Ordog
The initial buttertion was "There can be no justification for people in Australia to believe it is acceptable to buttist those engaged in armed hostilities against Australian troops". David questioned this, saying that perhaps it was ok to help tohse engaged in armed hostilities against Australian troops. He though it was OK if you happened to disagree with a government's reasons. I mentioned that actively aiding those engaged in hostile actions with our troops would be traitorous. I at no stage said that this means that you cannot oppose the government, or that you must remain silent. I don't think I should bear the brunt of your inability to read, or your poor logic.
Yup, challenge them consbreastutionally, rally against them, try to make members of parliament change sides, try to get the government to change its mind. All currently available to David. It beats him helping the insurgents.
One day, when I am very old, I might finally figure out what this has to do with someone saying that helping an enemy engaged in hostile activities against our troops is an acceptable way to behave. But I have my doubts.
Please read the original post. Or given your hopeless ability to comprehend what is written, perhaps get someone to explain it to you.
Read the original post. The first phrase of your first sentence is clearly proven.
But you said "no good cause", surely his removal is a good cause. If you don't mean "no good cause" don't post it.
Ah, I get it, he saves them by advocating helping those actively militarily engaged with them. Why didn't I think of that?
Perhaps your inability to comprehend what has been written, and your determination to extrapolate from that non-existent knowledge base.
