The recurring argument that Saddam, Khadaffi and co. were ''secular''

[satimy]

Gadaffi was actually better than for Libya than Mandela was for South Africa if you look at quality of life improvements

[sarahtasher]

What is ''far fetching'' and ''insane'' and ''SJW'' in saying that Khadaffi-the-secular-that-fight-terrorists had on his payroll a legion of incompetent islamist merccenaries that were used to destabilized African countries that clearly not needed that ?

- - - Updated - - -

I guess you haven't been paying attention to the leaked Clinton emails and how her people view the Catholic church, but then again the corporate media seems to be imposing a blackout on any stories that could be seen as negative for Clinton.

- - - Updated - - -



They aren't better for all the people who make money by selling the bombs used to drop on the 'batshit crazy terrorists', and boy is that a lucrative business when we apparently report killing the same terrorist in like ten different drone strikes. Organized governments tend to have this nasty habit of forming alliances with bigger governments like Russia, which makes it really inconvenient if you are looking to make your monthly munitions dumping quota.

They also buy thousands of tanks (it's not a figure of speech-2500 tanks in 1970 for Lybia) from '' a certain country'' and as they keep losing them to poor maintenance and enemy action, they have to buy new equipment all the time...

[Shadowferal]

Hmf...can't say much about Kadaffi, but Saddam was always playing religious groups against each other, keeping them off-balance. He initially kept Al-Qaeda in check (death sentence for much of that group from what I recall), and ISIS would never have been tolerated.
Sure, Saddam was a bad guy, but he was a bad guy that loved US weapons and for most of the time would kowtow to US interests.

[sarahtasher]

Hmf...can't say much about Kadaffi, but Saddam was always playing religious groups against each other, keeping them off-balance. He initially kept Al-Qaeda in check (death sentence for much of that group from what I recall), and ISIS would never have been tolerated.
Sure, Saddam was a bad guy, but he was a bad guy that loved US weapons and for most of the time would kowtow to US interests.

US weapons like Mirage fighters, Exocet missiles, Sukhoi, MiGs, T-55s and T-70s

[Mormolyce]

I don't think the US meets your definition of secular either.

[Shadowferal]

US weapons like Mirage fighters, Exocet missiles, Sukhoi, MiGs, T-55s and T-70s

By all means omit the ones we gave him...y'know, those that we knew he had because they were the same shit used to justify the debacle of a meaningless war.

[sarahtasher]

Which weapon we ''gave'' to Iraq ? (Hint : that was limited to satellite intelligence, that Saddam did not used because his airforce was unable to perform air recon of even the most juicy targets revealed to him)

And FTR, contrary to common conspiracy bordering knowledge, no, Saddam was not ordered to invade Iran. Iran was a relatively homogeneous (for the region) country three times larger in population than deeply divided Iraq (atlough Saddam purges killed way more Shias than Iranian attacks), with a large if purged military that the US had trained up to the recent years. The Iraki army was incompetent even for the region. AKA, the result of an Iraqi attack on Iran were obvious from the get go.

[Theinquisition]

"secular" is a pretty loose term in that part of the world, Saddam saw himself as a modern day Saladin before we rofl stomped him.

I'd also argue that Saddam was indeed, somewhat religious. At some of his palaces he had man made lakes with little islands set up on them. On those islands were harems of underage girls that he and his sons would rape. They believes that if sins were committed on or around those waters that they wouldn't be counted against them.

[Theinquisition]

I agree that the nuttiness factor is low when it comes to religion, the general nuttiness not so much (Hello Trump, Hello Brexit)

But....Awwww... we are just a couple hundred years more advanced. We were burning people on the stake not long ago. And we still listen to a guy in a skirt and funny hat who claims he is send by god. Hell, he is on TV every now and then. Maybe now a bit of a relict that we chuckle about, but boy did the roman catholic church leave a trail of corpses and hellfire. Funnily it was once reversed and the middle and far east was the advanced culture until we paid them a visit, thinking we should be missionaries to the world.

Yeah, you can do that all away as by-gones. But will they stay by-gones? Are creationists and TV evangelists going to be a passing thing. Some of those scare me as much as hate preaching Islamists.

Anytime you bring religion into anything, things get nutty.

So, in the sake of time and length, I'll leave my opinion to this. I wish the modern left held Islam to the same scrutiny as christianity

[Shadowferal]

Saddam Husseain has always been friendly to the US. Heck, Hussein was on the CIA's payroll for years.

Reigle Report from the Senate Banking Committee that analyzed the US' exports of warfare-related goods to Iraq.

The UK aided Iraq in building a chemical plant in Iraq despite being fully aware that Saddam Hussein gassed Iranian troops in the 1980s.

The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale of poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

The Iraq Debacle was nothing more than some lame excuse...and all for nothing. Unless the ultimate goal was to install a radicalized religious regime.

Seems they are well on their way, with the likes of the Sadrist Movement, Islamic Supreme Council making gains.

So...Mission accomplished in that regard.

[sarahtasher]

Wow, if the eeevil Americans and British enabled Saddam by selling him a few helicopters and the like, then the dudes that sold him thousands of crummy tanks and obsolete aircraft just good enough to bomb Kurd villages must be superevil....

