Article

2004-07-13 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by growler 2004-07-13 11:02:41 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 well analysing the swastikas will show if it was written by her or another person.

Posted by Anonymous5666 2004-07-13 11:54:14 AM|| 2004-07-13 11:54:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 How's that??

Posted by growler 2004-07-13 12:09:39 PM|| 2004-07-13 12:09:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Oh, boy--there's going to be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth if this turns out to be a bogus report. Mike S. will also be owed many an apology!

Posted by Dar 2004-07-13 12:15:37 PM|| 2004-07-13 12:15:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Ah Ha!
Globular Clusters!

Posted by Shipman 2004-07-13 12:51:21 PM|| 2004-07-13 12:51:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 where is mike s.

Posted by muck4doo 2004-07-13 1:28:16 PM|| [http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2004-07-13 1:28:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 CNN's site is reporting that the woman admitted she lied about the whole thing.

Posted by growler 2004-07-13 2:30:20 PM|| 2004-07-13 2:30:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 then I'm sorry Mike S. about this post, not your other editing challenges....

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-13 2:39:01 PM|| 2004-07-13 2:39:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Dar - Lol! Not from me. Mike Sylwester has an agenda. Period, full stop. The first item on it is to present Mike S as an authority. Of what, I have no idea! He certainly loves Abu Graib and other extremely gray areas where he can quibble for fucking days and split every hair on your head. Pfeh. Pure arrogant opinion and spin, not experience or fact. You can have him!

Posted by .com 2004-07-13 2:46:28 PM|| 2004-07-13 2:46:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 .com--Oh, I agree he has an agenda, and he was more than ready to dismiss the story out of hand without any proof, but it was at least as arrogant for so many to swallow this story hook, line, and sinker and turn on him for expressing any doubt. Blindly accepting a story because it says what one wants to believe is a trend I'd rather see the lefties gain an exclusive monopoly on. I want the facts on my side!

Posted by Dar 2004-07-13 3:30:00 PM|| 2004-07-13 3:30:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 .com never actually apologizes even after villifying the innocent for sins they've never committed.

When people are correct, according to .com, they have fallen to the crime of pretending to be "authorities". When people aren't willing to surrended in the face of insult, then they fall to the crime of "arrogance". When people are *precise* and prefer truth to lies, then they fall to the crime of "quibbling".

Frankly, I find that being quibbling and arrogant and having presumptions of 'authority', is a quite mild annoyances compared to the idea of villifying people for the crime of simply being *correct*.

On my part, I'm only ashamed that I didn't come to Mike's defense. The story was ringing warning bells for me also, but I hadn't been in the mood of yet another flame war at the time, and you can be sure that all the regulars would have found the excuse for the normal insults.

So, kudos, Mike! And apologies from me, atleast.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-13 3:57:20 PM|| 2004-07-13 3:57:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Well, if we're going to question the story now, let's not make the same mistake in the opposite direction and claim it's definitely a fabrication. More will come out. The fact that there were no young men running from the scene, and no witnesses...despite repeated calls from officials and promises of anonymity does not disprove it. I just can't figure out the whole haircutting part--did anyone witness her cutting her own hair?

Posted by jules 187 2004-07-13 4:29:40 PM|| 2004-07-13 4:29:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 As I already posted, the woman has admitted she lied about the whole thing.

Posted by growler 2004-07-13 4:40:06 PM|| 2004-07-13 4:40:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 It would've been perfect for you, Aris. Far too little fact, far too much faux-outrage, plenty of wiggle room to pontificate and muddle. A perfect fit.

You're just a twinkie who loves to argue...

Propostition:
Declare threads dead when they become 'arisified' or simply ignore the posts of Aris Katsaris and his enablers.

arisification; verb
1: to make thread a stage for moralizing, moaning, groaning, posturing, etc.
2: to make thread an endless, pointless, and confused babble of crosstalk
3: to prove who can piss higher, further, longer, without an actual point; write name in snow
4: to demonstrate crass leech capacity for wasting the resources of Fred Pruit - and never hit the tip jar
5: to practice argumentative techniques; test methods and themes
6: to distract others from other threads by number of posts, vitriol, invective, pot-kettle
7: to re-cast the thread arguments into a morality muddle
8: to hi-jack the thread for personal grandstanding and ego gratification
9: to make the thread a showcase for the annointed opinions of Aris The Grate

To save Fred's bandwidth on articles of this particular type once it becomes apparent, I suggest an RBer post something like:
"This thread has become arisified. Pfeh." - or something similar along that line.

Aris can then post something like:
"I am Aris. I speak for all idiotarians everywhere and demand immediate complicity with my obviously superior, but highly nuanced as the situation demands(situational ethicality), sense of morality. I will prevail for I can sit at my computer longer and type more shit than anyone else alive. I am the Master of Self-Debate and can carry on both (or more) sides of a 'discussion' withou assistance. Everyone else, once I have the bit between my teeth, is superfluous. Post, if you wish, derision, contempt, and insult. I will wear you down. Resistence is futile. You will be assimilated. My opinions are facts and I will prove it by the volume of opinion and invective available in my vast storehouse of (otherwise) useless drivel. As the most petty, pedantic, and obnoxious confirmed asshole ever to post on RB, including Boris and NMM, I have accumulated links on all of you - carefully spun to my advantage - and I will not debate your points, I will seek to overwhelm you with my shopworn bookmark organizational skills until you throw up your hands and go away in frustration. This venue is mine. This thread is mine. All your opinions are belong to me. They are inferior for I am the gratest of the grates: I am Aris The Grate."

And we can stop right there. Stop. There. Yes, this includes me.

This is how all Arisified threads play out: a patently obvious onanistic exercise in self-gratification for Aris with no discernable benefit to the rest of the universe. Or any other fucking universe.

Recognizing this fact and applying a modicum of common sense will save Fred lot of bandwidth / money and allow the less egregious leeches and dogmatic screechers as well as the open-minded to continue playing here at Rantburg.

Have You Made A Major Donation To Rantburg Yet, LEECH-BOY?

Posted by .com 2004-07-13 4:40:45 PM|| 2004-07-13 4:40:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Oohhhhhhhhh

All right, growler, this girl apparently doesn't read very well-what's my penalty? I have to have a penalty! (Amadeus music in background)

BTW-Fred, since I'm a newcomer and others may not know either, what's the tip jar? Are any of us freeloading you somehow?

Posted by jules 187 2004-07-13 5:03:57 PM|| 2004-07-13 5:03:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 no dot com, though somewhat to the right of Aris, I insist on keeping MY title as the prince of nuance ;)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-13 5:06:20 PM|| 2004-07-13 5:06:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 LH - Not to offend your pride, but I have never seen you argue just for practice. We've disagreed, and I took exception to the style once, but I've never had reason to doubt your sincerity or integrity. I mean every word about LEECH-BOY.

Posted by .com 2004-07-13 5:12:51 PM|| 2004-07-13 5:12:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Keep "arisify" as a way to describe all attempts of .com (and in occasion Jen) to ignore every issue in a thread or every point in a post or every actual moral issue at hand, and instead try to turn the whole thing into the terrible crime that I *gasp* exist.

Attempted arisification of a thread is evident when .com could use THE EXACT SAME POST in every single thread I'm involved in -- when the post in question DOESN'T DEAL WITH A SINGLE ACTUAL POINT to the post it supposedly responds to.

The same way this post of .com now didn't include anything to actually indicate the identity of the thread it exists in -- it could have just as well been written weeks ago, he could have used it in a earlier or later thread. He quite possibly already has the next such post of his ready. He won't need to modify it one bit before posting, because he never actually responds to anything, he only insults.

Which thread are you gonna attempt to arisify next, .com?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-13 5:29:06 PM|| 2004-07-13 5:29:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 On my part, I'm only ashamed that I didn't come to Mike's defense. The story was ringing warning bells for me also, but I hadn't been in the mood of yet another flame war at the time, and you can be sure that all the regulars would have found the excuse for the normal insults.

It's all right, Aris. I posted a questioning article the other day and mentioned how train security videos should be able to solve the entire question. I also noted how the threats and insults made were totally inappropriate to any sort of rational discussion. For fun, here's exactly what I posted:

"#28 With all due respect, there continues to be some significant questions regarding this alleged crime.

Doubts amid swastika attack hunt.

The trains involved have video security cameras so all of this should be cleared up soon enough. Once again, I'm obliged to note that all of the vitriol directed at Mike S. during yesterday's feeding frenzy reduced Rantburg's overall tenor just that much more.

When posted online, threats of violence and the like merely come across as the usual tripe volcano. Facts are what spill best from a computer's keyboard."

For my trouble, I was belittled as well. You are correct in stating that some hereabouts are incapable of distinguishing between insult and rejoinder. Such inept conflation really brings down the tone of Rantburg.

