This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Has the 100 year Jihad (war) begun ... ???

Jump to new
luutzu said:
Vietnam. Escaped Communism by boat.


.
Click to expand...

I have had the great pleasure to have worked with a number of Vietnamese boat people and or their children over the years.

With out exception extraordinary people that embrace and bring much to Australia.

Your parents sound much the same
 
Calliope said:
As I said on another thread (Abbotts Counter Terrorism Measures) ...its too late already. Why bother with terrorist attacks when they can do it by manipulating the Labor party.
Click to expand...

Think you can slip in that utter garbage contempt of the Labor party?

Why don't you just come out and say "the Labor party is a 'terrorist' organisation".

How low can you go Calliope?
 
Macquack said:
Think you can slip in that utter garbage contempt of the Labor party?

Why don't you just come out and say "the Labor party is a 'terrorist' organisation".

How low can you go Calliope.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Calliope can detail exactly what legislation the Labor party passed in their term of government that benefitted the Muslim community over other groups ?
 
Unfortunately, Calliope will be unable to respond to your queries until this time next month. He has been suspended for a month for trolling and insulting others.

I am actively cracking down on those who personally attack and insult others and who deliberately disrupt the ASF community. There are one or two others who I am currently watching very closely.
 
IFocus said:
I have had the great pleasure to have worked with a number of Vietnamese boat people and or their children over the years.

With out exception extraordinary people that embrace and bring much to Australia.

Your parents sound much the same
Click to expand...
Yes, +1. The Vietnamese, as far as I've ever known, have made a positive contribution to Australia. I can't recall any suggestion ever of them being vulnerable to anti-Australia radicalisation.
 

Interesting. Self-radicalisation is a dominant theme. Both foreign born and locally born have caused harm.

Looking at expenditure. The following is ASIO's Net Cost of Services:

2011: 378m
2012: 374m
2013: 385m

That's obviously for expenses spanning the full breadth of ASIO activity, not just (anti) terrorism activity. They do not report by segment, so apportioning this is not possible without other info. In any case the figure is relatively stable whilst government revenue has grown. If judged unreasonable, perhaps such expenditure should be considered in light of the size of the budget ($363.5bn est). The total expenditure on ASIO approximates that of the miscellaneous expenditure item "Development Support for the UN, Commonwealth and Other Organisations" ($369m in 2013/14). Further, as raised elsewhere, also be considered relative to private capex which was $158,480m for the year to Q1 2014.

Infringement of civil liberties is a fraught area. But here we are. Muslims represent 1.5% of Australia's population. Most of whom are not radicals and significant contributors to the nation and even broader society. Yet, if a bomb goes off, it will be harder to care about the difference between those who are not radicalised and those who are and bigotry will become widespread.




...And bigotry is not isolated to the West by any means. With outcomes in the Middle East pointing to near absolute condemnation of Jews, it is hard to justify separating the Jewish faith from Israel from their perspective. For them, there is no discernible difference whatever the merits of the argument:

 
Julia said:
Yes, +1. The Vietnamese, as far as I've ever known, have made a positive contribution to Australia. I can't recall any suggestion ever of them being vulnerable to anti-Australia radicalisation.
Click to expand...

Most migrant groups have been beneficial to our nation because they haven't come here with the baggage of a medieval and repressive religion.
 
I certainly remember when Vietnamese were subject to demonization in Australia.Both during and after the Vietnamese conflict.Inhuman and unfeeling people they were.
Through understanding comes appreciation.
 
chiff said:
I certainly remember when Vietnamese were subject to demonization in Australia.Both during and after the Vietnamese conflict.Inhuman and unfeeling people they were.
Through understanding comes appreciation.
Click to expand...

Too often individuals are labelled with the attributes of their governments. If someone was "inhuman and unfeeling" like the Vietcong then they would have stayed in the country in which they were victorious, instead the people being suppressed fled elsewhere.

Maybe the same applies to current refugees as well...
 
IFocus said:
I have had the great pleasure to have worked with a number of Vietnamese boat people and or their children over the years.

With out exception extraordinary people that embrace and bring much to Australia.

Your parents sound much the same
Click to expand...

Thanks for your help.

For migrants and refugees who were given a chance to start again through Australians generosity, and who were helped by people like yourself when we first arrive with literally nothing... Growing up poor and receiving such kindness from strangers I think made just about all of us more generous and appreciative of the kind of society that made it possible for good people like yourself to help others, and I think set good examples of the kind of people we want to emulate and contributions we want to make when we're back on our feet. That's not to say that those who grew up privileged don't...

