Why is nazism popular today?

[Dachshund]

What does 'terror-friendly' even mean? Do you realise the amount of terror the US and UK have unleashed upon millions of innocent people in the past few deacades?

I condemn the Invasion of Iraq, and the constant shit the Western Powers have been piling on the Arab world. Just as much as you do.

You should elect a Prime Minister who promises in his campaign that he or she will prosecute all war criminals in front of an international panel of judges, including George W. Bush (that's the younger one, right?) and some other dudies. Bush being one of the accused, not one of the judges.

US never signed up to the ICC - so your PM demand for Bush to sit in front of ICC judges would be an illegal order/act.

- 1 -


Let me get this straight...you're a Jew, right ? But you're a Jew who has a robust political sympathy for the Arab world, for Muslim- majority countries like Iran, and Syria and thus you CONDEMN the invasion of a rogue state like Iraq by the US and its coalition allies. Do you realise that during the "Gulf War" against Iraq, Iraq launched SCUD missiles at targets in Israel, despite the fact Israel was not a part of the coalition that invaded Iraq? Israel deliberately stayed out of the war, despite these SCUD missile attacks because of fears that the Coalition's Arab nations would not fight alongside Israel. 74 Israel civilians died in these attacked and 230 others were injured. But I guess that didn't bother you, because you're a Jew who thinks Arabs (like those in HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH, for example) are "freedom fighters" and that if they and other Arabs like them should ever succeed in destroying Israel that would be a good thing. As for me, I support Israel 1000%, and I'm not a Jew.Why. Well, one very basics reason is that the citizens of the state of Israel are, by and large intelligent, civilsed human beings, whereas the shit-holes like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine are populated with ANIMALS, and nasty animals at that. You should be ashamed of yourself, there is nothing worse, in my book, that a person who shows no respect, who has no sense of loyalty ,no reverence or love for her own blood.


You condemn the US invasion of Iraq. Why's that ? I can see a hundred good reason why the US and it coalition allies were justified in taking military action against Iraq following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Let me give you a couple just to start with...


Since you are very likely one of those leftist, Western sheep who bleated "No Blood for Oil" in 1990/1 during the "Gulf War" (i.e; "Operation Desert Shield"), let's talk about the issue oil, shall we?


(1) The Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was totally unjustified.


Saddam Hussein , as I will explain in more detail below, invaded Kuwait purely to get his hands on Kuwait's oil. Iraq used exaggerated accusations of so-called "Slant drilling" and oil overproduction to justify its invasion of Kuwait. This invasion, however, did not meet the criteria for a "JUST WAR", as it was not waged by a legitimate authority, and there was no "just cause" or "right intentions". Traditionally, there are three just causes for going to war:


(1) to protect people from unjust attack.

(2) to restore rights that have been wrongfully taken away.

(3) to defend or re-establish a just political order.


The unjust Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the fact that the invasion was CONDEMNED by the UN, was H.George Bush's main reason for the US involvement. In addition after Iraq invaded Kuwait (2-4 August, 1990), the US was one of a coalition of 34 nations (primarily UN nations) that drove Iraq out of Kuwait and military action by the US was properly authorised by UNSC resolution 678.


(2) OIL

Following the Iran - Iraq war, which lasted nearly 8 years, Iraq was deeply in debt to a number of different countries. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, were the two countries owed the most money, and Iraq refused to pay back the debt. Kuwait began exceeding OPEC oil production quotas, in part to earn back some of the money it was owed by Iraq, which contribute to low oil prices in the 1980's. There were other factors that caused the low prices, including lower demand from the US and Europe as a result of the 1970's oil crises, and the rise of alternative forms of fuels like Nuclear and Natural Gas. The low oil prices were great for the West (e.g. US and UK), but harmed producers like Iraq. Kuwait, according to Iraqi accusations, was also slant-drilling across its border into Iraq - controlled parts of the Rumaila oil fields.During the failed negotiations leading up to the war, Iraq demanded full access to all of the Rumaila oil fields, even the parts located in Kuwait. Adding Kuwait's oil fields to its own would have given Iraq a huge chunk of the world's oil reserves. Iraq's conquest of Kuwait also put it in a position to possibly invade Saudi Arabia, and if they were successful in taking over Saudi Arabs, and their oil fields, Iraq would hold the majority of the world's oil reserves. This would have given Iraq tremendous influence over the global economy, given the world-wide dependence on oil.


