Resonator's moderation on the Libyan War thread

Scott Hall39 said:Here’s an example. Some guy sitting up in his moderator high tower is banning a user just for calling rebels "democratic forces." Since when does he get to make those calls? Especially since, in that very same thread, they're treating Gaddafi like he's practically a deity. I mean, the guy has heard every compliment in the book from Gaddafi supporters—it doesn't seem to bother him one bit! If that isn't a textbook case of unprofessionalism and biased moderation, I don't know what is.

Sam Green73 said:Think about it for a second. Try a new approach to how you communicate—one that actually shows some respect for the person you're talking to.

Quote: Sam Green73 said:Their guarantees are a joke.
Did they actually promise to let potential Gaddafi voters live?

I'm genuinely curious about this.
Where can I actually see those guarantees?

Scott Hall39 said:I don't see what was so controversial about having to delete that twice.

Sam Green73 said:Your style is argumentative and dismissive on other topics too.

Specifically, the trolling in this message is at the beginning.

I'm willing to meet you halfway and shorten your ban, so try to show your interlocutors some basic respect.
If they deserve a response, let it be polite.
If you can't be polite, ignore them.

Once you can't pin any more crimes on Gaddafi—once the actual perpetrators are exposed—then the whole mantra about mercenaries will just be tens of thousands...
more mercenaries on the rebel side.

Regarding this offensive, I expect looting, arson, executions, and ethnic cleansing following the usual pattern seen in that region. Though, I think they realize it's also an opportunity to snag a good respirator or something similar; better to have one handy, you never know when you'll need it.

Yeah, you'll be waiting a long time for democracies like that. There's no profit in them. One might think the Libya project, like every other project organized by the West, was born out of ideals and humanity rather than profit. But that doesn't align with globalist interests at all.

PFC said:Just goes to show how far so-called Western "civilization" has reached—all the way down to the DNA!☕

A stranger said:You pro-Taliban types are ridiculous. Here:

This definitely won't be reported by the propaganda-heavy Western media.

McFuck said:Well said.
Unfortunately, this servant of imperialism calls what is actually a total disaster for us "progress"—the destruction of our domestic economy, the impoverishment of the people, complete moral decay, and forcing the majority of the population into debt slavery.
By what year will they be seizing our ports, our farmland, our airports, our forests... while we’re left as nothing more than a necessary evil—just the locals who happened to be born here.
No one has ever destroyed us and enslaved us without firing a single bullet quite like these foreign democrats have.🤣

USAisfredom said:Here it is: Qawalish has been returned, Bregu is slowly being taken over by the liberation army, and in the western mountains, the people are resisting the mercenary attacks by the villainous Gaddafi near Bir Ghanam today.

A stranger said:Qawalish wasn't "returned," it was conquered. Just like Bregu can't be "liberated," it was seized. And in the western mountains, you have barbarians hiring mercenaries called NATO (who the rebels will pay in oil to cover the costs of the Libya project, per the agreement).

Enough with twisting terms and semantics, all this "kinetic military action" nonsense. We all know who held Qawalish and the rest of Libya for forty years.

If you feel the need to cheer for "liberators," go cheer for the Taliban in Afghanistan; at least they're liberating their country from foreign occupiers.

zeljko_ri said:That's the kind of gang the US and NATO are backing. And it all started under the guise of "protecting civilians." What a complete joke. 🤣

gibrankh said:Listen, just another gesture from the prosperous world to save a people from themselves. Seen it countless times. And don't you dare suggest it's actually about oil or other strategic interests. Perish the thought.

Sam Green73 said:Sorry, but that post—which consists of nothing but some quotes, five measly words, and an exclamation point—doesn't actually contribute anything to the discussion.
Maybe you'd actually contribute something useful if I could actually figure out what you're thinking based on the way you write these messages.
Spam is being deleted.
Repeating a deleted message will get you sanctioned.

When someone insists on using a specific term just to get a rise out of people, they’re basically handing over counterarguments on a silver platter. It triggers an emotional reaction from the other side—that's what we call trolling.

Use whatever names you want here. It's your house. Use clear and... Unambiguous. names.

Sam Green73 said:Take note: I’m not out here defending claims just for the sake of arguing. NTC Democratic strengths? No, this is just how they use them.

That's the full quote.
That post is just one opinion wrapped in two baseless claims.
One claim is stated explicitly, while the other is implied—and that's exactly where the debate starts to get interesting.

PFC said:The guy who... NATO fascists. He already killed his daughter, and then yesterday it was his son and three grandkids. He’s ready to die—make no mistake about that!

He isn't going anywhere. If he has to die for his ideals of a free and independent Libya, then that's exactly what he'll do. ☕

.

Sam Green73 said:

You guys can use whatever names you want back home,

red hamada said:Allahu_Akbar is a classic manipulator.

A stranger said:What even is legitimacy? Just write it out, don't just send me links.

Legitimacy in a democracy comes from voters, but it doesn't in a non-democracy. That’s right there in the link you sent, which I already read, unlike you.

Yeah, and under US sanctions since the early 80s.

