Why shouldn't they refuse to fight?  Put yourself in their situation.

Well if they've sworn allegiance and are now refusing to fight - what does the army normally do with people who are disobedient?

Put them in gaol?

They used to shoot them in the first World War.  Fancy that - us Christian caucasians being so barbaric and killing our own kind and it wasn't that long ago.

mantra wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 6:28pm:


Seems like a reasonable penalty to me. After a fair trial, of course.

Calanen wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 6:34pm:
Well I don't support the death penalty, but if it does ever get imposed here, a fair trial is critical. Hundreds of soldiers were killed in WWI for cowardice when there were extenuating circumstances like PTSD which weren't recognised then.

Muslim soldiers who signed up for the army knew what they were getting into. If they don't want to fight, the contract must be terminated. If they become traitors, they get jailed. Goes for everyone.

Quote:


And yet you still believe you have the right to label others as barbaric, interesting.

I would have not expected any lawyer to still support the death penalty in any form.

mozzaok wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 7:06pm:


Why not? It's the appropriate penalty for certain crimes. Humanely executed of course. Many lawyers in the US support the death penalty.

Certain crimes warrant the death penalty. Martin Bryant should have been executed. Killing 38 people and wounding a 100 or so, life in prison is not enough. He gets to lift weights, watch TV and do 'crafts' with counsellors, or a bit of study for the rest of his life while 38 other people are dead. How is that 'just?'

You think that people plotting to blow us up, civilians, in the name of Islam, shouldn't get the death penalty? Instead, we can let them stay in prison. Convert fellow prisoners. Lift some weights. Preach to the ummah. Run a drug empire outside of prison with a smuggled mobile phone. Far better than a death penalty right. And all with your taxdollars.

You kill one person, you may get life. You kill 1000. You get life, you detonate a nuke in Sydney, and kill a million or so you still only get life (although the Police would kill you when they got you, so, only in theory). How is that 'just'?

The just penalty for some crimes is death. But only, some crimes. These would be, in my view:

- treason
- rape of children
- mass murder;
- murder with heinous circumstances, for example, committing a murder in a gruesome manner, say, through causing long and painful suffering to the deceased.

Not for changing religions or happening to be an 'infidel.' That's where we differ on what I consider 'barbaric'. 

But the execution, after a fair trial, of people plotting to commit terrorist acts against Australians? I think that's just.

Quote:


It depends how you define Jew. I think most would support Australia. But if you restrict your definition to conservative religious Jews, it might go the other way. With Islam, undermining your country in the name of religion is mainstream. With other religions it's the extreme. Also, Islam is the only religion that confuses state with religion. Muslims are the ones who see everything through Islam. Most Jews would not see a war with Israel as a religious one. I don't think Australia has ever been involved in a war which the majority would consider religious.

Quote:


Sure, depending on how you define it of course. Plenty of Australians of Italian and German descent fought for Australia in WWII. Only Muslims see everything and judge every situation by what religion people have, and choose the side of Muslims by default, regardless of right and wrong.

that's why all your examples other than ISrael are based on Nationality, not religion.

Quote:


That is very strange considering that more muslims kill muslims then anybody else.
Anyway, don't they ask people joining an army if there can be any religious, ideological, dietary, etc reason that would make fighting problematic for them?

Abu, why would Australia go in war against Israel? We are not taken over by your lot yet and hopefully never will be.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:02pm:


That is sounds misleading after all your talk about how all muslims are brothers. You would never condemn any muslim terrorists so it is reasonable to assume that you don't think about them as foreign entities.

Quote:


I'd suggest you are hopelessly biased. The protocols were a fake, remember?
Quote:


Are they a majority, or a minority? Would they still be a member if Israel attacked Australa?

Quote:


So many religious Jews are not Zionist? What percentage would you class as Zionist? You seem to be characterising Jews by a tiny minority.

Quote:


This is about whether they would fight against Australia, not whether they support the right of Israel to exist. Even I support the right of Israel to exist.

Quote:


It's got nothing on Islam.

Quote:


Crap. Like I said, if I want to find out about Judaism or Christianity, an extremist Muslim would be the last person I ask.

Quote:


That has nothing to do with my argument.

Quote:


Good piont. Perhaps now you can understand our views on Islam.

Calanen wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:11pm:


I see, they had covered all aspects. That muslim chaplain who talked the soldier to change his mind must've knew it all and probably some more.

Calanen wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 7:17pm:


No way he did it. IQ less than 80, firing from the right hip when left handed, shooting out engine blocks, locals saying it wasn't him, judge refused it to go to trial, wasn't allowed to plead innocent, evidence destroyed, witnesses not allowed to testify.

Quote:


I disagree for treason, also sedition. It would be very handy to have execution available for those crimes in the event of a hostile government.

