There are some very strange views regarding balance being promoted here. Despite having a dedicated board for the discussion of Islam, run by a Muslim, certain members have a problem with all the discussion here focusing on Islam.

For example here we have John Smith complaining that I have started 1000 threads on the mistreatment of women in Islam, and no threads at all on the mistreatement of women outside of Islam.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1453237432/255#267

He claims that he is here more often than I am and has been keeping such careful track of what I do that he knows what topics I don't start threads on. He also claimed I was "spreading crap" about Islam, telling lies etc, but could not produce a single example. He suggested he would be happy if I started as many about voting rights in the vatican as I do about Islam.

He appears to have now conceded the point on thread count (or at least, changed the topic again) and moved on to making it about honesty, particularly when it comes to motivation. Despite this, he is unable to give a coherent explanation for his motivation in taking such an unusual stance on the issue, insisting repeatedly that he has already explained it (this might be a reference to him whining about thread count, accusations of lies etc, but he has not clarified).

Apparently motivated by the above thread, Bobby started this thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1454193623

According to the thread title, it is about comparing Muslims to Christians. In an apparent attempt to correct this imbalance, Bobby tried to insist that criticism of Islam should be outside the scope of the thread.

Of course, there is also Brian, who has gone quiet lately. He often insisted that we do not even have the right (or the ability) to criticise other countries or religions.

We have also had Aussie lately insisting that "sovereign rights" of foreign countries takes precedent over individual rights. This precludes any kind of interference or "telling them how to live," even in such extreme cases as Nazis gassing Jews.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/1320#1320

How did we establish democracy in Iraq, FD?

Quote:

We have also had Aussie lately insisting that "sovereign rights" of foreign countries takes precedent over individual rights. This precludes any kind of interference or "telling them how to live," even in such extreme cases as Nazis gassing Jews.

Where did I say the words "telling them how to live?"

And:

How did we establish democracy in Iraq, FD?

FD,

Quote:

According to the thread title, it is about comparing Muslims to Christians. In an apparent attempt to correct this imbalance, Bobby tried to insist that criticism of Islam should be outside the scope of the thread.

It's only one thread -
there are 100 others about Muslims directly.

In any case if someone can prove that Muslims are before the present Royal commission into child molesting
then they are free to bring that forth.

Karnal wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 1:08pm:

How did we establish democracy in Iraq, FD?

Touch'e  :)

Karnal wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 1:08pm:

How did we establish democracy in Iraq, FD?

We [Western powers] didn't establish democracy in Iraq.

Because a system of governing a society of people, like democracy, would always, always, be rejected by a people like the Iraqis.        [....mosque attending moslems]




"How did we establish democracy in Iraq, FD?"

The US got lured into Iraq [to depose Sadam Hussein].

Pre the 2003 invasion by the US and its allies, Iraqi exiles in the US convinced the Bush administration that the Iraqi people would welcome the US as their liberators.

And those Iraqi exiles encouraged the Bush administration by assuring them that that if the US deposed Sadam Hussein, then the Iraqi people would eagerly seize the opportunity to embrace liberalism and democracy.     [ < ------ which was a BIG FAT lie, perpetrated upon the Bush administration.]



The facts on the ground in Iraq were, that many political factions in Iraq pre 2003 hated Sadam Hussein's regime, but were powerless to start even an insurgency [.....because Sadam Hussein's regime were so brutal towards any prospective opposition.].

The Bush administration were extremely naive, and got 'played', by those political factions in Iraq who wanted Sadam Hussein's regime removed, and were happy to encourage the US to spend the US treasure and US blood, to accomplish that outcome.




The Bush administration got 'played' by a foreign culture, because the US accepted what they were told [by those in Iraq who opposed Sadam Hussein], as being true, and 'obvious',      ....and because the Bush administration were completely oblivious to the culture of deceit [towards all 'outsiders'] which pervades ISLAMIC culture.

Here you go Aussie. Why do you always seem to forget your own opinion?


