing.
                                I'm curious why you're such a strong advocate for the destruction of Israel?
                                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X