Quote:

Days After Sentencing 3 Ahmadi Muslims To Death, Pakistan Wins UN Human Rights Seat When posters abusing and calling for the social boycott of Ahmadi Muslims were plastered in a Pakistani village, four Ahmadis decided to remove them from their Mosque. In retrospect, it was a bad decision. Just five days ago, a Pakistani court handed three of them the death sentence for “blasphemy” (for tearing down “religious posters”). The fourth one? just a few days after his arrest, he was gunned down while in police custody. This kind of blasphemy sentence is not an anomaly. It is a small glimpse into the systematic and state-sponsored persecution of Ahmadi Muslims across the country Since the inception of these laws, over a hundred Ahmadiyya Mosques have either been sealed by the State, or burned down or forcibly taken over by extremist mobs https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/days-after-sentencing-three-ahmadi-muslims-to-death_us_59e28ba7e4b09e31db97599d?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004

Pakistan considers the Ahmadis to be deviant heretical non muslims.

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 12:04pm:

Pakistan considers the Ahmadis to be deviant heretical non muslims.

So do most other Muslims, Baron.  Unfortunately, their key belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, as prophesied by the Islamic prophet Muhammad, runs counter to the main thinking of mainstream Islam.   It is akin to believing that Saint Paul was the true messiah for the Christians...    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 3:49pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 12:04pm: Pakistan considers the Ahmadis to be deviant heretical non muslims. So do most other Muslims, Baron.  Unfortunately, their key belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, as prophesied by the Islamic prophet Muhammad, runs counter to the main thinking of mainstream Islam.   It is akin to believing that Saint Paul was the true messiah for the Christians...    ::) Absolute B.S. Paul was always loyal to his LORD.  "Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,"

'Ahmadis sentenced to death for blasphemy'


Off with their heads!!

Heretical scum!




"We sent not a messenger, but to be obeyed..........they ['believers'] can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction."
Koran 4.64, 65


"O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger [i.e. the clerics today], and make not vain your deeds!"
Koran 47:33



.




Quote:

"....the death of those who are killed for the cause of God gives more impetus to the cause, which continues to thrive on their blood."

ISLAMIC religious scholar, Sayyid Qutb



.




Quote:

"What makes Allah happy? Allah is happy, when kafir get killed."

....and the heretics!

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 12:04pm:

Quote: Days After Sentencing 3 Ahmadi Muslims To Death, Pakistan Wins UN Human Rights Seat When posters abusing and calling for the social boycott of Ahmadi Muslims were plastered in a Pakistani village, four Ahmadis decided to remove them from their Mosque.... https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/days-after-sentencing-three-ahmadi-muslims-to-death_us_59e28ba7e4b09e31db97599d?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004 Pakistan considers the Ahmadis to be deviant heretical non muslims.

MAINSTREAM ISLAM, CALLS FOR ACTIVE SOCIAL OSTRACISM, AND ACTIVE HOSTILITY AND VIOLENCE, BY MOSLEMS,
TOWARDS EVERY 'DISBELIEVER'
....BY ALL MEMBERS, OF EVERY RIGHTEOUS MOSLEM COMMUNITY.


THE RELIGIOUS PRECEPTS AND DOCTRINES OF ISLAM PROMOTE COMMUNITY DIVISION AND THE SOCIAL ALIENATION OF, AND HOSTILITY AND VIOLENCE TOWARDS, those "who resist Allah and His Messenger"
[unless a person submits to ISLAM's own strictures - e.g. like agreeing to the murdering of those who reject ISLAM's authority]




Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504079978/14#14

Quote:

'Teacher quits after primary school students threaten to behead her' QUESTION; Where do moslem children     living in Australia      get these ideas from ?

.



"Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred...."
Koran 58.22


"O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers."
Koran 9.23


"....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends....
......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them."
Koran 5.51


"Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves....."
Koran 48.29


"There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone"....."
Koran 60:4


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29

Reforming Islam
Can it be done?
Tanveer Ahmed

15 April 2017

The Koran was placed on the highest possible level in my household. It was a mark of awe that the Holy Book should sit on the top of the book shelf. By the time I was a teenager, I was expected to perform a purification ritual, wudu, before reading it. Menstruating women were not allowed to touch it.

I was always encouraged to read it in Arabic, because otherwise I would not understand the true meaning of the text, or so I was told. This was also the response from clerics or mullahs if questions about uncomfortable passages encouraging the killing of unbelievers, hitting women or executing homosexuals arose. I had to understand the root words in Arabic before I could offer any opinions.

This has always been the way with all structures of authority. Control of the language and terminology is a way of maintaining power. Catholic priests did the same with Latin and the Bible. But then along came the printing press and Luther, smashing up the old hierarchies. Suddenly information spread like wildfire, books were easily printed in other languages and illiterate people had motivation to learn to read. Soon they could read the text of the Bible and decide for themselves, upending previous hierarchies.

While the Reformation is considered a problematic word in Islam, because Wahhabism and the nation of Saudi Arabia are considered the products of an equivalent purification of Islam, the reform of Islam may be driven by the internet.

British ex-Muslim Maryam Namazie says that the internet is helping to unshackle Muslim atheists, previously hiding in the midst of their respectable, pious brethren. Translation software is allowing for much easier textual understanding and investigation of so called Arabic root words. When scepticism or unbelief takes hold, unbelievers have access to an available online community of support.

‘This has brought with it courage and hope for the right to live as they choose. It’s become a global resistance movement,’ writes Namazie.

The development represents a major threat to the stability and hierarchy of Islamic countries. The Saudis are taking it very seriously with authorities equating atheism with terrorism in new laws. In Egypt, the highest Sunni authority has joined forces with the youth ministry to combat rising expressions of atheism. Apostasy is punishable by death in at least thirteen Islamic countries with many more carrying offences like flogging and imprisonment.

Nor are such attitudes limited to beyond our shores. As recent footage of a Hizb ut-Tahrir meeting in Sydney illustrates, there is no shortage of locally based Muslims who agree that apostates must be killed in Islam. Their escape clause is that this should occur only in an ideal Islamic state, which Australia thankfully falls short of.

Such legalistic technicalities were not necessary for my Uber driver namesake who travelled hundreds of kilometres from Northern England to kill an Ahmadi shopkeeper, Asad Shah, residing in Glasgow. That Tanveer Ahmed is now a hero in his native Pakistan for upholding Islamic values by killing heretics. A rally of support for his actions was held earlier this year.

That such tensions are simmering within Muslim communities is a measure of the genuine desire of many to implement needed reform. But the vast bulk of support from Western governments and media outlets are aimed at aiding so called moderate, religious Muslims; most of whom fall into the apologist category. Supporting atheists from Islam is politically incorrect, because authorities and respectable pundits do not want to be accused of encouraging Muslims to leave the religion. Furthermore, as we’ve just seen with the cancellation of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s trip, even reasonably held atheist views from Islam are seen as threatening, insensitive and demeaning to religious Muslims. This is one of the biggest barriers to the reform of Islam, that Muslim identity is so tightly wrapped up in the expression of self. We may see hijabs and beards as external markers but they are fashion accessories to an inner outfit of historical injustice, moral superiority and a barely disguised middle finger to Anglo-Saxon, mainstream Australia.

For decades Muslims have protested that any legitimate criticism of Israel is deflected by Jews with accusations of anti-semitism. But now Muslims have jumped on the bandwagon themselves with the term Islamophobia used as a defence against the scrutiny of the set of ideas that is Islam.

The result is often an unsophisticated debate veering from proclamations that Islam is a falsely maligned religion of peace to more antagonistic voices demanding bans on Muslim immigration. By aggressively crowding out the most informed Islamic reformers, like Hirsi Ali or British thinker Maajid Nawaz, defensive Muslims are rewarded with the likes of Wilders, Trump or Hanson.

But Islamic reform depends upon having a large variety of voices and thinkers in the tent varying from feminists, gays and atheists. The notion of an atheist or cultural Muslim has traditionally been a joke, an oxymoron in Islam, but it is time for this new category. As the Canadian-Pakistani physician illustrates in his book The Atheist Muslim, the vast majority of Muslims completely reject the passages in the Koran encouraging the hitting of women, executing homosexuals or killing apostates. But in their rejection they are usually limited to intellectual gymnastics about the passages lacking context because Muslims still believe the text as the word of God. The implications of the way most Muslims behave is that they do not actually believe the Koran being the literal word of God. As Rizvi notes, religious believers all self select their views within certain confines.

There are many cafeteria Catholics who ignore the faith’s teachings around abortion and contraception but retain their Catholic identities. Likewise many Jews openly reject belief in an Abrahamic God but are committed to traditions like Passover. Judaism progressed from questioning the Torah as being the word of God to accepting that it was created by men with divine inspiration.

Figures like Hirsi Ali have changed their attitudes to reform, believing that it’s important to be in the tent with Muslims, whereas previously she was resigned to abandoning the religion altogether. But any progress still depends upon Muslims giving up such a space and not seeing atheists as existential threats. There is only a flicker of such attitudinal change thus far.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/reforming-islam/

So can it be done? No. Islam can bee abandoned but reforming is only possible if the ideas that the Koran is the eternal, perfect and unalterable word of god is rejected. But then if that idea is rejected, Mohammed's 'final prophethood' has to be also rejected.

After that,  what is left of Islam??

when I read stuff like this   I am glad I am NOT religious...

if you kill in the name of GOD...all I ask is

what kind of GOD is that?>.. :( :( :(

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 3:49pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 12:04pm: Pakistan considers the Ahmadis to be deviant heretical non muslims. So do most other Muslims, Baron.  Unfortunately, their key belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, as prophesied by the Islamic prophet Muhammad, runs counter to the main thinking of mainstream Islam.   It is akin to believing that Saint Paul was the true messiah for the Christians...    ::)

Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them.

The Muslims are suffering their own Inquisition just

as Christians did under the Roman Catholics.


THE TRUE FACE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC INQUISITION --
ROTTEN SPIRITUAL FRUIT FROM THE ABYSS OF HELL

Since history books have been largely rewritten,
few people know specific details of this murderous campaign that lasted over 1,200 years,
killing 75 million people.
But, once you understand the unprecedented horrors of the Inquisition,
you will never look at Roman Catholicism the same way again.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/Inquisition_13_Burning.jpg

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1676.cfm

freediver wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 6:36pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 3:49pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 12:04pm: Pakistan considers the Ahmadis to be deviant heretical non muslims. So do most other Muslims, Baron.  Unfortunately, their key belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, as prophesied by the Islamic prophet Muhammad, runs counter to the main thinking of mainstream Islam.   It is akin to believing that Saint Paul was the true messiah for the Christians...    ::) Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them.

Kill the Munchkins where ever you find them?  Really, FD?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 9:16pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 6:36pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 3:49pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 12:04pm: Pakistan considers the Ahmadis to be deviant heretical non muslims. So do most other Muslims, Baron.  Unfortunately, their key belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, as prophesied by the Islamic prophet Muhammad, runs counter to the main thinking of mainstream Islam.   It is akin to believing that Saint Paul was the true messiah for the Christians...    ::) Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them. Kill the Munchkins where ever you find them?  Really, FD?   ::)

Yep.

Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them.


Even in the UK, even in Australia.

Wherever you find them.


Allah loves a bit of blood letting.



Quote:

"What makes Allah happy? Allah is happy, when kafir get killed."

- UK ISLAMIC community leader 'in-house' advice to his flock.


Watch the whole documentary;

Google;
dispatches undercover mosque, channel 4, -Return



.




Quote:

"You're never too young to be a homicidal maniac for Allah!"

------------- >


Muslims brainwash children in Australia  -------- >   goto 43 sec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krk5piUzp1E


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krk5piUzp1E



.



Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them.

Even in Australia.

Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504079978/14#14

Quote:

'Teacher quits after primary school students threaten to behead her' QUESTION; Where do moslem children living in Australia get these ideas from ?

.



IMAGE.....
http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170120131649-02-melbourne-car-crash-exlarge-169.jpg

Melbourne atrocity, committed by a 'Greek' person claiming that...

"Muslim faith is the correct faith according to the whole world.....

And I am not guilty."

.....n.b.        the dropkick who did this, considers himself to be a virtuous person.


Killing the disbeliever [to the moslem], is performing 'good works' for his faith.

Killing the disbeliever, is what all of the religious precepts of ISLAM direct him to do.




.



QUESTION;
When will the next       avoidable      atrocity in Australia occur ?

Yadda wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 9:50pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 9:16pm: freediver wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 6:36pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 3:49pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 12:04pm: Pakistan considers the Ahmadis to be deviant heretical non muslims. So do most other Muslims, Baron.  Unfortunately, their key belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, as prophesied by the Islamic prophet Muhammad, runs counter to the main thinking of mainstream Islam.   It is akin to believing that Saint Paul was the true messiah for the Christians...    ::) Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them. Kill the Munchkins where ever you find them?  Really, FD?   ::) Yep. Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them.

Kill the Munchkins where ever you find them?  Really, Yadda?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 10:20pm:

Yadda wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 9:50pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 9:16pm: freediver wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 6:36pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 3:49pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 12:04pm: Pakistan considers the Ahmadis to be deviant heretical non muslims. So do most other Muslims, Baron.  Unfortunately, their key belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, as prophesied by the Islamic prophet Muhammad, runs counter to the main thinking of mainstream Islam.   It is akin to believing that Saint Paul was the true messiah for the Christians...    ::) Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them. Kill the Munchkins where ever you find them?  Really, FD?   ::) Yep. Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them. Kill the Munchkins where ever you find them?  Really, Yadda?   ::)

Yep, kill disbelievers, wherever you find them.

In ISLAM, disbelief is a capital crime.

In places that enforce ISLAMIC law, it is completely lawful to execute,
1/ disbelievers
2/ apostates,
3/ blasphemers,
4/ any person who is deemed to have 'insulted' ISLAM.


e.g.
brian,

Do you remember the Mohammed Teddy Bear incident, in the Sudan, a few years ago ?

Where an English woman was working as a school teacher in the Sudan.

And she suggested to her pupils, the name 'Mohammed' for a toy Teddy Bear that she had, in the classroom.

This English woman was arrested, and local moslems held street protests calling for her to be beheaded, for insulting the Messenger of Allah.


'Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them.'

'Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them.'




Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_teddy_bear_blasphemy_case

The Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case concerns the 2007 arrest, trial, conviction,....Unity High School in Khartoum, Sudan.
She was convicted of insulting Islam by allowing her class of six-year-olds to name a teddy bear "Muhammad".


Off with the heads of all blasphemers !!!!         >:(         >:(

Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them.

Yadda wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 10:42pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 10:20pm: Yadda wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 9:50pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 9:16pm: freediver wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 6:36pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 3:49pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 12:04pm: Pakistan considers the Ahmadis to be deviant heretical non muslims. So do most other Muslims, Baron.  Unfortunately, their key belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, as prophesied by the Islamic prophet Muhammad, runs counter to the main thinking of mainstream Islam.   It is akin to believing that Saint Paul was the true messiah for the Christians...    ::) Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them. Kill the Munchkins where ever you find them?  Really, FD?   ::) Yep. Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them. Kill the Munchkins where ever you find them?  Really, Yadda?   ::) Yep, kill disbelievers, wherever you find them.

