Comment by croon

> You'd be surprised. I recall the British being quite fond of their Falklands war -- for an astonishingly remote land that has absolutely no historical connection to the isle and population of Britain apart from the colonial plundering.

Yes, I would be surprised, because it's inane. You've got a poll? I must've missed the large gatherings of Brits protesting to take back India.

> Plus, it's not like the big powers are not invading and bombing countries here and there to this day under various pretexts...

Yes, and like I asked last time, what's your point? Show me a movement bent on persecution of a people, leading to invasion of other countries, that is hence emulated elsewhere, and not criticized as neo-Nazis are.

Iraq was unrelated to 9/11, was about oil, but used 9/11 as an excuse to look for WMDs, and is immensely unpopular.

Are you claiming that there are neo-Bushists organizing to take back America from Saddamists that aren't criticized like neo-Nazis are?

Does that proposition sound ridiculous? It's because it is. You are not making a comparison, you are bringing up non-sequitors to gaslight the issue.

There are wars and invasions, and most if not all are very unpopular, and any that revolves around eradication of peoples are historically reviled. Except for neo-nazis views of 1940s Germany, for some reason. Do you have a comparison to that?