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

[DeepState]

1. You're missing the point.

2. 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.

3. To your false assumptions:

4. 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;

5. 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.

6. 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.


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

8. 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.

1. Seems to be a lot of that going on.


2. The clipped quote from your response to DB008 included: 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.

You did not address this key point which you made and to which I was predominantly responding. I made no remark on the rights to return after fighting in the war. It was all about differentiating risk mitigation from Islamic Terror vs other risk sources (you nominated Israeli).


3. What "false" assumptions were made? No assumptions were stated. Alternatively, some may have been assumed by yourself. Please outline them if so, rather than put words in my mouth.


4. The question was not about specific, selective, circumstances. Your response appears to have, evasively, missed the point. The question was about total deaths of Australians by Israeli military in comparison to Islamic terror. What is your specific response to this specific question? I am not asking for hypothetical scenarios of what could be if an Australian was in this or that situation that may or may not have occurred. What actually did occur?


5. If this is not a joke, please supply references. If it is a joke, why was this even added into a specific response related to the issue of death of Australians at the hands of Islamic terror?


6. Once again, an evasive and unrepresentative exposition of the real threat to Australians. How may Australians have been killed by Israeli defence personnel in comparison to Australian lives lost at the hands of Islamic terrorists? In case this is unclear, both responses are numbers and do not require verbiage.


7. Let's say that the west backs out and IS takes over Iraq, Syria and spreads to create a caliphate across the Middle East and into North Africa. Do you believe that everything will be peaceful in relations to the West? What about the east?


8. Do you have actual statistics on the cost of targeted air strikes into Iraq? Estimates, by the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, for the last 3 weeks are USD 100m. If it goes for a year at this rate, that adds to $1.7bn. What proportion of US GDP would this be over the same period? I'm not sure that the Chinese or Russians would raise the smallest smirk at this, let alone rolling around laughing. Nor could it vaguely be considered as over-reach. Or is it? If so, how?

 

[luutzu]

1. Seems to be a lot of that going on.

I know, tend to increase with age. Look it up. Bloomberg or Reuters might not do it though, probably try some psychological databases.

2. The clipped quote from your response to DB008 included: 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.

First, the Australian Jihadists that's overseas right now, I am sure, goes to join ISIS to fight other Arabs or infidels OVERSEAS. If they want to kill Australians, leaving Australia and going to Iraq/Syria probably isn't the best place to be.

Second, I agree that those who join ISIS etc. are a security threat to Australia. I have never said otherwise.

So if them fighting with ISIS automatically make them a threat to us at home and we thereby automatically rescind their Australian citizenship - no trial, no court, no legal representation; Is it then a double standard to welcome home those Australians who fought in a different foreign army - say Israel or Pakistan.

Apparently, some foreign armies are OK to join and kill; others not OK at all. Because some armies are evil while others are doing God's work, or something.

You did not address this key point which you made and to which I was predominantly responding. I made no remark on the rights to return after fighting in the war. It was all about differentiating risk mitigation from Islamic Terror vs other risk sources (you nominated Israeli).

Are there evidence, statistics, that Jihadists fighting overseas have come back and kill Australians at home or plan to commit terrorist act on the not-their-Homeland?

Are we certain, definitely certain, that those who join the IDF or other "good" armies will never continue their act of war on the homeland?

I'm optimistic so I'd like to think that Australian security agencies won't take your kind of risk mitigations.

3. What "false" assumptions were made? No assumptions were stated. Alternatively, some may have been assumed by yourself. Please outline them if so, rather than put words in my mouth.

It was pretty obvious what your assumption was - that the Israeli army won't kill unarmed Australian but ISIS and them terrorists will.

I guess those 500 dead children, among them the four boys playing soccer on the beach in Gaza... those were either human shield or terrorists.

As replied: that it depends if that Australian is Arab looking or not.

4. The question was not about specific, selective, circumstances. Your response appears to have, evasively, missed the point. The question was about total deaths of Australians by Israeli military in comparison to Islamic terror. What is your specific response to this specific question? I am not asking for hypothetical scenarios of what could be if an Australian was in this or that situation that may or may not have occurred. What actually did occur?

Since Israel has a tendency to only kill fenced-in, mostly unarmed "terrorists" in Gaza, and killing from the comfort of their jets, the answer to how many Australian they've directly killed is probably zero.

So your point being? That since Israel have not kill any Australians but Islamic terrorists have killed Australians [as they have in Bali], it is OK for Australian citizens to join the IDF to kill Arabs but not OK to join ISIS and friends to kill Arabs.

Good thing you didn't go to law school.

5. If this is not a joke, please supply references. If it is a joke, why was this even added into a specific response related to the issue of death of Australians at the hands of Islamic terror?

I'll ask and if have time search for reference.
But let assume for a second that that's not true... it is OK that some soldier (friendly of course) can kill but not OK when other evil soldier kill? Point taken.

6. Once again, an evasive and unrepresentative exposition of the real threat to Australians. How may Australians have been killed by Israeli defence personnel in comparison to Australian lives lost at the hands of Islamic terrorists? In case this is unclear, both responses are numbers and do not require verbiage.

When or where did I ever say the IDF seek out Australian?
Didn't I say, or imply at least, that it depends?

In a couple of years, maybe you should go and stand in front of the Israeli army in Gaza and see whether Hamas or the IDF take the first shot at you. I'd rather not stand in front of any guns, because as Captain Australia once remarked - seit happens.

7. Let's say that the west backs out and IS takes over Iraq, Syria and spreads to create a caliphate across the Middle East and into North Africa. Do you believe that everything will be peaceful in relations to the West? What about the east?

How do you know it won't be peaceful? I'm not saying it will be, am saying I don't know.

You seem to think that since ISIS has on its charter or whatever that it will then take over the world.

I think killing people who might or might not kill you one day in the future... that would be considered war crimes by the international court of justice; that under International Law, preemptive wars would be considered illegal.

Yea, once ISIS take over the ME, it will then build nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers and cross the Indian Ocean, the Atlantic, then onto the Pacific and then the world is theirs. Much like the Mongolian hordes under Genghis Khan.

8. Do you have actual statistics on the cost of targeted air strikes into Iraq? Estimates, by the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, for the last 3 weeks are USD 100m. If it goes for a year at this rate, that adds to $1.7bn. What proportion of US GDP would this be over the same period? I'm not sure that the Chinese or Russians would raise the smallest smirk at this, let alone rolling around laughing. Nor could it vaguely be considered as over-reach. Or is it? If so, how?

I thought I was pretty clear that you cannot hope to bomb ISIS away. That they are, right now, in Iraq and Syria... in an area bigger than Britain... that to think you could bomb them for any amount of time, under that 1.7Bn/pa projection of yours, they will surrender.

