Quote:


I may not have mentioned this before, but Islam is the greatest modern threat to freedom and democracy.

Quote:


It would be nice to get rid of him, and comparitively easy, as his support would evaporate given the absence of an evil religion devoted to his rule. We probably would have if not for the threat of Chinese involvement on the other side. Then again, Kim would keep his head down a bit more if there was nothing stopping us.

Quote:


I think you misunderstood my "somewhere near the bottom" comment. Also, you don't seem to realise why I accuse you of being a Taliban apologist. I suggest you read the OP.

Excuse me, FD, you forgot to answer this:

Quote:


Shurely some mishtake?

All Muslim countries are hellish c***s of a place.  All. Some are lawless, others are not.

We leave the lawful bastards in place because they are at least keeping their Muslim  C***s in check, after a fashion. Or at least we can exert pressure on them.

The other c***s we have no influence over so we bomb them or let other Muslim c***s bomb them.

What don't you get, Paki?

They are all hideous dishonest farkers, but you can't be Roman about such barbarians any more because the UN and Amnesty would make a fuss. So we now pretend that barbarians are civilised and the civilised are barbarians.


Well, I am not doing any such pretending, I leave all that to you, Paki. Someone will give you ten rupee for being a an enemy of your own people and that will make you very pleased.

freediver wrote on Feb 8^th, 2019 at 7:26pm:


What I'm getting at FD, is that on any other occasion that you're not a) blindly cheerleading US regime change or b) reflexively attacking whatever the resident muslim opposes - you actually take a more nuanced approach to regime change. Your defense of the disastrous Afghan invasion and subsequent quagmire is nothing short of shrill and completely irrational - and is clearly driven by a) not daring to question the wisdom of American military intervention (especially when its about "sticking it" to Islam) and b) clearly distinguishing yourself from the resident muslim who happens to have opposed it. Yet even with these key criterium I actually thought the sheer scale of the disaster of the invasion that has caused untold 10s of thousands of deaths and allowed bin Laden to get off the hook for 10 years - might cause some quiet reflection. Not so.

Yet you have demonstrated one thing here FD - that you are actually capable of calm, rational thought - just not when attacking Islam and/or the apologists is at stake.

freediver wrote on Feb 11^th, 2019 at 8:37am:


Spoken like a true hysteric.

freediver wrote on Feb 11^th, 2019 at 8:37am:


Oh, you must be talking about the wrong kind of democracy - like when post-invasion Iraq tried to set up their own local democratic councils, that would elect candidates to the new federal parliament - but was quashed, violently, by the US occupation forces - in favour of their own puppets - and then the Iraqis fought against that. Or are you talking about when the Afghanis starting pushing back on the despot Karzai who the US repeatedly rigged elections for? Or maybe you mean when the US backed the brutal dictator Suharto in his coup against Sukarno who was in the midst of pushing through democratic reforms? Iran 1953...? etc etc.

I'm wondering, has the US actually ever fought "for democracy" in any of their interventions in the muslim world? Actual democracy I mean, as in letting the people decide.

Good point FD - we can't have those pesky muslims deciding themselves what they do with their own society.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 11^th, 2019 at 2:55pm:


Yes we can Gandalf, if they have democracy. But if we had given them this backdoor Islamic dictatorship you are so fond of, they would have never gotten the chance.

So, you want to dismantle Iraq's democracy, and you will tell the most absurd and transparent lies in defence of the Taliban. Why do you always seem to side with the extremists?