Australian Politics Forum - Ahmadis sentenced to death for blasphemy

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: Ahmadis sentenced to death for blasphemy
Reply #105 - Oct 28^th, 2017 at 6:23pm

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

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

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

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.

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 53013
Gender: male

Re: Ahmadis sentenced to death for blasphemy
Reply #106 - Oct 28^th, 2017 at 7:42pm

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: Ahmadis sentenced to death for blasphemy
Reply #107 - Oct 28^th, 2017 at 8:00pm

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 53013
Gender: male

Re: Ahmadis sentenced to death for blasphemy
Reply #108 - Oct 28^th, 2017 at 8:22pm

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.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: Ahmadis sentenced to death for blasphemy
Reply #109 - Oct 28^th, 2017 at 8:34pm

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Ahmadis sentenced to death for blasphemy
Reply #110 - Oct 29^th, 2017 at 6:45am

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.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51356
At my desk.

Re: Ahmadis sentenced to death for blasphemy
Reply #111 - 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 25^th, 2017 at 8:45am:

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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51356
At my desk.

Re: Ahmadis sentenced to death for blasphemy
Reply #112 - Oct 29^th, 2017 at 8:02am

And another one. No source, no link.

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

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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 53013
Gender: male

Re: Ahmadis sentenced to death for blasphemy
Reply #113 - Oct 29^th, 2017 at 8:51am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: Ahmadis sentenced to death for blasphemy
Reply #114 - Oct 29^th, 2017 at 11:03am

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

And another one. No source, no link.

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

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.

Easier than having a discussion, I guess.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: Ahmadis sentenced to death for blasphemy
Reply #115 - Oct 29^th, 2017 at 11:10am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 53013 Gender:	Re: Ahmadis sentenced to death for blasphemy Reply #116 - Oct 29^th, 2017 at 2:08pm 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.
Back to top	Estragon: I can’t go on like this. Vladimir: That’s what you think. IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: Ahmadis sentenced to death for blasphemy
Reply #117 - Oct 29^th, 2017 at 3:15pm

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

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? .

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Ahmadis sentenced to death for blasphemy
Reply #118 - Oct 29^th, 2017 at 6:35pm

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 25^th, 2017 at 8:45am:

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.

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.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Ahmadis sentenced to death for blasphemy
Reply #119 - 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.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged