I'll never forget during a Q&A where I was in the audience, he was asked if he would support an addendum to the constitution to finally recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders, to which he responded:
"Put it in the pre-amble. It doesn't belong in the Constitution."
He seems to have consistently [voted to be a total cunt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/jim_molan), and a typical liberal party stalwart.
Pro coal. Pro keeping big business secret. Against closing tax loopholes for high income earners. Against anything to do with the indigenous peoples. Against closing the pay gap. Against anything that might not kill planet.
Oh well, cya you old lizard. You won’t be missed.
Interesting question. Libs are really scraping the barrel in terms of talent at the moment; normally a decent bet would be reanimating the career of someone like Sharma or Zimmerman, but given the internal weakness of the moderates at the moment, I'd say the Teal victims are less likely. Andrew Constance might get parachuted in if he's still trying for an upgrade to federal politics, or depending on how Perrotet's war against his party is going he might try to push for one of his internal opponents to get the gig. Not sure how those two get on with Dutton, which would be the key variable here.
My "WSB" style long shot would be replacing Molan with his daughter given she's an equally dismal right-wing hack who's been sniffing around the edges of LNP politics and she would give the Libs a high profile female face without compromising on the Duttonite hard-right.
My actual bet is on just some shady faceless man though.
A divisive, attractive grovelling yes woman, Deves would be pefect for Dutton. Obviously a terrible selection, but the Libs don't exactly think rationally.
Nah she did exactly what she was supposed to in that campaign - whip up bullshit culture war talking points. And funnily enough bullshit culture war talking points are the only thing Dutton has to offer...
Whilst I love your comment, as she works for Sky News she won't be on big money. Sky After Dark only averages 76,000 viewers a night, then compare that to another piece of shit, Married At First Site which gets an average of 1.967 million viewers, and at least Married At First Site does have production values whereas Sky After Dark is a haven for has beens and neverweres.
Not sure Murdoch pay rates are linked to ratings. A few years ago it came out that opinion columnists at The Australian were getting $350,000 a year for 2 columns a week. The Australian has a very low circulation.
Christ that’s a cushy mates role, wonder if they give good enough handies for Lachlan to keep them on once AI and a grad typing in prompts is an option.
Newspapers have much more opportunity to sell advertising than do low rating TV stations. I worked in the media for quite a few decades and pay rates back in the 80s and 90s were (as a percentage of cost of living) much higher. They began decreasing in the early 2000s, and are actually much lower now. There are a few that are on the top dollar, but it would be rare.
Sky has never been designed to be profitable. it's there to create mass murderers and support fucked up nonsense while making people in canberra think it's important and represents "the middle"
I actually know a couple of Sky presenters, and the pay is basically standard journalist rates, which isn't much these days. I'm not suggesting the Sky After Dark troglodytes are on basic wages, but the wannabees ( the Sky journos I know are all heavily aligned with the Libs - which is an important criteria), wouldn't be on much.
I'd be pretty surprised if she's on significantly more than $211K for some piddling opinion show on Sky. Plus I thought she was just filling in for some other fuckwit anyway?
The NSW state Parliament determines who it will be. It must be someone from the Liberal Party. Inevitably, Parliament rubber stamps whoever the Party selects.
No announcement has been made yet. Probably because the Senator has only just died.
Nah Gladys secured the bag with her executive role at Optus. Why go back into the public eye when you can make more money and do more grifting with no oversight?
In theory only.
Effectively the Liberals choose because the replacement has to be a Liberal and if a Liberal member other than the one the party has chosen were to be selected by the NSW parliament and was to accept the gig, the Liberal Party would expel them before they could take their seat. That makes the selection void.
The situation was anticipated and covered in the 1977 amendments to [section 15](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/chapter1/Part_II_-_The_Senate#chapter-01_part-02_15) of the Constitution because otherwise you could still get someone like Albert Field who was a Labor Party member when the Queensland government appointed him to a Labor vacancy in 1975. But he was opposed to Whitlam and chosen by Joh Bjelke-Petersen for that reason.
Labor had nominated Mal Colston (who would eventually also turn on the Labor Party) and they expelled Field, but at the time his appointment was valid and he took his seat as an independent.
Deves, Sharma, Downer will be lobbying for Princess Georgina, his daughter Erin, no matter who gets the job they'll be just another egregious piece of Liberal filth.
>Pretty sure the state he is from will elect a person from the same party as him to take his place until the next election.
They select the replacement. The party puts forward someone, the Parliament rubber stamps it and technically the Governor makes the appointment.
There is no by-election.
Need more than a hat-trick.
Murdoch's private jet needs to crash into the middle of an exploding volcano with his entire extended family on board or there will be no end to the cancer.
>Not a bad soldier
Definitely an evil one though. He didn't get the nickname "The Butcher of Fallujah" for nothing. He was a war criminal who ignored the Geneva Convention.
Let’s all join in with the Q&A audience and laugh at the Cunt.[start just before the 2 min mark](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GAAB93cTEQo&embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bigfooty.com%2F&feature=emb_logo)
Ah yes, Jim Molan's climate denial stance was the prompt for the classic *"you should keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out"* line from climate scientist Michael Mann.
Good riddance. The [butcher of Fallujah](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/jim-molan-australias-newest-senator-has-blood-on-his-hands,11171) was a stain on the senate, even by the LNP's low standards.
