freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2019 at 10:05am:


The second quote refers to the insurgency after the invasion and occupation FD.

We were talking about how the behaviour of the taliban *BEFORE* the invasion and occupation makes the moral case for that invasion and occupation.

You were very specific FD - the taliban during that period executed 8 year olds and under for the high crime of reading non-Quranic material in an "actively enforced policy" and *THEREFORE* we needed to invade and overthrow them. Pointing to how they (and this needs qualification, as the taliban insurgency was not the same beast as the taliban rulers between 1996-2001) behaved after this invasion and overthrow does not have much bearing to that case.

With respect, this is quintessential FD false logic and goalpost shifting. You made a false allegation and now you are proving yourself completely incapable of substantiating it. You call being called out on that "turd polishing" but facts matter FD, no matter how inconvenient they are to us. And I make no apologies for hammering this point.

Karnal wrote on Mar 8^th, 2019 at 12:29pm:


An example of why even inconvenient facts matter: remember the Kuwaiti babies in the incubators that the monstrous Iraqi army were ripping out porky? I still remember when that accusation came out, and the shockwaves that it caused. Of course it was not the reason for the Gulf War, but gee whiz it was helpful in bringing public opinion on board. One might at least ponder over whether or not the war would have been as agreeable as it was to the American public without it. Either way, someone high up decided this was a great propaganda piece.

Fast forward to 2003 - John Howard was having a terrible time justifying his commitment to the Iraq invasion. With the security threat justification in tatters thanks to Andrew Wilkie, Howard then turned to the humanitarian case. Enter the human shredder. Remember that? Pretty horrific eh? But of course you know the drill - never existed, made up, big fat porky to shock people into supporting the invasion.

Of course at the time it would be a brave soul who stood up and said "hang on, where's the evidence" - he/she would be howled down with charges of apologising for monsters, and would be hounded with rhetorical questions like "you seriously think Saddam *WOULDN"T* be that bad huh??"  Strangely, I'm reminded here of FD's own sage words, when he implores us to defend with all our might the right of *ALL* free speech - even, nay *ESPECIALLY* speech that you disagree with. Its not exactly the same, but to me refusing to stand up against porkies, when such porkies are inconvenient to a particular narrative we hold, is a form of self censorship. Free speech and truth-telling goes hand in hand IMO. And I would go so far as to say that anyone who believes in the sanctity of free speech, should see an absolute obligation for those who engage in it to do their utmost to stick to the truth. And that includes calling out porkies when they see them.