Munchkins are "disbelievers"?  Really, Yadda?    ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them.

It would be Islamophobic for Julie Bishop or any non muslim to whinge about Islamic blasphemy laws in Pakistan.

Where are the muslims having a whinge about blasphemy laws where sharia law prevails or would it be blasphemy for muslims to whinge about their blasphemy laws?

What happened to Salman Taseer when he opposed blasphemy laws?

Quote:

'The killer of my father, Salman Taseer, was showered with rose petals by fanatics. How could they do this?' Thousands of Pakistanis showered rose petals on the assassin of Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab who sought clemency for a Christian woman sentenced to death. Here his eldest son, Aatish Taseer, who lives in Delhi, mourns his death - and the nihilism of a country that could not tolerate a patriot who was humanitarian to his core. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8248162/The-killer-of-my-father-Salman-Taseer-was-showered-with-rose-petals-by-fanatics.-How-could-they-do-this.html

The Pakistani ISI created the Taliban, the even gave Bin Laden a safe place to stay so the USA had trouble finding him

Quote:

Why Would the Pakistani Intelligence Agency Support the Taliban? One of the most disturbing aspects of the revelations contained in WikiLeaks is the picture it paints of the behavior of Pakistan. Pakistan, it seems, has been playing a ‘double game,’ assuring the US that it is doing what it can to tackle the fundamentalist militancy within its borders, taking incredible quantities of US aid in both cash and kind, but not only allowing militancy to flourish within its borders, but also, the leaks show, tolerating contact between top-level figures from its Intelligence Agency and commanders of the insurgency. Given the allied perception that the fundamentalist militants pose a clear threat not just to the allied but to Pakistan too, one of the questions which is most often asked is: why is Pakistan doing this? There are a number of reasons. Foremost amongst them is the Pakistani Intelligence Agency’s institutional perception that the main threat to the country comes from India. This runs deep and colors most Pakistani analysts’ view of the conflict on its Western border. It means, firstly, that they see the Taliban as an acceptable bulwark against Indian ambitions to dominate the region, whether real or perceived https://www.huffingtonpost.com/azeem-ibrahim/why-would-the-pakistani-i_b_663005.html

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them.

Now now, G, they're allies.

I'm sure Alevine would approve of us shaking the Pakistani Attorney General's hand.

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 4:24pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them. It would be Islamophobic for Julie Bishop or any non muslim to whinge about Islamic blasphemy laws in Pakistan. Where are the muslims having a whinge about blasphemy laws where sharia law prevails or would it be blasphemy for muslims to whinge about their blasphemy laws? What happened to Salman Taseer when he opposed blasphemy laws? Quote: 'The killer of my father, Salman Taseer, was showered with rose petals by fanatics. How could they do this?' Thousands of Pakistanis showered rose petals on the assassin of Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab who sought clemency for a Christian woman sentenced to death. Here his eldest son, Aatish Taseer, who lives in Delhi, mourns his death - and the nihilism of a country that could not tolerate a patriot who was humanitarian to his core. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8248162/The-killer-of-my-father-Salman-Taseer-was-showered-with-rose-petals-by-fanatics.-How-could-they-do-this.html The Pakistani ISI created the Taliban, the even gave Bin Laden a safe place to stay so the USA had trouble finding him [quote] Why Would the Pakistani Intelligence Agency Support the Taliban? One of the most disturbing aspects of the revelations contained in WikiLeaks is the picture it paints of the behavior of Pakistan. Pakistan, it seems, has been playing a ‘double game,’ assuring the US that it is doing what it can to tackle the fundamentalist militancy within its borders, taking incredible quantities of US aid in both cash and kind, but not only allowing militancy to flourish within its borders, but also, the leaks show, tolerating contact between top-level figures from its Intelligence Agency and commanders of the insurgency. Given the allied perception that the fundamentalist militants pose a clear threat not just to the allied but to Pakistan too, one of the questions which is most often asked is: why is Pakistan doing this? There are a number of reasons. Foremost amongst them is the Pakistani Intelligence Agency’s institutional perception that the main threat to the country comes from India. This runs deep and colors most Pakistani analysts’ view of the conflict on its Western border. It means, firstly, that they see the Taliban as an acceptable bulwark against Indian ambitions to dominate the region, whether real or perceived https://www.huffingtonpost.com/azeem-ibrahim/why-would-the-pakistani-i_b_663005.html

[/quote]

They're good enough for Mr Trump, Barron. Pakistanis are perfectly free to visit Amerika.

As for those cunning swarthy Yemenis -

Ban them - until we can work out what the hell is going on.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them.

Do you think we should engage in a bit more cultural imperialism Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 6:34pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them. Do you think we should engage in a bit more cultural imperialism Gandalf?

Do you?

yes

freediver wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 9:24pm:

yes

I see. Should we tell little white lies to promote our imperialist agenda as well?

Nothing much, of course. Nothing that can be traced back to us, anyway. Something harmless. Good, clean fun.

Do you think we should engage in a bit more cultural imperialism?

freediver wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 10:22pm:

Do you think we should engage in a bit more cultural imperialism?

Would you like me to ask you again?

Are you going for 720 degrees?

What's the matter, FD? Cat got your tongue?

Karnal wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 9:42pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 9:24pm: yes I see. Should we tell little white lies to promote our imperialist agenda as well? Nothing much, of course. Nothing that can be traced back to us, anyway. Something harmless. Good, clean fun.

Ends justify the means K.

freediver wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 6:34pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them. Do you think we should engage in a bit more cultural imperialism Gandalf?

No FD.

The international community calls out human rights abuses around the world all the time. This is not cultural imperialism by the way, its standing up for human rights. t doesn't do this in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia for reasons we are all aware of. We can't directly stop a nation from abusing its people, but we can criticise it. And thats what we should be doing.

Hi Gandalf,
do you reckon a good hanging is in order?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVdbKHZdGcE

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 8:06am:

freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 6:34pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them. Do you think we should engage in a bit more cultural imperialism Gandalf? No FD. The international community calls out human rights abuses around the world all the time. This is not cultural imperialism by the way, its standing up for human rights. t doesn't do this in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia for reasons we are all aware of. We can't directly stop a nation from abusing its people, but we can criticise it. And thats what we should be doing.

Sure we can stop them. We have been interfering in the Muslim world for centuries to make them stop. It has worked fairly well for slavery. Now we are giving them the gift of democracy.

Karnal wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 9:42pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 9:24pm: yes I see. Should we tell little white lies to promote our imperialist agenda as well? Nothing much, of course. Nothing that can be traced back to us, anyway. Something harmless. Good, clean fun.

FD, you neglected answer the question. Are we to assume you're running away? Are you scared?

Are you the board's new jellyfish?

Bobby. wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 8:16am:

Hi Gandalf, do you reckon a good hanging is in order? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVdbKHZdGcE

Can't hang a jellyfish. It's hard just to kill em with your shoe. And how do you know when you've killed em?

Karnal wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 9:52am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 8:16am: Hi Gandalf, do you reckon a good hanging is in order? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVdbKHZdGcE Can't hang a jellyfish. It's hard just to kill em with your shoe. And how do you know when you've killed em?

Karnal,
when you hang a man you better look at him.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 2:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 9:52am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 8:16am: Hi Gandalf, do you reckon a good hanging is in order? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVdbKHZdGcE Can't hang a jellyfish. It's hard just to kill em with your shoe. And how do you know when you've killed em? Karnal, when you hang a man you better look at him.

Don't look no niggra in the eye, boy, that's bad luck. You can look at a jellyfish, but he don't look back. Watch:

FD, would you care to answer a question?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them.

Yeah, good one. Just remind us - why are the Muslims killing other Muslims in Yemen?
Nuffin to do wiv Shia dogs versus Sunni dogs, does it?  It's about life, liberty and the the pursuit of happiness, Inshallah, no?

Karnal wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 3:06pm:

Don't look no niggra in the eye, boy, that's bad luck. You can look at a jellyfish, but he don't look back.

Hey - it's Saturday - we has got ourselves a hangin.

God's work you know.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 3:59pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 3:06pm: Don't look no niggra in the eye, boy, that's bad luck. You can look at a jellyfish, but he don't look back. Hey - it's Saturday - we has got ourselves a hangin. God's work you know.

Damn right.

Karnal wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 4:05pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 3:59pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 3:06pm: Don't look no niggra in the eye, boy, that's bad luck. You can look at a jellyfish, but he don't look back. Hey - it's Saturday - we has got ourselves a hangin. God's work you know. Damn right.

Damn right and tonight there's gunna be a special hangin -

for them blasphemers -  yee haa

Bobby. wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 4:11pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 4:05pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 3:59pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 3:06pm: Don't look no niggra in the eye, boy, that's bad luck. You can look at a jellyfish, but he don't look back. Hey - it's Saturday - we has got ourselves a hangin. God's work you know. Damn right. Damn right and tonight there's gunna be a special hangin - for them blasphemers -  yee haa

Negative. We're hangin niggras here, boy.

Karnal wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 4:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 4:11pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 4:05pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 3:59pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 3:06pm: Don't look no niggra in the eye, boy, that's bad luck. You can look at a jellyfish, but he don't look back. Hey - it's Saturday - we has got ourselves a hangin. God's work you know. Damn right. Damn right and tonight there's gunna be a special hangin - for them blasphemers -  yee haa Negative. We're hangin niggras here, boy.

But we ain't seen none of them types for a while now.

I wonder why?

Bobby. wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 5:11pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 4:55pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 4:11pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 4:05pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 3:59pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 3:06pm: Don't look no niggra in the eye, boy, that's bad luck. You can look at a jellyfish, but he don't look back. Hey - it's Saturday - we has got ourselves a hangin. God's work you know. Damn right. Damn right and tonight there's gunna be a special hangin - for them blasphemers -  yee haa Negative. We're hangin niggras here, boy. But we ain't seen none of them types for a while now. I wonder why?

FD bans em.

Yee hah.

Frank wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 3:43pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them. Yeah, good one. Just remind us - why are the Muslims killing other Muslims in Yemen? Nuffin to do wiv Shia dogs versus Sunni dogs, does it?  It's about life, liberty and the the pursuit of happiness, Inshallah, no?

It's politically incorrect for our politicians to call it out when Muslims do this sort of thing. They would be branded Islamophobes and accused by the apologists of spreading hate. Remember, Brian says he has no right or ability to criticise other nations or religions.

freediver wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 5:28pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 3:43pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them. Yeah, good one. Just remind us - why are the Muslims killing other Muslims in Yemen? Nuffin to do wiv Shia dogs versus Sunni dogs, does it?  It's about life, liberty and the the pursuit of happiness, Inshallah, no? It's politically incorrect for our politicians to call it out when Muslims do this sort of thing. They would be branded Islamophobes and accused by the apologists of spreading hate. Remember, Brian says he has no right or ability to criticise other nations or religions.

That's true, FD. It's considered politically incorrect in Canberra to disagree with any aspect of US foreign policy. Julie Bishop is at pains to agree with everything Donald Trump says, you can see. She looks physically in pain when she's asked about Trump's latest tweets.

Do you uphold the use of porkies in your campaign against the Yemenis?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Frank wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 3:43pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them. Yeah, good one. Just remind us - why are the Muslims killing other Muslims in Yemen? Nuffin to do wiv Shia dogs versus Sunni dogs, does it?  It's about life, liberty and the the pursuit of happiness, Inshallah, no?

Frank,

Only the Saudis represent true moslems.        ;)

The 'moslems' in Yemen are rebels [AND, Shia!!!!].

Therefore, they are deemed to be infidels.

Therefore, it is 100% righteous, for teh true moslems, to slaughter every last one of those infidels.





THE RULE IS THAT...
Whenever and wherever a moslem is involved in a conflict,
a moslem only ever kills those who are deserving of death.

i.e.
The infidel.


------- >


SYRIA: An example of moslems slaughtering moslems...
...and an example of moslems justifying this slaughter, as a moslem war against infidels.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1333935983/0#0

Karnal wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 5:34pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 5:28pm: Frank wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 3:43pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them. Yeah, good one. Just remind us - why are the Muslims killing other Muslims in Yemen? Nuffin to do wiv Shia dogs versus Sunni dogs, does it?  It's about life, liberty and the the pursuit of happiness, Inshallah, no? It's politically incorrect for our politicians to call it out when Muslims do this sort of thing. They would be branded Islamophobes and accused by the apologists of spreading hate. Remember, Brian says he has no right or ability to criticise other nations or religions. That's true, FD. It's considered politically incorrect in Canberra to disagree with any aspect of US foreign policy. Julie Bishop is at pains to agree with everything Donald Trump says, you can see. She looks physically in pain when she's asked about Trump's latest tweets. Do you uphold the use of porkies in your campaign against the Yemenis? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Oh, Trump is making the Saudies kill the Shia dogs of Yemen. And Julie Bishop agrees with him.

Another geopolitical insight from Kameel that Paki cameleer.

Frank wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 12:05pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 5:34pm: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 5:28pm: Frank wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 3:43pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them. Yeah, good one. Just remind us - why are the Muslims killing other Muslims in Yemen? Nuffin to do wiv Shia dogs versus Sunni dogs, does it?  It's about life, liberty and the the pursuit of happiness, Inshallah, no? It's politically incorrect for our politicians to call it out when Muslims do this sort of thing. They would be branded Islamophobes and accused by the apologists of spreading hate. Remember, Brian says he has no right or ability to criticise other nations or religions. That's true, FD. It's considered politically incorrect in Canberra to disagree with any aspect of US foreign policy. Julie Bishop is at pains to agree with everything Donald Trump says, you can see. She looks physically in pain when she's asked about Trump's latest tweets. Do you uphold the use of porkies in your campaign against the Yemenis? A simple yes or no will suffice. Oh, Trump is making the Saudies kill the Shia dogs of Yemen. And Julie Bishop agrees with him. Another geopolitical insight from Kameel that Paki cameleer.

Do you uphold the use of lies, dear boy?

I'm a little curious about you too, you know.

freediver wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 8:46am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 8:06am: freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 6:34pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them. Do you think we should engage in a bit more cultural imperialism Gandalf? No FD. The international community calls out human rights abuses around the world all the time. This is not cultural imperialism by the way, its standing up for human rights. t doesn't do this in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia for reasons we are all aware of. We can't directly stop a nation from abusing its people, but we can criticise it. And thats what we should be doing. Sure we can stop them. We have been interfering in the Muslim world for centuries to make them stop. It has worked fairly well for slavery. Now we are giving them the gift of democracy.

Aww isn't that sweet? FD actually believes the wars with the Islamic world have been to stop slavery.

So what do you have in mind FD - a full scale invasion of Pakistan? Arming a rebel faction to overthrow the democratically elected government? I mean these sorts of campaigns have worked so swimmingly in the recent past haven't they?

Frank wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 3:43pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them. Yeah, good one. Just remind us - why are the Muslims killing other Muslims in Yemen? Nuffin to do wiv Shia dogs versus Sunni dogs, does it?  It's about life, liberty and the the pursuit of happiness, Inshallah, no?