The French couldn't do it in IndoChina, the American couldn't in Vietnam for some 20 years; the Israelis couldn't for some 47 years... bombing couldn't bring peace in Iraq II... but Iraq 3 will be different?

What is that saying? That you can know when the war start but you cannot know when or how it will end?

I just heard Obama saying there's no strategy yet in Iraq/Syria.

Forget about Grand Strategy... there's yet to be a strategy here.

Possible that bombing alone won't do it? Possible that you start out bombing then at some time in the future boots will need to be back on the grounds in the Middle East to "keep the peace"? Is it possible that a few months' worth of bombings could lead to further escalations and ground invasion and before you know it, a decade's gone.

Heck, Afghanistan fell in two weeks; Iraq in 3... look how long we were there after "Mission Accomplished".

The Cost of IRAQ to US: More than $US2 Trillion

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314


Grand Strategy
If we go back to the ME, we'll be fighting three(3) wars: 1/ Russian sanctions and potential escalations; 2/ War on terror at home; 3/ ISIS and potential quagmire.

I saw the headlines that the Russian sanctions against Australia will cost Australian farmers some $500 million this year?

The new data retention initiatives for the war on terror some $680 million budgeted?

The couple dollars for ISIS?

A few hundred millions here and few hundred millions there and pretty soon the rich might have to actually pay higher taxes.

---

China has already stake its claim to some 90% of the South China Sea - the seas some 1/3 of global trade goes through; it is building runways and creating bases on the few rocks there, right now.

Russia is accused of invading the Ukraine just this morning.

If you are either of these two powers and have a bit of brain; wouldn't you somehow like ISIS? Maybe even channel some weapons and intelligence so they could keep the US and its allies busy?

No? I guess only the US are devious enough to do that to the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

 

[luutzu]

My bad regarding the Australian and terrorist. Didn't hear correctly and thought the guy was kidnapped but turns out he was only a Journalist in Nigeria and said the same thing regarding his encounters with Boko Haram:

from Article:

"During the journey in North-eastern Nigeria, his life was threatened more than once, but his Australian passport saved him.

“When confronted by groups with an AK-47 in my face they'd say, ‘you are American, we have to kill you’,” Davis said.

“When you say, no I’m not American, they think you are British, and say you will still die, but when I said I’m Australian, they said that’s all right. I have no idea why but it’s certainly been helpful.”
The devout Christian managed to smuggle out of the country footage of a handful of schoolgirls who escaped from Boko Haram."


http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/australian-negotiator-politicians-funding-boko-haram/187570/

 

[luutzu]

To get things rolling....

the smell of white phosphorous would probably be a flame by another name, smells just as good, smells like... like victory.

 

[DeepState]

Preamble: The clipped quote from your response to DB008 included: “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.”

LuuTzu: So if them fighting with ISIS automatically make them a threat to us at home and we thereby automatically rescind their Australian citizenship - no trial, no court, no legal representation; Is it then a double standard to welcome home those Australians who fought in a different foreign army - say Israel or Pakistan.

Apparently, some foreign armies are OK to join and kill; others not OK at all. Because some armies are evil while others are doing God's work, or something.

Response: Or is it that some returned soldiers/militants present more of a threat to Australia than others? If so, how is that unreasonable? My original question was only about the return and questioning of inbound travelers to Australia.


Preamble: You did not address this key point which you made and to which I was predominantly responding. I made no remark on the rights to return after fighting in the war. It was all about differentiating risk mitigation from Islamic Terror vs other risk sources (you nominated Israeli).

LuuTzu:Are there evidence, statistics, that Jihadists fighting overseas have come back and kill Australians at home or plan to commit terrorist act on the not-their-Homeland?

Are we certain, definitely certain, that those who join the IDF or other "good" armies will never continue their act of war on the homeland?

I'm optimistic so I'd like to think that Australian security agencies won't take your kind of risk mitigations.

Response: What is the balance of risk? Jihadists have killed Westerners, have a mandate to do so according to their doctrine, post hatred on social media. The security agencies you are so optimistic about aren’t so optimistic about the terror threat. They list it as one of the key risks to national security and the guy who penned the article which started all this off is part of it despite your disagreement of the likely span of an extended series of limited interventions, increased surveillance and other measures to reduce the risk to Australian citizens.


Preamble: What "false" assumptions were made? No assumptions were stated. Alternatively, some may have been assumed by yourself. Please outline them if so, rather than put words in my mouth.

LuuTzu: It was pretty obvious what your assumption was - that the Israeli army won't kill unarmed Australian but ISIS and them terrorists will.

I guess those 500 dead children, among them the four boys playing soccer on the beach in Gaza... those were either human shield or terrorists.

As replied: that it depends if that Australian is Arab looking or not.

Response: So, just to be clear. If you look like an Arab in Australia, you are likely to be killed by an Israeli? Whereas, if you are a terrorist Jihadist, you are less likely to kill anyone in Australia? Is that right?


Preamble: The question was not about specific, selective, circumstances. Your response appears to have, evasively, missed the point. The question was about total deaths of Australians by Israeli military in comparison to Islamic terror. What is your specific response to this specific question? I am not asking for hypothetical scenarios of what could be if an Australian was in this or that situation that may or may not have occurred. What actually did occur?

LuuTzu: Since Israel has a tendency to only kill fenced-in, mostly unarmed "terrorists" in Gaza, and killing from the comfort of their jets, the answer to how many Australian they've directly killed is probably zero.

So your point being? That since Israel have not kill any Australians but Islamic terrorists have killed Australians [as they have in Bali], it is OK for Australian citizens to join the IDF to kill Arabs but not OK to join ISIS and friends to kill Arabs.

Good thing you didn't go to law school.

Response: I think you are attempting to be psychic again with my formal qualifications. My point was, to repeat one more time, which group has shown themselves to be the greater threat to Australia? Which group has killed more Australians? It wasn’t inviting a response of judgment about whether death by either group is somehow less grotesque.


Preamble: If this is not a joke, please supply references. If it is a joke, why was this even added into a specific response related to the issue of death of Australians at the hands of Islamic terror?

LuuTzu: I'll ask and if have time search for reference.

Response: No probs on the oversight.


Preamble: Once again, an evasive and unrepresentative exposition of the real threat to Australians. How may Australians have been killed by Israeli defence personnel in comparison to Australian lives lost at the hands of Islamic terrorists? In case this is unclear, both responses are numbers and do not require verbiage.

LuuTzu: When or where did I ever say the IDF seek out Australian?

Didn't I say, or imply at least, that it depends?

