Spot has been quick to jump to the defense of Muslims at every opportunity, on the grounds that criticising them might make them mad.

Even when he brings up the KKK as an example, he fails to see the danger in self censorship as a response to violence from extremist groups.


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 17^th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

The extremists try to. And nobody has poked the KKK in a while. when they are poked they are pretty nasty. How about lobbying for banning gay marriage, abortion, evolution in schools? That isnt trying to interfere in politics? the "tea party" in america and the pope everywhere are the biggest examples of political interference. SOB

I have asked to clarify many times whether he would be equally defensive of the KKK or Nazis, or whether Islam is some kind of special case. He has never been able to explain when it is a good idea to criticise extremists and when we should self censor in case it makes them angry.

Going by the example of Avram and others, it would appear that Spot is keen to criticise any kind of extremism and any religion, except Islam.

Why is that?

I just wanna know how "lobbying for banning gay marriage" ie things staying as they are and always have been is considered extremist.  It's backwards - never has such an institution so by definition, those loobying for it's introduction are the extremists.

Anyway, if we start athread about all the stupid things SOB says, it'd be the longest thread ever.  And then if we expanded that to include the implications of the stupid things he says, you're going to need to get a bigger server.

We could just sum it up and say he criticises everything that the mainstream tells him is OK to criticise.  He is so utterly devoid of personality and even the potential for independent thought, that he could be the perfect test subject for the media to gauge how well their messages have been conveyed. 

I too would like to hear Spot of Borg's explanation here. He jumps to the defence of Islam quite often, but is remorseless toward Christianity. There's something strange going on here that may be psychological in nature, rather than any upholding of a superior position based on reasoned argument. 

I suspect it is a reflexive response to seeing Abu and Falah getting 'picked on', that has no real connection to whether the criticism is justified or not. He even admitted recently to having no idea what their views are.


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 17^th, 2012 at 8:25am:

I would prolly say the same thing if you were picking on jews or xtians. they arent ALL like that. We have to live with them. If we poke them with a stick they are going to get riled (any religion) so perhaps the media and governments (and militaries) should stop poking them.

:D

freediver wrote on Jul 17^th, 2012 at 7:47pm:

I suspect it is a reflexive response to seeing Abu and Falah getting 'picked on', that has no real connection to whether the criticism is justified or not. He even admitted recently to having no idea what their views are. Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 8:25am: I would prolly say the same thing if you were picking on jews or xtians. they arent ALL like that. We have to live with them. If we poke them with a stick they are going to get riled (any religion) so perhaps the media and governments (and militaries) should stop poking them. :D

Yeah, I suspect it is something like that.

Is it worse to ignore the crimes of your own people, or someone else's?

Puppet?

My comments about Spot could apply almost equally to you. You both claim to be anti religious, criticise all religions freely except Islam, have trouble acknowledging the nasty things that Abu and Falah have posted here and constantly defend Muslims. Though I don't think I have seen you go so far as to say we should not criticise Muslims in case they go crazy and blow something up.

freediver wrote on Jul 17^th, 2012 at 6:22pm:

Spot has been quick to jump to the defense of Muslims at every opportunity, on the grounds that criticising them might make them mad. Even when he brings up the KKK as an example, he fails to see the danger in self censorship as a response to violence from extremist groups. Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 12:05pm: The extremists try to. And nobody has poked the KKK in a while. when they are poked they are pretty nasty. How about lobbying for banning gay marriage, abortion, evolution in schools? That isnt trying to interfere in politics? the "tea party" in america and the pope everywhere are the biggest examples of political interference. SOB I have asked to clarify many times whether he would be equally defensive of the KKK or Nazis, or whether Islam is some kind of special case. He has never been able to explain when it is a good idea to criticise extremists and when we should self censor in case it makes them angry. Going by the example of Avram and others, it would appear that Spot is keen to criticise any kind of extremism and any religion, except Islam. Why is that?

Well pretty obvious in that quote i am talking about extremists Are the KKK extreme? you are calling it "defending islam" when all i am saying is that not ALL muslims are terrorists. Same as not all xtians are in westboro baptist. But i have said this over and over and you dont want to hear it.

Singling out certain ppl for this crap is stupid because i am usually generalising and you keep bringing abu and falah into it. I still  havent read many of their posts and i dont think i have defended them i have just pointed out that not all muslims are terrorists.

What is it you want me to do? hate all muslims? Not going to happen. If i were to be in the mindset to hate all muslims i would also hate all xtians and all hindus and thats a  fair whack of the world and i dont want to be like you ppl. I dont like extremists of any sort and they seem to come in all sorts but the most popular sorts ands xtian and muslim.

SOB

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 17^th, 2012 at 7:44pm:

I too would like to hear Spot of Borg's explanation here. He jumps to the defence of Islam quite often, but is remorseless toward Christianity. There's something strange going on here that may be psychological in nature, rather than any upholding of a superior position based on reasoned argument.

This is BS. If its "defending islam" to say that not all muslims are terrorists then WTF. The only times i have mentioned xtianity is in response to an attack on ALL muslims and i have shown you a comparison. Thats remorseless? HAHAHAHA

SOB

freediver wrote on Jul 17^th, 2012 at 7:47pm:

I suspect it is a reflexive response to seeing Abu and Falah getting 'picked on', that has no real connection to whether the criticism is justified or not. He even admitted recently to having no idea what their views are. Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 8:25am: I would prolly say the same thing if you were picking on jews or xtians. they arent ALL like that. We have to live with them. If we poke them with a stick they are going to get riled (any religion) so perhaps the media and governments (and militaries) should stop poking them. :D

You are doing it again - quoting me out of context and lying.

I was obviously not talking about abu or falah there. In fact you keep saying i am talking about abu and falah when i am not. I am simply saying that mainstream muslims are not terrorists. I dont even know abu and falah. I haent had discussions with them and to keep bringing them into discussions is stupid.

SOB

freediver wrote on Jul 17^th, 2012 at 9:26pm:

Puppet? My comments about Spot could apply almost equally to you. You both claim to be anti religious, criticise all religions freely except Islam, have trouble acknowledging the nasty things that Abu and Falah have posted here and constantly defend Muslims. Though I don't think I have seen you go so far as to say we should not criticise Muslims in case they go crazy and blow something up.

You really are a lil dim arent you. Perhaps you should get out in the world sometime. Take a walk around. Take a plane. Go to Malaysia (just dont smuggle drugs). See how you arent dead? See how they treat you with way more respect than you deserve? See how many of them arent blowing up?

Extremists do extremist stuff. the KKK is an xtian extremist group and al-whatever is a muslim extremist group and there are lots of extremist groups of different religions (funny all the extremist groups are associated with different deities).

SOB

Quote:

you are calling it "defending islam" when all i am saying is that not ALL muslims are terrorists.

No spot it takes many different forms. Here are some of your stock responses:

not all muslims are terrorists
jews and christians are terrorists too
I have not actually spoken to a muslim about Islam so it must be nice
islamic terrorists are not actually terrorists because we provoked them
don't poke Muslims with a stick or they will get upset and blow something up
You are picking on them
I am just generalising, so I don't have to make sense
it is only OK to make generalised criticisms about Islam, not criticise specific Muslims
you can only criticise christianity, judaism and buddhism, not islam
it is wrong to criticise Abu and Falah because I know nothing about them


Quote:

What is it you want me to do? hate all muslims?

Think about what you are saying. Stop posting on autopilot. Maybe even try explaining why you think we should self censor in the face of extremism?


Quote:

I dont even know abu and falah.

So why do you keep coming to their defence and insisting that our criticism of them is misguided? How do you know whether they represent mainstream Islam or not?


Quote:

Extremists do extremist stuff. the KKK is an xtian extremist group and al-whatever is a muslim extremist group and there are lots of extremist groups of different religions (funny all the extremist groups are associated with different deities).

So why should we not criiticise them?

Quote:

I have not actually spoken to a muslim about Islam so it must be nice

Either i didnt say this or you are taking it way out of context (as usual)


Quote:

islamic terrorists are not actually terrorists because we provoked them

I definitely didnt say this


Quote:

don't poke Muslims with a stick or they will get upset and blow something up

you changed what I said here


Quote:

You are picking on them

Obviously out of context and looks like its changed too


Quote:

I am just generalising, so I don't have to make sense

Didnt say that


Quote:

it is only OK to make generalised criticisms about Islam, not criticise specific Muslims

Nope didnt say that either. In fact that sounds like something YOU said


Quote:

you can only criticise christianity, judaism and buddhism, not islam

You really are a dishonest lil guy arent you


Quote:

it is wrong to criticise Abu and Falah because I know nothing about them

You remind me of abbott.