Here's what was spewed at me for my troubles:

"Zenster4doo, there were no threats of violence directed against Mike here and lots of links were 'spilled' from several keyboards to counter his (and now your) crap posted to counter his arguments.
Given reactions like his and yours and the CNN story you cite, I'm now beginning to see how stories about the Holocaust out of Nazi Germany weren't believed in WWII.
Shameful counterspinning on both your and MS's part."

So, I guess I'm a Holocaust denier for having questioned the veracity of an unsubstantiated hate crime. Let's see if the author of the above has sufficient class or even the ovaries to admit their mistake. Like your own clash in this thread, Aris, I anticipate nothing more than what you've encountered.

Crow is a dish best served cold.

Posted by Zenster 2004-07-13 7:15:37 PM|| 2004-07-13 7:15:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Lol! Angling for the hot buttered grub-cluster concession? The interesting part of Zen's attempt to create a stroke-fest between trolls, unmentioned, is that I didn't post on that thread as the verdict wasn't in.

I had a problem with Mike's Turkmen sympathies - on another day, different thread. But the implication is I did something here. Disingenuous liars.

LEECH-BOY - Did you read the thread, dumbass? No. Your favorite word applies: Idiot. You just figured there was a free shot available - and you never pass up a chance. Desperate to be an authority, just like Mike. How aporpos you would rush to his defence - and skip reading the thread. But the real challenge, LEECH-BOY is your honor (or obvious lack thereof): Hit the tip jar yet?

Shrubster, you may not be a holoccaust-denier, but you're a constitution-denier, eh? Wanna tell everyone who's the true elected President of the United States? How your ethicality hanging, Trolljan? Like it here? Wanna find out what the majority of Rantburgians would think of you if they knew what sort of secret zoomie asshat you really are? RB is just therapy and a chance to practice puffoonery for you. You're a trip. You try to figure out where the centers of gravity are, then suck up to them. I always enjoy it - the fawning is spectacular - you're as transparent as the Mad Mullahs. Desperate to be an authority, how fitting you'd join in. C'mon, fess up what kind of dysfunctional constitutionally / reality challenged Trolljan you really are. You'll feel better - though the feathers may stick in your throat.

HAND.

Posted by .com 2004-07-13 7:54:20 PM|| 2004-07-13 7:54:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Zenster, very accurately predicted. It's the only way .com knows how to react when people he doesn't like are proven to be correct. Insults them for the terrible crime of existing and actually standing up for their opinions.

"But the implication is I did something here."

You did do something here, .com, you moron -- you used your ordinary tactics of attacking a person for doing nothing more than being *correct*. A person I might add, who had been rabidly attacked by this board, and was owed a collective apology instead of further villification by you.

If I somehow implied that you had villified Mike in connection to this incident *prior* to this thread, I didn't mean to do so, I only meant that this is your ordinary tactic, as experienced by me in the past, and exhibited again towards Mike in *this* thread. All those people who disagree with you, ofcourse *deserve* to be insulted, for the crime of disagreeing with you.

And what exact thread are you referring to? There were three or four of them.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-13 8:26:11 PM|| 2004-07-13 8:26:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Thank you, you've made my point. I appreciate it.

You do not have a CLUE what I referred to, you just grabbed the chance to take a shot - as I said. What if I am right about Mike Sylwester's bullshit? You don't know, because you don't even what what fucking thread I referred to.

Thanks, Aris. You're a peach. Not intentionally, of course, but a peach nonetheless.

HAND.

Posted by .com 2004-07-13 8:37:28 PM|| 2004-07-13 8:37:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 This thread was about a quite specific issue, and referring to quite specific previous threads. If you are referring to some thread *besides* the ones that all the rest of the forum is referring to -- then you probably *shouldn't*: The unfair vilification of Mike (as an anti-Semite among other insults) doesn't become any more fair because he annoyed you in some random different thread.

And yes, I grabbed the chance to defend Mike. Belatedly, but grabbed it nonetheless. That's not something I'm ashamed of at all.

You grabbed the chance to *villify* him instead. Any shame at all about that, on *your* part?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-13 8:56:11 PM|| 2004-07-13 8:56:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 sure, Vilify has one 'l'

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-13 8:58:37 PM|| 2004-07-13 8:58:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 lighten up

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-13 8:59:24 PM|| 2004-07-13 8:59:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 I dunno, Frank. Rantburg needs pointless arguments like the Circus Maximus needed games.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-07-13 9:02:24 PM|| 2004-07-13 9:02:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 I actually appreciate Zen4doo using my quotes as I stand by them.
As I read history, this is exactly the way reports about the abuse of Jews in Nazi Germany--including reports of the death camps--were treated in the 1930's and 1940's.

