Australian Politics Forum - Islamic sadism

Secret Wars

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3928
Gender: male

Re: Islamic sadism
Reply #30 - Jan 7^th, 2019 at 3:02pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 2:44pm:

soooo your point is that some countries should have the right to have them, but not others - because.... superior kultur?

Interesting use of the word right.

Some countries as an outcome of history possess nuclear weapons and it is legal for them to do so, those countries have at times worked to limit those weapon holdings due to the great danger of those weapons and as diplomatic manoeuvres.

Other countries have signed to not possess such weapons. Other countries have have sought to obtain such weapons.

The world (or at least the politcal and diplomatic) rightly or wrongly perceives the possession of such weapons by certain countries to be a threat to the global peace or at least a threat to global status quo of relationships and power.

There is no such things as rights in realpolitik, but at the same time, with the many enmities in the Islamic world the last thing needed is another Muslim bomb to join Pakistans.

Iran is working steadily toward a bomb which by any standard is destabilising in an already fractious region and likely to lead to an arms race at best, conflict as likely.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 52889
Gender: male

Re: Islamic sadism
Reply #31 - Jan 7^th, 2019 at 3:57pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 2:44pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 11:01am:

1. Not all countries are equal. Muslim theocracies are especially not equal to other countries.

2. That nobody should have them is an irrelevant point because others having it does not give all countrues the right to gave them. (See above)

soooo your point is that some countries should have the right to have them, but not others - because.... superior kultur?

It doesn't address the whole problem of nuclear proliferation practically being a certainty while-ever certain countries hold exclusive rights to own them.

In any case, it seems your priority is not to rid the world of nukes, so its kinda irrelevant to the topic - which is specifically about how to be a nuclear-free world.

I thought the topic was Islamic sadism.

Why would anyone but a Muslim like you argue for the right to the bomb for a Muslim theocracy whose centeal ideology is the armageddon to bring about the Mahdi the shia Messiah. And the spark for that to them the would be their nuking of the 'Zionist entity, the Little Satan and the Great Satan'.

So yes, some countries have far superior cultures than that.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51292
At my desk.

Re: Islamic sadism
Reply #32 - Jan 7^th, 2019 at 8:51pm

Gandalf likes to frame the nuclear debate in terms of the rights of countries to own them, because he wants the Muslim nutjob countries to get their hands on them.

This is the same Muslim who tried to tell us the Taliban were going to hand over Bin Laden, then flip flopped and said OK they were not able to, but the US should have invaded and propped up the Taliban - one of the most evil and despotic islamofascist regimes in modern history. Of course, if they had done so, he would now be blaming the US for every evil deed the Taliban does (which has nothing to do with Islam...).

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

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 52889
Gender: male

Re: Islamic sadism
Reply #33 - Jan 7^th, 2019 at 9:03pm

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 8:51pm:

Gandalf likes to frame the nuclear debate in terms of the rights of countries to own them, because he wants the Muslim nutjob countries to get their hands on them.

This is the same Muslim who tried to tell us the Taliban were going to hand over Bin Laden, then flip flopped and said OK they were not able to, but the US should have invaded and propped up the Taliban - one of the most evil and despotic islamofascist regimes in modern history. Of course, if they had done so, he would now be blaming the US for every evil deed the Taliban does (which has nothing to do with Islam...).

My lesson from talking to the gandalfs, Abus, Bwians, gweggs, karnals and the rest is that you talk long enought to muslims and their partisans and they all turn out to be nutty. You have to be nutty to live in the 21st century by the rules of a bloody warlord from backward 7th century Araby.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

issuevoter

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male

Re: Islamic sadism
Reply #34 - Jan 7^th, 2019 at 9:07pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 9:27am:

issuevoter wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 8:26am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 8:09am:

issuevoter wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 5:30pm:

You believe the religious tyrants of Iran should have nuclear weapons.

Not true issue - but I've already pointed that out to you several times.

Not true? You questioned why it would not be fair for Iran, under religious fanatics (like yourself), to have nuclear weapons, because the West has them. You were not being either pragmatic or impartial, you were obliquely supporting nuclear weapons for the Islamic Republic of Iran, the clerical leaders of which, have stated Israel will not exist in 10 years. That is now down to about 7. You are a liar for Islam, and you are so shallow, you are not even aware of your own transparency.

You are either completely clueless or being disingenuous.

I posed the question, how can we justify demanding Iran not have nukes while at the same time insisting other nations don't have to relinquish theirs. I then followed that up very quickly with the clear and unambiguous statement that I believe *NO* nation should have any nukes - Iran or anyone else.

In future, its best to quote what I actually say issue.

You were trying to defend the Ayatollah's possession of the nuclear button, no matter how you said it.

You would have these Islamic sadists hold the world to ransom over Israel.

Back to top

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51292
At my desk.

Re: Islamic sadism
Reply #35 - Jan 7^th, 2019 at 9:20pm

So everyone voluntarily gives up nukes. Eventually, despite their general incompetence, a few Muslim nations finally figure the technology out. Perhaps they pay off a few Koreans. Then all of a sudden we have a global Caliphate rising from the ashes of a nuclear holocaust. And it's not Gandalf's fault. He thought the nice Muslim nations would keep to their agreement. Perhaps there are some mindless collectives of treacherous Jews in there who forced the Muslims hands.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: Islamic sadism Reply #36 - Jan 8^th, 2019 at 7:40am freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 8:51pm: Gandalf likes to frame the nuclear debate in terms of the rights of countries to own them, because he wants the Muslim nutjob countries to get their hands on them. Yes FD, thats exactly what I said innit
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: Islamic sadism
Reply #37 - Jan 8^th, 2019 at 7:42am

issuevoter wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 9:07pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 9:27am:

issuevoter wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 8:26am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 8:09am:

issuevoter wrote on Dec 24^th, 2018 at 5:30pm:

You believe the religious tyrants of Iran should have nuclear weapons.

