SR,

You are asking me to comment on a tiny fragment of information cherry picked from an entire book (to which I presently have no access) with no context or qualification. I tried but can't find anything reliable on civilian casualties on the web.

In short given that there was a tremendous effort to allow civilians to leave Fallujah before the battle, the civilian casualties should have been very low. Certainly the claims that US troops were deliberately shooting women and children are complete bollocks.

Given that you have failed to directly link JM to any war crime, will you give him the same grovelling apology that Bandt gave?

Dear Shadow Minister,

Mate you are probably going to live forever since I think you could probably worm your way out of death itself. Bloody hell.

I'm happy to start typing out pages of the book. How many do you think you would require?

As to the "war criminal" status of Molan that of course is only my opinion because his conduct hasn't been the subject of a proper inquiry. I think any trial involving the Greens should welcomed as it would shine a spotlight on his time as one of the overseers of that infamous 'Battle of Fallujah'.

But you yourself have set one of the parameters for a war crime.

"it is a war crime to deliberately base military assets within civilian areas"

You have not disputed the fact that the US used a school as a military HQ nor used a hospital as a base with the water tower as a snipers nest, ergo these were war crimes.

So if Molan is able to be connected with the decision making around even just these two instances then by your definition he would be guilty of war crimes.

Or will you be redefining that definition as expected?

Slippery bugger.

//Considering that the videos were unedited and cannot be racist in themselves.//

But they become racist when they are used as propaganda by lowlifes like Britain First.

How would you feel if we lived in a parallel reality where General Unpleasantness was a new Labor Senator, and he'd perviously shared a video which had been used as propaganda by ANTIFA, but didn't make any commentary referring to ANTIFA? Would you be so quick to claim that a video is just a video, and that its use as propaganda by a violent extremist organisation is of no concern or relevance? Or would you be outraged and calling for his head? I wonder...

I'm not sure if you're really up to date on Britain First, Shadow. It doesn't sound like it from your posts. These aren't just the sort of right-wingers that are annoying but mostly harmless; these are your classic extreme-right skinhead types. They're not good people. Even very conservative British commentators like Piers Morgan condemn these people has disgusting thugs. I mean come on, dude... if Piers Morgan and Trump can bring themselves to condemn these people, what's stopping you? What's stopping General Unpleasantness?

//Given that the radical left are trying to suppress any information that might put their protected minorities in a bad light//

Protected minorities like Netherlands born, non-Muslim Dutchmen who beat women? Jesus, the radical left really have broadened their umbrella haven't they?

If the radical left are trying to suppress information about violence by 'protected minorities' (whoever they may be, I'm assuming vegan transgender whales and Muslims), they're doing a remarkably crap job of it. Because I hear plenty about Muslim violence. I guess there just aren't enough people under the very far left of the Gaussian distribution to be very effective at suppressing information on such a large scale.

//it can be argued that the greens are the ones legitimizing extremist violence.//

O.... kay. Pretty sure the Greens aren't sharing videos from extremist organisations, mate. Most of the Greens I've met are full hippies with a distaste for violence that makes Quakers look bloodthirsty.

I don't vote Green (because they're full hippies, and hippies irritate me). I'm a Labor man. And I'm worried about how far the political division is widening in this country when condemnation of thugs like Britain First is not a broad, bipartisan position.

SR,

You said:"Jim Nolan is an out and out war criminal. His conduct in Iraq was reprehensible and utterly unAustralian."

Which was a lie and outright libel, and the fact that you are not likely to be dragged to court is because OLO is not widely read. Adam Bent realized that it was libel and gave JM a grovelling apology.

As for the definition of a war crime, the school and surrounding building were not occupied by any civilians and was clearly demarcated as a military base and thus was not using civilians as shields. As for the hospital, the hospital and surrounding area was occupied and the civilians removed, so this does not apply either.

Toni,

Is a knife racist if held by a KKK member, and righteous if held by Martin Luther King? The answer is that it is the purpose for which it is used is either racist or not.

That it was posted by BF was probably for racist purposes, that the left whingers had to search more than a year through JM's posts to find these videos and found nothing else even vaguely racist shows that they were really scraping the barrel.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Yet another admission of a war crime from you.

It is a war crime to deliberately deny access to medical services particularly civilians which is what Molan did.

This is from IRAQ AND THE CASE FOR AUSTRALIAN WAR CRIMES TRIALS from Spirit of Eureka

http://www.spiritofeureka.org/index.php/news-a-articles/229-iraq-and-the-case-for-australian-war-crimes-trials-part-2

That there is a case for Molan to be tried as a war criminal is obvious and I am firmly convinced that all things being equal he would be convicted.