The Forum > Article Comments > Syrian airstrikes: same missiles, different targets > Comments
Syrian airstrikes: same missiles, different targets : Comments
By Peter Coates, published 25/9/2014In the changeable world of geopolitics where morality is relative Tuesday’s targets were not the Syrian government even though it may have murdered 200,000.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 8
- 9
- 10
-
- All
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 25 September 2014 6:57:17 AM
| |
Lego lives in a world inhabited by 'Goodies' and 'Baddies'. In Lego's simple mind the line between these two groups is clearly marked.
Goodies according to Lego are any one who is under the thrall of the white Christian U.S. and its European Capitalist Allies. Baddies have a different skin colours and religions and have resources which, by rights, should belong to the Master Race which is run by the extreme, exceptional psychopaths in Washington. Currently, the U.S., aided by a rabble of sycophantic Arab Nations, are firing missiles and dropping bombs on Isil targets. Australia is lurking in the background waiting for Tony to give the word for bombing runs against Isil, the latest bogeyman that the U.S. has created. How wonderful! And so our world spirals downwards to a state of continuous war which helps the Oligarchs to become even more wealthy. Our world is reaching a state of universal insanity, one that will precipitate a nuclear war in the near future. Peacemakers have no real role to play anymore. We just wait for the next Hiroshima which will be, by comparison, mere fireworks. Posted by David G, Thursday, 25 September 2014 9:06:56 AM
| |
Over forty nations have pledged their support for this and other similar actions.
And self evidently, there is now no other choice! If the Middle East is a melting pot of diverse murderous opinion and drop of the hat offense, that is hardly surprising and probably would still be par for the course, were there no issues to actually address! Or somehow blame the west for; rather than sheet home the blame where it is really deserved! To inhumane Arab dictators, who's barbarous exploits make the Geneva convention respecting Nazis, (if you were in uniform) look like friendly boy scouts, in any fair comparison. To reiterate, we have reached a point where there is now no other choice. Assard was a very fine fighter, when matched against unarmed old men, women and children! But like most inherently cowardly tyrants, almost useless against someone as least as strong, and dare I say, even more ruthless. That said, we don't need to give the sabre rattling Russians an excuse to invite themselves in. Which would, nonetheless, confirm everything we know about a land grabbing (birds of a feather) Putin, and allow those already oppressed by him, a perfect opportunity, to strike a blow for their freedom! Personally, I would bomb the hiss and hick pandles out of Assard, and the devil take the hindmost. Maybe it's just the right show of determined resolve, that might give a warmongering Putin, with his own share of Muslim unrest, cause to pause and reflect, before becoming our best (oil and gas supplying) friend, all over again!? If nothing else, he respects strength coupled to implacable resolve! Isil apologists like David G, are free to leave, (now today) join Isil, if they'll have him; and his "universal unconditional love"! Perhaps they would welcome him with a kiss kiss love in, which they now quite famous for! Black satirical humor aside. Would that he never return; to which we would all likely say, good riddance to bad (highly hypocritical) two faced rubbish! Rhrosty. Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 25 September 2014 10:50:12 AM
| |
"It was just over a year ago that Obama officials were insisting that bombing and attacking Assad was a moral and strategic imperative. Instead, Obama is now bombing Assad’s enemies while politely informing his regime of its targets in advance. It seems irrelevant on whom the U.S. wages war; what matters is that it be at war, always and forever."
I'll let Glenn Greenwald reply for me, Rusty! I guess when people start disparaging the peacemakers and applauding the warmongers, you realize that such people have reached rock-bottom in their moral, ethical and intellectual development! Posted by David G, Thursday, 25 September 2014 11:12:53 AM
| |
"As with all wars in the Middle East countries have conflicting interests - though rarely has there been so much consensus against the rise of a new actor, the Islamic State (IS). IS threatens Sunni Monarchies and republics, Sunni al Qaeda, Shiites, Kurds, other minorities and Israelis."
How can the author be so unaware? IS has made it plain that it is against, and accordingly will take action against, anyone -- regardless of country of origin -- who does not agree with its interpretation of Islam. Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 25 September 2014 11:13:08 AM
| |
It is telling the the rightwingers of this thread don't even support Obama when Obama launches a large airstike campaign. This is something Dubya would have done and all drooling neocons would have gloried in.
Is it the colour of Obama's skin that's holding our narrow-minded nutters back? They need to give credit where credit is jue. Overnight Obama has also secured a a very rara unanimous vote in the UN against foreign fighters in Iraq-Syria. A vote that Australia participated in. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2014/09/un-approves-resolution-foreign-fighters-201492419234320219.html The brotherhood of OLO should be praising Obama - that noble man of colour. Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 25 September 2014 11:38:50 AM
| |
Meanwhile there is always this video clip re the complicated can of toxic cannibalistic worms that are causing the never-ending chaos in the vast lunatic asylum called the Middle East, where everything and everyone is inter-connected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?=oMjXbuj7BPI The video clip The Geopolitics of World War III is also very interesting. Posted by Daffy Duck, Thursday, 25 September 2014 1:11:39 PM
| |
Hi David G, Rhrosty and Raycom
Airstrikes involve grim theatre that make this style of war more palatable to Western audiences. Be the strikes in Gaza, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan or earlier Vietnam and WWII. The most famous airstrike Hollywood has launched: 1 min 20 seconds in : http://youtu.be/IkrhkUeDCdQ . And the Dambuster Raid of WWII caught the public imagination: http://youtu.be/lCRIsjJFRNo Enola Gay over Hiroshima: a minute in http://youtu.be/gXit97UP1IY Pete Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 25 September 2014 1:12:59 PM
| |
Pete, war is more than palatable to most OLO commenters. It is 'finger-lickin' good'!
