Society & Culture The "untouchables" of society!

[catman 71]

Will they ever be prosecuted for war crimes. NO



You may have missed the news,but one was hanged and the other was murdered without trial.



Osama never funded this by himself, was aided and abetted by other governments.



Are you a believer in the "they hate our freedoms" crap? And what are the horrid falsehoods that the leftist media have been telling me?



I'm the type of guy that thinks Churchill ****** Australia over more than once and considered this country dispensable. Hitler was a dangerous twat who gained power thanks to rightwing dolts like yourself. I'm sure your views on muslims and his on jews have much in common.





I'm the type of guy that comes when you leave
I'm doin your girlfriend, that's somethin you can't believe
Cause I'm that type of guy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Idiot!

 

[catman 71]

Didn't take long to see the crazy right-winger in the OP come out. Big fan of Fox News I'm guessing.

As opposed to a "Saddam sympathiser" like a lot of you!

You leftists DEFEND the actions of a piece of trash like Saddam Hussein (who killed his own people, as well as Kuwaitis and Kurds), and also someone who financed terrorist attacks (Osama Bin Laden). But because the American left-wing media is so corrupt, they create lies to make Saddam and Bin Laden look harmless, and most Americans don't care about anyone other than themselves, so don't care if some Kurds or Kuwaitis die.

If you don't like how America does things, move to Iraq or Afghanistan. See how far you could have criticized the govt then.

No. The biggest untouchables are the evil media who peddle lies, and an ungrateful, judgemental public who think only how they can get ahead, and no longer care about the good of the country.

But all this is lost on you, because anyone who is a defender of Saddam and Bin Laden, is too stupid to talk sense into.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

No. The biggest untouchables are the evil media who peddle lies, and an ungrateful, judgemental public who think only how they can get ahead, and no longer care about the good of the country

Man, never thought the day would come when I'd say to myself, "yeah, Catman71 has just made a semi rational comment"

 

[Mofra]

You leftists DEFEND the actions of a piece of trash like Saddam Hussein (who killed his own people, as well as Kuwaitis and Kurds), and also someone who financed terrorist attacks (Osama Bin Laden).

Care to back that statement up with quoting anyone here defending their actions?

 

[Schulzenfest]

Care to back that statement up with quoting anyone here defending their actions?

Being able to actually back up statements is the Achilles heel of guys like catman. He'd be an excellent talk radio host or Fox News contributor though.

 

[Tex_21]

catman, I find Andrew Bolt far too much of a bleeding heart leftist, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. How would I do so?

 

[catman 71]

Being able to actually back up statements is the Achilles heel of guys like catman. He'd be an excellent talk radio host or Fox News contributor though.

By having pictures about "war criminals" and showing Bush and Obama, and omitting Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, speaks volumes.

The fact is, no-one has condemned Saddam or Osama's actions either. Yet I see multiple posts about how the U.S. government is responsible for 9/11.

I notice that, even now, you don't criticize these terrorist actions, but say that I must back-up what I say.

So, I ask, do you include Saddam Huseein and Osama Bin Laden as "war crinimals" or not? Simple question.

It is interesting that Bush and others have never had to face a "war trial", but Saddam Hussein did? But you will just say that the U.S. twisted things to protect the president. Again with the conspiracy theories.

I suppouse that you thought that Nazis shouldn't have faced war trials either?

 

[Tex_21]

ITT: Unfallible logic.

 

[rickyp]

This catman guy is quite the read.

Also, I bet Saddam was a great guy, did you ever meet him? If not, how can you judge him so readily?

 

[Messenger]

By having pictures about "war criminals" and showing Bush and Obama, and omitting Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, speaks volumes.

The fact is, no-one has condemned Saddam or Osama's actions either. Yet I see multiple posts about how the U.S. government is responsible for 9/11.

I notice that, even now, you don't criticize these terrorist actions, but say that I must back-up what I say.

So, I ask, do you include Saddam Huseein and Osama Bin Laden as "war crinimals" or not? Simple question.

It is interesting that Bush and others have never had to face a "war trial", but Saddam Hussein did? But you will just say that the U.S. twisted things to protect the president. Again with the conspiracy theories.

I suppouse that you thought that Nazis shouldn't have faced war trials either?

What utter crap. Without a clear repudiation of someone's actions they tacitly agree with them?

Just stop. I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[Baldur]

I think if an injustice occurs the media are pretty quick to make it aware to the public. This was evident in the Ramage case which saw the defence of provocation invalid as a result of numerous pressures.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Provoked-wife-killer-gets-11-years/2004/12/09/1102182402208.html

Judges are in a reasonably informed position, often having many years of experience and the necessary legal knowledge to make such decisions. Some may decided to adopt a law making role through interpretation and precedent or others may choose to take a conservative approach and believe it is their responsibility to merely apply the law that presents them.

So really, judges rarely are needed to be scrutinised or made accountable for their actions/decisions. They have many years of experience and the relevant knowledge needed to apply the law. If an injustice does occur, there are always various interest groups, the media, formal law reform bodies and parliament, all of which can effectively make their rulings accountable.

Nevertheless there remains a core of judical officers which refuse to do their job properly. But as long as they turn up, do not go to sleep, & give judgments, regardless of how poor those judgments are they stay in their job.

I can think of a number in the NSW courts of which the Appeal Court is quite savage in their comments about them. But they continue to act as they see fit. So judges are unaccountable as long as they have thick skin and do not care what other judges say about them.

 

[Tex_21]

What utter crap. Without a clear repudiation of someone's actions they tacitly agree with them?

Just stop. I'm embarrassed for you.

Don;t make him stop. He is merely expressing a valid opinion, and if you made him stop it would be impeding his freedom of speech, and our freedom to hear an idiot speak.

 

[Caesar]

I agree. I haven't yet seen catman condemn Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Pope Sixtus IV, Ferdinand of Aragon, Custer, Ivan the Terrible or Andy Capp. He needs to come back and justify his sickening cheerleading for these contemptible despots.

 

[Tex_21]

I think Custer gets a bad rap really. Clearly one of the greatest military minds of all history. The way he bravely led men, armed with far superior weapons and technology nobly to defeat at the hands of those with far more ancient weaponry is the stuff legends are made of.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Must be a troll, otherwise would fit in well as regular commenter on the HUN or Perth Now websites.

 

[Username_lost]

Artists are by nature non-conformist and unemployable, thus accountable to nobody.

 

[Daytripper]

Artists are by nature non-conformist and unemployable, thus accountable to nobody.

Hang on - Catman has a point here.

Why are there multiple posts criticising Bush and Howard yet nobody says boo about Hussein or Bin Laden or Jong or any of the other true terror merchants out these?

It stinks of hypocricy.

Its exactly the same as those who tee off at Catholicism and Judaism but won't say anything about Islam ?

And on this which relates to thread topic - why do the gay marriage lobby perpetually target the western religions when they know full well that Islam is the most homophobic religion out there - and by a long way. Why does it get a leave pass?
In fact Islam is by and large immune to criticism in the Western media these days. Say what you want about their methods but it certainly seems to have worked.

 

[Tex_21]

The gay lobby likely target Christianity and Judaism more than Islam in Western society because they realise those religions (Christianity in particular) are far more powerful lobbies than Islam is, and if they can mitigate the impact of religious-backed bigotry from the most powerful sources, they are more likely to achieve their goals of equality.

In the same vein, if Essendon were to play Geelong this week again, would you spend time trying to negate Jordan Murdoch or Joel Selwood?

There are plenty of places Hussein, Bin Laden, the Kim Dynasty, Ahmadinejhad, Mugabe et al have been widely criticised (mainstream media might be a good place to start looking), and rightly so. I guess some people just feel that Bush etc are deserving of some heat too.

 

[Daytripper]

The gay lobby likely target Christianity and Judaism more than Islam in Western society because they realise those religions (Christianity in particular) are far more powerful lobbies than Islam is, and if they can mitigate the impact of religious-backed bigotry from the most powerful sources, they are more likely to achieve their goals of equality.

I think we both know that the reason the gay lobby avoid attacking Islam is because there will be consequences for doing so. Kudos to them - I don't believe in their methods but they have got everyone shite scared to say anything these days.

Probably 90% plus of Muslims are anti-homosexual whilst most Catholics/Christians etc couldn't care less except for perhaps a hard core of about 10% or so. So the numbers argument doesn't really stack up.

 

[Tex_21]

I think we both know that the reason the gay lobby avoid attacking Islam is because there will be consequences for doing so. Kudos to them - I don't believe in their methods but they have got everyone shite scared to say anything these days.

Probably 90% plus of Muslims are anti-homosexual whilst most Catholics/Christians etc couldn't care less except for perhaps a hard core of about 10% or so. So the numbers argument doesn't really stack up.

Ignoring the old saying, "Never argue with a fool, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience", I'll point out that you've misunderstood my argument completely (and totally misrepresented Islamic people too). Firstly, do you know any Muslims? Personally never met a Muslim who has any problem with homosexuals, from an admittedly small sample size. To say 90%+ of Muslims are anti-gay is a massive generalisation, and incorrect. Agreed, the fundamentalists are anti-gay (this is also true of most of the 'older' religions), and there may (I haven't seen the stats) be a greater proportion of fundamentalists in Islam than in Christianity, at least in Australia (the US is a different case, where a recent Gallup poll showed that 46% of those surveyed believed in 'intelligent design', and there is a strong fundamentalist christian society that is certainly anti-gay, often represented in the Republican party), but to argue that over 90% of Muslims are anti-gay is garbage rhetoric, and impossible to use in any coherent argument.

The 'numbers argument' as you've called it, is not a 'numbers argument' at all, but one of influence. Who do you think has more influence on politicians in Western nations? A body such as the ACL, or some similiar Islamic body (such as the Islamic Council)? It's a simple decision that you target your resources where the best payoff is - in the West that is toward religions like Christianity, which are the most prominent opponents of things such as gay marriage.

 

[Caesar]

Probably 90% plus of Muslims are anti-homosexual whilst most Catholics/Christians etc couldn't care less except for perhaps a hard core of about 10% or so. So the numbers argument doesn't really stack up.

Are you intentionally trying to be ironic? Making up statistics and then telling someone else that their numbers don't stack up is... interesting. If you want the real numbers, Galaxy Australia polling shows that support/opposition for gay marriage amongst self-identified Christians is more or less 50/50.

Factor in last year's census data that shows 61.1% of Australians identify as Christian, as opposed to 1.7% who identify as Muslim, and you tell me where the gay marriage lobby should be focusing their efforts.

 

[Daytripper]

Are you intentionally trying to be ironic? Making up statistics and then telling someone else that their numbers don't stack up is... interesting. If you want the real numbers, Galaxy Australia polling shows that support/opposition for gay marriage amongst self-identified Christians is more or less 50/50.

Factor in last year's census data that shows 61.1% of Australians identify as Christian, as opposed to 1.7% who identify as Muslim, and you tell me where the gay marriage lobby should be focusing their efforts.

Caesar, there is a difference between being anti-homosexual and being anti gay marriage.

A big difference.

 

[Daytripper]

Ignoring the old saying, "Never argue with a fool, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience", I'll point out that you've misunderstood my argument completely (and totally misrepresented Islamic people too). Firstly, do you know any Muslims? Personally never met a Muslim who has any problem with homosexuals, from an admittedly small sample size. To say 90%+ of Muslims are anti-gay is a massive generalisation, and incorrect. Agreed, the fundamentalists are anti-gay (this is also true of most of the 'older' religions), and there may (I haven't seen the stats) be a greater proportion of fundamentalists in Islam than in Christianity, at least in Australia (the US is a different case, where a recent Gallup poll showed that 46% of those surveyed believed in 'intelligent design', and there is a strong fundamentalist christian society that is certainly anti-gay, often represented in the Republican party), but to argue that over 90% of Muslims are anti-gay is garbage rhetoric, and impossible to use in any coherent argument.

The 'numbers argument' as you've called it, is not a 'numbers argument' at all, but one of influence. Who do you think has more influence on politicians in Western nations? A body such as the ACL, or some similiar Islamic body (such as the Islamic Council)? It's a simple decision that you target your resources where the best payoff is - in the West that is toward religions like Christianity, which are the most prominent opponents of things such as gay marriage.

Tex, you can skew your argument however you want but the reason the 'latte-set' won't be critical of Islam is because they are too scared. Everyone knows this.

The day I see Sarah Hanson-Young standing outside a mosque criticising Islam's stance on gay marriage is the day I'll believe she actually cares about this issue from the heart.

Will never happen though.

 

[Tex_21]

Do you not realise the point of the argument? To concentrate your resources where they are most effectively used? I'm not skewing any argument, just pointing out the massive flaws in your strawman.

 

[Caesar]

Caesar, there is a difference between being anti-homosexual and being anti gay marriage.

A big difference.

So? Your complaint was about the gay lobby attacking Christianity over Islam. The only reason the gay lobby attacks any religion is because of their stance on gay rights issues such as gay marriage. Christianity poses an infinitely larger political obstacle than Islam, ergo that is why they receive most of the attention. It's that simple.

Whether you characterise the reasons for the Church's opposition as anti-homosexual or not is entirely irrelevant.