The Glade 4.0

Firstly, as far as "digging up unrelated dirt," I'm not sure to whom you're referring, me or the news organization, but I quoted the part of the article I found relevant. As for the news...well, she's become a figure of national debate. It's expected, if not particularly relevant, that such fact-finding would occur.

As to the rest of your post, that may very well be what happened (which I already noted ("no one knows the right of it yet"). That's obviously your opinion on the matter, but this has become a national debate, and as such, many people don't agree with you, or at least find it questionable. I don't particularly know; I don't think it was a concerted effort to kidnap children, mind you, but the question remains whether or not it was necessary, and thus justified. If it was unnecessary, then the poor judgment of these workers has hamstrung other aid efforts for Americans on the ground. As Stathol noted, this does not appear to be a concerted effort being made by the Haitian government against Christians, as these are the only apparently the only people detained and charged with such behavior.

The bulk of the discussion here centered largely on arguing that last point, as a matter of fact, a point of view that you were espousing heavily, and its subsequent topic, whether or not it was "right," from a Christian perspective, to have all Christians abandon aid over the incident.

Both your position on the topic and your behavior in the thread have centered on the "someone did something I don't like, so I'm going to take my toys and go home" course of action. I give you points for consistancy. But to act as though this rather justified (and mild, to boot) discussion is morally offensive to you, apparently for no reason other than because people don't immediately agree with you without fail, is frustratingly standard procedure.

I would like to suggest the following to those of you who, directly or indirectly, tried to cast the missionaries being held in Haiti in a negative light: Read the article and add 2+2. We'll see how smart y'all are.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585 ... latestnews

So...what I can see by the article: the detained morons who cannot obey the law hired a corrupt shitty lawyer, attempted to bribe their way out of prison (possibly at said shitty-lawyer's suggestion), and are arguing amongst themselves and turning on each other like rabid dogs.

That cover it?

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

No one tried to cast anyone as anything. This thread has just been an attempt to assert a common groundwork of facts and clearly labeled hypothesizing as to what should have happened given some basic assumptions in the interim.

That everyone didn't immediately gravitate toward your hypothetical scenario and dared alleged a different set of circumstances (all of them equally based on limited information and conjecture) seems to offend and madden you.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Epic fail. F-. You must think 2+2=77. Pathetic lack of deductive skills on your part.

I pretty much got the same thing as Taly out of that article. The workers chose the lawyer, if he were government appointed I'd see it as collusion.

_________________

So what's your conclusion Bery? That amongst all of the groups in Haiti, this one was singled out because the corrupt Haitian government hates Baptist potato farmers?

_________________

Their lawyer tried to bribe them out of prison?

What a chicken.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Maybe a Saran-Wrap Hat theory that they were singled out, charged and detained in some extortion scheme invovlving the Hatian lawyer (Coq) as a plant of some sort.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Then you didn't read it closely. The Haitian lawyer was hired by the missionary's Dominican Republic lawyer.

It doesn't ring any bells with any of you that, allegedly, attempted bribery took place and the missionaries refused to pay it? None of you can read that and add 2+2?

So they should be commended for not breaking the law and engaging in immoral activity?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

No I got that. What you are saying here is that a foreign lawyer hired by the workers colluded with the Haitian government by hiring the alleged briber/lawyer?

_________________

*sigh*

I'm trying to get y'all to figure something out on your own without me directly saying anything, since those Americans are still in the hands of Haitian officials and could be harmed. The chance that someone in Haiti would see this board is remote, sure, but.....

There isn't anything to "figure out". The information in the article is brief and limited (the entirety of new information is limited to the first third, the rest is just a recap of the story as it developed) and anything you've supposedly "figured out" is based on pure conjecture and induction.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Or, based on the fact that he knows some of the incarcerated, and has information beyond the article.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

I seem to recall telling y'all that one in the group is a friend of mine. I also recall telling you I have been in contact with people more closely associated with that particular relief work. I have mentioned that those "in the know" are being tight-lipped about what actually happened while the Americans are in Haitian custody, for fear of their safety. I somewhat fear saying even as much as I have. What I know has come to me second-hand, to be sure, but from sources I would trust more than I'd trust more than just about anyone.