In a couple of years, maybe you should go and stand in front of the Israeli army in Gaza and see whether Hamas or the IDF take the first shot at you. I'd rather not stand in front of any guns, because as Captain Australia once remarked - seit happens.

Response: You never said it. I never implied you did say that an IDF would seek out an Australian target. You must have missed my point or, perhaps, you are evading an inconvenient point. You made various comments about scenarios where, had an Australian been present in Gaza on a beach playing soccer etc… This did not address the question. The answer does not require a judgment call. It does not require you to say anything about IDF members seeking out Australians at all, which is why I do not need to assume anything. It requires two numbers. Approximations will be fine.

In a couple of years, I would much more readily present myself at Army HQ of the IDF than Army HQ (or its equivalent) in Hamas, or IS, or Al Qaeda… . How about you? This was the actual question raised earlier, which you have again evaded. It is a simple either or question. How about actually answering it? However, I’d rather not stand in front of any guns. Wouldn’t that be the point of national security?


Preable: Let's say that the west backs out and IS takes over Iraq, Syria and spreads to create a caliphate across the Middle East and into North Africa. Do you believe that everything will be peaceful in relations to the West? What about the east?

LuuTzu: How do you know it won't be peaceful? I'm not saying it will be, am saying I don't know.

You seem to think that since ISIS has on its charter or whatever that it will then take over the world.

I think killing people who might or might not kill you one day in the future... that would be considered war crimes by the international court of justice; that under International Law, preemptive wars would be considered illegal.

Yea, once ISIS take over the ME, it will then build nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers and cross the Indian Ocean, the Atlantic, then onto the Pacific and then the world is theirs. Much like the Mongolian hordes under Genghis Khan.

Response: No right answer here. It comes down to where the line is drawn for perceived threat to national lives and treasure. So, how many lives or countries need to be lost to the advancement of IS before you think that intervention is appropriate, knowing we can never be sure of the counterfactual?


Preamble: Do you have actual statistics on the cost of targeted air strikes into Iraq? Estimates, by the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, for the last 3 weeks are USD 100m. If it goes for a year at this rate, that adds to $1.7bn. What proportion of US GDP would this be over the same period? I'm not sure that the Chinese or Russians would raise the smallest smirk at this, let alone rolling around laughing. Nor could it vaguely be considered as over-reach. Or is it? If so, how?

LuuTzu: I thought I was pretty clear that you cannot hope to bomb ISIS away. That they are, right now, in Iraq and Syria... in an area bigger than Britain... that to think you could bomb them for any amount of time, under that 1.7Bn/pa projection of yours, they will surrender.

The French couldn't do it in IndoChina, the American couldn't in Vietnam for some 20 years; the Israelis couldn't for some 47 years... bombing couldn't bring peace in Iraq II... but Iraq 3 will be different?

What is that saying? That you can know when the war start but you cannot know when or how it will end?

Response: There are no plans to return boots to the ground. The bombing is to provide air cover to local troops on the ground. This has already been shown to be successful in evacuating Kurds in dire risk of being overrun. Further, the ambition is not regime change or withstanding a separatist movement covering the size of Vietnam from afar. The strategic objectives here are vastly different. They should not be raised as comparisons in genuine context.

LuuTzu: I just heard Obama saying there's no strategy yet in Iraq/Syria.

Forget about Grand Strategy... there's yet to be a strategy here.

Possible that bombing alone won't do it? Possible that you start out bombing then at some time in the future boots will need to be back on the grounds in the Middle East to "keep the peace"? Is it possible that a few months' worth of bombings could lead to further escalations and ground invasion and before you know it, a decade's gone.

Response: As per your position on uncertainty, no-one can say for certain at this time.

LuuTzu: Heck, Afghanistan fell in two weeks; Iraq in 3... look how long we were there after "Mission Accomplished".

The Cost of IRAQ to US: More than $US2 Trillion

Grand Strategy

If we go back to the ME, we'll be fighting three(3) wars: 1/ Russian sanctions and potential escalations; 2/ War on terror at home; 3/ ISIS and potential quagmire.

I saw the headlines that the Russian sanctions against Australia will cost Australian farmers some $500 million this year?

The new data retention initiatives for the war on terror some $680 million budgeted?

The couple dollars for ISIS?

A few hundred millions here and few hundred millions there and pretty soon the rich might have to actually pay higher taxes.

Response: There is a very big difference between toppling a government and rebuilding a nation. Knocking a house down takes a couple of days. Try building one. Once again, the strategic objectives are different. Neutralise IS. No need to rebuild it. No need for regime change.

Russian sanctions are hardly a war. They are sanctions. Troops and direct involvement in Ukraine is off the table…despite Australian lives lost in MH17. To count a domestic ‘War on Terror’ as war is akin to calling a ‘War on Obesity’ a war. It’s about preventing conflict. That’s called defense. We are not in a hot war with anyone as yet.

Barnaby Joyce has indicated that Australia exports more than $400m a year to Russia. Russia has now stopped imports of these goods. However, the government is not subsidising famers because alternative markets are expected to absorb the Russian quota. In other words, the true impact on Australian farmers is no-where near $400m a year.

The recently announced increase in funding for counter-terrorism will cost $600m, to be spent over the next four years. Whilst this partly goes to fund new initiatives, part of it is to make up for reduced funding since 2009. A sum of $150m a year, part of which is a catch up, is equivalent to a single miscellaneous item in the Federal Budget.

The impacts of what you effervescently describe as financially onerous are actually close to inconsequential on a national perspective.

---

LuuTzu: China has already stake its claim to some 90% of the South China Sea - the seas some 1/3 of global trade goes through; it is building runways and creating bases on the few rocks there, right now.
Russia is accused of invading the Ukraine just this morning.

If you are either of these two powers and have a bit of brain; wouldn't you somehow like ISIS? Maybe even channel some weapons and intelligence so they could keep the US and its allies busy?

No? I guess only the US are devious enough to do that to the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Response: The rise of ISIS is actually a threat to Russia and China. Russia has a significant Muslim population in which some would see the formation of a caliphate as a call to arms. Foreign fighters are usually disaffected young men (although there are a surprising number of women going along too). Russia is full of disaffected young men. It also had a conflict with Afghanistan…the home of Al Qaeda. A flow of fighters could readily seek to secure entry to Russia via Afghanistan…meanwhile Russia is engaged in conflict in Ukraine and a little stretched to handle two conflicts.

China has a province to the North West which is has to be contained. This is the home of the Uighers, who are predominantly Sunni Muslims. Pakistan supports Taliban and sheltered Osama Bin Laden. Pakistan is on the border with China, sharing a common border with Afghanistan.

