Guerilla War Carnage

Very enlightening discussion. Thanks all.

prothero wrote:

southey wrote:

This article ties in with what i was saying about the seperation of " old school " beliefs ,
and modern thinkers .
" http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wan... "

Its probably not for the " time poor " out there though .

Interesting.....Our media portrays ISIS as a bunch of nutbars, and the atrocities and hits on 'soft targets' seem to back this up.
However they control a significant bit of dirt, they are ignoring the borders made up by the west and 'For certain true believers—the kind who long for epic good-versus-evil battles—visions of apocalyptic bloodbaths fulfill a deep psychological need.'.....how could a young disgruntled Muslim who feels he is being shafted by the whites not be impressed ?

After reading all the background/backstory opinions what solutions can be enacted on to stop ISIL?

The fact that radicals of Islam have created the Caliphate of Daesh , and are using their new country to launch attacks on their enemies , and also attract other radicals , it seems logical to me that , we need to take out ISIL , with boots on the ground and every weapon that we can muster.

I can see American soldiers working with the Russians and use all resources at our disposal to exterminate ISIL ,in their new homeland.

France called ISIL's actions and act of war , well reciprocate!

So sharkman you don't have problem with killing other humans yourself who are committing atrocities to other humans, but you are against humans killing sharks that are killings humans in an area that you dont live in ?

Well said gromfull. Funny how hypocritical people can be, depending on the agenda they wish to push!

"Well said Gromfull"?

C'mon mate, that's playground-level debate conflating sharks with ISIL. Real under-18 shit.

Thanks Seal, now for the rants to be begin,
In this complex world that we all live in, i don't have answer to this, but the more revenge attacks that are carried out the more revenge attacks will happen, we need to stop going over and fighting a war that cannot be won,
I don't believe in radicalizing people, i believe they are just bad people / kids, they have that hatred in them, how and why they believe that killing people will make everything right is just crazy, how do we stop it, thats the million dollar question, but killing people to stop people killing people i dont think is the way to go

So you say, stu,

gromfull wrote:

So you say, stu,

Indeed I do. You can't piggyback one argument onto another

Yes you're right Stu. Different thread sorry and we don't need to confuse the issue.

sharkman]
prothero wrote:

[quote=southey

wrote:

it seems logical to me that , we need to take out ISIL , with boots on the ground and every weapon that we can muster.

I can see American soldiers working with the Russians and use all resources at our disposal to exterminate ISIL ,in their new homeland.

France called ISIL's actions and act of war , well reciprocate!

Seems logical. But what we do know with absolute certainty is that in the last three decades of global wars more civilians have been killed than combatants. In Vietnam as many as as 2 million innocent civilians were killed during a war that took about 1 million combatant lives. In Iraq, the US governments own data (obtained and released by Wikileaks), showed of the 109 032 deaths recorded, 66 081 were innocent civilians who were just trying to live a life, and only 23 984 were enemy combatants. Similar horrific ratios can be seen in the Afghanistan wars, the Chechen wars, fighting in Palestine and Israel, in Lebanon and in the prolonged drone strike campaign in Pakistan.

More recently, there have been credible estimates that the US led bombing of ISIS 'targets' (including or not including hospitals?) led to more than 450 civilian deaths, including 100 children. More than three times the number of innocent civilians killed in Paris. The same can be said of Russian led airstrikes, that so many in Australia praised, and even sites such as "The Lad Bible" supported for it's bravery and decisiveness in going after ISIS. I am sure everybody somehow sees this as acceptable, as somehow necessary, an unfortunate part of war.

Fxxk that. Nobody who sees their children blown to pieces by a foreign fighter jet would see it that way. Almost no Australians have ever seen such horror play out in front of them, almost no Australian has ever had a foreign power drop a bomb on their neighborhood under the guise of promoting peace. And if that ever did happen in Australia, you can sure as hell guarantee that anybody who lived through such unspeakable terror would not be thankful to players like the USA, France, Russia and Australia for blowing their lives to pieces. The wars in the Middle East have destroyed millions of lives.. and for what? What price has Australia paid for playing its part? Three Australian soldiers died in preventable accidents in the Iraq war... but how many people did Australians contribute to killing, and how many of them deserved it? It's pretty clear that Australia as a nation has payed almost no price for it's war games and we continue to believe that it is our moral duty to stomp on in to conflicts and join other allied forces in the killing. It's barbaric and pointless.

It beggars belief that people who live such quiet peaceful lives in Australia feel they could throw support behind a war when we know that it will kill many thousands more Mums, Dad, Grandparents and kids than will ever be killed in our own country. We know that more civilians will die than fighters. We have all seen films such as Collateral Damage that show how indiscriminately modern soldiers will blow innocent people to pieces - including children fro crying out loud, and with such glee. And now people are advocating that the only way to bring piece to Syria is to stomp on in and do the same thing again.

Triple D , so whats your solution to ISIL , they just threatened Washington , and the rest of the World with more bombings and shooting of innocents?

Yes there is always collateral damage in wars , but at the moment without troops on the ground its just bomb away and hope that a few of the targets get hit.

I few don't do something about them , well how many more innocents will die over the next decade?

Dandandan I totally agree with your assessment but IS is clearly of an order of savagery far greater than anything hitherto seen.....does the international community just sit back and allow them to control territory, rape and enslave minorities and people of different faiths, behead innocents indiscriminately? Obama already tried that approach and look how quickly the problem metastasized.

