Dear S.A.M.,

You have received a warning at SciForums.com.

Reason:
-------
Trolling / Meaningless Post Content

Do it again and you're gone for a month.
-------

Original Post:
2372214

Why didn't the USAF just bomb the whole city with precision strikes? Isn't that the favoured method of tackling terrorism in the US?

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
SciForums.com


??? Trolling?

Are you saying that asking if the war on terrorism which has been fought by the US and NATO [including Australia] for the last seven years in three countries should not be fought in the US is trolling?

What would you suggest as a correct line of questioning regarding the War against Terrorism stateside in the US?

Please provide the template so we don't stray far from the acceptable thought processes here

SAM:

I note that you have decided to make this a public issue as well as sending me a PM, so I am replying in public.

Playing the innocent ingenue and pretending you don't know what trolling is has got old.


troll: someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum ... with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Your claim that the US Air Force bombs cities as a method of "tackling terrorism" was off-topic and deliberately inflammatory. It had no relevance to the thread in question and it led to a series of 30 more off-topic posts, with you fanning the flames the whole time.

If you honestly wanted to start a thread asking about how America is tackling terrorist threats at home, you could have started a thread asking that specific question, without the trolling implications that Americans engage in indiscriminate bombings of foreign nations with the intent to kill civilians etc. etc.

Let me be quite clear, since you don't seem to have got the message: your trolling days are over here. If you continue to troll, your account will be suspended for 1 month. And that will be your last chance before a permanent ban.

Ah so we have to be gentle with western sensitivities while discussing the indiscriminate destruction of three countries and the massacre and torture of millions over the last seven years.

Got it.

Ah so we have to be gentle with western sensitivities while discussing the indiscriminate destruction of three countries and the massacre and torture of millions over the last seven years.

Got it.

Your personal crusade is not a shared one. There is no "we" about this, SAM. It's just you, on your own.

You're a smart girl. It's time you applied your intelligence and stopped pretending you're an idiot.

Oh I don't think I'm alone in this. Just possibly the only one left here.

But I'm sure you'll take care of that as well

Oh I don't think I'm alone in this. Just possibly the only one left here.

But I'm sure you'll take care of that as well

Damit Sam... quit postin about thangs that people are very sensitive about... you can do it.!!!

How bout start a thred about food... i will talk to you about food an recipies an cookin an im sure others will also... dont that soun fun.???

Damit Sam... quit postin about thangs that people are very sensitive about... you can do it.!!!

How bout start a thred about food... i will talk to you about food an recipies an cookin an im sure others will also... dont that soun fun.???

You could switch on CNN instead. I understand they do a very good job of not talking about anything that upsets people.

I personally don't think people have the right to be offended when they participate in human rights abuses, even if its just through taxes or representation.

I think its a major problem in the world today that people are willing to overlook anything as long as they live comfortable lives themselves

But I recognise that I am in a minority.

You could switch on CNN instead. I understand they do a very good job of not talking about anything that upsets people.


Thar ya go... see... i thank my suggeston is gettin you to thank mor proper.!!!



I personally don't think people have the right to be offended when they participate in human rights abuses, even if its just through taxes or representation.

I think its a major problem in the world today that people are willing to overlook anything as long as they live comfortable lives themselves


But the people wit comfortable lifes are the ones in charge an they intend to keep those comfortable lifes... hmmm... is that a cause of terrorism.???



But I recognise that I am in a minority.

O well... it ant gonna get fixed in a discusson grooop... an life does go on for those still livin.!!!

Heres a safe "HOT TOPIC"... do you like spicy food.???

Thar ya go... see... i thank my suggeston is gettin you to thank mor proper.!!!

Indeed avoid anything that challenges the status quo - have "comfortable" discussions that don't mock the hypocrisy of the self described higher moral beings.



But the people wit comfortable lifes are the ones in charge an they intend to keep those comfortable lifes... hmmm... is that a cause of terrorism.???


Only if their comfortable lives are built on successive genocides to decimate the undesirables followed by periods of self flagellating "regret" once the genocide works, because genocide always works [which is why it never loses its popularity]. The dead have no voice and its easy to mouth regrets when you're not accountable for the results.


