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

[Tisme]

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

It is the core signup activity that began with the forced enrolment of the Arabs when the Muslim religion was incorporated. It basically uses fear of punishment and death to recruit non believers and keep the flock in a state of servitude to the bosses of the organisation.

The Arabs are the core tribe of Islam, whether they like it or not and are not entitled to ply their own skyfairy beliefs, while non Arab/non Muslim residents in an Islamic caliphate once paid Jaziya tribute or tax to enjoy the state's protection and by implication acceptance of their guest status:- Arabs pay a Zakat tax for community services. Privateers, masquerading as Muslim warriors have brought the Jaziya back to finance their future fund trusts back home in the UK, USA, Oz etc which must be eye watering to the tax dept.


So the reason for the primitive behaviour is obviously lust for power first, money second, idle hands and the devil, cohesion of a brotherhood traumatised by religious bondage, social vandalism for vandalism's sake, and whatever that section of the brain is that lusts for the thrill of the kill versus the mundane. I guess somewhere in the soup are those with a halo belief and hero purpose who really do believe in a book of scribble that appears suspiciously like a mashed version of another crowd control book authored by Abrahamic cousins two thousand years before .

 

[SirRumpole]

The religious jihad by IS in Iraq & Syria today is really little different to the nationalist jihad by Germany in 1939-45.

The desire to dominate others and be the "master race" can be motivated by many factors, ; greed, religion, nationalism and simple psychopathy.

While the portion of the human brain that wants power exists, people will find a way of exploiting it.

 

[Wysiwyg]

So the reason for the primitive behaviour is obviously lust for power first, money second, idle hands and the devil, cohesion of a brotherhood traumatised by religious bondage, social vandalism for vandalism's sake, and whatever that section of the brain is that lusts for the thrill of the kill versus the mundane. I guess somewhere in the soup are those with a halo belief and hero purpose who really do believe in a book of scribble that appears suspiciously like a mashed version of another crowd control book authored by Abrahamic cousins two thousand years before .

Worlds apart from modern societies. The nations united should never let the insane cause untold destruction on the civilised world again. Containment is the rational way for the moment. Their cowardice a formidable challenge.

 

[pixel]

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

Lest we forget ...



Hansard, 14 May, 2003

 

[luutzu]

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.

How are various terrorist groups around the world, from the Uighurs in China; Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Yemen etc.; ISIS in Iraq and Syria... all related or are offshoots of each other?

They may share the same religion, they may be sympathetic to each other's causes, but beyond that, I don't think there's any relationship beside what the established powers label them - terrorists.

You could be right that they are... I haven't read or know the details of each organisation to say otherwise; I just make certain assumptions based on dates they were established, their geography and the likes.

That and if they are all related, I'd see China or India or Russia joining this new Coalition of the Willing against ISIS - I don't see that happening so maybe that mean they don't see the relation either; don't see the Western military helping China or Russia defeat this common enemy in their homeland.

When there are no coalition against a common enemy, the reason may be that the enemy is not a common one.

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.

That's a very simplistic way of looking at citizens who go and wage war for a foreign army.

Any Australian citizen who join a foreign army ought to be looked at upon their return to Australia.This is not just a question of fairness or a obligatory matter of look-see; it is a serious question of loyalty to our gov't and national security.

Again, using the IDF as an example, it could be a national fighting for a Pakistani, or Indian or any other foreign state... To use a measure like kill ratio by Islamic terrorists or the IDF or Indian army against Australia is just wrong. And here is where I am optimistic that Australian security agents are more serious than they appear.

What motivate an Australian to go join a foreign army? Doing that ought to immediately raise the question of their loyalty. Just because that foreign army has not kill our nationals... should that person be deemed risk-free based on that fact alone?

What about industrial espionage? What about intelligence gathering for a foreign army/state?
What if, say, India and Pakistan wage a war... some Australian go and join the fight... return home and decided to continue that war and make it personal?

These are not hypotheticals... again using Israel as an example because I can cite them as examples... Two former directors of AIPAC - a prominent pro-Israeli lobby in the US - have been indicted on suspicion of passing national intelligence/secrets to Israel. Don't think you can find closer allies than Israel/US, yet when one citizen is loyal to a foreign power, be that power an ally or not, national security demand we pay attention and not ignore. Something I am sure ASIO and similar agencies don't need me reminding.

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:

View attachment 59249

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?

Is Rupert that dumb... don't know, he did marry that Deng lady so I wouldn't put it pass him.
And your two titles are nonsense.

I'm sure China say they're nervous and afraid of ISIS... whether they are in reality or not is a different matter.

I thought Joyce is part of the Coalition gov't, in the same camp as Abbott and the Liberals. He doesn't need Rupert to tell him how to defend the gov't.

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.

Yea, you best do a chart and show the insignificance of a loss of trade with Russia... That on the grand scheme of things, sanctions resulting in loss of exports worth some $400-$500 million is insignificant because supply and demand means "redirection" costs is not worth mentioning.

While you're on that Ivy tower, maybe also calculate the other insignificant loss from the new round of sanctions Abbott just imposed yesterday.

Tell the Aussie farmers who barely break even in a good year what a few millions or a few weeks worth of time to find new customers, and potentially losing established contracts and contacts in Russia mean. I'm sure they'll agree with your conclusion that it's a drop in the bucket of world trade.

You seem to have access to a lot of data but no information at all.
Start thinking a bit instead of looking at figures and statistical insignificance.
---

As a bonus, I recently read the headlines that with all these trade sanctions going on between Russia and the West, the one country that benefit most is China.

China get to finalised long delayed contracts with Russia, their ties are getting closer in terms of arms and trades; China get to buy things cheaper from the EU/Aus/US that were sold to Russia but now need a new market or established market in China but now greater supply - more supply means lower prices right?

I thought one of the smart thing to do to weaken a dangerous and growing giant is to not push another giant towards its friendship sphere, not to help its economy grow at a faster rate to our lost.

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

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

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:

View attachment 59250

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?

Your faith in established power, again, is adorable.
I got this stock i'm selling, I recommend a buy on it... must be a good buy RY.
Oh, but I don't work for Moody's or the Wall Street Journal so nice try right?

Oh yes... a speech aiming to unite your terrorists why they're fighting and dying, to establish a coalition against the evil empires... that's pure evil wanting to take over the world.

Take over the world with what army? What navy? What air force? What satellite communication, command and control centres? hahaha...

I want to make a hundred billion dollars too... don't think that's likely though. But we never know i suppose.

