Cory1848

38 minutes ago, Dolf said:

I'd say she was a nobody who shuffled paper and pushed pens.

OK, I take deep offense at that. Seriously, you're an idiot. Go away.

34 minutes ago, Dolf said:

Impossible to talk to someone who believes the deep state doesn't exist. Please read the wikileaks and watch the videos. You have been brainwashed by the western media. All intelligent people know the deep state exists.

Hey Dolf, my wife spent a career as a US diplomat, ending up in the Senior Foreign Service, where she had daily interactions with ambassadors, officials at the highest levels of the bureaucracy (including intelligence officers), and state and federal elected officials on foreign missions. In your addled imagination, she was in the thick of the deep state, but in reality, she was simply at the upper end of a typical bureaucracy of civil servants trying to do their jobs. Really, that’s all it was.

So you’re getting your information from what, “videos”? Maybe you’re mixing up “deep state” with foreign policy blundering, I have no idea, but really, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. I do. Reading your fevered posts here, I’d suggest a few weeks away from social media.

43 minutes ago, paul1804 said:

Who do you think arranged and covered up the assassination of JFK and the reasons why are exactly why Trump  would reshape US intelligence agencies. Who do you think was behind the invasion of Iraq knowing the lie that Iraq was producing weapons of mass destruction?

What do you really believe happened in the 9/11 tragedy, 3,000 plus US citizens killed?? 

 

Lets hope Trump gets reelected so the world can be a better place!

Conspiracy theory much? To imply that what happened on 9/11 was propagated by anyone other than those who actually did it, al-Qaeda, is to spit on the graves of the 3,000+ Americans and others who died on that day. Shame on you.

19 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

  It might make you feel warm and smug and morally superior ,  but it would make any right minded person physically sick.  It would also demonstrate to the islamist savages how pathetic the UK has become and further fuel their enthusiasm to continue their assault on the west. 

Just listen to yourself. “Islamist savages.” Sure, some Muslims are violent thugs, simply because they’re human, and violence is a uniquely human trait. Many non-Muslims are violent thugs, too. Did you know that twice as many Iraqi civilians were killed during the initial “Shock and Awe” campaign of Bush II’s unprovoked attack on that country, as died on 9/11? Or, for a specifically British example, there’s always Colonel Reginald Dyer, who ordered his troops to fire on a peaceful crowd at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar in 1919, killing as many as 1,500. The number surely would have been higher had Dyer been able to get two armored cars into the bagh, but the entry gate was too narrow. Just one episode of the UK’s centuries-long “assault” on the developing world during the era of colonial settlement and exploitation.

The statement “We have met the enemy, and he is us,” used by everyone from Walt Kelly to Oliver Stone, comes to mind: trying pondering on that for a few moments at least before launching into your next racist screed.

30 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

I think the expression is "sow their wild oats"?

 

I'm not so sure producing babies was entirely her choice!

You may be right -- she said in the video someone posted above that when went, she thought she was going to “make a family,” but there would have been such a gaping power imbalance between her and the men who were handling her in Syria that she likely had little say in the matter, and even the British judge who ruled against her admitted that there was a “credible suspicion” that she’d been trafficked to Syria for “sexual exploitation.”

In any event, I seriously doubt that she poses any threat to British national security -- if anything, she may need some therapy!

2 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

One final point, a philosophical one perhaps, and one which I am sure many will scoff at: she joined, and was later subsumed into ( perhaps against her will) a society which seeks to replace our civilisation, based on Judeo- Christian values which include mercy, with one based on barbaric savagery and intolerance.What better way to emphasize the superiority of our society than to show her mercy.

 

While I totally encourage young people to travel off the beaten track, to experiment with different lifestyles, to “feel their oats” (if that’s the right expression), joining a terrorist gang and having their babies is probably stretching it. John Walker Lindh, the “American Taliban,” comes to mind -- I think he spent nearly 20 years in a US jail and was recently released.

That said, I agree with you: I think that the UK should demonstrate why its culture is superior to that of ISIS (or religious extremism of any stripe) by showing mercy to this woman.

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

That's because there are lingering doubts that Smirnov's allegations are false. There is also the issue regarding the nature of the Bidens' Ukrainian and Chinese connections. All of which may be of no substance, but should be more thoroughly investigated if only to clear the Bidens of any wrongdoing.

Well, following from that logic, there’s also the issue of Thingamabob’s Thai connections. I am a convicted liar and suspected Estonian asset, but I’m alleging that there’s something fishy -- even impeachable -- going on here, and I’m just going to throw out there that there are lingering doubts that my allegations against Thingamabob are false. All of this may be of no substance, but the Thingamabob crime family should be more thoroughly investigated if only to clear Thingamabob of any wrongdoing.

If Hunter Biden (an individual, not in politics and not a member of any “crime family”) did something wrong, I believe that’s being investigated separately. But this so-called impeachment inquiry has only two purposes -- to smear Biden for as long as they can drag it out, and to placate Trump’s tender ego.

6 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

Let us hope not!

If he did get in again just how low a score would he get at the end of it?

He would criminalize the scoring of presidencies and arrest presidential historians.

