Moderators - dictators of taste?

[BlueWolf]

Well, maybe I have a different way of looking at things, but....I never saw the footage of the wives in question, and I don't suppose I ever shall. That's probably not particularly relevant because, like most other threads, the thread itself evolved into something else, before growing old and dying what would have been a natural death.

I have the utmost respect for those who have served and sacrificed, and for the views and contributions of BEagle amongst others.

But that aside, tasteful or not, it was hillarious. I will probably not grieve that it is to be no more, but at the same time, I give a little thanks that it ever was.

BTW Beags, democracy itself is but Mob Rule dressed in its Sunday best!

[SASless]

Jacko...

I am an unwashed Yank.....and need some education here. You describe Danny as being a "Zionist Jew"....please explain what you mean by that? Is there a difference between being a "Zionist Jew" and a patriotic Israeli? By being British....and knowing the "Zionist Jews" waged a guerrilla/terrorist campaign against British rule of Palestine ....does that taint the position you argue from ? Could it be, that old hatreds live on....could it have been said the British must surrender land in order for there to have been peace in Palestine during those years? Jacko, I really begin to think you are not so much a supporter of Arafat and the Palestinians as much as you are a Liberal Brit who cannot accept the fact that the Israelis were able to wrest their country from the control of the UK....and similar to the United States....continue to fight their enemies without regard to the liberal view of what is correct. I really suspect you just cannot find it within yourself to acknowledge the fact that the US and Israel are able to survive without the grand benevolence of the English Left.

You owe Danny an apology I think. You throw these names around and ignore the political correctness that the Liberal's demand of the conservative side of the population. Fair is fair , Jacko.....mend your ways. Tell Danny you feel he supports Zionism....displays Zionist behaviour....but using names like "Zionist" just isn't politically correct dear chap.

and Jacko....until you do apologize to Danny.....I think I will describe you merely as being a "Teabag" and will so address you that way. Fair deal?

[opso]

From the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (9th Edition)

Zionism n. a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. Zionist n. & adj.

From that definition, I would take it that every patriotic Israeli citizen is Zionist, but every Zionist is not necessarily an Israeli citizen. Although, the vast majority of Zionists are likely to be Jewish this also need not be so in every case - witness the non-Jewish politicians around the world currently proclaiming that they want to address the Israel/Palestine situation, thereby involving themselves in the 'development of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.'

SASless, I think that you are looking for insult in Jacko's posts where none exists and prescribing a motivation on unsound foundations.

[West Coast]

Danny, sir
Please don't excommunicate me.

The thread has two heads now, I guess three if you count the wives in. As I have said before, all roads lead to Israel on PPRUNE. The other, and the one I take issue with is your use of the bully pulpit . I suggest you owe Jacko an apology for slogging him. I think Jackos views on Israel are, shall we say misguided but should not garner him the ill condemnation on his professional abilities. Funny thing is I am happy to see you challenge Jackos opinions with your personal experiences and views as I believe as you do. I believe Jackos views to be wrong and biased, I imagine he believes the same of me. He however presents his opinion in an articulate manner with the tone of a gentleman.

To believe I am a right wing Republican, hell we love war....

[Danny]

Uh oh! I post a reply which includes a trawl for Jacko and he bites at the first sniff! To be honest, I have no idea who Jacko really is, what his nom de plume (or real name for that matter) is, what he writes about or who he writes for. For all I know I have probably read some of his work and if so, probably enjoyed it. My point was that he was getting involved in a debate about moderator control of a post that wasn't allowed to rise to the top of the heap every time someone posted a reply and I was in effect being accused of 'censorship' and of being a 'taste dictator'.

If the thread is still viewable where is the censorship? As I stated in my earlier post, I have the right to determine if a post is 'sticky', 'normal', 'slippery' or 'closed'. I would call that editorial control and Jacko of all people should know that whoever allows publication of something he has written has that option. That or else he has the choice not to submit or agree to write something in the first place. I am sure that jacko is thick skinned enough to take my taunts and I can assure him that they are not personal insults even if he interprets them as such.

Now, about the divergence of this thread! I made my post yesterday, went to work and did my three sectors, got home and to bed about 03:30 and then wake up to read about my personal views on the Israel/Palestine issue being discussed. From what I can see it was Jacko who raised the subject and even if it was not his intention to digress, it is he who is to blame. Sorry Jacko but that's the way it looks to me. I was thinking about casting another baited hook but I think you haven't recovered from the last one yet.