I went to public schools and though only had one Egyptian as a friend compare to mostly Viet friends, I mingled with Arabs and Whites and Asians and never really ask whether we're different or not, we just look different but we're all alike - try to do weight, pop pimples before heading to school and try to get dates... try is a key word when you have to pop pimples but yea.

So all these new laws and concerns and focus on the Muslim community is very alien to my own experiences.

Growing up, the only time our family went to a restaurant was the day we all passed our Australian Citizenship interviews. I remember mum was so happy she tries very hard to ignore the fact that we order a drink to go with our $5 bowl of Pho.

I'm pretty sure similar stories will be told by other ethnic minorities, Arabs, Muslims or otherwise.

To marginalise or disenfranchise any minority is not going to bring back the few who could be radicalised; to turn our country into a police state is not going to keep our country safer; to talk of a 100 year war against some 1 or 2 billion people... if that war is serious, it's not going to last 100 years.
 
The article which kicked off this thread was about protecting Australia against the threat of radical Islam. A threat which may take as long as 100 years to contain.

This is an excerpt from the original article quoting Peter Leahy:



For me, the following points were key: It is radicals that are the threat; it will not pass if we just wait and try not to provoke them any further; actions are aware of the possibility of inflaming local tensions; the solution must come from the Muslim world; and self-radicalization is a very big threat.

I don't know of a prior circumstance where a culture was regarded as sufficiently dangerous to warrant this level of concern in relation to terrorism. Could there be something about Islamic beliefs or culture in terms of the use of terror which differs from other cultures which have endured somewhat similar hardships at the hands of US foreign policy?

Let's look at this:

Japan utilized suicide pilots in war as part of its military strategy. It was forced into an unconditional surrender, had its religion altered following the restructure of its constitution. It lost 3m lives in WWII, some of it via nuclear bombs dropped on primary civilian populations after the war was clearly decided. Surely this would create enmity?

Is it ironic that 17% of the population of Hawaii is Japanese? As at 2010, there were 760k Japanese living in the US. Yet there is likely no material threat for issues that are still within living memory and could be used to radicalize another generation.

Vietnam saw substantive US involvement from many perspectives. Approximately 1m Vietnamese lives were lost (the government claims something closer to 3m). It is likely the dominant historical memory for the older generation who have every reason to despise the US for its part in the conflict. Yet, there are 1.5m Vietnamese who live in the US, with 600k in California alone. Despite this size of population on US soil, I am unaware of any credible terrorist threat arising from this population either.

France and Germany have had a long history of interstate warfare. They were on opposing sides in the Franco-Prussian War which saw Bonaparte face off against Bismark. They were on opposing sides of the two Word Wars. An enormous amount of hatred must be apparent. Germany alone took losses of ~9% of its population. Plenty to impact nearly every family in some way.

Greece fought on the side of the allies in WWII and lost ~7% of its population.

Yet, just a few short years after the cessation of hostilities, the ECSC was formed which bound France and Germany (and others) into a customs union which was the forerunner to the EU. As at 2004, freedom of movement was permitted between EU citizens. Neither France or Germany are listed as high priorities for terrorist activities in terms of national origin. In the post GFC period, Greece was bailed out and the largest portion of that came from Germany, in effect.

None of these situations which were outcomes that involved US foreign policy incursions have resulted in material terrorist threats. Yet Al Qaeda (and its affiliates) is by far the most virulent terrorist organisation:



Al Qaeda is thought to have had its origins in the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan. This was an incursion which met with strong condemnation from the West. US President Jimmy Carter ordered an embargo and the US boycotted the Moscow Olympics. These could not be seen to be against the interests of Al Qaeda at its formation.

Yet the values of Al Qaeda, which are closely aligned with the Wahhabis to the west despite operating separately, include violence against infidels and Muslims who are not sufficiently conservative/orthodox. They also want US bases out of Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia was a British Protectorate following a deal made with Ibn Saud in the Treaty of Darin (1915). This was not a forced imposition. It brought stability between Saudi Arabia and the surround Middle Eastern areas under British protection also. It defined national borders and provided clarity. Had the British Protectorate not been in place, conflict would likely have erupted.

