-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Just changing topic even further, it could be a time to worry a bit more later this year.
It's been quite disturbing the Islamic terrorists putting pressure on the new British government by ways and means of suicide attacks and attempted bombings in London and Glasgow.
We saw similar when Spain withdrew their troops after the Madrid bombings.
One thing to keep in mind, is that we are having our own election later this year, and if Rudd wins and becomes our new Prime Minister, are we going to face similar terrorist attacks here to put pressure on a newly elected government to withdraw troops and support against these terrorist organisations?
It's been quite disturbing the Islamic terrorists putting pressure on the new British government by ways and means of suicide attacks and attempted bombings in London and Glasgow.
We saw similar when Spain withdrew their troops after the Madrid bombings.
One thing to keep in mind, is that we are having our own election later this year, and if Rudd wins and becomes our new Prime Minister, are we going to face similar terrorist attacks here to put pressure on a newly elected government to withdraw troops and support against these terrorist organisations?
Liverpool said:
Hope you are not saying "vote Howard or you will die from terrorists" Liv, you and I differ a lot on politics, but this is the sort of spin that gave "children overboard" legs if it is to be taken at face value.
My view is if something is to happen, these freaks will always find a reason. Be it change of party running the country, my messiah told me, decadent tourists, or simply wanting to get your mug on TV with your so awesomely cool suicide video, these freaks work to their own agenda.
Our defense/police forces have done a good job on getting into groups to date, and this compbined with our geographic isolation (compared to the UK) means we are not quite the risk they are. Not saying it will never happen, but we are a lower craps roll compared to an US or EU event (thats where more media is too).
Also it is absolute cowardice to tell anyone not to excercise their democratic rights because we are afraid of what terrorirst MIGHT do. They day we do that, they win, but I suppose you do too because we become an authoritarian dictatorship (if I am reading you wrong I apologise, but this kind of stuf gets my blood boiling).
Tiger74 said:
Where did I say that? :-\
My concern, is that purely by having an election, might give any potential terrorists the opportunity to cause havoc, and its something we should keep in mind.
I'm not saying stop elections, or don't vote for Rudd....but it will be a time that we, as a country, will need to be even more vigilant than we are.
Simple as that, and something to keep in mind, especially after seeing what has been happening in the United Kingdom the last few days.
As the terrorists knew with Blair, Howard is also not easily deterred by what the terrorists want and the means they go to, to get what they want......however, as we have seen with Brown over the last week, a new PM does present the terrorists with a new opportunity.
All I am saying is that if Rudd does get in, I am sure the terrorists and their supporters here would also see a new leader as a new opportunity to force their agenda upon him, with the aim of destabilising a new Government, and taking advantage of any weakness that might not have been there previously.
It could be a big test for a new Government, thats all.
Tiger74 said:
I don't see the geographic isolation any deterrent whatsoever, to be honest.
We are neighbours with the largest Islamic nation on earth, and I don't think I would be making stories up by saying that we aren't their favourite people to begin with.
However, I don't see the main threat coming from outside of Australia anyway, and as we have seen with England, I see our threat coming internally, from Islamic "Australians" who have a fanatical view towards their religion, and a committed hatred for anyone who doesn't have the same beliefs as them.
What Howard and Rudd can do about this, is too difficult of a question for me to answer, just like it is very difficult for the British government to police the thousands of Islamic "Poms" who have Islam as their faith.
Tiger74 said:
Apology accepted
No issue Liv, I have friends who in the past have advocated "a vote for labour is a vote for a terrorist attack in Australia", so happy to hear you ain't in that wagon.
Not too worried about Indo, most of them are really good people, and the freaks are more concerned with the Christians and tourists at home than us. Our biggest concern (IMO) is mid east migrant kids who look back at their culture with reverance and awe which leads them to adopt the gun, but again this is only a very small section fo the mid-east immigrant population, and as said they have been stopped pretty well by ASIO/Feds to date.