And today's Holocaust deniers are the same ones who were anti-Semites then and our Enemy now--IslamoNazis.
If it's true that this woman's story was a hoax, that doesn't change the fact that there have been numerous attacks on Jews in France (and throughout Western Europe and Canada) since the Intifada began.
This hoax angle is particularly evil for all of us but especially because if French Jews are threatened after this, noone will believe them and worse, the credibility of French Jews who have reported attacks in the past will be put into question.
This woman was a tool for the Evil Ones and by staging this hoax, has now stirred up French public concern about rascist hate crimes...AGAINST MUSLIMS AND ARABS.
More sympathy for the Devil.
We live in dark and important times, but nowhere else are they darker--except for Riyahd--than France.
Pray for them and for all of we "infidels" all over the world.
And if I were a Jew living in France, I'd leave for Israel now, if i hadn't already emigrated as I think this incident is a sign that life for Jews in France is about to get worse, i.e now, even the authorities won't believe Jews and help them if they're attacked.
That is the difference--Thank God!--betweeen WWII and this war, WWIV--the Jews have a home in Israel.

Posted by Jen 2004-07-13 9:26:26 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-13 9:26:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Let's see... say we have another report of some sort of terror-rape, and I come out and say it's bunk. Not for any particular reason, but because it is. And because women make up this kind of "crock" all the time. When challenged, I reassert my original thesis that it's a load of crap because I say it is. This is all within day one, when we're getting a lot of hype from the press and not a lot of fact.
Some people are going to call down on me, and some are going to go as far as the "women don't lie" and "men are evil" memes.
Say I stick to my guns, and when the incident does indeed prove to be bunk, I get a wholehearted apology from everybody that differed from my position---not because they were wrong, but because my position of calling a "hoax" without any apparent evidence of a "hoax" was "right."
Which is crap. Nobody who submits this kind of a premise deserves an apology for an attack on the premise.
It's an unholy crapshoot. Even flying pigs win some of the time. Perhaps some people do need to apologize, but apologizing for attacking a very flawed premise, even when it's eventually proven "true," is just plain silly.

Posted by therien 2004-07-14 12:05:59 AM|| 2004-07-14 12:05:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 Mike did offer reasons. He said from the beginning that the story was preposterous and detailed it on post #24

Myself I didn't contribute on *that* discussion, but I had problems believing that a gang composed partly of Arabs and black people would draw swastikas.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-14 12:30:16 AM|| 2004-07-14 12:30:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 Let's see... say we have another report of some sort of terror-rape, and I come out and say it's bunk. Not for any particular reason, but because it is. And because women make up this kind of "crock" all the time. When challenged, I reassert my original thesis that it's a load of crap because I say it is. This is all within day one, when we're getting a lot of hype from the press and not a lot of fact.
Some people are going to call down on me, and some are going to go as far as the "women don't lie" and "men are evil" memes.
Say I stick to my guns, and when the incident does indeed prove to be bunk, I get a wholehearted apology from everybody that differed from my position---not because they were wrong, but because my position of calling a "hoax" without any apparent evidence of a "hoax" was "right."
Which is crap. Nobody who submits this kind of a premise deserves an apology for an attack on the premise.
It's an unholy crapshoot. Even flying pigs win some of the time. Perhaps some people do need to apologize, but apologizing for attacking a very flawed premise, even when it's eventually proven "true," is just plain silly.

Posted by Al Sharpton 2004-07-14 12:40:23 AM|| 2004-07-14 12:40:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 That's right Al, Whitey is comin' to get ya!

On the other hand, it's OK to say yer kind are all liars who ask for it, because that's empirically correct a few percent of the time.
Cool talking wit you. Good job, bucko. Very original.

Posted by therien 2004-07-14 12:58:31 AM|| 2004-07-14 12:58:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 Aris, there were nearly 8 hours between my words and the ones you cite.

Posted by therien 2004-07-14 1:00:01 AM|| 2004-07-14 1:00:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 therien> You seemed to say in the post above that Mike never offered any reasoning whatsoever -- I am simply saying that he *did* offer reasoning.

Regardless of whether that was before or after your first insulting of him.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-14 1:05:26 AM|| 2004-07-14 1:05:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#33 Ok, so there's a crime been reported, and we've only 5 police investigators on hand. Two think it's plausible there was a crime, two think it's a total heap of crap hoax, and one guy doesn't give two bits. We need a sixth officer to break the tie and decide if we need an investigation.