Seems to me, if we allowed a moral case for war in the case of clear evil like the Nazis regime then we have at least a clear enough moral imperative in the case of IS.
It's a fucking diabolical dilemma. Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall in the MIddle East.

It's a damming assessment of both religion and any conception of a God you care to name and human evolution, that in the cradle of civilisation there's been a reversion to savagery in the name of God.

stunet wrote:

gromfull wrote:

So you say, stu,

Indeed I do. You can't piggyback one argument onto another

It's the reasoning that Sharkman employed that is in the dock here.

He claimed people wanting a management program for sharks were operating out of fear and irrationality and yet his approach to IS could be construed exactly the same way.
It's clear to me that sharks pose far more of an existential threat to me, my family and community than ISIS so according to the reasoning of Sharkman all out war would be an appropriate response.

@dandan...ok, so the world just stops and let's the ISIS roll along. Sure war is ugly, bad and we all love to live in peace. But what ISIS is doing is something not seen for hundreds of years - simply barbaric. The recent massacres in Tikrit had nothing to do with borders established by the west - pure genocide.
To let this continue would be complicit in its support of killing, rape and genocide of anyone who does not support their view.

sharkman wrote:

Triple D , so whats your solution to ISIL , they just threatened Washington , and the rest of the World with more bombings and shooting of innocents?

Yes there is always collateral damage in wars , but at the moment without troops on the ground its just bomb away and hope that a few of the targets get hit.

I few don't do something about them , well how many more innocents will die over the next decade?

That is hardly true. Collateral damage does not just happen in wars. That's a phrase we use in Australia and America to shield ourselves from the fact that our soldiers are responsible for killing innocent people. How many Australians have died as collateral damage? Are the French who recently died collateral damage? Honestly ask yourself: are you more moved by 140 French lives being lost than the 450 Syrian civilians lost in recent US air strikes? I think all Australians truthfully know that they are not.

You ask yourself how many more innocents are to die at the hands of ISIL? The answer is many hundreds and if not thousands less than will die at the hands of Allied forces should we go into an all out war in Syria. But sure enough, how many Syrian innocents are you prepared to give up to destroy ISIL? It's already well into the high hundreds, if not thousands, as a result of American, French and Russian airstrikes. How many more? 66 000+ were killed in Iraq, is that an acceptable number for you?

ISIL are threatening to kill more innocents, though we know their capacity to do so is limited.. Meanwhile you know that many innocents will die (sorry, collateral damage) at the hands of Allied troops on the ground, and you're all for it. How are you justifying this to yourself?

freeride76 wrote:

Dandandan I totally agree with your assessment but IS is clearly of an order of savagery far greater than anything hitherto seen.....does the international community just sit back and allow them to control territory, rape and enslave minorities and people of different faiths, behead innocents indiscriminately? Obama already tried that approach and look how quickly the problem metastasized.

Seems to me, if we allowed a moral case for war in the case of clear evil like the Nazis regime then we have at least a clear enough moral imperative in the case of IS.
It's a fucking diabolical dilemma. Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall in the MIddle East.

It's a damming assessment of both religion and any conception of a God you care to name and human evolution, that in the cradle of civilisation there's been a reversion to savagery in the name of God.

Pleased to see that there are some with humanity. Agree freeride.

excellent post above dandandan, all of them in fact

sharkman you should read southeys article

I don't have the answers either but tbe west needs to stop this sel frighteous arrogance that we are fighting evil, so a little collateral damage is ok.

our opponents believe they are fighting evil as well, and tbey have the advantage of believing it more wholeheartedly than we do. the death and destruction of innocent people and neighborhoods around you can only strengthen that belief, which is why people are so eager to join the good fight

there is no right and wrong, no good and evil, just opinions

dandandan wrote:

sharkman wrote:

Triple D , so whats your solution to ISIL , they just threatened Washington , and the rest of the World with more bombings and shooting of innocents?

Yes there is always collateral damage in wars , but at the moment without troops on the ground its just bomb away and hope that a few of the targets get hit.

I few don't do something about them , well how many more innocents will die over the next decade?

That is hardly true. Collateral damage does not just happen in wars. That's a phrase we use in Australia and America to shield ourselves from the fact that our soldiers are responsible for killing innocent people. How many Australians have died as collateral damage? Are the French who recently died collateral damage? Honestly ask yourself: are you more moved by 140 French lives being lost than the 450 Syrian civilians lost in recent US air strikes? I think all Australians truthfully know that they are not.

You ask yourself how many more innocents are to die at the hands of ISIL? The answer is many hundreds and if not thousands less than will die at the hands of Allied forces should we go into an all out war in Syria. But sure enough, how many Syrian innocents are you prepared to give up to destroy ISIL? It's already well into the high hundreds, if not thousands, as a result of American, French and Russian airstrikes. How many more? 66 000+ were killed in Iraq, is that an acceptable number for you?

ISIL are threatening to kill more innocents, though we know their capacity to do so is limited.. Meanwhile you know that many innocents will die (sorry, collateral damage) at the hands of Allied troops on the ground, and you're all for it. How are you justifying this to yourself?

Intention.
ISIS clearly intends to kill, rape and enslave innocents. That is the very heart of their moral, political and practical methodology.