No Frank, not sure where you got that idea. The Saudis are trying to destroy what they see as the threat of an Iranian proxy (Huthis) in Yemen. With material and (at least until very recently) direct logistical support from the US.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2017 at 12:50pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 8:46am: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 8:06am: freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 6:34pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them. Do you think we should engage in a bit more cultural imperialism Gandalf? No FD. The international community calls out human rights abuses around the world all the time. This is not cultural imperialism by the way, its standing up for human rights. t doesn't do this in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia for reasons we are all aware of. We can't directly stop a nation from abusing its people, but we can criticise it. And thats what we should be doing. Sure we can stop them. We have been interfering in the Muslim world for centuries to make them stop. It has worked fairly well for slavery. Now we are giving them the gift of democracy. Aww isn't that sweet? FD actually believes the wars with the Islamic world have been to stop slavery. So what do you have in mind FD - a full scale invasion of Pakistan? Arming a rebel faction to overthrow the democratically elected government? I mean these sorts of campaigns have worked so swimmingly in the recent past haven't they?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars

The Barbary Wars were a series of conflicts that culminated in two wars fought at different times over the same reasons between the United States, Sweden, and the Barbary states (the de jure possessions of the Ottoman Empire, but de facto independent, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli) of North Africa in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The Swedes had been at war with the Tripolitans since 1800; they were eventually joined by the Americans.[2] At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. If ships of a given country failed to pay, pirates would attack the ship and take their goods, and often enslave crew members or hold them for ransom.

After the Barbary wars, western powers continued to interfere in Muslim countries to first bring about an end to the international slave trade, then local slave trades, and finally to make slavery illegal. Sex slavery is a big reason why everyone is ganging up on ISIS.

As for what I would suggest, I think we should start with killing off ISIS and firmly establishing democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2017 at 12:50pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 8:46am: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 8:06am: freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 6:34pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them. Do you think we should engage in a bit more cultural imperialism Gandalf? No FD. The international community calls out human rights abuses around the world all the time. This is not cultural imperialism by the way, its standing up for human rights. t doesn't do this in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia for reasons we are all aware of. We can't directly stop a nation from abusing its people, but we can criticise it. And thats what we should be doing. Sure we can stop them. We have been interfering in the Muslim world for centuries to make them stop. It has worked fairly well for slavery. Now we are giving them the gift of democracy. Aww isn't that sweet? FD actually believes the wars with the Islamic world have been to stop slavery.?

Oh, of course. Freeeeedom, innit.

But I'm curious. Why haven't we invaded all those African countries who use child soldiers? Why haven't we freed the children and provided them with refuge?

Sorry, I remember now. They're tinted.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2017 at 1:59pm:

As for what I would suggest, I think we should start with killing off ISIS and firmly establishing democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ha!

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2017 at 1:59pm:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars The Barbary Wars were a series of conflicts that culminated in two wars fought at different times over the same reasons between the United States, Sweden, and the Barbary states (the de jure possessions of the Ottoman Empire, but de facto independent, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli) of North Africa in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The Swedes had been at war with the Tripolitans since 1800; they were eventually joined by the Americans.[2] At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. If ships of a given country failed to pay, pirates would attack the ship and take their goods, and often enslave crew members or hold them for ransom. After the Barbary wars, western powers continued to interfere in Muslim countries to first bring about an end to the international slave trade, then local slave trades, and finally to make slavery illegal. Sex slavery is a big reason why everyone is ganging up on ISIS.

It wasn't one way traffic FD:


Quote:

European sources often mention Christian captives on the Barbary Coast of North Africa - Cervantes was a slave in Algiers between 1575 and 1580, for instance - but much less is known about Muslims captured on the other side. And yet, the business of kidnapping, ransoming, trading, and owning slaves of a different religion was not only a North African or Ottoman affair. It followed the Christian-Muslim frontier, from Morocco to the Black Sea, and it was fundamentally reciprocal. The Maltese corsairs were just as terrifying as their Tunisian or Algerian counterparts, and Christian Cossacks rivaled Muslim Tatars in Eastern Europe. While captured Christians were sold on the slave markets of Caffa, Istanbul, Tunis, and Algiers, the Muslims snatched by Christian raiders ended up as rowers on the galleys of the pope, builders of imperial palaces in Vienna, or domestic slaves in Venice and Malta. Numbers Systematic research on the demography and treatment of Muslim slaves in early modern Europe still remains to be done. We have enough information, however, to draw some preliminary conclusions about their presence in the Mediterranean area, based on the research done by Michel Fontenay, Salvatore Bono, Anne Brogini, Wolfgang Kaiser, and Robert C. Davis. First, their number was higher than previously thought: for instance, Salvatore Bono estimates that there were about twenty thousand Muslim slaves around 1600 in Naples alone, and four to five hundred thousand between 1500 and 1800 on the Italian peninsula. If we extrapolate these numbers to all of southern Europe, we easily get above one million and possibly more for the entire early modern period—as is also the case with the Christian slaves on the Barbary Coast, who amounted to at least one million in a conservative estimate. These numbers are certainly lower than those pertaining to transatlantic slavery, but they are by no means negligible.

http://www.hum.leiden.edu/history/slavery-studies/news/muslim-slaves.html

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2017 at 3:41pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2017 at 1:59pm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars The Barbary Wars were a series of conflicts that culminated in two wars fought at different times over the same reasons between the United States, Sweden, and the Barbary states (the de jure possessions of the Ottoman Empire, but de facto independent, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli) of North Africa in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The Swedes had been at war with the Tripolitans since 1800; they were eventually joined by the Americans.[2] At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. If ships of a given country failed to pay, pirates would attack the ship and take their goods, and often enslave crew members or hold them for ransom. After the Barbary wars, western powers continued to interfere in Muslim countries to first bring about an end to the international slave trade, then local slave trades, and finally to make slavery illegal. Sex slavery is a big reason why everyone is ganging up on ISIS. It wasn't one way traffic FD: Quote: European sources often mention Christian captives on the Barbary Coast of North Africa - Cervantes was a slave in Algiers between 1575 and 1580, for instance - but much less is known about Muslims captured on the other side. And yet, the business of kidnapping, ransoming, trading, and owning slaves of a different religion was not only a North African or Ottoman affair. It followed the Christian-Muslim frontier, from Morocco to the Black Sea, and it was fundamentally reciprocal. The Maltese corsairs were just as terrifying as their Tunisian or Algerian counterparts, and Christian Cossacks rivaled Muslim Tatars in Eastern Europe. While captured Christians were sold on the slave markets of Caffa, Istanbul, Tunis, and Algiers, the Muslims snatched by Christian raiders ended up as rowers on the galleys of the pope, builders of imperial palaces in Vienna, or domestic slaves in Venice and Malta. Numbers Systematic research on the demography and treatment of Muslim slaves in early modern Europe still remains to be done. We have enough information, however, to draw some preliminary conclusions about their presence in the Mediterranean area, based on the research done by Michel Fontenay, Salvatore Bono, Anne Brogini, Wolfgang Kaiser, and Robert C. Davis. First, their number was higher than previously thought: for instance, Salvatore Bono estimates that there were about twenty thousand Muslim slaves around 1600 in Naples alone, and four to five hundred thousand between 1500 and 1800 on the Italian peninsula. If we extrapolate these numbers to all of southern Europe, we easily get above one million and possibly more for the entire early modern period—as is also the case with the Christian slaves on the Barbary Coast, who amounted to at least one million in a conservative estimate. These numbers are certainly lower than those pertaining to transatlantic slavery, but they are by no means negligible. http://www.hum.leiden.edu/history/slavery-studies/news/muslim-slaves.html

That's ancient history, G. FD's talking about the Barbary Coast today.

I wonder if FD understands the irony of citing a supposed war against slavery - prosecuted by a nation that at the time had a thriving slave industry, led by a slave-owning president

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2017 at 3:41pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2017 at 1:59pm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars The Barbary Wars were a series of conflicts that culminated in two wars fought at different times over the same reasons between the United States, Sweden, and the Barbary states (the de jure possessions of the Ottoman Empire, but de facto independent, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli) of North Africa in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The Swedes had been at war with the Tripolitans since 1800; they were eventually joined by the Americans.[2] At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. If ships of a given country failed to pay, pirates would attack the ship and take their goods, and often enslave crew members or hold them for ransom. After the Barbary wars, western powers continued to interfere in Muslim countries to first bring about an end to the international slave trade, then local slave trades, and finally to make slavery illegal. Sex slavery is a big reason why everyone is ganging up on ISIS. It wasn't one way traffic FD: Quote: European sources often mention Christian captives on the Barbary Coast of North Africa - Cervantes was a slave in Algiers between 1575 and 1580, for instance - but much less is known about Muslims captured on the other side. And yet, the business of kidnapping, ransoming, trading, and owning slaves of a different religion was not only a North African or Ottoman affair. It followed the Christian-Muslim frontier, from Morocco to the Black Sea, and it was fundamentally reciprocal. The Maltese corsairs were just as terrifying as their Tunisian or Algerian counterparts, and Christian Cossacks rivaled Muslim Tatars in Eastern Europe. While captured Christians were sold on the slave markets of Caffa, Istanbul, Tunis, and Algiers, the Muslims snatched by Christian raiders ended up as rowers on the galleys of the pope, builders of imperial palaces in Vienna, or domestic slaves in Venice and Malta. Numbers Systematic research on the demography and treatment of Muslim slaves in early modern Europe still remains to be done. We have enough information, however, to draw some preliminary conclusions about their presence in the Mediterranean area, based on the research done by Michel Fontenay, Salvatore Bono, Anne Brogini, Wolfgang Kaiser, and Robert C. Davis. First, their number was higher than previously thought: for instance, Salvatore Bono estimates that there were about twenty thousand Muslim slaves around 1600 in Naples alone, and four to five hundred thousand between 1500 and 1800 on the Italian peninsula. If we extrapolate these numbers to all of southern Europe, we easily get above one million and possibly more for the entire early modern period—as is also the case with the Christian slaves on the Barbary Coast, who amounted to at least one million in a conservative estimate. These numbers are certainly lower than those pertaining to transatlantic slavery, but they are by no means negligible. http://www.hum.leiden.edu/history/slavery-studies/news/muslim-slaves.html

Way to shift the goal posts Gandalf. Are you saying you now agree with me, but offer an et tu as some kind of argument?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2017 at 12:53pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 3:43pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 3:46pm: Where is the international pressure? Ditto for the world's silence on the Saudi destruction of Yemen. Why isn't Rex Tillerson or Julie Bishop on their moral high horse over this? The cold hard truth is no one wants to apply any serious pressure on Pakistan because the US so desperately needs it to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. These atrocities will continue so long as the world remains silent, and complicit in them. Yeah, good one. Just remind us - why are the Muslims killing other Muslims in Yemen? Nuffin to do wiv Shia dogs versus Sunni dogs, does it?  It's about life, liberty and the the pursuit of happiness, Inshallah, no? No Frank, not sure where you got that idea. The Saudis are trying to destroy what they see as the threat of an Iranian proxy (Huthis) in Yemen. With material and (at least until very recently) direct logistical support from the US.

Shia dogs, then.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2017 at 7:11pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 23rd, 2017 at 3:41pm: freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2017 at 1:59pm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars The Barbary Wars were a series of conflicts that culminated in two wars fought at different times over the same reasons between the United States, Sweden, and the Barbary states (the de jure possessions of the Ottoman Empire, but de facto independent, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli) of North Africa in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The Swedes had been at war with the Tripolitans since 1800; they were eventually joined by the Americans.[2] At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. If ships of a given country failed to pay, pirates would attack the ship and take their goods, and often enslave crew members or hold them for ransom. After the Barbary wars, western powers continued to interfere in Muslim countries to first bring about an end to the international slave trade, then local slave trades, and finally to make slavery illegal. Sex slavery is a big reason why everyone is ganging up on ISIS. It wasn't one way traffic FD: Quote: European sources often mention Christian captives on the Barbary Coast of North Africa - Cervantes was a slave in Algiers between 1575 and 1580, for instance - but much less is known about Muslims captured on the other side. And yet, the business of kidnapping, ransoming, trading, and owning slaves of a different religion was not only a North African or Ottoman affair. It followed the Christian-Muslim frontier, from Morocco to the Black Sea, and it was fundamentally reciprocal. The Maltese corsairs were just as terrifying as their Tunisian or Algerian counterparts, and Christian Cossacks rivaled Muslim Tatars in Eastern Europe. While captured Christians were sold on the slave markets of Caffa, Istanbul, Tunis, and Algiers, the Muslims snatched by Christian raiders ended up as rowers on the galleys of the pope, builders of imperial palaces in Vienna, or domestic slaves in Venice and Malta. Numbers Systematic research on the demography and treatment of Muslim slaves in early modern Europe still remains to be done. We have enough information, however, to draw some preliminary conclusions about their presence in the Mediterranean area, based on the research done by Michel Fontenay, Salvatore Bono, Anne Brogini, Wolfgang Kaiser, and Robert C. Davis. First, their number was higher than previously thought: for instance, Salvatore Bono estimates that there were about twenty thousand Muslim slaves around 1600 in Naples alone, and four to five hundred thousand between 1500 and 1800 on the Italian peninsula. If we extrapolate these numbers to all of southern Europe, we easily get above one million and possibly more for the entire early modern period—as is also the case with the Christian slaves on the Barbary Coast, who amounted to at least one million in a conservative estimate. These numbers are certainly lower than those pertaining to transatlantic slavery, but they are by no means negligible. http://www.hum.leiden.edu/history/slavery-studies/news/muslim-slaves.html Way to shift the goal posts Gandalf. Are you saying you now agree with me, but offer an et tu as some kind of argument?

Goalposts!

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2017 at 7:11pm:

Way to shift the goal posts Gandalf. Are you saying you now agree with me, but offer an et tu as some kind of argument?

Yes it is an 'et tu' argument - but not the way you think.

Your kindergarten logic that the west made war on the muslim world to stop slavery is flawed on two counts: 1. this supposedly anti-slave west was itself enjoying a thriving slave industry of its own at the time of the war you cite and 2. if the war was in response to the muslims taking western slaves, there is no reason why the same logic can't apply in reverse - ie why not say the muslims were waging war against the west to stop the enslavement of muslims? Its obviously a dumb argument to make, but no more so than yours.

Quote:

Yes it is an 'et tu' argument - but not the way you think.

Looks like the standard irrational et tu to me Gandalf.


Quote:

this supposedly anti-slave west was itself enjoying a thriving slave industry of its own at the time of the war you cite

Bans on slavery in the west began prior to the Barbary wars. The anti-slavery movement had been active for a very long time.

In any case, why would you expect the west to permit Muslims to wage war on them in a quest for slaves until slavery had been entirely eradicated in the west? Is this some idiotic Islamic notion of fairness? Or are you just upset that the west won and brought an end to institutionalised sex slavery, thus depriving Muslims of the primary historical mechanism for spreading Islam?


Quote:

if the war was in response to the muslims taking western slaves, there is no reason why the same logic can't apply in reverse - ie why not say the muslims were waging war against the west to stop the enslavement of muslims?

Because they were not. Though I am not surprised that a Muslim would simply discard the facts when they are inconvenient. They were following Muhammad's example of stealing everything they could, killing anyone who stood in their way, and catching slaves whenever they were in a position to do so.

Western nations killed a lot of Muslims to bring the slave trade to an end. They destroyed the Barbary slave trading ports. They followed this up with more of that "foreign interference" Muslims constantly whine about to end local slave trade and eventually free slaves in the Muslim world.

Contrary to your Islam-inspired BS spin, the timing of this is entirely consistent with the ending of slavery in the west. Meanwhile, Australian Muslims today are still travelling across the world to die for ISIS and participate in the newly resurrected Islamic trade in sex slaves. They do this in the name of Islam, not because it is all George Bush's fault. The west is still leading Muslim nations by the nose into the 19th century.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 24^th, 2017 at 8:41am:

freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2017 at 7:11pm: Way to shift the goal posts Gandalf. Are you saying you now agree with me, but offer an et tu as some kind of argument? Yes it is an 'et tu' argument - but not the way you think. Your kindergarten logic that the west made war on the muslim world to stop slavery is flawed on two counts: 1. this supposedly anti-slave west was itself enjoying a thriving slave industry of its own at the time of the war you cite and 2. if the war was in response to the muslims taking western slaves, there is no reason why the same logic can't apply in reverse - ie why not say the muslims were waging war against the west to stop the enslavement of muslims? Its obviously a dumb argument to make, but no more so than yours.

You've done it now, G. FD's going to put you in Spineless Apologetics for saying the Muslims invaded us in the name of Freeeeedom.

Gandalf said...

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2017 at 12:33pm:

Quote: Yes it is an 'et tu' argument - but not the way you think. Looks like the standard irrational et tu to me Gandalf. [quote]this supposedly anti-slave west was itself enjoying a thriving slave industry of its own at the time of the war you cite

Bans on slavery in the west began prior to the Barbary wars. The anti-slavery movement had been active for a very long time.

In any case, why would you expect the west to permit Muslims to wage war on them in a quest for slaves until slavery had been entirely eradicated in the west? Is this some idiotic Islamic notion of fairness? Or are you just upset that the west won and brought an end to institutionalised sex slavery, thus depriving Muslims of the primary historical mechanism for spreading Islam?


Quote:

if the war was in response to the muslims taking western slaves, there is no reason why the same logic can't apply in reverse - ie why not say the muslims were waging war against the west to stop the enslavement of muslims?

Because they were not. Though I am not surprised that a Muslim would simply discard the facts when they are inconvenient. They were following Muhammad's example of stealing everything they could, killing anyone who stood in their way, and catching slaves whenever they were in a position to do so.

Western nations killed a lot of Muslims to bring the slave trade to an end. They destroyed the Barbary slave trading ports. They followed this up with more of that "foreign interference" Muslims constantly whine about to end local slave trade and eventually free slaves in the Muslim world.

Contrary to your Islam-inspired BS spin, the timing of this is entirely consistent with the ending of slavery in the west. Meanwhile, Australian Muslims today are still travelling across the world to die for ISIS and participate in the newly resurrected Islamic trade in sex slaves. They do this in the name of Islam, not because it is all George Bush's fault. The west is still leading Muslim nations by the nose into the 19th century.[/quote]

That's right. Look how successful we are at leading the Saudis by the nose.

We're bringing them Freeeedom. Every day, in every way, things keep getting better and better, no?

muslims are exactly where you'd expect them to be, after 1400 years of islam.

How can anything be other than what it is, as muslims are totally subservient to the ravings of a deformed psychopath muhammad.

He created islam by giving his moon god allah a refashion.

Under muhammads' lunacy, the ancient moon god allah became a monotheistic god of hatred, muhammad taught that killing was compulsory, non-muslims and muslims who are considered to be hypocrites and corrupters are to be slaughtered by the higher grade of muslims.

These muslim assassins are to be given hour'is and little boys as a reward for their foul atrocities committed against mankind.

This is exactly what is happening today 1400 years later.

The irony is that many muslims who are the legitimate target of the killer muslims, are so deluded and brain washed they actually lie to try and excuse the very cause of all islamic terror problems (islamic doctrine).

The blood will always flow until truth prevails and someone (muslims and apologists), decide to question the perversion in the qur'an.

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2017 at 12:33pm:

In any case, why would you expect the west to permit Muslims to wage war on them in a quest for slaves until slavery had been entirely eradicated in the west? Is this some idiotic Islamic notion of fairness? Or are you just upset that the west won and brought an end to institutionalised sex slavery, thus depriving Muslims of the primary historical mechanism for spreading Islam?

The first problem here is you labelling the Barbery Wars a "quest for slaves". At the very least you are being disingenuous. From your own source:

At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. If ships of a given country failed to pay, pirates would attack the ship and take their goods, and often enslave crew members or hold them for ransom.


freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2017 at 12:33pm:

They were following Muhammad's example of stealing everything they could, killing anyone who stood in their way, and catching slaves whenever they were in a position to do so.

And the Maltese and other Christian pirates who raped and pillaged and traded hundreds of thousands of muslim slaves - what sinister prophet were they following? Perhaps they were secretly muslim.


freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2017 at 12:33pm:

Western nations killed a lot of Muslims to bring the slave trade to an end. They destroyed the Barbary slave trading ports. They followed this up with more of that "foreign interference" Muslims constantly whine about to end local slave trade and eventually free slaves in the Muslim world.

On planet earth, in the actual past, western nations killed a lot of muslims to build themselves extraordinarily profitable empires. In fact they occupied virtually all of the muslim world at one point - as well as great swathes of the rest of the world. In the process they directly slaughtered or were responsible for the death of more people than at any time in the history of mankind. Even more than the muslims. This was in pursuit of wealth, not some altruistic campaign against slavery or rape.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 24^th, 2017 at 2:55pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 12:33pm: In any case, why would you expect the west to permit Muslims to wage war on them in a quest for slaves until slavery had been entirely eradicated in the west? Is this some idiotic Islamic notion of fairness? Or are you just upset that the west won and brought an end to institutionalised sex slavery, thus depriving Muslims of the primary historical mechanism for spreading Islam? The first problem here is you labelling the Barbery Wars a "quest for slaves". At the very least you are being disingenuous. From your own source: At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. If ships of a given country failed to pay, pirates would attack the ship and take their goods, and often enslave crew members or hold them for ransom. freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 12:33pm: They were following Muhammad's example of stealing everything they could, killing anyone who stood in their way, and catching slaves whenever they were in a position to do so. And the Maltese and other Christian pirates who raped and pillaged and traded hundreds of thousands of muslim slaves - what sinister prophet were they following? Perhaps they were secretly muslim. freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 12:33pm: Western nations killed a lot of Muslims to bring the slave trade to an end. They destroyed the Barbary slave trading ports. They followed this up with more of that "foreign interference" Muslims constantly whine about to end local slave trade and eventually free slaves in the Muslim world. On planet earth, in the actual past, western nations killed a lot of muslims to build themselves extraordinarily profitable empires. In fact they occupied virtually all of the muslim world at one point - as well as great swathes of the rest of the world. In the process they directly slaughtered or were responsible for the death of more people than at any time in the history of mankind. Even more than the muslims. This was in pursuit of wealth, not some altruistic campaign against slavery or rape.

Well yes, but we did try. Every little bit helps, you know.

If the Muselman won't accept our help, what to do?

We installed marvellous despots to take care of them, and this is the thanks we get. Well I'm sorry, Muslims, but you could learn to show a little more gratitude and respect.

Typical.

Quote:

The first problem here is you labelling the Barbery Wars a "quest for slaves". At the very least you are being disingenuous. From your own source: At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. If ships of a given country failed to pay, pirates would attack the ship and take their goods, and often enslave crew members or hold them for ransom.

Sounds like a quest for slaves to me.


Quote:

And the Maltese and other Christian pirates who raped and pillaged and traded hundreds of thousands of muslim slaves - what sinister prophet were they following? Perhaps they were secretly muslim.

I'm sure if they had found out about Islam (by other means than becoming a galley slave) they would have appreciated the open religius sanction of rape and pillage. A billion Muslims can't be wrong eh?


Quote:

On planet earth, in the actual past, western nations killed a lot of muslims to build themselves extraordinarily profitable empires. In fact they occupied virtually all of the muslim world at one point - as well as great swathes of the rest of the world.

We are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan right now, for the purpose of establishing democracy.


Quote:

In the process they directly slaughtered or were responsible for the death of more people than at any time in the history of mankind.

How many Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2017 at 6:40pm:

Quote: The first problem here is you labelling the Barbery Wars a "quest for slaves". At the very least you are being disingenuous. From your own source: At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. If ships of a given country failed to pay, pirates would attack the ship and take their goods, and often enslave crew members or hold them for ransom. Sounds like a quest for slaves to me. [quote]And the Maltese and other Christian pirates who raped and pillaged and traded hundreds of thousands of muslim slaves - what sinister prophet were they following? Perhaps they were secretly muslim.

I'm sure if they had found out about Islam (by other means than becoming a galley slave) they would have appreciated the open religius sanction of rape and pillage. A billion Muslims can't be wrong eh?


Quote:

On planet earth, in the actual past, western nations killed a lot of muslims to build themselves extraordinarily profitable empires. In fact they occupied virtually all of the muslim world at one point - as well as great swathes of the rest of the world.

We are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan right now, for the purpose of establishing democracy.[/quote]

Are we?

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2017 at 6:40pm:

Sounds like a quest for slaves to me.

Then you have a reading comprehension problem. Here it is again:

At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea.

Its estimated the Europeans had around 1 million muslim slaves during the 'Barbary' period, which was roughly the same as the number of European slaves held by the Barbary states. In light of this, explain to me FD how your fairy tale about one side representing the evil slavers and one side representing the noble anti-slavers stacks up?


freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2017 at 6:40pm:

We are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan right now, for the purpose of establishing democracy.

Rubbish. We are/were occupying Iraq and Afghanistan for the purposes of eliminating the threat of terrorists and attempting to create stability. And if that means propping up anti democracy, and strongmen who directly work against democracy (eg Karzai, Al-Maliki) - we have proven we are willing to do so.


freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2017 at 6:40pm:

How many Gandalf?

- estimates between 2-13 million in Congo alone during King Leopold's brutal rule

- would you care to hazard a guess as to how many millions of native Indians were slaughtered by European imperialists In South, Central and North America combined? I think we can safely assume it runs into the millions.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 8:45am:

freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 6:40pm: Sounds like a quest for slaves to me. Then you have a reading comprehension problem. Here it is again: At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. Its estimated the Europeans had around 1 million muslim slaves during the 'Barbary' period, which was roughly the same as the number of European slaves held by the Barbary states. In light of this, explain to me FD how your fairy tale about one side representing the evil slavers and one side representing the noble anti-slavers stacks up? freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 6:40pm: We are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan right now, for the purpose of establishing democracy. Rubbish. We are/were occupying Iraq and Afghanistan for the purposes of eliminating the threat of terrorists and attempting to create stability. And if that means propping up anti democracy, and strongmen who directly work against democracy (eg Karzai, Al-Maliki) - we have proven we are willing to do so. freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 6:40pm: How many Gandalf? - estimates between 2-13 million in Congo alone during King Leopold's brutal rule - would you care to hazard a guess as to how many millions of native Indians were slaughtered by European imperialists In South, Central and North America combined? I think we can safely assume it runs into the millions.

True, G, but we did all that to bring them Freeeeeedom.

We went in to free the slaves, stop the cannibals and stand up for women's rights.

That's FD's case, and we're sticking to it.

Quote:

At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea

.

What do you think would have happened to American merchants if the Americans had not paid this tribute?

If, as you claim, the Barbarians were doing this to end the slavery of Muslims, why did they not demand this instead of tribute?


Quote:

In light of this, explain to me FD how your fairy tale about one side representing the evil slavers and one side representing the noble anti-slavers stacks up?

One side represents the people who brought slavery to an end, both internally and externally. The other side is the group who had to have this imposed on them and to this day are trying to reintroduce institutionalised sex slavery as a mechanism for spreading their religion. Nothing you have said actually contradicts this. Your only complaint appears to be that Muslim slavers were not given the free reign to rape and pillage you seem to think they deserve.

You are throwing out a lot of claims without backing them up, such as:


Quote:

Its estimated the Europeans had around 1 million muslim slaves during the 'Barbary' period, which was roughly the same as the number of European slaves held by the Barbary states.

Quote:

In the process they directly slaughtered or were responsible for the death of more people than at any time in the history of mankind.

Where did you get these claims from Gandalf? Is this the one where the British are at fault for a drought in India?


Quote:

Rubbish. We are/were occupying Iraq and Afghanistan for the purposes of eliminating the threat of terrorists and attempting to create stability. And if that means propping up anti democracy, and strongmen who directly work against democracy (eg Karzai, Al-Maliki) - we have proven we are willing to do so.

So you actually agree we are hanging around to set up democracy, but just disagree with the spin that we are hanging round to set up democracy? Does it bother you that every little step the Muslim world takes towards civilised society is by direct intervention from non-Muslim nations? The Arab spring gave birth to ISIS. The only hope for these Muslims is to be babysat by the very people they blame for all their problems.

freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 12:19pm:

So you actually agree we are hanging around to set up democracy, but just disagree with the spin that we are hanging round to set up democracy?

Is that what you think G's saying?

But I'm curious. Do you actually agree with the spin that we are hanging round to set up democracy?

freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 12:19pm:

Does it bother you that every little step the Muslim world takes towards civilised society is by direct intervention from non-Muslim nations?

Now I'm even more curious. Can you name one direct intervention by non-Muslim nations that has led the Muslim world towards civilised society?

Quote:

Now I'm even more curious. Can you name one direct intervention by non-Muslim nations that has led the Muslim world towards civilised society?

Civilized muslim society?

At the back of the cave with all the unicorns. 

freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 12:19pm:

What do you think would have happened to American merchants if the Americans had not paid this tribute?

Possible enslavement. But it doesn't make it a "quest for slaves". The "quest" was quite clearly the payment of tribute. Or as your own source clearly states: At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. It doesn't say "at issue was the Barbary pirates taking of slaves" or similar. It was at most a side issue - and an issue that clearly both sides were equally engaging in.


freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 12:19pm:

If, as you claim, the Barbarians were doing this to end the slavery of Muslims

I did not claim that. Read what I said again.


freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 12:19pm:

You are throwing out a lot of claims without backing them up, such as

I quoted my source for the first claim. Read it again.


The second claim is stating the bleeding obvious. Shall we add them up FD? How many Indians in North, central and South America died because of European imperialism/greed? Into the millions, no question. How many Africans were slaughtered as a result of the European rape of their resources? Estimated between 2-13 million in Congo alone during just a few short years of King Leopold's reign of terror. And thats barely scratching the surface. We haven't even talked about the rape and pillage of Asia. Can you think of any other period in history of roughly the same time frame in which as many people were slaughtered or died as a direct result of imperialism? I doubt the muslims even came close to that death toll even in 1400 years.


freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 12:19pm:

So you actually agree we are hanging around to set up democracy

How on earth did you get that from what I said?

Again, we are (were) in Iraq and Afghanistan to stop the threat of terrorism, not see the set up democracy. And usually that means supporting and propping up distinctly anti-democratic and corrupt thugs like Karzai and Maliki.

