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

[luutzu]

Some women give birth to natural comedians and some bear 'would be comedians'.

On a more serious note, communism is perhaps the lesser of two evils although they have the same intentions of world domination......Modern Communism in Australia today now execute their business in a more subtle way as did the self confessed communist Julia Gillard did in her short term which was plain to see by all.....a total disaster......Communism now go under the shadow of the Green/Labor party left wing socialist who practice democratic socialism with the support of the remaining content of the unions.....They just nibble their way without the naive really knowing what is going on......however, we must be thankful for the fact that modern communism have in recent times not used intimidation and fear......but when it is all boiled down communism has failed in the past and will fail again.

I probably do not need to comment on Islam as there has been enough in the media for you to see for yourself....Islam is very mixed up political society at the moment as much they really don't know who they are....on the one hand we have Islamic moderates living in Australia who condemn the radicals who in turn do not take any notice of the moderates......then we have in the middle East 3 or 4 different Islamic groups fighting amongst themselves like one big happy family who cannot agree who is right and who is wrong so they talk to each other with guns......

So at this stage I guess we have to get our priorities in order to deal with the worst of a bad bunch.

So Macquack, how do you see it all or should we just transfer your post the ASF joke thread?

Macquack is pretty funny, and right on about you too Noco. You just proved that yourself.

I shouldn't laugh because you're my senior, but you got to admit it's pretty funny.

 

[luutzu]

Takes a lot of support sappers and logistical staff to man the planes, manipulate the drones and back up each SAS advisor.

History would suggest the announcements of deployment are probably after the initial expeditionary crew have landed and set up a defensive ...which makes sense. I would suggest we have been on the ground for some time and a Xmas return is rather ambitious, given the next election is still 2 years out, which gives Julie plenty of time to insult and apologise to plenty more world leaders (which according to News Corp is a winner with the women voters of Oz).

True, didn't look at the logistics... was assuming Uncle Sam would provide those.

There's a recent Newsweek article saying how Obama might be able to keep his promise of no boots on the ground - that there will be shoes, shoes of mercenaries like Black Waters... so technically no boots. But they don't come cheap, nor do they want to end things quickly.

From memory, wars are only popular at the start, and only remain popular if it ends quickly. Don't think this will work out well for Abbott's career as PM.

 

[Tisme]

True, didn't look at the logistics... was assuming Uncle Sam would provide those.

.

I think our drones, for instance are Israeli, which might prove alien to the US and the planes have proprietary ADF routines too.

 

[Julia]

Increased police presence is a sign that the community is not safe - hence they are there to keep us safe. That put people on edge, put officers on edge... and soon, either some accident or misfires happen or people will just be complacent. Both of which will not be good for our safety or our freedom.

Could you then describe how you think the government should be handling the current situation? You'd prefer they do nothing, just dismiss the threats as hyped up nonsense?

I don't think anyone has any appetite for involvement in any of this stuff. But I can imagine the outrage if (or probably more accurately, when) an attack does occur, and the screams would be "what on earth were our intelligence agencies and our government doing while this was being planned?"!

 

[Tisme]

Could you then describe how you think the government should be handling the current situation? "!

I think they should be keeping their powder dry.

Tony and his crew have been so long in the wilderness, what with Howard virtually running a one man show and then six years of Punch and Judy, it's not wonder they are itchy scratchy and spoiling for a fight..... 16 years of being nothing more than indolent and spiteful floral children in the attic has to take its toll on young minds.

In the old days coppers would employ a rubber hose or telephone book, rather than bother with trifles. We need those virtual tools to lay down some discipline amongst those who would harm us.

 

[luutzu]

I only saw parts of Q&A tonight, but was shocked by the naivety of some of the panellists in regards to the origins of and reasons for the coming into being of ISIS and other such organisations.

This is a talk by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in Yale last week. The Muslim Students Association protested her presence and the Yale Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics, who organised the forum (Clash of Civilizations: Islam and the West), initially withdrew her invitation but following protests from many other atheists and others re-invited her.

In the talk she gives a great insight into why Islam is what it is today (it wasn't always that way) and explains a lot about the reasons for what is happening today in the Middle East.

Her talk starts about the 10 minute mark.

This lady is no scholar, no historian. She's a bit of an bigot actually. With all due respect.

What she's describing from her own experience is what happen when you mix state policy with religion, when you interpret the Koran or the Bible or the Old Testament literally and make it your state's policies.

