Israeli-Arab Porn Enrages

[Tigerman]

@Gavin Januarus

Time for a reality check here. Has anyone modified their views at all after all the hard work we’ve been putting into this debate trying to convince one another?

Nothing difficult about this. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. Again, you need to read more carefully. It appears, from your first and subsequent posts, that you have an agenda and used my post as a vehicle to air the same. nevermind that your assumption was faulty to begin with.

@Gavin Januarus

Well I’ve changed my opinion about something. I used to think imyourbiggestfan was an individual person but now I’m convinced he’s just MrT’s clone. Sort of a MiniT.

How does this further faulty conclusion further anything you have to say? And why is it so difficult that two different people might think similarly on a particular issue? Are you not an individual? Are you rather a clone of other people who agree with your position?

@Gavin Januarus

I’m just as convinced as ever that you guys are a bunch of war-mongering religious and nationalist fanatics posing as innocent victims of a “gutter religion” which is out to get you.

Nonsense. Except for the part about a group of people “out to get us”… Al Qaeda has explicitly stated that it is “out to get us” and has in fact acted on this threat. I guess you don’t read the news very much.

@Gavin Januarus

You, of course, are just as convinced as ever that I’m an appeasing, unpatriotic fool with a penchant for unfairly insulting people.

“As ever”? I don’t think I’ve had the pleasure of discussing anything with you previously. “Unfairly insulting people”? Hey, this is a message board… where would we be without unfair insults. Go ahead.

@Gavin Januarus

I think we should just stop wasting our time trying to convince each other and look for compromise ground. I’m willing if you’re willing.

No dice. Your statement above confirms my suspicion that you had an agenda to air and even though my post wasn’t on point for you, you just couldn’t resist jumping on it and making groundless conclusions.

@Gavin Januarus

I pledge to stop calling you war-mongering hypocrites if you pledge to find some way to not drag the rest of us into your holy war.

“Hypocrits”? How? “Holy War”? Who is dragging who into a “holy war”?

@Gavin Januarus

Gather all your imams, preachers and rabbis and their legions of followers someplace discreet like, say, the Plains of Armageddon and rumble it out to your heart’s content. Smite or smote each other or whatever the hell it is you were taught to do to each other until there’s no one left standing but the ones whose side God really is on. I predict though you’ll be in for a bit of a surprise.

Uh, I don’t practice any organized religion. I don’t follow any religious leaders. What are you talking about?

[Comrade_Stalin]

Meanwhile down in Indonesia…

laksamana.net/vnews.cfm?ncat=45&news_id=2401

Student Porn VCD Defendants Sentenced
April 3, 2002 23:57:0

Bandung District Court in West Java on Wednesday (3/4/02) sentenced two men to nine months in jail for copying and circulating an infamous pornographic video compact disc (VCD) that starred two local university students.

Presiding judge Samuel said Hadi Darmanto (22) and Sri Rama (25) had violated Article 40 of the Criminal Code on the distribution, duplication and screening of immoral films.

The nine-month sentences take into account the time the men had been held in police custody.

The two were arrested in November 2001, so they should be due for release in July 2002.

It was back in July 2001 that Bandung National Institute of Technology (Itenas) student Adi Amed (20) and his girlfriend Nanda (19), a communications student at Bandung

[Rascal]

So? At least they didn’t stone the couple, in fact it seems they got away with a blue eye.

Then again I would have to blame them for their stupidity, but thank god that’s not punishable.

[Comrade_Stalin]

And it’s not even porn!

asia.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01 … index.html

Saudi mobile camera ban reviewed

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) --Saudi Arabia is considering whether to lift a ban on using mobile phones with built-in cameras inside the secretive Gulf country, a government official said Thursday.

A committee comprising interior, telecommunications, trade and finance ministry officials has been formed to discuss the possible import and sale of the high-tech gadgets on the local market, the official said on condition he was not identified further.