Aussie wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 7:51pm:

Quote: First of all I think it is fairly natural to care about anyone being subjugated, and the sort of oppression faced by women in Muslim countries, and the middle east in particular, is pretty grinding. Therein lies the problem.  We are sticking our nose into the cultures of another World....and that is grinding, freediver.  It is none of our bloody business.  I'm not here to impose my beliefs on Eskimo culture either.  What gives us the right to tell the people of other Sovereign States how they must live?

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 1:43pm:

Here you go Aussie. Why do you always seem to forget your own opinion? Aussie wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 7:51pm: Quote: First of all I think it is fairly natural to care about anyone being subjugated, and the sort of oppression faced by women in Muslim countries, and the middle east in particular, is pretty grinding. Therein lies the problem.  We are sticking our nose into the cultures of another World....and that is grinding, freediver.  It is none of our bloody business.  I'm not here to impose my beliefs on Eskimo culture either.  What gives us the right to tell the people of other Sovereign States how they must live?

Oh I see.  You did not understand that I meant physical or actual imposition.

Here comes the tumbrel on its way to the market-place where the broad blade of the guillotine glints in the early morning sun, and the mob is about to go insane with blood-lust for these wretched miscreants.

The names of The Guilty are read out to the accompaniment of drum-rolls

Aussie

John Smith

Bobby

Brian ....


... and may God have mercy upon their souls.

I get it Aussie. Nazis have a sovereign right to gas Jews. We have no right to intervene. Individual rights are meaningless. It's the states that have the rights, to do whatever they want.

Y’s saying we didn’t, FD. Are you going to accept this?

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 1:59pm:

I get it Aussie. Nazis have a sovereign right to gas Jews. We have no right to intervene. Individual rights are meaningless. It's the states that have the rights, to do whatever they want.

And the Nuremberg trial rules didn't help the poor people of Rwanda.

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 1:59pm:

I get it Aussie. Nazis have a sovereign right to gas Jews. We have no right to intervene. Individual rights are meaningless. It's the states that have the rights, to do whatever they want.

I said that if gassing Jews was made legal in Germany (and I asked you and received the usual no answer ~ if you thought that was even remotely likely) we could not intervene without breaching German sovereignty.  Is that not what I said, freediver?

You also said we had not right Aussie. Do you need me to quote you again?

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 2:10pm:

You also said we had not right Aussie. Do you need me to quote you again?

I would not at all be surprised that I said we had no right......without breaching sovereignty, did I not?

I recall that you included a reference to sovereignty in some of your posts.

If you have a point to make Aussie, I suggest you make it. If you want to retract your claim, retract it.

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 2:33pm:

I recall that you included a reference to sovereignty in some of your posts. If you have a point to make Aussie, I suggest you make it. If you want to retract your claim, retract it.

I've made my point, and have nothing to detract.  You, on the other hand, have misrepresented what I said.

Are you trying to qualify your "no right" BS?

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 3:16pm:

Are you trying to qualify your "no right" BS?

No.

So you think we have no right to interfere with Nazis gassing Jews?

And Nazis have a sovereign right to gas Jews?

And the right of Jews to not be gassed does not exist?

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 3:32pm:

So you think we have no right to interfere with Nazis gassing Jews? And Nazis have a sovereign right to gas Jews? And the right of Jews to not be gassed does not exist?

We have been over this ground, and no matter how many times you ask, the answer will be the same.  (Have you noticed that I give you the courtesy of answering your posts?)

If Germany made the gassing of Jews legal (and by what remote chance do you think that might happen) we have no right to interfere (physically, i.e., militarily) in Germany without breaching German sovereignty.  How many times must I say that, freediver?

http://i473.photobucket.com/albums/rr96/Herbert_04/aussie.png

I am trying to figure out why you seem to be qualifying it with the bit about breaching sovereignty. Isn't that like saying I have no right to remove someone's head without killing them?