Not true issue - but I've already pointed that out to you several times.

Not true? You questioned why it would not be fair for Iran, under religious fanatics (like yourself), to have nuclear weapons, because the West has them. You were not being either pragmatic or impartial, you were obliquely supporting nuclear weapons for the Islamic Republic of Iran, the clerical leaders of which, have stated Israel will not exist in 10 years. That is now down to about 7. You are a liar for Islam, and you are so shallow, you are not even aware of your own transparency.

You are either completely clueless or being disingenuous.

I posed the question, how can we justify demanding Iran not have nukes while at the same time insisting other nations don't have to relinquish theirs. I then followed that up very quickly with the clear and unambiguous statement that I believe *NO* nation should have any nukes - Iran or anyone else.

In future, its best to quote what I actually say issue.

You were trying to defend the Ayatollah's possession of the nuclear button, no matter how you said it.

You would have these Islamic sadists hold the world to ransom over Israel.

Your pathetic personal vendetta against me is blinding you issue. I said nothing of the kind. If you bothered to quote what I actually said you would be proven wrong.

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: Islamic sadism
Reply #38 - Jan 8^th, 2019 at 7:47am

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 9:20pm:

So everyone voluntarily gives up nukes. Eventually, despite their general incompetence, a few Muslim nations finally figure the technology out. Perhaps they pay off a few Koreans.

Even now we seem to be doing a reasonably good job of preventing that. Imagine how much better we would be if the enforcers were not being hypocrites about nukes and creating the greatest incentive for nuclear proliferation.

Everyone voluntarily giving up nukes will make non-proliferation easier, not harder.

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

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22356
A cat with a view

Re: Islamic sadism
Reply #39 - Jan 8^th, 2019 at 9:53am

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 8:51pm:

Gandalf likes to frame the nuclear debate in terms of the rights of countries to own them, because he wants the Muslim nutjob countries to get their hands on them.

This is the same Muslim who tried to tell us the Taliban were going to hand over Bin Laden, then flip flopped and said OK they were not able to,

....but the US should have invaded and propped up the Taliban - one of the most evil and despotic islamofascist regimes in modern history.

Of course, if they had done so, he would now be blaming the US for every evil deed the Taliban does (which has nothing to do with Islam...).

LOL !

Yep, exactly so.

If things turn to sh!t [within ANY moslem influenced environment], it was/is always the fault of the influences of disbelievers, upon that environment.

Moslems are the virtuous people.

Moslems are the innocent, and virtuous people.

Moslems cannot be at fault, for any mishap or catastrophe that occurs in this world...
....because moslems are the 'rightly guided' people.

They [the pure moslems] are the agents in this world, for ensuring Allah's perfect law spreads to every corner of this earth.

And when that task is completed, all humanity will enjoy, and experience, the peace and the prosperity that will ensue, from living under Allah's perfect laws.

[that is the 'narrative'. correct gandalf ?]

.

The virtuous people.....

"Ye [moslems] are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors."
Koran 3.110

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51292
At my desk.

Re: Islamic sadism
Reply #40 - Jan 8^th, 2019 at 12:21pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 7:40am:

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 8:51pm:

Gandalf likes to frame the nuclear debate in terms of the rights of countries to own them, because he wants the Muslim nutjob countries to get their hands on them.

Yes FD, thats exactly what I said innit Roll Eyes

What do you think would happen if you actually got your way Gandalf?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 7:47am:

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 9:20pm:

So everyone voluntarily gives up nukes. Eventually, despite their general incompetence, a few Muslim nations finally figure the technology out. Perhaps they pay off a few Koreans.

Even now we seem to be doing a reasonably good job of preventing that. Imagine how much better we would be if the enforcers were not being hypocrites about nukes and creating the greatest incentive for nuclear proliferation.

Everyone voluntarily giving up nukes will make non-proliferation easier, not harder.

We would not be doing better. We would create a nuclear arms race amongst the world's despots, as they all sought to capitalise on the world's Gandalf-inspire idiocy.

Do you think the Muslims would come out on top, or would they just nuke each other to ashes?

Back to top

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

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islamic sadism
Reply #41 - Jan 8^th, 2019 at 12:48pm

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 12:21pm:

We would not be doing better. We would create a nuclear arms race amongst the world's despots,

Can you explain your logic as to why this would be the case?

Is it that the existing nuclear weapons currently act as a deterrent to such an arms race? Because if it is, it would take about 2 seconds of actual rational thought to debunk such logic. Firstly, most nuclear armed nations are more than capable of wiping out any tinpot dictatorship who tries to acquire nukes with conventional/non-nuclear weapons. The US have proved that several times in the last few years. That serves as more than enough deterrent, and such a deterrent will still exist in a post-nuclear world. Secondly, in the case of North Korea and (if the US claims are true), Iran, the US nuclear deterrent hasn't worked against them has it? And almost certainly, it has spurred them on. And thirdly. no tinpot dictatorship will be capable of developing nuclear weapons on their own - they will need intimate support from existing nuclear powers. And if all said nations get rid of their arsenals, they're hardly going to assist some despot acquire them, if they don't have any themselves are they?

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