Australian Politics Forum - spineless apologetics

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2145 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:54pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:46pm:

A last resort to what? Your war resulted in more harm than any recent war. It had no objective, and it ended up in more war. It's still going on.

The invasion of Iraq is probably the most compelling case for "pacifism" we've ever seen.

The last resort to getting rid of a sadistic genocidal rapist wankjob and his 2 sons. And the only reason it's still going on is because regressives denied the allies the ability to properly invest in Iraq and rebuild it. And on top of that, of course, the conservative islam, islamist and jihadist nature of that region.

I justify my reversal because i recognise that in this case it really was the last option. And, having come from a family that has had a history with being cleansed for genocidal reasons, I don't really wish to see this on others. 2 million was enough. Don't you think?

The U.N. wanted to continue weapons inspections. Regressives?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2146 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:57pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:54pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:46pm:

A last resort to what? Your war resulted in more harm than any recent war. It had no objective, and it ended up in more war. It's still going on.

The invasion of Iraq is probably the most compelling case for "pacifism" we've ever seen.

The last resort to getting rid of a sadistic genocidal rapist wankjob and his 2 sons. And the only reason it's still going on is because regressives denied the allies the ability to properly invest in Iraq and rebuild it. And on top of that, of course, the conservative islam, islamist and jihadist nature of that region.

I justify my reversal because i recognise that in this case it really was the last option. And, having come from a family that has had a history with being cleansed for genocidal reasons, I don't really wish to see this on others. 2 million was enough. Don't you think?

The U.N. wanted to continue weapons inspections. Regressives?

weapons inspections whilst he continued to rapey rape women? How nice of the U.N.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2147 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:05pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:57pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:54pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:46pm:

A last resort to what? Your war resulted in more harm than any recent war. It had no objective, and it ended up in more war. It's still going on.

The invasion of Iraq is probably the most compelling case for "pacifism" we've ever seen.

The last resort to getting rid of a sadistic genocidal rapist wankjob and his 2 sons. And the only reason it's still going on is because regressives denied the allies the ability to properly invest in Iraq and rebuild it. And on top of that, of course, the conservative islam, islamist and jihadist nature of that region.

I justify my reversal because i recognise that in this case it really was the last option. And, having come from a family that has had a history with being cleansed for genocidal reasons, I don't really wish to see this on others. 2 million was enough. Don't you think?

The U.N. wanted to continue weapons inspections. Regressives?

weapons inspections whilst he continued to rapey rape women? How nice of the U.N.

What are you even talking about?

Back to top

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 44684

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2148 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:07pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:57pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:54pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:46pm:

A last resort to what? Your war resulted in more harm than any recent war. It had no objective, and it ended up in more war. It's still going on.

The invasion of Iraq is probably the most compelling case for "pacifism" we've ever seen.

The last resort to getting rid of a sadistic genocidal rapist wankjob and his 2 sons. And the only reason it's still going on is because regressives denied the allies the ability to properly invest in Iraq and rebuild it. And on top of that, of course, the conservative islam, islamist and jihadist nature of that region.

I justify my reversal because i recognise that in this case it really was the last option. And, having come from a family that has had a history with being cleansed for genocidal reasons, I don't really wish to see this on others. 2 million was enough. Don't you think?

The U.N. wanted to continue weapons inspections. Regressives?

weapons inspections whilst he continued to rapey rape women? How nice of the U.N.

What are you even talking about?

An interesting question. Its something I've been trying to figure out as well. Roll Eyes

Back to top

It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2149 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:09pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:57pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:54pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:46pm:

A last resort to what? Your war resulted in more harm than any recent war. It had no objective, and it ended up in more war. It's still going on.

The invasion of Iraq is probably the most compelling case for "pacifism" we've ever seen.

The last resort to getting rid of a sadistic genocidal rapist wankjob and his 2 sons. And the only reason it's still going on is because regressives denied the allies the ability to properly invest in Iraq and rebuild it. And on top of that, of course, the conservative islam, islamist and jihadist nature of that region.