You do know what it mean to declare your country a Jewish state right? Look it up.

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.

Don't think China need the pretext to excuse itself to western powers... just need it to excuse further annexation and more brutal oppression of the Uighurs and their province... populating it with greater military presence, more and more Han Chinese.

It's impolite to steal and imprison people without cause.

Was referring to the pipeline from the Caspian Sea, through Kazakhstan and onto China completed in 2003 or 2005 and supplying China 15% of its oil needs... Not the recent $400 billion/pa deal with Russia thanks to Ukraine and sanctions. Don't think Russia own Kazakhstan.

---

In Summary... ISIS is like the Third Reich, a threat to both Western Powers, to China, to Russia and all other major powers... just only the Western Powers are joining the coalition while the others are too afraid to do anything.

ISIS is pure evil and we cannot stand idly by and watch preventable genocide, watch refugees not being given asylums... helping the weak, freeing the oppress is what we do, it's what define us as Americans and its deputies...

I think there's a few million Palestinians asking why the world just sigh for their dead children and find it "unhelpful" that continued occupation and genocide is being committed against them; why some 3 km² of their land are being "procure" just now and no sanctions or outrage are heard by the same sensitive powers at all.

There's a few refugees at our doorsteps who's thinking they should've gone to Iraq instead of Australia for help.

 

[DeepState]

How are various terrorist groups around the world, from the Uighurs in China; Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Yemen etc.; ISIS in Iraq and Syria... all related or are offshoots of each other?

They may share the same religion, they may be sympathetic to each other's causes, but beyond that, I don't think there's any relationship beside what the established powers label them - terrorists.

You could be right that they are... I haven't read or know the details of each organisation to say otherwise; I just make certain assumptions based on dates they were established, their geography and the likes.

That and if they are all related, I'd see China or India or Russia joining this new Coalition of the Willing against ISIS - I don't see that happening so maybe that mean they don't see the relation either; don't see the Western military helping China or Russia defeat this common enemy in their homeland.

When there are no coalition against a common enemy, the reason may be that the enemy is not a common one.

ISIS was spawned from Al Qaeda. JI had operational links to Al Qaeda. Hence they are linked. These are terrorist organisations. I made no claims in relation to direct linkages with other nations or peoples like the Uighurs that may also be Muslims. These share a common faith but are not terrorist organisations.

On China and Russia not joining the coalition, it might also be that they are concerned that the battle might stretch in the launch of a new season of US sitcoms. More realistically, they do not perceive a strong enough threat* from these organisations to warrant military support with a strategic rival at this point. China and Russia have more than half a brain. They can find the links between Al Qaeda, ISIS and JI on YouTube, or watched it spoken of on CNN. They can draw their relevant strategic conclusions based on this.

• That is different to saying no threat whatsoever.

That's a very simplistic way of looking at citizens who go and wage war for a foreign army.

Any Australian citizen who join a foreign army ought to be looked at upon their return to Australia.This is not just a question of fairness or a obligatory matter of look-see; it is a serious question of loyalty to our gov't and national security.

Again, using the IDF as an example, it could be a national fighting for a Pakistani, or Indian or any other foreign state... To use a measure like kill ratio by Islamic terrorists or the IDF or Indian army against Australia is just wrong. And here is where I am optimistic that Australian security agents are more serious than they appear.

What motivate an Australian to go join a foreign army? Doing that ought to immediately raise the question of their loyalty. Just because that foreign army has not kill our nationals... should that person be deemed risk-free based on that fact alone?

What about industrial espionage? What about intelligence gathering for a foreign army/state?
What if, say, India and Pakistan wage a war... some Australian go and join the fight... return home and decided to continue that war and make it personal?

These are not hypotheticals... again using Israel as an example because I can cite them as examples... Two former directors of AIPAC - a prominent pro-Israeli lobby in the US - have been indicted on suspicion of passing national intelligence/secrets to Israel. Don't think you can find closer allies than Israel/US, yet when one citizen is loyal to a foreign power, be that power an ally or not, national security demand we pay attention and not ignore. Something I am sure ASIO and similar agencies don't need me reminding.

Oh. So it is less simplistic to treat all foreign fighters as the same except for their loyalty to the government (an established and idiotic government, according to you) and national security. So, they fill in a new visa form on re-entry to Australia which says “Are you a terrorist returning from foreign battle and disloyal to our government and a threat to national security?” If they tick “No”, they go straight through to collecting their bags. Bad guys will tick the “No”. Bad and stupid guys will tick “Yes”.


If you do not believe in profiling for the purposes of identifying and differentiating risk, but rather on some magical or otherwise psychic assessment on loyalty and commitment to national security, you are going to need a stack more money than has been allocated to train psychics….who are actually accurate.


Whoever said that every entrant was risk free? If it were so, there is no need for customs and border security. Do you understand that this is about differentiating between ordinary levels of risk and situations of high risk? Your suggestions and position suggests no concept of this. A four year old kid from the Singapore whose father did national service despite living in Australia for 10 years and is radicalized to believe that Singapore is the greatest nation on earth and Lee Kwan Yew walks on water is somewhat less risk than a 30 year old jihadist who held up a severed head in Syria. But, you’d treat both identically at customs because both ticked the “No” box (the kid doing so in black crayon). Both will be trailed by ASIO to check whether they are disloyal or a security threat requiring further assessment given they are not differentiated at customs?

I am curious as what you think ASIO and customs etc should be doing to protect Australia. Can you elaborate?

Moving right along….

Espionage is real and pervasive. We do it and we get it done to us. The security apparatus puts significant effort into defending Australia against this. The customs and immigration group is also part of the front line in stopping ‘desk officers’ with a bag full of spy equipment from getting through.

However, to my knowledge, hacker code and surveillance of signals does not actually get on a plane or boat and pass through customs. This is not to say they are against the national interest. They are just dealt with differently using techniques that are appropriate for this purpose.

How does the presence of espionage somehow reduce the need to protect against the entry of potential threats? Does the presence of one set of risks obviate the need to reduce the threat from a different set of risks? Do deaths in Palestine somehow reduce the need to contain conflict in Eastern Ukraine?

Is Rupert that dumb... don't know, he did marry that Deng lady so I wouldn't put it pass him.
And your two titles are nonsense.

I'm sure China say they're nervous and afraid of ISIS... whether they are in reality or not is a different matter.

I thought Joyce is part of the Coalition gov't, in the same camp as Abbott and the Liberals. He doesn't need Rupert to tell him how to defend the gov't.