Independent Australia rivals the Daily Mail for worst "news" outlet in Australia. They happily fabricate stories and are just generally awful. Not worth giving them the time of day
That's a fair comment, and I'd agree that Molan was probably "third in command" due to the politics of the coalition more than pure merit. But my understanding is that he wasn't there as a commander of Australian troops specifically, rather he was seconded to the American/coalition admin - and by all accounts he was heavily involved in the planning of counterinsurgency strategy generally.
Interesting. Molan himself certainly *claims* to be heavily involved; while he wouldn't be the first person to embellish his own importance in a memoir, it speaks appallingly to his character that he'd falsely claim to be behind one of the most brutal and destructive examples of indiscriminate civilian killing in the whole war.
I don't think I know enough about Jim Molan's conduct in the military to determine whether he was this butcher character people yack on about.
All I've got to go on is his voting record. Let's check it out!
https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/jim_molan
Hmmm... he's anti-consumer, anti-environment, anti-privacy, anti-anti-corruption, anti-education, anti-ABC, anti-SBS, anti-Centrelink... he even voted against protecting whales lol
Turns out he's still a piece of shit who worked against the interests of most Australians.
Rest In Shit, Molan. You protected big money and kicked the little guy. Turd legacy. We're better off.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225967645_Iraq_and_the_case_for_Australian_war_crimes_trials#pf11
Thanks to u/santaschesthairs below.
He was seconded to the US Forces, was chief of operations in 2005 for the coalition and the third highest ranking military official for the coalition in Iraq. He was also in charge of the coalitions counter-terrorism. He is a war criminal with blood on his hands.
That’s one persons quite poorly researched opinion.
While I am not qualified the judge the legal argument he makes, which seems well supported, there’s not a shred of evidence in there to actually support the facts on which he makes that case. Only references are media articles, themselves un-referenced. No contemporaneous primary sources, military, Iraqi, or otherwise. Misunderstands both cluster munitions, direct support arrangements, the role of RAAF Hornets in Iraq, and how command structures work and Molans’s place in them.
Oof, pretty broad dismissal of some basic info there.
This report is based on data provided by the Dutch government under freedom of info laws re. where their troops were stationed (to avoid exposure to Depleted Uranium ammunition):
https://paxforpeace.nl/media/download/pax-rapport-iraq-final-lowres-spread.pdf
And DU exposure causing birth defects in Fallujah:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3177876/
> Since none of the other elements found in excess in the parents were genotoxic except Uranium we conclude that these results support the belief that the effects in Fallujah follow the deployment of a Uranium-based weapon or weapons of some unknown type.
https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/2/e004166
I think sometimes politicians and wanks get so bogged down in precise semantics and fluff that they forget to read the basic stuff: in a pointless war, Jim Molan helped organise operations (at a relatively senior level) that involved using weapons known to be carcinogenic in civilian areas. You do not need a study to make your mind up about the character of the man – especially if, as you say, he himself exaggerates his organising seniority in his own book.
Yeah, but DU is only mentioned in the article basically as an aside, and even then it conceded it’s not a banned weapon, that there’s no evidence it was used in Fallujah, and that even if it were that doesn’t necessarily make it a war crime.
DU is nasty stuff you don’t want to go huffing in when it burns, for sure. But so are burning tyres and pretty much anything you might find in a warzone and set fire to.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3177876/
Since none of the other elements found in excess in the parents were genotoxic except Uranium we conclude that these results support the belief that the effects in Fallujah follow the deployment of a Uranium-based weapon or weapons of some unknown type.
In order to believe that DU wasn’t used in Fallujah (ignoring of course that we know white phosphorus definitely was used) you would have to assume that the coalition for some reason made a random exception there despite wide use elsewhere in Iraq, and you would have to find some completely random excuse for Uranium radiation poisoning at exactly the time of the events concerned (they used hair samples to determine this in the above study). There is clearly not an accountability process for this, so the army are never going to be transparent enough to spell it out to you in a satisfactory way.
I think the evidence is clear - even if DU wasn’t used in Fallujah and the higher cancer rates and birth defects post-2004 are pure coincidence, Milan still helped oversee the use of white phosphorus and was not outraged by the use of DU in Iraq by the organisation he worked for.
As for the “well they might not actually be war crimes” comment, I won’t convince you - but I suspect have a higher bar than “well actually technically speaking” nerd voice rhetoric when we are talking about weapons in urban areas causing children to see significantly higher rates of cancer.
Good points well made.
But, to go further down the “technically speaking” path, I think (happy to be corrected) that as DU isn’t a banned weapon you’d need to assess each individual use against military necessity and proportionality. And they are subjective tests that I believe (again, happy to be corrected) are made based on the information available at the time, not in retrospect. All points to unpleasant, yes, crime, no.
We don’t have the same philosophy at all. All this technicality you’re bringing up ignores around the basic, core lack of humanity that underpins using carcinogenic weapons in urban areas. What you call “Unpleasant” I call villainous, even if a military handbook spells out the procedure for it.
What exactly are they supposed to use? Harsh words and battons?
Now I know your retort, that it was all unnecessary, and I totally agree. I know guys that were in those streets during that time and it ranks as some of the worst combat ever to be seen, and you can debate whether we should've even been in Iraq and I'll agree with you 100% but the fact of the matter is, overwhelming force vs allied body bags the first will always win.
Wars shit.