They must get their jollies watching the news each night, watching the people in foreign lands in the missile and bomb sights, watching them disappear in a cloud of dust, yeah, it really must turn them on. Of course, they are obviously sick in the head. To get enjoyment from watching people being killed is a clear sign of derangement, of a mind sickness, of a person who desperately needs psychological help. P.S. But don't tell them I said so. As a peacemaker, my thoughts are off-limits! They make the barbarians feel uncomfortable and they would beat me up if I gave them the chance! Posted by David G, Thursday, 25 September 2014 1:35:08 PM
| |
That fact that we were forced into the second world war, to defend freedom and human rights, is just not very entertaining Pete.
The fact that a single plane could drop a single bomb, that within seconds, was able to vaporize 45,000, innocent men, women and children! Is not something any sane person would be willing to repeat. But sadly, David G is probably right; someone somewhere will repeat it, and probably in the tortured M.E.! Before the horrified world decides once and for all, to rid ourselves of these terrible weapons; and by turning this material into peaceful power. However, if again, we are given no other choice but to fight for our basic freedoms, and a right to follow our own beliefs; and the very lives of millions of innocent non combatant men women and children! Then we should have no other choice but to enter the fray, with a steel willed determination, to prevail against the ultimate intense evil, ever witnessed on the planet. War is not entertainment, but still needs to be studied, if only to avoid repeating patent mistakes. Nor is the millions of wasted young lives, cut down in their very prime by mindless war and or, the patent loony tunes who think violence is ever any part of the answer; and who invariably start all wars. Whereas, self defense is a sane response, and the best place to defend your values, freedoms and birthrights, is on your enemy's territory! And an enduring air campaign is the best reaction, if only to seriously limit the body bags returning home, the first part of an intense Isil wish list. What they should receive instead, is what they least want! Namely, handing the territory and any military advantage, to those who they now make war on. Soldiers never stand still when under fire, and neither should the west, but particularly against ultimate absolute evil! Rhrosty. Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 25 September 2014 2:20:14 PM
| |
Actually Peter, the attack on Syria is illegal under international law. There are only three conditions that would permit such an attack:
1. Self defence. This is tightly defined and not applicable anyway. 2. At the invitation of the government being attacked. There is no evidence to support this. Instead we have Washington's mealy mouthed assertion that Syria "acquiesced" in the attacks. Not according to the Syrian government. 3. By resolution of the Security Council. Non-existent and the Americans didn't even try. Australians participation in this makes us a party to war crimes. Our erstwhile Foreign Minister has tried to lay the groundwork for her defence when she is on trial in The Hague: large parts of Syria are "ungoverned territory". That particular piece of legal fiction was discredited long ago. It was much favoured by imperialist regimes seeking to occupy other people's territory. As to the 200,000 deaths carried out by the Syrian government. Convenient piece of propaganda. The gross figure is approximately true, but it includes 50,000 Syrian troops (the legal ones) and large numbers of civilians killed by the various "freedom fighter" groups that the US has spent such time and treasure on creating and training. Our stampede to join this latest war staged by the Empire against the latest bogeymen it has created is frightening, along with the "urgent" need to further erode what few civil liberties remain. More frightening than a few thousand fanatics. Posted by James O'Neill, Thursday, 25 September 2014 3:04:31 PM
| |
Hi David G
On one side there are the Muslim Jihadis who want the entire world to revert to the values of the 6th century. These include honour killings, punishing women who are raped, killing anybody who criticises Islam, stoning people to death or crucifying them, and total intolerance of everybody, even rival Muslim organisations. They kill anyone who is not their kind of Muslim or expel them from "Muslim" lands. They cut the throats of journalists and aid workers on Youtube because the stupid bastards think that it terrorises us. They are ethnically cleansing the Kurds, Christians and Yazidis, killing the men, and turning the captured young females into sex slaves. They are urging Muslims in Australia to kill innocent Australians by beheading them and filming it. One of them just got shot dead by the police when he attacked two police officers with a knife. On the other side is the civilised world led by the USA. The USA is the leader of the free world and has done much to defend the free world from military dictatorships. The USA has led the world in many technological marvels, it is the leading contributor to deep space research., and it is one of the most advanced nations in medical research. It has the Centre for Disease Control which identifies and helps to prevent the spread of human pathogens which has saved the lives of hundreds of millions. It is a socially advanced country which millions of people try to enter every year, legally or illegally. If you can't tell the difference between who are the good guys and who are the bad guys, then you have just confirmed my premise that people like yourself are not very intelligent. Some part of your reasoning capacities are permanently short circuited. The only good thing about you is that any impartial observer would consider that the left wing views you espouse to be self evidently crazy. I thank you for that. Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 25 September 2014 5:34:25 PM
| |
Dearest LEGO
You being a closet septic, white supremicist, an all. Its time to pay homage to your dusky Bwana Yo mastah Hussein Obama Turn North my lad Bum-up praying Priestly hip-thrust Banjos playing. -- Hi James O'Neill International law? Do you doubt the authoritah of Team America? In a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the US argues that the airstrikes were needed to eliminate a threat to Iraq, the US and its allies, citing Article 51 of the UN Charter, which covers an individual or collective right to self-defense against armed attack. see http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/23/us-syria-crisis-un-usa-exclusive-idUSKCN0HI22120140923 --- Daffy, Rhrosty and David G May the force be with you. PJC Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 25 September 2014 6:02:39 PM