Wendy did pretty well out of the settlement. However, she punched the guy who was about to throw a pie at Rupert from reflex. That says something. My niece has play dates with their daughter and goes to the same school. Apparently the fathers were very impressed with that and were all wondering if their wives would have put their bodies on the line if the situation were different.

So, on newspapers as a source of data and information, you stuffed the following into the nonsense file: The Australian, The Australian Financial Review, The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times.

I’m just wondering which sources of information you think are not nonsense? I don’t want to spend time reading nonsense when I could be reading and/or watching the stuff that you do which is vastly more useful.

So you are happy to concede that China is at least publicly saying that it is nervous about ISIS, yet poo-poo the newspapers which say as much as liars and nonsense? What kind of nonsense is this, exactly?

Joyce doesn’t need Rupert to speak for him. But when a newspaper quotes what Joyce says, they are somehow nonsense according to you and undifferentiated from News of the World whose market and style are, shall we say, somewhat different to that of the Wall Street Journal? That’s what happens when you don’t differentiate, by the way. The News of the Word is a newspaper. The Economist is a newspaper. NOTW is bad, therefore Economist is bad. Nonsense.

Yea, you best do a chart and show the insignificance of a loss of trade with Russia... That on the grand scheme of things, sanctions resulting in loss of exports worth some $400-$500 million is insignificant because supply and demand means "redirection" costs is not worth mentioning.

While you're on that Ivy tower, maybe also calculate the other insignificant loss from the new round of sanctions Abbott just imposed yesterday.

Tell the Aussie farmers who barely break even in a good year what a few millions or a few weeks worth of time to find new customers, and potentially losing established contracts and contacts in Russia mean. I'm sure they'll agree with your conclusion that it's a drop in the bucket of world trade.

Once again, more throw away arguments with no data. This time about the far less concerning issue of costs than about the sudden loss of the total value of Russian exports on the basis that supply cannot find another home entirely (who is going to buy Russian destined exports when we no-longer sell to Russia, huh…total loss blah blah).

The biggest M&A transaction in recent times involved the business combination of the Westfield entities. This was an $18bn transaction. The fees for corporate advisory were regarded as massive for this transaction. It was 0.4% of the transaction value. Supply contracts do not require a multi-lateral agreement on an FTA.

On redirection, the ‘cost’ of redirection on exports to a closer destination like China and Indonesia are rather smaller than for Russia. Perhaps you might want to get some data on freight rates. Given what matters is CIF, Australia could readily be able to export the same goods at a higher FOB price than what they received from Russia.

In any case, if you want to argue dismissively about massive losses in economic welfare from this, then do so with facts rather than hand waving if you actually want to be perceived as vaguely credible and not entertainment. Pull out your text book, or fire up your YouTube, and check out what it means to have your perspective on supply/demand which implies near infinite inelasticity of demand and supply, compare that with the 2nd law of demand and…more importantly…find examples which actually support what you have been saying and which are actually relevant for this example. They don’t exist, just like psychic powers.

I don’t sit in an ivy tower. It would be too itchy. I’m curious. What’s the allegory for Ivory Tower in relation to substantively watching YouTube for information and development of argument?

Given you can’t calculate the impact of sanctions, I’ll lend a hand. The additional impact is worth about $250m. Most of this relates to the goods and services for energy. If you are going to argue that these are perishable or cannot find a home in the world of huge capex as energy resources are depleting and more development is taking place, please let me know and I will order popcorn.

The weapons part is negligible. Other matters relate to selectively cutting off financing for the most part. I am unaware of a capital raising from a Russian firm in recent times.

On the farmers, yes, I’m sure they would agree on the drop in the bucket facts. Please let me know if any starve to death. I find it interesting how your arguments shift from national levels which might require higher tax for the rich etc. and, when found wanting, shift to the level of individual farmers. What next? The cost to grass because cattle is kept for a month more before being processed?

You seem to have access to a lot of data but no information at all.
Start thinking a bit instead of looking at figures and statistical insignificance.

You seem to think without access to actual data beyond hype in isolation or from YouTube documentaries. I think it is very telling that you would advise this course of action and it explains a great deal about the value of the propositions made.

Should I do as you suggest and just make stuff up without data? I started to think. On the upside, I could make stuff up with impunity and feel good about it because the no data standard of thought and debate is regarded as acceptable. Then I realized that this would produce jibber. Coffee is blue, it tastes like orange juice which was destined for Russia and prevents espionage from Israel. But it’s a free world, do as you wish if it works for you.

As a bonus, I recently read the headlines that with all these trade sanctions going on between Russia and the West, the one country that benefit most is China.

China get to finalised long delayed contracts with Russia, their ties are getting closer in terms of arms and trades; China get to buy things cheaper from the EU/Aus/US that were sold to Russia but now need a new market or established market in China but now greater supply - more supply means lower prices right?

I thought one of the smart thing to do to weaken a dangerous and growing giant is to not push another giant towards its friendship sphere, not to help its economy grow at a faster rate to our lost.

This stuff is proposed in an in-your-face manner and you regard yourself as learned in global politics?

China does benefit. No doubt about it at all. So there. You admit it. Hahahaha. In your face RY. Nothing but net.

Trade-off: Do the lesser evil. The judgment is that the value of the benefit to China is a lesser threat than that from ISIS and Islamic terror. How might the West react to the loss of influence in Middle East energy, do you think? If it occurred, how much of a strategic advantage might China get given that Russia produces so much oil and China’s supply is relatively more secure?

Relevance: The Russian economy is smaller than Brazil’s. What is the value of sanctions? How much of that is redirected to China? What is the value to China from the combination of displacing goods purchased at a potentially higher price or expanding demand as a result of these commodities becoming more readily available. What is this value as a proportion of the total economic size of China?

If you should somehow believe that a cow will be sold to China for 1 cent, then all the best. Given China and Russia are good friends and all, might it be possible that sanctions are given a back channel via purchasing sanctioned goods through China and then funneling these back into Russia? At least in part? A friend in need is a friend indeed?

What you think about ‘smart things’ is too simplistic and not smart. The smart thing to do is to improve/defend your strategic position in net terms. Not just looking at loss alone, without considering gain and all their interactions currently and through time.

Your faith in established power, again, is adorable.
I got this stock i'm selling, I recommend a buy on it... must be a good buy RY.
Oh, but I don't work for Moody's or the Wall Street Journal so nice try right?