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 3:52pm:

I am trying to figure out why you seem to be qualifying it with the bit about breaching sovereignty. Isn't that like saying I have no right to remove someone's head without killing them?

Only in a confused mind.

How much clearer can I make it freediver.  If I am going to impose my belief on any State, I cannot effectively do so without breaching its soveregnty.

I can hold my breath, go blue in the face, make railing speeches at the UN, even get a UN resolution (what chance is there of that if say, China is the relevant State) to send in the troops if that State does not bow to my will, (i.e.......I have to impose it) but....to act physically, i.e. militarily to do so is a breach of the State's sovereignty.  What is so hard about that, freediver.

Quote:

If I am going to impose my belief on any State, I cannot effectively do so without breaching its soveregnty.

That at least makes sense Aussie. Likewise I can not effectively remove someone's head without killing them. This, however, has nothing to do with a concept of rights.

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 4:33pm:

Quote: If I am going to impose my belief on any State, I cannot effectively do so without breaching its soveregnty. That at least makes sense Aussie. Likewise I can not effectively remove someone's head without killing them. This, however, has nothing to do with a concept of rights.

Now, it makes sense after having explained it like I should not have to, to an adult!  And yeas, your head/kill rubbish had nothing to do with the subject, hence I dismissed it.

Things that make sense to Aussie:

I have no right to fall over without hitting the ground.

I have no right to get back up without getting off the ground.

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 4:44pm:

Things that make sense to Aussie: I have no right to fall over without hitting the ground. I have no right to get back up without getting off the ground.

I'm convinced that has some relevance to sovereign rights..........somewhere in a confused mind.

Why do you qualify your statement with "without interfering with their sovereign rights"? Does that mean we do have the right to do it if we interfere with their sovereign rights, or is this just an attempt to justify yourself?

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 4:51pm:

Why do you qualify your statement with "without interfering with their sovereign rights"? Does that mean we do have the right to do it if we interfere with their sovereign rights, or is this just an attempt to justify yourself?

I do not have to justify anything except to myself.  I qualify it, because my opinion/position includes the qualification, one you acknowledge but you just find to be an inconvenience to your position.


Quote:

If I am going to impose my belief on any State, I cannot effectively do so without breaching its soveregnty. I can hold my breath, go blue in the face, make railing speeches at the UN, even get a UN resolution (what chance is there of that if say, China is the relevant State) to send in the troops if that State does not bow to my will, (i.e.......I have to impose it) but....to act physically, i.e. militarily to do so is a breach of the State's sovereignty.

That there is a brick wall you are pointlessly butting your head against.

Quote:

I qualify it

You just explained earlier it is not a qualification.


Quote:

because my opinion/position includes the qualification, one you acknowledge but you just find to be an inconvenience to your position.

It is not inconvenient Aussie. It is ambiguous. Let me dumb it down a bit more. It could mean one of two things:

It is not possible to interfere in another state without undermining their sovereignty (duh).

We do not have the right to interfere because it would undermine their sovereignty.

Do you understand the difference? Which position are you taking?

It is not ambiguous at all freediver, and I will not allow you to strawman my position which is:


Quote:

If I am going to impose my belief on any State, I cannot effectively do so without breaching its soveregnty. I can hold my breath, go blue in the face, make railing speeches at the UN, even get a UN resolution (what chance is there of that if say, China is the relevant State) to send in the troops if that State does not bow to my will, (i.e.......I have to impose it) but....to act physically, i.e. militarily to do so is a breach of the State's sovereignty.

So now your position completely excludes any statements regarding rights? That is not qualification Aussie. That is backpedaling.

Would I be strawmaning you if I quoted your previous statements about rights?

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 5:35pm:

So now your position completely excludes any statements regarding rights? That is not qualification Aussie. That is backpedaling. Would I be strawmaning you if I quoted your previous statements about rights?