The west, while it undoubtedly does kill innocents is trying to avoid that and when it does happen, perpetrators are held to account.

Can you see a moral difference there Dan, because I sure can.

sypkan wrote:

excellent post above dandandan, all of them in fact

sharkman you should read southeys article

I don't have the answers either but tbe west needs to stop this sel frighteous arrogance that we are fighting evil, so a little collateral damage is ok.

our opponents believe they are fighting evil as well, and tbey have the advantage of believing it more wholeheartedly than we do. the death and destruction of innocent people and neighborhoods around you can only strengthen that belief, which is why people are so eager to join the good fight

there is no right and wrong, no good and evil, just opinions

With respect I find that kind of moral relativism quite frightening.

Dan x 3 ( Stu ) ?!?

If your going to quote let quotes be used can we make sure they don't bastardise the initial text .

I know its NOT on purpose , but it makes me look more stupid than i already am. ;-)

PTH , they are still nutbags , its just that i was pointing out that they are deeply religious nutbags .
Don't get me wrong , encourage and have crazy blood thirsty ideologues in their warring parties , and this is what has drawn in more disenfranchised foreign fighters . Its just that the power / heads of this organisation are setting themselves up from an old deep seated Religious stance .
The fact that they allow Christians to live to pay for the priviledge of not being attacks proves that they are calculating . Don't forget that this also provides them with a " Human shield " of innocents .
SO they are killing other non conforming Muslims ?! This looks to me more of a fascist dictatorship , where Mohammad and more so his early " disciples " are the leader .
BTW , The Iranian leader will always strongly condemn IS , he's Shia , they are Sunnii .
The only handle i can put on it is like trying to compare a devout Irish /Spanish Catholic to a Seven Day Adventist / Hillsong / lighthouse group .
PS .
The guy that gave me the link to that article is the most traveled / knowledgable guy i know .
He's a surfer , ex soldier , now diplomat " of sorts " . And has spent alot of time in the Middle East , ( not just as a soldier ) , Indonesia , Africa , Phillipines etc ..... I trust his opinion on this matter .

"It beggars belief that people who live such quiet peaceful lives in Australia feel they could throw support behind a war when we know that it will kill many thousands more Mums, Dad, Grandparents and kids than will ever be killed in our own country. We know that more civilians will die than fighters. We have all seen films such as Collateral Damage that show how indiscriminately modern soldiers will blow innocent people to pieces - including children fro crying out loud, and with such glee. And now people are advocating that the only way to bring piece to Syria is to stomp on in and do the same thing again."

Seriously, unless you're French or related, this will be forgotten by most Aussies next week or so. You'll be able to colour your facebook profile with something else. UNLESS. WE JUMP IN. BOOTS N ALL. AND KILL SOME PEOPLE OVER THERE. NOW.
Then wait for some little shits over here looking for some man-points and meaning in their lives shoot up a McDonalds. Or stab a couple of coppers.
We'll all give a real shit then.
Solution. Fuckem all, stay out of there, and let god sort it out? Close up the borders to everyone that's muslim that's trying to get in? And kick some muslim arse in the outer suburbs of Melbs & Sydney?
Wait for it all to blow itself out?
Rwanda was a bugger. Cambodia worse. That's some A grade barbarity.

Colonial cuntries reaping what they sew. What's it to us? Crickets on.
Don't mention the war.

(Yawn)....... Firstly, Osama Bin wobbygong hasn't declared a caliphate...Any anyone stupid enough to go surfing by themselves at 6.30 at night and then expect millions of non surfing taxpayers to fork our spon' so others can continue being idiots beggars belief.....

But back to the war.....
Some of the stuff being spewed forth by self labelled experts like Murray, Bolt, and other right wing nutters beggars belief... But its' the same with the left..... It's fairly obvious that by being surrounded by morons, this whole situation is not going to end well.... I'm no expert, but it aint that hard to look at "stuff"..
The golden rule of journalism is "what, where, when, who, how, why"...... "Why" is being covered like a joke... The left says "oooh it's us blaming islam".... The right says "oooh it's islam".... No.... It's meddling in peoples shit.... For money... For power... For control...

The question, "Why"?? That's a damn fine question......Well, does anyone here have the cognitive brain power to analyse? I hope so..
To start, lets take a quote from a bald american... Dr Phil - " You can't fix what you don't acknowledge"... So let's acknowledge "Why" properly......

This whole shit fight started with "dodgy" intelligence", which Tony Blair recently publicly apologized for.... That "dodgy intelligence" is the start of all this.. It's the real reason "why".. Iraq war 2....
We, the west, invaded Iraq via this "dodgy intelligence" about WMD's.... They even got Colin Powell to wave a test tube around at the U.N, saying it was full of anthrax........ Yep, just casually walk into the U.N with a tube of anthrax in your hand - enough to kill the whole city if he was to slip , fall, and break the tube.........But the morons of the world believe the hollywood stunt..
Anyhooooooo, Saddam is executed, Bush stands in front of a sign saying "mission accomplished".... A gammon puppet election is held in Iraq.. Bush puts a nasty shiite in control... His name was/is Ayad Allawi...... Alawi goes around slaughtering sunnis... he massacres a reported 200 000 sunnis...... That's a lot of Frances..........Now if you could picture external forces coming to Australia, executing our Pm plus many more in both Labor and the Coalition, then putting in a puppet government, then that government goes around slaughtering 200000 us, would we lose our shit??? Yes.... We would lose our shit... So, understandably, the sunnis lost their shit..... They formed what they consider to be a rebel force.. It morphed into ISIS...