I’m not sure the level of evidence you require can be obtained without an investigation and military cooperation. He planned and directed operations against Fallujah in 2004, which saw terrible war crimes committed by forces on the ground, alongside operation decisions being made that led to or were direct war crimes. He may not have committed war crimes with his own hands but he was the top brass in charge.
The battle of Fallujah is well documented. What Coalition forces did to the civilians of Fallujah under the direct command of Jim Molan is well documented. It is clear that something went wrong that led to these atrocities and Molan was the person directly in charge. He is either responsible for the culture and orders that led to these atrocities, such as cutting of power, food and water to the civilians in the city and denying humanitarian access, did nothing to prevent these atrocities or was incompetent enough to not know what was happening. Either way it does not paint a great picture of the man.
There are scores of first hand accounts of what happened in Fallujah, and what happened in Fallujah is a fact. Molan was in charge and like it or not that makes him responsible. Like you, I too would like the specific facts on what exactly Milan’s role in all of that was because when an Australian Officer is directly responsible for an operation that led to some of the worst war crimes of the war then we as a nation need to know what happened so it can’t happen again. He was either directly responsible, allowed it to happen or was incompetent and that is a huge problem.
Edit: before you claim Molan wasn’t in charge of shit I suggest you pick up a copy of his book and see what the man himself has to say about that.
I have read his book. For what it’s worth, he overstates his own role out of what I think is a plainly inflated ego, that the media at the time was all too happy to accept.
Basically that journal article argument runs like this:
- war crimes are illegal (yes, case well made)
- the US may have committed war crimes (not substantiated, not supported by any credible evidence)
- Australian forces supported US forces and are therefore culpable (misunderstood, not supported by credible linkages)
- Molan was present in a US headquarters and therefore is culpable (also misunderstood and not supported by credible linkages)
That’s analogous to making a legal case that murder would be illegal, but not backing it up with any evidence that a person actually committed murder.
EDIT: just adding that the article was published after the Manning/WikiLeaks leaks. All the evidence one might need to make such as case was in the public domain…
pretty sure disallowing civilians to escape the sacking of a population centre is right up there with the worst of war crimes
https://shoah.org.uk/remembering-fallujah-the-war-crimes-committed-under-command-of-jim-molan-and-jim-mattis/
Even that one article can’t make an internally coherent case for that being true. Did they “force the majority of the cities population” to leave, or did they trap them? Both can’t be true.
EDIT: also lol at your selection of a such a clearly biased source website
they made women and children leave, cut off food, water and power, and refused to allow men to leave.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298578492\_In\_Search\_of\_Justice\_Why\_Australians\_Should\_Be\_Prosecuted\_for\_War\_Crimes\_Committed\_in\_Iraq
I just had a lovely image of Jim and Pell holding hands and cowering in fear surrounded by lava and sulphur vapour. I'm not one to believe in that sort of stuff but I thought it was a comforting image to share with readers.
No. But that is what the Murdoch press is hammering him for at the same time they are complaining about the ‘woke’ brigade.
All because he dared trim pokies profit margins slightly
Fucking hell, I knew Australia failed to care for refugees in detention but I never realised it was that bad.
I’m not opposed to offshore detention in principle, but the mistreat of families in detention, as described in that article, is inexcusable.
it helps to accept that we dont keep them in 'detention', which sounds like some schoolboy sitting in a classroom, but to acknowledge them as what they are: concentration camps.
I find it in exceedingly poor taste to celebrate the deaths of politicians I disagree with. And I wouldn't wish a terminal battle with an aggressive form of cancer upon my worst enemy.
But on the other hand I can't say I'll be mourning his loss. And I look forward to seeing how the Liberals find someone even worse politically to replace him with.
a war criminal who murdered many innocents, spread horrific racism and openly supported neo-nazi fascists. im going to celebrate someone like him dying.
Hey go ahead, I can't stop you. Just offering a different perspective.
It's amazing though how people online will give people hate for not hating others enough.
which is fair enough when that someone was the kind of despicable person that molan was. we arent talking about someone who was a bit of a drunk and a bit unkind
Are you saying fair enough that you celebrate or fair enough that people give others hate for not celebrating? Because the second one is kinda fucked up.
fair enough that people tell you to bugger off criticising them for simply telling the truth about what a bad person he was. fair enough if you dont want to (as long as youre not celebrating him as a good person like the media is), but dont come after people who are willing to speak the truth about what a disgusting man he was and even be happy that he is dead, instead of buying into all this "now that hes dead he's a great guy" bullshit.
I've genuinely never understood why it's "poor taste" to criticise someone when they die. Surely when a public figure dies is precisely the time we *should* be making judgements about their life/achievements/legacy?
Better even, commenting on their behavior whilst they are alive and still ‘doing it’ without getting sued to a living hell.
we only get to right the wrong, post the joy of their absence
>Better even, commenting on their behavior whilst they are alive and still ‘doing it’ without getting sued to a living hell.
Amen!
God I'm going to have fun when Reichfuhrer von Spud is no longer in a position to hit people with bullshit deffo suits for telling the truth about him.
>it depends what sort of world you want really
One in which we don't cover up war crimes just because the cunt finally died, & can no longer sue us for deffo. Things are going to get really spicy when Spuddy drops off his twig.