Not too worried about Indo, most of them are really good people, and the freaks are more concerned with the Christians and tourists at home than us. Our biggest concern (IMO) is mid east migrant kids who look back at their culture with reverance and awe which leads them to adopt the gun, but again this is only a very small section fo the mid-east immigrant population, and as said they have been stopped pretty well by ASIO/Feds to date.
Don't think our election is the worry - the APEC conference in Sydney is a bigger honey pot - particularly with President Bush here!
Having been a part of the Sydney Olympics security campaign I recognise what security effort goes into these types of events - the effort for the APEC event makes the Sydney Olympics pale into insignificance.
Would not be found in Sydney for all the "tea in China" that month.
Livers - we were immediately put on the middle-eastern terrorists map because little Johnny bonsai put our troops into Afghanastan and Iraq - had we not got involved we would not be having this conversation. Mr Rudd pulling the Australian troops out will hopefully take Australia off the terrorists radar screen. It will be interesting to see how our always honest PM will use the latest events in Britian to put fear into the Australian populace - the be Alert but not Alarmed campaign seems to have run its course - he needs something else to put the fear into the voter.
A terrorist attack in Sydney during APEC which is just before the election would be the new "Tampa" for our tied and less popular PM - For Sydneysiders and the Australian people I hope this does not come to fruition............
Having been a part of the Sydney Olympics security campaign I recognise what security effort goes into these types of events - the effort for the APEC event makes the Sydney Olympics pale into insignificance.
Would not be found in Sydney for all the "tea in China" that month.
Livers - we were immediately put on the middle-eastern terrorists map because little Johnny bonsai put our troops into Afghanastan and Iraq - had we not got involved we would not be having this conversation. Mr Rudd pulling the Australian troops out will hopefully take Australia off the terrorists radar screen. It will be interesting to see how our always honest PM will use the latest events in Britian to put fear into the Australian populace - the be Alert but not Alarmed campaign seems to have run its course - he needs something else to put the fear into the voter.
A terrorist attack in Sydney during APEC which is just before the election would be the new "Tampa" for our tied and less popular PM - For Sydneysiders and the Australian people I hope this does not come to fruition............
oookay, back to Telstra again.
This is my experience with them in the past 5 days, so please tell me if they deserve Govt protection.
Knew several months ago my bigpond cable arrangement was moving from a seperate billing to one with Telstra, charges remain the same however and there was a reset date, so no biggy.
End on month is approaching, so with 6gb remaining on my 10gb unlimited plan, I start downloading on the 28th.
Download what I want, but still need more so continue doing so on Sunday, but I notice my speeds drop to cr@p.
Yesterday I then get the mail with my bill.
Attached to the bill is a letter advising me my billing date has been changed (28th instead of end of month), and that my usage will be reset on this date too. This is active from June. What does this mean? Basically I have a month of cr@ppy broadband ahead of me because Telstra failed to provide any notice to me of the change except after the fact.
I then yesterday rang up to complain, but after going through the automated service, they give me a message saying they are busy, call back later, and then hang up on me. Tried this several times without success.
This is just one case for one person this week, but I think this does show the arrogant attitude Testra has towards its customers, any why I for one definitely dont want them getting any support from the Govt as their service levels do not warrant it.
Thanks for the rant, I needed that
This is my experience with them in the past 5 days, so please tell me if they deserve Govt protection.
Knew several months ago my bigpond cable arrangement was moving from a seperate billing to one with Telstra, charges remain the same however and there was a reset date, so no biggy.
End on month is approaching, so with 6gb remaining on my 10gb unlimited plan, I start downloading on the 28th.
Download what I want, but still need more so continue doing so on Sunday, but I notice my speeds drop to cr@p.
Yesterday I then get the mail with my bill.
Attached to the bill is a letter advising me my billing date has been changed (28th instead of end of month), and that my usage will be reset on this date too. This is active from June. What does this mean? Basically I have a month of cr@ppy broadband ahead of me because Telstra failed to provide any notice to me of the change except after the fact.
I then yesterday rang up to complain, but after going through the automated service, they give me a message saying they are busy, call back later, and then hang up on me. Tried this several times without success.