Quote:

Think about what you are saying. Stop posting on autopilot. Maybe even try explaining why you think we should self censor in the face of extremism?

I have never said you should self-censor. I have tried to show you that you are wrong. Not all muslims are extremists. same as not all xtians are extremists.


Quote:

So why do you keep coming to their defence and insisting that our criticism of them is misguided? How do you know whether they represent mainstream Islam or not?

I havent "come to their defence" I have told you to stop using them as examples in discussions with me and trying to make me judge them when I dont know enough about those particular individual ppl to do so. I do however know about you. You are a liar. A misrepresenting liar. So i take anything you say about them with a grain of salt.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 6:07am:

Extremists do extremist stuff. the KKK is an xtian extremist group SOB

Do you oppose the salvation army sob they are extremist christians?

Yes the KKK watch this video-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8t04muNIdw

Quote:

Do you oppose the salvation army sob they are extremist christians?

Well according to the criteria that started this thread i should now accuse you of defending the KKK.

SOB

I don't think the KKK need defending seeing as how they've been dead for several decades already. 

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/default.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=kkk

Snippet

Quote:

After a period of relative quiet, Ku Klux Klan activity has spiked noticeably upwards in 2006, as Klan groups have attempted to exploit fears in America over gay marriage, perceived “assaults” on Christianity, crime and especially immigration.

SOB

read a little bit further:


Quote:

Overall, there may be as many as 5,000 members and associates of the Ku Klux Klan.

Like I said - dead.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 10:23am:

Quote: Do you oppose the salvation army sob they are extremist christians? Well according to the criteria that started this thread i should now accuse you of defending the KKK. SOB

Do you oppose the salvo's spot they are a christian group check out their website.

freediver wrote on Jul 17^th, 2012 at 9:26pm:

Puppet?

Yes.

Quote:

My comments about Spot could apply almost equally to you.

I figured, but as I have stated before I understand that what some Islamic and Muslim people do is wrong.
Quote:

You both claim to be anti religious, criticise all religions freely except Islam,

I am critical of Islam, just I see no point campaigning it and lessening more important issues.

I know you will probably disagree but its appears that you certainly have a hard time criticising things done by anglo's. I know its not an easy thing to do, took me a long time to face it; but if you honestly were worried about stopping the crimes of some Islamist's and Muslims you would start by looking at your own culture first.

Also I often do give them leniency because we have been bombing them for decades and starving their people by enforcing a corrupt financial system..BUT.. I would apply that same leniency to us if we were in their position.
And yes in the past I have used this to justify their terrorists acts, but just like I would justify us attacking them if positions were reversed.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 10:38am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:23am: Quote: Do you oppose the salvation army sob they are extremist christians? Well according to the criteria that started this thread i should now accuse you of defending the KKK. SOB Do you oppose the salvo's spot they are a christian group check out their website.

Are they an extremist group?

SOB

Quote:

I am critical of Islam, just I see no point campaigning it and lessening more important issues.

That is the extremists. Normal mainstream everyday muslims (especially in australia) are not a threat. They are in fact less of a threat than xtians or jews.

SOB

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 10:38am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:23am: Quote: Do you oppose the salvation army sob they are extremist christians? Well according to the criteria that started this thread i should now accuse you of defending the KKK. SOB Do you oppose the salvo's spot they are a christian group check out their website.

I'm assuming that's directed at me.
I never said I don't support the salvo's. I just said that such a good group should not align themselves with a paedophile protecting organisation.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 10:51am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:38am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:23am: Quote: Do you oppose the salvation army sob they are extremist christians? Well according to the criteria that started this thread i should now accuse you of defending the KKK. SOB Do you oppose the salvo's spot they are a christian group check out their website. I'm assuming that's directed at me. I never said I don't support the salvo's. I just said that such a good group should not align themselves with a paedophile protecting organisation.

PP this thread seems to be all about misrepresenting and quoting out of context. Prolly because they dont have an argument otherwise. Im glad you said that about the salvos though because didnt know what they were talking about.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 10:49am:

Quote: I am critical of Islam, just I see no point campaigning it and lessening more important issues. That is the extremists. Normal mainstream everyday muslims (especially in australia) are not a threat. They are in fact less of a threat than xtians or jews. SOB

Really?
Perhaps you don't remember this?


Quote:

Extremists jailed for 'evil' terror plot Date December 16, 2011 Read later Daniel Fogarty and Steve Lillebuen Email articlePrint Ads by Google Free Forex Guidewww.GFT.com.au Four Simple Steps to Making Your First Spot Forex Trade. Start Here. AAP They are Islamic extremists who see the people of Australia as infidels and planned to become martyrs by shooting up a Sydney army base. Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, 35, Saney Edow Aweys, 28, and Nayef El Sayed, 27, planned to kill as many people as possible in a mass shooting at Holsworthy Army base to advance the cause of Islam. It was their way of repaying Australia - the country that had welcomed and nurtured them and their families. On Friday, the three would-be terrorists remained defiant as Victorian Supreme Court Justice Betty King sentenced them to 18 years in prison. Advertisement Lebanese-born Fattal, 35, was ejected from the court just as Justice King began her sentencing remarks. He stood up and began ranting, "Why don't stop this corruption" and also spoke of Palestine and Afghanistan. El Sayed, who was born in Australia to Lebanese parents, left his remarks to the end. As he passed the judge's chair, he said, "Allah gives us justice, not these courts." They were in no mood to take Justice King's advice and be remorseful for what they had done. "The fact that Australia welcomed all of you and nurtured you and your families is something that should cause you all to hang your heads in shame that this was the way you planned to show your thanks for that support," she said. "Your plans were evil. Your intentions, your plan were deadly serious. You intended to plan a random shooting of anyone you found on that army base, be it army personnel, civilian, male or female." Justice King said it would have been a totally horrific event if their planning had ever come to pass. She said all three showed no remorse and had not renounced their extremist beliefs. Fattal was especially rigid in his beliefs, she said. "The views you have adopted are clearly extremist views in terms of the interpretation of the Koran, including that all persons who are not Muslims and those persons who are Muslims but not practising faithfully, according to you, are people who are infidels," she said. "You are an intolerant Muslim in that you believe everything has to be done in your way and no other." During a three-month trial in 2010, the court heard the men wanted to advance Islam, which they believed was under attack from the West, including Australia. Most of the prosecution case relied on transcripts of secretly recorded telephone conversations. They picked up strong anti-Australian views, with Somalian-born Aweys even celebrating the death toll in the Black Saturday bushfires. "These filthy people are coming down, the economy goes first, factories are shutting down, fire is coming and there is no water," he was recorded saying in March 2009. Fattal was caught on security footage walking around the boundary of the Holsworthy barracks and spoke of winning paradise if he killed Australian soldiers. "If I find way to kill the army, I swear to Allah the great I'm going to do it," Fattal told an undercover police officer. The men were arrested in pre-dawn raids across Melbourne in August 2009. Two other Melbourne men - Yacqub Khayre, 23, of Meadow Heights, and Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed, 26, of Preston - were cleared by a jury over their alleged roles in the terror plot. As the sentences were delivered on Friday, family members wailed in shock, including one woman who screamed, "Oh my God!" and covered her mouth. Fattal, of Melbourne, Aweys, of Carlton, and El Sayed, of Glenroy, were all found guilty of conspiring to prepare for or plan a terrorist act between February and August 2009. They were ordered to serve a non-parole period of 13 and a half years.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/extremists-jailed-for-evil-terror-plot-20111216-1oy37.html

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 10:51am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:38am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:23am: Quote: Do you oppose the salvation army sob they are extremist christians? Well according to the criteria that started this thread i should now accuse you of defending the KKK. SOB Do you oppose the salvo's spot they are a christian group check out their website. I'm assuming that's directed at me. I never said I don't support the salvo's. I just said that such a good group should not align themselves with a paedophile protecting organisation.

You and sob support Islam

Google Saudi child brides
Google Yemeni child brides

I guess you follow the Islamic thought that i is not pedophilia if you marry a child.

Spot there are no doubt plenty of non-extreme KKK members and nazi sympathisers. That does not mean it would not be stupid to constantly butt in and remind people of this whenever they are discussing the KKK or Nazism.


