ho hum, another post of FD asking me the same old questions that have been answered ad-nauseum. If my explanations haven't registered by now, its pretty safe to say they never will. Why would I waste my time?

Gandalf decides to pass.

I can support killings.

I can support methods used to influence the enemy.

eg, I would not PERSONALLY have a problem if a dead enemy combatant was dropped out of a plane on to a enemy base as a warning or a means to demoralise. If it was illegal then I would have a problem. If the military did it without oversight or other agency involvement it might be illegal.

I am a fan of the Phoenix Program of the Vietnam War. Because it worked. Not because it used questionable methods.

I can't condone torture or methods that interfere with my rationalisation of what gets you rewarded in the afterlife.

freediver wrote on Aug 27^th, 2015 at 4:45pm:


'backpedaling' is a word FD uses when he can't think of anything else to throw at me.

What does Gandalf mean by 'faux threat' and 'fake morals' FD? (hint: its in this thread).

By the way, why are you ignoring Karnal?

FD I was very specific about what I meant by fake morals and faux threats. Read it again. But I'm happy at least that you do seem to have finally identified my answer.

I was also very specific about what I extended you the benefit of the doubt over: you peddle fake morals and faux threats without seeming to know that they are fake and faux. Thus you are not deceitful like the people who manufacture them are. Though your shocking ignorance does seem to be largely willful. Cognitive dissonance I guess.

I couldn't imagine a person who believes in and is proud of his western liberal heritage who wouldn't consider themselves a "standard bearer" of western liberal morals - could you? I suppose your problem is not being able to conceive of a devout muslim who could hold such values. Or is it that I am never backward in identifying western moral atrocities and not kidding myself as to the turmoil and suffering it has caused throughout the world? Maybe you think that makes me ineligible for being a proud believer in true western values? If so, then you are wrong.

Here you go FD, this is a specific, non-waffly example of concocting a faux threat:

Quote:


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-28/operation-fortitude-cancelled/6733008

Fortunately, it backfired.

Quote:


It was specifically nothing at all to do with the accusations you leveled against me. It was vague waffle about democracy in Iraq and unidentified western leaders.

Quote:


There you go again Gandalf. Without trying to change the topic to Iraq or western leaders, what are these fake morals and faux threats you accuse me of peddling?

Quote:


Let's start with what they are before going into whether they are real.

Quote:


Are you talking about me Gandalf? When have I ever gone on about my own heritage Gandalf?

Quote:


I have never considered myself a standard bearer for anything but my own ideas.

Quote:


Not just hold them, but be a standard bearer for them. What flag are you waving? Why are you afraid to identify what you are the standard bearer for?

Quote:


I consider you ineligible because you write off 800 people as a mindless collective of treacherous Jews in order to justify their murder. I consider you ineligible because you stumble over when it is appropriate to kill homosexuals. I consider you ineligible because you claim to confront, but in practice dismiss the threats to freedom and democracy from your fellow Muslims. I consider you ineligible because until recently, you spoke in support of censorship of holocaust deniers. I consider you ineligible because you are all over the place on some very fundamental issues. I consider you ineligible because you cannot even say what you are a standard bearer for.

Quote:


Am I the ABF Gandalf? Am I part of some grand conspiracy?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 14^th, 2015 at 11:05am:



Letter to the Spectator:


"... suggestion that the 1945 nuclear bombing of Japan was “without any military or moral justification” (The Spectator 15 August 2015) is at best simplistic. The war in the Pacific cost hundreds of thousands of mostly American lives, as the Allied forces fought battles such as Guadalcanal, Tarawa and Peleliu places and conflicts that are in all likelihood unknown to Mr Wilson. The Japanese defence was characterised by its brutality to captured Allied soldiers, and there was abundant evidence that the Japanese would literally fight to the death. In mainland Japan, the militarist government had every intention of mobilising every single citizen against any land invasion.

The decisions to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki were complex, informed by the strategic information available at the time, and coloured by the bloody losses of the Pacific War. It is naïve, disrespectful and somewhat Eurocentric to describe them as ‘monstrous’ and unjustified.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/letters/9613292/letters-317/

I think this is the correctly balanced position.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31^st, 2015 at 6:44pm:


I say. He still won’t say if he practices wishy washy Western morals.

What’s wrong, FD? Cat got your tongue?

You ask Pussy to give it back.