At the same time, a gas pipeline is in the wings, which involves having to be built through Syria... America, Russia etc all want "in" re' this pipeline which will power Europe.. But Assad plays hard ball.... Usa arms rebels, wanting Assad out... Some of these rebels are involved in the horror going on back in iraq, where those brutalized sunnis had formed "ISIS" and start fighting back against the puppet government WE helped install....
So WE are complicit in this horror... This is WHY countries currently bombing Syria are being attacked by terror cells... And I'll say it again till it boots it,; There's no attacks in countries not participating in this shocking mess - China- no attacks, Switzerland- no attacks, Ireland - no attacks, Brazil - no attacks (over 1 million muslims in Brazil).... The list goes on...
So a Dr Phil would say, "you can't fix what you don't acknowledge..... And all these ch9 "inside the mind of a jihadist" crap doco's, or Waleeds "it's our bigotry", or Bolts "it's the illegals" isnt going to change a damn thing....
Acknowledge the real reasons why... Accept some of the responsibility...Treat these dastardly acts as war crimes and not terrorism... And we might get through this deliberate fog created by many...
For those more interested, google "Syria pipeline", or "pipelineistan"..

"The west, while it undoubtedly does kill innocents is trying to avoid that and when it does happen, perpetrators are held to account.

Can you see a moral difference there Dan, because I sure can"

I definitely can. And in cases of dropping bombs on homes and putting bullets through bodies, it is ultimately meaningless. And who exactly has been held to account for killing civilians?

The soldiers featured in the Collateral Murder video, that showed them indiscriminately slaying innocent civilians, journalists, and shooting up a car that contained children, from the safety of a drone were not held to account. In fact, the US Army laid the blame on the innocent people who were killed. On the other hand, the bloke that released the video to the world has been put in jail for 35 years. Morality wins!

Did they mean to kill innocents? Nope. Did this misplaced idea of acceptable collateral damage, American and Western superiority, and their own morality enable them and others to excuse them of their actions? You betcha it did. One of the soldiers who arrived on the scene shortly after the helicopter had slain them said this:

“One guy’s head was off, the top of his head was completely off and his brains were on the ground and the smell, the smell still haunts me every day. I don’t know how to describe it.”

Do you think issues of morality mattered to that guy as his head was coming off? That his family feels any better knowing that it was an accident? That the soldiers in a helicopter who were so anxious to start shooting at him thought he had a gun that turned out to be a camera?

In 2008 when the US bombed a wedding party in Deh Bala, 47 people were killed, mostly women and children including the bride. Three bombs were dropped, the first directly into a group of children, the second into the group of women, the third to round up those that had tried to flee. Though 47 innocent women and children were blown to pieces, their families could only identify and gather enough body parts for 26 graves. Do you think the husbands and fathers of those people give two sh*ts about morality?

The slop is just as slippery when not everybody you kill is an innocent victim. The Wech Baghtu wedding bombings killed 26 insurgets. But it also killed 37 innocent women and children. Worth it? Who decides? What moral reasoning backs that up?

Nobody was disciplined in any of the three incidents. And as the civilian casualties as a result of US bombs continue, it appears nothing has changed either. One of the survivors of one of the bombings spoke to a journalist years later. He lost two sons, a sister and his wife to US bombs. He clearly does not care about issues of morality and said something along the lines of: 'for as long as I live, I will never ever forgive America, they have taken everything from me". Only those doing the killing care about morality.

Doggy, just to correct a misleading piece of error that has been repeated as fact: Sam Morgan wasn't surfing alone as reported. There was the usual crowd of 5/6 people surfing N.Wall.

Also, taxpayers fund both the NSW and QLD shark control programs.

As to your why, it goes a helluva lot further back than that mate, although our meddling in the ME and Iraq invasion certainly didn't help matters.
Did you read the Atlantic piece about ISIS? Anyone seeking to understand ISIS without a clear-eyed view of religious ideology is not even seeing half the picture.
Attempts to paint these guys as mere opportunists are nothing but western naiivety.(sp)

dandandan wrote:

"The west, while it undoubtedly does kill innocents is trying to avoid that and when it does happen, perpetrators are held to account.

Can you see a moral difference there Dan, because I sure can"

I definitely can. And in cases of dropping bombs on homes and putting bullets through bodies, it is ultimately meaningless. And who exactly has been held to account for killing civilians?

The soldiers featured in the Collateral Murder video, that showed them indiscriminately slaying innocent civilians, journalists, and shooting up a car that contained children, from the safety of a drone were not held to account. In fact, the US Army laid the blame on the innocent people who were killed. On the other hand, the bloke that released the video to the world has been put in jail for 35 years. Morality wins!

Did they mean to kill innocents? Nope. Did this misplaced idea of acceptable collateral damage, American and Western superiority, and their own morality enable them and others to excuse them of their actions? You betcha it did. One of the soldiers who arrived on the scene shortly after the helicopter had slain them said this:

“One guy’s head was off, the top of his head was completely off and his brains were on the ground and the smell, the smell still haunts me every day. I don’t know how to describe it.”

