Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

I thought this would be a good time to examine the traits and tactics of a serial liar. Fortunately, we have a moderator who is a compulsive liar and is often caught purposely falsely attributing statements to other members - and then concocting some story in which after he is exposed as lying.

Now, every once in a while, it is not uncommon to accidentally to misread a message by a poster and then address something that other poster never said. Typically when this happens, the poster who did this quickly sees his or her mistakes and acknowledges that they had simply misread or misunderstood what the other poster had written.

In the case of a serial liar, falsely attributing statements to other posters is a common tactic that they employ - often against several different members, even after their tactic is exposed.

In this thread, I'll provide a case study of the tactics of a serial liar and how a serial liar manages to spin the truth so much that their version of events has no relation to what occurred in reality.

In this thread, we see a serial liar employ their tactics very early on in a thread discussing a topic that the serial liar was clearly uncomfortable addressing:

philosophy-dubai/koranic-war-crimes-t40739.html

In that thread, the serial liar claimed that another member had said something that said member then asked the serial liar to quote said member's post to find out how exactly the serial liar arrived at the conclusion that he did. As we can see from the following post, the serial liar claimed that the other poster had suddenly claimed that it was 'ok for Israel to discriminate against Muslims'.

shafique wrote:So, it's ok for Israel to discriminate against Muslims - why am I not surprised at this answer?

You over look one fact though - when the Israelis conquered East Jerusalem in 1967, they violated international law by evicting and bulldozing the houses of the Muslims living in the Maghreb quarter. This was a war crime under the Geneva conventions- and the fact the Muslims are prevented from returning to their homes (which are now all gone) is pretty much worse than preventing Pagans from worshipping at the Kaaba (the pagans weren't deprived of their homes).

philosophy-dubai/koranic-war-crimes-t40739.html#p328808

The other poster, quite reasonably, asked the serial liar to quote him where the poster said that it was ok for Israel to discriminate against Muslims:

event horizon wrote:Quote me where I said that I don't have a problem with the Israeli government discriminating.

philosophy-dubai/koranic-war-crimes-t40739.html#p328824

Understandably, the offended party was unsure of where the in his last post that the serial liar responded to did he, in any way, say or imply that it was ok for Israel to discriminate against Muslims:

event horizon wrote:Unfortunately, your wailing wall analogy doesn't even come close to applying. Muslims do not, and never have, worshipped at the wall. If there is a ban of Muslims from worshiping (or entering the premises as the Koran actually forbids pagans from doing), that would not be comparable to the restrictions that the Koran sets on the Pagans - as their house of worship was taken from them by the Muslims and they could no longer worship there.

It really speaks volumes that you would have to resort to such a comparison (I mean, wtf). But hey, I can understand the fact that you need to create false analogies to divert from addressing the issue of whether it was a crime to prohibit the Pagans from worshiping at their holy place.

So, do you think it's a criminal act to restrict the worship of the Pagans as the Koran instructs Muslims to do?

As I asked, if Israel converted al-Aqsa mosque to a Synogogue and prevented Muslims from worshiping there (it was purposely built on the ruins of the Temple) would you consider that to be a criminal act?

philosophy-dubai/koranic-war-crimes-t40739.html#p328769

Unfortunately, but quite predictably (for a serial liar), the serial liar did *not* actually quote the portion of the post above where he believed that the other poster said it was ok for Israel to discriminate against Muslims. Instead, the serial liar shifted tactics and subsequently accused the other poster of condoning the bulldozing of Arab homes because the other poster asked the serial liar to quote the portion of his last post where the serial liar believed he supported discrimination against Arabs by the state of Israel:

shafique wrote:So, do you condemn the Israeli war crime committed when they bulldozed the Maghreb quarter and the fact they continue to deny access to the site to Muslims they evicted?

You didn't acknowledge the crime above and even seemed to argue that it was a false analogy (which is strange - as this is a thread about war crimes)

philosophy-dubai/koranic-war-crimes-t40739.html#p328828

Two things: 1) The serial liar now, out of the blue, asks the other poster to condemn actions that were never brought up nor mentioned by the other poster and 2) the serial liar further weaves his web of lies by claiming the other poster said that Israel's bulldozing of homes was a false analogy.

But, let's scroll up to verify what the other poster actually said was the false analogy:

event horizon wrote:Unfortunately, your wailing wall analogy doesn't even come close to applying. Muslims do not, and never have, worshipped at the wall. If there is a ban of Muslims from worshiping (or entering the premises as the Koran actually forbids pagans from doing), that would not be comparable to the restrictions that the Koran sets on the Pagans - as their house of worship was taken from them by the Muslims and they could no longer worship there.

Clearly, the other poster said that the wailing wall comparison brought up the serial liar was the false analogy. There is absolutely no reason to believe from the above quote that the other poster said that bulldozing homes was the false analogy. But the serial liar doesn't stop here.