The US assumed the protectorate in defacto terms after the British capability to hold them was essentially exhausted after WWII. Clearly there were strategic interests to mind when the details of an undisclosed agreement/understanding was made between Ibn Saud and Rooseveldt. This deal was made directly with the leadership. The discussion also included the state of Israel.

In an FBI documented inventory of terrorism on US soil between 1980 and 2005, three stand out as causing mass casualties:
26/2/93 International Islamic Extremist killed 6 and injured 1042 in NYC
19/4/95 Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed 168 and injured 754 in Oaklahoma
11/9/01 Al Qaeda killed 2972 and injured ~12000 in NYC

There is clearly a Muslim element in the inventory. Despite all of this, the US attitude towards Muslims is surprisingly moderate and generally improves with familiarity:





My Take:

I think that the political equivalent of Laissez Faire is entirely unrealistic. Further, a retreat into a multi-polar configuration is destablising to world order and lays the ground for large scale violence. This is visible through examination of history where wars in regions persist for generations until brought to heal by a strong power which, to some extent and by varying means, imposes order.

There is a virulent strain of radicalization that is housed within the Muslim faith that is not apparent in other circumstances which have more cause to hate the US and others. However, when countries like Saudi Arabia have a population of Wahhabis that numbers 23%, the scale of the issue becomes apparent. This is not a minor outlier. The pool for (further) radicalization is rich.

The US, the west and moderate Muslims would have been a target for radicals no matter what recent history could be revised. We can debate without conclusion whether the outcome would be better or worse for any given variation. World events which seemed sensible at the time, favoured the Al Qaeda operatives at their inception, resulted in US bases on Saudi soil with the whole-hearted agreement of its King, who united the country, have led us here. What matters is what do we do from here.

Until a vaccine can be found for the virus of radical Islam, containment would seem a viable course of action. Laying down of arms does not stop IS from pursuing victims. There is no absolute, only trade-offs. A vaccine does have side-effects as it seeks to produce a healthier outcome. Sensibilities of the Muslim population are bound to be adversely affected by the actions which will become apparent in time. A government cannot be seen to be doing nothing to a rising perceived threat which captures the public imagination. Further, the Muslim population would be further marginalized if one of their own perpetrated a mass killing (any killing, particularly of a non Muslim, to be blunt). Hence, any infringement on civil rights must be seen in this light. We are all going to bear some of this burden with increased surveillance, for a start. Some on this thread may have experienced what the US airports were like at Tom Bradley in the year after Sept 11.

The alternative of behaving as if we were in Utopia is not the answer either. Radicals are searching out soft targets. Hit an Australian target and just watch how things will change...not necessarily for the better.

In the meantime, I agree with the assessment that a Muslim sourced solution to the issue of radicalization may be the best hope for domestic security. However, the task is made hard by the proportion of the Muslim population with very strong motivations which are contrary to tolerance relative to the same hoping to soothe these positions. The task looks very difficult. Ultimately, we need to find where the balance between radical Islam is versus other parts of the Muslim population who are prepared to balance it, shrink it and keep it contained.

The war Leahy discusses is as much about capturing the common desire for living with tolerance in a cosmopolitan setting as it is about espionage or selective intervention. There is no realistic change that radical Islam will be eliminated. The radicalism in the Muslim faith does not appear to be present in other identities who have endured as much sorrow at the hands of US and Western interests. It could take the concerted efforts of the Australian security apparatus in alignment with moderate Muslims two generations to achieve. Maybe three. There, you have your 100 year war. Even then, vigilance will always be needed. Some problems cannot be solved, only limited.
 
Let me start with a personal experience...

In the mid 80s to 90s, Cabramatta was considered the "drug capital of Australia". Most of the drug problems are blamed on the Vietnamese community, I don't have the statistics, but the Vietnamese that live there also know there's a drug problem within its own community.... a lot yes, the worst in the country? Maybe, either way, it's bad.

You know what my parents and his friends who have young children did? They moved away from Cabramatta. They take their family away from potentially bad and criminal influences.

So why is it hard to imagine that Muslim parents won't try hard to teach and protect their children from such radical extremism within the minority of their community?

You can point to Islam if you want, I don't know. But I can't imagine that people go to Mosques, or to Church or Temples for political, war mongering, world domination purposes. I would imagine that most goes to places of worship to seek spiritual guidance and the like.