Do you think issues of morality mattered to that guy as his head was coming off? That his family feels any better knowing that it was an accident? That the soldiers in a helicopter who were so anxious to start shooting at him thought he had a gun that turned out to be a camera?

In 2008 when the US bombed a wedding party in Deh Bala, 47 people were killed, mostly women and children including the bride. Three bombs were dropped, the first directly into a group of children, the second into the group of women, the third to round up those that had tried to flee. Though 47 innocent women and children were blown to pieces, their families could only identify and gather enough body parts for 26 graves. Do you think the husbands and fathers of those people give two sh*ts about morality?

The slop is just as slippery when not everybody you kill is an innocent victim. The Wech Baghtu wedding bombings killed 26 insurgets. But it also killed 37 innocent women and children. Worth it? Who decides? What moral reasoning backs that up?

Nobody was disciplined in any of the three incidents. And as the civilian casualties as a result of US bombs continue, it appears nothing has changed either. One of the survivors of one of the bombings spoke to a journalist years later. He lost two sons, a sister and his wife to US bombs. He clearly does not care about issues of morality and said something along the lines of: 'for as long as I live, I will never ever forgive America, they have taken everything from me". Only those doing the killing care about morality.

Dan again, I see exactly what you are saying but is it really better to leave them to the ravages of homicidal extremists?
I mean, is that really a moral choice we can make so easily?

What if the west had done that with Nazi Germany, as many wanted to do. Give Europe to Germany, and make their accomodations with the Nazis. That was a real live option.
If it had happened, many, many people would have had their lives saved. Millions of innocent people saved from the horror of war.
But to do so we would have sacrificed the jews and other minorities, who would have been systematically and methodically exterminated.
Can we really do the same to the minorities of the ME: just offer them as sacrifices to ISIS in the interests of (hopefully) saving lives. And would it even save lives in the long run, having this homicidal regime given tacit acceptance by the west?
Of course war is horror. But the choice here isn't between war and peace. It's between war and unending and systematic horror and totalitarian state sanctioned murder.

Maybe the current tactic: destabilising ISIL with air strikes and then having local KUrdish peshmerga forces re-take territory from IS just might be the least worst of a whole bunch of diabolical options.

@sheepdog, I like your thinking. You reckon the Paris thing was even ISIL? Secret Services have done some weird shit in the past.

As for fundamentalists (of all stripes)...no FUN, plenty of MENTAL...religion is poison.

ISIL Caliphate? Is that like Fundy joints like Iran (post Shah and still kicking) or Talibanite Afghanistan (yay! we won!?) Or our mates the Saudis?

Cool your jets, boys. This ain't the nazis or soviets or japs. Or even North Korea. If it is, I vote for Pauline or her old sparring partner '10 to the power of 10 flags' Tony.

freeride76 wrote:

stunet wrote:

gromfull wrote:

So you say, stu,

Indeed I do. You can't piggyback one argument onto another

It's the reasoning that Sharkman employed that is in the dock here.

He claimed people wanting a management program for sharks were operating out of fear and irrationality and yet his approach to IS could be construed exactly the same way.
It's clear to me that sharks pose far more of an existential threat to me, my family and community than ISIS so according to the reasoning of Sharkman all out war would be an appropriate response.

Free76 , 2 totally different scenarios.

one is man made ,being the radicalization of Islam to a point where the world community is threatened.

The other is nature trying to refind its balance , and to try and equate sharks to IS members is a bit of a long stretch ,to say the least!

Thank you freeride and to add further, although it's the wrong thread, the attack happened closer to 6 than 6.30pm ADST which, by my approximation, is still afternoon not night (daylight saving time) on a bright sunny afternoon. That day there had been quite a few more than normal surfing, due to good banks and the first real good waves enticing people back after the last attack (up to 25 at one stage) with closer to 10 on the wall still out when attack happened. Fact.
Media and others like to distort things for their own agendas just like whats happening in the Middle East, France and anywhere else that reporters are involved. So please, if you know the truth of the matter state the facts, if not, maybe state it's in your opinion only and others might not regurgitate mistruths causing harm to the ones involved.

Back to Oz. Sharks and Muslims. We got rogue operators or are there too many and they're all out to get us (us, being true blue sons of the surf. Oh, and chicks)?

What to do, Australia? Killem all, let god sort it out? Put up barriers? Scare the fuckers off? Learn what the fuck is going on and why, through thinking and stuff? Then get government to act accordingly? Forget about it and get on with the business at hand?

SURFING!

Well, whats your take on what the fuck is going on and why TT, and what our Govt should do about it.

Hang on , let me get the popcorn, this is going to be good.

dandandan wrote:

sharkman wrote:

Triple D , so whats your solution to ISIL , they just threatened Washington , and the rest of the World with more bombings and shooting of innocents?

Yes there is always collateral damage in wars , but at the moment without troops on the ground its just bomb away and hope that a few of the targets get hit.

I few don't do something about them , well how many more innocents will die over the next decade?

That is hardly true. Collateral damage does not just happen in wars. That's a phrase we use in Australia and America to shield ourselves from the fact that our soldiers are responsible for killing innocent people. How many Australians have died as collateral damage? Are the French who recently died collateral damage? Honestly ask yourself: are you more moved by 140 French lives being lost than the 450 Syrian civilians lost in recent US air strikes? I think all Australians truthfully know that they are not.