If they had a little bit of brains, they would be strengthening their borders against IS and not deliberately creating direct blow back on their own soil. I suspect they are smart enough to understand the damaging prospects of the strategy you propose for them.

The US was in a Cold War with Russia when the Afghan incursion occurred. It fought a proxy war. The US did not share a common border with Afghanistan or Russia. China and Russia share common borders with Al Qaeda zones. I hope you can appreciate the difference in the Grand Strategy implications of these circumstances.

 

[bellenuit]

UK terrorist threat level raised to 'severe', Theresa May says

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28986271

 

[luutzu]

RY Response: Or is it that some returned soldiers/militants present more of a threat to Australia than others? If so, how is that unreasonable? My original question was only about the return and questioning of inbound travelers to Australia.

-- How do you know ISIS terrorists are more dangerous to Australians than IDF warriors?
Can it be a certainty that Australians fighting for ISIS is dangerous to Australian while those who fought for the IDF won't be a risk at all?

That must be the assumption when it's perfectly OK to automatically cancel passports from one group of soldiers and just ignore another group of nationals fighting for another foreign army.

I remember reading in the SMH that ASIO believe there are some 150 Australians are fighting with ISIS, and an estimated 100-200 or so Australians joining the IDF in the recent Gaza invasion/incursion/operation... That article said something about ASIO not keeping track of IDF's Team Australian warriors.

I hope that's not the case because to me, they're both equally disloyal to Australia, and they are both as dangerous.

You can say stuff like how many Australians did IDF kill vs how many did Islamic... wait, we're talking about ISIS and IDF... how many Australian has ISIS kill? I don't remember any... but convenient to lump them together to make a point if you want to.

Why equally dangerous? Why should the same standard be use to treat both home-grown but foreign fighters?

If a person decides to travel half the globe to take up arms and join a "just" war, knowing full well that in war people will be kill and they are going to be part of that killing.... If the enemy does not present a present danger to them and their family, their country, yet they are willing to go and join the killing... you would expect that a normal, sane, person would at least be informed about the conflict.

ISIS fighters are dangerous and "pure evil"... OK.

The Israeli army is not? The 4th most powerful army in the world fighting against a fenced-in, starved and relatively unarmed group is fighting for survival?

The country where the average income is some $US32,000 per year - a fairly rich country, almost as rich as Australia... with advanced weaponry and resources that comes with being rich and having friends... that rich country is fighting for survival against a "created" people who mostly live under $2 a day?

If a person who look at these and a couple more facts about the conflict, then decide he want to join the oppression and colonizer... that person is either brainwashed, insane or just a psychopath... either way, he is not normal and no one ought to rest easy with the fact that he joined the "good" army and is now back home.

------
RY Response: What is the balance of risk? Jihadists have killed Westerners, have a mandate to do so according to their doctrine, post hatred on social media. The security agencies you are so optimistic about aren’t so optimistic about the terror threat. They list it as one of the key risks to national security and the guy who penned the article which started all this off is part of it despite your disagreement of the likely span of an extended series of limited interventions, increased surveillance and other measures to reduce the risk to Australian citizens.

-- I thought that in war, it is "normal" to want to kill your enemies. If you enemies are White people or Catholics or Arabs, you tend to want to kill them whether it's written down or not.

Could be that I didn't read it carefully but that current head of ASIO did say that it is unfair to suggest that the new anti-terrorism laws are directed at Muslims only.

Why 100 years? Why not 200 or 1000 years? Get a bigger budget that way.
I've already answered this stupid assumption before.

I live in a dominantly Muslim community, near i think a large Mosque. I haven't heard any ASIO/AFP raids on terror for the past 10 years... I haven't heard any Australian-based terrorist plots foiled. Maybe I just haven't been paying attention but I don't know of one raid or one plot since Howard's "be alert, not alarm" campaign.


Ever heard of that 1 of the 36 Chinese military strategy: Remove fire from the cauldron.
The pot is boiling over, or so we're made to believe... and the master stroke is to get ready for a 100 year war, not lowering the heat.

Brilliant! Here's another billion or two per year young Jedi.


------
RY Response: So, just to be clear. If you look like an Arab in Australia, you are likely to be killed by an Israeli? Whereas, if you are a terrorist Jihadist, you are less likely to kill anyone in Australia? Is that right?

-- When did I say that? Was referring to Australian standing in Gaza or Syria/Iraq during one of the "operations".

You seem pretty confident that one is safer than the other to be standing around... I'd rather not stand near or make any sudden movement near any of them... But wait, only one could return while the other is already assumed lethal - without trial or such nonsense.


---------
RY Response: I think you are attempting to be psychic again with my formal qualifications. My point was, to repeat one more time, which group has shown themselves to be the greater threat to Australia? Which group has killed more Australians? It wasn’t inviting a response of judgment about whether death by either group is somehow less grotesque

-- Yea, all terrorists are the same.

Hamas = ISIS = [the Indonesian Jamai Islamia?] = Uighurs = Boka Haram = [other Arab bad guys].

So when are we going into Western China? Are we still fired up and ready for China president Xi's call?



-------
RY Response: You never said it. I never implied you did say that an IDF would seek out an Australian target. You must have missed my point or, perhaps, you are evading an inconvenient point. You made various comments about scenarios where, had an Australian been present in Gaza on a beach playing soccer etc… This did not address the question. The answer does not require a judgment call. It does not require you to say anything about IDF members seeking out Australians at all, which is why I do not need to assume anything. It requires two numbers. Approximations will be fine.

In a couple of years, I would much more readily present myself at Army HQ of the IDF than Army HQ (or its equivalent) in Hamas, or IS, or Al Qaeda… . How about you? This was the actual question raised earlier, which you have again evaded. It is a simple either or question. How about actually answering it? However, I’d rather not stand in front of any guns. Wouldn’t that be the point of national security?

-- I wouldn't join either. I'm with Team Australia.

But if I'm a gun for hire, I wouldn't join Hamas at all because they can't pay me and I'd rather not fight with stick and stones; I will not join the IDF either - something about killing people then blame it on them make it ugly; or steal their land and oppress them then cry foul when they try to fight back; something is wrong when an army kill people then it went to trade shows to demonstrate the efficacy of its weapons to other armies by showing videos of dead Palestinians as proof... no amount of money could make me do what the IDF does, i assure you.

- RE: IDF vs ISIS and Australian kill ratio.... Zero on either side as far as I know. I wasn't evading, I've answered it and extend your point with "possible" assumptions and how such idiotic question make no difference. Unless, as I've said, you clump all Arab bad guys as terrorists, all Palestinians as ISIS and Boko Haram or Uighurs or Russians.