| |
James
'Our stampede to join this latest war staged by the Empire against the latest bogeymen it has created is frightening ... More frightening than a few thousand fanatics.' That just about sums it all up. The more people wake up to the whole USNATO propaganda/bombing charade, the more over the top the USNATO propaganda/bombing charade becomes. I've given up on hoping for any rational endgame to this whole nightmare. All I can do is ineffectually grieve for the people whose countries, cultures and lives are being destroyed by the cowardly Western obsession with bombing people from the air. And, make no mistake, aerial bombing is far and away the most cowardly form of warfare there is. I don't even believe anymore that all this propaganda/bombing has anything to do with oil. It's a combination of a fanatical religious war with the Muslim world, which has been the only real monotheist competitor to Christianity for 1500 years, and the grandiose USNATO obsession to eliminate any group or country that does not kow-tow to its political and financial agenda. The USNATO eternal war machine has evolved into the most dangerous and destructive force the world has ever seen. I guess for our own emotional and physical survival, we had all better start thinking like Lego, Rhrosty et al and learn to believe everything the USNATO propaganda machine tells us. Posted by Killarney, Thursday, 25 September 2014 7:16:22 PM
| |
Something all those serious about terrorism raids should watch and question:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/ Episode 34, 22 September 2014 One young nutter in Melbourne falls short of the vindication readers of The Australian are grasping for. Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 25 September 2014 8:16:19 PM
| |
Dearest Plantagenet
According to the scientific work "The Bell Curve" which I have avidly read. the most common IQ score for Asian/Americans is 106 while white Americans score 103. I accept this data as probably being accurate, so I suppose that makes me an Asian supremacist. To Killarney. The aim of most military forces in military engagements is to kill the enemy without getting killed yourself. Western military forces are very good at this and they could not care less about your "cowardly" label other than to wonder why they should risk their lives defending specimens like you. My own take is that a Muslim who thinks that dying for Allah will get him into paradise where he can spend eternity screwing 72 "high bosomed, dark eyed bashful houris" is a lot less courageous than an atheist western soldier who, if he is killed on the field of battle, considers it the end of all existence. Posted by LEGO, Friday, 26 September 2014 5:40:58 AM
| |
We really should rename Planet Earth.
We could call it 'Planet Death' or how about 'The Stellar Killing Fields', or even 'Home of the Barbarians' or 'God's Abject Failure' or even 'The Planetary Cesspool'. Any other ideas? Posted by David G, Friday, 26 September 2014 9:09:01 AM
| |
With all due respects to those serving in our ADF, and those who have served in countless conflicts prior to today.
I can only say this... America - Land of the Home Free of the Brave. No one has yet been brave enough to stand up to the media, the electronic whorehouse and those who fund its ugly & repulsive lies. For any organisation to be really effective they would only need to dispose of a few Ruperts - game, set and match. The rest would soon get the message. It would indeed be a wonderful thing to behold if the vox populi rose up en mass to decry the media as it is today, & declared a 'War on Media'. Tragically most cannot see below the veneer. Mark Twain wrote in 1873...below: "It has become a sarcastic proverb that a thing must be true if you saw it in a newspaper. That is the opinion intelligent people have of that lying vehicle in a nutshell. But the trouble is that the stupid people -- who constitute the grand overwhelming majority of this and all other nations -- do believe and are moulded and convinced by what they get out of a newspaper, and there is where the harm lies." - "License of the Press," speech, 31 March 1873 Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Friday, 26 September 2014 11:43:27 AM
| |
Might it be better to fight IS in the Middle East with accurate jet bombing - rather than fighting IS on the streets of Melbourne and Sydney?
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 26 September 2014 11:52:48 AM
| |
Lego, I surmise you were adopted? From the source you quote re: IQ ...below from Wilkipedia:
Socioeconomic environment. Different aspects of the Socioeconomic environment in which children are raised have been shown to correlate with part of the IQ gap, but they do not account for the entire gap.[77] The difference between mean test scores of blacks and whites is not eliminated when individuals and groups are matched on SES. Second, excluding extreme conditions, nutritional and biological factors that may vary with SES have shown little effect on IQ. Third, the relationship between IQ and SES is not simply one in which SES determines IQ, but differences in intelligence, particularly parental intelligence, also cause differences in SES, making separating the two factors difficult.[44] Hunt (2010:428) points out that when controlling for both SES and parental IQ in populations of young children, the gap becomes so small as to be statistically unreliable, and the best predictors of IQ then becomes parental occupation status, mother's verbal comprehension score and nature of parental interaction with the child. Hunt also finds that the correlation between home environment and IQ becomes weaker with age. Adoption studies have shown that children adopted from lower-class homes to middle-class homes experience a 12 - 18 pt gain in IQ.[22] And not forgetting the figure of Jewish Americans with a staggering average IQ of 113 ! Lego, please...! Any first year uni Psychology student is taught in "Academic Literacies 101" how to extrapolate, interpret and distort figures to suit the topic/argument/thesis...nothing new there Lego ! And surprise surprise Gomer ! 800 coppers to arrest 18 suspects, and evidently 1 charged with anything vaguely resembling "terror". Well that was taxpayers money well spent wasn't it now ? Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Friday, 26 September 2014 12:22:24 PM
| |
From Albie Manton in Darwin we get the comment: Any first year uni Psychology student is taught in "Academic Literacies 101" how to extrapolate, interpret and distort figures to suit the topic/argument/thesis...