You ask yourself how many more innocents are to die at the hands of ISIL? The answer is many hundreds and if not thousands less than will die at the hands of Allied forces should we go into an all out war in Syria. But sure enough, how many Syrian innocents are you prepared to give up to destroy ISIL? It's already well into the high hundreds, if not thousands, as a result of American, French and Russian airstrikes. How many more? 66 000+ were killed in Iraq, is that an acceptable number for you?

ISIL are threatening to kill more innocents, though we know their capacity to do so is limited.. Meanwhile you know that many innocents will die (sorry, collateral damage) at the hands of Allied troops on the ground, and you're all for it. How are you justifying this to yourself?

how am I justifying collateral damage??

All wars have big loss of civilian life , and so far Australia and the USA have dished out the killing of civilians in Iraq etc , I think it was 600K civilians in Iraq , and we as Australians are responsible!

I think you fail to see the millions of Syrian refugees , the thousands of civilians already killed in Syria , and no plan to stop it.

you say because ISIL are only killing thousands , and if we went to a ground war there would be a lot more , so is your plan to stop ISIL , just hope they don't kill too many??

freeride76 wrote:

Doggy, just to correct a misleading piece of error that has been repeated as fact: Sam Morgan wasn't surfing alone as reported. There was the usual crowd of 5/6 people surfing N.Wall.

Also, taxpayers fund both the NSW and QLD shark control programs.

As to your why, it goes a helluva lot further back than that mate, although our meddling in the ME and Iraq invasion certainly didn't help matters.
Did you read the Atlantic piece about ISIS? Anyone seeking to understand ISIS without a clear-eyed view of religious ideology is not even seeing half the picture.
Attempts to paint these guys as mere opportunists are nothing but western naiivety.(sp)

Ohh of course it goes back a lot further FR.... Right back to ww1... But This current "isis chapter" fiasco stems from the west once again removing leaders it doesn't like, and installing dogs that always bite the hands that supposedly fed them.. eg - gadaffi/libya - hasn't that turned into a turdfight too..

As far as osama bin wobbygong goes, well, I know your opinion, you know mine lol.... We'll respectfully agree to disagree on that one.... But cheers on the "not surfing alone" at 6.30pm... Still doesn't change my mind... Cheers, big ears...

Sheepdog wrote:

9/11 hijacker Hijacker Satam al Suqami's passport, slightly charred, was found in the
World Trade Centre rubble within hours of the hijackings... it's a miracle!!!! Think about it... We all saw the planes hit the twin towers.... Miracle I tells ya!!!!!

But wait!!!!!! There's more!!!!!
14 years later, a paris bomber detonates himself with a bomb vest.... Within minutes a PASSPORT is found nearby....... In tact...... It's a miracle x 2!!!!!!!! This news floods the world via every form of media...... Within hours, the hardcore right and European governments turn their focus on those pesky people escaping the war.... What a lucky break!!!!! And lets face it, all ground based suicide bombers wearing bomb vests always take their passport.... I'm sure he needed it... Probably to show the angels at the gates of paradise, even if it does help the French police get on the trail of the terror cell........

Yes those passports are made of tough stuff..... Perhaps it should be used in threading wetsuits... A shark wouldnt have a chance.......

The thing that makes me question this kind of stuff is, if they are going to go to all this trouble to pull this false flag crap off do you really think they are going to do things that are so suss?

I mean they would have endless resources and some of the smartest people in these areas that would look over every tiny detail.

Im trying to keep an open mind and was reading around as much as i could last night on the net the pros and cons for these theories, sometimes things do seem suss and seem unbelievable but unlikely shit does happen and often there is simple explanations.

Yeah, ISIS conducted a terrorist attack. Couldn't be simpler.

freeride76 wrote:

Yeah, ISIS conducted a terrorist attack. Couldn't be simpler.

or you could say that ISIS declared war on all the countries that are involved in the containment of ISIS.

War ,has such a nice ring to it!!

talkingturkey wrote:

@sheepdog, I like your thinking. You reckon the Paris thing was even ISIL? Secret Services have done some weird shit in the past.

As for fundamentalists (of all stripes)...no FUN, plenty of MENTAL...religion is poison.

ISIL Caliphate? Is that like Fundy joints like Iran (post Shah and still kicking) or Talibanite Afghanistan (yay! we won!?) Or our mates the Saudis?

Cool your jets, boys. This ain't the nazis or soviets. Or even North Korea. If it is, I vote for Pauline or her old sparring partner '10 to the power of 10 flags' Tony.

ISIL for sure.... No doubt..... But the passport thing is suss..... REAL suss...