We tend to forget that our Western societies, with its great advances in medicine, the sciences, the equality of gender, laws against discriminations, against domestic abuse etc. etc.... all of this is possible only because we separate the Religion from the State.

But we tend to think that our Western society is so great because our God is more noble.
No religion allows you to criticise their God or Deity. We in the West are only allowed to because our secular law permit it.

Darwin have to think twice, three times and put away his thesis on the Origin of Species - evolution - for about a decade until another scholar told him that he had also come to the same conclusion and knowing that Darwin had gotten there first, so if Darwin does not want to publish those findings the guy will publish his.

When you have a leader that is raised up with the Bible, or who found God on his way to power... you get Bush Jr. and illegalisation of Stem Cell research, defunding of family planning, or Crusades or Team Australia.

---

She has no understanding of history and no understanding of current affairs.

Her reasons for Islam being a violent religion is the Sword on Saudi Arabia's flag; that "there is no God but God and Muhammad is his Prophet"; The Arabs/Muslims are still fighting and causing terror even though other former colonies, like Vietnam, like South Korea, are no longer causing terrorists act...

Come on... When Moses put down the chisel and bring those tablets down from Mt. Sinai [?], I think the first commandment is that thou shall not put another God before me, I am a jealous God etc. etc.; And Muhammad, like Moses, is what Machiavelli called armed Prophets - that you better be armed and have armies when you claim to hear or represents God... the last guy that claim that and unarmed got himself crucified.

With regards to the ME or Muslim countries in Africa no longer being a colony or no resistance fighters but just terrorists who follow Islam... There's countless documentaries and I've heard it a few times from Chomsky's lectures saying otherwise.

That after WW2, Churchill's Britain and France pretty much divided their possessions in North Africa and the ME to their own interests; Roosevelt make a brief stop to Arabia and met with bin Saud [?] - the Saudi in Saudi Arabia I'm guessing - and assured him the US will help him with his problems;

So when the ME was divided into its current states today, there were no regards by Churchill or Western interests to divide it among ethnic regions; just whatever is more convenient and beneficial... then propping up of kings and dictators to rule over a divided country needing Western arms and advice to keep the peace... and oil is also good.

So you have Churchill asking Eisenhower to intervene in Iran because its democratically elected president thought that maybe BP ought to pay more for the oil, then came the coup and the Shah of Iran rule for some 20 years before the revolution that put in power the current regime.

I'm not excusing terrorism or act of violence and murder, but to blame it on religion or ethnic inferiority and such is not smart for us in the long run. That if you go to war, at least know who your enemies are and why they're fighting so you can win and not involve in possibly perpetual wars and lost focus.

I agree that we ought to do what is to our national interests, cruel and violent as it might be. I think we would all rather we don't, but that's the way of the world; and obviously not allow violent to be committed against us and our interests... But the policies since WW2 that all great powers like ours have been conducting around the world... I'm not so sure it is to our long term interests in this changing world.

We might want to rethink it.

We are living in the nuclear age and we are nuclear armed - or at least Australia could borrow a couple from Uncle Sam or the Britannia if push come to shove... so the old policies of weakening rivals and balancing power, of exploitation and colonisation through corporations and dictators... that kind of policies, i don't think, serves our interests. Definitely does not serve the unfortunate people subjected to it.

Since nukes will, to a good degree, protect us from invasion by another state... it is better that we enrich ourselves and expand our influence through trade and through policies that also enrich the country and the people whose resources we need. To prop up dictators, help him suppress his people and give us favourable deals to the country's resources sounds good on paper, had proved to work very well since Columbus discovered the Americas... I don't think it work as well now as it does then.

Broadly speaking, the $5 trillion dollars the US spent to control those two countries in the ME... it devastated their entire country, it hasn't made the US/Aus safer or richer... and for us to make a profit, more than $5 trillion must be extracted from unfavourable deals with whoever we preferred and protected... doing so will definitely mean resistance, terrorism there and possibly here in our country.

So real leadership is needed, not this childish clash of civilisation, they hate us for our freedom and our girls wearing bikinis and going to school; this they hate us even though we try to build for them a shiny city on the hill; we try to bring peace and civilisation to them and they just believe in God too much to appreciate it.

Do that and we'll just keep fighting and keep losing and won't know why.