If you do this, you will be engaging in stock manipulation. I would say that this is good-bye to LuuTzu. You would be incarcerated in a prison established and funded by an established power, like the Australian Federal Government. Moody’s would never hire you, assuming this even represents a change in the prior status. You would have a lot of time to read the WSJ.

I’m sure your fellow inmates will find you adorable.

Nice try. On your face.

Oh yes... a speech aiming to unite your terrorists why they're fighting and dying, to establish a coalition against the evil empires... that's pure evil wanting to take over the world.

Take over the world with what army? What navy? What air force? What satellite communication, command and control centres? hahaha...

I want to make a hundred billion dollars too... don't think that's likely though. But we never know i suppose.

Do you have the slightest notion of what an asymmetric war is?

The chances of your making billions is effectively zero. The chances of an asymmetric threat is essentially 100% and has already occurred.

I know with complete certainty that this line of thought is bogus.

You do know what it mean to declare your country a Jewish state right? Look it up.

The question was whether Israel’s constitution had anything in it relating to taking over the world. Does it? Please post it if so. Silence will be regarded as evasion. So will a response that evades.

Don't think China need the pretext to excuse itself to western powers... just need it to excuse further annexation and more brutal oppression of the Uighurs and their province... populating it with greater military presence, more and more Han Chinese.

It's impolite to steal and imprison people without cause.

If China does not need to be concerned from Western powers, then whose signature is required to exert more control over Xinjiang. Tibet’s?

It is impolite to get your head chopped off and for this to be posted on YouTube too.

Was referring to the pipeline from the Caspian Sea, through Kazakhstan and onto China completed in 2003 or 2005 and supplying China 15% of its oil needs... Not the recent $400 billion/pa deal with Russia thanks to Ukraine and sanctions. Don't think Russia own Kazakhstan.

I was also referring to the same pipeline.

That pipeline runs through Kazakhstan. It pipes oil into China from the Caspian Sea. It also funnels Russian oil.
You have argued that China would foment a civil uprising of some sort to push its forces deeper into Xinjiang in order to provide more security for this pipeline. Something you picked up off YouTube.

On ownership, Russia does not own Kazakhstan. However, it did not own Crimea either.

China and Russia share a border with Kazakhstan. If Kazakhstan interrupts flow, it will be owned by Russia ‘in a heartbeat’. China would be right there in the action as its energy needs are compromised by a few orders of magnitude greater than any benefit from Russian sanctions. If the Uighurs interrupt oil supply (which is the kind of risk you increase if you fund Islamic terrorist organisations when you have others who are sympathetic to this cause amongst your populace) they would experience a hail of pain.

In Summary... ISIS is like the Third Reich, a threat to both Western Powers, to China, to Russia and all other major powers... just only the Western Powers are joining the coalition while the others are too afraid to do anything.

ISIS is pure evil and we cannot stand idly by and watch preventable genocide, watch refugees not being given asylums... helping the weak, freeing the oppress is what we do, it's what define us as Americans and its deputies...

I think there's a few million Palestinians asking why the world just sigh for their dead children and find it "unhelpful" that continued occupation and genocide is being committed against them; why some 3 km² of their land are being "procure" just now and no sanctions or outrage are heard by the same sensitive powers at all.

There's a few refugees at our doorsteps who's thinking they should've gone to Iraq instead of Australia for help.

Agree wholeheartedly. Keep the faith. I really mean that.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Keep doing good, LT.

I may not agree with your arguments. I do not question your heart.

 

[DB008]

Danish mosque declares support for Isis

An Aarhus mosque that has long been accused of radicalising young members has now come out in support of the militant jihadist organisation Islamic State.

A spokesman for the Aarhus mosque Grimhøjmoskeen has openly declared the mosque’s support of the terrorist organisation Islamic State, or Isis.

“An Islamic state will always be what Muslims long for, therefore we cannot help but to support the Islamic State. Even if it makes mistakes, we will just have to wait and see,” mosque spokesman Fadi Abdallah told the online news source Den Korte Avis.

“The conditions aren’t the same down there [in Syria and Iraq, ed.] as they are here. I can fully understand why people are getting killed,” he continued.

http://www.thelocal.dk/20140902/danish-mosque-express-support-for-isis

 

[DB008]

Missing Libyan Jetliners Raise Fears of Suicide Airliner Attacks on 9/11

Islamist militias in Libya took control of nearly a dozen commercial jetliners last month, and western intelligence agencies recently issued a warning that the jets could be used in terrorist attacks across North Africa.

Intelligence reports of the stolen jetliners were distributed within the U.S. government over the past two weeks and included a warning that one or more of the aircraft could be used in an attack later this month on the date marking the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against New York and Washington, said U.S. officials familiar with the reports.

“There are a number of commercial airliners in Libya that are missing,” said one official. “We found out on September 11 what can happen with hijacked planes.”

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/missing-libyan-jetliners-raise-fears-of-suicide-airliner-attacks-on-911/

 

[DB008]

Steven Sotloff ‘beheaded’ by Islamic State according to new video

THE British executioner who killed US photographer James Foley is believed to have beheaded US journalist Steven Sotloff in a new video released by the Islamic State.

The video showed a masked militant with a strong London accent apparently beheading a second American journalist and threatening to kill a British captive next.

In a bizzare twist, however, the IS militants have come out an apologised over the early release of the video.

Unlike the footage of James Foley’s beheading, which was widely shared on Twitter accounts affiliated with the Islamic State group, the video purporting to show Sotloff’s killing was not immediately posted online.

http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/steven-sotloff-beheaded-by-islamic-state-according-to-new-video/story-fnh81ifq-1227045741999

 

[luutzu]

ISIS was spawned from Al Qaeda. JI had operational links to Al Qaeda. Hence they are linked. These are terrorist organisations. I made no claims in relation to direct linkages with other nations or peoples like the Uighurs that may also be Muslims. These share a common faith but are not terrorist organisations.

On China and Russia not joining the coalition, it might also be that they are concerned that the battle might stretch in the launch of a new season of US sitcoms. More realistically, they do not perceive a strong enough threat* from these organisations to warrant military support with a strategic rival at this point. China and Russia have more than half a brain. They can find the links between Al Qaeda, ISIS and JI on YouTube, or watched it spoken of on CNN. They can draw their relevant strategic conclusions based on this.

• That is different to saying no threat whatsoever.

What's the 'operational links' between JI and AQ? They share the same logistics? Bulk bill their expenses? Serious, I'd like to know.