I'm just glad the French president called it an "act of war"..... He didn't hide behind the "grey shroud" that is "terrorism"..... By saying it is an act of war, he concedes France is in a war.... France joined in the bombing of Syria 6 weeks ago.... Now just like ww2, there were "covert operations behind enemy lines"..... And Isis/Isil, whatever you want to call them, will consider this a "covert operation behind enemy lines"....
When our politicians use the word "terrorism", it subconsciously makes people think we are a totally innocent bystander in all of this.... "I was terrorized"....... But if we were to do what the straight up front French President is doing, calling it an act of war, the populace all of a sudden realize that we are PARTICIPATING in a middle east war....... People will look at the situation differently.... "War?.. Are we at war??????? I didn't know we were at war!!!!!!"........And people will see that the attacks on us are for a reason, as insidious as they may be...... We can then address these covert attacks on civilians as WAR CRIMES.... If ISIS was a noble bunch, which they aren't, they would not attack women and children, but instead direct their covert attacks towards parliament houses, or military bases, or political meetings, or strategic targets..... yes, "colateral damage" may occur, but they could then at least have a frogs hair worth of moral ground to stand on...
So i think we should start calling this for what it is, a war... Not terrorism.... And when ISIS do the soft target stuff, call them out.... Call them out as cowards who haven't got the balls to attack our strategic targets..... Yes, our drones and our bombs have killed Syrian innocents... Yes, we must admit we are part of the whole fuck up, BIG TIME.... But we don't DELIBERATELY go to bomb innocent civilians.. From what i can gather, we do our best to target ISIS..... And of course they use human shields when we are doing so..... Therein is the difference.... ISIS deliberately target innocents... We don't.....
Whatever way you look at it, it's fucked...

Sheepdog wrote:

freeride76 wrote:

Doggy, just to correct a misleading piece of error that has been repeated as fact: Sam Morgan wasn't surfing alone as reported. There was the usual crowd of 5/6 people surfing N.Wall.

Also, taxpayers fund both the NSW and QLD shark control programs.

As to your why, it goes a helluva lot further back than that mate, although our meddling in the ME and Iraq invasion certainly didn't help matters.
Did you read the Atlantic piece about ISIS? Anyone seeking to understand ISIS without a clear-eyed view of religious ideology is not even seeing half the picture.
Attempts to paint these guys as mere opportunists are nothing but western naiivety.(sp)

Ohh of course it goes back a lot further FR.... Right back to ww1... But This current "isis chapter" fiasco stems from the west once again removing leaders it doesn't like, and installing dogs that always bite the hands that supposedly fed them.. eg - gadaffi/libya - hasn't that turned into a turdfight too..

As far as osama bin wobbygong goes, well, I know your opinion, you know mine lol.... We'll respectfully agree to disagree on that one.... But cheers on the "not surfing alone" at 6.30pm... Still doesn't change my mind... Cheers, big ears...

Way, way further back SD. Try the crusades. The critical Sunni-Shia sectarian divide dates back to the time of Mohammed himself and a dispute over his rightful successor.
Anyone thinking we can historically ring fence this thing and date it to the start of western meddling is historically myopic.
This has long been a cradle of different faiths and beliefs and unfortunately, conflict.

but who bombed who first?

not that simple really

@P76, you mean sharks or muslims? or both?

Both are forces of nature, but I'll stick to the muslims.

First up, don't go over there AGAIN killing people. Apart from the anzackery biscuits, can't see what it ever gets us. Past/present/future. Unless you equate the ISIL boys now with the japs in WWII, why get involved?

As for the young Aussie wannabes here? If they want to macho-up, and get gangster and shit, get the youth involved in the boy scouts or bike gangs or something. Same same, but without the ice.

Just say NO to ISIS!

As for the fundamental religion angle for these youngsters? Out of all the 'isms', past and present, consumer capitalism has really leached the meaning out of our collective lives. When you're a kid and you haven't chucked in the towel (or if you prefer 'grown up'), then fundamental black n white, my way or the highway, thinking and living can be a quite attractive blueprint. Hardcore. Talking the talk and walking the walk. Tie it in with masculinity and persecution issues, and you get western useful idiots going all the way with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Kool J.

As for the actual ISIL dudes? And other 'true believers'? Of all stripes? Fundamentalists Everywhere Abusing Religion? False Evidence Appearing Real? Fuckwits Exalting Ayn Rand?

F.E.A.R is the key.

So endeth the leshon

Then you're going back to Cain and Abel, or apes fighting for territory of a water hole.

We haven't really evolved as much as we think we have, despite the fancy computers.

talkingturkey wrote:

@P76, you mean sharks or muslims? or both?

Both are forces of nature, but I'll stick to the muslims.

First up, don't go over there AGAIN killing people. Apart from the anzackery biscuits, can't see what it ever gets us. Past/present/future. Unless you equate the ISIL boys now with the japs in WWII, why get involved?

As for the young Aussie wannabes here? If they want to macho-up, and get gangster and shit, get the youth involved in the boy scouts or bike gangs or something. Same same, but without the ice.

As for the fundamental religion angle for these youngsters? Out of all the 'isms', past and present, consumer capitalism has really leached the meaning out of our collective lives. When you're a kid and you haven't chucked in the towel (or if you prefer 'grown up'), then fundamental black n white, my way or the highway, thinking and living can be a quite attractive blueprint. Hardcore. Talking the talk and walking the walk. Tie it in with masculinity and persecution issues, and you get western useful idiots going all the way with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Kool J.

As for the actual ISIL dudes? And other 'true believers'? Of all stripes? Fundamentalists Everywhere Abusing Religion? False Evidence Appearing Real? Fuckwits Exalting Ayn Rand?

F.E.A.R is the key.

