![]() |
jihadists allowed to return
|
Re: jihadists allowed to return
Originally Posted by Ballys
(Post 11547495)
Discuss
|
Re: jihadists allowed to return
|
Re: jihadists allowed to return
Originally Posted by GarryP
(Post 11547499)
Australian 'journalism' really is the pits - even UK newspapers look trustworthy and measured in comparison.
Anyway, if they are citizens then how can they not be allowed to return? Sure prosecute them if they have broken the law. |
Re: jihadists allowed to return
|
Re: jihadists allowed to return
One way ticket.When, not if, we have a major terrorist attack here these chooks will come home to roost:thumbdown:
|
Re: jihadists allowed to return
Originally Posted by GarryP
(Post 11547499)
Australian 'journalism' really is the pits - even UK newspapers look trustworthy and measured in comparison.
British jihadists are the most bloodthirsty in Syria says rebel commander | Daily Mail Online |
Re: jihadists allowed to return
Is it even possible to deny a citizen entry to their own country? I bet all these people are at least under heavy surveillance and not just casually let into the country to "to roam the streets..." Rubbish article.
|
Re: jihadists allowed to return
It is easy to deny citizens re entry,just a vote in Parliament.
|
Re: jihadists allowed to return
Originally Posted by GarryP
(Post 11547499)
Australian 'journalism' really is the pits - even UK newspapers look trustworthy and measured in comparison.
Apart from tits with your toast, I struggle to see much that's trustworthy and measured in the British tabloids :lol: Gordon Ramsay Sex Dwarf Eaten By Badger Oompa Loompa Showed Me His Willy Wonka! I Kicked Burning Terrorist So Hard In The Balls That I Tore A Tendon In My Foot Banned From Chinese Buffet For Shitting In The Seaweed Autopsy Shock - Colonel Gadaffi Was A Woman |
Re: jihadists allowed to return
Originally Posted by spouse of scouse
(Post 11548601)
Some Aussie journalism is crap. But UK newspapers 'trustworthy and measured in comparison' ? :rofl::rofl:
Apart from tits with your toast, I struggle to see much that's trustworthy and measured in the British tabloids :lol: Gordon Ramsay Sex Dwarf Eaten By Badger Oompa Loompa Showed Me His Willy Wonka! I Kicked Burning Terrorist So Hard In The Balls That I Tore A Tendon In My Foot Banned From Chinese Buffet For Shitting In The Seaweed Autopsy Shock - Colonel Gadaffi Was A Woman |
Re: jihadists allowed to return
Originally Posted by renth
(Post 11548666)
You should have posted those as links! I remember the Gordon Ramsay Sex Dwarf story, pure class!
|
Re: jihadists allowed to return
Originally Posted by renth
(Post 11548666)
You should have posted those as links! I remember the Gordon Ramsay Sex Dwarf story, pure class!
|
Re: jihadists allowed to return
Originally Posted by spouse of scouse
(Post 11548774)
Sorry Renth, should have posted the links but I was laughing too hard :lol:
|
Re: jihadists allowed to return
Originally Posted by spouse of scouse
(Post 11548601)
Some Aussie journalism is crap. But UK newspapers 'trustworthy and measured in comparison' ? :rofl::rofl:
Apart from tits with your toast, I struggle to see much that's trustworthy and measured in the British tabloids :lol: |
Re: jihadists allowed to return
Will that great aussie icon Rolf Harris be allowed back in;)
|
Re: jihadists allowed to return
Originally Posted by GarryP
(Post 11549823)
That was kind of the point - the UK press is bloody awful, but the Australian press seems plum the depths just that little bit harder. A combination of lies, racism, stupidity and just that extra bit of vicious incompetence. The only reason they wouldn't have been listening to voicemail messages would be because they weren't smart enough to think of it, or copy it.
I'm buggered if I know how so many topics turn into 'the grass is greener on my side'! |
Re: jihadists allowed to return
I'm lucky enough not to read newspapers, or watch the news, consequently I've not got a clue what's happening around the globe, and I have no journalist telling me how I should feel about world events. The up side of this is that I speak as I find, with no preconceptions, the down side is... erm nope no down side, I'm happy as a pig in shit. Why get bothered by things you can't change? and why let someone else feed you bullshit?
|
Re: jihadists allowed to return
Originally Posted by stevenglish1
(Post 11549897)
I'm lucky enough not to read newspapers, or watch the news, consequently I've not got a clue what's happening around the globe, and I have no journalist telling me how I should feel about world events. The up side of this is that I speak as I find, with no preconceptions, the down side is... erm nope no down side, I'm happy as a pig in shit. Why get bothered by things you can't change? and why let someone else feed you bullshit?
|
Re: jihadists allowed to return
Originally Posted by spouse of scouse
(Post 11549831)
Mate, you're flogging a dead horse. Both countries have the particular brand of 'journalism' you're talking about and any comparative research study, light-weight or in-depth, would be hard pressed to find one 'worse' than the other.
I'm buggered if I know how so many topics turn into 'the grass is greener on my side'! It's BE. I think that most threads end up that way eventually. Usually just after the Nazis are mentioned... S |
Re: jihadists allowed to return
Originally Posted by Swerv-o
(Post 11549928)
It's BE. I think that most threads end up that way eventually. Usually just after the Nazis are mentioned...
S |
Re: jihadists allowed to return
Originally Posted by Bernieboy
(Post 11549904)
I love reading yer bullshit :)
|
Re: jihadists allowed to return
Originally Posted by Swerv-o
(Post 11549928)
It's BE. I think that most threads end up that way eventually. Usually just after the Nazis are mentioned...
:huh: Personally I stick with the ABC, BBC, and The Guardian. |
Re: jihadists allowed to return
Originally Posted by GarryP
(Post 11549951)
Well, most threads seem to end up with people saying one is better than the other. You even get accused of it when you are saying that both are terrible ...
:huh: Personally I stick with the ABC, BBC, and The Guardian. The way I see it, is that Australia has a sort of battler - but dangerously, 'half serious', (if incompetent) tabloid press with a battler -everyman agenda. Sort of The Express. The UK has a truly, gutter, farcical, comical tabloid press. (It also has the quite niche, in some ways, Daily Mail - I am not aware of any equivalent anywhere!) |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 4:46 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.