Quote:

I have never said you should self-censor.

You say it all the time spot.


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 17^th, 2012 at 8:25am:

I would prolly say the same thing if you were picking on jews or xtians. they arent ALL like that. We have to live with them. If we poke them with a stick they are going to get riled (any religion) so perhaps the media and governments (and militaries) should stop poking them.

Quote:

I havent "come to their defence" I have told you to stop using them as examples in discussions with me and trying to make me judge them when I dont know enough about those particular individual ppl to do so.

Why shouldn't I use them as examples? They are ideal examples because if you disagree with me you can ask them. We don't have to make do with a few selected media snippets of things they have said and it is much harder for you to stick your head in the sand and plead ignorance when it is right there in front of you.


Quote:

Spot, you forgetting what you have said yourself is not the same thing as me misrepresenting you. Your whole approach to this appears to be based on covering your eyes and ears whenever any evidence is presented to you so you can go on claiming ignorance and insisting that we must give them the benefit of the doubt because you don't know any better.

Quote:

And yes in the past I have used this to justify their terrorists acts

Thanks for being so honest puppet.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 11:27am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:49am: Quote: I am critical of Islam, just I see no point campaigning it and lessening more important issues. That is the extremists. Normal mainstream everyday muslims (especially in australia) are not a threat. They are in fact less of a threat than xtians or jews. SOB Really? Perhaps you don't remember this? [quote]Extremists jailed for 'evil' terror plot Date December 16, 2011 Read later Daniel Fogarty and Steve Lillebuen Email articlePrint Ads by Google Free Forex Guidewww.GFT.com.au Four Simple Steps to Making Your First Spot Forex Trade. Start Here. AAP They are Islamic extremists who see the people of Australia as infidels and planned to become martyrs by shooting up a Sydney army base. Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, 35, Saney Edow Aweys, 28, and Nayef El Sayed, 27, planned to kill as many people as possible in a mass shooting at Holsworthy Army base to advance the cause of Islam. It was their way of repaying Australia - the country that had welcomed and nurtured them and their families. On Friday, the three would-be terrorists remained defiant as Victorian Supreme Court Justice Betty King sentenced them to 18 years in prison. Advertisement Lebanese-born Fattal, 35, was ejected from the court just as Justice King began her sentencing remarks. He stood up and began ranting, "Why don't stop this corruption" and also spoke of Palestine and Afghanistan. El Sayed, who was born in Australia to Lebanese parents, left his remarks to the end. As he passed the judge's chair, he said, "Allah gives us justice, not these courts." They were in no mood to take Justice King's advice and be remorseful for what they had done. "The fact that Australia welcomed all of you and nurtured you and your families is something that should cause you all to hang your heads in shame that this was the way you planned to show your thanks for that support," she said. "Your plans were evil. Your intentions, your plan were deadly serious. You intended to plan a random shooting of anyone you found on that army base, be it army personnel, civilian, male or female." Justice King said it would have been a totally horrific event if their planning had ever come to pass. She said all three showed no remorse and had not renounced their extremist beliefs. Fattal was especially rigid in his beliefs, she said. "The views you have adopted are clearly extremist views in terms of the interpretation of the Koran, including that all persons who are not Muslims and those persons who are Muslims but not practising faithfully, according to you, are people who are infidels," she said. "You are an intolerant Muslim in that you believe everything has to be done in your way and no other." During a three-month trial in 2010, the court heard the men wanted to advance Islam, which they believed was under attack from the West, including Australia. Most of the prosecution case relied on transcripts of secretly recorded telephone conversations. They picked up strong anti-Australian views, with Somalian-born Aweys even celebrating the death toll in the Black Saturday bushfires. "These filthy people are coming down, the economy goes first, factories are shutting down, fire is coming and there is no water," he was recorded saying in March 2009. Fattal was caught on security footage walking around the boundary of the Holsworthy barracks and spoke of winning paradise if he killed Australian soldiers. "If I find way to kill the army, I swear to Allah the great I'm going to do it," Fattal told an undercover police officer. The men were arrested in pre-dawn raids across Melbourne in August 2009. Two other Melbourne men - Yacqub Khayre, 23, of Meadow Heights, and Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed, 26, of Preston - were cleared by a jury over their alleged roles in the terror plot. As the sentences were delivered on Friday, family members wailed in shock, including one woman who screamed, "Oh my God!" and covered her mouth. Fattal, of Melbourne, Aweys, of Carlton, and El Sayed, of Glenroy, were all found guilty of conspiring to prepare for or plan a terrorist act between February and August 2009. They were ordered to serve a non-parole period of 13 and a half years.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/extremists-jailed-for-evil-terror-plot-20111216-1oy37.html[/quote]

So 3 ppl = all muslims? Doesnt the article say they are extremists? Yes - there it is right there in the article "extremists" Well there ya go. So where is your example of mainstream muslims being a problem? Since there were only 3 you you cant say THEY were mainstream.

SOB

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 11:29am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:51am: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:38am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:23am: Quote: Do you oppose the salvation army sob they are extremist christians? Well according to the criteria that started this thread i should now accuse you of defending the KKK. SOB Do you oppose the salvo's spot they are a christian group check out their website. I'm assuming that's directed at me. I never said I don't support the salvo's. I just said that such a good group should not align themselves with a paedophile protecting organisation. You and sob support Islam Google Saudi child brides Google Yemeni child brides I guess you follow the Islamic thought that i is not pedophilia if you marry a child.

You are full of poo. Paedophilia is not only in islam. ALL religions are bad. Extremists especially. The catholics are doing as good a job as the muslims in the child sex area and they are sneakier about it. Do you support catholics?

SOB

Quote:

You say it all the time spot.

Nope


Quote:

Why shouldn't I use them as examples? They are ideal examples because if you disagree with me you can ask them. We don't have to make do with a few selected media snippets of things they have said and it is much harder for you to stick your head in the sand and plead ignorance when it is right there in front of you.

For some reason you dont want to know what I am saying and are self censoring it in your head. Either that or you are lying. For 1 thing i have said several times i have lived in muslim countries and had no problems with them. There are muslims in australia who dont cause any problems for anyone. you want to say all muslims are extremists. If all muslims are extremists then all xtians are extremists too and should be equally shunned.

Rest of the post doesnt make sense. Your quoting out of context is just BS and some of your quotes were just made up.

SOB

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 11:29am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:51am: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:38am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:23am: Quote: Do you oppose the salvation army sob they are extremist christians? Well according to the criteria that started this thread i should now accuse you of defending the KKK. SOB Do you oppose the salvo's spot they are a christian group check out their website. I'm assuming that's directed at me. I never said I don't support the salvo's. I just said that such a good group should not align themselves with a paedophile protecting organisation. You and sob support Islam Google Saudi child brides Google Yemeni child brides I guess you follow the Islamic thought that i is not pedophilia if you marry a child.

Since when have I ever supported Islam?

Quote:

Thanks for being so honest puppet.

Not going to respond to the rest of my post?

how many members of the 'klan' today are just a bunch of bored fbi agents?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 1:07pm:

Quote: You say it all the time spot. Nope

Are you trying to take it back spot? Don't you think this deserves some kind of explanation, given your claim that you never suggested self censorship?


Quote:

I would prolly say the same thing if you were picking on jews or xtians. they arent ALL like that. We have to live with them. If we poke them with a stick they are going to get riled (any religion) so perhaps the media and governments (and militaries) should stop poking them.

Quote:

[quote]Why shouldn't I use them as examples? They are ideal examples because if you disagree with me you can ask them. We don't have to make do with a few selected media snippets of things they have said and it is much harder for you to stick your head in the sand and plead ignorance when it is right there in front of you.

For some reason you dont want to know what I am saying and are self censoring it in your head. Either that or you are lying. For 1 thing i have said several times i have lived in muslim countries and had no problems with them. There are muslims in australia who dont cause any problems for anyone. you want to say all muslims are extremists.
[/quote]

It was a question spot. What is wrong with using Abu and Falah as examples? Did you discuss with those Malaysian Muslims whether they oppose freedom and democracy? Did you even find out whether they were actually Muslims?


Quote:

If all muslims are extremists then all xtians are extremists too and should be equally shunned.

It might surprise you to know that Abu actually shares your views on this. According to him, anyone who does not share his interpretation of Islam (including stoning people to death and destroying freedom and democracy) is not a Muslim and should probably be killed if they don't keep their mouth shut. He also thinks that anyone who does not share his extremist interpretation of Christianity is not a proper Christian.


