Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print
'balance' (Read 3531 times)
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 74862
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #45 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 10:18pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 8:39pm:
Oh, you mean that one. I read it, and it proves that you deflect whenever you are shown wanting.


deflect? at least you recognise why you kept repeating the same questions over and over.

freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 8:39pm:
Do you recall responding to a thread I recently started by saying how surprised you are and how you had misjudged me?


vaguely, and I don't remember the context  ... I did ask you to put up links proving me wrong. You've yet to do so
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 106020
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #46 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 10:30pm
 
Aussie wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 7:02pm:
Whether I do or not is beside the point.  This is my position, and no matter how many times you ask, you will get the response:

Quote:
If I am going to impose my belief on any State, I cannot effectively do so without breaching its sovereignty.

I can hold my breath, go blue in the face, make railing speeches at the UN, even get a UN resolution (what chance is there of that if say, China is the relevant State) to send in the troops if that State does not bow to my will, (i.e.......I have to impose it) but....to act physically, i.e. militarily to do so is a breach of the State's sovereignty.





Dear Aussie,
Which is true & it worked well at the Nuremberg trials
when Germany was defeated.
The principle was clear - a country has no right to murder
6 million Jews and 6 million other people in gas chambers.

However it has been shown to not work in the case of Rwanda
& many other countries since WW2.

For a start - the 5 main powers can each veto any UN action.

A country can have it's sovereignty breached if the UN votes for it
& all the 5 powers refrain from vetoing.

That's the law  -  & Aussie - you should know that being an ex lawyer.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 38810
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #47 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 10:38pm
 
Bobby.  I am not an 'ex lawyer.'  Unless some bastard non lawyer has taken over this account, I still am a lawyer. I am retired, not 'ex.'
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 106020
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #48 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 10:40pm
 
Aussie wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 10:38pm:
Bobby.  I am not an 'ex lawyer.'  Unless some bastard non lawyer has taken over this account, I still am a lawyer. I am retired, not 'ex.'



Well - a retired lawyer should know the simple international law that I outlined above.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 38810
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #49 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 10:42pm
 
Bobby, do you see the problem here?  (There are others in what you have said, but this will do for the moment.)

Quote:
For a start - the 5 main powers can each veto any UN action.

A country can have it's sovereignty breached if the UN votes for it
& all the 5 powers refrain from vetoing.


Pssst................the veto power only needs one to vote against.


If one of them was under the pump, what do you reckon would be the outcome?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 106020
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #50 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 10:47pm
 
Aussie wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 10:42pm:
Bobby, do you see the problem here?  (There are others in what you have said, but this will do for the moment.)

Quote:
For a start - the 5 main powers can each veto any UN action.

A country can have it's sovereignty breached if the UN votes for it
& all the 5 powers refrain from vetoing.


Pssst................the veto power only needs one to vote against.


If one of them was under the pump, what do you reckon would be the outcome?



A veto.

This law sidesteps all of the silly arguments between you & FD.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 38810
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #51 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 10:49pm
 
Yeas Bobby, that is what I have already posted.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 106020
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #52 - Feb 1st, 2016 at 5:57am
 
Aussie wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 10:49pm:
Yeas Bobby, that is what I have already posted.



It means that only 5 countries in the world have actual sovereignty:

China
Russia
France
England
USA
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
wally1
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2055
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #53 - Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:31am
 
Cmon guys, freediver is the most balanced member on this forum.

Just this year alone he started 5 threads about islam but none about any other religion.

See everyone, he is fair and balanced.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96219
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #54 - Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:44am
 
wally1 wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:31am:
Cmon guys, freediver is the most balanced member on this forum.

Just this year alone he started 5 threads about islam but none about any other religion.

See everyone, he is fair and balanced.


Yes, Wally, but FD does this to uphold women's rights. FD has always stood up for oppressed women in Islamic societies.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96219
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #55 - Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:00am
 
freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 7:47pm:
In fact I can recall cases where I have criticised the mistreatment of Muslim women by non-Muslim governments. How does that fit in with your "I don't believe you" bullshit?