And all religion, Christianity I'm certain, could also be use to justify world domination under Christ - there's the Missionaries in the 18th centuries, the lost sheeps... Growing up, a good Catholic friend of mine took me to Church for a few months, get me to join the Youth Groups and teach me about religion and how to be baptised etc. etc. He didn't do it out of malice, just thought it'd be good for me and others to believe in Christ.

-------

Could be that I'm naive, but I'm sure there are existing laws that permit ASIO and other intelligence/security agencies to go after potential threats from returned jihadists and potential homegrown terrorists and radicals.

No one is suggesting that we're all good and kind and all Australians of all races and cultures would just hold hands and sing around campfires. But to suggests that the war on terror would last 100 years because it take two or three generations to basically breed out radicalism in the Muslim communities is absurd.

To do that, Australia and other Western democracies must barred all Muslim migrants from entering. The Muslims that are already in the country will slowly be taught to assimilate and join the A Team... haha

So unless you could do that to Muslims in Australia - erase Islam and inter marry Arabs or something... the war on terrorists will last as long as some Muslims see their holy land being soiled and Arab brothers being killed and our gov't is deep in it.

In any ethnic or religious community, in any population you care to choose, there's always some element of criminality, some element of racism and hatred against the state and authorities... It will do us more good to remember that basic fact and design our security policies and operations around that rather than single out one group or another.

With Abbott's chest thumping and rush to send Australian troops or Federal Police into Iraq or the Ukraine, yes, we're more likely to get hated for it by those countries and those people - Arabs or Russians alike.

I'm not sure if Australia would also be sanctioned by Russia if Abbott weren't so gung ho about MH17. I mean get angry, it is a great tragedy that some 37 of our Australians were killed like that... but realistically, I'm sure that Russia or even the Separatists who downed that plane did so by mistake, they didn't set out to shoot a passenger plane and they did not set out to murder Australians on that plane. That's not to excuse them, it's just as leader of a nation, you ought to calm down and approach act of war or murder more rationally.


-----
"If an enemy is forced to defend everywhere, he is weak everywhere" says Sun Tzu.

With the powerful Military Industrial Complex, the surveillance and security systems and service industries' increasing power, a gov't agency that maybe find it beneficial to its own job security and reach to theorised ever increasing domestic danger, with government run by politicians who would rather be safe than sorry for a terror act on its watch... we ought to be careful to not rush into judgment and give them a blank cheque to violate more of our civil liberties and erode more of whatever freedom we still have.

If we could just forget about those petty little things call civil liberties and the rights to free speech or worship for ourselves and our fellow citizens... If we focus too much on domestic security, try not to forget real and deadly serious external security threats.

If I'm China or Russia, I'd probably be funding ISIS and the likes... by focusing the citizens and the politicians on those horrible terrorists dressed in black, I as China will finish a few military bases in the South China Sea, a couple more Aircraft Carrier fleets... and by the time I annex the entire Sea where 1/3 of the world's trade must pass through, have bases and making new friends along the way... the once dominant world power is still stuck in the Middle East spending trillions more of money they do not have and have created an ever richer and more politically powerful domestic surveillance industry it cannot hope to cut billions of funding from...

That would be a real tragedy in all this politically convenient war on terror at home and abroad.


BUt I am optimistic that the real intelligent analysts and officers securing our national and domestic interests are more intelligent than a typical politician and know what to do with the funding they do get, by whatever pretext or rationale the PM gives the public.
 
luutzu said:
So why is it hard to imagine that Muslim parents won't try hard to teach and protect their children from such radical extremism within the minority of their community?
Click to expand...

Because Islam is a religion - totally different to drugs.
 
That Vice News video gave me a much better understanding of the various reasons behind the movement. Sadly those children are being used to perpetuate the various causes.

We are different in Australia.

We don't think like those people. Religion is a choice and religion is passive. We are freer but we have had to fight to maintain our freedom too. We fought in defence of the greater freedom we have today. We were not cowards and we stood tall when required. We bear no grudge. We have no absolute hatred. We don't hate the countries that took many of our forebearers lives and bought pain and suffering to all. We remember that good triumphs over evil.
 
DB008 said:
Because Islam is a religion - totally different to drugs.
Click to expand...

So one to two billions people have been, is, continue to be, drinking the cool-aide of hatred and terror that is Islam?

If Islam is as bad, and if Muslims are as vengeful as you and some would have us believe, Australia, America and all Western countries would be a war zone right now. A real war zone, not a funny made up "war on terror" and homeland security surveillance.