Go right ahead.  Nothing I have said is different from this:


Quote:

If I am going to impose my belief on any State, I cannot effectively do so without breaching its soveregnty. I can hold my breath, go blue in the face, make railing speeches at the UN, even get a UN resolution (what chance is there of that if say, China is the relevant State) to send in the troops if that State does not bow to my will, (i.e.......I have to impose it) but....to act physically, i.e. militarily to do so is a breach of the State's sovereignty.

OK, back to page 1 for Aussie. You said this:


Aussie wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 7:51pm:

Quote: First of all I think it is fairly natural to care about anyone being subjugated, and the sort of oppression faced by women in Muslim countries, and the middle east in particular, is pretty grinding. Therein lies the problem.  We are sticking our nose into the cultures of another World....and that is grinding, freediver.  It is none of our bloody business.  I'm not here to impose my beliefs on Eskimo culture either.  What gives us the right to tell the people of other Sovereign States how they must live?

Can you tell the difference Aussie?

Or to dumb it down for you, can you tell the difference between these two statements?

It is not possible to interfere in another state without undermining their sovereignty (duh).

We do not have the right to interfere because it would undermine their sovereignty.

You have already been to that point, freediver and I responded with the obvious:


Quote:

Oh I see.  You did not understand that I meant physical or actual imposition.

Why do you ignore what I say?  You are, as I have already said, and it will be obvious to anyone reading, misrepresenting my position.  Which is:


Quote:

If I am going to impose my belief on any State, I cannot effectively do so without breaching its soveregnty. I can hold my breath, go blue in the face, make railing speeches at the UN, even get a UN resolution (what chance is there of that if say, China is the relevant State) to send in the troops if that State does not bow to my will, (i.e.......I have to impose it) but....to act physically, i.e. militarily to do so is a breach of the State's sovereignty.

I am not ignoring what you say Aussie. I am trying to get you to understand the question (or at least, stop deflecting). Try taking it at face value.

Can you tell the difference between these two statements?

It is not possible to interfere in another state without undermining their sovereignty (duh).

We do not have the right to interfere because it would undermine their sovereignty.

Whether I do or not is beside the point.  This is my position, and no matter how many times you ask, you will get the response:


Quote:

If I am going to impose my belief on any State, I cannot effectively do so without breaching its soveregnty. I can hold my breath, go blue in the face, make railing speeches at the UN, even get a UN resolution (what chance is there of that if say, China is the relevant State) to send in the troops if that State does not bow to my will, (i.e.......I have to impose it) but....to act physically, i.e. militarily to do so is a breach of the State's sovereignty.

Quote:

Whether I do or not is beside the point.

It is the entire point. If you cannot understand the distinction, how do you know if you have clarified your position? I have never seen anyone argue that being able to comprehend a discussion is not necessary t participate in it.

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 1:07pm:

For example here we have John Smith complaining that I have started 1000 threads on the mistreatment of women in Islam, and no threads at all on the mistreatement of women outside of Islam.

you claiming your issue was the mistreatment of women. I don't believe you, you simply use the mistreatment of women as an excuse to attack Islam. Any reasonable person who really had an issue with the mistreatment of women, wouldn't limit it to cases involving Islam only.


freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 1:07pm:

Despite having a dedicated board for the discussion of Islam

have you a board dedicated to Catholicism? Or Buddist? What about Hindu?


freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 1:07pm:

He claims that he is here more often than I am and has been keeping such careful track of what I do that he knows what topics I don't start threads on.

No, I said that I've been on here most days since I've joined, which is probably more than you, and I've never seen you start a thread on women's right other than as an attack on women. You of course could have put up links to all these threads you made defending womens rights against anyone other than Islam?


freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 1:07pm:

He appears to have now conceded the point on thread count (or at least, changed the topic again) and moved on to making it about honesty, particularly when it comes to motivation.

It was always about honesty ... that you fail to realise that speaks volumes



WHile we're at it, why do you feel the need to deliberately misrepresent what people say? Are you that scared that your own arguments won't stack up that you resort to these school yard tactics?

Quote:

you claiming your issue was the mistreatment of women. I don't believe you

That's nice John. Any particular reason?


