Let me be clear that I'm not asking for him to be banned, although I won't shed a tear if he is. I just wanted to express my disgust and my deep, deep sadness that such ugliness exists, perhaps hidden beneath the facade of 'ordinary people'.
It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with my own views, which is a primary purpose of any discussion board. I'm talking about the clear sense that he strongly approves of any mass slaughter of Arabs and Muslims, whose very existence as men, women and children, even babies, he views as a "terrorist" threat. I don't think he regards us as human, because he only describes the few killings of Israelis as "murder", but the much greater, systematic slaughter of Palestinians, Iraqis and potentially Iranians in their own homes, he considers legitimate self-defense, not even trying to hide his sick glee.
His ill-hidden sympathy for sexual predators who target children, is equally grotesque.
Beyond trolling and disruption, posts subject to deletion or locking will be those which
1. advocate violence, or
2. espouse hatred for a people based upon their race, religion, gender or sexuality, or
3. suggest a poster is purposefully spreading disinformation. If you have suspicions, contact me.
Here's a sampling of his contributions to the RI discussion board:
Re: his response towards mass, indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinians by Israelis:
"I can't see Zionism as having much of anything to do with the current situation vis a vis Israel. The problem is that the Palestinians are committed to mass murder as a political tool. They blow up schools, they blow up shopping malls, they blow up busses. The Israelis have the right to defend themselves."
"Perhaps, if the Palestinians conducted themselves like thinking, feeling human beings, instead of mindless robots designed to kill, it might be easier to have some sympathy for their plight."
Re: did you know that, along with "Jews", "blacks" and "gays" can "get away with much more" than White, straight people in America?:
...there are certain groups who get something of a free pass in American political discourse. If I were in charge of some diabolical conspiracy (or even some mundane, practical conspiracy, for that matter), I'd make a positive effort to recruit blacks, Jews and gays for my henchmen. They're allowed to get away with much more before anyone calls them on it.
Re: his attitude towards home demolitions, the threats to the al-Aqsa Mosque, and other Israeli war crimes against the Palestinian population under occupation:
"When the Palestinians are ready to renounce indiscriminate murder, then I'll be more inclined to fret if one of their buildings gets damaged. Until that day (and I'm not holding my breath), I really don't care if their mosques, homes, farms, etc. get bulldozed."
Calling for Iranians to be "wiped out sooner rather than later":
"Iran is stalling for time to complete a nuclear weapon. They don't want peace. They've repeatedly rejected every chance for peace. In the end, we can fight Iran now, before they have nukes, or we can wait until they smuggle one into some city and set it off. The only difference in the end is going to be how many Westerners die. I'm in favour of 'few to none', which means wiping them out sooner rather than later."
Re: advocating a war of aggression against Iran:
"The mullahs are hell-bent on war with the west, and there's no way to prevent it. The only real choice we have is if we'll fight them before or after they succeed in building nuclear weapons. I'm very much in favour of "before"."
Re: his attitude towards whether elite pedophiles should be prosecuted:
"The public at large is more important than a 5 year old child. That's why high-ranking elected officials are generally immune from the law, unless their violation involves some sort of misfeasance. Stable, continuous government is more important to the People than strict justice."
Re: More of its views on "justice"; referring to U.S.-led "pre-emptive" attacks on other countries:
"True peace and justice are impossible without an Anglo/American victory. That's the fundamental fact that the left seems to keep overlooking."
Re: responding to blanc's question about which is more deserving of a prison sentence: defrauding the social security system by making false disability claims, or downloading thousands of pornographic images of children being tortured:
"The welfare fraud, hands down. Collecting pictures of people being harmed is not the same as doing harm to people."
In response to an article posted by JD, describing a massacre of Iraqi soldiers by the US, clearly a war crime:
The victims were not offering resistance. They weren't being driven back in fierce battle, or trying to regroup to join another battle. They were just sitting ducks, according to Commander Frank Swiggert, the Ranger Bomb Squadron leader.
According to an article in the March 11, 1991 Washington Post, headlined "U.S. Scrambles to Shape View of Highway of Death," the U.S. government then conspired and in fact did all it could to hide this war crime from the people of this country and the world. What the U.S. government did became the focus of the public relations campaign managed by the U.S. Central Command in Riyad, according to that same issue of the Washington Post.
The typical line has been that the convoys were engaged in "classic tank battles," as if to suggest that Iraqi troops tried to fight back or even had a chance of fighting back. The truth is that it was simply a one-sided massacre of tens of thousands of people who had no ability to fight back or defend themselves.
"A retreat is not a surrender. They were taking their equipment and weapons with them, and were not flying white flags. They'd made no communication regarding a surrender. A combatant is fully entitled (as indeed we did) to take target practice on an enemy in such circumstances."
Re: the "Butcher of Qibya", Mass Murderer Ariel Sharon:
"I'm sorry to see him go. He was a good man and a fierce warrior, a scourge to the terrorists. God bless him."