Part of the problem, however, is that as I recall you did not say that in this thread, and not everyone may have heard it. Also, some of the posts in this thread mysteriously disappeared, and there has been quite a gap in postings.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

If that information isn't privy to others, why should it be expected to draw a conclusion based on it?

Moreover, he posted the article and basically said deduce from it what you will and when people did (and they didn't get much because it was limited, like I said) he gave the le'sigh.

What do you expect? Should I post a picture of an upside down cup and ask you to guess what the dice under it read?

Read this:



Like I said, what more can you deduce from the information in that article?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Bery, I think the point is that we'd like you to explain what you think it means.

So what? If that information isn't privy to other posters, why would you expect anyone to deduce anything based on it? That's like me handing you some strange looking carved block and no other information and then you throw it out of the trash, me digging it out and beating you over the head with it because you threw away the ancient key to some tomb with treasure.

Do you understand what the word "deduction" means? Especially when you present a specific piece of information from which to supposedly "deduce" things from?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I understand what deduction means. I linked an article that alleges corruption of gov't officials in the Haitian govt, and that specifically mentions bribery and that the missionaries refused to pay the money demanded. It's known that the Haitian gov't says the missionaries were arrested because they did not have the proper paperwork.......

It alleges it, it doesn't do anything in the way of substantiating it. Maybe Coq was just a greedy *******, maybe he was honestly trying to defend them and win. Or maybe he was going to get the cash and run, who knows. So I'm not saying Bribery and Extortion scenarios are impossible, but let's look at the facts:

Haiti would be trying to bribe and extort people from a country who is sending millions in aid and supplies in a time when their need for international help is at an all time high and where such an action would be thrust (and already is being thrust) onto the international stage where the rest of the world who is contributing millions in aid and supplies would be able to see it, all for an inconsequential sum of $60,000.

Good for you if you believe the Hatian government is that stupid - even if they were that amoral, you'd have to think they were complete and utter fools to come up with a ploy like that given the consequences of it backfiring, a relatively bad risk of it failing and what they were to reap (relatively nothing) were it to succeed.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Yes, yes, you're implying that "proper paperwork" is pictures of dead presidents, and that these noble aidgivers are in their current quandry due to their unshakable convictions, and not, say, because they can't plan.

_________________

Are you trying to argue that they actually had the proper paperwork, but were refused due to a lack of bribes? I think the obvious problem with that scenario is that none of the people involved are claiming it. So far, the missionaries have all made the same claim - that Silsby claimed to have obtained the proper authorization but was, in fact, lying through her teeth the entire time.

Assuming this is true (I have no reason to doubt it) then the other missionaries were unwitting victims of a lying liar who lies. I still don't understand exactly how they thought this was all going to work, but okay -- I can give them the benefit of the doubt. As for Silsby...it's sounding more and more like she had full knowledge that her actions were illegal and likely to land her (and everyone else's) *** in jail.

If the other missionaries were being deceived the whole time by Silsby, then hopefully they'll be granted leniency and released -- perhaps fined, but not imprisoned. I think it's likely this is how things will turn out considering the amount of international attention this has garnered. Haiti is really in no position to bite the hand that feeds it. As for Silsby, well ... she may very well wind up taking the fall for this. But whose fault will that be? Maybe next time she should try the whole "honesty" thing.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Or, alternately, a Haitian official was trying to line his own pocket and when it was refused..... *edit* mis-spoke, so I have to edit.....

But of course, that couldn't possibly be what happened, since we all know that Christians are the epitome of evil and gov't officials would never demand or accept bribes, even in countries as poor and impoverished as Haiti......