Quote:

Any reasonable person who really had an issue with the mistreatment of women, wouldn't limit it to cases involving Islam only.

Have you established that is the case, or is this another case of you simply believing whatever you want to believe?

In fact I can recall cases where I have criticised the mistreatment of Muslim women by non-Muslim governments. How does that fit in with your "I don't believe you" bullshit?


Quote:

No, I said that I've been on here most days since I've joined, which is probably more than you, and I've never seen you start a thread on women's right other than as an attack on women.

You'll have to explain that for for the less apologetic among us.


Quote:

It was always about honesty ... that you fail to realise that speaks volumes

So why did you whine about the number of threads? Could you not think of a better excuse at the time?

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 7:20pm:

Quote: Whether I do or not is beside the point. It is the entire point. If you cannot understand the distinction, how do you know if you have clarified your position? I have never seen anyone argue that being able to comprehend a discussion is not necessary t participate in it.

Simple.  I do not have a confused mind.

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 7:47pm:

Any particular reason?

go back and read the other thread


freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 7:47pm:

In fact I can recall cases where I have criticised the mistreatment of Muslim women by non-Muslim governments. How does that fit in with your "I don't believe you" bullshit?

I don't believe you, bullshit

Quote:

Simple.  I do not have a confused mind.

Let's not complicate things Aussie. Try to figure out the difference between these two statements:

It is not possible to interfere in another state without undermining their sovereignty (duh).

We do not have the right to interfere because it would undermine their sovereignty.


Quote:

go back and read the other thread

Oh, you mean that one. I read it, and it proves that you deflect whenever you are shown wanting.


Quote:

I don't believe you, bullshit

You like to put yourself out on a limb, then saw it off, don't you John? Do you recall responding to a thread I recently started by saying how surprised you are and how you had misjudged me?

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 8:39pm:

Quote: Simple.  I do not have a confused mind. Let's not complicate things Aussie. Try to figure out the difference between these two statements: It is not possible to interfere in another state without undermining their sovereignty (duh). We do not have the right to interfere because it would undermine their sovereignty. [quote]go back and read the other thread

Oh, you mean that one. I read it, and it proves that you deflect whenever you are shown wanting.


Quote:

I don't believe you, bullshit

You like to put yourself out on a limb, then saw it off, don't you John? Do you recall responding to a thread I recently started by saying how surprised you are and how you had misjudged me?[/quote]

I don't need to freediver, and neither is it relevant.  This is my position:


Quote:

If I am going to impose my belief on any State, I cannot effectively do so without breaching its soveregnty. I can hold my breath, go blue in the face, make railing speeches at the UN, even get a UN resolution (what chance is there of that if say, China is the relevant State) to send in the troops if that State does not bow to my will, (i.e.......I have to impose it) but....to act physically, i.e. militarily to do so is a breach of the State's sovereignty.

Butt your head against that brick wall as much as you like.

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 8:39pm:

Oh, you mean that one. I read it, and it proves that you deflect whenever you are shown wanting.

deflect? at least you recognise why you kept repeating the same questions over and over.


freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 8:39pm:

Do you recall responding to a thread I recently started by saying how surprised you are and how you had misjudged me?

vaguely, and I don't remember the context  ... I did ask you to put up links proving me wrong. You've yet to do so

Aussie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 7:02pm:

Whether I do or not is beside the point.  This is my position, and no matter how many times you ask, you will get the response: Quote: If I am going to impose my belief on any State, I cannot effectively do so without breaching its sovereignty. I can hold my breath, go blue in the face, make railing speeches at the UN, even get a UN resolution (what chance is there of that if say, China is the relevant State) to send in the troops if that State does not bow to my will, (i.e.......I have to impose it) but....to act physically, i.e. militarily to do so is a breach of the State's sovereignty.

Dear Aussie,
Which is true & it worked well at the Nuremberg trials
when Germany was defeated.
The principle was clear - a country has no right to murder
6 million Jews and 6 million other people in gas chambers.