Oh, and you'll get an apology if you are wrong, either way... Any takers?

Posted by therien 2004-07-14 1:14:43 AM|| 2004-07-14 1:14:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#34 "Insulted." Gawd Aris, if nothing else you're consistently touchy.
Somehow every bit of rightfully deserved whupass becomes an insult worthy of apology, right or wrong at the moment.
Hence, "Arisification."

Posted by therien 2004-07-14 1:16:38 AM|| 2004-07-14 1:16:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#35 therien, I guess I'm not *nuanced* enough to understand how comparing Mike to people who think that rape-victims 'ask for it' (simply because he believed something was a hoax and you didn't) doesn't qualify as an insult.

You feel he deserved the insult. Fine. Or not so fine. But an insult it was, and an insult it was clearly meant to be, "rightfully deserved" or not.

The technical terminology of "whupass" I'm afraid confuses my feeble brain.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-14 1:33:58 AM|| 2004-07-14 1:33:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#36 Sorry Aris, I think you misconstrued my "In other news..." bit. It's a carefully "nuanced" theme of exposing a questionable corrolary, made popular on America's "Saturday Night Live."

Otherwise, "whup" (hit) + "ass" (buttocks) = spank.

Deja vu, I seem to remember explaining that particular bit of idiom to a Hungarian. Weird.

Posted by therien 2004-07-14 1:44:39 AM|| 2004-07-14 1:44:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#37 Very well. If I misunderstood you, and you hadn't meant such a comparison, then sorry for thinking so.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-14 1:58:05 AM|| 2004-07-14 1:58:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#38 On the other hand, and back to the subject, there seem to be some underlying issues exposed in this bizarre sequence of events.
Regardless of the immediate gut feeling toward belief or disbelief in the event reported, I believe they all require investigation before bias is inserted for or against belief in the fact of the alleged crime.
In the Brawley case there was immediate and widespread acceptance of the story by people buying into the ideology of black victimhood---these were the people that believed this happens every day, and is finally being reported.
Naysayers, even those that proposed an objective investigation into the alleged crime, were loudly denounced by Al Sharpton and others. Never mind that it was an incredible and unprecedented story---it must be believed because of its mere assertion.

In this recent incidence in France, I think the greatest comparison can be made in the way it was accepted as a common sense expectation of Muslims in France. The sheer number of public figures signing on in horror of the act is testament to the predisposition of the French for this attitude.
In contrast to the Brawley case, this is a woman claiming to be attacked for what her "attackers" allegedly thought she was, rather than what she actually was. This puts the French sentiment in a different tenor---namely regarding the target of the attack.
The French denied there was a problem with Antisemitism in France last year, and screwed with the numbers to prove it. This year it took twice the number of Antisemitic actions against Jews for the French to concede the point and issue the statement, days prior to this incident, condemning Antisemitism in France.

What I'm still undecided about is whether the French were so ready to buy into this story because of their inclination to expect this kind of thing from Muslims against Jews, or because of the misdirected attack against a supposedly Jewish, but really Frankish woman.
For evidence, worse things have happened to many Jews in France in recent months, but it took an alleged crime against a white woman supposedly mistaken for a Jew to get the French authorities really up in arms.

Posted by therien 2004-07-14 2:20:00 AM|| 2004-07-14 2:20:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#39 No need for apologies, Aris. I don't do or expect that sort of thing. Point (punkte) or no point, the greatest thing to be achieved is the truth. I'm afraid hurt feelings don't count for much when I think of things in terms of the reality of "the thing as it is."
Yeah, I'm a Stoic at heart. (Sorry.) :)

Posted by therien 2004-07-14 2:25:03 AM|| 2004-07-14 2:25:03 AM|| Front Page Top

01:16 leo
02:03 Paul Moloney
10:51 Anonymous5776
06:38 Howard UK
05:21 Howard UK
05:18 Howard UK
05:16 Howard UK
05:07 Muhammad Zeeshan
04:41 Howard UK
04:37 Muhammad Zeeshan
13:22 Tibor
02:53 Mark Espinola
02:25 therien
02:20 therien
01:58 Aris Katsaris
01:52 trailing wife
01:44 therien
01:42 borgboy
01:33 Aris Katsaris
01:16 therien
01:14 therien
01:05 Aris Katsaris
01:00 therien
00:58 therien