 

[bellenuit]

Her reasons for Islam being a violent religion is the Sword on Saudi Arabia's flag; that "there is no God but God and Muhammad is his Prophet"; The Arabs/Muslims are still fighting and causing terror even though other former colonies, like Vietnam, like South Korea, are no longer causing terrorists act...

What a ridiculous conclusion. None of these were her reasons for the violence of Islam. They were just examples she gave of the contradictions between what we see is happening and the claim of Islam that it is the religion of peace.

She regards one of the main reasons that many Islamic communities, which previously were tolerant and all inclusive, have changed so drastically is due to what she called the "preacher teachers" that have taken over the mosques and schools in many Islamic and Western countries and preached intolerance of not only other religions, but of those within their own Islamic faith that do not strictly adhere to a literal interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith. And this is obvious for all of us to see. Why are ordinary Australians, Brits and French joining groups like ISIS. It is because of the indoctrination they receive in their local mosques that teaches them nothing but hate. And we can see this in their demonstrations with even children holding placards demanding the beheading of those who insult the prophet or Islam. You can look up YouTube and you will find hundreds of videos of speeches given in mosques and schools that are promoting a level of intolerance and hate that is almost beyond belief.

This lady is no scholar, no historian. She's a bit of an bigot actually.

Two claims that she addressed adequately at the beginning of her speech and claims that are always thrown at her by the conservative Muslims. It is interesting that you should mouth the same thing. Please give examples of her bigotry?

What she's describing from her own experience is what happen when you mix state policy with religion, when you interpret the Koran or the Bible or the Old Testament literally and make it your state's policies.

At least you understood that, but it is not just confined to Islamic states. The atrocities also happen in secular western states to this very day. For example, FGM in Britain and even here in Australia where young girls are brought on "special" holidays overseas where it can be done legally.

We tend to forget that our Western societies, with its great advances in medicine, the sciences, the equality of gender, laws against discriminations, against domestic abuse etc. etc.... all of this is possible only because we separate the Religion from the State.

Most who post on these forums realise that and if you listened to her talk you would also see that she is advocating that.

I'm not excusing terrorism or act of violence and murder,

You have been from the first few posts I noticed from you on the Gaza conflict.

... but to blame it on religion

Get your head out of the sand. The genocide that ISIS is committing against fellow muslims is directly because of their religious beliefs.

... or ethnic inferiority and such is not smart for us in the long run.

Who put the blame on ethic inferiority?

You need to open your mind and read somebody else other than Chomsky. When these terrorist groups tell you day in day out that what they are doing is in pursuit of their religion, when there are passages in their holy books that can be interpreted to justify what they are doing, when they call for the death by whatever means possible of all non-believers which include men, women and children, then at some stage something must twig in your brain that might make you realise that they might know a bit more about their motivations than Chomsky does.

 

[noco]

Macquack is pretty funny, and right on about you too Noco. You just proved that yourself.

I shouldn't laugh because you're my senior, but you got to admit it's pretty funny.

Why not laugh?....Laughter is the best medicine.

It is not strange to me because I have come across so many naive people who are able to see through a key hole with both eyes and that is because they are so narrow minded in being able to accept the truth.

The truth sometimes hurts and when it does, it brings out laughter in some people in an attempt to belittle the credibility of the another person.

Do get the drift?

 

[Chris45]

We are living in the nuclear age and we are nuclear armed - or at least Australia could borrow a couple from Uncle Sam or the Britannia if push come to shove... so the old policies of weakening rivals and balancing power, of exploitation and colonisation through corporations and dictators... that kind of policies, i don't think, serves our interests. Definitely does not serve the unfortunate people subjected to it.

Since nukes will, to a good degree, protect us from invasion by another state... it is better that we enrich ourselves and expand our influence through trade and through policies that also enrich the country and the people whose resources we need. To prop up dictators, help him suppress his people and give us favourable deals to the country's resources sounds good on paper, had proved to work very well since Columbus discovered the Americas... I don't think it work as well now as it does then.

If you think nuclear missiles would ever be used to protect us from invasion by another state, you might enjoy this:

 

[banco]

So you have Churchill asking Eisenhower to intervene in Iran because its democratically elected president thought that maybe BP ought to pay more for the oil, then came the coup and the Shah of Iran rule for some 20 years before the revolution that put in power the current regime.

Speaking of Churchill this Churchill quote remains bang on:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia
in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many
countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods
of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the
Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and
refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan
law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as
a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the
faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.


Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion
paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde
force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant
and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising
fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the
strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled,
the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

 

[Julia]

Speaking of Churchill this Churchill quote remains bang on:

Agree, banco. Thank you. Churchill's eloquence remains unequalled.

I think they should be keeping their powder dry.

Tony and his crew have been so long in the wilderness, what with Howard virtually running a one man show and then six years of Punch and Judy, it's not wonder they are itchy scratchy and spoiling for a fight..... 16 years of being nothing more than indolent and spiteful floral children in the attic has to take its toll on young minds.

In the old days coppers would employ a rubber hose or telephone book, rather than bother with trifles. We need those virtual tools to lay down some discipline amongst those who would harm us.

I have no wish to be argumentative, but the above seems like a non-answer to me. Not that you are under any obligation to respond to my question, of course.

What does 'keeping their powder dry" mean? What would you determine this to translate into actual action or inaction?

 

[luutzu]

Could you then describe how you think the government should be handling the current situation? You'd prefer they do nothing, just dismiss the threats as hyped up nonsense?

I don't think anyone has any appetite for involvement in any of this stuff. But I can imagine the outrage if (or probably more accurately, when) an attack does occur, and the screams would be "what on earth were our intelligence agencies and our government doing while this was being planned?"!

The intelligence and security/AFP do what they think, when they think, is needed. I don't know any better and not pretending to.

I'm just critical of Abbott and this terror alert and politicising of these threats and these raids. So I'm not saying it's hyped up, saying it has been politicised by our gov't.

That if the PM was sensible, have no political motive, just wanting to keep us all safe, all calm... when ASIO or others come to brief him of these threats and these planned raids... is there a need for him to raise a public alarm bell? What can the public do about it?

Maybe he thought raising the alarm will rattle the snakes, as the Chinese say, and cause them to call each other up and say, Ahmed, do you think they're onto to us bro? Let's cancel it for now... or let's get on with it quickly before we get caught...

But think a bit harder and maybe the alarm bells do more harm than good.

It's hindsight now but an interior decorator got pulled off the plane; some suspicious people were picked up near the Lucas Heights nuclear something; four Arab footy fans got pulled out because their phones looks funny or something... it might get worst before we get complacent about it.

So a sensible leader, on hearing these threats, will let the experts do what they do.. and after the raids, the biggest in our nation... calm the nation, tell us that our safety and our way of life are in good hands; that the bad guys has and will be caught etc.

It is just too convenient the timing of the raids and the send offs and the new laws.

I just hope the AFP leadership didn't politicise and jump the gun on this operation that netted one criminal. The operation had been since May, i heard from the Q&A panel... I'm guessing that when our agencies are on to people for that long, every one of them are being monitored and watch and wiretap... to raid them and managed to only charge one seems immature to me. But that's just me.

---

The sad thing is, as Chomsky replied when asked about security and war... is that yours, mine, our security play very little in the grand strategy of our leadership. Our safety are what these generals and young Napoleons considered acceptable collateral damage, acceptable blowback in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not excusing terrorism and terrorists, my safety is also at stake here... but when our gov't declare war on the enemy, sending fighter jets to "degrade and defeat" them... what do they expect the enemy to do, or want to do, to us? Just sit around digging tunnels?

Like that Israeli Defense Minister I heard from an interview... the guy is said to have thought that attacking Iran is not a problem... that Israel and the US can definitely take out Iran and Israel would only suffer around 500 civilian casualties, and he can live with that loss. Like that general, I'm sure the generals in Canberra have thought about collateral damage and its probabilities... and in their infinite wisdom, decide it's worth the price fighting ISIS.

Nothing wrong with that, that's just statecraft and war planning... Well, at least our security is beefed up.

 

[luutzu]

Speaking of Churchill this Churchill quote remains bang on:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia
in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many
countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods
of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the
Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and
refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan
law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as
a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the
faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.


Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion
paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde
force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant
and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising
fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the
strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled,
the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

I like Churchill in general. I think he's a very smart man, a very capable leader... he's also very wise, funny and an imperialist racist who literally dream of empires and the good old days of Rome and Britain ruling the world.

You should quote what he said of Gandhi - a half-naked charlatan parading as peaceful civil leader trying to take the Crown Jewel away from the British Empire.

He's right on Gandhi I think. But he's in his racist imperialist mode with that quote on Islam.

