Gandalf was having trouble bringing himself to criticise people who travel to the middle east to support ISIS, and took issue with my description of them as scum.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 12:40pm:


He also tried changing the topic to US foreign policy, which introduced an itneresting effort at moral equivalence.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 2:56pm:


Gandalf then decided he had said nothing about moral equivalence:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 4:28pm:


Then he went back to saying things about the morality of supporting them

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 9:14am:


Then decided we should stick to what he actually said rather than trying to get him to explain it:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 11:38am:

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 5:16pm:


Tell us all how you believe certain women deserve to be raped, tortured and murdered FD.

How about if I said I'm "not sympathetic" to people who materially support the US slaughter machine?

Not really sure why you're reading so much into the "not sympathetic" phrase - the point I was making was that people who support mass murder, whether its US foreign policy or ISIS are not people I would blanket label as "scum" who "deserve everything they get". No one "deserves" to be raped tortured or murdered in my view - a position that is far more reasonable than yours. But please, keep emphasising what a hysterical extremist you are.

'not sympathetic' is an appropriate term that covers the whole range - from misguided ignorants all the way to sadist scum, which should safely cover the range of people who support ISIS. Its also about the same as the range of people who support US mass murder, thus I would apply the same term. And yes, probably a reasonable term for nazis too. Far more reasonable than simply blanket label the entire range as "scum" who "deserve everything they get".

The USA is large and complex nation with as good a legal system as any other, and in many cases it is a lot better. Its political system is among the best so far devised. The policies of the government are open to change if those who want change have the numbers.

The US has a mixed history as far as sound or detrimental policies go. But its positive contributions far out-weigh the negative, and they make the contributions of Islam look like a cheap blood and guts horror movie.

To anti-Americanists, I say get rid of all the Americanisms in your life, and replace them with Islamic notions.

Stop driving vehicles with any American ingenuity in it. Stop wearing American clothes and footwear. Stop using American medicines. Stop using the Internet. Don't fly in aircraft, don't watch movies, just bow down to Mecca.

But Muslims hypocrisy is justified in the Koran, and much anti-Americanism is thinly veiled racism directed at people of European descent.

Can you explain how my paraphrase is different to what you said? I can't see any difference.

So US foreign policy is morally superior to ISIS, but supporting ISIS is morally superior to supporting US foreign policy?

I watched a show on SBS last night -

it seems that most of the weapons the USA provided for the fight against the Syrian regime ended up in the hands of ISIS.

Why does the West keep pouring weapons into a powder keg?

Couldn't they have predicted what would have happened?

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 3:46pm:


Sure, I refer you to what I actually said. You have about 5 quotes in the OP that covers all your questions. If only you would actually read - and comprehend them.

Anyone else besides FD confused by what I said? No, didn't think so.