Quote:

Possible enslavement. But it doesn't make it a "quest for slaves". The "quest" was quite clearly the payment of tribute. Or as your own source clearly states: At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. It doesn't say "at issue was the Barbary pirates taking of slaves" or similar. It was at most a side issue - and an issue that clearly both sides were equally engaging in.

It doesn't say taking of slaves because the Americans were paying tribute as an alternative to becoming victims of Islamic slavery. Now, see if you can join the dots. Would you say that the paying of tribute was connected to the issue of slavery?


Quote:

I did not claim that. Read what I said again.

This is what you said:


Quote:

ie why not say the muslims were waging war against the west to stop the enslavement of muslims?

Why did you ask such a stupid question Gandalf?


Quote:

I quoted my source for the first claim. Read it again.

Did you quote it in this thread? Or some unrelated thread six months ago?


Quote:

The second claim is stating the bleeding obvious. Shall we add them up FD?

Yes. And while you are at it, how about you offer a bit more detail than waving your arms in the air and blurting rubbish about millions of people? Where did you get this claim from? Are you just parroting what your imam told you? Why are you so afraid to reveal your sources?


Quote:

How on earth did you get that from what I said?

My bad. I misread. So you don't think we are trying to establish democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan? If these countries did end up with functioning democracies, would you say it happened despite western interference, rather than because of it? Would you say the same thing about slavery - that all the western intervention to end slavery was actually doing the opposite, but the Muslim world just happened to stop slavery at the same time?

Gee, G, you're being ever so nice to FD by proposing that we invaded Iraq to fight terrorism.

I say, weren't we there to ban Islam? I think you'll find that's just why FD changed his mind.

What a success. Mission accomplished, no? .

freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 7:28pm:

Quote: Possible enslavement. But it doesn't make it a "quest for slaves". The "quest" was quite clearly the payment of tribute. Or as your own source clearly states: At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. It doesn't say "at issue was the Barbary pirates taking of slaves" or similar. It was at most a side issue - and an issue that clearly both sides were equally engaging in. It doesn't say taking of slaves because the Americans were paying tribute as an alternative to becoming victims of Islamic slavery. Now, see if you can join the dots. Would you say that the paying of tribute was connected to the issue of slavery? [quote]I did not claim that. Read what I said again.

This is what you said:


Quote:

ie why not say the muslims were waging war against the west to stop the enslavement of muslims?

Why did you ask such a stupid question Gandalf?


Quote:

I quoted my source for the first claim. Read it again.

Did you quote it in this thread? Or some unrelated thread six months ago?


Quote:

The second claim is stating the bleeding obvious. Shall we add them up FD?

Yes. And while you are at it, how about you offer a bit more detail than waving your arms in the air and blurting rubbish about millions of people? Where did you get this claim from? Are you just parroting what your imam told you? Why are you so afraid to reveal your sources?


Quote:

How on earth did you get that from what I said?

My bad. I misread. So you don't think we are trying to establish democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan? If these countries did end up with functioning democracies, would you say it happened despite western interference, rather than because of it? Would you say the same thing about slavery - that all the western intervention to end slavery was actually doing the opposite, but the Muslim world just happened to stop slavery at the same time?[/quote]

I did think you were being awfully generous to FD by speaking to him like a grown-up, G.

Next time you think of doing that, remember this post.

freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 7:28pm:

Now, see if you can join the dots. Would you say that the paying of tribute was connected to the issue of slavery?

Of course it is. But it doesn't make it a "quest for slaves". The "quest" was to extort money from merchant vessels - not to round up slaves.


freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 7:28pm:

This is what you said:

Yes and read till the end - where I said it would be as stupid an argument as yours.


freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 7:28pm:

Did you quote it in this thread?

Yes. You even requoted it. Are you really that clueless as to what people post FD?


freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 7:28pm:

blurting rubbish about millions of people? Where did you get this claim from?

Are you serious? You seriously don't think that European imperialism hasn't killed millions? Here you go, this is a good a starting point as any:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State


Quote:

It is argued that the reduction in the Congo was atypical and can be attributed to the direct and indirect effects of colonial rule and especially to disease and falling birthrate.[15] Estimates of the size of the overall population decline (or mortality displacement) remain disputed but range between two and 13 million.[b]

There you go FD - "millions" in just one of the many examples of European imperialism pillage and plunder.

Or how about the Spanish in South America?


Quote:

Spanish colonization of the Americas[edit] It is estimated that during the initial Spanish conquest of the Americas up to eight million indigenous people died, marking the first large-scale act of genocide of the modern era

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas


freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 7:28pm:

So you don't think we are trying to establish democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Clearly the US is keen on establishing something that they can label as a "democracy" for obvious PR purposes. The question is what that actually is in practice. Common sense dictates that where they still have a say on the matter (which is not really the case for Iraq anymore), they are not going to "try" to achieve, or even allow to happen a democratic outcome that threatens their interests. An obvious example would be the free and fair election of the Taliban, or similar. Much the same as when the EU, with US support, acted swiftly to punish the Palestinians economically for the free and fair election of Hamas in 2006. The US's track record in both Iraq and Afghanistan - eg propping up anti-democratic despots, and suppressing genuine grassroots democratic movements - confirms this common sense view.

Black slaves in islam?

a selection from this site tells us

In the over 13 centuries of the Arab slave trade in Africa unknown number of Africans were enslaved and shipped to the Middle East. It is claimed that a vast majority of the male black slaves, estimated at around 80%, were castrated.

The Caliphate in Baghdad at the beginning of the 10th Century had 7,000 black eunuchs and 4,000 white eunuchs in his palace. The Arab slave trade typically dealt in the sale of castrated male slaves. Black boys at the age of eight to twelve had their scrotum and penis completely amputated. Around 9 out of 10 bled to death during the procedure, but
the high price brought by eunuchs on the market made the practice profitable.

while parts of this site say

Black Slavery in the Middle East
It was more widespread and brutal than the American counterpart

The United States abolished the importation of slaves in 1808. Before that, 361,000 African slaves had been imported into English-speaking North America. [1] Through natural increase, their number in the United States rose to 1.75 million in 1825 and 4.5 million in 1861. By contrast, from the time of the Arab conquest of the Middle East in the seventh century, approximately 14 million black slaves were imported into the area that extends from Morocco through Iran.

&

Consequently, of the 3,000 female slaves emancipated in Zanzibar in 1860, only five percent had ever had a child. [5] Many of the children born to slave women were murdered. In 1856, the Anti-Slave Reporter observed that in Constantinople, the murder of the babies of black slave women was practiced “as a matter of course and without the least remorse.” As a result, in Constantinople, “it was commonplace for Turkish gentlemen to have numerous [black] concubines, [but] it was rare to see a mulatto.” [6]

then this one says in part


Another extremely cruel, dehumanizing and degrading aspect of Islamic slavery was the large-scale castration of male captives

&

it becomes evident that the overwhelming majority of the black slaves of the Islamic world were castrated;

&

The third reason for the high demand for eunuchs was homosexual infatuation of many Muslim rulers, generals and nobles. Eunuchs, kept for carnal indulgence, also called ghilman, used to be handsome young boys. They used to wear ‘rich and attractive uniforms and often beautified and perfumed their bodies in effeminate fashion.’ The concept
of ghilman comes from the following verses of the Quran, which describes heavenly male attendants (ghilman) in paradise:'
*‘Round about them will serve, (devoted) to them, young male servants (handsome) as Pearls well guarded.’ [Quran 52:24]
*‘There wait on them immortal youths, with bowls and ewers and a cup from a pure spring.’ [Quran 56:17–18]
*'Round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness): If thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered Pearls. Quran 76:19
====================================================================


How stupid are black men today who bow down to islam?

moses wrote on Oct 26^th, 2017 at 5:05pm:

Black Slavery in the Middle East It was more widespread and brutal than the American counterpart

moses wrote on Oct 26^th, 2017 at 5:05pm:

The United States abolished the importation of slaves in 1808. Before that, 361,000 African slaves had been imported into English-speaking North America.

moses wrote on Oct 26^th, 2017 at 5:05pm:

By contrast, from the time of the Arab conquest of the Middle East in the seventh century, approximately 14 million black slaves were imported into the area that extends from Morocco through Iran.

Why restrict your comparison to North America? Was it because you were afraid to reveal the fact that in the slave trades, the total figures between the two civilizations are actually comparable?

Meanwhile, in actual, non cherry-picked history:


Quote:

Current estimates are that about 12 million Africans were shipped across the Atlantic,[5] although the number purchased by the traders was considerably higher, as the passage had a high death rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

So an estimated total of 12 million slaves arrived alive in the Americas (little bit more than 361 thousand) - in a 300 year or so period. Compared to (your source's) estimate of 13 million slaves traded in the entire area Iran to Morocco over a period of around 1400 years.

Does that change the perspective somewhat moses?

moses wrote on Oct 26^th, 2017 at 5:05pm:

How stupid are black men today who bow down to islam?

Probably almost as stupid as someone who falls for your blatantly dishonest spin of comparing apples to oranges - by comparing only the smallest arena of the Atlantic slave trade (English speaking North America) with the entire Islamic slave trade

Quote:

Of course it is. But it doesn't make it a "quest for slaves". The "quest" was to extort money from merchant vessels - not to round up slaves.

I expect they would have put a fairly neutral price on it.


Quote:

Yes. You even requoted it. Are you really that clueless as to what people post FD?

Perhaps you shouyld just tell me instead of playing silly games Gandalf.


Quote:

Are you serious? You seriously don't think that European imperialism hasn't killed millions? Here you go, this is a good a starting point as any:

Were the Europeans responsible for disease, famine and falling birth rate?

And also, there was far more to your claim than that. Where did you get the actual claim from? Did you research it independently, or did you parrot something your Imam told you and now seek out some kind of validation?


Quote:

It is estimated that during the initial Spanish conquest of the Americas up to eight million indigenous people died, marking the first large-scale act of genocide of the modern era

Wasn't this mostly attributable to disease also?


Quote:

Clearly the US is keen on establishing something that they can label as a "democracy" for obvious PR purposes.

Would it be fair to say they pursue this goal by creating an actual democracy? And would it also be fair to say that the PR purposes are a reflection of the value placed on democracy by voters in the west?


Quote:

The question is what that actually is in practice. Common sense dictates that where they still have a say on the matter (which is not really the case for Iraq anymore), they are not going to "try" to achieve, or even allow to happen a democratic outcome that threatens their interests.

I'd say they are a bit more focussed on killing off ISIS than interfering. Also, the west was highly critical of the religious exclusion that happened through democratic processes in Iraq and has sought to interfere by making the government more inclusive. Hardly sinister stuff, Gandalf. You have to be pretty desperate for excuses to blame the evil west for the problems Muslims create for themselves to use that as an example.


Quote:

Much the same as when the EU, with US support, acted swiftly to punish the Palestinians economically for the free and fair election of Hamas in 2006.

Are you suggesting that the presence of democracy is a get-out-of-jail-free card for the consequences of government policy? Isn't that like saying it was wrong to depose Hitler because he was elected?

gandalf wrote Reply #79 - Yesterday at 6:46pm & Reply #80 - Yesterday at 6:51pm


Quote:

Why restrict your comparison to North America? Was it because you were afraid to reveal the fact that in the slave trades, the total figures between the two civilizations are actually comparable? Meanwhile, in actual, non cherry-picked history: So an estimated total of 12 million slaves arrived alive in the Americas (little bit more than 361 thousand) - in a 300 year or so period. Compared to (your source's) estimate of 13 million slaves traded in the entire area Iran to Morocco over a period of around 1400 years. Does that change the perspective somewhat moses? Probably almost as stupid as someone who falls for your blatantly dishonest spin of comparing apples to oranges - by comparing only the smallest arena of the Atlantic slave trade (English speaking North America) with the entire Islamic slave trade

My perspective has not changed one iota gandi.

I, as most normal people do, have an inbuilt aversion to slavery, I know it is wrong.

Where does my antipathy come from?

I am fortunate enough to have been born in an era and civilization, where slavery is an abomination.

However I know slavery was widely accepted in most societies from the dawn of time.

When the campaign to abolish slavery began, somewhere around about 250 years ago, my perception is that it was white people from Europe (Britain / France etc.) and America, who were at the very forefront of the movement to abolish slavery.

It most certainly was not any muslims who were agitating for the end of slavery 250 years ago.

Also the practice of "complete" castrates, which means their penis and testicles were cut off (eunuchs), is one of the most depraved and putrid evils of the slave trade,

Who relished in this evil deed gandi?

muslims loved it.

At least the American and European wanted entire slaves as this meant they could breed more slaves and not have to buy them.

So for my part I think muslims should hang their head in shame when it comes to the subject of slavery.

muslims were slave traders from day one of islam, they murdered babies who were born of their black concubines, they slaughtered untold millions of black males who did not survive the "complete castration" (eunuchs) process.

muslims are a sick people with their bacha bazi” and ghilman, a perverted qur'an which promises these little boys in allahs' brothel in the sky.

When it comes to slavery and depraved behaviour towards their fellow man gandi, muslims are at the very bottom of the heap.

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2017 at 7:24pm:

Perhaps you shouyld just tell me instead of playing silly games Gandalf.

It is literally the only source I have quoted on the subject, and you requoted it in its entirety - clearly without even having read it. Who is playing silly games now? Estimated around 1 million muslim slaves taken based on extrapolation of known figures. Comparable to the number of European slaves taken by muslims. So can we start whining about Europeans 'raping and pillaging' and, oh yes, your favourite ' "depopulating" muslim lands in some barbaric "quest for slaves"? (which by the way, since I evidently need to keep pointing it out - is just a stupid argument as yours)


freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2017 at 7:24pm:

Were the Europeans responsible for disease, famine and falling birth rate?

European diseases like small pox? - obviously. Particularly when they were spread deliberately. Do you seriously think that massive cultural and upheaval that comes with invasion and brutal occupation, along with all the terror campaigns that come with that - is not going to have an adverse impact on things like birth rates and famine?

Or shall we ask wikipedia? Remember, wikipedia is rock solid, otherwise it would be corrected within half an hour - remember?

1. Congo:


Quote:

It is argued that the reduction in the Congo was atypical and can be attributed to the direct and indirect effects of colonial rule and especially to disease and falling birthrate.[15] Estimates of the size of the overall population decline (or mortality displacement) remain disputed but range between two and 13 million.[b]

2. South America:


Quote:

With the initial conquest of the Americas completed, the Spanish implemented the encomienda system. In theory, encomienda placed groups of indigenous peoples under Spanish oversight to foster cultural assimilation and conversion to Christianity, but in practice led to the legally sanctioned exploitation of natural resources and forced labor under brutal conditions with a high death rate. Though the Spaniards did not set out to exterminate the indigenous peoples, believing their numbers to be inexhaustible, their actions led to the annihilation of entire tribes such as the Arawak.[33] In the 1760s, an expedition despatched to fortify California, led by Gaspar de Portolà and Junípero Serra, was marked by slavery, forced conversions and genocide through the introduction of disease.

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2017 at 7:24pm:

And also, there was far more to your claim than that. Where did you get the actual claim from?