Also, the US hasn't done anything to reduce its dependence on oil imports, so unlike Libya, they have to plunder other countries.

(When I use your own argument against you, it turns out even worse for you.)

Gaddafi's economic results? You mean, after his rule, Libya was the top country in Africa?

Then why didn't your Taliban attack Libya when it was as poor as you claim? Why didn't NATO attack Libya 30 years ago? 40?

Who goes around destroying a wealthy country using the argument "but 2000 years ago you guys were poor"?

Care to clarify—is the battle being fought over Libya from 120 years ago, or Libya in 2011? I don't know what year you're living in, but my calendar says 2011.

A stranger said:Come on, look at the average democratic politician in the West. Do you think they actually care about anything? They just drive around and do whatever. What do politicians in a small US state do? Nothing. What's our economic strategy? Non-existent. Foreign policy? Whatever NATO/EU tells us. What is America invested in today? Offshore companies and the military-industrial complex so they can better plunder others.

And now Allahu_Akbar shows up and applies criteria to Gaddafi that most Western politicians wouldn't pass themselves. Pure sophistry.

It's all part of the same system: if someone is imperfect, you think you can do whatever you want to them because of their flaws. If someone is perfect, you just invent flaws so you can do whatever you want to them. That's how criminals justify themselves forever.

We have a very simple situation here: Libya is an independent nation. NATO is committing aggression against a sovereign state by backing internal gangs. End of story. Everything else is just rationalization for criminals to feel better about themselves.

The point being made here is thatUsing GDP per capita as a metric for justified aggression. What a joke. It’s funny how NATO just went out and manufactured a state exactly like that: Mexico. A broke, low-utility territory with zero political heavyweight status and basically no GDP per capita, yet perfectly useful for political agendas.

Scott Hall39 said:This is supposedly just a troll post.

Sam Green73 said:Look at the emoticon you used to think you actually answered the first quote.
You just got a warning.

Don't try to lecture me by just dropping links to other threads. I opened the first two and that's plenty for me.

Sam Green73 said:

Sam Green73 said:Sure, you have every right to reject my arguments, but that doesn't mean I didn't present my position. I clearly described what the rebels are.

Moderator, stop trolling and actually argue the claim that the Libyan people are with Gaddafi. Got a poll? Some research? Whatever. We all know there aren't any election results.

Scott Hall39 said:Wait, did I actually make that emoticon myself, or is it just one of those things already available on the forum?

Sam Green73 said:One request for a stranger: Please stop demanding that others explain their arguments regarding legitimacy. There is no legal obligation for them to answer you; insisting on answers someone doesn't want to give is also trolling and subject to a ban.

Scott Hall39 said:Plus, in this post, they’re also calling the other person a troll and telling them they're talking nonsense. Should that be a ban?

Sam Green73 said:That’s a solid, well-argued response to an even worse message. Who didn't get a card, even though they’re out here calling everyone a troll?

Quote : hala Effect said:Can you even read a simple sentence?

Quote : hala Effect said:The point was that you were just talking nonsense.

Quote : hala Effect said:Trolls are just trolling. I give serious replies to people actually worth debating, but you clearly aren't catching on.

Quote : hala Effect said:And here comes the next gem. Just one stupidity after another—literally sentence by sentence.

Sam Green73 said:Think about it. Maybe try a new way of communicating—one that actually shows some respect for the person you're talking to.

If you actually read PowerLock's text with some comprehension instead of just eyeing the last sentence, you'd see the actual argument behind the claim being made there.

PowerLock said:Personally, I support Gaddafi and want him to survive, and I want Libya to choose its own path. With their own money and earning potential, they can decide for themselves what kind of government they want. The rebels aren't the majority of Libyans. They are a minority who weren't even existentially threatened before the uprising, and Libyans love and support Gaddafi and the Jamahiriya—which is exactly what those wanting to intervene want to see, and this shameful intervention has made that more than clear.

If they didn't love and support him, he would have been overthrown long ago.

The Libyan people are with Gaddafi—deal with it if it bothers you! 😍

Radical nationalists in America and the North America defend Libya because of their own historical traumas. They think foreigners have no business meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations. Even if an enormous massacre is taking place. National sovereignty is their core principle. Humanism is somewhere at the bottom of the list. Disgusting.

A stranger said:That’s actually what international law is called, and it wasn't invented by the Americans you're accusing, but by the very people committing the looting of Libya that you support.
As for an enormous massacre, that only exists in your villainous heads. The UN didn't authorize this robbery under the pretext of a massacre; they just hyped things up, using "pre-emptive action to prevent a massacre" as an excuse. It was the exact same thing with Iraq—a "pre-emptive action to prevent WMDs." It was just stupidity piled on top of stupidity, yet plenty of people swallowed that nonsense. This is all possible because people are stupid and malicious. Just imagine a country full of people with IQ 140. Now Bushman comes along and says, "we have to destroy this country and kill a million people to protect 5,000 from a possible, maybe, possible massacre," and "we have to attack this nation because they might build a WMD that could reach the US after a two-year flight." Now imagine those people with IQ 140 reacting with, "great idea, let's go!" No way.