It doesn't. You haven't.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 74862
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #56 - Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:28am
 
wally1 wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:31am:
Cmon guys, freediver is the most balanced member on this forum.

Just this year alone he started 5 threads about islam but none about any other religion.

See everyone, he is fair and balanced.



weren't you paying attention, they weren't about Islam, they were about women's rights!
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
wally1
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2055
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #57 - Feb 1st, 2016 at 10:18am
 
John Smith wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:28am:
wally1 wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:31am:
Cmon guys, freediver is the most balanced member on this forum.

Just this year alone he started 5 threads about islam but none about any other religion.

See everyone, he is fair and balanced.



weren't you paying attention, they weren't about Islam, they were about women's rights!


Yeah non muslim womens rights.

Freediver is so balanced, he was on a Aussie AFL forum few years ago trying to push his anti islam agenda, naming his topic "islam and australian values".

Google it yourselves
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96219
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #58 - Feb 1st, 2016 at 10:47am
 
wally1 wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 10:18am:
John Smith wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:28am:
wally1 wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:31am:
Cmon guys, freediver is the most balanced member on this forum.

Just this year alone he started 5 threads about islam but none about any other religion.

See everyone, he is fair and balanced.



weren't you paying attention, they weren't about Islam, they were about women's rights!


Yeah non muslim womens rights.

Freediver is so balanced, he was on a Aussie AFL forum few years ago trying to push his anti islam agenda, naming his topic "islam and australian values".

Google it yourselves


Wow. The mind boggles at the lengths FD will go to support women's rights.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #59 - Feb 1st, 2016 at 10:52am
 
freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 1:07pm:
There are some very strange views regarding balance being promoted here. Despite having a dedicated board for the discussion of Islam, run by a Muslim, certain members have a problem with all the discussion here focusing on Islam.

For example here we have John Smith complaining that I have started 1000 threads on the mistreatment of women in Islam, and no threads at all on the mistreatement of women outside of Islam.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1453237432/255#267

He claims that he is here more often than I am and has been keeping such careful track of what I do that he knows what topics I don't start threads on. He also claimed I was "spreading crap" about Islam, telling lies etc, but could not produce a single example. He suggested he would be happy if I started as many about voting rights in the vatican as I do about Islam.

He appears to have now conceded the point on thread count (or at least, changed the topic again) and moved on to making it about honesty, particularly when it comes to motivation. Despite this, he is unable to give a coherent explanation for his motivation in taking such an unusual stance on the issue, insisting repeatedly that he has already explained it (this might be a reference to him whining about thread count, accusations of lies etc, but he has not clarified).

Apparently motivated by the above thread, Bobby started this thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1454193623

According to the thread title, it is about comparing Muslims to Christians. In an apparent attempt to correct this imbalance, Bobby tried to insist that criticism of Islam should be outside the scope of the thread.

Of course, there is also Brian, who has gone quiet lately. He often insisted that we do not even have the right (or the ability) to criticise other countries or religions.

We have also had Aussie lately insisting that "sovereign rights" of foreign countries takes precedent over individual rights. This precludes any kind of interference or "telling them how to live," even in such extreme cases as Nazis gassing Jews.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/1320#1320


Why is there no christianity forum FD? Could it be there just isn't the demand for Christian bashing as there is for Islam bashing? Only FD could bring up the existence of an Islam forum as evidence that there is "balance" here  Grin

If you honestly can't see the issue here then you have trully become blinded by your anti-Islam obsession. Look back at your pre-2007 contributions and see how different you were - how back then you felt it was important to take issue with Sprint and other's "ban them, kill them, nuke them" mantra. Now you completely ignore it, sometimes even pretending you don't even realise it is being said. Barely a day goes by where a story isn't posted about Islam that turns out to be based wholly or heavily on lies. This stuff used to matter to you, but now you just bypass it altogether an hone in solely on the Islamic "spineless apologetics".

You have turned into the very thing you used to rail against.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print