That there were more people slaughtered by European colonialism than at any other period previously seen in history? I call it stating the bleeding obvious - and yes, I made it up. Because its so bleeding obvious. Shall we add them up? few million in the Americas, few million in Africa, probably a few million in Asia - thats quite a few million, in a shockingly small period of time (~300 years). FD can you think of any other period prior to that, of around 300 years (or even longer if you like), where so many people have been killed as a result of imperialism (or any other action)? Obviously not - why? Because at no other point in history did any power have such reach, such technology and such power to cause so much destruction. Not because Europeans are inherently bad - and I'm sure the muslims would have done similar if they had the technology and wealth the Europeans had. It was the first time in which the world became "global". Before that, people just concentrated on slaughtering/subjugating in their own isolated little pockets. Even when empires grew big (eg Mongols, muslim), they didn't have the technology or resources to create as much destruction as the Europeans could. Of course the Europeans have exceeded themselves even of that impressive feat - as we saw from the near-apocalyptic carnage of WWI and WWII.

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2017 at 7:24pm:

Would it be fair to say they pursue this goal by creating an actual democracy?

No. Creating an "actual democracy" wouldn't involve allowing Karzai to rig elections, or vetting candidates before they were allowed to stand.


freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2017 at 7:24pm:

Are you suggesting that the presence of democracy is a get-out-of-jail-free card for the consequences of government policy? Isn't that like saying it was wrong to depose Hitler because he was elected?

You are really answering your own question regarding why the US wouldn't establish an "actual democracy" in Afghanistan or Iraq. It goes back to my  point about common sense. If the west is going to oppose and actively undermine a group like Hamas in the event that they are democratically elected - and let me be clear, they may well be justified in doing so - why on earth would they facilitate their election in the first place? Thus the US would never countenance the possibility that belligerent candidates such as the Taliban could some day be freely and fairly elected to power in Afghanistan. So they take steps to ensure that is never a possibility in the first place. That is why they vet candidates before election and dictate who can and cannot stand for election. You're not seriously saying an "actual democracy" involves voting only for candidates that have been pre-approved by a foreign occupying power are you?

I thought gandalf switched to Islam for spiritual reasons and not for political ones, or is that the same thing?

Quote:

It is literally the only source I have quoted on the subject

I didn't ask you to quote it. I asked where you got it from. Can you tell the difference? Do you often quote sources and pretend you wrote it yourself?


Quote:

European diseases like small pox? - obviously. Particularly when they were spread deliberately.

In what percentage of new world deaths would you say the disease was deliberately spread?

Are you also holding Europeans accountable for the cases that were not deliberate?


Quote:

That there were more people slaughtered by European colonialism than at any other period previously seen in history?

No Gandalf. I am asking you to stop being a slippery Muslim and back up what you actually said:


Quote:

Its estimated the Europeans had around 1 million muslim slaves during the 'Barbary' period, which was roughly the same as the number of European slaves held by the Barbary states.

Quote:

In the process they directly slaughtered or were responsible for the death of more people than at any time in the history of mankind.

Which of these are you trying to pass someone else's writing off as your own? Where did you get these claims from?


Quote:

No. Creating an "actual democracy" wouldn't involve allowing Karzai to rig elections, or vetting candidates before they were allowed to stand.

So it is only a real democracy if people can only get elected if we allow them to, but it is also not a democracy if we vet the candidates? Are you trying to define democracy out of existence?


Quote:

You are really answering your own question regarding why the US wouldn't establish an "actual democracy" in Afghanistan or Iraq. It goes back to my  point about common sense. If the west is going to oppose and actively undermine a group like Hamas in the event that they are democratically elected - and let me be clear, they may well be justified in doing so - why on earth would they facilitate their election in the first place?

Because supporting democracy is not the same thing as giving elected leaders free reign on the global stage. Your point is completely irrelevant. Whether Hamas gets elected democratically has nothing at all to do with whether they get on with other governments. Democracy merely allows the population to correct the problem internally. It does not force them to, as the case of Hamas shows.


Quote:

Thus the US would never countenance the possibility that belligerent candidates such as the Taliban could some day be freely and fairly elected to power in Afghanistan. So they take steps to ensure that is never a possibility in the first place.

This is not possible Gandalf. You cannot control eternity. Democracy provides the mechanism for the majority to seize power and wield it how they will. It is inevitable that this will happen, no matter how many constraints it starts off with. The people will either lose democracy completely, or take charge of it. The middle ground that you suggest is our real agenda is inherently unstable.

Your suggestion flies in the face of common sense. If we did not want the Iraqi and Afghan people to control their own countries, then setting up democracy would be the last thing we would do, even if we only got them 80% of the way there.


Quote:

That is why they vet candidates before election and dictate who can and cannot stand for election. You're not seriously saying an "actual democracy" involves voting only for candidates that have been pre-approved by a foreign occupying power are you?

No. Nor does it involve occupying the country. Nor does it involve killing leaders, like we did with Saddam. Are you seriously suggesting we plan on doing any of these things indefinitely? Does that pass your common sense test?

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2017 at 12:36pm:

I didn't ask you to quote it. I asked where you got it from.

Right, you just asked if I quoted it here or "some unrelated thread in the last 6 months". Are you now pretending you knew all along that I actually did quote my source?

Anyway feel free to actually check the source I have already quoted. All will be revealed I promise. At the end of the quote is a link which will tell you exactly where I "got it from". So sorry for being a slippery muslim, but I do take the view that if you respond directly to evidence I post, and even directly quote the very evidence I posted - then its pretty dumb to turn around and start playing the "err what evidence?" game. But for the sake of putting an end to an inanely stupid tangent, the post in which I provided the "easily above 1 million" (direct quote) estimate, along with the url of the source (university site, written by an actual expert in the field) is post# 52. And just for your reference, the post in which you directly quoted this estimate, but inexplicably knew nothing about it, is post# 55.


freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2017 at 12:36pm:

Are you also holding Europeans accountable for the cases that were not deliberate?

Yes. The diseases didn't spread because of some benign, innocent non-disruptive contact with the natives. They spread because the imperialistic Europeans barged in uninvited to rape and pillage and make slaves. But please, feel free to demonstrate your ability in spin and give us a jolly yarn about how imperialists who invade in order to rape and pillage - are somehow not responsible for the decimating effects of the small pox and common cold viruses they bring along with them.


freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2017 at 12:36pm:

Which of these are you trying to pass someone else's writing off as your own? Where did you get these claims from?

Are you now clear on the "easily above 1 million" (not my quote) muslim slave claim? Or would you like me to explain more about what you have already seen and requoted? The other claim, "In the process they directly slaughtered or were responsible for the death of more people than at any time in the history of mankind." - as already clearly explained is my own claim, that is based on the bleeding obvious. Do you need me to go through the figures again? By the way, you haven't answered my question - can you think of any other period in history where the actions of one power or civilization was responsible - indirectly and directly for so many deaths? You do agree that it runs into the millions right? Its almost certain that the muslims didn't even come close to creating as much death and suffering in 1400 years as the Europeans achieved in a mere ~300 years - wouldn't you agree?

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2017 at 12:36pm:

This is not possible Gandalf. You cannot control eternity. Democracy provides the mechanism for the majority to seize power and wield it how they will. It is inevitable that this will happen, no matter how many constraints it starts off with. The people will either lose democracy completely, or take charge of it.

And constrained they most definitely are at the moment - by the US and her allies, who
will not allow an "actual democracy" while ever they have the power to control Afghanistan. You're not disputing this basic point - despite your protestations that the US is somehow "trying" to establish democracy. Really, the only argument you can make here is that Afghan democracy will "inevitably" take flight, but only after the US either relinquishes control, or is forced out of Afghanistan politics. Even if you retreat to a "democracy was only possible because of US action" argument - its very different from the one you are attempting here - that the US is trying to create an "actual democracy". That is not their aim IMO - their aim is to eliminate the threat of terrorism. And no, I don't accept that (at least in the minds of US policy makers), creating a true democracy is the best remedy for that. The history of US active suppression of true democratic movements in regions of strategic interest suggests the exact opposite.



freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2017 at 12:36pm:

The middle ground that you suggest is our real agenda is inherently unstable.

Indeed it is - but just because a particular policy direction is clearly bad and short-sighted and makes things "inherently unstable", doesn't mean US leaders won't pursue it anyway. And its evident that the US in recent years have quite a flare for "inherently unstable" when it comes to their ventures in the middle east - wouldn't you agree?


freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2017 at 12:36pm:

If we did not want the Iraqi and Afghan people to control their own countries, then setting up democracy would be the last thing we would do

Your own personal theory on whats the best system to create stable and safe governments for western interests is entirely irrelevant to what western leaders think and do. As it turns out, there are plenty of examples in history (Iran, Chile, Nicuragua) where the US has done the exact opposite of what you suggest here. Instead they decided in their wisdom, to create despots who tirelessly suppressed democratic movements.

Plenty of examples? Your examples, G, are the rule. Uncle has never tried to establish "democracy" in another country, including Afghanistan and Iraq. The US even avoids the description of democracy for itself.

The jig's up. FD's silly Freeedom ruse  got called out in Iraq. He's been shown all this, G, time and time again. We had these chats before you even came here. The pre-2007 FD once had them himself. Remember, FD once said exactly what you're saying now. No speaka da English, no?

The post-2007 FD is an imposter. The best he can do is complain about your spelling.

Quote:

Right, you just asked if I quoted it here or "some unrelated thread in the last 6 months". Are you now pretending you knew all along that I actually did quote my source? Anyway feel free to actually check the source I have already quoted. All will be revealed I promise. At the end of the quote is a link which will tell you exactly where I "got it from".

Stop being a slippery Muslim Gandalf. I told you which bits I wanted you sources for. You did not supply a link.


Quote:

So sorry for being a slippery muslim, but I do take the view that if you respond directly to evidence I post, and even directly quote the very evidence I posted - then its pretty dumb to turn around and start playing the "err what evidence?" game.

It is not evidence if you just make it up Gandalf.


Quote:

But for the sake of putting an end to an inanely stupid tangent, the post in which I provided the "easily above 1 million" (direct quote) estimate, along with the url of the source (university site, written by an actual expert in the field) is post# 52. And just for your reference, the post in which you directly quoted this estimate, but inexplicably knew nothing about it, is post# 55.

Gandalf, this is what your quote said:

Systematic research on the demography and treatment of Muslim slaves in early modern Europe still remains to be done.

How do you get from that to these two claims:


Quote:

Its estimated the Europeans had around 1 million muslim slaves during the 'Barbary' period, which was roughly the same as the number of European slaves held by the Barbary states.

Quote:

In the process they directly slaughtered or were responsible for the death of more people than at any time in the history of mankind.

Quote:

Yes. The diseases didn't spread because of some benign, innocent non-disruptive contact with the natives. They spread because the imperialistic Europeans barged in uninvited to rape and pillage and make slaves

That's how the flu spreads, is it? by rape and pillage?


Quote:

Are you now clear on the "easily above 1 million" (not my quote) muslim slave claim?

You source claims to extrapolate to this number for all of Europe and for the entire early modern period.


Quote:

The other claim, "In the process they directly slaughtered or were responsible for the death of more people than at any time in the history of mankind." - as already clearly explained is my own claim, that is based on the bleeding obvious. Do you need me to go through the figures again?

Sure. Let's start with the total, which for some reason you are reluctant to give.


Quote:

And constrained they most definitely are at the moment

So I ask again Gandalf, are you seriously suggesting we plan on doing any of these things indefinitely? Does that pass your common sense test? Are you really arguing that the need for military intervention to establish democracy mean we are not actually establishing democracy because of the military intervention?


Quote:

You're not disputing this basic point - despite your protestations that the US is somehow "trying" to establish democracy.

Yes I am. I am saying it is inevitable, and the US and allies do what they do knowing this. You cannot give people a say in how they are governed at the same time as expecting to maintain control of the situation.


Quote:

Really, the only argument you can make here is that Afghan democracy will "inevitably" take flight, but only after the US either relinquishes control, or is forced out of Afghanistan politics.

Duh. The US will leave when they leave. They will either leave voluntarily or will be forced out. Great insight there Gandalf. Do you have a point, or are you just desperate to dismiss the bleeding obvious - that the west is dragging the Muslim world by the nose into the 19th century - as some kind of sinister conspiracy?


Quote:

Indeed it is - but just because a particular policy direction is clearly bad and short-sighted and makes things "inherently unstable"

You miss the point Gandalf. I am not criticising it for 'creating instability'. I am saying that what you pretend is our true agenda is a condition that cannot go on existing. It will either transition to functioning democracy or revert back to dictatorship. You mistake a transition to fully functional democracy as implying violent instability.


Quote:

Your own personal theory on whats the best system to create stable and safe governments for western interests is entirely irrelevant to what western leaders think and do.

What is this theory of mine Gandalf?

OMG   they are still at it....

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

any wonder members are leaving in droves. >:( >:( >:(

Shall we take it to the Islam board cods?

freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 10:42am:

Shall we take it to the Islam board cods?

you can stop saying the same thing over and over again...

you and gandy  may as well post the same posts you posted in the year 2008.... its boring and its repetitive..... no way will you ever see eye to eye...

and no you dont keep in to the Islam board.... have you considered that?????????????????????????

cods wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 12:14pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 10:42am: Shall we take it to the Islam board cods? you can stop saying the same thing over and over again... you and gandy  may as well post the same posts you posted in the year 2008.... its boring and its repetitive..... no way will you ever see eye to eye... and no you dont keep in to the Islam board.... have you considered that?????????????????????????

Has Gandalf discussed the Islamic death penalty for blasphemy or like the usual muslim bullshit has he deflected the topic to talk about anything else to avoid the topic of death for blasphemy?  ::)

cods wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 12:14pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 10:42am: Shall we take it to the Islam board cods? you can stop saying the same thing over and over again... you and gandy  may as well post the same posts you posted in the year 2008.... its boring and its repetitive..... no way will you ever see eye to eye... and no you dont keep in to the Islam board.... have you considered that?????????????????????????

Why are you reading this cods?

freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 12:28pm:

cods wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 12:14pm: freediver wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 10:42am: Shall we take it to the Islam board cods? you can stop saying the same thing over and over again... you and gandy  may as well post the same posts you posted in the year 2008.... its boring and its repetitive..... no way will you ever see eye to eye... and no you dont keep in to the Islam board.... have you considered that????????????????????????? Why are you reading this cods?

Cods speaka da English.

Why are you posting it? You said all this 9 years ago.

Quote:

What is this theory of mine Gandalf?

That we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to establish freedom and democracy, silly. Nothing could be further from the truth. The US has all but acknowledged this. Back in the day, you acknowledged it. You changed your mind, remember?

In Afghanistan, the US installed Karzai, a corporate gas man who had lived in the US. They then supported election fraud to keep him in power for his 4 term limit. Apparently, he now wields power from behind the throne.

In Iraq, the US installed Brenner, a Republican crony, who rewrote the Iraqi constitution and held off on elections for 4 years while he fielded candidates and banned the entire political and administrative caste from office.