Anyway, I'm enjoying the thread and until it runs its course or I think it deserves to be moved to the 'inside pages' it can carry on. FYI, I used to have dual nationality, both British and Israeli which is why I was conscripted and served in the IDF. I am not sure what my status is with regard to Israeli citizenship anymore as my passport expired many, many years ago. I assume all I would have to do is renew it. Anyway, that's besides the point. My religion has no bearing on anything and to even raise it shows a naivety which should alert anyone with an ounce of common sense that the person doing so should be regarded with suspicion. As for labeling me a zionist, well I suppose I am considering the dictionary definition but then that also makes me a racist according to the the UN. As far as I am concerned that just goes to show what a biased and corrupt organisation the UN is.

I once again raise the topic that Jacko is undoubtedly far too biased and subversively anti Israel and the Jewish nation because of his single comment: "...and strongly support the pre-67 borders as being a good starting point." By stating that the 1967 borders would in his opinion only be a 'starting point' he must mean that from there they could be reduced even further. I find that to be offensive in the extreme. It never ceases to amaze me how biased and bleeding heart types like Jacko and most of the mentally diseased luvvies in the media can distort news to the point that they are no better than that rejected arsehole transplant of an Iraqi information minister. I am not against the Palestinians having their own country and I am against the settlements in the West Bank but I believe they will serve a useful purpose in any negotiations shoud the PLO get their act together and kick that sh!t of a crook, Arafat, out on his ear. Unfortunately the media love to play the propaganda card. Just look at their attempts to show 'even handedness' when their own news departments which are run by Jackonicko types whose idea of balance is catering for the majority of their foreign audience rather than their own home one. The BBC being a prime example.

Israel is about the size of Wales for those of you who ave no idea. The pre-1967 borders mean that the most densly populated part of the country whch is also the narrowest is only about 15 miles wide. Pre-1967 that part of the country was subjected to regular and continuous shelling by the Jordanians and anyone they invited in to participate, especially the Iraqis who don't even have a common border with Israel. I am sure that things would be different now because of the peace treaty signed between Jordan and Israel but I have very little doubt that a Palestinian controlled country where the leadership has consistently shown support for the likes of Sadaam Hussein and with radical and powerful extremist islamic groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas allowed free reign that Israel would not be safe. For all the spin on the situation that the Israelis are the brutal dictators supressing an unwilling population by choice I think you will find the degraradation the ordinary Palestinians have found in their lives has been caused by Arafat's decision to call for an Intifada whilst negotiations were not going his way. The quality of life for the ordinary Palestinians is much worse now than it was before the Oslo accords when Israel agreed to allow Arafat and his terrorist (oops sorry BBC, I mean militants) back into the territories so that they could administer them. Just ask the EU where the accounts are for the expenditure of all the money they have provided to Arafat and his cronies over the years.

I believe that Isarel has every right to be where it is today. Once the Palestinians get their act together and realise that they are not going to get everything they want and that includes all of Jerusalem and the destruction of Israel then they will find that most Israelis (and I don't include the ultra religious parties) will be more than glad to give them back most of the West Bank and Gaza. Eventually normality can return as long as the Palestinians get a grip on their fundamentalist extremist groups. Toursits will return to the region and trade can carry on. If only the Jordanians had heeded the warning not to try and open a third front against the Israelis in 1967 we would probably only be debating why doesn't Israel just disappear off the map as all Arab countries would really like. I mean we can't be having a non-Islamic, democratic country with western values in their midst now, can we?

Now we have a really divergent thread which I will enjoy censoring and dictating taste.

[BEagle]

Danny - do you reckon Arafat is still actually running the Palestinian authority? Or is he a puppet figure who may no longer have all his mental faculties - and the real culprits are in fact the People's Front, Popular Front, People's Popular Front or someone else who are pulling all the strings and then dressing Arafat up in his soldier-suit and pushing him out in front of the media every so often?

Surely only the mutual will of both Israel and responsible Palestinians - not a gang of murderous homicide bombers and terrorists - can lead to a peaceful resolution?

[Paterbrat]

The Mayflies must be hatching, the blighters are rising all over the place.

[West Coast]

Wow, a little bit of abuse I can call my own.

[Danny]

BEagle, I believe that Arafat still holds a lot of the power. He is extremely wealthy from all the money he has siphoned away over the years and that wealth allows him to have some control. I also agree that his henchmen are as responsible as he is and it is with their assistance that he still has influence.

Don't forget that the current leadership of the PLO is similar to the Baathist regime in Iraq and Syria who they have never had a problem in admiring. Anyone who is not a part of the regime will not go very far and should they be so brave as to publicly oppose the regime or the leadership they are very likely to find themselves having difficulty breathing. One of the reasons that you don't hear the voice of moderation a call for the cessation of Shahid. Rather you hear the two faced condemnation on the one hand and the justification on the other.