This is just one case for one person this week, but I think this does show the arrogant attitude Testra has towards its customers, any why I for one definitely dont want them getting any support from the Govt as their service levels do not warrant it.
Thanks for the rant, I needed that
RemoteTiger said:
Remote,
That is rubbish and you know it.
Try and tell this story to families of the Australians who got killed in September 11, 2001.....a time when Australian troops were not in Iraq, a time when troops were not in Afghanistan, and a time when most Australians did not know of Bin Laden or much about him at all.
Australians were killed before any of our troops were in Iraq or Afghanistan, and even if we withdrew troops tomorrow, the terrorists would still explode trains and buses around the world, and if Australians get killed....well, too bad, isn't it?
We will never be off the radar screen.
Secondly, if everyone withdraws troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, what do you think will happen in these two countries?
Kids flying kites and fairy floss?
These countries will be worse off, as instead of the Taliban and Hussein running the show...you'll have extremist groups and hardliners running countries, close to other countries that have an allegiance to Western ideals, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
That won't be good for our economy, if that happens......and it won't be good for the Iraqi/Afghan people either....and if anything, we will have an upsurge in terrorist attacks, as they will see a troop withdrawal as a success.
Again...we will never be off the radar screen.
Remember Remote....Islamic terrorists want two things:
1. Israel destroyed
2. Infidels (non Islams) killed
Withdrawing troops will not stop them.
On another issue, what do you think of Ruddy 'keeping an eye' on the Wesfarmers deal?
But Labor leader Kevin Rudd last night warned that the $22 billion bid could be blocked if the new retail giant proved to be anti-competitive.
He said he would scrutinise the deal, but did not specify what a Labor government might do.
"I'm always concerned about any concentration of market power in the hands of those responsible for marketing our food," Mr Rudd told Southern Cross Broadcasting. "I'll be looking at this one very closely."
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22007291-661,00.html
I remember you Remote being an advocate of keeping Australian businesses in Australia, and using some flag-waving posts to get your point across....but it doesn't seem Ruddy is to keen on your idea, even though Wesfarmers is an Australian company.
Also interesting to see the union bosses keeping the pressure on their 'puppet master', by "pulling Kevin Rudd on" if/when he becomes Prime Minister, and even accusing him of 'backflips'
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22001731-662,00.html
Never mind the terrorists putting pressure on a new Government by suicide attacks against civilians.....the Unions will be putting enough pressure on themselves it seems.
The billion dollar question is, how much pressure can Ruddy and the ALP handle, before they cave into these demands?
Oops...not long it seems... :-[:
The Opposition Leader confirmed yesterday that Labor had no intention of keeping AWAs, the federal Government's legislated individual employment agreements.
In May, Mr Rudd indicated he could be flexible on AWAs and even took a special trip through Western Australia's mining region with the chiefs of BHP Billiton, Woodside and Rio Tinto.
But mining companies' representatives yesterday branded Mr Rudd's past overtures "a charade" and said he was never going to keep AWAs as they had sought.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21992069-2702,00.html
Folded like a deck of cards.....and we haven't even had a bomb go off here yet.
But Labor leader Kevin Rudd last night warned that the $22 billion bid could be blocked if the new retail giant proved to be anti-competitive.
He said he would scrutinise the deal, but did not specify what a Labor government might do.
"I'm always concerned about any concentration of market power in the hands of those responsible for marketing our food," Mr Rudd told Southern Cross Broadcasting. "I'll be looking at this one very closely."
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22007291-661,00.html
I remember you Remote being an advocate of keeping Australian businesses in Australia, and using some flag-waving posts to get your point across....but it doesn't seem Ruddy is to keen on your idea, even though Wesfarmers is an Australian company.
Also interesting to see the union bosses keeping the pressure on their 'puppet master', by "pulling Kevin Rudd on" if/when he becomes Prime Minister, and even accusing him of 'backflips'
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22001731-662,00.html
Never mind the terrorists putting pressure on a new Government by suicide attacks against civilians.....the Unions will be putting enough pressure on themselves it seems.