Christianity sheltered science says the man who know history but forgot about the burning of witches; the flat-world civilisation; the banning of "dangerous" books by the Holy Father; the Immaculate conception of Christ...

The non-militant, non-proselytizing faith says the man who head the Colonial Empire that literally the sun never set upon because its subject tend to either clear or convert the native savages on literally every continent (beside Antarctica).

so he's a bit bias and selective here... But I too would be if my direct ancestor was the great Duke of Marlborough and my language and culture dominates the world.

 

[luutzu]

If you think nuclear missiles would ever be used to protect us from invasion by another state, you might enjoy this:

What the guy said is in line with what I'm saying... That with nuclear deterrence, wars between great powers - like WW1, WW2, the Napoleonic wars etc... that kind of war for survival is very unlikely nowadays. Not impossible, but unlikely, or less likely.

So what the major powers like the US, the West/NATO, Aus [?], China, Russia, India etc... what these major powers would likely do is to exert their sphere of influence, or protect that sphere, onto surrounding, smaller, weaker states.

Since WW2, the US and the Soviets have been doing that through coup and friendly dictators.. fighting proxy wars to defend or gain influence. Be that stopping the domino of Communism in Korea or Vietnam and SE Asia; the ME and Eastern Europe...

I'm no foreign policy expert but maybe we ought to rethink that kind of strategy. As Churchill said, you can't get richer by making the other guy poorer. Though he was referring to Communism... was thinking that perhaps the same can apply to international relations.

I'm not saying nation building, though that is not a bad idea as long as we don't build it like we do Iraq and others... but there could be a case to make that helping dictators in resourced-rich countries so we can get cheaper gas or invade their airspace or land at will, that might no longer be as profitable as it used to.

A bit like smoking... the gov't didn't do much about it because the taxes are good and not many smokers are dying yet. When there's just too many sick Australian smokers that the tax revenue just can't really cover... change in policy. That or cut medicare and universal healthcare and i don't think the gov't will care so much.

Anyway, good comedy.

 

[luutzu]

Why not laugh?....Laughter is the best medicine.

It is not strange to me because I have come across so many naive people who are able to see through a key hole with both eyes and that is because they are so narrow minded in being able to accept the truth.

The truth sometimes hurts and when it does, it brings out laughter in some people in an attempt to belittle the credibility of the another person.

Do get the drift?

It's wrong to laugh at people not younger than me.

Don't get angry too much, might get ulcers. Try a kebab... though stay away from their snack pack... eat that and you will really believe they try to kill us through cholesterol.

 

[luutzu]

What a ridiculous conclusion. None of these were her reasons for the violence of Islam. They were just examples she gave of the contradictions between what we see is happening and the claim of Islam that it is the religion of peace.

She regards one of the main reasons that many Islamic communities, which previously were tolerant and all inclusive, have changed so drastically is due to what she called the "preacher teachers" that have taken over the mosques and schools in many Islamic and Western countries and preached intolerance of not only other religions, but of those within their own Islamic faith that do not strictly adhere to a literal interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith. And this is obvious for all of us to see. Why are ordinary Australians, Brits and French joining groups like ISIS. It is because of the indoctrination they receive in their local mosques that teaches them nothing but hate. And we can see this in their demonstrations with even children holding placards demanding the beheading of those who insult the prophet or Islam. You can look up YouTube and you will find hundreds of videos of speeches given in mosques and schools that are promoting a level of intolerance and hate that is almost beyond belief.



Two claims that she addressed adequately at the beginning of her speech and claims that are always thrown at her by the conservative Muslims. It is interesting that you should mouth the same thing. Please give examples of her bigotry?



At least you understood that, but it is not just confined to Islamic states. The atrocities also happen in secular western states to this very day. For example, FGM in Britain and even here in Australia where young girls are brought on "special" holidays overseas where it can be done legally.



Most who post on these forums realise that and if you listened to her talk you would also see that she is advocating that.

You have been from the first few posts I noticed from you on the Gaza conflict.

Get your head out of the sand. The genocide that ISIS is committing against fellow muslims is directly because of their religious beliefs.

Who put the blame on ethic inferiority?

You need to open your mind and read somebody else other than Chomsky. When these terrorist groups tell you day in day out that what they are doing is in pursuit of their religion, when there are passages in their holy books that can be interpreted to justify what they are doing, when they call for the death by whatever means possible of all non-believers which include men, women and children, then at some stage something must twig in your brain that might make you realise that they might know a bit more about their motivations than Chomsky does.