However it has been shown to not work in the case of Rwanda
& many other countries since WW2.

For a start - the 5 main powers can each veto any UN action.

A country can have it's sovereignty breached if the UN votes for it
& all the 5 powers refrain from vetoing.

That's the law  -  & Aussie - you should know that being an ex lawyer.

Bobby.  I am not an 'ex lawyer.'  Unless some bastard non lawyer has taken over this account, I still am a lawyer. I am retired, not 'ex.'

Aussie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 10:38pm:

Bobby.  I am not an 'ex lawyer.'  Unless some bastard non lawyer has taken over this account, I still am a lawyer. I am retired, not 'ex.'

Well - a retired lawyer should know the simple international law that I outlined above.

Bobby, do you see the problem here?  (There are others in what you have said, but this will do for the moment.)


Quote:

For a start - the 5 main powers can each veto any UN action. A country can have it's sovereignty breached if the UN votes for it & all the 5 powers refrain from vetoing.

Pssst................the veto power only needs one to vote against.

If one of them was under the pump, what do you reckon would be the outcome?

Aussie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 10:42pm:

Bobby, do you see the problem here?  (There are others in what you have said, but this will do for the moment.) Quote: For a start - the 5 main powers can each veto any UN action. A country can have it's sovereignty breached if the UN votes for it & all the 5 powers refrain from vetoing. Pssst................the veto power only needs one to vote against. If one of them was under the pump, what do you reckon would be the outcome?

A veto.

This law sidesteps all of the silly arguments between you & FD.

Yeas Bobby, that is what I have already posted.

Aussie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 10:49pm:

Yeas Bobby, that is what I have already posted.

It means that only 5 countries in the world have actual sovereignty:

China
Russia
France
England
USA

Cmon guys, freediver is the most balanced member on this forum.

Just this year alone he started 5 threads about islam but none about any other religion.

See everyone, he is fair and balanced.

wally1 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:31am:

Cmon guys, freediver is the most balanced member on this forum. Just this year alone he started 5 threads about islam but none about any other religion. See everyone, he is fair and balanced.

Yes, Wally, but FD does this to uphold women's rights. FD has always stood up for oppressed women in Islamic societies.

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 7:47pm:

In fact I can recall cases where I have criticised the mistreatment of Muslim women by non-Muslim governments. How does that fit in with your "I don't believe you" bullshit?

It doesn't. You haven't.

wally1 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:31am:

Cmon guys, freediver is the most balanced member on this forum. Just this year alone he started 5 threads about islam but none about any other religion. See everyone, he is fair and balanced.

weren't you paying attention, they weren't about Islam, they were about women's rights!

John Smith wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:28am:

wally1 wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:31am: Cmon guys, freediver is the most balanced member on this forum. Just this year alone he started 5 threads about islam but none about any other religion. See everyone, he is fair and balanced. weren't you paying attention, they weren't about Islam, they were about women's rights!

Yeah non muslim womens rights.

Freediver is so balanced, he was on a Aussie AFL forum few years ago trying to push his anti islam agenda, naming his topic "islam and australian values".

Google it yourselves

wally1 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 10:18am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:28am: wally1 wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:31am: Cmon guys, freediver is the most balanced member on this forum. Just this year alone he started 5 threads about islam but none about any other religion. See everyone, he is fair and balanced. weren't you paying attention, they weren't about Islam, they were about women's rights! Yeah non muslim womens rights. Freediver is so balanced, he was on a Aussie AFL forum few years ago trying to push his anti islam agenda, naming his topic "islam and australian values". Google it yourselves

Wow. The mind boggles at the lengths FD will go to support women's rights.