--------
RY Response: No right answer here. It comes down to where the line is drawn for perceived threat to national lives and treasure. So, how many lives or countries need to be lost to the advancement of IS before you think that intervention is appropriate, knowing we can never be sure of the counterfactual?

-- Why do we need to intervene in Iraq/Syria? We won't join China and their terrorists; I think we've forgotten about bringing those 200 girls back to their family a long time ago... so we don't like ISIS because they took control of areas near "our" oil fields.

So forget about how many lives or country lost before we, the good guys, intervene... It's oil, it's money.

So the answer of our intervention is whenever there's a strategy - as Obama said, there's no strategy yet.

----------
Response: There are no plans to return boots to the ground. The bombing is to provide air cover to local troops on the ground. This has already been shown to be successful in evacuating Kurds in dire risk of being overrun. Further, the ambition is not regime change or withstanding a separatist movement covering the size of Vietnam from afar. The strategic objectives here are vastly different. They should not be raised as comparisons in genuine context.

-- Yea, we'll bomb them like we did in Libya a couple years back right?
Tell me, is Libya with us or still against us now?

If ISIS is such a threat to world civilisation that we have to bomb them, you think a year or two of bombing follow by drone surveillance and strikes will stop them?

Maybe it's not true here, but bombing towns and villages, carrying drone strikes that could kill terrorists in front of civilians at any time... that tend not to win hearts and minds.

Ever ask how many more terrorists and radicals has been created around the Arab world during these years or drone strikes by the US in just about every country in the ME and Africa?

----------

Re Russia/Ukraine:

From memory, the Moscow-friendly Ukrainian president/gov't was overthrown by a popular protest/revolution; a more western-friendly gov't was... I wouldn't say installed... ok, elected who happen to be friendly to Europe/US;

Russia then annex Crimea - why I don't know... maybe they have this crazy idea that the US/EU play some part in overthrowing their client state;

Then EU/US sanction against Russia;

Then MH17 and Captain Australia wanted to send armed AFP officers into rebel-held Ukraine etc... then came Russian sanctions against US/EU/Australia;

Then now some 1000 Russian troops is reported invading the Ukraine, opening new fronts I heard.

You're good at projection and forecast... this is a case of tit for tat, not all t1ts or all tats now is it?

So OK, no war with Russia then... just a lost of $400 million in trade with them... but that's not a real lost because we can sell it elsewhere... haha... good one, it's no lost at all that we lost $400 million from trade with Russia since we can sell it to other countries - were we not able to sell to those other countries if it weren't for Russia?

---

You can get into the actual costs of this war on terror if you like, it's not free, and it's not for 1 or 2 years... it's for 100 if i remember right... See the big picture will you.

----------

Yea, ISIS would be a problem to Russia and China if you see all them Muslims as the same.

Wait, you do see them as all the same evil dudes wanting to take on not 2, but all powers of the world.

You really should try and get your money back from that post-grad course on foreign affairs or something.


If China or Russia were to help ISIS, how would that create blowback on them from ISIS?

If i'm China and go to ISIS and offer them money and arms, I tell them I'll support you if you keep the Americans busy and get their focus off of this pivot to Asia... I'd probably also attach to that a condition that the Uighurs are my problem, that China is a friend of ISIS and here's the money and the arms to prove it...

Will ISIS like me or will try to harm me?
If they harm me, it won't be until they're done with the US and other powers, by then the South and East China sea would probably be China's already.


I'm sure you know why Britain have to give up its ME empire and retreat after WW2 right? No money, going broke, no army big enough to secure these interests.

What is the US/Aus/EU doing now?

Waging wars in the ME; spending hundreds of millions if not billions per year countering homeland terrorism; waging trade wars with Russia - driving them to trade and enrich an emerging super power; pivoting to Asia to keep that superpower at bay yet have neither the money nor the focus to actually do anything substantive other than a few bases.

Mearsheimer have said that the US adventures in Iraq/Afghanistan has been its biggest blunder since WW2; ex-CIA Michael Scheuer advises the US to get out of the ME... but yea, this time it will be different... this time, we have 24/7 drones - the world's best terrorist-generating tools in the world, according to Chomsky.

 

[Julia]

luutzu, if you're not going to use the built in facility of the Quote Tags
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737&highlight=Quote+Tags

Could you use italics, bold, or some other form of differentiation which marks your comments as distinct from those you are answering?

I gave up reading your post because it's too confusing who is supposed to have said what and who is now saying what in response.

Simply using the Multiquote and Reply with Quote tags where you can then insert your own remarks into those to which you're replying is a lot simpler for you and for any reader.

 

[Julia]

Recently we are hearing much about the government attempting to stop potential jihadists from leaving Australia to fight in Syria, Iraq et al.
Then - if they do go - we promise to catch them on re-entry and lock them up.

Wouldn't it be better all round to just let them go, then use whatever mechanism necessary (?cancelling passport) to prevent them bringing their newly acquired skills back to Australia?

I don't understand why we would want to further foment their hatred for Australia by preventing them going off and getting themselves killed. Their frustration would surely just exacerbate their determination to create harm here.

 

[bellenuit]

Found The Islamic State Terror Laptop of Doom, Bubonic Plague, Weapons of Mass Destruction

Buried in a Dell computer captured in Syria are lessons for making bubonic plague bombs and missives on using weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl..._plague_weapons_of_mass_destruction_exclusive

The documents found on the laptop of the Tunisian jihadist, meanwhile, leave no room for doubt about the group's deadly ambitions.

"Use small grenades with the virus, and throw them in closed areas like metros, soccer stadiums, or entertainment centers," the 19-page document on biological weapons advises. "Best to do it next to the air-conditioning. It also can be used during suicide operations."

 

[DB008]

Recently we are hearing much about the government attempting to stop potential jihadists from leaving Australia to fight in Syria, Iraq et al.
Then - if they do go - we promise to catch them on re-entry and lock them up.

Wouldn't it be better all round to just let them go, then use whatever mechanism necessary (?cancelling passport) to prevent them bringing their newly acquired skills back to Australia?

I don't understand why we would want to further foment their hatred for Australia by preventing them going off and getting themselves killed. Their frustration would surely just exacerbate their determination to create harm here.

I agree 100%. It should be a one way ticket for these jihadists. Let them go, shut the door on them, don't come back.

 

[SirRumpole]

I agree 100%. It should be a one way ticket for these jihadists. Let them go, shut the door on them, don't come back.

Would be nice if it could be legally done. If a person was born here , he has Australian citizenship by birthright and it can't be revoked. I'm not sure you can legally prevent them returning to Australia. If they were fighting for the jihadists then they could be locked up, but for how long ?