41 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

              My response "excellent post" was in appreciation of the very relevant  points raised by  that member @Lemsta69 in his post. The link he provided illustrates fully how the koran views non muslims and how they should be dealt with.  I have not stated anywhere that wholesale massacre would be "excellent" 

I am neither proud nor ashamed of my anti muslim sentiment , and I am certainly not "walking back" or denying anything.  You are the one spouting hatred and racism at every  opportunity  whilst as usual ignoring the real issues

              It probably won't be long before the UK ends up with a muslim prime minister, several large cities already have muslim mayors,   partly due to increasing apathy on behalf of the non muslim  electorate, but mainly due to the fact that anybody who dares to legitimately  question their real aims and objectives  or warn of the consequences will  effectively be silenced by people like you, at present the two main parties are totally able to hurl insults an accusations at each other it may not be perfect but at least its balanced.  That balance would effectively be removed by constant accusations of bigotry and racism.     The first muslim PM will no doubt be ostensibly moderate those that follow will be increasingly less moderate.   The non muslim population has no wish to live in a caliphate, those that do should move to Iran or similar countries 

             Anti muslim sentiment should be as acceptable as anti racism, anti fascism, and anti marxism. it is necessary to provide a balance whether you agree or not

            

       

I have no wish to respond to any of this, except to say that you are indeed “up to your neck” (to use your phrase again) in addlebrained paranoia and conspiracy theories. And your last statement is the ugliest of all: racism is a psychological disorder, and fascism and Marxism are failed experiments in the construction of societies, but “Muslim” describes a major world civilization. That you would equate the latter with the three former is worse than depraved.

Good luck with all this; I hope you find your way out somehow.

31 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

       I have not condoned forceful conversion of muslims at all   Here is what I actually said......

"No there is nothing to convert them to. not that they would agree anyway.  As another member has suggested declare it a terrorist cult and ban it. Total eradication is really the only answer"

       Neither did I suggest using anything written in the koran as the guidance for any "final solution"   I did however highlight how certain verses in  the koran instruct its  followers to view non muslims,  and promotes and justifies violence against them. I specifically did not go into detail as to what any of those verses actually  state and used it as an example as to why so many non muslims are  concerned.    Unfortunately it appears that particular post has been removed so I can't quote myself,  

       I really don't care what you call me. but its typical and predictable   that muslim apologists choose to follow the easy path, and  are more interested in throwing "silencing" words like "bigot" ," racist", and "islamophobe" at anybody who questions the virtue of certain  muslim teachings.   Scoring what they think are "woke points" being so much easier than discussing the real reasons for peoples justifiable anti muslim sentiment 

Somebody asked you, “What’s your solution [to the ‘Islamic problem’]? Forcible conversion of 1.8 billion people? And those that refused to convert?” You answered, “Use your imagination.” The first user then asked you, “Why don’t you spell it out for me?” A third user then jumped in, saying, “Here, this is how you do it,” with a link to the Koranic verse describing lopping off heads. You then responded to this third user’s solution with: “Excellent post.”

You’re doing a great deal more than “question[ing] the virtue of certain muslim [sic] teachings”: you’ve stated that wholesale massacre would be “excellent.” “Bigot,” “racist,” and “Islamophobe” are not “silencing words”: they perfectly describe people like you. In several of your previous posts in this thread, you’ve proudly worn your hatred and racism; why are you trying to walk it back now?

7 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

"a real piece of work"  eh?  cheers thanks for the compliment.  but sadly you are  incorrect , I have unfortunately  met a few muzzers, despite my best efforts to avoid them. 

I have no issues at all with Jews , I have just  not met many, are you suggesting I should go out of my way to do so ?   Mentioning female genital mutilation or decapitation of either gender, once or twice, is hardly indicative of harbouring an obsession, can't understand why you are so touchy about that. presumably you are in favour of the practice ?

You’ve described Islam as a “death cult,” condoned forceful conversion of the world’s Muslims (all 1.8 billion of them), and for those who refuse to convert, suggested using guidance from a Koranic verse as a final solution (which describes “striking people in the neck” -- more beheadings, I see). If you’re looking for a death cult, you don’t need to look any farther than your bathroom mirror.

I’m sorry I called you “a piece of work.” A mate’s troublesome girlfriend might be “a piece of work,” but she’s still a human being, isn’t she. Given the bottomless hatred and racism you’ve so proudly announced here, you’re something else entirely.

40 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I've stated here many times that I will accept the definition of "antisemitism" on these Forums to only refer to Jews. I will not use that term on these Forums myself but will use the term "anti-Jewish" or something similar, which specifies more clearly the type of people the term references. The term "anti-Semitism," for me, includes Arabs and a few other North African tribes whose language is classified as "Semitic." I've said I won't use that term here either, but I will continue to use it in my other non-AseanNow-Forum writings. 

OK, whatever. You can make up your own meanings for words if you wish; there’s no law against it. The few other people I know who make the same specious argument you’re stubbornly insisting on do so specifically to water down the meaning of antisemitism, and thus cast doubt on its very existence. You may think that what you’re doing sounds clever, but in fact it’s insidious.

28 minutes ago, retarius said:

No he's not obfuscating. He's explaining to the less well educated what the actual meanings of the words are. 

The “less well educated”? The “actual meanings” of words? I’m sorry, but you’re no linguist; in fact, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. People can make up new meanings for words all they want, but that doesn’t make them “educated” -- it just means that they’re stubborn for no good reason.

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Israelis don't deserve anti Jewish hatred either. They may or may not agree with their government's actions. Hate them if you wish because of the policies or if they support them, but not because of their ethnicity.

 

 

I made no mention of ethnicity; I specifically referred to the Israeli military, and I would further narrow that down to military and political leadership. I’m sure that many if not most Israeli soldiers on the ground in Gaza are increasingly horrified by the circumstances in which they find themselves.

My post was in rebuttal of the original poster’s excusing antisemitism in Britain because of Israeli actions in Gaza. I was calling out his own antisemitism in making such an argument. I’m sorry if you misunderstood.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmmm. Perhaps if Jews in israel were not blowing thousands of children to bits in Gaza, people in the UK might not be so PO at Jews in the UK.

What do Jewish people in the UK have to with the Israeli military's actions in Gaza? The former are largely British subjects; the latter Israeli.