Quote:

Not going to respond to the rest of my post?

Probably not. Justifying terrorist acts says it all really. Unless you have a better justification?

Are you the media or a military? huh?

If you had something to actually say you wouldn't have to misrepresent and lie.


Quote:

It might surprise you to know that Abu actually shares your views on this. According to him, anyone who does not share his interpretation of Islam (including stoning people to death and destroying freedom and democracy) is not a Muslim and should probably be killed if they don't keep their mouth shut. He also thinks that anyone who does not share his extremist interpretation of Christianity is not a proper Christian.

Well if you arent lying and misrepresenting him like you do to me then he is obviously an extremist. I dont know this though because i no longer believe a word you say.


Quote:

It was a question spot. What is wrong with using Abu and Falah as examples?

I am getting tired of repeating this freeliar (now i know why ppl call you that). Because they are not valid examples if I dont know them and i have your word on what they say. Your word is worth diddlysquat.


Quote:

Did you discuss with those Malaysian Muslims whether they oppose freedom and democracy? Did you even find out whether they were actually Muslims?

I lived in malaysia. Most malaysians are muslims apparently. the servants @ my house did stop to stick their bum in the air every now and then. I am not going to ask everyone i meet if they are muslim. However - if they were going to bother me it was pretty obvious i was not a muslim so they would have approached me if they were extremists wouldn't they?

SOB

Quote:

Are you the media or a military? huh?

Think about it spot. I own a politics website. Also, you have made the same claim plenty of times without restricting it to the media. Are you suggesting that the media should self censor when it comes to Islam but people should not? Or is this just another red herring?


Quote:

Well if you arent lying and misrepresenting him like you do to me then he is obviously an extremist. I dont know this though because i no longer believe a word you say.

You could always try asking him. I have given you plenty of links to where he says it clearly.


Quote:

I am getting tired of repeating this freeliar (now i know why ppl call you that). Because they are not valid examples if I dont know them and i have your word on what they say. Your word is worth diddlysquat.

That is pretty stupid spot. The whole point of offering an example is to provide evidence that the other person may not be aware of. If we could only use examples we both already knew about we would really just be burying each other's heads in the sand. The point of a debate is not merely to rehash what we already both know.

The amazing thing about this forum is I can give you links to where they said it and you can even ask them for clarification if you disagree. That makes them ideal examples. Don't you agree? Or should we stick to using a bunch of people you saw on holidays who for all we know were not even Muslims, and who you never actually discussed Islam with, meaning you can only offer the wonderful insight that you got out of there alive, minus a bit of cash.

Or is it only possible for us to discuss Islam with each other if we both personally know the same Muslims and carefully restrict every comment we say to those specific individuals?

It sounds to me like you are trying desperately to avoid acknowledging any of the inconvenient realities about Islam by using your own ignorance as an intellectual shield. You use it as an excuse for your ignorance, a validation for remaining ignorant, and as evidence in support of your ignorant generalisations about Islam.


Quote:

I lived in malaysia. Most malaysians are muslims apparently. the servants @ my house did stop to stick their bum in the air every now and then. I am not going to ask everyone i meet if they are muslim. However - if they were going to bother me it was pretty obvious i was not a muslim so they would have approached me if they were extremists wouldn't they?

You mean like they did to the Australian tourists in Bali? Or is that an invalid example because you weren't there and know nothing about it?

Is terrorism and violence only a problem when it happens to you? Will you only bring yourself to criticise it when it happens to you?

Quote:

Think about it spot. I own a politics website. Also, you have made the same claim plenty of times without restricting it to the media. Are you suggesting that the media should self censor when it comes to Islam but people should not? Or is this just another red herring?

Its another of your red herrings.


Quote:

You could always try asking him. I have given you plenty of links to where he says it clearly.

No you havent. I had an argument with him in some religious thread once and he is a religious nut but he didnt talk about killing me.


Quote:

Or should we stick to using a bunch of people you saw on holidays who for all we know were not even Muslims,

You are doing it again. Discussion with you is impossible. I told you i lived there.


Quote:

You mean like they did to the Australian tourists in Bali? Or is that an invalid example because you weren't there and know nothing about it?

That doesnt make any sense. Especially with what i wrote. what have indonesian politics got to do with living in malaysia?

You are so dishonest it is very hard to have a discussion with you.

All religions have extremists. Not all muslims or xtians are extremists. Thats all im saying. Thats all i have been saying. you twist it into lots of other stuff but thats it basically.

SOB

Quote:

Its another of your red herrings.

It's been the same question from the beginning Spot. Should we self censor in case we make Muslims angry? Are you saying the media alone should self censor? Why do you keep running from this simple question?


Quote:

I told you i lived there.

Did you discuss Islam with any Muslims?


Quote:

All religions have extremists. Not all muslims or xtians are extremists. Thats all im saying. Thats all i have been saying.

You have said plenty more, like the self censorship stuff. You have just settled on empty headed platitudes in this thread because that is all you can get away with, but as soon as people start ignoring you again you will start up with all the other absurd BS.


Quote:

you twist it into lots of other stuff but thats it basically.

Did I make up the bit where you promoted self censorship in case Muslims get angry?

Quote:

It's been the same question from the beginning Spot. Should we self censor in case we make Muslims angry? Are you saying the media alone should self censor? Why do you keep running from this simple question?

Obviously what i mean was what i said if the media provokes them but targeting them all the time they will get angry wont they. Wouldn't you if you were being targeted all the time? the real extremists in other countries are becoming more extreme because their countries are occupied by foreign militaries. you would become more extreme too wouldn't you? Anyway we (as a country) are participating in poking them (figuratively).


Quote:

Did you discuss Islam with any Muslims?

Already answered and quoted out of context.


Quote:

like the self censorship stuff.

No you said that. You misrepresent and quote out of context.


Quote:

Did I make up the bit where you promoted self censorship in case Muslims get angry?

You twisted it to say that when thats not what i said @ all. Liar.

SOB

Look @ this. Friggin extremists just as bad as mulsim extremists

SOB

---

Quote:

Probably not. Justifying terrorist acts says it all really. Unless you have a better justification?

Well terrorist is subjective so lets take that out of the equation.
We attacked them, they attacked back.
I would want the same rights for Australia if we were attacked so then I must reserve the same rights for them.

You have defended terrorists before and made stupid ignorant comments which cause you to be banned.

Your opinion is not valid here.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 11:42am:

You have defended terrorists before and made stupid ignorant comments which cause you to be banned. Your opinion is not valid here.

So you are saying its wrong to attack someone after they attack you..?
If my opinion was invalid you would have no trouble debunking it, so rather then attacking me attack my opinion.

Quote:

Obviously what i mean was what i said if the media provokes them but targeting them all the time they will get angry wont they. Wouldn't you if you were being targeted all the time? the real extremists in other countries are becoming more extreme because their countries are occupied by foreign militaries. you would become more extreme too wouldn't you? Anyway we (as a country) are participating in poking them (figuratively).

But that's not all you said is it? You also said we should stop 'poking' them. You said we should self censor. Or is that 'twisting' your words? Are you taking that back now?

FD,

Quote:

Well terrorist is subjective so lets take that out of the equation. We attacked them, they attacked back. I would want the same rights for Australia if we were attacked so then I must reserve the same rights for them.

Why are you scared to answer that?

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 12:13pm:

Quote: Obviously what i mean was what i said if the media provokes them but targeting them all the time they will get angry wont they. Wouldn't you if you were being targeted all the time? the real extremists in other countries are becoming more extreme because their countries are occupied by foreign militaries. you would become more extreme too wouldn't you? Anyway we (as a country) are participating in poking them (figuratively). But that's not all you said is it? You also said we should stop 'poking' them. You said we should self censor. Or is that 'twisting' your words? Are you taking that back now?

WTF are you talking about?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 12:28pm:

WTF are you talking about?

How many times to I have to quote you to get a straight answer spot? This is what I am talking about. Let me guess, next you will forget what the question was....


Quote:

I would prolly say the same thing if you were picking on jews or xtians. they arent ALL like that. We have to live with them. If we poke them with a stick they are going to get riled (any religion) so perhaps the media and governments (and militaries) should stop poking them.

Quote:

Why are you scared to answer that?

Puppet, it is not that I am afraid or unable to answer. Rather, it was not a question. Not that I would necessarily bother answering if you did manage to construct a question, but it would be a good start.