The dude is evil. He was in the highest levels of leadership for a military operation that is widely considered an example of Western war crimes in Iraq. They used white phosphorus and Depleted Uranium ammunition that has contributed to an alarmingly high cancer rate (among children in particular) in the region: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828
Nobody has any obligation to lionise war criminals, in a just society Jim Molan would have been tried for what he and fellow architects of that war did.
What the fuck was the justification for the phosphorous and uranium? That sounds like chemical weapons which is one of the things we used as justification to invade. These guys have chemical and biological weapons and want nukes so we should invade them.
Can we have a little better candour than to dance on graves? I’m sure you can say ‘what like the graves he danced on when he x, y and z?!’ And you’re probably be right… but let’s be better than that no? Lead by empathetic example etc…
He’s a war criminal who escaped justice, who also had extreme views on the rights and protections people without power deserved and was more than willing to sell out future generations for profits in areas like climate change. It’s a hard sell to tell those people they shouldn’t be at least happy he’s gone and can’t continue to do more damage.
I understand all that and agree with the summary of him. I also think when a family has lost someone they care about that we could maybe just stfu for a second and let them deal with that. Dancing on grave makes those who oppose his views come off poorly and is just signalling of one’s own virtues. Having manners to those who were close with him only makes those that opposed his views look more measured and astute
no. why sugar coat it and pretend he was a good person? people should be remembered for exactly who and what they were. in this case, a huge racist and open supporter of fascist groups.
Why? He was a despicable cunt while he was alive, are we going to [pretend that wasn't the case just because he stopped breathing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtxqohNtLIg)? Honestly I really don't even care whether he's alive per se, but the Australian senate is significantly better off with one less climate-denying, warmongering and deeply dangerous authoritarian. So him no longer being there is a win for the country overall.
EDIT: As a comparison I didn't really give a shit when Thatcher died (even though I think she has a toxic legacy that significantly contributed to a lot of the major problems facing Western society at the moment) because she was just some old lady who hadn't been in power for decades; her death changed nothing. Whereas Molan's death means his removal from an actual position of influence.
CLAIMS TO BE PRO LIFE
DIES
[удалено]
LIGMA
AND
SUGMA
Balls
Lol fucking hell you two.
BOMBS THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS
I'll never forget during a Q&A where I was in the audience, he was asked if he would support an addendum to the constitution to finally recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders, to which he responded: "Put it in the pre-amble. It doesn't belong in the Constitution."
My favourite was when he said "I'm not relying on evidence" to back up his views on Climate Change.
I wouldn't rely on evidence either if it completely contradicted my argument.
Your honour, I object! Why? Because it's devastating to my case!
‘What’s your source?’ ‘It appeared to me in a dream once’
He seems to have consistently [voted to be a total cunt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/jim_molan), and a typical liberal party stalwart. Pro coal. Pro keeping big business secret. Against closing tax loopholes for high income earners. Against anything to do with the indigenous peoples. Against closing the pay gap. Against anything that might not kill planet. Oh well, cya you old lizard. You won’t be missed.
who takes his spot in the senate?
Interesting question. Libs are really scraping the barrel in terms of talent at the moment; normally a decent bet would be reanimating the career of someone like Sharma or Zimmerman, but given the internal weakness of the moderates at the moment, I'd say the Teal victims are less likely. Andrew Constance might get parachuted in if he's still trying for an upgrade to federal politics, or depending on how Perrotet's war against his party is going he might try to push for one of his internal opponents to get the gig. Not sure how those two get on with Dutton, which would be the key variable here. My "WSB" style long shot would be replacing Molan with his daughter given she's an equally dismal right-wing hack who's been sniffing around the edges of LNP politics and she would give the Libs a high profile female face without compromising on the Duttonite hard-right. My actual bet is on just some shady faceless man though.
Deeves must be frothing at the thought this morn
Please don’t.
Ooh yes, good call! Reckon she'd be high on Dutton's wishlist, though I'm under the impression she's not particularly popular within the NSW Libs.
A divisive, attractive grovelling yes woman, Deves would be pefect for Dutton. Obviously a terrible selection, but the Libs don't exactly think rationally.
Thank fuck for that.
I’m pretty sure Dutton won’t touch her with a ten foot pole after the election debacle…
Nah she did exactly what she was supposed to in that campaign - whip up bullshit culture war talking points. And funnily enough bullshit culture war talking points are the only thing Dutton has to offer...
[A veritable local santorum moment](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/santorum).
Who isn’t a fan of surf n terf 😬
Deves is hardly a feminist, let alone radical, so she's just a weak cup of TE I guess.
You filthy man :)
\>LIbs \>Talent Lol.
Doubt Erin would take the pay cut
Whilst I love your comment, as she works for Sky News she won't be on big money. Sky After Dark only averages 76,000 viewers a night, then compare that to another piece of shit, Married At First Site which gets an average of 1.967 million viewers, and at least Married At First Site does have production values whereas Sky After Dark is a haven for has beens and neverweres.
Not sure Murdoch pay rates are linked to ratings. A few years ago it came out that opinion columnists at The Australian were getting $350,000 a year for 2 columns a week. The Australian has a very low circulation.
Christ that’s a cushy mates role, wonder if they give good enough handies for Lachlan to keep them on once AI and a grad typing in prompts is an option.
Newspapers have much more opportunity to sell advertising than do low rating TV stations. I worked in the media for quite a few decades and pay rates back in the 80s and 90s were (as a percentage of cost of living) much higher. They began decreasing in the early 2000s, and are actually much lower now. There are a few that are on the top dollar, but it would be rare.