I'll take your word that ISIS was spawned from AQ, you can define spawned as some Al Qaeda lieutenants either leave AQ and start ISIS or it's a management buyout and rebranding... either way, doesn't that make this so called 100 year war a bit silly?

If we managed to defeat ISIS, then what? No more terrorists? No spawning?

It might help to know why there are terrorists, why people are radicalised and want kill us. But truth is, while most Western civilians might not know - they just agree that terrorists are just pure evil religious nuts - the politicians and policy makers know very well why. But they nonetheless make calculated, 'strategic' decisions on cost-benefits of new or continuing with current policies... since costs rarely affect them, just affect the soldiers and their families, affect the taxpayers and innocent civilians who might get killed or terrorise at home... some warrior politicians are brave enough to turn on the heat and show real leadership; and real leadership, as we all know, are shown by force.

OK, Russia and China, each individually, see ISIS as a threat the same way we do [on a smaller scale]... For argument's sake, let say that that's true... it still mean China/Russia see ISIS as a greater threat to the US/NATO and western powers like Australia more than as a threat to them.

Based on that alone, if you're Russia and want to invade the Ukraine, or at least to create a new buffer state between NATO-allied Ukraine and yourself; if you're supporting a rebellion against the West... does it make more sense to see ISIS as trouble and either ignore or weaken them; or does it make more sense to try and strengthen them so they can bog your powerful enemies down, at least a little, so your enemies' resources and efforts are not completely focus on you?

Make more sense to open up more fronts right? Then once your objectives in the Ukraine are accomplished, turn and deal with a lesser threat that is ISIS.

Same with China... with the US pivoting to Asia (from the ME)... does it help or harm China more to assist ISIS and force the US to Pivot back, if not completely then a little, back to the ME and also Eastern Europe... Wouldn't that help China's plans for the bases within its 'Nine-Dash Lines' and the oil/gas fields and strategic outposts there?

I can't prove that China or Russia is helping ISIS, so don't ask for proof. I just know what if i were them, that's what I'll be doing... And from a Tom Hanks movie and a documentary -Charlie Wilson's War - that's the kind of calculation that led the CIA to armed and train Bin Laden and his freedom fighters against the USSR (until of course they become Al Qaeda and turn evil)... same reason Rambo was also sent to Afghanistan in Part 3; same reason China and Russia funded the VietCong in Rambo Part 2.

But I suppose ISIS can't be use as a proxy like other instances.

Oh. So it is less simplistic to treat all foreign fighters as the same except for their loyalty to the government (an established and idiotic government, according to you) and national security. So, they fill in a new visa form on re-entry to Australia which says “Are you a terrorist returning from foreign battle and disloyal to our government and a threat to national security?” If they tick “No”, they go straight through to collecting their bags. Bad guys will tick the “No”. Bad and stupid guys will tick “Yes”.

If you do not believe in profiling for the purposes of identifying and differentiating risk, but rather on some magical or otherwise psychic assessment on loyalty and commitment to national security, you are going to need a stack more money than has been allocated to train psychics….who are actually accurate.


Whoever said that every entrant was risk free? If it were so, there is no need for customs and border security. Do you understand that this is about differentiating between ordinary levels of risk and situations of high risk? Your suggestions and position suggests no concept of this. A four year old kid from the Singapore whose father did national service despite living in Australia for 10 years and is radicalized to believe that Singapore is the greatest nation on earth and Lee Kwan Yew walks on water is somewhat less risk than a 30 year old jihadist who held up a severed head in Syria. But, you’d treat both identically at customs because both ticked the “No” box (the kid doing so in black crayon). Both will be trailed by ASIO to check whether they are disloyal or a security threat requiring further assessment given they are not differentiated at customs?

I am curious as what you think ASIO and customs etc should be doing to protect Australia. Can you elaborate?

Since when does loyalty to Australia mean loyalty to Abbott or Labor Party? I think democracy and its principle mean loyalty to Australia is loyalty to Australia, not to one party or another; that and critique of gov't policies does not equate to crimes against the state.

I do believe in profiling... just profile all citizens who went and fought for ANY foreign army. Your profiling seem to only apply to designated terrorists (Islamic terrorists) while others who fought for IDF and other foreign armies but who hasn't kill Australians are all good and ASIO and Australians can just forget about it.

Obviously the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation should only focus on Jihadists threats while threats from other Australians who has shown to be loyal to another country... naaaa... they can't possibly be a security or intelligence threat to Australia.

And yes, obvious that those who admire Emperor Lee and his Dynasty are good... I mean if Lee tried, he could actually walk on water.

Moving right along….

Espionage is real and pervasive. We do it and we get it done to us. The security apparatus puts significant effort into defending Australia against this. The customs and immigration group is also part of the front line in stopping ‘desk officers’ with a bag full of spy equipment from getting through.

However, to my knowledge, hacker code and surveillance of signals does not actually get on a plane or boat and pass through customs. This is not to say they are against the national interest. They are just dealt with differently using techniques that are appropriate for this purpose.

How does the presence of espionage somehow reduce the need to protect against the entry of potential threats? Does the presence of one set of risks obviate the need to reduce the threat from a different set of risks? Do deaths in Palestine somehow reduce the need to contain conflict in Eastern Ukraine?

Was referring to Palestine/Gaza with ISIS and Abbott's oration about preventable genocide and helping refugees.
But yea, I read the headline that we're now positioned as a "middle power" and to show how tough we are, we're going against the Russian Bear - directly.

I thought Theodore Roosevelt advised to "talk quietly but carry a big stick"... Don't think our stick are as big as Russia's, yet we talk very loudly... But what does that peacenik Roosevelt the Elder know about strategy and national security.

Wendy did pretty well out of the settlement. However, she punched the guy who was about to throw a pie at Rupert from reflex. That says something. My niece has play dates with their daughter and goes to the same school. Apparently the fathers were very impressed with that and were all wondering if their wives would have put their bodies on the line if the situation were different.

Bodies on the line, hahaha... I think the guy only had one pie and he already used it. Pretty sure it was just cream, not like the pie was pastries with apple or cherry... if it's that, yea, that would be putting her life on the line... cream only... na.

It wasn't reflex... the human brain actually work pretty fast.

While we're gossiping, to then lead into Uncle Rupert's papers of course, as a young poor child in China, Wendy was sponsored by an American couple to the US... stay in their house, get fed and clothed, went to school... and take the husband. Woah! I guess that's one way to return kindness. How much more can a person give once they give themselves.