I justify my reversal because i recognise that in this case it really was the last option. And, having come from a family that has had a history with being cleansed for genocidal reasons, I don't really wish to see this on others. 2 million was enough. Don't you think?

The U.N. wanted to continue weapons inspections. Regressives?

weapons inspections whilst he continued to rapey rape women? How nice of the U.N.

What are you even talking about?

what I've been tlaking about this whole time: That your pacifism would've kept Iraq under the cloud of Saddam and his sadistic sons, and that your constant attack of the US and its allies has denied the proper investment into Iraq following the initial invasion.

I have also said time and again that the reason chosen to go to war was wrong. The outcome was correct.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2150 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:09pm

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:07pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:57pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:54pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:46pm:

A last resort to what? Your war resulted in more harm than any recent war. It had no objective, and it ended up in more war. It's still going on.

The invasion of Iraq is probably the most compelling case for "pacifism" we've ever seen.

The last resort to getting rid of a sadistic genocidal rapist wankjob and his 2 sons. And the only reason it's still going on is because regressives denied the allies the ability to properly invest in Iraq and rebuild it. And on top of that, of course, the conservative islam, islamist and jihadist nature of that region.

I justify my reversal because i recognise that in this case it really was the last option. And, having come from a family that has had a history with being cleansed for genocidal reasons, I don't really wish to see this on others. 2 million was enough. Don't you think?

The U.N. wanted to continue weapons inspections. Regressives?

weapons inspections whilst he continued to rapey rape women? How nice of the U.N.

What are you even talking about?

An interesting question. Its something I've been trying to figure out as well. Roll Eyes

Oh lookie, Karnal and Bwian are on the same page. I don't know which of you should feel more embarrassed Wink

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2151 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:15pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:57pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:54pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:46pm:

A last resort to what? Your war resulted in more harm than any recent war. It had no objective, and it ended up in more war. It's still going on.

The invasion of Iraq is probably the most compelling case for "pacifism" we've ever seen.

The last resort to getting rid of a sadistic genocidal rapist wankjob and his 2 sons. And the only reason it's still going on is because regressives denied the allies the ability to properly invest in Iraq and rebuild it. And on top of that, of course, the conservative islam, islamist and jihadist nature of that region.

I justify my reversal because i recognise that in this case it really was the last option. And, having come from a family that has had a history with being cleansed for genocidal reasons, I don't really wish to see this on others. 2 million was enough. Don't you think?

The U.N. wanted to continue weapons inspections. Regressives?

weapons inspections whilst he continued to rapey rape women? How nice of the U.N.

What are you even talking about?

what I've been tlaking about this whole time: That your pacifism would've kept Iraq under the cloud of Saddam and his sadistic sons, and that your constant attack of the US and its allies has denied the proper investment into Iraq following the initial invasion.

I have also said time and again that the reason chosen to go to war was wrong. The outcome was correct.

The US and its allies invaded Iraq to stop Saddam developing WMDs. What do you mean by rape?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2152 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:21pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:15pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:57pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:54pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:46pm:

A last resort to what? Your war resulted in more harm than any recent war. It had no objective, and it ended up in more war. It's still going on.

The invasion of Iraq is probably the most compelling case for "pacifism" we've ever seen.

The last resort to getting rid of a sadistic genocidal rapist wankjob and his 2 sons. And the only reason it's still going on is because regressives denied the allies the ability to properly invest in Iraq and rebuild it. And on top of that, of course, the conservative islam, islamist and jihadist nature of that region.

I justify my reversal because i recognise that in this case it really was the last option. And, having come from a family that has had a history with being cleansed for genocidal reasons, I don't really wish to see this on others. 2 million was enough. Don't you think?

The U.N. wanted to continue weapons inspections. Regressives?

weapons inspections whilst he continued to rapey rape women? How nice of the U.N.

What are you even talking about?

what I've been tlaking about this whole time: That your pacifism would've kept Iraq under the cloud of Saddam and his sadistic sons, and that your constant attack of the US and its allies has denied the proper investment into Iraq following the initial invasion.