Given Iraq's volatile history, this could harm not only the US and other Western powers, but also other oil-producing countries neighbouring Iraq. Iraq could have dramatically reduced its oil exports, while building massive reserves, which would have driven oil prices up, harming consuming nations. Or, it could have increased exports keeping prices low and harming other oil producers, especially it fellow OPEC members.

Would you like some more reasons that justified the "Gulf War ? I've got plenty.


Or would you like to discuss the 2003 Iraq War and the role of the US and Britain in toppling Saddam Hussein. That was a fully justified war as well.


Finally, if you don't like America and the UK and their Western allies, if your attitude is that you agree they (esp the US and UK) should be condemned "for the amount of terror they have unleashed upon millions of innocent people over the past few decades", well let me remind you that you're always free to FUCK OFF out of the West. But you're not likely to do that are you Dear, because in the West you're safe and very well protected, also you have lots of luvverly consumer goods ( which are the most important things in most women's lives) to keep you happy. So instead of insulting the West, why not trying showing some respect and gratitude instead. (Women BTW are treated well (too well, IMO) in the modern West, so if you want to find out what you're missing out on,go emigrate to South Africa, The Congo Nigeria, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Russia, and see what the locals think of women in these places.)

Regards

Dachshund

[Arising_uk]

Please answer a simple question for me in a direct manner,that is, without any slipperiness or evasion.

It is very likely a General Election will be held in the UK this year. Due you think the current leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, is a fit person to be the Prime Minister of Britain? Yes or No ?

Are you hard of thought? I gave you both answers in my repy to you.

[Arising_uk]

...
Since you are very likely one of those leftist, Western sheep who bleated "No Blood for Oil" in 1990/1 during the "Gulf War" (i.e; "Operation Desert Shield"), let's talk about the issue oil, shall we?
...

Given Iraq's volatile history, this could harm not only the US and other Western powers, but also other oil-producing countries neighbouring Iraq. Iraq could have dramatically reduced its oil exports, while building massive reserves, which would have driven oil prices up, harming consuming nations. Or, it could have increased exports keeping prices low and harming other oil producers, especially it fellow OPEC members. ...

So basically a war about Oil?

Finally, if you don't like America and the UK and their Western allies, if your attitude is that you agree they (esp the US and UK) should be condemned "for the amount of terror they have unleashed upon millions of innocent people over the past few decades", well let me remind you that you're always free to FUCK OFF out of the West. But you're not likely to do that are you Dear, because in the West you're safe and very well protected, also you have lots of luvverly consumer goods ( which are the most important things in most women's lives) to keep you happy. So instead of insulting the West, why not trying showing some respect and gratitude instead. (Women BTW are treated well (too well, IMO) in the modern West, so if you want to find out what you're missing out on,go emigrate to South Africa, The Congo Nigeria, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Russia, and see what the locals think of women in these places.)

It might have missed your pea-brain but in a democracy one is allowed to criticise government actions.

Bye-the-bye in your obvious concern for the women of these countries what do you think about the US attempting to veto the UN resolution to make war-rape a crime?

[Dachshund]

It might have missed your pea-brain but in a democracy one is allowed to criticise government actions.

That depends upon how one interprets the term "criticise". Most standard dictionaries include the words: condemn, denounce, arraign, attack, lambast as synonyms. The IRA, for example, "denounced" and "condemned" the British government in the 1980's. Margaret Thatcher classified them as an illegal terrorist organisation and at one stage totally muted the rhetoric of their spokesmen on all British televison channels. I remember watching tellie in Ingerlund at the time and seeing Gerry Adams, Matin Mc Guinness etc; on screen talking - their lips were moving but their was no sound. Thatcher had cut off their supply of "oxygen", i.e; "the oxygen of publicity"; their freedom he speak and be heard by the British public.