Prior to these "democracies", the US installed dictators in every country they invaded or sent the CIA into. From The Shah of Iran to General Diem to Pinochet, the US has never supported democracy in the developing world. It installs dictators for a reason: they keep the oil, crops and US business going. They have minimal taxes for foreign investment, they provide massive development contracts to US businesses, and they allow foreign (US) ownership of land, water and resources. They set up loans and keep the regime drowned in debt.

Any democracy or revolution would put a stop to this. Whenever this did happen, the US quietly stepped in and ousted them. The only exception?

Castro. Over 50 CIA-acknowledged assassination attempts and no luck.

Sounds like a conspiracy Karnal. What crops are you afraid will fail if the US stops interfering?

Karnal wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 12:54pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 12:28pm: cods wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 12:14pm: freediver wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 10:42am: Shall we take it to the Islam board cods? you can stop saying the same thing over and over again... you and gandy  may as well post the same posts you posted in the year 2008.... its boring and its repetitive..... no way will you ever see eye to eye... and no you dont keep in to the Islam board.... have you considered that????????????????????????? Why are you reading this cods? Cods speaka da English. Why are you posting it? You said all this 9 years ago.

well one of the reasons is   I want to get fds attention...

if you are not a member of his exclusive club...Feedback.com... then you have no hope..

sorry kamel  if you dont unnerstand my kinda English
but its all I have pet...maybe you stick with mothra

and besides what you doing here when you blame ISLAM for EVERYTHING>

we need a HYPOCRITES board... :P

freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 3:37pm:

Sounds like a conspiracy Karnal. What crops are you afraid will fail if the US stops interfering?

Of course it's a conspiracy. The 1954 Guatemalan coup was a conspiracy between the CIA and the American United Fruit Company, as every schoolboy knows.

The CIA ousted the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz and installed the military dictatorship of Carlos Armas.

Arbenz, you see, had introduced a minimum wage and land reforms. United Fruit didn't like it. The Eisenhower administration's Allen Dulles, CIA Director, and John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, were major shareholders. Their coup was codenamed Operation PBSUCCESS.

What kind of crops?

Er, Fruit, I think.

The US is a conspiracy between the US government and its corporations. At the end of his administration, Eisenhower came out to expose this. He called this conspiracy the Military-Industrial Complex.

Freeedom, innit.

cods wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 4:26pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 12:54pm: freediver wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 12:28pm: cods wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 12:14pm: freediver wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 10:42am: Shall we take it to the Islam board cods? you can stop saying the same thing over and over again... you and gandy  may as well post the same posts you posted in the year 2008.... its boring and its repetitive..... no way will you ever see eye to eye... and no you dont keep in to the Islam board.... have you considered that????????????????????????? Why are you reading this cods? Cods speaka da English. Why are you posting it? You said all this 9 years ago. well one of the reasons is   I want to get fds attention... if you are not a member of his exclusive club...Feedback.com... then you have no hope.. sorry kamel  if you dont unnerstand my kinda English but its all I have pet...maybe you stick with mothra and besides what you doing here when you blame ISLAM for EVERYTHING> we need a HYPOCRITES board... :P

Good point, dear.

It doesn't sound like Cods speaka da English after all, FD.

No tough questions for poor Cods, please.

Karnal wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 1:14pm:

Quote: What is this theory of mine Gandalf? That we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to establish freedom and democracy, silly. Nothing could be further from the truth. The US has all but acknowledged this. Back in the day, you acknowledged it. You changed your mind, remember?

Yeah, the US did it to control the world's rubble market.  It is a precious resource that you can't get on the open market like you can buy, say, oil.

Frank wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 5:40pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 1:14pm: Quote: What is this theory of mine Gandalf? That we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to establish freedom and democracy, silly. Nothing could be further from the truth. The US has all but acknowledged this. Back in the day, you acknowledged it. You changed your mind, remember?  Yeah, the US did it to control the world's rubble market.  It is a precious resource that you can't get on the open market like you can buy, say, oil.

The US did it as revenge for Sept 11, old boy.

They neglected to invade the country that carried out Sept 11 because, you know, the Saudis have a precious resource: oil.

Karnal wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 5:50pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 5:40pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 1:14pm: Quote: What is this theory of mine Gandalf? That we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to establish freedom and democracy, silly. Nothing could be further from the truth. The US has all but acknowledged this. Back in the day, you acknowledged it. You changed your mind, remember?  Yeah, the US did it to control the world's rubble market.  It is a precious resource that you can't get on the open market like you can buy, say, oil. The US did it as revenge for Sept 11, old boy. They neglected to invade the country that carried out Sept 11 because, you know, the Saudis have a precious resource: oil.

And sand.

Frank wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 6:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 5:50pm: Frank wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 5:40pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 1:14pm: Quote: What is this theory of mine Gandalf? That we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to establish freedom and democracy, silly. Nothing could be further from the truth. The US has all but acknowledged this. Back in the day, you acknowledged it. You changed your mind, remember?  Yeah, the US did it to control the world's rubble market.  It is a precious resource that you can't get on the open market like you can buy, say, oil. The US did it as revenge for Sept 11, old boy. They neglected to invade the country that carried out Sept 11 because, you know, the Saudis have a precious resource: oil. And sand.

No, old boy, I don't think the Saudis export sand. Oil.

Back in 2001 it was all Uncle thought about. That was before they found their own oil.

You'd think they would have tried a bit harder, no? There's no way they'd invade Iraq now.

You changed your mind too, isn't it? Nothing to do with oil, of course.

What changed your mind, old chap?

Karnal wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 6:23pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 6:09pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 5:50pm: Frank wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 5:40pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 1:14pm: Quote: What is this theory of mine Gandalf? That we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to establish freedom and democracy, silly. Nothing could be further from the truth. The US has all but acknowledged this. Back in the day, you acknowledged it. You changed your mind, remember?  Yeah, the US did it to control the world's rubble market.  It is a precious resource that you can't get on the open market like you can buy, say, oil. The US did it as revenge for Sept 11, old boy. They neglected to invade the country that carried out Sept 11 because, you know, the Saudis have a precious resource: oil. And sand. No, old boy, I don't think the Saudis export sand. Oil. Back in 2001 it was all Uncle thought about. That was before they found their own oil. You'd think they would have tried a bit harder, no? There's no way they'd invade Iraq now. You changed your mind too, isn't it? Nothing to do with oil, of course. What changed your mind, old chap?

Oil is a global commodity. It's no use to Iraq, Iran, Saudis etc if it cannot be traded.

It is a lot easier and cheaper for the US to assert its market dominance than to occupy any country for 'oil'. It makes no sense. How much of US oil came from Iraq before the war? None.
How much is the US importing from Iraq now?? 

The top five source countries of U.S. petroleum imports in 2016 were Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, and Colombia. 
No Iraq, no Afghanistan, Kuwait, Qatar, etc.


The 'US did it for oil' is a pedestrian, idiotic argument.  Just the thing for you to advance.

Frank wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 7:42pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 6:23pm: Frank wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 6:09pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 5:50pm: Frank wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 5:40pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 1:14pm: Quote: What is this theory of mine Gandalf? That we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to establish freedom and democracy, silly. Nothing could be further from the truth. The US has all but acknowledged this. Back in the day, you acknowledged it. You changed your mind, remember?  Yeah, the US did it to control the world's rubble market.  It is a precious resource that you can't get on the open market like you can buy, say, oil. The US did it as revenge for Sept 11, old boy. They neglected to invade the country that carried out Sept 11 because, you know, the Saudis have a precious resource: oil. And sand. No, old boy, I don't think the Saudis export sand. Oil. Back in 2001 it was all Uncle thought about. That was before they found their own oil. You'd think they would have tried a bit harder, no? There's no way they'd invade Iraq now. You changed your mind too, isn't it? Nothing to do with oil, of course. What changed your mind, old chap? Oil is a global commodity. It's no use to Iraq, Iran, Saudis etc if it cannot be traded. It is a lot easier and cheaper for the US to assert its market dominance than to occupy any country for 'oil'. It makes no sense. How much of US oil came from Iraq before the war? None. How much is the US importing from Iraq now??  The top five source countries of U.S. petroleum imports in 2016 were Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, and Colombia.  No Iraq, no Afghanistan, Kuwait, Qatar, etc. The 'US did it for oil' is a pedestrian, idiotic argument.  Just the thing for you to advance.

This is why the US would not be invading now, old chap. They invaded then because Iraq had the second biggest oil reserves in 2003. The US was in recession. Oil prices were at an all-time high.

You might have noticed the ramped-up US rhetoric on Venezuela. They're now on the US sht list. Ultimately though, oil prices are down, so no one's invading any Ayrabs or Injuns. Not unless they can find a market for sand or mud.

But I'm curious. Why did you change the neoconservative position you held in 2001?

Was it always absolutely never ever or squishy, evasive yeah-but-no-but spinelessness?

Karnal wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 8:00pm:

But I'm curious. Why did you change the neoconservative position you held in 2001? Was it always absolutely never ever or squishy, evasive yeah-but-no-but spinelessness?

I used to think they were civilisable. Like Gillard, I was young and naive.
Now I know better.

Frank wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 8:22pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 8:00pm: But I'm curious. Why did you change the neoconservative position you held in 2001? Was it always absolutely never ever or squishy, evasive yeah-but-no-but spinelessness? I used to think they were civilisable. Like Gillard, I was young and naive. Now I know better.

Civilisable? Come come, you remember Sir Reggie's story about Mustapha Khunt's calling card. You retold it enough times.

You know very well the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were about punishing the dirty Khunts. As you said, you would have gone further and recolonised all the tinted lands. You had as much of a chuckle about democratising them as you do now about your own youth.

As you well know, you were never young, old boy. You were aged from birth.

And we wouldn't have it any other way.

freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 10:26am:

You source claims to extrapolate to this number for all of Europe and for the entire early modern period.

I never claimed it was anything else.

FD why the games about no source and no link? You've clearly found it now. Did you just not see it at the time you were throwing round your usual childish "slippery muslim" slurs?


Quote:

Sure. Let's start with the total, which for some reason you are reluctant to give.

I don't know the total FD - there are just too many. I do know though that it runs into the many millions - just in Congo alone. Another 8 million or so in Spanish occupied America.

Can you think of any other period in history where so many were killed as a result of the actions of one civilization/power? You do agree that even over 1400 years the muslims didn't even come close to the death and destruction reaped by the Europeans in a mere ~300 years - right? You seem reluctant to address this point.


Quote:

That's how the flu spreads, is it? by rape and pillage?

In this case, yes. Do you agree that native American populations wouldn't have been decimated by European diseases if the Europeans hadn't invaded them to rape and pillage their lands? A simple yes or no will suffice.


Quote:

the need for military intervention to establish democracy

Here's your first problem FD - this flawed premise. If you actually believe the US goes around invading countries "to establish democracy", then there's not much more that can be said.


Quote:

Duh. The US will leave when they leave. They will either leave voluntarily or will be forced out. Great insight there Gandalf. Do you have a point, or are you just desperate to dismiss the bleeding obvious

My "point" - which is bleeding obvious - is that arguing that Afghanistan will inevitably become democratic after the US leave is not an argument that the US intended or wanted this all along. My personal view is that the fear of an "actual democracy" emerging in Afghanistan is whats prompting the US to stay longer than they probably would have otherwise.


Quote:

You miss the point Gandalf. I am not criticising it for 'creating instability'. I am saying that what you pretend is our true agenda is a condition that cannot go on existing.

I know you are FD. But just because you think this, and probably even the US policy makers think this - it doesn't mean they will do it. Democratic governments plan on very short-term timelines, and while they may understand there may be long term problems cause by short term expediency, luckily for them they won't be around to deal with it. I'm sure you understand only too well this problem in relation to climate change policies. Trump, for example, recently announced there will be no timeline for exiting Afghanistan. And while this may be seen as prudent in terms of not letting the enemy know exactly how long they have to "wait it out", another interpretation is that Trump simply wants to leave the difficult decisions related to an exit strategy to the next administration.

Here you go Gandalf. No source. No link. I asked for one, and you did the slippery Muslim trick for several pages.


polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 8:45am:

freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 6:40pm: Sounds like a quest for slaves to me. Then you have a reading comprehension problem. Here it is again: At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. Its estimated the Europeans had around 1 million muslim slaves during the 'Barbary' period, which was roughly the same as the number of European slaves held by the Barbary states. In light of this, explain to me FD how your fairy tale about one side representing the evil slavers and one side representing the noble anti-slavers stacks up? freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 6:40pm: We are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan right now, for the purpose of establishing democracy. Rubbish. We are/were occupying Iraq and Afghanistan for the purposes of eliminating the threat of terrorists and attempting to create stability. And if that means propping up anti democracy, and strongmen who directly work against democracy (eg Karzai, Al-Maliki) - we have proven we are willing to do so. freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 6:40pm: How many Gandalf? - estimates between 2-13 million in Congo alone during King Leopold's brutal rule - would you care to hazard a guess as to how many millions of native Indians were slaughtered by European imperialists In South, Central and North America combined? I think we can safely assume it runs into the millions.

And another one. No source, no link.


polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 24^th, 2017 at 2:55pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 12:33pm: In any case, why would you expect the west to permit Muslims to wage war on them in a quest for slaves until slavery had been entirely eradicated in the west? Is this some idiotic Islamic notion of fairness? Or are you just upset that the west won and brought an end to institutionalised sex slavery, thus depriving Muslims of the primary historical mechanism for spreading Islam? The first problem here is you labelling the Barbery Wars a "quest for slaves". At the very least you are being disingenuous. From your own source: At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. If ships of a given country failed to pay, pirates would attack the ship and take their goods, and often enslave crew members or hold them for ransom. freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 12:33pm: They were following Muhammad's example of stealing everything they could, killing anyone who stood in their way, and catching slaves whenever they were in a position to do so. And the Maltese and other Christian pirates who raped and pillaged and traded hundreds of thousands of muslim slaves - what sinister prophet were they following? Perhaps they were secretly muslim. freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 12:33pm: Western nations killed a lot of Muslims to bring the slave trade to an end. They destroyed the Barbary slave trading ports. They followed this up with more of that "foreign interference" Muslims constantly whine about to end local slave trade and eventually free slaves in the Muslim world. On planet earth, in the actual past, western nations killed a lot of muslims to build themselves extraordinarily profitable empires. In fact they occupied virtually all of the muslim world at one point - as well as great swathes of the rest of the world. In the process they directly slaughtered or were responsible for the death of more people than at any time in the history of mankind. Even more than the muslims. This was in pursuit of wealth, not some altruistic campaign against slavery or rape.

