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.