Any Muslim cleric preaching hate against the West in England should be immediately deported. It goes on all the time in England. Solution? Place government agents who speak Arabic in England's mosques. When any Imam begins to preach hate/terror against the English "infidel", what he says is recorded on a listening device, and when there is sufficient evident collected, the bastard is frog-marched out of the mosque and into police custody. The law has been amended, BTW, (there is a new and more powerful "Prevention of Terrorism Act" in place in my imagined scenario) and , he is now legally deported to whatever Muslim-majority shit-hole he crawled out of originally.


I think you would find this measure very salutary indeed. Not only would it give England an enhanced capacity to rid itself of hate/violence/terror inciting Islamists, but the Chancellor would delighted at reduction in Welfare spending ( because all of these Muslims living in England are work-shy idlers collecting ant kind of welfare payment that they can possibly get their grubby hands on. Its amazing, given the fact that don't speak English in public, how good their written and spoken English suddenly becomes when they are dealing with the Welfare agencies in England - they sound positively like Joanna Lumley.


So, care for a wager, Arrising Tosspot ? As you are clearly a man who votes Labour in England, let's make our political discussion a little more interesting shall we? Let's say I bet you £ 200 Pounds that the Tories win the next General Election and Boris Johnson is the next PM. If Labour gets up I promise to pay you £200; I will even be generous and say that it need not be Jeremy Corbyn who leads Labour into the election. We can arrange payment via pm using some anonymous procedure. For example a Postal Order for £200 Pounds Sterling to be sent to the winners Post Box number. WE have anonymous Post Boxes here out side our local Post Offices, they are organised like the rows of numbered, lockable cube-like compartments in a fitness gym,i.e; where you store your watch and wallet and car keys while you are working out. You have a similar system in England, I'm sure you do (I lived in "Blighty" for 30+ years so , I should know, thing is I never had the need to actually use it).


As you know, I am a gentleman, so "my word is my bond", and I have given you my word, so you need have no fear of me failing to pay you your winnings should Labour get up.


Just think of the amazing things you could do with 200 Knicker! You could go the the British Labour Party Shop and by a Jeremy Corbyn "Rainbow Coalition" T-Shirt or a Diane Abbott Home Secretary Golliwog to put on your bed ( it has a string in its back, and when you pull it,it says funny, silly, dumb-as-dogshit things - it's a right laugh !), what about a special edition Tony Blair and Liam Gallagher "Cool Britannia" coffee mug, or an official Lord Peter Mandelson "Prince of Darkness" action figure that "spins" when you turn it on (?), or you could make a donation to HAMAS/HEZBOLLAH (or the anti-semitic/terrorist organisation of your choice). Gosh, you could even send that good old boyo ,Gerry Adams, £50 for a few pints of the "poteen" at his local bunker, in thanks for all of his good work over the years. Also, there's a cool, toy Trident submarine on sale at the Labour Party Shop as well, it's been designed so that it doesn't shoot any nasty little MIRV Mk 4 nuclear missiles (safety hazard); instead, when you press the "fire" button lots of luvverly-jubberly soap bubbles are blown out of the warhead tubes instead (great fun in the bath !!)




Regards

Dachshund

[Dachshund]

Bye-the-bye in your obvious concern for the women of these countries what do you think about the US attempting to veto the UN resolution to make war-rape a crime?

The issue here is abortion. Trump is taking a hard-line on the PROMOTION of abortion. Abortion is an ugly word, in order to morally de-fang it abortion advocates refer to "Planned Parenthood Centres" (in the US) or, in the case of the UN, the rape in war Resolution's reference to "sexual and reproductive heath", these are codes/euphemisms commonly used "sanitise" the word abortion. Trump is right that the language in the UN document could be seen as tacitly endorsing abortion, it could very well have that result, I agree. Trump is touchy about this issue because of the way the abortion industry in the US does business. The major provider of abortions in America is an organization called "Planned Parenthood". They mislead the public - in the disgraceful manner - about what they do. The say that they offer a range of health services and parenthood advice to women, like breast scans , contraception, and cervical cancer screens and that only 3% of the services that they provide each years are surgical abortions. They have come up with an extraordinary devious means to "cook the Books" and generate this 3% figure (thankfully, it was exposed on FOX cable TV in the US recently). The reality is that they perform 300,000 abortions a years and that abortion is their main business by far. I saw a video film that was secretly made by a guy who smuggled a hidden video-cam into a "Planned Parenthood" centre over a few days, and trust me, whats on it, it is shocking beyond belief. I'm talking about stuff to do with late second trimester and third trimester abortions - lots of them. Man...that's just pure evil. Full Stop. What worries the most is the male doctors who perform these abortions- how they could live with their moral consciences? I don't know.... As for the women who terminate late 2nd and 3rd trimester pregnancies, I agree with Kant, women are, generally speaking, morally deficient relative to men. If they are allowed to, they will happily perpetrate the most wicked and wrongful of acts.