Once there is some sign of responsible control being shown from the Palestinian leadership and a proper attempt is being made to stop the fundamentalist fanatics from trying to provoke the Israelis through suicide murders then I believe that the Israelis will be more prepared to elect parties that are prepared to talk with the Palestinians. At the moment the problem for the Israelis and the Palestinians is that the hard line Israeli parties are getting elected with the balance of power being dictated by the numerous right wing religious parties in a coalition government. Once the electorate feels confident enough that the Palestinians representatives really mean that they want peace and to negotiate then they will be more inclined to elect a less radical coalition.

At the last election the Shinui party were shown to be gaining popularity due to the fact that they were against the minor religious parties hijacking the government. I am fairly sure that they will still elect a hard line government but the balance of power will eventually lie with the majority secular parties. A hard liner is more likely to get the Palestinians to clean up their act and get them back to the negotiating table whilst the secular parties will not allow the right wingers to sabotage with unreasonable demands such as more settlements.

Israel never shied away from removing the settlements and even the new towns they set up in the Sinai after the 1967 war once the Egyptians agreed to a peace deal and I believe that they would repeat the painful exercise should there be a realistic opportunity again. However, the current policy of the Palestinian leadership in subversively promoting attacks on Israel whilst claiming to be innocent victims of Israeli occupation when the Israelis have always been willing to negotiate land for peace will only prolong the suffering of their people.

[northernmonkey]

And you bunch of hypocrites accuse me of posting dribble.

Beagle & FJJP

Please point out to me where I slated those who came home in boxes, don't take your silly gripe with my posts out of context. At No stage were any of the fallen mentioned.

Danny

You call me infantile....... Jesus, talk about a bloke with a train set who will only share if you play by your own pathetic rules. I have never met you and hope I never will, but at a guess I would place good money on you being no taller that 5ft7 and suffering from a severe case of Small man syndrome.....

My posts were tongue in cheek slatings like what the majority of blokes in the military deem as normallity there was no offence intended and it would appear that the blokes on the recieving end didn't take offence anyway. So whats the problem.

Danny has been far more insulting, ignorant, childish and puerile in the past three posts than I have ever been.

I hope for your sake your advertisers don't read your posts, if they do I can forsee next years renewals suffering.

Added at 19:58

Am crying with laughter, just had two PMs in two mins to confirm that Danny is indeed a small man.

Confirms my thought that there is a degree of syndrome there.

I fully expect this to be removed and myself be banned, no bother I have cut and Pasted my views and forwarded them to those whose opinions and views I hold with regard.

[SASless]

Northern Monkey.....

Your post confirms exactly what Danny suggested was the situation here. There comes a time to stifle one's self.....partner...this is one of those times. Give it a rest....go for a pint....read some Mark Twain or Churchill and learn how to offer banter that is both funny and sophisticated. Your style is neither. You just cannot take a subtle hint.

When you respond the way you do....you indict yourself with the readers....you do come across as being a very dull person with limited horizions as evidenced by your posts.

One man's opinion.....and I will post your PM's to me about the issue if you wish....just to prove my point. The one you sent previously and the one you are bound to send this time.

Deal with it!

[northernmonkey]

SASless

Please dont even begin to try and lecture me, are you aware of how many people on here think you are an arse?

Climb out of Danny's backside, stop offering advice that to be frank you would be better off following yourself, and calling anyone dull is definatley a matter of Kettle and pot.

I only PMed you in response to your attempt at offering me advice which I turned down. If you wish to post them please feel free, I will say nothing behind anybodies backs that I wont say to thier face.

[TomPierce]

Hi northernmonkey, still trying to justify your pathetic sense of humour.

What makes you feel that small men have the problem you describe? Is that because you come from the north where men like you have a great chip on their shoulders? Or is it that you failed at all stages of social standing, so that you now have to belittle women. That makes you feel a big man does it?

Small men don't have problems sunshine, that is a manufactured excuse by idiots like you to justify their own inadequacy.

You have been found out mister. I suggest you leave Pprune and go suck your thumb in quite corner of a creche. You will feel at home there.

And you've got a cheek to call SAS an arse!

[northernmonkey]

Tom

Born and raised in the South now reside in the North.........hence no chip

Obviously never heard of small man syndrome. Do you have blinkers on or just keep your head buried, term not created by me.

One assumes that by reading your last few posts where you have a pop at Solotk, Ali, KBF1 to name a few you are also a small man.

I wonder if you have ever served in the military?