That statement is completely false, it's just a load of baloney that has no factual basis what-so-ever. Academic Literacy is not even a psychology subject. As a psychology graduate it is my recollection that no course such as the one Albie describes exists. However one could hone those skills whilst studying Statistics if one were inclined to be dishonest, such as a scientist who stands to financially benefit from supporting the claims the IPCC. Eng 101 - Fundamentals of Academic Literacy is summarised as: Introduction to the reading and writing skills needed to meet the expectations of university-level academic study. Emphasis is on building proficiency in academic reading and writing through extensive practice. Suitable for students who need to strengthen their reading and writing skills before attempting a course that meets the Academic Writing Requirement. Perhaps this would be a very good course for Albie... it might help him learn to gets his facts straight before posting comments that highlight his ignorance. Posted by ConservativeHippie, Friday, 26 September 2014 2:43:52 PM
| |
Hi Pete,
Enjoyed the article and do not agree with Lego.The war against terror has no winner and is justified under the premise that IS must be stopped what ever the costs, However there are many costs to consider. The costs of home grown terrorism, the costs of the populations who are being bombed and the economic costs to the collision and the countries being bombed. One of the principle criticism of the previous war on terror was that no one planned the peace and we now see another terrorist group undertaking atrocities including beheadings. The West has once again commenced bombing in the Middle East with no plan of when it will finish and what will happen afterwards. if this makes me a lefty then that is fine. What I would like to see is a defined objective, timeline, risk assessment both national and global and a plan of reconstruction. Posted by romingfree, Friday, 26 September 2014 5:12:31 PM
| |
To roamingfree.
There will be a winner in the war on terrorism if we do not meet the challenge. The terrorists will win by default. "Home grown terrorism" is the fault of people like yourself. We "racists" told you that Muslim could not be trusted and that they would be forever a security risk, and they should not be allowed to immigrate into Australia. People like yourself with your kumbaya philosophy refused to listen and now Australia is becoming balkanised. It will become another battlefield in time. We could have had a peaceful continent under one people, one nation and one culture, but people like yourself refused to heed the warnings of history. The democratically elected government of Iraq has asked for our help against these religious Nazis and we should give it. I know that the Baghdad government is largely to blame for the present crisis because it would not do what the Americans told them to do, and rule in the name of all Iraqis. But that does not detract from the fact that no matter how dysfunctional the Shiite government in Baghdad is, ISIS is a lot worse. The democratically elected government of Iraq has just bought 98 Suckhoi bombers from Russia and it will be joining the allied bombing campaign also. It apparently does not have any problems with the costs of bombing ISIS, so why should we worry about it? Your little spiel about the west not planning for the peace made me laugh. The west is not going to worry too much about the peace when the terrorists are mass murdering people, mass raping women, and driving 150,000 Kurds, Yazidis and Christians into oblivion. We are going to aid these people by retaking their home areas and get them settled again. "Peace at any price" did not work with Hitler and it will not work with ISIS. However much you hate war, you had better figure out that some things are worth fighting for Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 27 September 2014 6:48:03 AM
| |
"...you had better figure out that some things are worth fighting for," says the sage of the age, Lego.
Australia now seems to be fighting for: 1. U.S. domination of the whole world. 2. The capitalist system where 1% of people have 99% of the world's wealth. 3. The control of the world's media by MSM Oligarchs. 4. The rights of religious fruitcakes to enslave gullible people. 5. The principle of 'War and Plunder is O.K. Down Under!' Lego, you are the Court Jester but people laugh at you not with you! Posted by David G, Saturday, 27 September 2014 8:57:32 AM
| |
LEGO and David G
I rejoice in being a Centrist between the extremes of: - White Australia supporters who have a delusion that Australia could construct immigration laws specifically against Muslims, and - Between America haters who live in a Western system reliant on American protection. Would a Chinese or Russian run system be preferable? Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 27 September 2014 11:08:33 AM
| |
Is a Centrist another name for an Appeaser, Pete?
When the Wooden Horse was hauled in through the city gates, people didn't suspect what was in their midst. In our society, most are blind to the U.S. ambition of controlling the world even though they don't bother to hide it. Are you one of them? Posted by David G, Saturday, 27 September 2014 11:48:05 AM
| |
G'day Dave
Having an ally, the US, which has been very much like Australia since 1788 doesn't constitute appeasement. Few are blind to the ambitions of any country including Abbott's ambitions for Australia. Accepting the alternative of control by very different countries, ie. China, Russia and perhaps one day Japan and India, would be appeasement. Regards Pete Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 27 September 2014 1:17:20 PM
| |
Why does any sovereign nation have to live under the 'CONTROL' of another nation, Pete?
Why is Australia succumbing to the control of the world's greatest warmonger and imperialist? Are you an Australian or a closet American? Do you admire the independence of New Zealand? Just curious! Posted by David G, Saturday, 27 September 2014 1:25:15 PM
| |
Dave
Methinks you're an idealist (a Gandhi) while I'm a realist (a nuclear armed India). We live in world of bigger fish that would swallow us up if there were no protection provided by one fish. NZ under Prime Minister Key has more or less renewed its alliance with the US under ANZUS. The fantasy "independence" of the NZ Labor Party was always reliant on Australian weapons and by extention US nuclear weapons. NZ sent SAS to Afghanistan for most of that war. NZ hosts 2 signals intelligence bases under the UKUSA "Five Eyes" agreement feeding most of the take to the US. The "independence" of Switzerland and Sweden comes by way of them being neighbours of nuclear protected NATO. Both are worried about Putin's Russia. Pete Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 27 September 2014 4:43:33 PM
| |
It sounds as though you are quite happy to retain the status quo, Pete, even if America's ambitions will eventually lead to nuclear war and quite possibly human extinction.