My own view is that human life begins at conception, this is also the argument of mainstream bioscientists who specialise in the field of obstetrics. Their position is basically this... when a sperm cell fertilizes an oocyte, the fertilized egg cell (ovum) is called a zygote, and the zygote divides into two cells and then four, and then eight, and so on for two weeks; after two weeks the Zygote becomes an embryo. The Zygote's genome is a combination of DNA in each gamete, and it contains all of the genetic information needed to create a new individual human being. In other word's once conception occurs what you have (even at this very early stage of the pregnancy) is a living human being. WHAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND is that the growing zygote is a very IMMATURE living human being, for sure, BUT it is still scientifically speaking, a living human being; it is absolutely not some random, disorganized clump of cells, like a tumor or polyp or a pimple. It is a very tiny living HUMAN BEING. To continue. After two weeks after conception the zygote, as I said. is now referred to as an embryo. The cells of the embryo develop and they take on different function. The brain, heart, lungs, internal organs, arms and legs BEGIN TO FORM and this embryonic stage continues for abou t 11 weeks. After the embryonic stage the growing baby is now called a foetus, and the foetal stage of pregnancy is basically all about prepping the baby for life on the outside after it is delivered into the big, bad world, 9 months after conception.

So consider,

Conception----Zygote is formed.......................................The zygote is a very immature living human being

after two weeks

Embryo is formed........................................................The embryo is an immature living human being, it develops little arms, legs, a little brain, even little fingernails

11 weeks after conception

Foetus is formed..................................................................The foetus in like an immature new-born baby (living human being)



Infant is delivered 9 months after conception.......................................................An infant, a new-born, baby (living humanbeing) exits the womb.



Finally, everyone knows that abortion is wrong.


Do the John Calvin test; i.e; say the word to yourself. Done that ? Right how did it FEEL. What FEELING/s did you experience in your (waking) phenomenal consciousness. ME ? I feel illness/dread/sorrow/tragedy/ugliness/ fear all co-mingled into one unpleasant vibe; that means it's BAD and WRONG according to Calvin.



Later Tosspot (I have to rush to put some dosh on the ARSENAL ( GO THE ARSENAL !!!), they're playing Leicester tomorrow)


Dachshund

[Belinda]

Dachshund wrote with reference to his discourse on abortion:

My own view is that human life begins at conception,

Maybe so. However the foetus cannot continue to live unless the mother nourishes him. The mother cannot continue to live unless others nourish her.

When a woman is raped she seldom expects that society will nourish her either in perpetuity or until her baby is able to support himself typically aged
twenty one and she herself is able to be self supporting, not easy as she is often traumatised. Quite the opposite, the raped woman whose rape was an act of battle gets little or no help. She may even be shunned and made to feel an outcast.

Your opinion about rape and about abortion is too cocksure. Nobody approves of abortion. In many cases abortion may be the lesser of two evils.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I wasn't aware that it is. I think that's just pure conjecture on your end.

[Arising_uk]

That depends upon how one interprets the term "criticise". Most standard dictionaries include the words: condemn, denounce, arraign, attack, lambast as synonyms. ...

Do they? Wow it's true about us being separated by a common language then as over here we call that a thesaurus.

The IRA, for example, "denounced" and "condemned" the British government in the 1980's. Margaret Thatcher classified them as an illegal terrorist organisation and at one stage totally muted the rhetoric of their spokesmen on all British televison channels. I remember watching tellie in Ingerlund at the time and seeing Gerry Adams, Matin Mc Guinness etc; on screen talking - their lips were moving but their was no sound. Thatcher had cut off their supply of "oxygen", i.e; "the oxygen of publicity"; their freedom he speak and be heard by the British public. ...