Then dumb the husband later after uni and a job for some executive; then on to HK when Uncle Rupert came to do business... he soon divorced his wife for our brave Wendy... and I think Wendy was cheating on Rupert with Tony Blair...

Point is, a person is pretty stupid to marry someone with that kind of moral integrity and ruthless ambition.

So, on newspapers as a source of data and information, you stuffed the following into the nonsense file: The Australian, The Australian Financial Review, The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times.

I’m just wondering which sources of information you think are not nonsense? I don’t want to spend time reading nonsense when I could be reading and/or watching the stuff that you do which is vastly more useful.

So you are happy to concede that China is at least publicly saying that it is nervous about ISIS, yet poo-poo the newspapers which say as much as liars and nonsense? What kind of nonsense is this, exactly?

Joyce doesn’t need Rupert to speak for him. But when a newspaper quotes what Joyce says, they are somehow nonsense according to you and undifferentiated from News of the World whose market and style are, shall we say, somewhat different to that of the Wall Street Journal? That’s what happens when you don’t differentiate, by the way. The News of the Word is a newspaper. The Economist is a newspaper. NOTW is bad, therefore Economist is bad. Nonsense.

The mainstream papers you quoted are good if I want to know the stock price or the weather or a verbatim talking point from the gov't and its spokesman; or maybe the classifieds if eBay shuts down, or maybe what Coles has on special... beyond that it's good for lining by dog's food bowl and maybe the wish to appear sophisticated.

In other words, papers ought to be read for what happen, not WHY it happen.
You quoted Joyce as though what he say is unbiased facts when a little bit of thinking will make one wonder.

Once again, more throw away arguments with no data. This time about the far less concerning issue of costs than about the sudden loss of the total value of Russian exports on the basis that supply cannot find another home entirely (who is going to buy Russian destined exports when we no-longer sell to Russia, huh…total loss blah blah).

The biggest M&A transaction in recent times involved the business combination of the Westfield entities. This was an $18bn transaction. The fees for corporate advisory were regarded as massive for this transaction. It was 0.4% of the transaction value. Supply contracts do not require a multi-lateral agreement on an FTA.

On redirection, the ‘cost’ of redirection on exports to a closer destination like China and Indonesia are rather smaller than for Russia. Perhaps you might want to get some data on freight rates. Given what matters is CIF, Australia could readily be able to export the same goods at a higher FOB price than what they received from Russia.

In any case, if you want to argue dismissively about massive losses in economic welfare from this, then do so with facts rather than hand waving if you actually want to be perceived as vaguely credible and not entertainment. Pull out your text book, or fire up your YouTube, and check out what it means to have your perspective on supply/demand which implies near infinite inelasticity of demand and supply, compare that with the 2nd law of demand and…more importantly…find examples which actually support what you have been saying and which are actually relevant for this example. They don’t exist, just like psychic powers.

Hahahaha... Not sure why Russia would put sanctions against Australia when doing so doesn't hurt Australia at all. Those silly Ruskies.

Not sure why those silly Aussie farmers would trade with Russia when there's a closer and better market in Asia and elsewhere but Russia. Yea, I guess they all sell these on eBay and it's just a matter of changing the forwarding address.

You got your databases, look for examples. I think you gotta wait a while for the ABS to get their data together... opinions from interested politicians don't count as data.

I don’t sit in an ivy tower. It would be too itchy. I’m curious. What’s the allegory for Ivory Tower in relation to substantively watching YouTube for information and development of argument?

Given you can’t calculate the impact of sanctions, I’ll lend a hand. The additional impact is worth about $250m. Most of this relates to the goods and services for energy. If you are going to argue that these are perishable or cannot find a home in the world of huge capex as energy resources are depleting and more development is taking place, please let me know and I will order popcorn.

The weapons part is negligible. Other matters relate to selectively cutting off financing for the most part. I am unaware of a capital raising from a Russian firm in recent times.

On the farmers, yes, I’m sure they would agree on the drop in the bucket facts. Please let me know if any starve to death. I find it interesting how your arguments shift from national levels which might require higher tax for the rich etc. and, when found wanting, shift to the level of individual farmers. What next? The cost to grass because cattle is kept for a month more before being processed?

Just curious, what do you think I watch on youtube? Just opinions from some guy's lounge or study? Maybe I watch debates, maybe even lectures from actual universities given by actual professors and experts... Guess those can't compare to newspapers who wouldn't dare question the power that be lest they get sue and bring to court or lose sponsorship and advertising dollars.

But OK, impact of sanctions are negligible.

How do you not see the potential of gov't compensation, OK, "assistance", to the affected farmers and businesses? From memory, every time there's a drought or a flood, there's a new levy to assist the farmers.

But I'm sure sanctions are just the cost of business; much like losing votes is the cost of policies that lost your constituents no money at all.

You seem to think without access to actual data beyond hype in isolation or from YouTube documentaries. I think it is very telling that you would advise this course of action and it explains a great deal about the value of the propositions made.

Should I do as you suggest and just make stuff up without data? I started to think. On the upside, I could make stuff up with impunity and feel good about it because the no data standard of thought and debate is regarded as acceptable. Then I realized that this would produce jibber. Coffee is blue, it tastes like orange juice which was destined for Russia and prevents espionage from Israel. But it’s a free world, do as you wish if it works for you.


This stuff is proposed in an in-your-face manner and you regard yourself as learned in global politics?

China does benefit. No doubt about it at all. So there. You admit it. Hahahaha. In your face RY. Nothing but net.

Trade-off: Do the lesser evil. The judgment is that the value of the benefit to China is a lesser threat than that from ISIS and Islamic terror. How might the West react to the loss of influence in Middle East energy, do you think? If it occurred, how much of a strategic advantage might China get given that Russia produces so much oil and China’s supply is relatively more secure?

Relevance: The Russian economy is smaller than Brazil’s. What is the value of sanctions? How much of that is redirected to China? What is the value to China from the combination of displacing goods purchased at a potentially higher price or expanding demand as a result of these commodities becoming more readily available. What is this value as a proportion of the total economic size of China?

If you should somehow believe that a cow will be sold to China for 1 cent, then all the best. Given China and Russia are good friends and all, might it be possible that sanctions are given a back channel via purchasing sanctioned goods through China and then funneling these back into Russia? At least in part? A friend in need is a friend indeed?