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 1:07pm:

There are some very strange views regarding balance being promoted here. Despite having a dedicated board for the discussion of Islam, run by a Muslim, certain members have a problem with all the discussion here focusing on Islam. For example here we have John Smith complaining that I have started 1000 threads on the mistreatment of women in Islam, and no threads at all on the mistreatement of women outside of Islam. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1453237432/255#267 He claims that he is here more often than I am and has been keeping such careful track of what I do that he knows what topics I don't start threads on. He also claimed I was "spreading crap" about Islam, telling lies etc, but could not produce a single example. He suggested he would be happy if I started as many about voting rights in the vatican as I do about Islam. He appears to have now conceded the point on thread count (or at least, changed the topic again) and moved on to making it about honesty, particularly when it comes to motivation. Despite this, he is unable to give a coherent explanation for his motivation in taking such an unusual stance on the issue, insisting repeatedly that he has already explained it (this might be a reference to him whining about thread count, accusations of lies etc, but he has not clarified). Apparently motivated by the above thread, Bobby started this thread: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1454193623 According to the thread title, it is about comparing Muslims to Christians. In an apparent attempt to correct this imbalance, Bobby tried to insist that criticism of Islam should be outside the scope of the thread. Of course, there is also Brian, who has gone quiet lately. He often insisted that we do not even have the right (or the ability) to criticise other countries or religions. We have also had Aussie lately insisting that "sovereign rights" of foreign countries takes precedent over individual rights. This precludes any kind of interference or "telling them how to live," even in such extreme cases as Nazis gassing Jews. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/1320#1320

Why is there no christianity forum FD? Could it be there just isn't the demand for Christian bashing as there is for Islam bashing? Only FD could bring up the existence of an Islam forum as evidence that there is "balance" here  ;D

If you honestly can't see the issue here then you have trully become blinded by your anti-Islam obsession. Look back at your pre-2007 contributions and see how different you were - how back then you felt it was important to take issue with Sprint and other's "ban them, kill them, nuke them" mantra. Now you completely ignore it, sometimes even pretending you don't even realise it is being said. Barely a day goes by where a story isn't posted about Islam that turns out to be based wholly or heavily on lies. This stuff used to matter to you, but now you just bypass it altogether an hone in solely on the Islamic "spineless apologetics".

You have turned into the very thing you used to rail against.

John Smith wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 10:18pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 8:39pm: Oh, you mean that one. I read it, and it proves that you deflect whenever you are shown wanting. deflect? at least you recognise why you kept repeating the same questions over and over. freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 8:39pm: Do you recall responding to a thread I recently started by saying how surprised you are and how you had misjudged me? vaguely, and I don't remember the context  ... I did ask you to put up links proving me wrong. You've yet to do so

So you accuse me of starting too many threads, then backpedal on whether that is a bad thing, then accuse me of lying and "spreading crap" about Islam, without being able to produce a single example to back this up (yes you did give an example, but it does not support you).... and now you fall back to accusing me of not posting things, which is pretty much impossible for you to back up, and it is my job to produce the evidence?

Have you ever considered limiting your criticism to things people actually post?

The jig's up, FD. Looks like the board's finally caught on.

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 12:16pm:

So you accuse me of starting too many threads, then backpedal on whether that is a bad thing,

who backpeddled? I stand by my claim. You use womens rights as an EXCUSE to get some cheap shots in against Islam.


freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 12:16pm:

hen accuse me of lying and "spreading crap" about Islam, without being able to produce a single example to back this up (yes you did give an example, but it does not support you).

yes, it does support me. That you don't agree is irrelevant.


freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 12:16pm:

and now you fall back to accusing me of not posting things, which is pretty much impossible for you to back up, and it is my job to produce the evidence?

wow ..... you're really struggling aren't you? You claim you started thread supporting womens rights that aren't an attack on Islam, it's up to you to prove. Not me. I certainly don't recall seeing  any. You even have a members board called "WOMENS ISSUES"  ... when was the last time you posted in it? ohh wait, you haven't!  :D :D :D

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 12:16pm:

Have you ever considered limiting your criticism to things people actually post?

;D ;D ;D look who's talking.

Quote:

Why is there no christianity forum FD? Could it be there just isn't the demand for Christian bashing as there is for Islam bashing?