Rape of children, I propose castration, genital mutilation, forehead tattoo, removal of tongue, ear drums, eyes, sense of smell and limbs.

Mass murder, depends. If someone has killed 30 people, they would be a mass murderer/serial killer. But what about the circumstances? Say there was a gang war, fighting to survive, it's not the same as just killing people for fun.

I have no problem with torture. If someone raped and killed your sister, would you have an issue with torturing them till they died?

Quote:


Dismissing factual evidence as a conspiracy theory doesn't help your cause. Denial and disinformation causes you to lose credibility.

Quote:


I thought the influx of these immigrants was after ww2. Sure there were a couple, but how many is a couple.

I'd be very surprised if the majority of these multicultural society members would bear arms against the culture they live in in Australia. Forget the ones who integrate, it's the ones who live amongst themselves and speak their languages, and bring hatred to this country, they aren't bearing arms if required.

Quote:


So you are saying no Australian citizens or residents have ever left the country to fight against the British crown in Northern Ireland? None have ever lent monetary or material support to the cause? You are wrong.

Quote:


Killing innocent women and children is wrong. Laying down and allowing the British to steal your land, treat you like dirt, kill, maim and rape, subjugate you and just generally bastardise you without fighting back is also wrong. If singing songs and distributing pamphlets doesn't work, break out the Semtex and rifles.

I'd like to see you not resort to guerrilla tactics if your enemy, Islam, decides to wage war in Australia, chaos takes over and there are gun battles and bombings in the street.

Then again, I'd be surprised if you did. Saying something is much easier than actually doing it.

tallowood wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:19pm:


The way you'd try to change his view is to convince the recruit that the government of Karzai was more properly Islamic than that of the Taliban, and so it was right to support it and put down the Taliban. Which on one level wouldnt be such a stretch, given the insanity that went on under the Taliban.

The problem would become however, if you were just say, fighting Indonesia, and not an insurgent force while assisting allied Islamic governments - that you'd have no room to move.

easel wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:26pm:


Quote:


He did it. I've read his police interview transcript. It's on the web somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it up.

I dont know about locals saying it wasnt him. But in every crime scene, all the locals will have a different view about what happened.

The judge didn't prevent the matter from going to trial. He pleaded innocent, and then reversed his plea. I think because, his lawyer told him, that any mercy you might expect to have *may* be granted to you if you just pleaded guilty.

Quote:


Quote:


Do you think if there was a hostile government, that it would care about what the law said for these things?

Quote:


May not go that far. I'd just put a bullet in their head and bury them in lime so they dissolve.

Quote:


A bit unlikely, and in which case, it wouldnt be murder.

Quote:


While it might seem like the good thing to do, it's kind of pointless. Execution, neat and simple, is the appropriate penalty. Firing squad is my preferred method.



Quote:


Quote:


He was going on with the same crap about how Jewish NGOs control the world. It's cliched, old, and with no basis in fact. I've looked at a hell of a lot of government documents, and I've never seen anything about scary Jewish organisations.

Seen a lot more about other scary organisations.

Quote:


I thought the influx of these immigrants was after ww2. Sure there were a couple, but how many is a couple.

I'd be very surprised if the majority of these multicultural society members would bear arms against the culture they live in in Australia. Forget the ones who integrate, it's the ones who live amongst themselves and speak their languages, and bring hatred to this country, they aren't bearing arms if required.

Quote:


Quote:


I know that people have sent money.  But I dont know anyone who has left the Australian army, or refused to serve for this reason. I also havent seen or heard of any Irish attacking people *here*. That's a bit different from Islam, which seems to make local attacks on people.

Quote:


Killing innocent women and children is wrong. Laying down and allowing the British to steal your land, treat you like dirt, kill, maim and rape, subjugate you and just generally bastardise you without fighting back is also wrong.

Quote:


Fine - but they should never have deliberately targetted civilians, which they did. Shopping malls, high streets, bars. That was really messed up.

Quote:


It's not going to happen. But if it did, I wouldnt be blowing up shopping malls and cafes. I'd be blowing up the Hamas militia riding around. Or more probably, I'd just leave - that's a personal thing however.

Quote:


Who can say. 200 years down the track, your scenario is far more conceivable.

Quote:


But Catholic Irish still served in the UK military.

There wasnt any other military.

Calanen wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:43pm:


Back in the day, not many Irish from NI would have been joining the British military, perhaps some from the ROI, these days yes different, but these days they aren't really deploying on a war footing to Ireland either. It would be interesting to know how many Catholics would have deployed on Irish soil fighting against the various IRA factions. The irony was unionist factions were never targeted as hard as the republican factions, and the unionist factions used to get support from the British government.

They're nearly all criminals these days anyway. No soul left in much of it.