I too remember stuff, like how upset she was when the septic tanks gave Adams a visa to preach his stuff and how much money the plastic paddies raised to support them.

Any Muslim cleric preaching hate against the West in England should be immediately deported. It goes on all the time in England. Solution? Place government agents who speak Arabic in England's mosques. ...

A simpler solution is to require them to speak in English. But lmao that you don't think we do this already.

When any Imam begins to preach hate/terror against the English "infidel", what he says is recorded on a listening device, and when there is sufficient evident collected, the bastard is frog-marched out of the mosque and into police custody. The law has been amended, BTW, (there is a new and more powerful "Prevention of Terrorism Act" in place in my imagined scenario) and , he is now legally deported to whatever Muslim-majority shit-hole he crawled out of originally. ...

Wow what a good communist you would make. We already have hate speech laws in place.

I think you would find this measure very salutary indeed. Not only would it give England an enhanced capacity to rid itself of hate/violence/terror inciting Islamists, but the Chancellor would delighted at reduction in Welfare spending ( because all of these Muslims living in England are work-shy idlers collecting ant kind of welfare payment that they can possibly get their grubby hands on. Its amazing, given the fact that don't speak English in public, how good their written and spoken English suddenly becomes when they are dealing with the Welfare agencies in England - they sound positively like Joanna Lumley. ...

I seriously doubt you've met a single British muslim in your life, you really need to stop reading the Daily Wail. But have no fear as thanks to Brexit and the Tory Party we're gonna be having loads more non-white, non-Christian, non-English speaking citizens over here soon.

So, care for a wager, Arrising Tosspot ? As you are clearly a man who votes Labour in England, ...

Am I? Just because I made a few philosophical observations about how the Tories betrayed our representative democracy by calling a referendum through fear of the ballot box.

let's make our political discussion a little more interesting shall we? Let's say I bet you £ 200 Pounds that the Tories win the next General Election and Boris Johnson is the next PM. If Labour gets up I promise to pay you £200; I will even be generous and say that it need not be Jeremy Corbyn who leads Labour into the election. We can arrange payment via pm using some anonymous procedure. For example a Postal Order for £200 Pounds Sterling to be sent to the winners Post Box number. WE have anonymous Post Boxes here out side our local Post Offices, they are organised like the rows of numbered, lockable cube-like compartments in a fitness gym,i.e; where you store your watch and wallet and car keys while you are working out. You have a similar system in England, I'm sure you do (I lived in "Blighty" for 30+ years so , I should know, thing is I never had the need to actually use it).

Must have been a shit-long time ago then as you appear to be living in some kind of septic tank faux English fantasy. Personally I think it's going to be another hung-parliament and it could swing either way depending upon who can form a coalition.

As you know, I am a gentleman, so "my word is my bond", and I have given you my word, so you need have no fear of me failing to pay you your winnings should Labour get up.

Just think of the amazing things you could do with 200 Knicker! ...

'Knicker'! Knees Up Muvver brown next.

You could go the the British Labour Party Shop and by a Jeremy Corbyn "Rainbow Coalition" T-Shirt or a Diane Abbott Home Secretary Golliwog ...

Nice, what a puerile troll you are.

to put on your bed ( it has a string in its back, and when you pull it,it says funny, silly, dumb-as-dogshit things - it's a right laugh !), what about a special edition Tony Blair and Liam Gallagher "Cool Britannia" coffee mug, or an official Lord Peter Mandelson "Prince of Darkness" action figure that "spins" when you turn it on (?), or you could make a donation to HAMAS/HEZBOLLAH (or the anti-semitic/terrorist organisation of your choice). Gosh, you could even send that good old boyo ,Gerry Adams, £50 for a few pints of the "poteen" at his local bunker, in thanks for all of his good work over the years. ...

And give him a visa to the US so the plastic-paddies can shower him with dollars for guns and semtex. Tell you what why not get one of your mayors to give McGuiness a posthumous award as well, oh you've already done it.