If citizenship was granted by application, there is a provision for removing it if it's not in the public interest that they remain a citizen. I suppose they then become stateless, but where do you send them to ? If the country of their birth won't accept them, what happens ?

 

[DB008]

Islamic State militants are gang-raping, selling hundreds of Yazidi women inside Iraqi prison: report

Women as young as 14-years-old are being held captive inside Mosul’s Badush prison. They're reportedly given a choice: Convert to the Islamic State’s extremist interpretation of Islam or face daily rape. Some of those who convert have been sold off to fighters for as low as $25.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/islamic-state-militants-gang-raping-selling-hundreds-women-report-article-1.1921553

 

[luutzu]

luutzu, if you're not going to use the built in facility of the Quote Tags
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737&highlight=Quote+Tags

Could you use italics, bold, or some other form of differentiation which marks your comments as distinct from those you are answering?

I gave up reading your post because it's too confusing who is supposed to have said what and who is now saying what in response.

Simply using the Multiquote and Reply with Quote tags where you can then insert your own remarks into those to which you're replying is a lot simpler for you and for any reader.

Thanks, will go back soon and fix it up.

 

[luutzu]

Recently we are hearing much about the government attempting to stop potential jihadists from leaving Australia to fight in Syria, Iraq et al.
Then - if they do go - we promise to catch them on re-entry and lock them up.

Wouldn't it be better all round to just let them go, then use whatever mechanism necessary (?cancelling passport) to prevent them bringing their newly acquired skills back to Australia?

I don't understand why we would want to further foment their hatred for Australia by preventing them going off and getting themselves killed. Their frustration would surely just exacerbate their determination to create harm here.

I think the answer is already in your last paragraph.

Pick them off the plane, get a few headlines; keep them back home and soon release them into our myst in case we the people thought all radicals are already off to Iraq/Syria; No complaint from the public or politicians for more manpower and resources when budget time come around; easier to make a case for war.

There's those Australian drug smugglers - the 9 something - that the AFP followed and knew about. Those nine were arrested in Bali/Indonesia during their transit home to Australia.

I heard someone accused the AFP of tipping the Indonesian off about those nine so they would be arrested overseas, saving the AFP and our tax dollars to have to deal with them when they get to Australia.

Those nine would have receive some years in prison in Aus. but were sentenced to life or death there - but it saved us money and time...

So there's a lot very smart people working in gov't and sometimes it appear like they do stupid things, and those things are really stupid if they are honest and are like us and thinking for the national interests or public safety. Sometimes it appear stupid but is a stroke of genius if you're in their shoes and have their agendas.

 

[DeepState]

1. - RE: IDF vs ISIS and Australian kill ratio.... Zero on either side as far as I know. I wasn't evading, I've answered it and extend your point with "possible" assumptions and how such idiotic question make no difference. Unless, as I've said, you clump all Arab bad guys as terrorists, all Palestinians as ISIS and Boko Haram or Uighurs or Russians.


2. So OK, no war with Russia then... just a lost of $400 million in trade with them... but that's not a real lost because we can sell it elsewhere... haha... good one, it's no lost at all that we lost $400 million from trade with Russia since we can sell it to other countries - were we not able to sell to those other countries if it weren't for Russia?


3. Yea, ISIS would be a problem to Russia and China if you see all them Muslims as the same.

Wait, you do see them as all the same evil dudes wanting to take on not 2, but all powers of the world.

You really should try and get your money back from that post-grad course on foreign affairs or something.


If China or Russia were to help ISIS, how would that create blowback on them from ISIS?

If i'm China and go to ISIS and offer them money and arms, I tell them I'll support you if you keep the Americans busy and get their focus off of this pivot to Asia... I'd probably also attach to that a condition that the Uighurs are my problem, that China is a friend of ISIS and here's the money and the arms to prove it...

Will ISIS like me or will try to harm me?
If they harm me, it won't be until they're done with the US and other powers, by then the South and East China sea would probably be China's already.

Hi Luu,

Hope things are good.


1. The original question was:

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

Notice how the term 'Islamic terror related organisations' is in the question? But you answered in relation to ISIS. That's either an evasion, lack of comprehension of a simple question or missing the point yet again. Either way, it's pretty idiotic.



2. Hahahaha....errrr. Are you still in the warranty period for your economics/commerce/finance degree? Hope you got the extended warranty, sometimes these things take a little whilst to show up as brightly as napalm in the morning.

This from The Australian, y'know, part of Team Australia. Go team!




The stuff has already been sold. Basic supply and demand. hahahahaha ahh hahaha. That was free, but I enjoyed it. Supply is plentiful and seemingly infinitely elastic.


3. If I need to get a refund on by IR qualifications then, I guess I should also get a refund for my subscription to the Wall Street Journal. I believe you, with your extensive YouTube experience, ahead of a world top 10 newspaper.



Here's another thing, this article got published as I was writing about the issue on this thread. I'm psychic! Or maybe it was obvious to political scientists with a little more than half a brain engaged for one second.


Anyhow, please keep it coming. This is fun.

 

[luutzu]

Hi Luu,

Hope things are good.

1. The original question was:

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

Notice how the term 'Islamic terror related organisations' is in the question? But you answered in relation to ISIS. That's either an evasion, lack of comprehension of a simple question or missing the point yet again. Either way, it's pretty idiotic.

I answered in relation to ISIS because we're talking about ISIS, and as an example of another foreign army, the IDF. But since you want to be literal about it, I'm sure I've said above that it will be zero from the IDF and all others killed in all the terrorists attack since (don't go quoting that line word for word and compare, but I'm pretty sure I've said something similar).

Let me ask you, if a misguided, bigoted Palestinian sympathiser, or a neo-Nazi using Palestinian deaths as an excuse... if they go and beat up or god forbid carry out act of terror because of what they see the IDF does to the people in Gaza... should the IDF and Israel be blame for that act?

In other words, if a blowback, and I am not justifying it, but if killings were done because of something the IDF does... are the IDF blameless?

If you use the same standard, the same line of reasoning as the Israeli has been using, then yea... Israel is to blame - you know, innocent men, women and children being bombed in the thousands and what did Israel say? Hamas started the war, we bomb them and there are collateral damages, all caused by Hamas.

One of the former head of Israel's Shin Bet - its CIA - have said in "The Gatekeepers" an obvious reality of war - that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. He was of course referring to whatever Palestinian terrorists was at the time he realised it.