I think that tends to default to Sprint's board.


Quote:

Only FD could bring up the existence of an Islam forum as evidence that there is "balance" here

Do you think we need to start an equal number of threads about every other religion in an effort to achieve balance?


Quote:

who backpeddled? I stand by my claim. You use womens rights as an EXCUSE to get some cheap shots in against Islam.

So what would it take to achieve balance John? An equal number of threads about every other religion? Or only Catholicism? Do you think our newspapers are imbalanced because they report far more Islamic terrorism than any other kind?


Quote:

yes, it does support me. That you don't agree is irrelevant.

No it does not. And yes it is relevant.


Quote:

wow ..... you're really struggling aren't you? You claim you started thread supporting womens rights that aren't an attack on Islam, it's up to you to prove. Not me. I certainly don't recall seeing  any. You even have a members board called "WOMENS ISSUES"  ... when was the last time you posted in it? ohh wait, you haven't!

Right after you present this crap and lies you accuse me of posting about Islam, and the 1000 or so threads you accuse me of starting about islam and women's rights.

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:58pm:

Quote: Why is there no christianity forum FD? Could it be there just isn't the demand for Christian bashing as there is for Islam bashing? I think that tends to default to Sprint's board. [quote]Only FD could bring up the existence of an Islam forum as evidence that there is "balance" here

Do you think we need to start an equal number of threads about every other religion in an effort to achieve balance?


Quote:

who backpeddled? I stand by my claim. You use womens rights as an EXCUSE to get some cheap shots in against Islam.

So what would it take to achieve balance John? An equal number of threads about every other religion? Or only Catholicism? Do you think our newspapers are imbalanced because they report far more Islamic terrorism than any other kind?


Quote:

yes, it does support me. That you don't agree is irrelevant.

No it does not. And yes it is relevant.


Quote:

wow ..... you're really struggling aren't you? You claim you started thread supporting womens rights that aren't an attack on Islam, it's up to you to prove. Not me. I certainly don't recall seeing  any. You even have a members board called "WOMENS ISSUES"  ... when was the last time you posted in it? ohh wait, you haven't!

Right after you present this crap and lies you accuse me of posting about Islam, and the 1000 or so threads you accuse me of starting about islam and women's rights.[/quote]

"Our newspapers"? Which newspapers would they be, FD?. I’m curious.

I’m.also keen to know what you mean by terrorism.

Cheers.

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:58pm:

I think that tends to default to Sprint's board.

Spirituality? why doesn't Islam default to that board?


freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:58pm:

Do you think we need to start an equal number of threads about every other religion in an effort to achieve balance?

do you think repeating the same question repeatedly helps your cause?


freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:58pm:

So what would it take to achieve balance John?

something you don't have


freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:58pm:

Do you think our newspapers are imbalanced because they report far more Islamic terrorism than any other kind?

newspapers don't claim to be balanced.


freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:58pm:

Right after you present this crap and lies you accuse me of posting about Islam

you mean present you with MORE LIES


'they are forming a protective circle, otherwise known as 'taharrush gamea', around these women.'

lets keep in mind you were referring to a particular photo.

Quote:

do you think repeating the same question repeatedly helps your cause?

You imply that you stand by your whining about thread count. Do you?


Quote:

newspapers don't claim to be balanced.

I was asking what you claim John. Would they have to publish an equal number of articles about catholic terrorism as they do about Islamic terrorism in order to be balanced? Where do you get this idiotic notion about the number of threads from?


Quote:

lets keep in mind you were referring to a particular photo.

So out of the two examples you have rpesented of my lies, one was a rather benign question directed at you, and the other was obviously a joke. Try again John.

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:28pm:

So out of the two examples you have rpesented of my lies, one was a rather benign question directed at you, and the other was obviously a joke.

that's your excuse?  ;D ;D ;D

no FD, it's you who needs to try again.

Gandalf will back me up on my stance on the burqa.