Dubstepforum.com

obIwan wrote:

masstronaut wrote:@obIwan re: your sig...

http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm

Safe! What are you saying, that I can get an avatar from there?

pk- wrote:i can see osama bin laden on the shelf above the girl on the right's head

obIwan wrote:Shonky, you'll feel like a donkey if it all turns out to be true though innit. Don't worry blood my tongue is in my cheek! Did you try typing Q33NYC in windings font on word bruv, that is jokes!!!
Y'all scared. All the real gangstas know the truth on the street, you intellectuals need to get sum testicles, and take off your spectacles.

ps.You have to admit it was worth looking at that kooky site

metalboxproducts wrote:If we assume for a second that it was the towel heads what done it. Then we have to accept that they don't care about wether they're targets are civilian or milatry. They are just as media savey as western politicians. They did it as much for the message it would convay as anything else.
Make it as much as a spectical as possable and you've won half of the battle. Yes you can argue that this was playing into the neo-con hands, but hasn't the way the west has reacted played as much into they're hand( Islamic extreamists) aswell . You can then argue that our reaction played right in to the hands of Alqies, so as to give more proof of western hegemony over the muslim world.

Not eaten any thing today so excuse me if i'm not making any sence.

Moderator wrote:

metalboxproducts wrote:If we assume for a second that it was the towel heads what done it. Then we have to accept that they don't care about wether they're targets are civilian or milatry. They are just as media savey as western politicians. They did it as much for the message it would convay as anything else.
Make it as much as a spectical as possable and you've won half of the battle. Yes you can argue that this was playing into the neo-con hands, but hasn't the way the west has reacted played as much into they're hand( Islamic extreamists) aswell . You can then argue that our reaction played right in to the hands of Alqies, so as to give more proof of western hegemony over the muslim world.

Not eaten any thing today so excuse me if i'm not making any sence.

Describing people as "towel heads" is not the kind of talk we tolerate on this forum. This is an international site.

Moderator

ramadanman wrote:

Moderator wrote:

metalboxproducts wrote:If we assume for a second that it was the towel heads what done it. Then we have to accept that they don't care about wether they're targets are civilian or milatry. They are just as media savey as western politicians. They did it as much for the message it would convay as anything else.
Make it as much as a spectical as possable and you've won half of the battle. Yes you can argue that this was playing into the neo-con hands, but hasn't the way the west has reacted played as much into they're hand( Islamic extreamists) aswell . You can then argue that our reaction played right in to the hands of Alqies, so as to give more proof of western hegemony over the muslim world.

Not eaten any thing today so excuse me if i'm not making any sence.

Describing people as "towel heads" is not the kind of talk we tolerate on this forum. This is an international site.

Moderator

Irony

Moderator wrote:We respect religions here. The turban is a religious and cultural symbol in both South Asia and the Middle East. If you can't make your point without being respectful, then don't make a comment at all.

Moderator

obIwan wrote:You lot might think i'm a paronoid fantasist, and I am. But if you look at all the facts in the big picture I think people are missing all of the hidden signals in the events of the last six years.

metalboxproducts wrote:x2. Not really enough for a ticking off I think - didn't the Alqies bit give it away. Over-reaction, over-sensitive twaddle. Towel head isn't even a particularly accurate insult FFS.



Due to my hyper sesitivaty about these things. I have somehow missed the point here.

Shonky wrote:

metalboxproducts wrote:x2. Not really enough for a ticking off I think - didn't the Alqies bit give it away. Over-reaction, over-sensitive twaddle. Towel head isn't even a particularly accurate insult FFS.



Due to my hyper sesitivaty about these things. I have somehow missed the point here.

Sorry, was supporting Ramadanman's view on this. Your use was ironic, as this is the term that's generally used by reactionaries to describe arab peoples. I think the mods are over-reacting. The rest of the argument has some merit even if the word usage may not have been clear.


Quite why we have to respect people's religions is anyone's guess. I can understand why we shouldn't disrespect people due to race, gender or sexual preference, but religion's a hell of a lot vaguer than that. It's essentially just philosophy or politics but with some mystical quotient on top and as such doesn't really merit respect from my godless perspective. If people want to believe, that's fine, but it shouldn't mean that their beliefs aren't going to be held up to scrutiny by non-believers and I don't see why free thinkers shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions about this. Essentially most or all religions are poly-atheist anyway, as only their belief is right.

As atheists, agnostics, brights, or whatever you want to call them don't believe in these religions, surely you're alienating more forum members by disallowing their viewpoint and their wish to challenge established beliefs. As these work in total opposition to religious views I don't quite understand the reaction. If you'd said that this was anti-arab or asian, I could understand the moderator's post.

Shonky wrote:

metalboxproducts wrote:x2. Not really enough for a ticking off I think - didn't the Alqies bit give it away. Over-reaction, over-sensitive twaddle. Towel head isn't even a particularly accurate insult FFS.



Due to my hyper sesitivaty about these things. I have somehow missed the point here.

Sorry, was supporting Ramadanman's view on this. Your use was ironic, as this is the term that's generally used by reactionaries to describe arab peoples. I think the mods are over-reacting. The rest of the argument has some merit even if the word usage may not have been clear.

Quite why we have to respect people's religions is anyone's guess. I can understand why we shouldn't disrespect people due to race, gender or sexual preference, but religion's a hell of a lot vaguer than that. It's essentially just philosophy or politics but with some mystical quotient on top and as such doesn't really merit respect from my godless perspective. If people want to believe, that's fine, but it shouldn't mean that their beliefs aren't going to be held up to scrutiny by non-believers and I don't see why free thinkers shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions about this. Essentially most or all religions are poly-atheist anyway, as only their belief is right.

As atheists, agnostics, brights, or whatever you want to call them don't believe in these religions, surely you're alienating more forum members by disallowing their viewpoint and their wish to challenge established beliefs. As these work in total opposition to religious views I don't quite understand the reaction. If you'd said that this was anti-arab or asian, I could understand the moderator's post.