Neither Russia or China are ever going to accept American military and economic control of the world and why should they. No nation should be allowed to gain control of the world so that it can serve its own selfish interests. It's a shame that OLO doesn't feature some of the articles on ICH. There would be less ignorance on OLO about American ambitions and more awareness of America's many shortcomings which are legion. Tell me, do you approve of America's sanction regime which starves millions of innocent civilians and kids? And how about its use of depleted uranium, white phosphorous, and Agent Orange, do they get a tick from you? And how about America's use of cages for its prisoners and rendition and torture, do you applaud them? And how about its worship of capitalism where its 1% have most of the wealth? And how about its bankruptcy and failing infrastructure because its spends most of its money, much of it borrowed, forming gigantic armies. And the militarization of its police force, is that a big plus? And how about its militarism of the world, its building of military bases across the world, its use of bribery and political manipulation of many nations? And its nuclear arsenal which is its ace card if it comes to stopping Russia and China? Sorry, Pete, WW2 finished a long time ago but instead of seeking peace on Earth, the U.S. embarked on the conquest of the world while it pretended to be a seeker of peace and democracy. Its own democracy is a farce and its politicians are owned by the Corporations, much like in Australia. Hopefully you'll think about the issues I've raised, Pete, and adopt a more balanced view of America. I see it as the enemy of the free world, a nation based upon endless greed, a warmongering parasite which is taking our world down. Posted by David G, Saturday, 27 September 2014 5:23:24 PM
| |
Pete, you frequently raise the question of would we (Australia) prefer to trade the US for either China or Russia. That is a false question because your proposed alternatives are not exhaustive. We could for example opt for non-alignment or armed neutrality like the Swiss.
Another exercise you might like to turn your mind to is the history of the US, Russia and China. China has throughout a long history not sought a foreign empire, being mainly concerned with secure borders and traditional areas of influence. The Russians during the Soviet era were mainly concerned again with having buffer states, hardly surprising given their experience with the Germans in two world wars. That is still their predominant goal, western hysteria and misinformation notwithstanding. The US on the other hand has throughout its history been an expansionist empire, including but not limited to the Monroe Doctrine; the seizure of one third of Mexico following the Polk created US-Mexico War; the Spanish American war; and of course up to the present day with wars, invasions, coups, 1000+ military bases around the world; etc etc. A country Malcolm Fraser aptly described as a "dangerous ally". We really need to think outside the box and avoid the knee jerk stupidity of simplistic labels. A mature foreign policy based on Australia's real best interests. Just don't expect that from the present mob or the pretend alternative masquerading under the label of "Opposition". Posted by James O'Neill, Saturday, 27 September 2014 5:25:37 PM
| |
David G writes - "Hopefully you'll think about the issues I've raised, Pete, and adopt a more balanced view of America. I see it as the enemy of the free world, a nation based upon endless greed, a warmongering parasite which is taking our world down."
How about David G developing a more balance view... your current view is very extreme and bordering on shear paranoia. The US is no where near as bad or as determined as you keep claiming. I'm not America's biggest fan, but your exaggerated accusations force me to defend the US. David O'Neill on his anti-US/anti-Abbott band wagon states: "We really need to think outside the box and avoid the knee jerk stupidity of simplistic labels. A mature foreign policy based on Australia's real best interests. Just don't expect that from the present mob or the pretend alternative masquerading under the label of "Opposition". For the umpteenth time David, please tell us the details of what that mature foreign policy would be. Give us something practical, realistic, do-able, and please include a recipe for dealing with ISIS. Just criticising without spelling out your alternative is just more of your scratched record blah, blah, blah. Posted by ConservativeHippie, Saturday, 27 September 2014 6:42:00 PM
| |
Hi ConservativeHippie
While David G has his heart in the right place James O'Neill has expressed a liking for Putin. So it can be inferred that James O'Neill's concept of nation building parrots the Russian model ie. starving its neighbours of heating oil and gas in the dead of winter, nuclear armed, nationalistic, anti-Semitic, high internal security level, with a judge led legal system of guilty till proven innocent. Cheers Pete Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 27 September 2014 7:46:46 PM
| |
Hi David,
" ..... a more balanced view of America. I see it as the enemy of the free world, a nation based upon endless greed, a warmongering parasite which is taking our world down." Yeah, probably. But the bigger task, the more crucial task, at the moment is to destroy the reactionaries of ISIL, the Islamo-fascists, who are doing more harm every day than the US could manage in a year. What, you don't think they are fascists ? How could they be, Islam is a religion of peace, is that it ? And if they are fascists, then they are reactionary. That word used to mean something on the Left. [Ask your mother]. The Left has no business - forgive me for pointing it out - sucking up to it by trying to divert any criticism to the US, for what they might have done forty and fifty years ago. Get your priorities right: the time will come again when we can all sink the boot into the Yanks. Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 28 September 2014 12:00:50 PM
| |
Despite Abbott's revised wording that Australia has some latitude not to join the Iraq war - we actually have no choice now. Australia already made an international pledge.