I have also said time and again that the reason chosen to go to war was wrong. The outcome was correct.

The US and its allies invaded Iraq to stop Saddam developing WMDs. What do you mean by rape?

See above.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2153 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:27pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:21pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:15pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:57pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:54pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:46pm:

A last resort to what? Your war resulted in more harm than any recent war. It had no objective, and it ended up in more war. It's still going on.

The invasion of Iraq is probably the most compelling case for "pacifism" we've ever seen.

The last resort to getting rid of a sadistic genocidal rapist wankjob and his 2 sons. And the only reason it's still going on is because regressives denied the allies the ability to properly invest in Iraq and rebuild it. And on top of that, of course, the conservative islam, islamist and jihadist nature of that region.

I justify my reversal because i recognise that in this case it really was the last option. And, having come from a family that has had a history with being cleansed for genocidal reasons, I don't really wish to see this on others. 2 million was enough. Don't you think?

The U.N. wanted to continue weapons inspections. Regressives?

weapons inspections whilst he continued to rapey rape women? How nice of the U.N.

What are you even talking about?

what I've been tlaking about this whole time: That your pacifism would've kept Iraq under the cloud of Saddam and his sadistic sons, and that your constant attack of the US and its allies has denied the proper investment into Iraq following the initial invasion.

I have also said time and again that the reason chosen to go to war was wrong. The outcome was correct.

The US and its allies invaded Iraq to stop Saddam developing WMDs. What do you mean by rape?

See above.

You're not making any sense. Saddam's sons raped someone? Any chance you could spell this out?

It's your justification for the "allegedly" illegal invasion of a country which directly killed at least 200,000 Iraqis.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2154 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:31pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:27pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:21pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:15pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:57pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:54pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:46pm:

A last resort to what? Your war resulted in more harm than any recent war. It had no objective, and it ended up in more war. It's still going on.

The invasion of Iraq is probably the most compelling case for "pacifism" we've ever seen.

The last resort to getting rid of a sadistic genocidal rapist wankjob and his 2 sons. And the only reason it's still going on is because regressives denied the allies the ability to properly invest in Iraq and rebuild it. And on top of that, of course, the conservative islam, islamist and jihadist nature of that region.

I justify my reversal because i recognise that in this case it really was the last option. And, having come from a family that has had a history with being cleansed for genocidal reasons, I don't really wish to see this on others. 2 million was enough. Don't you think?

The U.N. wanted to continue weapons inspections. Regressives?

weapons inspections whilst he continued to rapey rape women? How nice of the U.N.

What are you even talking about?

what I've been tlaking about this whole time: That your pacifism would've kept Iraq under the cloud of Saddam and his sadistic sons, and that your constant attack of the US and its allies has denied the proper investment into Iraq following the initial invasion.

I have also said time and again that the reason chosen to go to war was wrong. The outcome was correct.

The US and its allies invaded Iraq to stop Saddam developing WMDs. What do you mean by rape?

See above.

You're not making any sense. Saddam's sons raped someone? Any chance you could spell this out?

It's your justification for the "allegedly" illegal invasion of a country which directly killed at least 200,000 Iraqis.

yes, like I said and you conveniently missed: the reason was wrong, the outcome was right. it is my justification for allegedly illegally invading a country to remove a vicious genocidal maniac rapist dictator, and his 2 sadistic sons, who killed 2 million +, displaced millions, and negatively impacted, directly, the lives of 1 in 4 Iraqis.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2155 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:48pm

Saddam killed two million people? I can't see it, but we're through the looking glass now with rapey rape.and the genocidal sons.

More people died from the sanctions, the invasion and the subsequent insurgency than anything Saddam did, and it cost the US dearly.

How many Iraqis did that directly influence?

I can't even believe I'm having this discussion. I must be of an ilk.

Good grief, now I remember. The ilk- that's what the old boy used to say!

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2156 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:55pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:48pm:

Saddam killed two million people? I can't see it, but we're through the looking glass now with rapey rape.and the genocidal sons.