Also, there's a cool, toy Trident submarine on sale at the Labour Party Shop as well, it's been designed so that it doesn't shoot any nasty little MIRV Mk 4 nuclear missiles (safety hazard); instead, when you press the "fire" button lots of luvverly-jubberly soap bubbles are blown out of the warhead tubes instead (great fun in the bath !!)

We should never have given up our independent nuclear deterent for your leased weapons as we'd never know if they'd work if we had to fire them at you one day. I always thought we should have launched one at New York years ago and got rid of those septic tanks supporting the terrorism in my country for decades.

All the best.
Arising_uk
p.s. It's Telly.

[Arising_uk]

...
Finally, everyone knows that abortion is wrong. ...

Nope, everyone knows that in certain situations it may well be the best solution. Is abortion as contraception wrong, yes but then I'd guess you'd also be the sort who would refuse contraceptives to people.

So what you're saying is that due to your fucked-up health system where abortionists are privatised and contraception and sex-education are not freely available you think it fine to stop the UN passing a resolution to make mass and gang-rape as a weapon of terror in war illegal. So much for your concern for women.
Although I am puzzled as for a presumably libertarian Yank you appear to be very socialist in your belief that it is any business of yours what people do with their own bodies?

Later Tosspot (I have to rush to put some dosh on the ARSENAL ( GO THE ARSENAL !!!), they're playing Leicester tomorrow)

Dear oh dear, a plastic Gooner to boot. It's fans like you who have made British football unatainable for the working class supporters who wish to actually attend their teams games. Still no worries as not long now and they'll be in a European Super League and good riddance to you as the Premier League is destroying the rest of the football league over here.

[gaffo]

who controls the Armed Forces in the UK (or Canada for that matter)?

I don't know about the UK. In Canada the armed forces are under the direct control of Shlomo Goldstein, the local shakter from Dohány Utca.

i'd like an honest reply so as to allow my understanding of Canada's Rule of Law, if you could provide it, I be appreciative.

if not, that ok too.

i do not value shit posts (for humor's sake or just being snarky) that do not allow for education of non-canadians about the rule of law concerning Canada.

2-cents.

[gaffo]

who controls the Armed Forces in the UK (or Canada for that matter)?

I don't know about the UK. In Canada the armed forces are under the direct control of Shlomo Goldstein, the local shakter from Dohány Utca.

and the Governor General (who is she/he now?)? He had the power to draft all you yokals during WW1 to die - counter to your wishes. such a scandal at the time - since you guys thought you were independent by 1918.

Australia thought the same, until they had their "governor general" (post was the same - label diff - forget it's name) - had the gall to fire thier PM in the 1970's by the Queen's order/wish.

and so - AFAIK your Governor General (and the Ausies similar too?) still have the power to fire your PM at the will of the Queen.

correct me if i an wrong Sir.

[gaffo]

https://www.thoughtco.com/role-of-the-g ... ada-508238

in times of emergency or special circumstances, exercising the special personal authority of the Governor General to appoint or dismiss a prime minister or dissolve Parliament. This authority is rarely used.

nice, ask Ausies about that one.

[gaffo]

who controls the Armed Forces in the UK (or Canada for that matter)?

I don't know about the UK. In Canada the armed forces are under the direct control of Shlomo Goldstein, the local shakter from Dohány Utca.

ignoring your flippant answer and to answer my inquary about YOUR Nation's gov (I guess i know more about Canada then you do Sir - though I'm an American and you are Canadian!).

The Governor General of Canada is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces.

that being:

Julie Payette

----------

good day.

[gaffo]

now that i took the time to inform myself (no thanks to -1) i know who commands the armed forces of Canada.

Arising, i'd like to become more informed I'm an ignorant American, who commands the Royal Armed forces? curious.

i could work via google - as i had to with Canada, but lazy, if you could inform me i appreciate it.

thanks!

[Arising_uk]

now that i took the time to inform myself (no thanks to -1) i know who commands the armed forces of Canada.

Arising, i'd like to become more informed I'm an ignorant American, who commands the Royal Armed forces? curious.

i could work via google - as i had to with Canada, but lazy, if you could inform me i appreciate it.

thanks!

Depends what you mean by 'command' but the 'commander-in-chief' of the Armed Forces in the UK is the monarch. The UK is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy.