This belongs to the crimes against humanity thread.

Good luck finding more barbaric Australian parents from any walk of life. You'd have to trawl through the seediest prisons and underworld societies to find anything close to this. But here we have it brought to us by a political movement masquerading as a religion (of peace). Just fabulous.

Two strikes..........

banned for that??????

Why has Ricecrackers been banned? Granted, he is a delusional fuckwit but found nothing untoward about his quip re. Zimbos. Zim has openly expressed his admiration and support for Hamas in the other thread. Keep this in mind next time Hamas plant a bomb on a bus, or fire unguided missiles into civilian areas.

Edited by humbert: 12/8/2014 01:50:02 PM

Oh FFS... Zim isn't a bad bloke.

RC 's comment was ridiculous and deserved a ban.

I don't doubt that he is lovely. But that does not detract from his support for Hamas, and his repeated slander on this forum. Whenever I call him out on his claims, he vanishes. One step from crying, "Islamophobia."

humbert has valid points - normally I disagree reading his posts.
If RC gets/got banned whats the diff in TSW saying if convicted just shoot em, just saying.

By the way get back on track - notor defended the father son (poor kid) act fact being australian and should be allowed back in the country, I disagree !

I'm with M.L. on this one.
Hopefully we are able to keep them out of the country. Horrible to see Australian overseas representing the country like this.

what fucking rubbish.....there was nothing wrong with his post......censorship out of control......

Not surprised the resident homophobe and racist finds nothing wrong with comments that aren't needed on the forum.

Edited by jlm8695: 12/8/2014 03:26:32 PM

Cracking thread, lads.

Ehhhh I promised myself I wouldn't get tied up in this thread :(

earlier in this thread you were arguing he doesn't represent Islam yet he represents australia? Be a little consistent will ya?

Let him back in the country if he wants to come back and put him in jail. We have a process for criminals and it kinda requires them being here. I have a suspicion he won't want to come back anyway

what comments are those?? i saw nothing that was racist, sexist,homophobic or anything that warranted a ban....perhaps i missed it?? so if your good self can show me the comments in question i'd be happy to withdraw my opinion should it be inappropriate.

and just for the record i am no homophobe, i have gay friends and family members so lay off the pidgeon holes gideon

Calling them 'Australians' is a bit of a stretch. Sure, they may have documentation saying they live here, but it's fair to say that their hearts clearly lie elsewhere. Pretty sure if asked, they wouldn't identify with Australia. Especially those who have voiced their want to come back for terrorism purposes.

Fair call.
Earlier I meant he shouldn't be seen as a face of Islam. Now I mean, to the world he makes Australia look bad.

Minor quibble but shouldn't this be in the CAH thread?

You miss the point entirely about what Im saying. I wasn't talking about the religion itself. Im talking about the character of people who follow or don't follow religion. That theres a good and bad bunch in everyone of them.

How did I defend the act?

My overall point is that it's a slippery slope to start denying Australian citizens re-entry on a moral basis. Like it or not, these people are our own. We don't get to pretend they're not our problem the way we have with non citizen asylum seekers.

On whose morals are we making these decisions? Of course an issue like letting your kid hold a severed head is pretty black and white in terms of morality, but other issues are much more contentious. If we're going to start preventing this alleged criminal back in, can we also deny entry to convicted criminals? Perhaps Peter Greste could be denied if we go down this road, or Schapelle Corby.

Actually I wouldn't mind. What benefit would there be whatsoever in letting a convicted criminal back in?
I wouldn't be having a soft spot for them just because they are Australian. Scumbags come from all walks of life.

Edited by SocaWho: 12/8/2014 07:26:35 PM

Cap him! We need to call him up for a competitive match and see if he really wants to play for Australia.

:lol::lol: That's too good!

I reckon not too many people would be concerned if Shapelle Corby wasn't let back in. Get the feeling there'd be a bit of support around it.

Why would the opposite of denying re-entry automatically assume to be "having a soft spot for them just because they're Australian"?

Which crimes are you suggesting that we make Australians stateless over? All crimes?

Depends on the crime. If it was for avoiding a speeding fine then thats a different story. Im talking about convicted criminals who pose a threat to society. i.e. Mass Murderers, Paedophiles,etc.
I could be wrong, but the impression that I get from your argument is that since they are Australians then we should do all we can to bring them back, when the option to keep them out is another alternative.
And suppose by chance they did a crime and were tried here only to be let of by a lenient judge, when the evidence is clear cut that they committed the act, then they are released here back in society.

Edited by SocaWho: 12/8/2014 10:13:06 PM

For consistency I'm guessing that if we're going to lock up Islamic nutjobs fighting o/s then the next time there's a Balkans blowup all them Australia/Serb/Croatian/Bosnians will get locked up too.

Seeing as there were plenty that went over last time for that imbroglio.



Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 12/8/2014 10:27:24 PM

yes your right I was in error saying you defended the act - we should've long ago done something about these type of idiots who have citizenship but go offshore fighting other conflicts/learn warfare etc, in these case's NO they shouldn't be let back in and their citizenship should be voided full stop.
Alledged criminal you qoute ?

The Australian government can't make any Australian "stateless". It's illegal.

They can only cancel or revoke your citizenship if you are a dual citizen.

Like I said, there is no precedent or constitutional justification to make someone stateless because you don't like what they're doing overseas. Putting the power of citizenship revocation into the hands of a government is a recipe for disaster, as is putting any increased powers into the hands of government without rigid oversight.

If something can be abused, it will be abused... and it will be abused while the people in charge look you in the eye and tell you the lie that it's all for your own good. I'm looking at the big picture here, not just this particular case.

You can already see how the current government is using the highly emotive rhetoric of "home grown terrorists" for increasing powers to ASIO and compelling ISP's and Telcos to keep 2 years of metadata for everyone rather than using warrants on reasonable suspicion.

Innocent until proven guilty = alleged criminal until tried & convicted.

And I think only then in the situation where the other nation does not recognise dual citizenships.