More people died from the sanctions, the invasion and the subsequent insurgency than anything Saddam did, and it cost the US dearly.

How many Iraqis did that directly influence?

I can't even believe I'm having this discussion. I must be of an ilk.

Good grief, now I remember. The ilk- that's what the old boy used to say!

The fact people died from the sanctions - you wouldn't blame the dear leader? really? See, tihs is the problem with pacifists, who are also ignorant of history, and who's whole purpose is to paint a pretty picture of a genocidal rapist.

As leader, it is Saddam's job to protect his people. His failures which result in the death of civilians are attributed to his death tally, not someone else.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2157 - Sep 30^th, 2017 at 12:11am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:55pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:48pm:

Saddam killed two million people? I can't see it, but we're through the looking glass now with rapey rape.and the genocidal sons.

More people died from the sanctions, the invasion and the subsequent insurgency than anything Saddam did, and it cost the US dearly.

How many Iraqis did that directly influence?

I can't even believe I'm having this discussion. I must be of an ilk.

Good grief, now I remember. The ilk- that's what the old boy used to say!

The fact people died from the sanctions - you wouldn't blame the dear leader? really? See, tihs is the problem with pacifists, who are also ignorant of history, and who's whole purpose is to paint a pretty picture of a genocidal rapist.

As leader, it is Saddam's job to protect his people. His failures which result in the death of civilians are attributed to his death tally, not someone else.

Well, he did something right. He bought the Australian Wheat Board a few drinks to "protect his people". Mind you, we never heard pacifist regressives like Alexander Downer using this line.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2158 - Sep 30^th, 2017 at 12:15am

Karnal wrote on Sep 30^th, 2017 at 12:11am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:55pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:48pm:

Saddam killed two million people? I can't see it, but we're through the looking glass now with rapey rape.and the genocidal sons.

More people died from the sanctions, the invasion and the subsequent insurgency than anything Saddam did, and it cost the US dearly.

How many Iraqis did that directly influence?

I can't even believe I'm having this discussion. I must be of an ilk.

Good grief, now I remember. The ilk- that's what the old boy used to say!

The fact people died from the sanctions - you wouldn't blame the dear leader? really? See, tihs is the problem with pacifists, who are also ignorant of history, and who's whole purpose is to paint a pretty picture of a genocidal rapist.

As leader, it is Saddam's job to protect his people. His failures which result in the death of civilians are attributed to his death tally, not someone else.

Well, he did something right. He bought the Australian Wheat Board a few drinks to "protect his people". Mind you, we never heard pacifist regressives like Alexander Downer using this line.

So your argument is that he was a nice guy because Alexander Downer thought so.

Great, thanks.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2159 - Sep 30^th, 2017 at 12:25am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 30^th, 2017 at 12:15am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 30^th, 2017 at 12:11am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:55pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 11:48pm:

Saddam killed two million people? I can't see it, but we're through the looking glass now with rapey rape.and the genocidal sons.

More people died from the sanctions, the invasion and the subsequent insurgency than anything Saddam did, and it cost the US dearly.

How many Iraqis did that directly influence?

I can't even believe I'm having this discussion. I must be of an ilk.

Good grief, now I remember. The ilk- that's what the old boy used to say!

The fact people died from the sanctions - you wouldn't blame the dear leader? really? See, tihs is the problem with pacifists, who are also ignorant of history, and who's whole purpose is to paint a pretty picture of a genocidal rapist.

As leader, it is Saddam's job to protect his people. His failures which result in the death of civilians are attributed to his death tally, not someone else.

Well, he did something right. He bought the Australian Wheat Board a few drinks to "protect his people". Mind you, we never heard pacifist regressives like Alexander Downer using this line.

So your argument is that he was a nice guy because Alexander Downer thought so.

Great, thanks.

I think you'll find that's your final justification for the invasion of Iraq, but I'm sure you can squeeze pacifists, regressives and rapey rape into a few more posts.

Back to top

IP Logged