So endeth the leshon

Well we are already there. So you think we should just get out and leave ISIS and the MIddle East to it?
If a few tens of thousands of religious minorities get raped, slaughtered and enslaved then that's a collateral damage we are happy to know about in advance and live with.
I know there's no easy answers but that is one outcome we can be sure of.

are you talking the royal 'we'? The brotherhood of western 'we'? I'm talking about us, true blue, dinky di Aussies, maaaate. That 'we'. WE are there 'cos??

Sheepdog wrote:

And the real reason, besides the root cause of Bush/Howard/Blair invading Saddams Iraq for WMS (which were never there and Blair recently apologized), oh and them got saddam killed, and put in a puppet shiite reigime that went around slaughtering sunnis, which in turn gave birth to a sunni resistance, which morphed into Isis, who the USA traine to take down ASSAD in Syria???/ The real reason???? here.... Note the dates on the links....

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201285133440424621.html

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-c...

Also, at least the French president had the balls to call what has happened "an act of war", and not terrorism..... Hats off to the man..... Seriously, hats off....... Because that's exactly what it is.... France started bombing Syria about 6 weeks ago..... And as we all know when you enter a brawl, you might cop a whack....
France commences bombing syria weeks ago;
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/27/middleeast/syria-france-isis-bombing/

Lastly, here's a handful of countries not involved in this dirty 2 faced war.. I could list dozens;
Switzerland - 0 attacks on Syria, 0 terrorist bombings..
China - 0 attacks on Syria, 0 terrorist bombings..
Argentina - 0 attacks on Syria, 0 terrorist bombings..
Brazil - 0 attacks on Syria, 0 terrorist bombings..
South Africa - 0 attacks on Syria, 0 terrorist bombings..
Ghana - 0 attacks on Syria, 0 terrorist bombings..
Fiji - 0 attacks on Syria, 0 terrorist bombings..

Something in that for all of us......

SheepD…maybe useful to have a look at this Wiki link. How reliable it is … don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Not a good look for those that believe or trust Islam.

so TT whats different about the brotherhood of western, we, and a dinky di Aussie mate @paulinehanson .com?

Well, I'd say the fundamentalist Hansonite would have more in common with the fundamentalist muslim ISIL-ite, myself.

Anyway, Sharkbiscuit, any thoughts on why we are involved in this ME shit again? Going in boots n all, balls deep?

I mean a real reason not the brotherhood, altruistic, PR balderdash (we all know that tired old BS, yeah?)

How are we helping OURSELVES here (face it, it's all that matters, yeah?)

@talkturk…sometimes that tired old altruistic BS is important. Maybe the genocide of peoples is a good reason.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/isis-yazidi-massacre_55ccc5d7e4b0...

I would guess that if a kid or women was being belted by a bloke or if there were a few blokes kicking a downed man, you would help … I reckon you would.

Well, I'd say the fundamentalist Hansonite would have more in common with the fundamentalist muslim ISIL-ite, myself.

oh the irony for the bogans!

freeride76 wrote:

Sheepdog wrote:

freeride76 wrote:

Doggy, just to correct a misleading piece of error that has been repeated as fact: Sam Morgan wasn't surfing alone as reported. There was the usual crowd of 5/6 people surfing N.Wall.

Also, taxpayers fund both the NSW and QLD shark control programs.

As to your why, it goes a helluva lot further back than that mate, although our meddling in the ME and Iraq invasion certainly didn't help matters.
Did you read the Atlantic piece about ISIS? Anyone seeking to understand ISIS without a clear-eyed view of religious ideology is not even seeing half the picture.
Attempts to paint these guys as mere opportunists are nothing but western naiivety.(sp)

Ohh of course it goes back a lot further FR.... Right back to ww1... But This current "isis chapter" fiasco stems from the west once again removing leaders it doesn't like, and installing dogs that always bite the hands that supposedly fed them.. eg - gadaffi/libya - hasn't that turned into a turdfight too..

As far as osama bin wobbygong goes, well, I know your opinion, you know mine lol.... We'll respectfully agree to disagree on that one.... But cheers on the "not surfing alone" at 6.30pm... Still doesn't change my mind... Cheers, big ears...

Way, way further back SD. Try the crusades. The critical Sunni-Shia sectarian divide dates back to the time of Mohammed himself and a dispute over his rightful successor.
Anyone thinking we can historically ring fence this thing and date it to the start of western meddling is historically myopic.
This has long been a cradle of different faiths and beliefs and unfortunately, conflict.

Yes, FR, but most places were pretty brutal places re ancient history..... During the 1800, things had calmed down (to an extent) in the ottomans..... But with the industrial revolution, the invention of the oil driven motor, and vast amounts of oil in this meeting/ trading point of 3 lands, the middle east once again became the flash point....
So really, turmoil in the middle east can be separated into 2 time zones.. i'm talking about the 2 nd time zone, the one that involves the control of oil....... The first time zone is what i suppose I would call the "gatekeeper" time..... If one was to look at a world map, you'd see the 3 "great regions".... Africa to the south, The far east - India, China etc, and Europe.....All 3 had different raced people.... All 3 had different goods to trade...... We're talking Marco polo, Sinbad etc.......The middle east was the gateway to all 3 lands....... Sea travel was very dangerous... But by passing through the middle east on land, traders could get their goods to whichever place they wanted....... So whoever controled that piece of land called the middle east, well, it was like THE prime real estate to own for a gatekeeper, for a skimmer or trader..... No wonder it was the "chosen" land, right?........ ;)