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 5:46pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 12:28pm: WTF are you talking about? How many times to I have to quote you to get a straight answer spot? This is what I am talking about. Let me guess, next you will forget what the question was.... Quote: I would prolly say the same thing if you were picking on jews or xtians. they arent ALL like that. We have to live with them. If we poke them with a stick they are going to get riled (any religion) so perhaps the media and governments (and militaries) should stop poking them. [quote]Why are you scared to answer that?

Puppet, it is not that I am afraid or unable to answer. Rather, it was not a question. Not that I would necessarily bother answering if you did manage to construct a question, but it would be a good start.[/quote]

Gawd. I answered that more than once. You just scroll back and read. Comprehend. You seem to have problems with that. Interesting how you NEVER answer any questions though. You just keep quoting out of context and asking did you beat your wife type questions.

SOB

You must be taking after Abu spot.

Deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect - I have answered that countless times already

Denying that you said it or pointing out that that particular quote mentioned the media is not the same as actually answering.

Do you think we should self censor when it comes to Islam in case we make Muslims angry? Why do you constantly point out the risk of making them angry?

Would you want Australia to have the right to defend itself if attacked?

LOL. Well done puppet, you made a question!

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 6:05pm:

LOL. Well done puppet, you made a question!

I had a question on the first page.
Grow some balls and face reality.

Me way back in the thread:

Quote:

Are you the media or a military? huh? If you had something to actually say you wouldn't have to misrepresent and lie.

Meaning (which was obvious @ the outset) that i was talking about the media and the military.

I would think you were completely stupid except for the way you steadfastly manage to twist things and ask those did you beat your wife questions. You are an idiot and a troll  and a liar but not stupid. Perhaps you are a senile retired politician . . .

Me again way back in the thread:

Quote:

Obviously what i mean was what i said if the media provokes them but targeting them all the time they will get angry wont they. Wouldn't you if you were being targeted all the time? the real extremists in other countries are becoming more extreme because their countries are occupied by foreign militaries. you would become more extreme too wouldn't you? Anyway we (as a country) are participating in poking them (figuratively).

I never said anything about "self censorship" you lying liar. I was talking about this. I was saying the media should stop its fear campaign. You have whatever opinion you want but you are wrong so I correct you. All muslims are not terrorists. In fact mainstream are not terrorists.


Quote:

Why do you constantly point out the risk of making them angry?

I said it once (maybe twice) and you quoted it over and over. You are the one thats said it "countless times".

We (america uk and australia) are creating the terrorists.

SOB

Quote:

Meaning (which was obvious @ the outset) that i was talking about the media and the military

To which I responded that you often make the same claim without limiting it to the media, and also pointed out that the exact same question applies to the media - should it really self censor? Do you think that individuals should not self censor? What do you direct all your complaints about making Muslims angry to us mere mortals rather than 'the media'?

I offered to dig up some more quotes where you made it a more general claim. Do I need to do that to get a straight answer? Or would it make no difference and you would find something else to deflect about?


Quote:

Obviously what i mean was what i said if the media provokes them but targeting them all the time they will get angry wont they. Wouldn't you if you were being targeted all the time? the real extremists in other countries are becoming more extreme because their countries are occupied by foreign militaries. you would become more extreme too wouldn't you? Anyway we (as a country) are participating in poking them (figuratively).

To which I also responded at the time. Repeating your comments that the debate makes Muslims angry without adding that we should self censor does not mean you did not previously say we should self censor. It just means you are making an intellectual retreat to stating the obvious, without having to balls to say what you think we should do about it.


Quote:

I never said anything about "self censorship" you lying liar.

Yes you did - in the quote I keep posting.


Quote:

You have whatever opinion you want but you are wrong so I correct you. All muslims are not terrorists.

Which would be perfectly reaosnable if I ever claimed that all Muslims are terrorists. Otherwise it is just another red herring.


Quote:

I said it once (maybe twice) and you quoted it over and over. You are the one thats said it "countless times".

I attempted to get a straight answer out of you countless times.


Quote:

We (america uk and australia) are creating the terrorists.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Should we self censor as a response?

Quote:

Should we self censor as a response?

Or perhaps stop blowing them up?

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 6:01pm:

You must be taking after Abu spot. Deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect - I have answered that countless times already Denying that you said it or pointing out that that particular quote mentioned the media is not the same as actually answering. Do you think we should self censor when it comes to Islam in case we make Muslims angry? Why do you constantly point out the risk of making them angry?

Who cares if Muslims are angry they are the most disorganized set of people in the world.

Some recent posts from spot:


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12^th, 2012 at 6:05am:

The thing is though with all this fear campaign against the muslims isnt it like poking a hornets nest with a stick? Comon stop playing into it. the ppl that treat them like they are poo are the ones making them angry. SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12^th, 2012 at 11:17am:

I suggest we leave them alone. Stop provoking them.. There arent enough here to cause problems even if they were inclined.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 17^th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

The extremists try to. And nobody has poked the KKK in a while. when they are poked they are pretty nasty.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 17^th, 2012 at 8:25am:

I would prolly say the same thing if you were picking on jews or xtians. they arent ALL like that. We have to live with them. If we poke them with a stick they are going to get riled (any religion) so perhaps the media and governments (and militaries) should stop poking them.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 9:18am:

Quote: Think about what you are saying. Stop posting on autopilot. Maybe even try explaining why you think we should self censor in the face of extremism? I have never said you should self-censor.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 9:18am:

I do however know about you. You are a liar. A misrepresenting liar. So i take anything you say about them with a grain of salt. SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 1:07pm:

Quote: [quote]I have never said you should self-censor. You say it all the time spot.

Nope


Quote:

Why shouldn't I use them as examples? They are ideal examples because if you disagree with me you can ask them. We don't have to make do with a few selected media snippets of things they have said and it is much harder for you to stick your head in the sand and plead ignorance when it is right there in front of you.

For some reason you dont want to know what I am saying and are self censoring it in your head. Either that or you are lying.[/quote]



Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 8:25am:

Quote: It's been the same question from the beginning Spot. Should we self censor in case we make Muslims angry? Are you saying the media alone should self censor? Why do you keep running from this simple question? Obviously what i mean was what i said if the media provokes them but targeting them all the time they will get angry wont they. Wouldn't you if you were being targeted all the time?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 8:25am:

Quote: like the self censorship stuff. No you said that. You misrepresent and quote out of context.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 6:26pm:

I never said anything about "self censorship" you lying liar.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18^th, 2012 at 11:03am:

PP this thread seems to be all about misrepresenting and quoting out of context. SOB

The nature of deception is that in a relationship involving an intentionally deceptive person and a truthful person, is that it is always easy for the deceiver to misrepresent themselves.

And even when they are 'found out', for them to then make false accusations.

And with those false accusations, force the 'other' to always defend their position.

Meanwhile the deceiver remains 'free' to continue to misrepresent and hide their own true position, and agenda.




Claims [accusations] are easy to defend to make, when the people who [claim that they] are being 'misrepresented' have a 'skill' in misrepresenting and hiding their own true positions, and agendas.

In any relationship involving an intentionally deceptive person and a truthful person, the truthful person can never win [or get ahead].

Such a relationship will always fail, in the end.

Such a relationship is like the nature of the circumstance of war [between two people].

It requires two [sincere] people with the same 'mind', to secure and maintain a peace.

But it only takes one person ['party'], to start a war [which necessarily involves the 2nd 'party'].





The lesson ?

Avoid relationships with those who are known to be liars [deceivers].




+++


John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 7:35pm:

Some recent posts from spot: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:05am: The thing is though with all this fear campaign against the muslims isnt it like poking a hornets nest with a stick? Comon stop playing into it. the ppl that treat them like they are poo are the ones making them angry. SOB Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:17am: I suggest we leave them alone. Stop provoking them.. There arent enough here to cause problems even if they were inclined. Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 12:05pm: The extremists try to. And nobody has poked the KKK in a while. when they are poked they are pretty nasty. Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 8:25am: I would prolly say the same thing if you were picking on jews or xtians. they arent ALL like that. We have to live with them. If we poke them with a stick they are going to get riled (any religion) so perhaps the media and governments (and militaries) should stop poking them. Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 9:18am: Quote: Think about what you are saying. Stop posting on autopilot. Maybe even try explaining why you think we should self censor in the face of extremism? I have never said you should self-censor. Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 9:18am: I do however know about you. You are a liar. A misrepresenting liar. So i take anything you say about them with a grain of salt. SOB Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:07pm: [quote][quote]I have never said you should self-censor. You say it all the time spot.