O well... it ant gonna get fixed in a discusson grooop... an life does go on for those still livin.!!!

As it does also for the barely surviving.


Heres a safe "HOT TOPIC"... do you like spicy food.???

The kind of spicy food I eat is also guaranteed to upset the more civilised stomachs. :D

As it does also for the barely surviving.


But thats a un-pleasant way to look at it.!!!



The kind of spicy food I eat is also guaranteed to upset the more civilised stomachs. :D

Ha... reminds me of when i grew som mild bananana peppers indoors durin the winter wit a grow-lamp 1 time... an i polinated 'em wit a Q-tip... an 1 of the peppers had a beautiful pink tint on 1 side... well when i ate a bite of that pepper it bout set my mouhte on fire... i tolt a guy at work about it an he said brang it in... he likes hot peppers an he will eat it... he cut off a little slice an an chewed it for bout 1/2 second an then started spittin the garbage can an i bout laff my azz off... O sorry... i thank i got off subject :(

O sorry... i thank i got off subject :(

Thats only a problem if you upset the wrong kind of people.

S.A.M.

I know it sounds like a cliché, and of course that's because it is, but there is a silver lining here.

It seems to me that this policy will crack down on a number of kinds of short posts, and while the answer to the question James finds so offensive is (A) the U.S. Constitution and (B) a lack of armed resistance between enforcement and suspect that would otherwise be the excuse for destroying so many people we're allegedly trying to help, truth is that there are plenty of posts going around that are far, far worse—far more trollish—that moderators don't seem to pay attention to. And, you know, some days that includes me, too.

So now we're going to. That's good. I mean, in recent days I've hedged on reporting posts because it annoys moderators to have one person filing report after report, so maybe we can expect some enforcement against general trolling so that people don't have to make the decision to accidentally annoy a moderator by reporting habitual trolling.

And I know it's not much, but it's a start.

Well I'd like a template on what constitutes acceptable discussion of an issue, since I lack the perspective of what constitutes on-topic discussion of many issues

Clearly its a major personality defect to be having an opinion from the other side of the ocean.

SAM:

I note that you have decided to make this a public issue as well as sending me a PM, so I am replying in public.

Playing the innocent ingenue and pretending you don't know what trolling is has got old.


troll: someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum ... with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Your claim that the US Air Force bombs cities as a method of "tackling terrorism" was off-topic and deliberately inflammatory. It had no relevance to the thread in question and it led to a series of 30 more off-topic posts, with you fanning the flames the whole time.

If you honestly wanted to start a thread asking about how America is tackling terrorist threats at home, you could have started a thread asking that specific question, without the trolling implications that Americans engage in indiscriminate bombings of foreign nations with the intent to kill civilians etc. etc.

Let me be quite clear, since you don't seem to have got the message: your trolling days are over here. If you continue to troll, your account will be suspended for 1 month. And that will be your last chance before a permanent ban.

while definitely inflamatory one of the questions it begged to be answered was actualy a very good one. if the tactics used over seas are the right ones why don't we us them state side as well as the converse(or inverse never remember which is which) if the tactics used state side are so good why don't we use them over seas?

It's only a good point if every other circumstance surrounding the two "Parallel" events were identical. That's clearly not true, she knows that, everyone knows that.

Well I'd like a template on what constitutes acceptable discussion of an issue, since I lack the perspective of what constitutes on-topic discussion of many issues

Playing dumb again.


if the tactics used over seas are the right ones why don't we us them state side as well as the converse(or inverse never remember which is which) if the tactics used state side are so good why don't we use them over seas?

Different circumstances. Are you playing dumb too?

Different circumstances. irelevant the question is still a good one.
Are you playing dumb too?

as an admin shouldn't follow the rules?


troll: someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum ... with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. the bolding is a reminder

I'm willing to be good but if you insist on trying to provoke and abuse me i'll be damned if i'm just going to roll over and let you. I didn't like it when mad and string felt they didn't have to follow the rules and as ranking i higher i like it less that your deciding to flaunt it.

pjdude1219:

Ok. Let me break it down for you.