[owbu]

I think this mostly comes from them being replaced by religious fanatics, who want to found a Califate and kill all non believers.
Non of the "stable" dictatorships in the middle east (or anywhere?) have been secular - division between state and anything is a democratic principle and doesnt really exist in dictatorships - but they mostly did what they did in order stay in power, not to please some god.

So maybe lets call it less zealous? Otherwise I feel like discussing if Charlie Sheen or Paris Hilton is more virgin like^^

[Spectral]

I agree that the nuttiness factor is low when it comes to religion, the general nuttiness not so much (Hello Trump, Hello Brexit)

I find it striking that when comparing general nuttiness, Brexit falls in line with the Middle East. If that qualifies as the equivalence, you have successfully made my case that the gap is enormous.

But....Awwww... we are just a couple hundred years more advanced. We were burning people on the stake not long ago. And we still listen to a guy in a skirt and funny hat who claims he is send by god. Hell, he is on TV every now and then. Maybe now a bit of a relict that we chuckle about, but boy did the roman catholic church leave a trail of corpses and hellfire. Funnily it was once reversed and the middle and far east was the advanced culture until we paid them a visit, thinking we should be missionaries to the world.

I can't say I'm terribly impressed by the excuse that bad things happened hundreds of years ago. Apologia for modern barbarism isn't great.

Yeah, you can do that all away as by-gones. But will they stay by-gones? Are creationists and TV evangelists going to be a passing thing. Some of those scare me as much as hate preaching Islamists.

If you're as scared of creationists as you are of people that actually burn people alive, you're just being melodramatic.

[Theinquisition]

I find it striking that when comparing general nuttiness, Brexit falls in line with the Middle East. If that qualifies as the equivalence, you have successfully made my case that the gap is enormous.

I can't say I'm terribly impressed by the excuse that bad things happened hundreds of years ago. Apologia for modern barbarism isn't great.

If you're as scared of creationists as you are of people that actually burn people alive, you're just being melodramatic.

hit the nail on the head.

For the life of me I can't understand how the left can excuse modern day fundamental Islamic crimes against humanity because "Christians used to do it"

yeah, im sure that makes ISIS's victims feel so much better.

[Spectral]

Like I said earlier, we used to burn people at the stake not long ago. And..oh..you have people on these forums who think we are being to pussy on criminals and how chopping off limbs is a great way of punishment..so again, I am at the point where I ask - we are more advanced as a civilized people, but will that last? Seems being dumb and violent and xenophobic and looking for easy solutions aka "just nuke them all" isn't going away

So, we don't do those things, but we could, so we're basically just as bad

[owbu]

For the life of me I can't understand how the left can excuse modern day fundamental Islamic crimes against humanity because "Christians used to do it"

In case that was really a question:
As far as I can tell, this used to be a part of the following argument going:
Christian guy: "Islam is fundamentaly flawed cannot be saved and is worse than Christianity. We Christians are simply better people than muslims."
Left wing guy: "Christians used to do the same shit and were just as bad then as parts of the Muslim world are now. Just because parts of the muslim world are inexcusably fucked up right now, doesnt mean they cannot become better in the future or that we, under the right circumstances, couldnt slide right back into our old habits. We arent better people than muslims."

And then the internet happened.

[Theinquisition]

Don't get me wrong. I am not excusing it. ISIS are assholes and can burn in hell. Doesn't change the fact that we did at one point think it is a swell way of treating others. We have advanced beyond that. Hopefully. But as I said....some topics on this forum (would that be the point to bring the right in, since you brought the left in?) seems people would be more than happy to decent to a more barabaric attitude again

- - - Updated - - -



Not yet. We are just more sneaky about it. I mean, if we were really so superior and respect the human rights we wouldn't have Guantánamo or waterboarding and get away with it?

sorry DET, if you are going to equate the sme level of brutality between waterboarding terrorists and ....idk..burning people alive in a metal cage, you have lost me

[Theinquisition]

In case that was really a question:
As far as I can tell, this used to be a part of the following argument going:
Christian guy: "Islam is fundamentaly flawed cannot be saved and is worse than Christianity. We Christians are simply better people than muslims."
Left wing guy: "Christians used to do the same shit and were just as bad then as parts of the Muslim world are now. Just because parts of the muslim world are inexcusably fucked up right now, doesnt mean they cannot become better in the future or that we, under the right circumstances, couldnt slide right back into our old habits. We arent better people than muslims."

And then the internet happened.

Still sounds like an excuse, essentially the left seems to be giving extremist islam a pass because "derp the crusades derp"

Either we, collectively, condemn evil and confront it, or we don't.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, sometimes you lose people...that is just life.

So...I want to make sure we are clear here.

WAterboarding known terrorists is just as bad as burning people alive in metal cages, throwing gays off rooftops, raping 8 year olds, enslavement, and stomping on babies?

[sarahtasher]

You might notice that the OP was not about ''left vs right'' but about how supposedly ''secular and fighting islamists'' Khadaffi had a Gargamel-level of incompetence outfit called the ''Islamic Legion'', which was all about helping african nutjobs being more nutjoby.

[Powerogue]

I guess you haven't been paying attention to the leaked Clinton emails and how her people view the Catholic church, but then again the corporate media seems to be imposing a blackout on any stories that could be seen as negative for Clinton.

Care to enlighten me then about those? I mean I can google "hillary clinton leaked emails" and get the list but there's literally hundreds here to sift through and I don't know how they're relevant.