Too much moderation on these boards?

Not to mention that throughout the thread all of Jar's aggression implications fingered the West as the aggressors. He not only set the tone of the thread up implicating the West as aggressive, but continued in that tone, thus setting up a debate due to the alternative views of others. But alas, debate was simply disallowed as off topic.As for religion, well Jar himself introduced that both in the title, i.e. Islamic world and in recent post or two, the Christian West...., thus, implicating Christianity as the ideology of the alleged aggressors.Mind you, I'm not saying there was no aggression atol by the West. I'm saying it was not solely from the West.

quote:

---

"Why they might be annoyed with us" implies that Muslim terrorist attacks on the West have good cause -- their "annoyance" with us

---

Do you really believe that "annoyance" is a "good cause" for terrorism ?

I believe that is jar's implication, not mine.

PaulK asks to which Faith asserts Faith, once again. Either provide direct quotes where I have said or even implied that annoyance is a cause for terrorism or where I have EVER justified terrorism, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or of ANY nature, or retract your assertion and misrepresentation of my position.And then I expect your NEXT post anywhere on EvC to be an apology.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I believe that is jar's implication, not mine.

---

It seems to be an implication that you are happy with.However I would ask you what is your basis for thinking that Jar believes that ?h

When you go around saying that scienctists, college professors, etc. are idiots you are going to get a lot of responses.

The very title of your thread says it, jar, especially coming as it did right after a discussion about Islam in which you disagree about Islam's naturally aggressive nature and vilify those who see its source in their beliefs. Obviously you are looking for historical causes of their terrorism, what else? They have no way to make legitimate war right now, so this is how they express themselves, these are the violent acts that we have been saying come out of their ideology and need no historical justification. Let me hasten to add that I'm sure there is SOME element of historical provocation TOO, but it is unnecessary. Conquering the world for Allah is their mandate.Your record of negative comments against the West and against fundamental Christianity, your insistence that Allah is the same God as Christianity's, and your calling the beliefs of Bible Christians "bigotry" and "wilful ignorance" and calling God according to our view a "pimp daddy" and your laughing at those Christians who have died for the cause of Christ over the years, as having a false view of God, and your denouncing Christian history as peculiarly evil, the Crusades and so on, and much much more, certainly suggest that you are looking for some way to prove that the West is evil and Islam is good, AGAIN. Why not? It's your usual line. If you don't want to give that impression, CHANGE THE TITLE OF YOUR THREAD.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Still absolutely no supporting quotes from me and a whole herd more Inaccurate assertions. Please show where I have justified terrorism. Please show where I have laughed at Christians who have died for the cause.Please show where I have denounced Christianity as pecularly evil.Faith, please actually back up some of the things you claim I have said.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Faith, you continue to make assumptions about motive and refuse to back them up with actual quotes. You continue to make personal statements about your opponents and judge their worth against your beliefs.Jar is not the only adherent to his POV yet you continually make him personally the butt of your comments. I have had conversations with others, who feel like he does, who decline to post here due to fear of your contentious comments.If you continue to refuse to backup your assertions and assumptions with actual quotes please desist from posting them. Refusal to heed this moderation will result in suspension.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Hi Faith,Rule 10 of the Forum Guidelines requires members to treat other members with respect, and to focus on the topic and not on the things you don't like about the people you're debating with.Rule 1 of the Forum Guidelines asks you to follow moderator requests.I'm going to add my voice to Asgara's and request that you follow rule 10 of the Forum Guidelines in discussion threads. If you would like to call to the attention of moderators what you believe to be violations of the Forum Guidelines then that is fine, and you can do so by posting here or to the standard thread for that purpose, General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel, or by sending email to one of the moderators.From hereon after, please leave personal comments out of discussion threads. It is fine if you want to make it your mission in life to tell the rest of the world what a horrible person Jar is, but you can't do that here. EvC Forum is for debating the topics of threads. It is not for proclaiming what you believe to be the negative qualities of people whose opinions you disagree with.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

if the facts point the west as agressors towards the east, then the position is valid. what you are doing is approaching it from your own personal bias -- and interpretting a factual discussion as an ideological attack. seeing this as an attack, some members (like iano) turned to personally attack jar.most reasonable people read the title of that thread, i think, in the way that jar probably intended it: walking a mile in someone else's shoes. the idea, i think, was to promote understanding of the issues, beyond "they hate us for our freedom!" history extends beyond our own personal memories, and indeed affects the course of events in the present. maybe -- maybe -- the united states, or christendom, or the west, or whomever, HAS done some things in the past that have hurt and angered islam. but faith certainly jumped the gun:understandable, and even justified anger, does not excuse the violence. and to paint the opponent as saying any such thing is nothing but a strawman, and horrifyingly sick one at that. i can think of a number of threads you have posted that operated in a similar manner. you have your ideology, and you want to talk about how that frame of mind affects something else -- and you never want to hear evidence to the contrary, or reasons why your ideology might be wrong.if the discussion is factual, or reasoned, it's usually allowed here. if you approached by debating and discussing the facts of whether or not certain historical events effect current events, or even posted something like i said -- that justifiable annoyance is no excuse for violence -- that certainly would have been allowed. attacking other members and their personal faith is not, ever. many parts of the islamic world feel that christianity is the agressor. and in some cases, it definitally was. the crusades are a pretty good example of that.it's sort of like a thread explaining black resentment of whites over slavery. that implies that white was the race of the slave masters, yet the supply end of the african slave trade was all black. but guess who the resentment is against? it's not to say that ALL oppression is white, or even that such feeling is the majority (or even common), or even very valid at all today. it's just explaining the view point of another -- and it doesn't work very well if attempt to exchange everyone else's viewpoints with conservative talking points.if you have a factual objection -- such as instances where it was NOT the christian west -- that would have been a good way to frame your argument.

---

making gross generalizations about an entire ethnic group, religion, country, or people, and claiming they are all murderous, evil, (and from another debate) following demons is basically the definition of bigotry.bigotry should not be the beliefs of bible-believing christians. it saddens me greatly when it is. from what part of "love your neighbor" or "love your enemy" do you get this kind of attitude? what part of "saved by grace" and "no man is justified by the law alone" and "judge not" do you derive the authority to condemn others? the title says "why the Islamic world might be annoyed by the West."might. it say why the islamic world MIGHT be annoyed. it in no way implies that annoyance is justification of violence, or that we somehow deserve terrorism. you are jumping to conclusions, and eager to paint strawmen of your opponents as evil and bloodthirsty for trying to explain why matters are complicated.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

If you were reading carefully you would have noted that nobody is talking about the ethnic group, country or people. It's about the religion. The religion prescribes aggression."Might be annoyed" is pregnant with implications that it takes willful obtuseness to miss.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, this pretty much establishes that the idea that "annoyance" justifies terrorism is yours and you've produced no reason whatsoever to think that Jar believes it.If the thread title does not imply a justificaion fo terrorism, and the thread really is revealing valid reasons for "annoyance" as you concede then there is nothing wrong with the title..

As I am sure the other side feels exactly as you do in reverse...