[Daystodo]

I see that typical Pprune hypocrasy is on the go again. I've seen both Tom and Sasless have a pop at other people when they feel it suits them, but then crawl up to slate anyone else who dares do the same.

May not be small man syndrome, but is certainly a display of hypocracy at its best.

[Jackonicko]

I hadn't wanted to get into the Israel/Palestine thing again. Honest!

SASless,

Your interpretation of my motivation is way off, as is your characterisation of me as being from the 'British Left'. I have some left-of-centre views, sure, and some right-of-centre, but am instinctively a wet Tory (with some Socialist leanings), and am quite definitely not a Liberal. Having had a left-leaning Tory local MP I've always voted Tory, though with some qualms during Thatcher's premiership.

Whether or not Israel 'threw us out' (a dubious contention) is as irrelevant as your Wars of Independence. Both are before my time, and the Britain of 1948 has no relevance to me today. I do feel that we let down some of those to whom we made promises in the 30s and 40s, but I don't lose sleep over that. Arab behaviour between 1947 and 1973 (and afterwards) was disgraceful, and undermined any claims they had, and it is only more recently that they have earned any sympathy. They are today, however, a disposessed, landless, stateless broken people, who surely deserve some kind of homeland.

My use of the term Zionist was not intended as being remotely condemnatory or derogatory. My interpretation of Zionism largely chimes with that provided by Opso. I certainly intended no characterisation of any Zionists as being necessarily racist. The aim of establishing and maintaining a religious Jewish homeland in the Holy Land is an honourable one, and I do not accept that the word Zionist is in any way an insult. (I'm much less comfortable with some extremist Zionists, especially those who still cling to the idea of Eretz Israel, but then I suspect that even Herzog might have moderated some of his idead in the light of history and circumstances....).

It is not correct to try and equate Patriotic Israelis with Zionist Jews, either. There are Zionist Jews who bear little alleigance to their state, and who will not fight for it, and there are non Jewish Israelis who will fight for Israel as their homeland.

It's like trying to equate Patriotic Americans with WASP Republicans.

Danny,

Thanks for your good grace. I'm extremely grateful for your clarification (and was that an apology?). I'm happy to be taunted by a friend, and I'm sorry if I was thin skinned.

Anything that I say about pre-67 borders should be prefixed by my absolute and unshakeable belief that the security of Jewish Israelis must be guaranteed as a pre-condition of any change to the status quo.

Before Camp David, and especially before the PLO acknowledged Israel's right to exist and abandoned the armed struggle Israel's insistence on holding on to the territory it had seized was entirely understandable (though the illegal settlements were a different matter, IMHO). The world has changed since the late 1970s, however, and Israel is no longer surrounded by Arab states who are bent on its total annihilation. Indeed it could be said that Israel's intransigence is now one of the factors (and the Arabs may still bear a heavier responsibility for the impasse) preventing a peaceful long term settlement, and preventing a complete normalisation of relations with its neighbours. Arafat and moderate Arab leaders need to be thrown a bone, otherwise they will never be able to control or defeat the hot-heads and fundamentalists, who at the moment can claim that Arafat's peaceful strategy and compromises are not working. But when and if that bone is thrown (and I was encouraged by last week's statement) the international community must ensure that Israel's security is protected.

In today's context the 1967 borders are, after all, a compromise. The extreme position would be a return to the original UN partition plan, or an equal split. For the Palestinians to have Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem seems to be a reasonable and fair compromise - as long as it's accompanied by guarantees for Israel's legitimate security concerns.

[TomPierce]

Well there ya go NM, assuming again. It's already gotcha!

Me = 5'11" / big frame / 19 years in the mil / WOII - see how wrong you can be! Pilot as well with a few thousand hours.

Sorry to hear you don't come from the north..................but then sometimes you can be wrong.............but you are growing a chip wouldn't you say.

Me having a pop. Nah! I just tell 'em how I see it. Now I'm old.....but with all me marbles still shiny tho, and maybe with a little savvy to boot.

[Daystodo]

Intriguing Tom, with your history as it is, it stands a chance that you, NM and myself all know each other

[TomPierce]

We might even be the same person! But I feel like me.

[spongycrabstix]

Interesting

Northernmonkey has been silenced by the Mods, more likely Danny as he placed an avatar on his title, indicating he has a sense of humour.

I wish I had some wit!

Why is it Ok for you to be abusive and call people a tw@t and not NM to call SASles an arse?

Just because I'm one doesn't mean you can call anyone else that.

TomPierce

19yrs and only a WO2, oh dear not much of an achiever are you
although Id like to think that being exarmy you would see banter in its raw form and not spout about bad taste etc etc... And why oh why do you side with a bloke like SASless...........???????????