So while it's convenient for politicians to group all non-state enemies as terrorists, and all terrorists are of course evil and set out to murder all of us... the politicians know better, they know they're lying, and maybe to some extend believe such lies are to their people's interests... we the people ought to know better... to go along with such nonsense is showing ignorant of history, ancient and modern, ignorant of political and military reality. [Yes, I just call you ignorant, ignoramus... but I think you know better and only saying these stuff to annoy me]

2. Hahahaha....errrr. Are you still in the warranty period for your economics/commerce/finance degree? Hope you got the extended warranty, sometimes these things take a little whilst to show up as brightly as napalm in the morning.

This from The Australian, y'know, part of Team Australia. Go team!


View attachment 59236

The stuff has already been sold. Basic supply and demand. hahahahaha ahh hahaha. That was free, but I enjoyed it. Supply is plentiful and seemingly infinitely elastic.

hahaha... "The Australian" paper, same with the Wall Street Journal, are Team Murdoch, Team News Ltd... They're good for celebrity gossips and faux news.

Wow, selling to other market in a heartbeat, said a Coalition gov't senator, haha... From a Murdoch paper who is fair and balance, hahaha.

If this is true, what Joyce is saying, shouldn't it make the farmers wonder that if there's an open and ready and easy market beside Russia.. .why then aren't they aware of it, why aren't they already selling into these markets at the same time they sell to Russia; why wait until sanctions to start, in a heartbeat, go to China and elsewhere?

Ohhhh.. they got to sell at a lower price because the Chinese aren't stupid and know about the sanctions and will definitely bargain hard on persistable goods like meat and fruits.

I guess it's easy to set up contacts in China, easy and free to organise logistics... Not sure what compensation will they get from Abbott's heroic deeds.

But sure, sold at the same price, at the same costs... wait, cheaper transport cost since China is much closer than Russia...

No compensation I hear from a gov't barely in the majority...

Naaa... I think that micro and macro economic courses serve me pretty well.

3. If I need to get a refund on by IR qualifications then, I guess I should also get a refund for my subscription to the Wall Street Journal. I believe you, with your extensive YouTube experience, ahead of a world top 10 newspaper.

View attachment 59235

Here's another thing, this article got published as I was writing about the issue on this thread. I'm psychic! Or maybe it was obvious to political scientists with a little more than half a brain engaged for one second.

Anyhow, please keep it coming. This is fun.

Your faith in Uncle Rupert's empire is adorable. Maybe quote Bill O'Reilly and others from Faux News or News of the World or something next time (I think one of them went out of business following some hacking scandals).

Yea, ISIS will inspire and stir up more hatred among groups that were already inspired and already stirred up long before this thing call ISIS ever came about. Might as well say ISIS is a threat to the British Empire because it stir up activism among the American Colonies.

You're not psychic, you're just among the ill-informed who think all terrorist organisations are the same, with the same aim and the same objective - world domination for Allah or something.

Terrorists are the new Communists. Much like North Vietnam was communists and not a national liberation army forced to pick communist allies because Uncle Sam got a few business going on with the French Empire.

Don't know about Georgia and not much about the Caucuses and Russia, but I saw a documentary, again free on YouTube, that China is practically praying for more Uighurs terrorists... more reason to send their military to the region, more reasons to clamp it down, set up bases of operations to secure against terrorists and just happen to also be useful in securing the region's border with Kazakhstan... and it just happen that there's a big oil pipeline running from the Caspian, across Kazakhstan and enter China, delivering a more secure, alternative route/source of energy than the Indian Ocean through South China Seas - seas totally dominated by the Western powers/US.

 

[DeepState]

I answered in relation to ISIS because we're talking about ISIS, and as an example of another foreign army, the IDF. But since you want to be literal about it, I'm sure I've said above that it will be zero from the IDF and all others killed in all the terrorists attack since (don't go quoting that line word for word and compare, but I'm pretty sure I've said something similar).

I think you reasonably argue that we generally shouldn't profile people and narrowly box them into some label. We are individuals and we generally like to be seen this way and interact or be judged, if need be, on our own personal merits. If this is in the vicinity, I agree with you.

However, JI and ISIS are offshoots/relatives of Al Qaeda (even if there is now some internecine rivalry and distancing). So, these groups, which have caused loss to the US and Australia are related. Is that random correlation? Is there a causative association? Whilst you may attempt to defend a random association, I think that most reviewing this thread would find that highly improbable. They are related. This is why I think that total deaths at the hands of the Islamic terror organisations is more relevant than that based only on a relatively new organization in isolation.

These terrorist organisations have killed our citizens. You nor I want to see anyone hurt in Australia or elsewhere in any way. Terrorism is one way we may see casualties arise. We need to prevent it if we can, balancing the sensitivities of the other matters to hand, like adversely impacting the views and feelings of the Muslim population who may feel alienated. Yet, there is a balance which needs to be struck. Doing nothing has resulted in harm.

It is judged that screening and surveillance together with intervention will reduce the likelihood of harm on a net basis. Some people will be upset. Risks will increase in some areas, but be decreased in others. If you have faith in our intelligence officers, then they should get this judgment roughly right. No-one will ever know. There is never certainty, not of the type you seem to require for a situation so complex and fluid.

Let me ask you, if a misguided, bigoted Palestinian sympathiser, or a neo-Nazi using Palestinian deaths as an excuse... if they go and beat up or god forbid carry out act of terror because of what they see the IDF does to the people in Gaza... should the IDF and Israel be blame for that act?

In other words, if a blowback, and I am not justifying it, but if killings were done because of something the IDF does... are the IDF blameless?

If you use the same standard, the same line of reasoning as the Israeli has been using, then yea... Israel is to blame - you know, innocent men, women and children being bombed in the thousands and what did Israel say? Hamas started the war, we bomb them and there are collateral damages, all caused by Hamas.

One of the former head of Israel's Shin Bet - its CIA - have said in "The Gatekeepers" an obvious reality of war - that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. He was of course referring to whatever Palestinian terrorists was at the time he realised it.

So while it's convenient for politicians to group all non-state enemies as terrorists, and all terrorists are of course evil and set out to murder all of us... the politicians know better, they know they're lying, and maybe to some extend believe such lies are to their people's interests... we the people ought to know better... to go along with such nonsense is showing ignorant of history, ancient and modern, ignorant of political and military reality. [Yes, I just call you ignorant, ignoramus... but I think you know better and only saying these stuff to annoy me]

Yes, you have raised this perspective. It is very reasonable. What the IDF did seemed disproportionate. They are encroaching on disputed territories and a weaker rival is being crushed with impunity. Unsurprisingly, the oppressed fight an asymmetric war. There is no right. Both kill. Both maim. What we are seeing here is power, realism, neo-realism, at play. Is that the same as saying I condone it? Of course not.