Nope


Quote:

Why shouldn't I use them as examples? They are ideal examples because if you disagree with me you can ask them. We don't have to make do with a few selected media snippets of things they have said and it is much harder for you to stick your head in the sand and plead ignorance when it is right there in front of you.

For some reason you dont want to know what I am saying and are self censoring it in your head. Either that or you are lying.[/quote]



Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 8:25am:

Quote: It's been the same question from the beginning Spot. Should we self censor in case we make Muslims angry? Are you saying the media alone should self censor? Why do you keep running from this simple question? Obviously what i mean was what i said if the media provokes them but targeting them all the time they will get angry wont they. Wouldn't you if you were being targeted all the time?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 8:25am:

Quote: like the self censorship stuff. No you said that. You misrepresent and quote out of context.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 19^th, 2012 at 6:26pm:

I never said anything about "self censorship" you lying liar.

[/quote]


I didnt say in any of that anything about self censorship (even with your editing of the quotes). i have told you what I meant. I have clarified several times. You desperately want my words to mean something else but they dont. I have told you what I mean.

i couldn't be bothered checking all of them (you simply arent worth it) but heres one of the FULL quotes from above:


Quote:

I suggest we leave them alone. Stop provoking them.. There arent enough here to cause problems even if they were inclined. Quit interfering with them and their oil.

See how its about the media and the militaries not self censorship? Of course you do. You know full well what i am talking about but choose to be a troll.

SOB

Yadda you are talking about freediver. He never ever answers question and instead of answering throws accusations and misquotes. He wants to reinterpret things to mean what he wants them to mean. I doubt abu or falah have said the things he says they have.

SOB

Quote:

even with your editing of the quotes

I challenge you to find a single quote that was edited


Quote:

See how its about the media and the militaries not self censorship?

I don't see any reference to the media there. You used the term 'we', as in the members here on OzPolitic, in direct response to a question about what you think we, the members he on OzPolitic should do in response to all the BS coming from the Muslims here on OzPolitic. You did not bring the media into it until one of your most recent calls for self censorship in a different thread on a different board. I don't see any references to the media in that thread, but I do see clear references to what we are doing on this site.

Your reference to oil does imply the military, but was obviously not meant to be the same situation you were referring to with this:


Quote:

I suggest we leave them alone. Stop provoking them.. There arent enough here to cause problems even if they were inclined. Quit interfering with them and their oil.

Of course, this is still kind of beside the point. You have not clarified why you think the media should self censor and why there are different 'rules'. Do you really think that is a good idea? Would that not encourage for example the all the Muslims that called for the death, and actually tried to kill the Danish cartoonist?

Quote:

I challenge you to find a single quote that was edited

I gave you one example in  the previous post which you have ignored. Remember the oil?


Quote:

You used the term 'we', as in the members here on OzPolitic

No i used the term "we" as in the "west" - if i meant ppl on this forum i wouldn't have included myself now would i. Stop trying to redefine my statements. I clarified - you dont get to add meaning to my words.


Quote:

your most recent calls for self censorship

Liar. I have not called for self censorship


Quote:

why you think the media should self censor

Changing the goalposts now? Its not "self censoring" its "stopping the lies". How about just not running a fear campaign? Thats not self censorship.

You are a dishonest jerk

SOB

Quote:

No i used the term "we" as in the "west"

So the entire west should self censor?


Quote:

Changing the goalposts now? Its not "self censoring" its "stopping the lies".

Would that include all the lies you accuse me of?

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2012 at 8:45am:

Quote: No i used the term "we" as in the "west" So the entire west should self censor? [quote]Changing the goalposts now? Its not "self censoring" its "stopping the lies".

Would that include all the lies you accuse me of?[/quote]

Oh gawd

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BSQ5SAEoIr0/S9olbo7FRhI/AAAAAAAAAhI/NS-5oJYE9xM/s1600/633806609407353705-Facepalm.jpeg

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 20^th, 2012 at 5:13am:

Yadda you are talking about freediver. He never ever answers question and instead of answering throws accusations and misquotes. He wants to reinterpret things to mean what he wants them to mean. I doubt abu or falah have said the things he says they have. SOB

No.

I think what FD wants is for persons like yourself, to state your position(s) definitively.

And not to make statements that are always ambiguous.

i.e.
So that later, you can claim that; "I never said that!"


Dictionary;
definite = =
1 clearly stated or decided; not vague or doubtful.        certain or sure about something.
2 clearly true or real.
3 having exact and discernible physical limits.



Dictionary;
ambiguous = = (of language) having more than one meaning.          unclear because not distinguishing between alternatives.

Quote:

I think what FD wants is for persons like yourself, to state your position(s) definitively.

Everything isnt black and white you know. There are shades of grey. However i have stated my positions he just doesnt like it and misquotes it trying to make it mean what he wants it to mean instead of what i have stated it means.

SOB

You have stated your opinion, then changed every one of them in the face of questioning, leaving people wondering whether you have any opinions at all, above the mindless platitudes like 'not all muslims are terrorists' or 'christians are worse than muslims' or 'all relgions are equally bad'.

Where exactly do you think the goalposts are, or were? What makes you think media self censorship is any better than personal self censorship?

Do you seriously expect us to believe that you were not referring to us personally when you were promoting self censorship in the aboriginal muslim scholars thread?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 20^th, 2012 at 11:57am:

Quote: I think what FD wants is for persons like yourself, to state your position(s) definitively. Everything isnt black and white you know. There are shades of grey. However i have stated my positions he just doesnt like it and misquotes it trying to make it mean what he wants it to mean instead of what i have stated it means. SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 20^th, 2012 at 11:57am:

Quote: I think what FD wants is for persons like yourself, to state your position(s) definitively. Everything isnt black and white you know. There are shades of grey. However i have stated my positions he just doesnt like it and misquotes it trying to make it mean what he wants it to mean instead of what i have stated it means. SOB

Another poster on OzPol recently said that;

"Truth is a philosophy, not a reality."






+++

Everything isnt black and white you know.

No.

It is about you, because you want black and white to merge [into shades of grey], for your own purposes.

But light, and darkness, are distinct.



Q.
Can light and darkness, exist together?


It is an impossibility.

Light and darkness, and, goodness and wickedness.

They are separate, and by definition, they cannot exist together in the same place.

Light and darkness, cannot exist together.

Light will drive away the darkness.

Or, the darkness will try to overwhelm and extinguish the light.

They cannot co-exist.




+++


Hey SPOT,

When i leave here, i want to live in the light.

You have to make your own choice.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

You have stated your opinion, then changed every one of them in the face of questioning, leaving people wondering whether you have any opinions at all, above the mindless platitudes like 'not all muslims are terrorists' or 'christians are worse than muslims' or 'all relgions are equally bad'. Where exactly do you think the goalposts are, or were? What makes you think media self censorship is any better than personal self censorship? Do you seriously expect us to believe that you were not referring to us personally when you were promoting self censorship in the aboriginal muslim scholars thread?

Nope. YOU have changed it. You are dishonest.

SOB

Quote:

Hey SPOT, When i leave here, i want to live in the light. You have to make your own choice.

I know how you got your name now . . . yadda yadda yadda

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 20^th, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Quote: Hey SPOT, When i leave here, i want to live in the light. You have to make your own choice. I know how you got your name now . . . yadda yadda yadda SOB

Quote:

Day after day alone on the hill, The man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still, But nobody wants to know him, They can see that he's just a fool,

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

You have stated your opinion, then changed every one of them in the face of questioning, leaving people wondering whether you have any opinions at all, above the mindless platitudes like 'not all muslims are terrorists' or 'christians are worse than muslims' or 'all relgions are equally bad'. Where exactly do you think the goalposts are, or were? What makes you think media self censorship is any better than personal self censorship? Do you seriously expect us to believe that you were not referring to us personally when you were promoting self censorship in the aboriginal muslim scholars thread?