But yea, you should sign up to go start a couple more Crusades if you want dude. Just don't get kill because if you do, our dear PM will just shrug and say "**** happens" like he had on another occasion.

All these little Napoleons sitting behind their desk deciding life and death on others...
 

Anyways, back in the real world...

 
DB008 said:
Anyways, back in the real world...
Click to expand...

Of course you ought to revoke citizenships of people who go and fought for a foreign army or terrorists.
But of course there are exceptions, some armies are more just than others.

In case you miss the point, saying that I'm not sure if an Australian fighting in the Israeli army would be questioned or considered a security threat once he get back to Australia. I can't imagine ASIO or the likes would ask them if they're still going to try and kill Arab-Australians at home or not.

So back to the real world...

Our democracy is being sold to the Police Industrial Complex right under our noses... look at Ferguson and Thailand... pretty soon you can forget about civil protests or freedom of speech; Pretty soon, you'll need to prove your innocence else be held by Big Brother and have your doors kicked in due to some slight radical thoughts you may have.

But of course these laws and restrictions are intended only for Muslims and them terrorists, I mean Abbott is pushing these laws and give all us non-Muslims a wink that it really is intended for Muslims just he can't say it's for Muslims so he has to say it's for all Australians, wink wink... and we wink back.

welcome to realpolitik...

we're about to give the green light to invasion of our privacy, about to give up that pesky 'innocent until proven guilty' legal nonsense... that and a couple billions a year; that and further adventures in the Middle East - because the last time we were there for 10 years, it turn out really well...

But I suppose the Russian will just drink vodka; the Indians will be busy installing toilets in every home; the Chinese will just keep on making cheap knock offs; the largest Muslim country in the world right above us won't mind living as they do and will protect us from any invasion while we marginalise the Muslims at home and bomb Arab Muslims abroad... because you know, terrorists are evil and we will turn over every rock at home to find them and bomb every village for as long as it take...

If only geo-political power in the world never changes.

Iraq III: the Iraq-Syrian Menace.

Go team!
 

Just wondering

1. How many unarmed Australians has an Israeli military soldier killed? How many Australians have members of Islamic related terror organisations killed?

2. Would you rather stand unarmed in front of an armed Israeli officer in the dessert as an Australian citizen or would you prefer to stand in front of an IS operative in Iraq?

Are these answers the same? And what would be your point of equal treatment for asymmetric risk? Discrimination causing agitation to a group of people who are rampaging through Iraq and Syria who are quite capable of self-radicalizing? Ok. Let's just back off and watch the region sink into Islamic Fundamentalism whose charters have a blanket article to wipe out infidels, now loaded with oil wealth? Did I catch your drift?
 

You're missing the point.

The point is, if you're an Australian, you ought not to be fighting, you ought not to join and fight and kill for a foreign army. Full stop.

That if you're an Australian, unless you're enlisted in the Australian Defense Force and then Captain Abbott send you overseas to fight his adventures, you ought not to do any fighting.. and those Australians that does it ought to be their loyalty and security credentials questioned.

To your false assumptions:

1. Depends... If unarmed Australians were in Gaza or the West Bank - doing charity work, work for the UN or just visiting relatives - you know the answer to that;

Funny story... my wife told me she saw in an interview a kidnapped Australian journalist who said IS or other was going to kill him, saying that he's American; when he said no they say they'll kill him too because he's British... then when he said he's Australian they let him go.

2. I would love to stand in front of Israeli "officers", just i better not play soccer and better not be Arab-looking. We all know what happened to the four boys playing soccer on the beach in Gaza a month back, don't we.

----

Why we must go and defend Christendom against "pure evil" radicals who dare think they could take over the world...

I think more than a few comrades in Beijing and Moscow are rolling on the floor laughing at our modern-day Crusades.

China/Russia: Yes you young Richard the Lionhearts, you should pivot back to the Middle East and bomb those... infidels?... those terrorists... for God and country and justice and freedom and democracy; Here's a couple billions ISIS, here's a couple more trillions young Richy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Iran Is not Iraq
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
12K
Dona Ferentes
Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
H
Race war claims
Replies
11
Views
5K
kgee
The PRE-PLANNED Financial/Economic 911 of 2008
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
Hanuman
H
B
Hicks release at end of month
Replies
16
Views
5K
chops_a_must
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...