I have never excuse terrorism or violence - hence I was critical of Israel. haha

Careful what you say please, I've painted some 5 coats on my front doors and don't like it being kicked in. haha.

Look, I'm not saying what she suffered is right or justifiable... it's terrible. And I'm not saying what Islam or any idiotic religious practices are right.

I make fun, though i tend not to anymore, of all religions. You know, Muhammad went to the desert or the oasis and there hear God spoke to him and wrote down the words of God in the Koran... the Arab leaders at the time didn't believe it but thought how could a 40 something year old illiterate trader with no education write something so beautiful like the language in the Koran, so it must be true... To me, Muhammad was just dehydrated or he taught himself to write and read, taught himself warfare and military arts that he conquered the ME.

I wouldn't say that to a Muslim the same as I wouldn't make fun of Christ and his miracles and birth to a Christian.
I got a friend who got really insulted seeing Jurassic Park because dinosaurs are obviously fictional, God didn't create them at all. I didn't argue with him.

If i were to say what I think about Christianity to my mother or parents in law, or to my grand mother... she will beat the heck out of me, and my own mother too for raising me like that... So you know, don't make fun of people's faith. You can do it among non-believers, not as fun though but safety first.

So if ISIS is killing a lot of Muslims, is it Islam that is murderous or is it ISIS that is murderous?

I don't just watch or listen to Chomsky, though he's a very smart man. Smarter than I thought he was when I was young and thought he's just a liberal leftist peacenik.

I think I've answered your questions with the previous post...

 

[luutzu]

I think our drones, for instance are Israeli, which might prove alien to the US and the planes have proprietary ADF routines too.

I thought Israel also supply the US drones. But yea, don't think the US would find any weapon alien to it though, haha.

With the US Marine basing in Darwin, do we pay them to base there or do they pay us? This jump into war from Abbott makes me wonder.

Whatever happen to the good old days of playing deputy sheriff like in Vietnam and when McNamara recounts the US allies, Australia wasn't even mentioned.

 

[noco]

It's wrong to laugh at people not younger than me.

Don't get angry too much, might get ulcers. Try a kebab... though stay away from their snack pack... eat that and you will really believe they try to kill us through cholesterol.

Forget about your kebabs and snack packs, perhaps in 30 or so years you may have no choice but to eat Halal food if action is not taken now against these radical SISL idiots.....you might also be given 2 choices, join Islam or die.


http://www.halalchoices.com.au/what_is_halal.html

 

[orr]

Could you then describe how you think the government should be handling the current situation? You'd prefer they do nothing, just dismiss the threats as hyped up nonsense?

I don't think anyone has any appetite for involvement in any of this stuff. But I can imagine the outrage if (or probably more accurately, when) an attack does occur, and the screams would be "what on earth were our intelligence agencies and our government doing while this was being planned?"!

I hope your thinking aligned to the above when Howard 'frog marched' the australian public off to Iraq on hyped up nonsense.
Abbott has plenty of reasons to 'blow hard' on this issue and Blowing hard isn't the way to best handle the current situation! for our national interest, but it certainly is for his.

View attachment 59534

certainly the majority had no appetite for any of this stuff in the very recent past.

Jonny didn't listen and neither will Cpt Hubris of Team australia..... Remind me, when was the last time a Labor government daubed the kaki to dig them selves out of their own political stupidity.
nothing but Rancid gutless bullies.............
If it's the case that some injuries occur what of your freedoms would you happy to suspend?

I'll take the risk and keep what freedoms I have, and would like to have the one that Edward Snowden saw abused disregarded in his constitution.......... Only with great caution should you take to embarrassing the powerful..... 'embarrassed' utterly utterly unbelievable

 

[drsmith]

Christianity sheltered science says the man who know history but forgot about the burning of witches; the flat-world civilisation; the banning of "dangerous" books by the Holy Father; the Immaculate conception of Christ...

The non-militant, non-proselytizing faith says the man who head the Colonial Empire that literally the sun never set upon because its subject tend to either clear or convert the native savages on literally every continent (beside Antarctica).

so he's a bit bias and selective here... But I too would be if my direct ancestor was the great Duke of Marlborough and my language and culture dominates the world.

The statement of Churchill's as quoted above was that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, not the other way around.

My bolds.