1.      The female (a.k.a. SOB) always makes the rules.
2.      The rules are subject to change at any time without prior notification from the female (a.k.a. SOB).
3.      No one can possibly know all the rules.
4.      If the female (a.k.a. SOB) suspects that someone knows all the rules, she must immediately change some or all of the rules.
5.      SOB)  is never wrong.
6.      If SOB is wrong, it is due to a misunderstanding which was a direct result of something you did or said wrong.
7.      If Rule 6 applies, you must apologize immediately for causing the misunderstanding.
8.      SOB may change her mind at any time.
9.      No one else can ever change his mind without SOB’s written consent.
10.      SOB has every right to be angry or upset at any time.
11.      Everyone else must remain calm at all times, unless the female (a.k.a. SOB)  wants him to be angry or upset.
12.      The female (a.k.a. SOB)  must, under no circumstance, let anyone know whether or not she wants him to be angry or upset.
13.      Everyone, especially FD, is expected to mind read at all times.
14.      If the female (a.k.a. SOB) has kittens, all the rules are null and void.
15.      The female (a.k.a. SOB) is ready to answer questions when she is good 'n ready.
16.      Everyone else, especially FD, must be ready at all times.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

You have stated your opinion, then changed every one of them in the face of questioning, leaving people wondering whether you have any opinions at all, above the mindless platitudes like 'not all muslims are terrorists' or 'christians are worse than muslims' or 'all relgions are equally bad'. Where exactly do you think the goalposts are, or were? What makes you think media self censorship is any better than personal self censorship? Do you seriously expect us to believe that you were not referring to us personally when you were promoting self censorship in the aboriginal muslim scholars thread?

You are full of poo. I already explained my case and you choose to ignore it and assign your own meaning to my words. You will prolly go to hell you know. Im sure your god doesnt approve of you treating your neighbour this way.

SOB

Denying you said it is not the same as explaining your case. Contradicting yourself is not the same as explaining yourself. Accusing me of lying because I point out all the contradictions is not the same as explaining yourself.

Expecting the media to limit what they say to your version of the truth is self censorship - of the worst kind.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2012 at 6:44pm:

Denying you said it is not the same as explaining your case. Contradicting yourself is not the same as explaining yourself. Accusing me of lying because I point out all the contradictions is not the same as explaining yourself. Expecting the media to limit what they say to your version of the truth is self censorship - of the worst kind.

I have not said anything about self censorship. You have. I said they should end their fear campaign.

SOB

Quote:

I have not said anything about self censorship. You have. I said they should end their fear campaign.

Can you explain the difference between that and self censorship? Is it not self censorship if you think they should stop saying it?

Here is another example of spot 'changing his mind' about what he said. This time he claimed to be attempting irony:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1342674702/23#23

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2012 at 7:38pm:

Quote: I have not said anything about self censorship. You have. I said they should end their fear campaign. Can you explain the difference between that and self censorship? Is it not self censorship if you think they should stop saying it? Here is another example of spot 'changing his mind' about what he said. This time he claimed to be attempting irony: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1342674702/23#23

Rule 8.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2012 at 7:38pm:

Quote: I have not said anything about self censorship. You have. I said they should end their fear campaign. Can you explain the difference between that and self censorship? Is it not self censorship if you think they should stop saying it? Here is another example of spot 'changing his mind' about what he said. This time he claimed to be attempting irony: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1342674702/23#23

Did you read the speech? I bet you didnt.

SOB

Would it make a difference to whether you are calling for self censorship?

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2012 at 7:18am:

Would it make a difference to whether you are calling for self censorship?

You are a liar

SOB

Why is that? Because it is not self censorship if you really really want them to stop speaking their mind?

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2012 at 8:03am:

Why is that? Because it is not self censorship if you really really want them to stop speaking their mind?

Because you are lying about what I say and mean. Everyone knows it. Some may join in because they are dickheads but its only trolling.

As you know full well a "fear campaign" is not "speaking your mind" - it is manipulation.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21^st, 2012 at 5:15am:

freediver wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 7:38pm: Quote: I have not said anything about self censorship. You have. I said they should end their fear campaign. Can you explain the difference between that and self censorship? Is it not self censorship if you think they should stop saying it? Here is another example of spot 'changing his mind' about what he said. This time he claimed to be attempting irony: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1342674702/23#23 Did you read the speech? I bet you didnt. SOB

Rule 4

Quote:

As you know full well a "fear campaign" is not "speaking your mind" - it is manipulation.

Can you explain to me how to tell whether a person is speaking their mind or manipulating? You accuse me of lying all the time. Does that mean you don't think I am speaking my mind?

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2012 at 8:09am:

Quote: As you know full well a "fear campaign" is not "speaking your mind" - it is manipulation. Can you explain to me how to tell whether a person is speaking their mind or manipulating? You accuse me of lying all the time. Does that mean you don't think I am speaking my mind?

Do you believe your lies? Somehow i doubt it.

SOB

Should I keep saying these things, or should I self censor?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21^st, 2012 at 8:31am:

freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:09am: Quote: As you know full well a "fear campaign" is not "speaking your mind" - it is manipulation. Can you explain to me how to tell whether a person is speaking their mind or manipulating? You accuse me of lying all the time. Does that mean you don't think I am speaking my mind? Do you believe your lies? Somehow i doubt it. SOB

shouldn't that be "seemingly" I doubt it?

And anyway how can you believe lies big i big i?

brumbie wrote on Jul 21^st, 2012 at 9:34am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:31am: freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:09am: Quote: As you know full well a "fear campaign" is not "speaking your mind" - it is manipulation. Can you explain to me how to tell whether a person is speaking their mind or manipulating? You accuse me of lying all the time. Does that mean you don't think I am speaking my mind? Do you believe your lies? Somehow i doubt it. SOB shouldn't that be "seemingly" I doubt it? And anyway how can you believe lies big i big i?

Awww diddams you being left out of the convo?

SOB

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2012 at 9:18am:

Should I keep saying these things, or should I self censor?

If you were even capable of self censoring you wouldn't be such a prick. However as i have said before you have the right to say whatever the bugger you want. If you lie all the time though nobody is going to believe you. If you act like this in real life then you wont have any friends.

The media on the other hand should not be running a manipulative fear campaign.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21^st, 2012 at 9:43am:

brumbie wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:34am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:31am: freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:09am: Quote: As you know full well a "fear campaign" is not "speaking your mind" - it is manipulation. Can you explain to me how to tell whether a person is speaking their mind or manipulating? You accuse me of lying all the time. Does that mean you don't think I am speaking my mind? Do you believe your lies? Somehow i doubt it. SOB shouldn't that be "seemingly" I doubt it? And anyway how can you believe lies big i big i? Awww diddams you being left out of the convo? SOB

I had plenty of "convos" in my years in the army "diddams"..something i suspect you would preferably leave to others.

brumbie wrote on Jul 21^st, 2012 at 9:56am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:43am: brumbie wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:34am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:31am: freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:09am: Quote: As you know full well a "fear campaign" is not "speaking your mind" - it is manipulation. Can you explain to me how to tell whether a person is speaking their mind or manipulating? You accuse me of lying all the time. Does that mean you don't think I am speaking my mind? Do you believe your lies? Somehow i doubt it. SOB shouldn't that be "seemingly" I doubt it? And anyway how can you believe lies big i big i? Awww diddams you being left out of the convo? SOB I had plenty of "convos" in my years in the army "diddams"..something i suspect you would preferably leave to others.

I have to ask - WTF does that mean? Obviously those convos werent in english.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21^st, 2012 at 10:23am:

brumbie wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:56am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:43am: brumbie wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:34am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:31am: freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:09am: Quote: As you know full well a "fear campaign" is not "speaking your mind" - it is manipulation. Can you explain to me how to tell whether a person is speaking their mind or manipulating? You accuse me of lying all the time. Does that mean you don't think I am speaking my mind? Do you believe your lies? Somehow i doubt it. SOB shouldn't that be "seemingly" I doubt it? And anyway how can you believe lies big i big i? Awww diddams you being left out of the convo? SOB I had plenty of "convos" in my years in the army "diddams"..something i suspect you would preferably leave to others. I have to ask - WTF does that mean? Obviously those convos werent in english. SOB

Sometimes spot i think you and I will understand each other better if we spoke in Hebrew.

You misunderstand my points so many times in english.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21^st, 2012 at 10:26am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:23am: brumbie wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:56am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:43am: brumbie wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:34am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:31am: freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:09am: Quote: As you know full well a "fear campaign" is not "speaking your mind" - it is manipulation. Can you explain to me how to tell whether a person is speaking their mind or manipulating? You accuse me of lying all the time. Does that mean you don't think I am speaking my mind? Do you believe your lies? Somehow i doubt it. SOB shouldn't that be "seemingly" I doubt it? And anyway how can you believe lies big i big i? Awww diddams you being left out of the convo? SOB I had plenty of "convos" in my years in the army "diddams"..something i suspect you would preferably leave to others. I have to ask - WTF does that mean? Obviously those convos werent in english. SOB Sometimes spot i think you and I will understand each other better if we spoke in Hebrew. You misunderstand my points so many times in english.