Karnal wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 8:00pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 7:42pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 6:23pm: Frank wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 6:09pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 5:50pm: Frank wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 5:40pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 1:14pm: Quote: What is this theory of mine Gandalf? That we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to establish freedom and democracy, silly. Nothing could be further from the truth. The US has all but acknowledged this. Back in the day, you acknowledged it. You changed your mind, remember?  Yeah, the US did it to control the world's rubble market.  It is a precious resource that you can't get on the open market like you can buy, say, oil. The US did it as revenge for Sept 11, old boy. They neglected to invade the country that carried out Sept 11 because, you know, the Saudis have a precious resource: oil. And sand. No, old boy, I don't think the Saudis export sand. Oil. Back in 2001 it was all Uncle thought about. That was before they found their own oil. You'd think they would have tried a bit harder, no? There's no way they'd invade Iraq now. You changed your mind too, isn't it? Nothing to do with oil, of course. What changed your mind, old chap? Oil is a global commodity. It's no use to Iraq, Iran, Saudis etc if it cannot be traded. It is a lot easier and cheaper for the US to assert its market dominance than to occupy any country for 'oil'. It makes no sense. How much of US oil came from Iraq before the war? None. How much is the US importing from Iraq now??  The top five source countries of U.S. petroleum imports in 2016 were Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, and Colombia.  No Iraq, no Afghanistan, Kuwait, Qatar, etc. The 'US did it for oil' is a pedestrian, idiotic argument.  Just the thing for you to advance. This is why the US would not be invading now, old chap. They invaded then because Iraq had the second biggest oil reserves in 2003. The US was in recession. Oil prices were at an all-time high. You might have noticed the ramped-up US rhetoric on Venezuela. They're now on the US sht list. Ultimately though, oil prices are down, so no one's invading any Ayrabs or Injuns. Not unless they can find a market for sand or mud. But I'm curious. Why did you change the neoconservative position you held in 2001? Was it always absolutely never ever or squishy, evasive yeah-but-no-but spinelessness?

It's  cheaper and easier just to buy oil on the open market, whatever it's market price, than to invade a country.  For the US to invade anyone for a resource they could easily buy is daft.
It wasn't  for oil, it was for political reasons.

freediver wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 8:02am:

And another one. No source, no link. polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 2:55pm: freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 12:33pm: In any case, why would you expect the west to permit Muslims to wage war on them in a quest for slaves until slavery had been entirely eradicated in the west? Is this some idiotic Islamic notion of fairness? Or are you just upset that the west won and brought an end to institutionalised sex slavery, thus depriving Muslims of the primary historical mechanism for spreading Islam? The first problem here is you labelling the Barbery Wars a "quest for slaves". At the very least you are being disingenuous. From your own source: At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. If ships of a given country failed to pay, pirates would attack the ship and take their goods, and often enslave crew members or hold them for ransom. freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 12:33pm: They were following Muhammad's example of stealing everything they could, killing anyone who stood in their way, and catching slaves whenever they were in a position to do so. And the Maltese and other Christian pirates who raped and pillaged and traded hundreds of thousands of muslim slaves - what sinister prophet were they following? Perhaps they were secretly muslim. freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 12:33pm: Western nations killed a lot of Muslims to bring the slave trade to an end. They destroyed the Barbary slave trading ports. They followed this up with more of that "foreign interference" Muslims constantly whine about to end local slave trade and eventually free slaves in the Muslim world. On planet earth, in the actual past, western nations killed a lot of muslims to build themselves extraordinarily profitable empires. In fact they occupied virtually all of the muslim world at one point - as well as great swathes of the rest of the world. In the process they directly slaughtered or were responsible for the death of more people than at any time in the history of mankind. Even more than the muslims. This was in pursuit of wealth, not some altruistic campaign against slavery or rape.

Easier than having a discussion, I guess.

Frank wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 8:51am:

Karnal wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 8:00pm: Frank wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 7:42pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 6:23pm: Frank wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 6:09pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 5:50pm: Frank wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 5:40pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 28th, 2017 at 1:14pm: Quote: What is this theory of mine Gandalf? That we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to establish freedom and democracy, silly. Nothing could be further from the truth. The US has all but acknowledged this. Back in the day, you acknowledged it. You changed your mind, remember?  Yeah, the US did it to control the world's rubble market.  It is a precious resource that you can't get on the open market like you can buy, say, oil. The US did it as revenge for Sept 11, old boy. They neglected to invade the country that carried out Sept 11 because, you know, the Saudis have a precious resource: oil. And sand. No, old boy, I don't think the Saudis export sand. Oil. Back in 2001 it was all Uncle thought about. That was before they found their own oil. You'd think they would have tried a bit harder, no? There's no way they'd invade Iraq now. You changed your mind too, isn't it? Nothing to do with oil, of course. What changed your mind, old chap? Oil is a global commodity. It's no use to Iraq, Iran, Saudis etc if it cannot be traded. It is a lot easier and cheaper for the US to assert its market dominance than to occupy any country for 'oil'. It makes no sense. How much of US oil came from Iraq before the war? None. How much is the US importing from Iraq now??  The top five source countries of U.S. petroleum imports in 2016 were Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, and Colombia.  No Iraq, no Afghanistan, Kuwait, Qatar, etc. The 'US did it for oil' is a pedestrian, idiotic argument.  Just the thing for you to advance. This is why the US would not be invading now, old chap. They invaded then because Iraq had the second biggest oil reserves in 2003. The US was in recession. Oil prices were at an all-time high. You might have noticed the ramped-up US rhetoric on Venezuela. They're now on the US sht list. Ultimately though, oil prices are down, so no one's invading any Ayrabs or Injuns. Not unless they can find a market for sand or mud. But I'm curious. Why did you change the neoconservative position you held in 2001? Was it always absolutely never ever or squishy, evasive yeah-but-no-but spinelessness? It's  cheaper and easier just to buy oil on the open market, whatever it's market price, than to invade a country.  For the US to invade anyone for a resource they could easily buy is daft. It wasn't  for oil, it was for political reasons.

Not at all. The military are just sitting there, doing nothing. The bombs are all made by Uncle's friends. Who cares? The taxpayer will pick up the bill.

Anyway, it depends how much they'll fight back. The US invaded Panama in the 80s - a piece of cake after they bombed the slums, taking out about 60,000.   

Money for jam, innit. The Panama Canal brings in billions in revenues.

The US didn't invade Iraq just for the oil, but the oil security and a military foothold on the Arabian peninsula.

Mission accomplished.

Karnal wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 11:10am:

The US didn't invade Iraq just for the oil, but the oil security and a military foothold on the Arabian peninsula. Mission accomplished.

In what way did Iraq threaten oil security?

Biggest US base in the Middle East? The US Fifth Fleet.

Frank wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 2:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 29th, 2017 at 11:10am: The US didn't invade Iraq just for the oil, but the oil security and a military foothold on the Arabian peninsula. Mission accomplished. In what way did Iraq threaten oil security? .

You tell me, old chap. If I remember rightly, you were aghast at Saddam not playing the game.

Not cricket, I believe you said. On stilts.

Now stop playing silly buggers and admit the real reason you wanted a jolly invasion.

freediver wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 8:01am:

Here you go Gandalf. No source. No link. I asked for one, and you did the slippery Muslim trick for several pages. polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 25th, 2017 at 8:45am: freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 6:40pm: Sounds like a quest for slaves to me. Then you have a reading comprehension problem. Here it is again: At issue was the Barbary pirates' demand for tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. Its estimated the Europeans had around 1 million muslim slaves during the 'Barbary' period, which was roughly the same as the number of European slaves held by the Barbary states. In light of this, explain to me FD how your fairy tale about one side representing the evil slavers and one side representing the noble anti-slavers stacks up? freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 6:40pm: We are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan right now, for the purpose of establishing democracy. Rubbish. We are/were occupying Iraq and Afghanistan for the purposes of eliminating the threat of terrorists and attempting to create stability. And if that means propping up anti democracy, and strongmen who directly work against democracy (eg Karzai, Al-Maliki) - we have proven we are willing to do so. freediver wrote on Oct 24th, 2017 at 6:40pm: How many Gandalf? - estimates between 2-13 million in Congo alone during King Leopold's brutal rule - would you care to hazard a guess as to how many millions of native Indians were slaughtered by European imperialists In South, Central and North America combined? I think we can safely assume it runs into the millions.

Are you referring to the highlighted part FD? Its from the wiki article that you yourself quoted. Check again.

FD is not only clueless about sources someone else quotes - he's even clueless about his own quotes. How embarrassing.

FD perhaps if for once you were more specific about what actual claims of mine you think has "no source, no link", this discussion would be slightly less inane. Why do you just bombard us with a whole block of quotes rather than specifying which actual specific claim(s) you take issue with? I mean you're surely not including the extract from the very wikipedia article that you yourself quoted are you? Surely even you would understand that my preface "from your own source" is a bit of a giveaway right? So why do you include it in your accusation? Your last accusation was still about the 1 million muslim slaves, and pretending I had no source for it. I guess even you realised the game was up on that one when you started referencing that very source yourself. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 7:07pm:

FD perhaps if for once you were more specific about what actual claims of mine you think has "no source, no link", this discussion would be slightly less inane. Why do you just bombard us with a whole block of quotes rather than specifying which actual specific claim(s) you take issue with? I mean you're surely not including the extract from the very wikipedia article that you yourself quoted are you? Surely even you would understand that my preface "from your own source" is a bit of a giveaway right? So why do you include it in your accusation? Your last accusation was still about the 1 million muslim slaves, and pretending I had no source for it. I guess even you realised the game was up on that one when you started referencing that very source yourself.

Why do you always point this out as a suprise, G? There's only one response to FD's no speaka da English game, and that's ah.

The lack of any interesting language of any kind coming out of FD, of course, goes without ah-ing.

Quote:

FD perhaps if for once you were more specific about what actual claims of mine you think has "no source, no link"

I quoted them Gandalf. About a dozen times. Asking you where you got them from. In return I got the slippery Muslim routine.

freediver wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 7:26pm:

Quote: FD perhaps if for once you were more specific about what actual claims of mine you think has "no source, no link" I quoted them Gandalf. About a dozen times. Asking you where you got them from. In return I got the slippery Muslim routine.

This, G, is the best FD can come up with.

Why do you think he started a discussion board?

freediver wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 7:26pm:

Quote: FD perhaps if for once you were more specific about what actual claims of mine you think has "no source, no link" I quoted them Gandalf. About a dozen times. Asking you where you got them from. In return I got the slippery Muslim routine.

Speaking of slippery, why is it you just vaguely quote an entire block that contains about half a dozen claims? Why is that you have never actually specified which claim you take issue with? Is it actually the source for the 1 million muslim slaves claim that you yourself have quoted? Could you enlighten me now FD with something thats sactually coherent? Or would you prefer to continue this childish personal attack jihad of yours?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 30^th, 2017 at 6:45am:

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2017 at 7:26pm: Quote: FD perhaps if for once you were more specific about what actual claims of mine you think has "no source, no link" I quoted them Gandalf. About a dozen times. Asking you where you got them from. In return I got the slippery Muslim routine. Speaking of slippery, why is it you just vaguely quote an entire block that contains about half a dozen claims? Why is that you have never actually specified which claim you take issue with? Is it actually the source for the 1 million muslim slaves claim that you yourself have quoted? Could you enlighten me now FD with something thats sactually coherent? Or would you prefer to continue this childish personal attack jihad of yours?

What do you think, G? I'm curious.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 30^th, 2017 at 6:45am:

freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2017 at 7:26pm: Quote: FD perhaps if for once you were more specific about what actual claims of mine you think has "no source, no link" I quoted them Gandalf. About a dozen times. Asking you where you got them from. In return I got the slippery Muslim routine. Speaking of slippery, why is it you just vaguely quote an entire block that contains about half a dozen claims? Why is that you have never actually specified which claim you take issue with? Is it actually the source for the 1 million muslim slaves claim that you yourself have quoted? Could you enlighten me now FD with something thats sactually coherent? Or would you prefer to continue this childish personal attack jihad of yours?

I quoted both of the posts in their entirety, because you lied about including a link in the original post. I made this pretty obvious at the time.

Then you went on to lie about me not quoting the claims I was asking you about. The many times I have asked you previously to back up what you said, I only quoted the relevant bits.

No worries, FD. Can you show where the US have established freedom and democracy in any of the developing countries it's intervened in? Perhaps you can prove silly old Karnal wrong.

freediver wrote on Oct 30^th, 2017 at 12:02pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 30th, 2017 at 6:45am: freediver wrote on Oct 29th, 2017 at 7:26pm: Quote: FD perhaps if for once you were more specific about what actual claims of mine you think has "no source, no link" I quoted them Gandalf. About a dozen times. Asking you where you got them from. In return I got the slippery Muslim routine. Speaking of slippery, why is it you just vaguely quote an entire block that contains about half a dozen claims? Why is that you have never actually specified which claim you take issue with? Is it actually the source for the 1 million muslim slaves claim that you yourself have quoted? Could you enlighten me now FD with something thats sactually coherent? Or would you prefer to continue this childish personal attack jihad of yours? I quoted both of the posts in their entirety, because you lied about including a link in the original post. I made this pretty obvious at the time. Then you went on to lie about me not quoting the claims I was asking you about. The many times I have asked you previously to back up what you said, I only quoted the relevant bits.

OK FD, lets play your little game of 'guess what FD is talking about' if you really are going to refuse to give me a straight answer.

I'm guessing - which is what I'm forced to resort to - this is the claim you have issue with:


polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 8:45am:

Its estimated the Europeans had around 1 million muslim slaves during the 'Barbary' period, which was roughly the same as the number of European slaves held by the Barbary states.

yes?

If so, then I'll show you as clearly and simply as I can the source.

It is from the article at this url:
http://www.hum.leiden.edu/history/slavery-studies/news/muslim-slaves.html

and here is the quote giving that particular estimate:


Quote:

If we extrapolate these numbers to all of southern Europe, we easily get above one million and possibly more for the entire early modern period—as is also the case with the Christian slaves on the Barbary Coast, who amounted to at least one million in a conservative estimate.

All quoted and referenced in post# 52 - as previously explained.

Here we have an estimate of the number of muslim slaves taken by Europeans during the "entire early modern era", which according to wikipedia is:


Quote:

Early modern Europe is the period of European history between the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, roughly the late 15th century to the late 18th century.

- which is roughly the same period as the 'Barbary' pirates operated. Its during that time that, according to the article I quoted, roughly the same number of muslim slaves were taken by European pirates as the number of European slaves taken by muslim pirates.

Now, if thats settled, we can move on to whatever other claims you think I haven't sourced. Do I have to guess what that is also?

freediver wrote on Oct 30^th, 2017 at 12:02pm:

you lied about including a link in the original post.

Come again FD?

the original post is post# 52, yes?

Is there a link in that post?

freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 10:26am:

Gandalf, this is what your quote said: Systematic research on the demography and treatment of Muslim slaves in early modern Europe still remains to be done. How do you get from that to these two claims: Quote: Its estimated the Europeans had around 1 million muslim slaves during the 'Barbary' period, which was roughly the same as the number of European slaves held by the Barbary states.

this is how I "get" it FD:


Quote:

If we extrapolate these numbers to all of southern Europe, we easily get above one million and possibly more for the entire early modern period—as is also the case with the Christian slaves on the Barbary Coast, who amounted to at least one million in a conservative estimate.

http://www.hum.leiden.edu/history/slavery-studies/news/muslim-slaves.html

FD how are you going to keep up this farce about me lying about sourcing this claim? Let me guess, your next tactic is to say an "extrapolation" is not an "estimation"?

Blame Islam?

You bet  ;D ;D ;D

Ask him why he's not answering your questions, FD. Ask him why he's playing the usual slippery Muslim routine. Ask him if he's a jellyfish.

Then you'll be free to answer my questions, ja?