Your perspective seems to be one of equal treatment for 'equal' crimes. IDF killed. Hamas killed. Why differentiate? Very reasonable. One person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

This is where I diverge. Which group is the greater risk to Australia? Islamic terrorist organisations have tangibly caused harm to Australian nationals. The IDF has not and this is not a risk that is even vaguely mentioned in the ASIO reports. Whilst both groups do heinous things in battle, only one group is judged to be likely to do so against Australian interests at home and abroad.

If you are a smoker and have diabetes, you will pay a much higher premium for life insurance. This is discrimination. However, it is based on data. Naturally, any particular individual will have their own specific mortality, but we cannot get to that level, so we group it up using measures and correlations we know about.

The same thing is happening here. We cannot guard against everything. We have to narrow the search to something which the security agencies can actually contend with. The stats and judgments of our intelligence agencies point to Islamic terror. That will inevitably group those who are a real risk with those who are not.

1. hahaha... "The Australian" paper, same with the Wall Street Journal, are Team Murdoch, Team News Ltd... They're good for celebrity gossips and faux news.

Wow, selling to other market in a heartbeat, said a Coalition gov't senator, haha... From a Murdoch paper who is fair and balance, hahaha.


2. If this is true, what Joyce is saying, shouldn't it make the farmers wonder that if there's an open and ready and easy market beside Russia.. .why then aren't they aware of it, why aren't they already selling into these markets at the same time they sell to Russia; why wait until sanctions to start, in a heartbeat, go to China and elsewhere?

Ohhhh.. they got to sell at a lower price because the Chinese aren't stupid and know about the sanctions and will definitely bargain hard on persistable goods like meat and fruits.

I guess it's easy to set up contacts in China, easy and free to organise logistics... Not sure what compensation will they get from Abbott's heroic deeds.

But sure, sold at the same price, at the same costs... wait, cheaper transport cost since China is much closer than Russia...

No compensation I hear from a gov't barely in the majority...

Naaa... I think that micro and macro economic courses serve me pretty well.


3. Your faith in Uncle Rupert's empire is adorable. Maybe quote Bill O'Reilly and others from Faux News or News of the World or something next time (I think one of them went out of business following some hacking scandals).

1. I made a mistake. My bad. The clip I pulled from the Australian (a Newscorp company) was actually pulled from the Australian Financial Review (a Fairfax company). Whoops. Please don't tell me that Fairfax is a front for Newscorp.

Also the Financial Times (not a Newscorp company) says as follows:



By the way, what sells more newspapers? Things which make things seem alarming "China spurs ISIS to slaughter US observers" or "China is scared of ISIS and wants to keep things quiet". In your view, the stuff Murdoch is pumping out is designed to put him out of business. Is he really that dumb?

Also, Barnaby Joyce's view on easily replaceable markets for Australian commodities was in a news release earlier this month. Surely you don't think his editorial rights have also been trampled by Rupert?


2. I hope you took a couple of breaths as you typed that out.

On perishable goods...sure there is some beef on its way. That's $158m annual. You don't have to kill an animal if there is no demand for the meat for a month. At an extreme let's say 2 months of annual supply is on ships and rots. A whopping $26m. Dairy is worth $72m in annual exports. Same deal. $12 million. This is harder to stop, but the annual exports of Australian dairy amounts to $1,970m. We are talking 4% of total Australian exports. It will find a home.

The other items are hides etc..they don't rot. Grapes...you don't have to pick them straight away.

Australia's requirement to redirect is tiny on a world market. If you somehow think that Australia is going to be subject to extortion for a minor redirection of supply, you must be working on some very aggressive assumptions. These do not include displacement of other goods or the fact that there is an auction available now between China and Indonesia, unless you think they collude. In case you are, I'll just write down here that the volume we are talking about redirecting is but a fraction of year to year fluctuations. In other words, volume changes of this nature happen so routinely, it's not worth raising an eyebrow or risking hypoxia for.

I'll refrain on further comment regarding your economics.


3. I actually could have sworn you regularly quoted from News of the World. But it shut in 2011. The Mirror perhaps?

Yea, ISIS will inspire and stir up more hatred among groups that were already inspired and already stirred up long before this thing call ISIS ever came about. Might as well say ISIS is a threat to the British Empire because it stir up activism among the American Colonies.

Well, the threat level for terrorism was just raised in the UK to its second highest level....so maybe the theory does hold.

1. You're not psychic, you're just among the ill-informed who think all terrorist organisations are the same, with the same aim and the same objective - world domination for Allah or something.

Terrorists are the new Communists. Much like North Vietnam was communists and not a national liberation army forced to pick communist allies because Uncle Sam got a few business going on with the French Empire.

2. Don't know about Georgia and not much about the Caucuses and Russia, but I saw a documentary, again free on YouTube, that China is practically praying for more Uighurs terrorists... more reason to send their military to the region, more reasons to clamp it down, set up bases of operations to secure against terrorists and just happen to also be useful in securing the region's border with Kazakhstan... and it just happen that there's a big oil pipeline running from the Caspian, across Kazakhstan and enter China, delivering a more secure, alternative route/source of energy than the Indian Ocean through South China Seas - seas totally dominated by the Western powers/US.

1. Once again, your psychic abilities fail you. Look at the data. The correlation between prognostication and outcome are zero.

Have you seen a long list of terrorist organisations that have been active in the US alone? No-one here could suggest that environmental terrorists are on par with ISIS? Could they? Maybe I'm ill-informed. I must make a note to watch more YouTube.

Also, on the world domination thing, this was from the welcoming speech from Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi as he reached out for global peace and reconciliation:



No need to screen for this, I guess, with a decent sized army in motion now prepared to fight asymmetric wars. Nope. Is there anything like this in the constitution of Israel, beyond being a Jewish state?


2. What stopped China from doing it anyway? China is renown for human rights shortfalls. It doesn't really hide them that much. How many executions, suppression of the Falun Gong...they need context? Really?

Further, that pipeline is owned by Chinese interests, pipes Russian oil...and China and Russia have massive energy contracts in place and share geopolitical imperatives against the West. Geopol risk on that pipeline transnationally is low probability. Just look at the geography and military capabilities able to project there. If any flare ups occur in Northwest China, just how many of the PLA do you think would be required to shut that down in a week? Population 22m. No need for context. Everyone understands the politics of energy. That's ridiculous.

 

[Wysiwyg]

What exactly started this jihad movement? What is the reason for this primitive behaviour?

 

[noco]

What exactly started this jihad movement? What is the reason for this primitive behaviour?

World domination...They want an Islamic world.....you have two choices, you become a Muslim or be eliminated.