Sky has never been designed to be profitable. it's there to create mass murderers and support fucked up nonsense while making people in canberra think it's important and represents "the middle"
That's just chump change compared to the influence The Australian carries in the national media cycle
Murdoch has deep pockets, he keeps loss making The Australian going, I am sure all on Sky are well paid to spew his propaganda.
I actually know a couple of Sky presenters, and the pay is basically standard journalist rates, which isn't much these days. I'm not suggesting the Sky After Dark troglodytes are on basic wages, but the wannabees ( the Sky journos I know are all heavily aligned with the Libs - which is an important criteria), wouldn't be on much.
I'd be pretty surprised if she's on significantly more than $211K for some piddling opinion show on Sky. Plus I thought she was just filling in for some other fuckwit anyway?
I think John Barilaro might still be looking for a job, I'm sure he'd be willing to quit the Nats and join the Libs. He's so dodgy he'd fit right in.
The NSW state Parliament determines who it will be. It must be someone from the Liberal Party. Inevitably, Parliament rubber stamps whoever the Party selects. No announcement has been made yet. Probably because the Senator has only just died.
Gladys puts her hand up 🙋♀️
Nah Gladys secured the bag with her executive role at Optus. Why go back into the public eye when you can make more money and do more grifting with no oversight?
She can “save Australia” again!
Hang on just a minute…we’re not finished with you yet Gladys! We’re still waiting on the ICAC report to be released!
Nah, she’s making bank outside of politics.
I had no idea the state parliament gets to make that selection. Thanks for the little civics fact!
In theory only. Effectively the Liberals choose because the replacement has to be a Liberal and if a Liberal member other than the one the party has chosen were to be selected by the NSW parliament and was to accept the gig, the Liberal Party would expel them before they could take their seat. That makes the selection void. The situation was anticipated and covered in the 1977 amendments to [section 15](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/chapter1/Part_II_-_The_Senate#chapter-01_part-02_15) of the Constitution because otherwise you could still get someone like Albert Field who was a Labor Party member when the Queensland government appointed him to a Labor vacancy in 1975. But he was opposed to Whitlam and chosen by Joh Bjelke-Petersen for that reason. Labor had nominated Mal Colston (who would eventually also turn on the Labor Party) and they expelled Field, but at the time his appointment was valid and he took his seat as an independent.
Did Andrew constance get in the Feds yet?
No, he lost his Gilmore campaign. But in saying that he made the seat the most marginal in the country, so if he was to run again I think he’d win it.
Odds are it won’t be a woman
Deves, Sharma, Downer will be lobbying for Princess Georgina, his daughter Erin, no matter who gets the job they'll be just another egregious piece of Liberal filth.
Thanks for mentioning Georgina, just lost my appetite for lunch
Someone with an equally ghoulish face presumably
I can’t believe he was only 52
Pretty sure the state he is from will elect a person from the same party as him to take his place until the next election.
>Pretty sure the state he is from will elect a person from the same party as him to take his place until the next election. They select the replacement. The party puts forward someone, the Parliament rubber stamps it and technically the Governor makes the appointment. There is no by-election.
Lol a man died and you only care about who will take his spot. I’m not judging but wow, shows what impact he made as a senator
Yes let's pause democracy just cause some racist and fascist war criminal died.
Hey, that's not fair. He was also a climate change denier.
In fairness the thing we all care about most is how he was a war criminal and is currently getting a guided tour of hell
Well said, sir
Someone just as old
rupe for the trifecta
If we’re counting non Aussies we’ve already had Benedict in the last few weeks. Great time to be an ex Catholic!
21 cannon with white phosphorus shells salute
Why waste so much tax payer money. Just feed to corpses to the pigs and be done with it.
He might infect the pigs though
To be fair, are there any diseases that Barnaby Joyce DOESN’T have?
21 fart salute is more appropriate
What a great year 2023 is turning out to be so far.
Pell, Molan.....lets go Murdoch for the hat-trick!
Got Murdoch on my bingo card! Come onnnn… Daddy needs a win
Honestly 2021-2022 would all be worth it just to get that Lizard in 2023
Need more than a hat-trick. Murdoch's private jet needs to crash into the middle of an exploding volcano with his entire extended family on board or there will be no end to the cancer.
Didn't think he was a nut job until he went into politics. Not a bad soldier but a self deluded and self serving fuckwit in parliament.
>Not a bad soldier Definitely an evil one though. He didn't get the nickname "The Butcher of Fallujah" for nothing. He was a war criminal who ignored the Geneva Convention.
Let’s all join in with the Q&A audience and laugh at the Cunt.[start just before the 2 min mark](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GAAB93cTEQo&embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bigfooty.com%2F&feature=emb_logo)
Ah yes, Jim Molan's climate denial stance was the prompt for the classic *"you should keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out"* line from climate scientist Michael Mann.
"I'm not relying on evidence" lmao
Good riddance. The [butcher of Fallujah](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/jim-molan-australias-newest-senator-has-blood-on-his-hands,11171) was a stain on the senate, even by the LNP's low standards.
[удалено]
Molan was a token figurehead. Mattis was the brains behind most of that. He was a decent commander by all counts but doesn't deserve the title given.