As reported by our own ABC on Saturday http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-27/the-coalition-against-islamic-state/5773408 : "Australia has pledged eight F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter jets to the Middle East, one early warning and control aircraft, one aerial refuelling aircraft, 400 personnel to support air deployment and 200 troops to serve as military advisers." Equally compelling is that Australia cannot opt out of a long lineup of allies that have pleadged aircraft for the airstrike campaign. Note the US alone could rotate around 500 aircraft over around 6 months - more for the likely longer period. The pledgers of fast jets as airstrike aircraft include: UK France Denmark The Netherlands Belgium Saudi Arabia United Arab Emirates Bahrain Turkey Qatar Canada may yet decide whether to deploy F/A-18s NZ has none - but may be helping in other ways With even "outer ring" NATO countries like Belgium contributing F-16s there no way inner Anglo alliance Australia could sit out this new Iraq War. Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 28 September 2014 10:54:27 PM
| |
Hello everyone, I just joined the site.
I'm not sure how to begin, I support Assad in defending his own country and don't buy into the idea that he alone is responsible for killing 200,000 people. I don't support ISIS and I do recognise they are a threat but I don't think the US has the right to attack targets in Syria without Assad's request to do so or a UN mandate. I think US President Barack Obama is a terrorist by his own definition, since he armed, trained and funded these terrorists earlier in the war in Syria to take down Assad, and I think Australia's involvement and support for the US also makes them complicit in supporting terrorism. I am against both US foreign policy and Australia's willingness to go along with whatever the US wants. Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 29 September 2014 1:28:38 AM
| |
Armchair Critic, welcome to OLO. Your brief comment shows that you have a brain and actually use it, unlike some on this forum.
That you have identified the U.S. as a terrorist nation is great. We only have to convince the other 22 million Australians now! Cheers. Posted by David G, Monday, 29 September 2014 10:41:21 AM
| |
When a slow-motion massacre has unfolded over the course of [40] months, it's easy to lose the world's attention. But even the most jaded gasped in horror as news emerged of the latest carnage inflicted on the Syrian people. The images from the town of Houla defied belief.
Forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad went on a systematic killing spree, murdering at least 108 people. Most shockingly, the killers targeted women and children. A U.N. representative said the victims included 49 children who were younger than 10. The al-Assad regime denied it carried out the atrocities, but U.N. officials said they saw clear evidence that the Syrian government was involved in the attacks. Why would a regime, even a brutal dictatorship, send its thugs to kill women and children, even babies? Does it make any sense, even by the twisted logic of armed conflict and tyranny? Syria says regime not to blame for massacre; Rice says 'another blatant lie' In a most perverse, sickening way, it makes perfect sense. And for the logic underlying this most inhuman tactic, one need only look at what has transpired in recent months and years as uprisings have sprung throughout the region, from Iran to Tunisia. Now that Tehran has -- perhaps accidentally -- revealed that it has sent some of its forces to help al-Assad, the strategy has become even easier to understand. Who shelled, murdered children in Syria? Al-Assad denies murdering Houla children. The Syrian dictator is trying to restore a balance of fear, perhaps the most powerful weapon in the hands of tyrants throughout history. Killing children is supposed to intimidate the opposition. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/31/opinion/ghitis-syria-killing-children/index.html Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 29 September 2014 12:56:36 PM
| |
Hello everyone,
Thanks for the warm welcome David G. Although I consider the US Govt a terrorist organisation based on their foreign policy I certainly dont consider the average American Joe a terrorist. They're just regular people, maybe a little ignorant and foolish for allowing their leaders to do such terrible things in the name of national interests and national security but not so different to us here at home. Although the US has its problems, I believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are great things, and although the right to bear arms was essentially given after they fought the British and a right given in the event of being ruled by a tyrannical government, I dont think violence is the answer. What US citizens should do is kick their corrupt leaders out of office. Also, I'd like to say that when the mainstream media (MSM) does not give the full story or openly sells propaganda or mistruths then real democracy is essentially impossible. Plantagenet.. Im thinking your comment mightve been an attempt to sway my opinion the other way against Assad but I'm not sure. What I want to say here is that you cant take what the MSM says to be the truth these days without question, with false flags and propoganda being a part of war process. I'll add this link.. http://www.infowars.com/implosion-of-the-houla-massacre-story-is-anyone-paying-attention/ If you do a search for 'Houla' on that sites search you will find many more stories like this. It says that 90% of the women and children killed in that massacre were actually Alawite or Shia and its hard for me to think that Assad would have anything to gain by doing this to his own people. It is known however that the rebels staged the chemical attacks as a false flag in order to try to get the US involved in the Syrian conflict. Im not without compassion towards the innocents killed, but I wont be easily sold by the propoganda war that aims to gain ground by playing the 'Won't somebody please think of the children' card. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RybNI0KB1bg Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 29 September 2014 2:10:02 PM
| |
Hi Armchair Critic
Thanks for the links. Its only a matter of time before Australian Super Hornets will be bombing IS and AQ targets in Syria. By doing so Australia will be helping to protect the status quo government of President Assad. Israel also prefers the Assad Government. Thats the Middle East. Baddies versus baddies said the sage :) Pete Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 29 September 2014 5:08:42 PM