No further details were available.

Saudi Arabia is a conservative Muslim nation where women must cover from head to toe and are banned from mixing with strange men. It bans mobile phones with built-in cameras as they may be used to take pictures of uncovered women and send them to other phones or post them on the Internet.

The phones are in high demand in Saudi Arabia, where they are bought from more Westernized neighbors like Bahrain or the United Arab Emirates and sold for double their original price.

According to the daily Al-Watan, officials are investigating an incident involving six Saudi female students over possessing such a phone, which the officials confiscated.

A teacher caught one of the girls taking shots of others during a class in an all-girl college in Dammam in the Eastern province, the paper reported Thursday.

The official daily, quoting witnesses, said the girl admitted photographing girls with the help of five others and buying the phone in Bahrain.

The school administration confiscated the phones and forced the girls to sign a pledge not to repeat the act, according to the paper.

[Gavin_Januarus]

imyourbiggestfan & Tigerman,

Saw your posts. Say, imyourbiggestfan, could I just call you MiniT for short? Your name is just too long to type everytime I want to address you.

Anyway, it’s true that I haven’t been contributing much more than name-calling. I’ve just lost all patience with the double-talking sophistry coming out of Washington and the mouths of most American apologists and I don’t know much more to do than just mock it. Maybe that’s a personality flaw of mine.

As far as my agenda goes, I think the best way to describe it is pretty much that of Rhett Butler in Gone With the Wind when he was mocking all the fine Southern gentlemen who just couldn’t wait to rush off to war – and perdition – with the Yankees. To me it’s just plain stupid that the American people and the Iraqi people are about to go to war with one another and whenever I see that foolish sentiment rear its head in any of its many forms I get more than a little impatient with the foolishness of it all.

[Tigerman]

[quote=“Gavin Januarus”]imyourbiggestfan & Tigerman,

Saw your posts. Say, imyourbiggestfan, could I just call you MiniT for short? Your name is just too long to type everytime I want to address you.[/quote]

Can I just call you an &%#@? Stop being so childish, please. If you want to debate or discuss, then please do so. But cut the crap about the names.

@Gavin Januarus

Anyway, it’s true that I haven’t been contributing much more than name-calling.

True.

@Gavin Januarus

I’ve just lost all patience with the double-talking sophistry coming out of Washington and the mouths of most American apologists…

Such as?

@Gavin Januarus

… and I don’t know much more to do than just mock it. Maybe that’s a personality flaw of mine.

Perhaps.

@Gavin Januarus

As far as my agenda goes, I think the best way to describe it is pretty much that of Rhett Butler in Gone With the Wind when he was mocking all the fine Southern gentlemen who just couldn’t wait to rush off to war – and perdition – with the Yankees. To me it’s just plain stupid that the American people and the Iraqi people are about to go to war with one another and whenever I see that foolish sentiment rear its head in any of its many forms I get more than a little impatient with the foolishness of it all.

Could you explain why you feel this way? If not, then please shut up.

[imyourbiggestfan]

GJ, call me what you like. Imyourbiggestfan is not my real name.

You read the post, but decided not to answer my question, which was serious and not rhetorical. Here it is again:

@imyourbiggestfan

So, I would be interested to hear whose side you think [God] will take in the case outlined by Mr T’s original linked article: the side of the actors and buyers of the porn, or those that seek to kill the actors on the grounds of public decency and freedom.

Consider it an invitation to discuss…

@Gavin Januarus

Anyway, it’s true that I haven’t been contributing much more than name-calling.

Does it not worry you that you engage in the same kind of name-calling that you imply is the reason behind the irrational position of the Bush government? How do you rationalise this inconsistency in your position?
Do you think that your knee-jerk reaction is partly responsible for the fact that you have failed to grasp the intent of this thread?