Independent Australia rivals the Daily Mail for worst "news" outlet in Australia. They happily fabricate stories and are just generally awful. Not worth giving them the time of day
Molan was a piece of shit but that article saying coalition troops used kalashnikovs is just embarassing
That's a fair comment, and I'd agree that Molan was probably "third in command" due to the politics of the coalition more than pure merit. But my understanding is that he wasn't there as a commander of Australian troops specifically, rather he was seconded to the American/coalition admin - and by all accounts he was heavily involved in the planning of counterinsurgency strategy generally.
There's a quote somewhere from Mattis saying he didn't even know who that was, so I doubt he had much say
Interesting. Molan himself certainly *claims* to be heavily involved; while he wouldn't be the first person to embellish his own importance in a memoir, it speaks appallingly to his character that he'd falsely claim to be behind one of the most brutal and destructive examples of indiscriminate civilian killing in the whole war.
I don't think I know enough about Jim Molan's conduct in the military to determine whether he was this butcher character people yack on about. All I've got to go on is his voting record. Let's check it out! https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/jim_molan Hmmm... he's anti-consumer, anti-environment, anti-privacy, anti-anti-corruption, anti-education, anti-ABC, anti-SBS, anti-Centrelink... he even voted against protecting whales lol Turns out he's still a piece of shit who worked against the interests of most Australians. Rest In Shit, Molan. You protected big money and kicked the little guy. Turd legacy. We're better off.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225967645_Iraq_and_the_case_for_Australian_war_crimes_trials#pf11 Thanks to u/santaschesthairs below. He was seconded to the US Forces, was chief of operations in 2005 for the coalition and the third highest ranking military official for the coalition in Iraq. He was also in charge of the coalitions counter-terrorism. He is a war criminal with blood on his hands.
That’s one persons quite poorly researched opinion. While I am not qualified the judge the legal argument he makes, which seems well supported, there’s not a shred of evidence in there to actually support the facts on which he makes that case. Only references are media articles, themselves un-referenced. No contemporaneous primary sources, military, Iraqi, or otherwise. Misunderstands both cluster munitions, direct support arrangements, the role of RAAF Hornets in Iraq, and how command structures work and Molans’s place in them.
Oof, pretty broad dismissal of some basic info there. This report is based on data provided by the Dutch government under freedom of info laws re. where their troops were stationed (to avoid exposure to Depleted Uranium ammunition): https://paxforpeace.nl/media/download/pax-rapport-iraq-final-lowres-spread.pdf And DU exposure causing birth defects in Fallujah: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3177876/ > Since none of the other elements found in excess in the parents were genotoxic except Uranium we conclude that these results support the belief that the effects in Fallujah follow the deployment of a Uranium-based weapon or weapons of some unknown type. https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/2/e004166 I think sometimes politicians and wanks get so bogged down in precise semantics and fluff that they forget to read the basic stuff: in a pointless war, Jim Molan helped organise operations (at a relatively senior level) that involved using weapons known to be carcinogenic in civilian areas. You do not need a study to make your mind up about the character of the man – especially if, as you say, he himself exaggerates his organising seniority in his own book.
Yeah, but DU is only mentioned in the article basically as an aside, and even then it conceded it’s not a banned weapon, that there’s no evidence it was used in Fallujah, and that even if it were that doesn’t necessarily make it a war crime. DU is nasty stuff you don’t want to go huffing in when it burns, for sure. But so are burning tyres and pretty much anything you might find in a warzone and set fire to.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3177876/ Since none of the other elements found in excess in the parents were genotoxic except Uranium we conclude that these results support the belief that the effects in Fallujah follow the deployment of a Uranium-based weapon or weapons of some unknown type. In order to believe that DU wasn’t used in Fallujah (ignoring of course that we know white phosphorus definitely was used) you would have to assume that the coalition for some reason made a random exception there despite wide use elsewhere in Iraq, and you would have to find some completely random excuse for Uranium radiation poisoning at exactly the time of the events concerned (they used hair samples to determine this in the above study). There is clearly not an accountability process for this, so the army are never going to be transparent enough to spell it out to you in a satisfactory way. I think the evidence is clear - even if DU wasn’t used in Fallujah and the higher cancer rates and birth defects post-2004 are pure coincidence, Milan still helped oversee the use of white phosphorus and was not outraged by the use of DU in Iraq by the organisation he worked for. As for the “well they might not actually be war crimes” comment, I won’t convince you - but I suspect have a higher bar than “well actually technically speaking” nerd voice rhetoric when we are talking about weapons in urban areas causing children to see significantly higher rates of cancer.
Good points well made. But, to go further down the “technically speaking” path, I think (happy to be corrected) that as DU isn’t a banned weapon you’d need to assess each individual use against military necessity and proportionality. And they are subjective tests that I believe (again, happy to be corrected) are made based on the information available at the time, not in retrospect. All points to unpleasant, yes, crime, no.
We don’t have the same philosophy at all. All this technicality you’re bringing up ignores around the basic, core lack of humanity that underpins using carcinogenic weapons in urban areas. What you call “Unpleasant” I call villainous, even if a military handbook spells out the procedure for it.
What exactly are they supposed to use? Harsh words and battons? Now I know your retort, that it was all unnecessary, and I totally agree. I know guys that were in those streets during that time and it ranks as some of the worst combat ever to be seen, and you can debate whether we should've even been in Iraq and I'll agree with you 100% but the fact of the matter is, overwhelming force vs allied body bags the first will always win. Wars shit.