What you think about ‘smart things’ is too simplistic and not smart. The smart thing to do is to improve/defend your strategic position in net terms. Not just looking at loss alone, without considering gain and all their interactions currently and through time.

hahaha... I think what jibberish I've been saying is considered critical thinking; citing historical examples is considered learning from history;

Yea, you can cite data and measure the exact costs or look at the schedules and see how many days behind or ahead the Chinese bases in South China Sea is... When it come to discussions about strategic interests and national security, I'd rather talk "big picture" nonsense to exact mathematical cost-benefit analysis.

Though I think you'd be ahead if you argue that Australia joining the sanction and economic war non-war with Russia could foreseeably be to our interests because without Russian gas/oil to Europe, more Australian gas/oil projects could get investment from Europe; our agricultural exports could lose a few hundred millions but we could easily made up for that in increased energy/mining exports and investments... by how many cubic metres or tonnage, who knows... but substantial...

That kind of argument is more beneficial than this idiotic data driven, opinion pieces you're suggesting.
Just so you know, I do build databases and appreciate the value of data-based decision making... just I also know when they are useful and when they are useless... especially when it regards an unpredictable future with infinite factors and influences.

If you do this, you will be engaging in stock manipulation. I would say that this is good-bye to LuuTzu. You would be incarcerated in a prison established and funded by an established power, like the Australian Federal Government. Moody’s would never hire you, assuming this even represents a change in the prior status. You would have a lot of time to read the WSJ.

I’m sure your fellow inmates will find you adorable.

Nice try. On your face.

How does gain/loss analysis led to stock manipulation?

I wouldn't be anywhere near... whatever street the Australian Wall Street is... or be anywhere near the masters of the universe to ever be able to manipulate any stock or accuse of insider trading... But thanks for the concern. Though I have one of those face people rather not mess around with, especially when I make my war face... urrgggg, URRGGGGHHH... haha, i mean, Mu ah ah ah ah

Do you have the slightest notion of what an asymmetric war is?

The chances of your making billions is effectively zero. The chances of an asymmetric threat is essentially 100% and has already occurred.

I know with complete certainty that this line of thought is bogus.

Asymmetric war... gotta look that up on wikipedia.... yea, now I know.
It's like the French Legionnaires against the terrorists led by Ho Chi Minh; Like the US against the Communists of Ho Chi Minh... the kind of war where the weaker armies does not line themselves up to be blown to pieces but dig tunnels and hide among the people right?

The kind of war where the more villages you bomb, the more hearts and minds you won over right?

Yea, I think France and the US won that kind of war... I guess if only it had gone on for 100 years the US might have won; though the French did fought it for about 100 years and decided to make a "strategic retreat" after Dien Bien Phu.

Not sure if Mao's Red Army and its long march vs Chiang Kai Shek's American-backed army was another instance of asymmetric war.


It's amazing that you think ISIS pose 100% threat to Australia, yet satisfied that bombing and army friendlies from the air is good enough. I don't think we take that kind of 100% threat seriously enough.

And come on... the future won't end, yet... so there's a chance I can make billions (US dollars)... never know.

The question was whether Israel’s constitution had anything in it relating to taking over the world. Does it? Please post it if so. Silence will be regarded as evasion. So will a response that evades.

hahaha... where in the US constitution does it say the US seek to dominate the world?
Name me one State that has that in its constitution.

Yet... yet the US has some 900 military bases/stations around the world; yet its CIA and apparatus overthrow unfriendly gov't all over the world and put in place dictators it bought and control.

China, Vietnam call itself the "people's" gov't, the people this and that, the party is for the people... Yet... I guess depends on what people some people happen to be to gain benefits from the people's government.

I haven't read Israel's constitution but assume that like all countries in the world, it just doesn't write down its actual foreign policies on it. I think i've answered your adorable understanding of state policies and international relations - that it have to be written down, in the constitution no less.

Now, name me one terrorist organisation, one without established geographical borders, without an effective and organised army, without an air force or a navy... name one instance of such organisation being able to conquer or subjugate the "civilised world" - it doesn't need to have this written on its constitution or charter.

I'm pretty sure Genghis Khan united the various Mongolian tribes and established the Mongolian state on the steppes before his expansion and conquest of China and the Middle East and Russia.

If ISIS is the new Mongolian empire to be, we better send in the troops and not be lazy about fighting for our existence.

But of course it's smarter to kick sand and shrapnels in their face then prepare for blowbacks everywhere at home.
Wasting billions now and a couple dollars over the next 100 years while serious and lethal threats from nuclear-armed, properly organised and state sanction armies at our door steps are thought to be trading partners rather than real potential rivals.

I don't think you can make these stuff up when you write a comic story about wars and generals.

If China does not need to be concerned from Western powers, then whose signature is required to exert more control over Xinjiang. Tibet’s?

It is impolite to get your head chopped off and for this to be posted on YouTube too.

You think Abbott or Obama speak of humanity and liberating refugees for China or Russia's consumption? It's to make its people, its own citizens, feel a bit better about their gov't blowing up other human being. It's so they can don't question too much about spending billions on war and foreign "aid" when their school and bridges are collapsing.

Same with China, I imagine.

I was also referring to the same pipeline.

That pipeline runs through Kazakhstan. It pipes oil into China from the Caspian Sea. It also funnels Russian oil.
You have argued that China would foment a civil uprising of some sort to push its forces deeper into Xinjiang in order to provide more security for this pipeline. Something you picked up off YouTube.

On ownership, Russia does not own Kazakhstan. However, it did not own Crimea either.

China and Russia share a border with Kazakhstan. If Kazakhstan interrupts flow, it will be owned by Russia ‘in a heartbeat’. China would be right there in the action as its energy needs are compromised by a few orders of magnitude greater than any benefit from Russian sanctions. If the Uighurs interrupt oil supply (which is the kind of risk you increase if you fund Islamic terrorist organisations when you have others who are sympathetic to this cause amongst your populace) they would experience a hail of pain.


Agree wholeheartedly. Keep the faith. I really mean that.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Keep doing good, LT.

I may not agree with your arguments. I do not question your heart.

Don't know, If i'm China I would go on TV and all media and say ISIS is wrong is bad is evil is a terrorist organisation... but then hope it ties my bigger aversary down while I get on with, one, do what I plan to do while the focus is off of me; two, do what I want to do and wage war on Islamic terror like the trend the western powers are taking on... win win I'd say.

 

[DB008]

Wow, this in Germany.....when will the "Aussie Sharia Law Patrols Start" ???