The other poster then explains the facts to the serial liar in the follow-up post:

event horizon wrote:No, I argued that your wailing wall example was a false analogy. That was in the post before you even mentioned East Jerusalem.

philosophy-dubai/koranic-war-crimes-t40739.html#p328829

However, this clarification was apparently not enough. On the second page, the serial liar once AGAIN says that the other poster said that the destruction of homes was the false analogy:

serial liar wrote:I asked whether you thought Israel's war crime after the 1967 war where it bulldozed the homes of Muslims in the Maghreb quarter and still refuses them the right to return to their land was not as bad (or worse) than preventing Pagans from worshipping Idols in Mecca.

You made excuses about it not being an appropriate analogy, but did not acknowledge or condemn this war crime of the Israelis.

philosophy-dubai/koranic-war-crimes-t40739-15.html#p328946

One more time, the other poster never said that the bulldozing of homes was not a proper analogy. The other poster clearly said that the example of the wailing wall was the false analogy:

event horizon wrote:Unfortunately, your wailing wall analogy doesn't even come close to applying. Muslims do not, and never have, worshipped at the wall. If there is a ban of Muslims from worshiping (or entering the premises as the Koran actually forbids pagans from doing), that would not be comparable to the restrictions that the Koran sets on the Pagans - as their house of worship was taken from them by the Muslims and they could no longer worship there.

This was even repeated for a second time (and probably a few more times) before the serial liar repeated the same claim that the other poster not only did not say, but repeatedly clarified to the serial liar that he had never said it, on the second page of the thread:

event horizon wrote:No, I argued that your wailing wall example was a false analogy. That was in the post before you even mentioned East Jerusalem.

Amazingly, for a serial liar, repeatedly saying that something was never said and clarifying the issue, along with requesting that the serial liar quote the other poster, is not enough to jolt a serial liar back into reality.

Such a long post to some brief questions:

Is it only massacres carried out by Jewish people that you support, or do you only condemn massacres carried out by Muslims or Allah?

and

Over to you, stop whining and have the courage of your convictions and come out with with whether you condemn Israeli war crimes in the 20th century as well as supporting war crimes in antiquity.

I guess I must have struck a nerve.

I also like this one:

I really cannot see how

Is translated by Chubby into:

These are not disputed. Cool.

Fascinating.

Indeed.

Ok, to humour event, let's take another look at the exchange he refers to above and see whether the accusation of serial lying applies.

Let's start with my initial question to eh:

shafique wrote:To answer your direct question - no, I don't see the restriction of Pagans from worshipping at the Kaaba to be a war crime. Is it a war crime today that Israel does not allow Muslims to visit the wailing wall? (Or, if they do allow Muslims, would it be a war crime if they refused Arab Palestinians, say, from visiting the wall?)

However, I'm ok with you believing this was a war crime and condemning it - I'm still just flabbergasted that you don't condemn the biblical war crime referred to above.

So, a question is asked:
'Is it a war crime today...'

Do we find an answer to the question? Eg. is there a 'Yes, it is a war crime' or 'No, it is not a war crime'?

No, what we get in the next post is:

event horizon wrote:Unfortunately, your wailing wall analogy doesn't even come close to applying. ... If there is a ban of Muslims from worshiping (or entering the premises ...), that would not be comparable to the restrictions that the Koran sets on the Pagans ...

So, the question about whether it is a war crime or not is not answered - the above only says it is not an appropriate analogy in eh's opinion.

So, given the view expressed that Israelites slaughtering civilians and enslaving virgins is ok as long as 'god told them to do it', I replied with the following (and note the smiley):

So, it's ok for Israel to discriminate against Muslims - why am I not surprised at this answer?

You over look one fact though - when the Israelis conquered East Jerusalem in 1967, they violated international law by evicting and bulldozing the houses of the Muslims living in the Maghreb quarter. This was a war crime under the Geneva conventions- and the fact the Muslims are prevented from returning to their homes (which are now all gone) is pretty much worse than preventing Pagans from worshipping at the Kaaba (the pagans weren't deprived of their homes).

Will you condemn the Israeli war crimes and continued denial of Muslims to enter where they used to live?

Note the quote ends with a question. And from that point onwards, I keep (and continue) to repeat the same question.

An ad hominem attack (which is what this thread is) doesn't disguise the fact that there are some straightforward questions that aren't being answered by eh.

I guess the fact that eh has been exposed as someone who supports Al Qaeda ideology (see Fatwa thread in Politics forum) or, more surprisingly, as a religious fanatic who says Israelites killing women, babies, men and sparing only the virgins 'for themselves' is not only ok, but comparable to the work of angels!

I'd rather be called a liar (however unfairly) rather than being exposed as someone who supports the cold-blooded massacre of civilians because 'god told them to do it'. But that's just me, each has their own set of morals.

Cheers,
Shafique

FD wrote:Is translated by Chubby into:

Is shafique overweight? I can imagine he's short, but I never thought of that. Perhaps his pencil-pusher 'job' is taking a toll on his health?

shafique wrote:So, the question about whether it is a war crime or not is not answered - the above only says it is not an appropriate analogy in eh's opinion.

I agree that I didn't directly address your question whether or not taking over a religious site from other people and prohibiting them from worshiping in their former religious site is a war crime. Perhaps I should have said a criminal act, instead?

So, do you think the above is a criminal act? And let me ask you this by drawing an analogy - if Israel took over al-Aqsa mosque, converted it into a Synogogue and prevented Muslims from entering/worshiping, would that be a criminal act in your opinion? A war crime?

If so, do you join me in condemning what Allah orders in the Koran or will you hypocritically excuse this clear example of a criminal act?

shafique wrote:So, given the view expressed that Israelites slaughtering civilians and enslaving virgins is ok as long as 'god told them to do it', I replied with the following (and note the smiley):

That's the spin, now let's see the actual quote(s).

shafique wrote:Note the quote ends with a question. And from that point onwards, I keep (and continue) to repeat the same question.

Note the opening statement instead. Where did I say that it was 'ok' for Israel to discriminate against Muslims?

tick tock.

shafique wrote:An ad hominem attack (which is what this thread is) doesn't disguise the fact that there are some straightforward questions that aren't being answered by eh.

Hey, sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade. I've never encountered someone who compulsively lies as much as you do. In any event, names have been withheld to protect the identity of the participants.

Perhaps you can get around to where I said that bulldozing homes was a false analogy?

shafique wrote:You made excuses about it [bulldozing homes] not being an appropriate analogy, but did not acknowledge or condemn this war crime of the Israelis.

and

shafique wrote:So, do you condemn the Israeli war crime committed when they bulldozed the Maghreb quarter and the fact they continue to deny access to the site to Muslims they evicted?

You didn't acknowledge the crime above and even seemed to argue that it was a false analogy (which is strange - as this is a thread about war crimes)

Ok, so in which post of mine did I say that bulldozing homes was a false analogy. I thought my original post and my follow-up posts were pretty clear. But I guess I forget who I'm dealing with.

(Oh, and if the question has not been asked enough times - where did I say it was ok for Israel to discriminate against Arabs?)

Do you really think that no one will notice you are not answering the questions asked?

As I said, the questions are quite simple, as is the context in which I asked them.

Your long posts are devoid of any answers to these questions - which raises another question: are you ashamed of your views?

Cheers,
Shafique

Actually, I think any observant reader will notice that you have a habit of misrepresenting the posts of other members.

The fact that you have not addressed any of the posts or shown where I claimed that it was ok for Israel to discriminate against Muslims before you accused me of doing so, in addition to the wailing wall analogy - which you later claimed I had said that bulldozing homes was the false analogy, should highlight your compulsive habit of creating straw-men.

Yawn, please see my answer above where I repeat the questions you are still avoiding.

However, I agree observant readers can and will make up their own minds.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon wrote:Is shafique overweight?

Yes, but the name Chubby refers more to Chubby Checker.

More on topic: I believe Shafique is more of a mythomaniac. Or maybe he suffers from confabulation.

Mythomaniac - that's a good one - that's the wittiest ad hominem attack on this forum.

Shafique just needs to cut down on all the Macdos he's eating and give his legs a stretch every once in a while.

Although I don't know if much can be done to make himself taller (I picture him short). Maybe Carrefour is offering a discount in elevator shoes -

This week, specials on all elevator shoes with extra wide shoes and cushioned soles.

Especially designed for the vertically challenged man with too much baggage in the trunk

Be there if your feet can reach the gas pedal ! ! !

Oh, and I feel obligated to quote Randy Newman who once quite accurately said:

Short people got no reason
Short people got no reason
Short people got no reason
To live

They got little hands
Little eyes
They walk around
Tellin' great big lies
They got little noses
And tiny little teeth
They wear platform shoes
On their nasty little feet

Well, I don't want no short people
Don't want no short people
Don't want no short people
`Round here

Short people are just the same
As you and I
(A fool such as I)
All men are brothers
Until the day they die
(It's a wonderful world)

Short people got nobody
Short people got nobody
Short people got nobody
To love

They got little baby legs
That stand so low
You got to pick em up
Just to say hello
They got little cars
That go beep, beep, beep
They got little voices
Goin' peep, peep, peep
They got grubby little fingers
And dirty little minds
They're gonna get you every time
Well, I don't want no short people
Don't want no short people
Don't want no short people
'Round here

Whilst mildly amusing (I have young children so am used to childish humour) - I am abit worried that you are now fantasising about me being short and fat!

Don't your peers think this is a bit weird - I mean they all think about going on their first dates don't they?

Cheers
Shafique

Hey - I was just wondering if you were short or not? You've wondered if I was a single child (or something) and you followed FD onto this forum from the other one you were a moderator of. So, it seems that you take interest into the lives of others.

It is true, I have asked you whether you are an only child, pondered whether your acne has cleared up, whether you believe in Rapture, condone only massacres carried out by Israelites etc etc

So I guess I should answer the question whether I am short and fat

But I'm stll pissing myswlf with laughter at the thought that you think this may annoy rather than amuse me. What if I was short - would that explain why you can't answer my questions but have to resort to these funny threads?

How about a show and tell - tell me your height and I'll tell you whether I am shorter or taller.

Fair enough?

(I'll even give you my inside leg measurement if you can make good case for knowing this! )

Yeah - you short.

Chicken