| |
That's right, Pete,
Of course Israel would prefer that Assad stay in power rather than be overthrown by ISIL. So of course, there would be talks going on via back channels between Israel and Iran. Of course Obama has the mammoth task of keeping Iran and the Saudis apart, i.e. to keep Iran from intervening openly in the war against ISIL. And strange as it may seem, the US has to be careful NOT to kill either the head of ISIL, or Sheikh Omar in Afghanistan, each claiming to be the emir, or the next in line to be caliph (well, al-Baghdadi actually claims to be the caliph) because if one goes, the whole lot will unite, al Qa'ida and ISIL, under one caliph. Better divided enemies than one enemy. Not that the Yanks are in control of all the forces at work, of course. So the killing of one of the other could still come to pass. Then it's on. Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 29 September 2014 5:18:21 PM
| |
Hi Joe
Along the lines you say the US appears to be playing a pretty shrewd game - pulling many strings to keep these players busy. Whether the US can keep this wide-ranging strategy together time will tell. Al-Baghdadi, as well as religious may be venal, a strength or weakness. Sheikh Omar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh appears in many ways a latter-day Carlos the Jackal, a terrorist for hire with many connections. Omar's connections include Pakistan's ISI which in turn has broad connections with the Taliban and also the Kabul Government. Regards Pete Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 29 September 2014 5:40:35 PM
| |
Hi Pete and Joe,
In reality I really don't have much of a problem with the US bombing ISIS since they played a part in creating them (and so did we by allying ourselves with the US on the War on Terror). They made the mess so they should clean it up, but knowing them things will only get worse for some hidden agenda that the rest of us struggle to understand and its that aspect that concerns me. That said, our involvement only increases the potential for terrorist attacks at home, and I am against anything that puts our citizens at home in danger. As for Israel preferring the Assad Govt, I'm not sure that's true. I read somewhere that Ed Snowden revealed that the head of ISIS was a trained Mossad operative. And their motto btw is "By Way of Deception". I've watch a few youtube videos from a man named Sheikh Imran Hosein, as I really enjoy his geopolitical thoughts from a reasonable headed Islamic perspective (I'm not a muslim). In it he says the Zionists are trying to become the next ruling state in the world, and that they intend to start a big war, but they cannot do it whilst seeming to be the aggressor. Therefore they have to put themselves in a position where they can make a genuine claim that Israel faces serious enemies and that if they do nothing they will be destroyed. So part of my thinking is very skeptical about the real motives behind these wars in the middle east, given that the US is very much prone to doing whatever is in Israels interests. If you look at US politics you will see any number of new laws being regularly discussed and passed that support Israel's interests by US politicians with Jewish connections. I think they want the US and Russia to take each other out in a nuclear war. He also says that ISIS is a false caliphate. Ill add a link, there's a better one but I cant find it atm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KQwU0IL-4Q&list=UU3Xlgbc8gq3NOMmdEUAlfGg Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 29 September 2014 6:42:16 PM
| |
The US really has created such a mess by doing "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" too many times.
Of course I don't know whats really going on but it must be said the in politics, "Nothing happens by accident", so as much as I might sound like a conspiracy theorist (prefer truth seeker) you just don't know these days. And also you cant take away the possibility that the US is getting rid of Assad and targeting oil fields which helps to take Russia down by creating a new pipeline of oil to Europe. The Saudis suggested it but Assad said no. Afterwards Syria, Iraq and Iran were to build this pipeline and doing so is a direct threat to the petrodollar. Just my thoughts... - Scott Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 29 September 2014 6:45:29 PM
| |
Scott, you might benefit from reading The Redirection, a 1997 article in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh. It makes a lot of what is happening now more understandable.
As far as pipelines are concerned, that is a huge element in the equation. The writer with the clearest view in my opinion is Pepe Escobar whom you can find at Asia Times online. You may have heard Obama today saying that we (i.e. the US) "underestimated" ISIS in Syria and "overestimated" the Iraqi army. Yeah, right. Just have to expand the war to compensate! Posted by James O'Neill, Monday, 29 September 2014 7:35:45 PM
| |
How are some airstrikes conducted?
First UK SAS "smash" teams carry out reconnaissance missions to provide up-to-date information on potential airstrike targets. Then immediately before airstrikes UK SAS smash teams may use a process called 'painting a target' to pinpoint a site to be struck. A laser beam from a portable device is bounced off a building or military installation from a few hundred yards – this is detected by the aircraft or a missile sensor, which then deploys the weapon. See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2771386/Britain-buys-20-Tomahawk-missiles-ready-strike-IS-1million-bombs-fired-submarines-programmed-turn-corners.html#ixzz3EhrLsbhS Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 29 September 2014 10:58:12 PM
| |
Coalition airstrikes appear not proving sufficient to slow down IS's steady growth in Iraq and Syria. If so Western regular army boots on the ground will supplement Western Special Forces boots that are already on the ground.
If so Australia will be there – as always. “Militants of the Islamic State group were closing in Monday on a Kurdish area of Syria on the border with Turkey — an advance unhindered so far by U.S.-led coalition airstrikes”. Islamic State fighters pounded the city of Kobani with mortars and artillery shells, advancing within three miles (five kilometers) of the Kurdish frontier city, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and Nawaf Khalil, a Kurdish official." see http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-led-airstrikes-hit-syrian-provinces-2582886 Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 30 September 2014 1:15:10 PM
| |
Bribe needed for our 8 Super Hornets in Iraq?