Do you understand what he said?

And i understand most of your points just fine i just disagree with them. If i dont i ask you what they mean.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21^st, 2012 at 10:32am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:26am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:23am: brumbie wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:56am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:43am: brumbie wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:34am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:31am: freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:09am: Quote: As you know full well a "fear campaign" is not "speaking your mind" - it is manipulation. Can you explain to me how to tell whether a person is speaking their mind or manipulating? You accuse me of lying all the time. Does that mean you don't think I am speaking my mind? Do you believe your lies? Somehow i doubt it. SOB shouldn't that be "seemingly" I doubt it? And anyway how can you believe lies big i big i? Awww diddams you being left out of the convo? SOB I had plenty of "convos" in my years in the army "diddams"..something i suspect you would preferably leave to others. I have to ask - WTF does that mean? Obviously those convos werent in english. SOB Sometimes spot i think you and I will understand each other better if we spoke in Hebrew. You misunderstand my points so many times in english. Do you understand what he said? And i understand most of your points just fine i just disagree with them. If i dont i ask you what they mean. SOB

The bit i didnt understand was 'convo' which was what you all said and i look up and see it is shortened for conversation.

Yes I understand the rest.

He refers to the fact he has been involved in various situations in the time in the army and uses the word to mean this.

He is also meaning that you are one of the people who would not do this.

It is not a Australian thought.

I - and many of us that was in the Israeli Army - thinks the same of various civilians.
In the West Bank as example, some of the people do this. Make trouble and only shout things when we the army are there to hide behind.
Then leave us to fight their problem and put our live in the danger.

Too many people with big mouths who would not be brave enough.

This was my point to Puppet. He talks a lot and he says a lot of bad things about Israel and the Israeli army and my comrades.
He spend just 1 day with me in the West Bank and he would be a frightened child...

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21^st, 2012 at 10:23am:

brumbie wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:56am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:43am: brumbie wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:34am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:31am: freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:09am: Quote: As you know full well a "fear campaign" is not "speaking your mind" - it is manipulation. Can you explain to me how to tell whether a person is speaking their mind or manipulating? You accuse me of lying all the time. Does that mean you don't think I am speaking my mind? Do you believe your lies? Somehow i doubt it. SOB shouldn't that be "seemingly" I doubt it? And anyway how can you believe lies big i big i? Awww diddams you being left out of the convo? SOB I had plenty of "convos" in my years in the army "diddams"..something i suspect you would preferably leave to others. I have to ask - WTF does that mean? Obviously those convos werent in english. SOB

Look up "convo" with the enemy on:

Ididntgetit.com.au

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21^st, 2012 at 10:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:32am: Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:26am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:23am: brumbie wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:56am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:43am: brumbie wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:34am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:31am: freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:09am: Quote: As you know full well a "fear campaign" is not "speaking your mind" - it is manipulation. Can you explain to me how to tell whether a person is speaking their mind or manipulating? You accuse me of lying all the time. Does that mean you don't think I am speaking my mind? Do you believe your lies? Somehow i doubt it. SOB shouldn't that be "seemingly" I doubt it? And anyway how can you believe lies big i big i? Awww diddams you being left out of the convo? SOB I had plenty of "convos" in my years in the army "diddams"..something i suspect you would preferably leave to others. I have to ask - WTF does that mean? Obviously those convos werent in english. SOB Sometimes spot i think you and I will understand each other better if we spoke in Hebrew. You misunderstand my points so many times in english. Do you understand what he said? And i understand most of your points just fine i just disagree with them. If i dont i ask you what they mean. SOB The bit i didnt understand was 'convo' which was what you all said and i look up and see it is shortened for conversation. Yes I understand the rest. He refers to the fact he has been involved in various situations in the time in the army and uses the word to mean this. He is also meaning that you are one of the people who would not do this. It is not a Australian thought. I - and many of us that was in the Israeli Army - thinks the same of various civilians. In the West Bank as example, some of the people do this. Make trouble and only shout things when we the army are there to hide behind. Then leave us to fight their problem and put our live in the danger. Too many people with big mouths who would not be brave enough. This was my point to Puppet. He talks a lot and he says a lot of bad things about Israel and the Israeli army and my comrades. He spend just 1 day with me in the West Bank and he would be a frightened child...

Well. In that case brumbie would have no idea if i have ever served or not. Just a pufferfish i guess.

As for you and the israeli army - yesh im sure it makes feel you all arrogant and important and all to call an air-strike on 2 large apartment buildings but this is australia and cant do that here. PP is right about israel - they are bullies.

SOB

Quote:

This was my point to Puppet. He talks a lot and he says a lot of bad things about Israel and the Israeli army and my comrades. He spend just 1 day with me in the West Bank and he would be a frightened child...

What does this point prove exactly?
Fact is if you were in the enemies position your protocol would be to surrender and run like little babies, so obviously they are made of steel compared to you.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21^st, 2012 at 9:46am:

freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:18am: Should I keep saying these things, or should I self censor? If you were even capable of self censoring you wouldn't be such a prick. However as i have said before you have the right to say whatever the bugger you want. If you lie all the time though nobody is going to believe you. If you act like this in real life then you wont have any friends. The media on the other hand should not be running a manipulative fear campaign. SOB

Should there be rules against it?

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2012 at 1:08pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:46am: freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:18am: Should I keep saying these things, or should I self censor? If you were even capable of self censoring you wouldn't be such a prick. However as i have said before you have the right to say whatever the bugger you want. If you lie all the time though nobody is going to believe you. If you act like this in real life then you wont have any friends. The media on the other hand should not be running a manipulative fear campaign. SOB Should there be rules against it?

answer my question and *maybe* ill think about having a civil conversation about the media but i doubt it because you just twist and misquote and lie


Quote:

Do you believe your lies?

SOB

So you will only give a straight answer to a simple question after I answer an absurdly loaded question? I guess it should come as no surprise that you promote self censorship, given how reluctantly you say what you really think.

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2012 at 1:39pm:

So you will only give a straight answer to a simple question after I answer an absurdly loaded question? I guess it should come as no surprise that you promote self censorship, given how reluctantly you say what you really think.

I am not going to explain it all again. Go back and read the thread. I have not even talked about "self censorship". you have.

SOB

Should there be rules against the media "running a manipulative fear campaign"?

Soren wrote on Jul 20^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 7:38pm: Quote: I have not said anything about self censorship. You have. I said they should end their fear campaign. Can you explain the difference between that and self censorship? Is it not self censorship if you think they should stop saying it? Here is another example of spot 'changing his mind' about what he said. This time he claimed to be attempting irony: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1342674702/23#23 Rule 8.

S,

You need to include a link back, to the post with the list of the rules.      ;D

Is this twisting your words spot?


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 11:29am:

Quote: democracy and freedom Because its bullshit. Its american sloganism. Nobody in their right mind supports that. I dont care that other countries have other regimes. Some have dictators and some have monarchies and we have pointless voting between 2 equally bad parties.

I think he's probably overcompensating. I can see the hypocrisy in Holier that thou Christians and Holier than thou Muslims when they get together. I just sometimes wish they'd get a room.

No religion or ethnicity for that matter, has a monopoly on good people or bad people, and my experience is that probably all religions can have extremists as well as perfectly normal people.

It's probably fair to say that ordinary Australians have a bit of Islamophobia, and that it's spurred on by the media. For that matter, many ordinary Australians are highly suspicious of "Bible Thumpers" and "hand clappers" too.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 1:42pm:

Well theocracies imo are bad. I dont like to live in those. Nothing wrong with dictatorships and monarchies if the dictator or monarch is okay.

freediver wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 1:51pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 1:42pm: Well theocracies imo are bad. I dont like to live in those. Nothing wrong with dictatorships and monarchies if the dictator or monarch is okay.

Well whats wrong? Its not much different from when Howard was in power. He was effectively a dictator. Obviously its not okay in places where the ppl dont like it - but where they are liked. . . .

you have taken that out of all context and posted it here without airing any of your views as usual.

Whatr do you think of vietnam? They are communist and seem to be doing just fine since the west stopped interfering with them?

SOB

We defend Israel.