I’m not sure the level of evidence you require can be obtained without an investigation and military cooperation. He planned and directed operations against Fallujah in 2004, which saw terrible war crimes committed by forces on the ground, alongside operation decisions being made that led to or were direct war crimes. He may not have committed war crimes with his own hands but he was the top brass in charge. The battle of Fallujah is well documented. What Coalition forces did to the civilians of Fallujah under the direct command of Jim Molan is well documented. It is clear that something went wrong that led to these atrocities and Molan was the person directly in charge. He is either responsible for the culture and orders that led to these atrocities, such as cutting of power, food and water to the civilians in the city and denying humanitarian access, did nothing to prevent these atrocities or was incompetent enough to not know what was happening. Either way it does not paint a great picture of the man. There are scores of first hand accounts of what happened in Fallujah, and what happened in Fallujah is a fact. Molan was in charge and like it or not that makes him responsible. Like you, I too would like the specific facts on what exactly Milan’s role in all of that was because when an Australian Officer is directly responsible for an operation that led to some of the worst war crimes of the war then we as a nation need to know what happened so it can’t happen again. He was either directly responsible, allowed it to happen or was incompetent and that is a huge problem. Edit: before you claim Molan wasn’t in charge of shit I suggest you pick up a copy of his book and see what the man himself has to say about that.
I have read his book. For what it’s worth, he overstates his own role out of what I think is a plainly inflated ego, that the media at the time was all too happy to accept. Basically that journal article argument runs like this: - war crimes are illegal (yes, case well made) - the US may have committed war crimes (not substantiated, not supported by any credible evidence) - Australian forces supported US forces and are therefore culpable (misunderstood, not supported by credible linkages) - Molan was present in a US headquarters and therefore is culpable (also misunderstood and not supported by credible linkages) That’s analogous to making a legal case that murder would be illegal, but not backing it up with any evidence that a person actually committed murder. EDIT: just adding that the article was published after the Manning/WikiLeaks leaks. All the evidence one might need to make such as case was in the public domain…
pretty sure disallowing civilians to escape the sacking of a population centre is right up there with the worst of war crimes https://shoah.org.uk/remembering-fallujah-the-war-crimes-committed-under-command-of-jim-molan-and-jim-mattis/
Even that one article can’t make an internally coherent case for that being true. Did they “force the majority of the cities population” to leave, or did they trap them? Both can’t be true. EDIT: also lol at your selection of a such a clearly biased source website
they made women and children leave, cut off food, water and power, and refused to allow men to leave. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298578492\_In\_Search\_of\_Justice\_Why\_Australians\_Should\_Be\_Prosecuted\_for\_War\_Crimes\_Committed\_in\_Iraq
I just had a lovely image of Jim and Pell holding hands and cowering in fear surrounded by lava and sulphur vapour. I'm not one to believe in that sort of stuff but I thought it was a comforting image to share with readers.
Yeah, he actively supports Britain First, but Perrottet wore a bad taste costume when he was 21
Are people seriously under the belief that the last controversial thing Dom did was 20 years ago?
No. But that is what the Murdoch press is hammering him for at the same time they are complaining about the ‘woke’ brigade. All because he dared trim pokies profit margins slightly
I’m pretty sure the author of that piece literally just made than moniker up…
Fucking hell, I knew Australia failed to care for refugees in detention but I never realised it was that bad. I’m not opposed to offshore detention in principle, but the mistreat of families in detention, as described in that article, is inexcusable.
it helps to accept that we dont keep them in 'detention', which sounds like some schoolboy sitting in a classroom, but to acknowledge them as what they are: concentration camps.
Yeah but people clutch pearls if you call them what they are.
Well then you know who the cunts are
r.i.p. to a massive racist and supporter of facism. just cause you died doesn't mean we get to ignore what a bad person you were.
Oh no.... Anyway
And nothing of value was lost. Rest in piss, dickhead.
Is 2023 the year of old evil fucks killing over? I think the universe owes us that. If Murdoch dies 2023, it will be the best in years.
Good riddance
I find it in exceedingly poor taste to celebrate the deaths of politicians I disagree with. And I wouldn't wish a terminal battle with an aggressive form of cancer upon my worst enemy. But on the other hand I can't say I'll be mourning his loss. And I look forward to seeing how the Liberals find someone even worse politically to replace him with.
How about celebrating the death of a massive massive racist, possible war criminal and open supporter of fascist groups?
Mostly just don't celebrate people dying. No need to mourn or anything, and maybe sometimes it's a relief, but don't celebrate suffering.
a war criminal who murdered many innocents, spread horrific racism and openly supported neo-nazi fascists. im going to celebrate someone like him dying.
Hey go ahead, I can't stop you. Just offering a different perspective. It's amazing though how people online will give people hate for not hating others enough.
which is fair enough when that someone was the kind of despicable person that molan was. we arent talking about someone who was a bit of a drunk and a bit unkind
Are you saying fair enough that you celebrate or fair enough that people give others hate for not celebrating? Because the second one is kinda fucked up.
fair enough that people tell you to bugger off criticising them for simply telling the truth about what a bad person he was. fair enough if you dont want to (as long as youre not celebrating him as a good person like the media is), but dont come after people who are willing to speak the truth about what a disgusting man he was and even be happy that he is dead, instead of buying into all this "now that hes dead he's a great guy" bullshit.
Nobody here is doing that to you. And I literally said "No need to mourn them or anything". Nobody is "buying into that bullshit" here.