GJ, you are not the first in these forums to accuse me of being a Bush apologist. Yet, I do not believe that anywhere in this website I have expressed my support for his administration in general or his policy on Iraq. Do you have any more or less evidence for such a claim than the weapons inspectors have to back the claim that Iraq is in violation of its agreement with the UN?

@Gavin Januarus

As far as my agenda goes, I think the best way to describe it is pretty much that of Rhett Butler in Gone With the Wind when he was mocking all the fine Southern gentlemen who just couldn’t wait to rush off to war

Unfortunately, I think I have shown above that your attitude on this matter is EXACTLY the same as those “BUSH APOLOGISTS” who you accuse of mindlessly seeking war with Iraq.

[Gavin_Januarus]

'fan,

I apologize for the clone jokes. I didn’t want to offend you, just tweak your nose a bit. No more, though, promise.

In answer to your question about whose side I think God is on, I believe He’s on the side of the poor in spirit, the humble, the oppressed, the just, the merciful, the clean of heart, the peacemaker, and the morally courageous. I don’t believe that anyone who uses others for their sexual pleasure is clean of heart or who wants to murder others in the name of any cause is just. That includes, as far as I can see, everyone that Tigerman criticized:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land.
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

[Rory_Butternuts1]

A warning to everyone in this post: Don’t generalize, please. It’s not healthy and posibble goes against a whole bunch of laws or something. It’s neither big nor clever, and in fact, I would go so far as to say that ALL generalizations are wrong.

[imyourbiggestfan]

[quote=“Gavin Januarus”]'fan,

I apologize for the clone jokes. I didn’t want to offend you, just tweak your nose a bit. [/quote]

Errr… you didn’t. I believe I said I was flattered.

Hmmmm… GJ, when you stop name-calling and knee jerking, you can quickly get into some quite interesting discussions. All of which, I guess, was the original intent of this thread.

For several reasons, I find your answer interesting. First a quote:

@Gavin Januarus

In answer to your question about whose side I think God is on, I believe He’s on the side of the poor in spirit, the humble, the oppressed,

Surely this refers to the couple who made the video?

You also say God is on the side of:

@Gavin Januarus

the morally courageous.

And it is surely the case that the acting couple (husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend, I forget) could be said to be morally courageous - how else could you describe their acts? Lovemaking is certainly not immoral in my view, nor is taped lovemaking immoral, it seems, in the view of the many Arabs who bought the video… Only in the eyes of those with enough standing and influence to stir some up into a frenzy of murderous hatred. (The elements that I caricatured as analogous to a religious state.)

@Gavin Januarus

I don’t believe that anyone who uses others for their sexual pleasure is clean of heart or who wants to murder others in the name of any cause is just.

Did you dodge a direct answer here? The actors - did they “use” anyone for their sexual pleasure? Not as far as I can see. So, are you saying that God is on their side? Perhaps that is what you meant by:

@Gavin Januarus

That includes, as far as I can see, everyone that Tigerman criticized

Since I don’t think Mr T criticised them. So, you side with the actors, yes???

Which brings us to an interesting conclusion, does it not? If you accept that, it does not seem to me to be too big a leap to say that the mixing of state and established religion seen in this example acts as an obstacle to observance of the very values of religion and freedom that you personally believe in.

All of which then comes round to an associated question. Links to cases in Indonesia have already been posted here. What stance would you take against JI, the terrorist group supposedly responsible for the Bali Bombing, and who are willing to use violence and murder to realise the dreams of their religious/spiritual leader - a leader who calls for just the kind of religious state that seems to be antagonistic to your own aims?

What kind of action or stance would YOU be willing to take to defend your beliefs?

[imyourbiggestfan]

@Rory Butternuts

A warning to everyone in this post: Don’t generalize, please. It’s not healthy and posibble goes against a whole bunch of laws or something. It’s neither big nor clever, and in fact, I would go so far as to say that ALL generalizations are wrong.

Rory, I believe that these specific generalisations, and those that are particularly generic in nature, are generally OK.