On the week long delay for Iraqi permission that Australia can use its 8 Super Hornets to bomb targets in Iraq... see http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2014/10/02/australia-waits-on--specific--request-from-iraq.htm It is odd that Iraq (a country notionally with its back to the wall and suffering "a humanitarian disaster") claims that a "public holiday" will cause another week of delay for Iraq's Cabinet to bestow approval. What in tarnation gives? I thought it was a humanitarian emergency? One can only assume that the good Shiits of the Baghdad Government are demanding appropriate authorization money (read bribes) for Australia's right to defend Iraq. Or don't these Shiits give a stuff about Sunni, Kurdish and other minority interests in Iraq? Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 2 October 2014 11:34:35 AM
| |
Hi Pete,
For all that and all that, I'm glad that Australian (and other) fighters and bombers are in Iraq, hopefully bombing the crap out of ISIS there. I recommend that all readers go back to the first post on this thread, by LEGO - brilliant ! Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 2 October 2014 11:40:44 AM
| |
Hi Joe
Our 8 Super Hornets have been sitting on the hot tarmac of the Al Minhad Air Base in UAE (not Iraq) for around 10 days. This inactivity would be costing the Australian taxpayer around $100,000 per day. The Iraqi Government don't apparently care less. Like our brave Afghani allies Iraqi politicians covet Australian bribe money - preferably in US dollars or gold. Cheers Pete Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 2 October 2014 11:51:31 AM
| |
Thanks Pete,
And yet, and yet - sooner or later, they will be used to defend Iraq against the fascists. The Second World War against Japan and the Nazis also had to be fought. I wonder if anybody back then carped about the cost per day ? Wouldn't it have been more nicer, more sweeter, to spend that money on saving the hairy-nosed wombat ? War is so nasty. Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 2 October 2014 12:15:32 PM
| |
Hi Joe
Your such an idealist. But even the good burghers of Baghdad don't want the privilege of friendly Aussie bombing without bribes. Will Australia be forced to bomb IS and AQ targets in Syria instead? No bribes to Syria's President Assad required? Pete Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 2 October 2014 12:34:28 PM
| |
Hi Pete,
Yep, for all that. But no, I don't think Australia will get involved in Syria, only in Iraq, i.e. where a government that we recognise will invite us in (although we might contribute support for the Kurds in northern Syria). 'Us' meaning the Australian contribution. Strategically, there are current two different battles: one to liberate Iraq, one to degrade ISIS in Syria and support the Kurds. I support both of them 100 %. To hell with relativism. Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 2 October 2014 12:57:20 PM
| |
Hi Joe
Its difficult to argue with you - as you're good-natured and probably right. Here's an enemy's enemy is me friend story that is typical of the Middle East. Intelnews has just reported "Are US spy agencies sharing weapons, intelligence with Hezbollah?" http://intelnews.org/2014/10/02/01-1566/ : "...veteran intelligence correspondent Jeff Stein said on Wednesday that the meteoric rise of [IS] may have prompted the creation of a “de facto US-Saudi-Lebanese-Hezbollah-Iranian” alliance [bringing] an “unwritten, unacknowledged cease fire” between these former adversaries... .. Washington and Hezbollah, the militant Shiite group that controls large swathes of Lebanese territory, have a common interest in combating the Islamic State and preventing its rule from spreading beyond Syria. So the Americans began reaching out to Hezbollah in 2012, says Stein, and have helped bring about a “regional consensus [...] to contain the conflict away from Lebanon and in Syria”. ...Washington’s decision to reach out to Hezbollah appears to have been prompted by the realization that the militant Shiite group, along with the official [Christian dominated] Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), were the only actors on the ground capable of fighting and defeating the Islamic State. Last August, says Stein, the US Pentagon unloaded $20 million worth of weapons in Lebanon for use by the LAF. The weapons were reportedly shipped through the Beirut International Airport, which his under the control of Hezbollah. The group promptly transferred the weapons to the LAF, which... has recently developed an “arm’s length alliance with Hezbollah” due to their mutual concern over the rise of the Islamic State." Cheers Pete Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 2 October 2014 5:37:20 PM
| |
Hi Pete,
Yeah, I think I wrote something along those lines early in the year: 'hold your nose' politics, I think I termed it. It would all be very unofficial, and deniable, of course. Here's another outrageous possibility: a very secret, for-all-the-bluster, co-operative effort between Iran and Israel. ISIS is their mutual deadly enemy, despite Arjay's 'conclusive proof' of secret ISIS training camps in the Negev, and Jewish banks financing it. What is starting to scare me is another secret alliance: between Putin's Russia, the various far-right groups in Europe and the US, and ISIS. If there is anything remotely like that happening, watch for growing tension between Russia and Iran. It might be concealed under a screen of more friendly relations between Iran and central Asian countries, notably Kazakhstan. Complicated world ! Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 2 October 2014 6:22:09 PM
|
Perhaps that is because Peter does not have a clue himself? It is very easy to attack somebody else's moral values when you don't have any alternative which you may have to defend.
The rest of Peter's article simply recounts the fact that the yanks appear to be doing a good job cobbling together diplomatic support before bombing the hell out of ISIS and Al Qaida. He finally gets around to giving his own people a serve by claiming that Australia's contribution is a mere token of what other countries are providing. But he does not say whether he thinks that this is a good thing or a bad thing. I suppose he thinks it is a bad thing. Anything the Liberals do is automatically bad to people like Peter Coates.
I think that this war has really got the trendy lefties stumped and they don't know who is right or who is wrong. With ISIS doing everything it can to offend the white western liberals it puts Peter and his ilk in a moral quandary because they can hardly do their traditional treason act and go into bat for the likes of ISIS. The only alternative is to support the yanks but that would be going too far for the "always support your people's enemies" attitudes of western trendies. All Peter can do is to sit on the fence and imply how awful it all is without the moral certitude to pick a side. Especially what should be his own side.