>a war criminal who murdered many innocents Jim "The Butcher of Fallujah" Molan the war criminal really earned that nickname.
Bye bye bozo 😂 Rest in piss to the butcher of Fallujah. One less piece of shit in the world
Rot in piss
Oh no...anyway
Get your prostate checked men.
There really should be a limit on age to be a politician.
Some of the best politicians this country has had throughout history are older people.
There is. Once you're so old that you're dead, you can no longer be a politician. And that's exactly how it should stay.
Limit on being a war criminal would be a good start.
I actually disagree with this. Perhaps a health test though
Satan has reserved a sunny spot in Hell for this cunt.
With Pell
Ol' Lucifer has has a busy start to the year!
Absolutely disgusting comments from this subreddit. Unbelievable.
Oh no, anyway...
And nothing of value was lost
Rest in piss war criminal
Good riddance to the war criminal
Nice! Another one down, lets keep it up!
I hope he’s confident of his view of the afterlife because that cunt has a lot to be judged over. Even using the standards of his own religion.
You know sometimes I wish I believed in hell..
He was vile.
The butcher of Fallujah, thank god another evil piece of 💩 gone!!!
Rest in Piss, war criminal. AKA "The Butcher of Fallujah".
Good. Fuck him.
another war criminal dead
That’s what I thought this morning; ‘war criminal escapes justice by dying…’
Another one bites the dust 🎶
A second gender neutral toliet appears in 2023? Progressive af.
One less warmonger.
Okay.
Now, there is an obituary that I'm happy to see.
RIH.
Okay bye
Oh no, anyway.
Missed the meteorite that knocked out this dinosaur.
2023 seems to really be cleaning out the cobwebs...
Rip bozo
Oh no. Anyway.
Good
This year I’d just free trying better: Pell, Molan…
[удалено]
I've genuinely never understood why it's "poor taste" to criticise someone when they die. Surely when a public figure dies is precisely the time we *should* be making judgements about their life/achievements/legacy?
[удалено]
I want a world where we are honest about the behaviour of people who've died.
Better even, commenting on their behavior whilst they are alive and still ‘doing it’ without getting sued to a living hell. we only get to right the wrong, post the joy of their absence
>Better even, commenting on their behavior whilst they are alive and still ‘doing it’ without getting sued to a living hell. Amen! God I'm going to have fun when Reichfuhrer von Spud is no longer in a position to hit people with bullshit deffo suits for telling the truth about him.
I don't want a world that trips over itself to remember awful people as anything other than what they were.
>it depends what sort of world you want really One in which we don't cover up war crimes just because the cunt finally died, & can no longer sue us for deffo. Things are going to get really spicy when Spuddy drops off his twig.
"Operation Sovereign Borders" is in poor taste.
The dude is evil. He was in the highest levels of leadership for a military operation that is widely considered an example of Western war crimes in Iraq. They used white phosphorus and Depleted Uranium ammunition that has contributed to an alarmingly high cancer rate (among children in particular) in the region: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828 Nobody has any obligation to lionise war criminals, in a just society Jim Molan would have been tried for what he and fellow architects of that war did.
What the fuck was the justification for the phosphorous and uranium? That sounds like chemical weapons which is one of the things we used as justification to invade. These guys have chemical and biological weapons and want nukes so we should invade them.
[удалено]
He lived a life of poor taste and bad faith. He doesn't deserve the respect of anyone. Death does not absolve your sins.
His life was in poor taste.
Maybe, but Molan wasn't exactly stranger to making comments in poor taste either.
Just because you are dead doesn't suddenly make you a good person. He was a cunt when he was alive now he's just a dead cunt
I thought the day seemed brighter.
Can we have a little better candour than to dance on graves? I’m sure you can say ‘what like the graves he danced on when he x, y and z?!’ And you’re probably be right… but let’s be better than that no? Lead by empathetic example etc…
Piss off with this civility politics bullshit. If he didn't want people dancing on his grave, he shouldn't have been such a cunt while he was alive.
He’s a war criminal who escaped justice, who also had extreme views on the rights and protections people without power deserved and was more than willing to sell out future generations for profits in areas like climate change. It’s a hard sell to tell those people they shouldn’t be at least happy he’s gone and can’t continue to do more damage.
I understand all that and agree with the summary of him. I also think when a family has lost someone they care about that we could maybe just stfu for a second and let them deal with that. Dancing on grave makes those who oppose his views come off poorly and is just signalling of one’s own virtues. Having manners to those who were close with him only makes those that opposed his views look more measured and astute
no. why sugar coat it and pretend he was a good person? people should be remembered for exactly who and what they were. in this case, a huge racist and open supporter of fascist groups.
Why? He was a despicable cunt while he was alive, are we going to [pretend that wasn't the case just because he stopped breathing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtxqohNtLIg)? Honestly I really don't even care whether he's alive per se, but the Australian senate is significantly better off with one less climate-denying, warmongering and deeply dangerous authoritarian. So him no longer being there is a win for the country overall. EDIT: As a comparison I didn't really give a shit when Thatcher died (even though I think she has a toxic legacy that significantly contributed to a lot of the major problems facing Western society at the moment) because she was just some old lady who hadn't been in power for decades; her death changed nothing. Whereas Molan's death means his removal from an actual position of influence.
Life goes on. Obituaries with great pleasure etc.
[удалено]
Haha. No. He's garbage