'Sharia controlled zone' in Germany: Group of young Muslims patrolling city streets

Police in the German city of Wuppertal are investigating a case of several young men who announced themselves to be 'Sharia police'. The group was 'patrolling' the streets, urging people to refrain from various sorts of activities and entertainment.

The young men wearing orange safety vests with the words "Shariah police" written on the back caught both residents' and police attention in Wuppertal in North Rhine-Westphalia in western Germany earlier this week.

http://rt.com/news/185664-sharia-police-patrol-germany/

 

[DB008]

British IS fighters 'want to return to UK' after regretting joining jihad in Syria

British jihadi fighters have contacted a London university to say they regret travelling to Syria and Iraq to join Islamist fundamentalists.

Professor Peter Neumann of King’s College said his department has been in contact with a number of British jihadists who want to come back to the UK but fear being jailed.


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/british-jihadists-want-to-come-home-after-regretting-going-to-fight-for-is-9713427.html

 

[DB008]

Hate for sale as Muslim flag adopted by jihadists goes to auction at Sydney mosque

PREMIER Mike Baird said the Islamic State flag could be banned across NSW.

His stance follows footage of one of the flags, which is linked to the barbaric terrorist organisation, being auctioned in front of families and young children in Sydney.

“That is something we will consider and work with community groups about but we can’t have the position where you are seeing any activity that is promoting terrorism, supporting terrorism,” Mr Baird said today.

“There is no way in this state that we are going to support that.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/hate-for-sale-as-muslim-flag-adopted-by-jihadists-goes-to-auction-at-sydney-mosque/story-fni0cx12-1227050847756

 

[Julia]

British jihadi fighters have contacted a London university to say they regret travelling to Syria and Iraq to join Islamist fundamentalists.

Well, isn't that nice. And presumably the Brits will welcome them back, forgiving their being misguided for a little while, so that they can feel free to commit some atrocity on home ground.

 

[noco]

Well, isn't that nice. And presumably the Brits will welcome them back, forgiving their being misguided for a little while, so that they can feel free to commit some atrocity on home ground.

Perhaps my post #2796 on ASF thread "re : Asylum Immigrants - Green Light" would have been more fitting on this thread.

 

[chiff]

Went in and out of kuala Lumpur airport last week-had to do fingerprint recognition on the way in and outTwo index fingers on a screen for recording.Three barrier checks on the way out ,and when through the last one a body pat down.Gently Bentley of course.

 

[SirRumpole]

Well, isn't that nice. And presumably the Brits will welcome them back, forgiving their being misguided for a little while, so that they can feel free to commit some atrocity on home ground.

Perhaps, but on the other hand, a lot of intelligence can be obtained from them if they really are disillusioned.

 

[DB008]

ASIO boss David Irvine warns threat level may rise

ASIO boss David Irvine is "very seriously" considering raising the nation's terrorism alert level to "high", meaning that an attack is deemed likely.

The outgoing spy boss said on Tuesday night that the numbers of Australians involved with extremist groups and the influence of the conflicts in Iraq and Syria meant that the threat was continuing to grow.

"If we raise it to high, it means an attack is likely. I would say that at the moment, it is at a very elevated level of medium and I'm certainly contemplating very seriously the notion of lifting it higher," he said told the ABC's 7.30 program.

His remarks come as Australia prepares to join a likely US-led campaign to beat back the extremist group Islamic State in Iraq and Syria – though Mr Irvine played down suggestions that this would make an attack more likely here.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asio-boss-david-irvine-warns-threat-level-may-rise-20140909-10emmh.html#ixzz3CtgYAjJl

 

[DB008]

Aussie terror alert level raised by ASIO today

http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/Securityandyourcommunity/Pages/NationalTerrorismPublicAlertSystem.aspx

 

[DB008]

Pro-ISIS leaflets target London shoppers

Brochures urging Muslims to leave Britain and join the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group were and handed out to Oxford Street shoppers in central London, The Daily Mail reported Wednesday.

The newspaper said men, who stood in front of posters declaring “the dawn of a new era has begun,” were handing out pro-ISIS brochures.

“The khilafah (Caliphate) has been established,” one leaflet read, in reference to territories gained in Iraq and Syria after ISIS waged its lightening offensive in recent weeks.

Another leaflet said: “We have been living in a constant state of ignorance, our lands separated, resources stolen, ummah disunited, honor humiliated and the laws of shirk established over us.”

The leaflet said Muslims around the world have “many great responsibilities towards the success and spread of the khilafah across the world.”

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/2014/08/14/Pro-ISIS-leaflets-target-shoppers-on-London-s-Oxford-St-.html

Germany officially bans terror group Isis

Germany on Friday officially banned Islamic terror group Isis from any activities in the country, warning that the jihadists, who have captured swathes of Iraq and Syria, also posed a threat to Europe.Germany on Friday officially banned Islamic terror group Isis from any activities in the country, warning that the jihadists, who have captured swathes of Iraq and Syria, also posed a threat to Europe.

Defence minister Thomas de Mazière announced the ban on flying Isis flags, wearing Isis symbols and all Isis activities at a press conference on Friday morning.

"The terror organisation Islamic State is a threat to public safety in Germany as well," de Mazière said. "We are resolutely confronting this threat today.

"Today's ban is directed solely against terrorists who abuse religion for their criminal goals," he added. "Germany is a well-fortified democracy, there's no place here for a terrorist organisation which opposes the constitutional order as well as the notion of international understanding."

The move will also ban donations to the group, recruiting fighters, holding Isis meetings and distributing its propaganda.
http://www.thelocal.de/20140912/germany-officially-bans-terror-group-isis

British Female Jihadists 'Are Running Brothels Full Of Captured Sex Slaves For Islamic State Militants'

British female jihadists are running 'brothels' where thousands of Iraqi women are being forced to work after being captured by Islamic State militants, it has been reported.

Shocking new details have emerged after it was revealed young British girls are behind an ultra-religious all female militia in Raqqa that is brutally punishing "un-Islamic behaviour" in the area, according to the Sunday Telegraph.

Sources now claim that the women, who travelled from the UK to marry militant fighters, have set up brothels for the IS fighters to use.

A source told the Mirror: "These women are using barbaric interpretations of the Islamic faith to justify their actions.

"They believe the militants can use these women as they please as they are non-Muslims. It is the British women who have risen to the top of the Islamic State’s sharia police and now they are in charge of this operation.

"It is as bizarre as it is perverse."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/11/isis-sex-slaves-british-jihadists_n_5802532.html