The United States has a strong and established local law-enforcement apparatus. Agencies such as the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and the police, backed up by the army if necessary, are able to maintain a reasonable level of law and order within the borders of the United States. Agencies actively seek out home-grown terrorist threats, as well as threats from overseas. Border security is tight.

As a result, terrorist cells within the United States tend to be small and poorly supported and equipped. They also run a high risk of exposure before they can carry out harmful activities. The government has things fairly well under control.

It follows that large-scale military incursions by US military troops into US states, aimed at eliminating large-scale terrorist threats are not required.

I will leave it to you to research the comparable factors in, say, Afganistan. Look at the Afgan government, its law enforcement apparatus and reach, and its military power. Look at the extent of terror groups in Afganistan, comparing support for those groups in terms of weapons and personnel to the average terror cell in the United States. Look at the relative power of, say, the Taliban, and militant Islamic groups (to take one example) in the homeland of the United States.

Be sure to let me know what you learn and what conclusions you draw.

Try not to be dumb.

troll: someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum ... with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

And Sam's post qualifies for all that criteria, regardless whether you agree with its content or not. Her post had nothing to do with Terrorism in Dallas and everything to do with her derailing another thread with inflammatory rhetoric (that is factually incorrect).

pjdude1219:

Ok. Let me break it down for you.

The United States has a strong and established local law-enforcement apparatus. Agencies such as the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and the police, backed up by the army if necessary, are able to maintain a reasonable level of law and order within the borders of the United States. Agencies actively seek out home-grown terrorist threats, as well as threats from overseas. Border security is tight.

As a result, terrorist cells within the United States tend to be small and poorly supported and equipped. They also run a high risk of exposure before they can carry out harmful activities. The government has things fairly well under control.

It follows that large-scale military incursions by US military troops into US states, aimed at eliminating large-scale terrorist threats are not required.

I will leave it to you to research the comparable factors in, say, Afganistan. Look at the Afgan government, its law enforcement apparatus and reach, and its military power. Look at the extent of terror groups in Afganistan, comparing support for those groups in terms of weapons and personnel to the average terror cell in the United States. Look at the relative power of, say, the Taliban, and militant Islamic groups (to take one example) in the homeland of the United States.

Be sure to let me know what you learn and what conclusions you draw.

Try not to be dumb.

I'm not trying to be dumb but you are clearly flaunting the rules.

Well clearly we are only allowed to think in a way that conforms to a form of morality that is out of reach to all but the few who are chosen.

Well clearly we are only allowed to think in a way that conforms to a form of morality that is out of reach to all but the few who are chosen.

Oh, poor you!

What a victim you are!

You're just a truth-teller being held back by conformists!

Here's a thought: Try reading. By that I mean read, carefully, what the definition of trolling is, then shutdown your computer and think about it for awhile. When you log back on, look at your inane post in that thread and try to reach an objective conclusion. It's all there in black and white.

Oh, poor you!

What a victim you are!

You're just a truth-teller being held back by conformists!

Here's a thought: Try reading. By that I mean read, carefully, what the definition of trolling is, then shutdown your computer and think about it for awhile. When you log back on, look at your inane post in that thread and try to reach an objective conclusion. It's all there in black and white.

I would suggest you take your own advice.

Well clearly we are only allowed to think in a way that conforms to a form of morality that is out of reach to all but the few who are chosen.

I think it is more to do with a 'well duh' argument.

Do you think the US would turn its own drones on its capital cities to fight in the dreaded war on terror? The obvious answer to that is no.

I think it is more to do with a 'well duh' argument.

Do you think the US would turn its own drones on its capital cities to fight in the dreaded war on terror? The obvious answer to that is no.

Why not?

Why not?
Because you can't do that!

Imagine the uproar...

Then again, they saw fit to burn down the buildings in Waco, knowing there were women and children inside..

Hmmm..

I can't imagine why there would be an uproar. There is no uproar over sending hundreds of thousands of young Americans to die fighting terrorism in other places. Or any recognition that those lives would have been better spent doing something other than killing terrorists.

Why wouldn't Americans support a civil action that targeted terrorism as long as it eliminated the same dangers they face from Iraq?

Do you think the US would turn its own drones on its capital cities to fight in the dreaded war on terror? The obvious answer to that is no.


Why not?

Work it out. Thread closed.