The billion dollar question is, how much pressure can Ruddy and the ALP handle, before they cave into these demands?
Oops...not long it seems... :-[:
The Opposition Leader confirmed yesterday that Labor had no intention of keeping AWAs, the federal Government's legislated individual employment agreements.
In May, Mr Rudd indicated he could be flexible on AWAs and even took a special trip through Western Australia's mining region with the chiefs of BHP Billiton, Woodside and Rio Tinto.
But mining companies' representatives yesterday branded Mr Rudd's past overtures "a charade" and said he was never going to keep AWAs as they had sought.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21992069-2702,00.html
Folded like a deck of cards.....and we haven't even had a bomb go off here yet.
Liverpool said:
1 - it is not rubbish when all the intelligence agents who have media access say that prior to the Afghan and Iraq wars we were not of great interest to the middle-eastern terrorists - and they would know more about it than you.
2 - The attack on the world towers was against the USA not Australia - nor was it aimed specifically at Australians working in the towers. Now I feel as ill as the next Australian about an Aussie being attacked wherever he/she may be but the fact remains it was aimed at the yanks and on yank soil - not at us not on our soil - should we bear arms because of this? If so, then why are you not advocating war on Bali or Indonesia - unfortunately a lot more Aussies died in that terrorist attack.
3 - we went into the war in Iraq under a viel of lies - FACT - it has been proven that prior to the war Saddam had no time for Al Queda nor Bin Laden. Nor did he have any WMD. Now we have created a honey pot a breeding ground for Al Queda and many many smart military leaders from the US, UK and now Australia are saying this. From a military strategy had Bush aimed all his efforts at Al Queda in Afghanastan - Al Queda would have been obliterated - but due to his vengeful wishes for his daddy and the oil in Iraq he split his forces thus defocusing the effort on Al Queda and Bin Laden - all this has done is it has allowed Al Queda to regroup and by using the American presence in Iraq spread the word of Al Queda thus making them more stronger than prior to the Iraq war.
4 Israeli's killed - here is a situation where the Jewish founded USA businesses and state are supporting the Jewish homeland - Israel can handle themselves - have a look at the attrocities they have committed over the past 5 decades in the middle east - it is not all one sided.
Even John Howard has admitted the supporting of the war in Iraq has made Australia a less safe place - or - was he saying that to strike fear into the voter so he can claim his side of politics is the only side that can handle National Security?
The truth! What is the truth - for the truth with innocence is one of the first casualties of war.
RemoteTiger said:
Of course we weren't a specific target to the terrorists...I agree.
However, not sending troops/withdrawing troops didn't (and won't) stop Australian civilians from getting killed around the world from terrorist attacks on OUR way of life.
Australians (and anyone) should be able to travel, without the fear of something getting blown to smithereens.
While having our own troops supporting the 'war on terror' has brought us under the spotlight more of a direct terrorist attack, we have to make a stand against terrorism from happening.
Burying our heads in the sand and pretending it won't happen, will not make it go away....it is HERE, NOW!
RemoteTiger said:
Yes, you're correct again....the terrorists did perform their act on American soil by attacking the Twin Towers, however, if they were so adamant at specifically attacking Americans, then why didn't they attack an armed forces base? or a naval ship?
They weren't aiming at Americans, as a people....but at the Western way of life, which is capitalism, democracy, and economy....something their own countries and religion are against.
They didn't care if they killed non-Americans (including Australians), of which they would have known many were either ont he planes, or working in the Twin Towers themselves.
Remember, terrorism isn't aimed at a specific race (such as Americans, Australians, or Iraqis), it is aimed at a way of life that is the opposite to what they believe in.
We beared arms against Afghanistan because it was Bin Laden we were after, and that is where everyone believed he was hiding out, and he was the self-declared mastermind behind the attacks on 9/11, and other attacks that had led up to 9/11. The Taliban were not co-operating, and if anything, were aiding and abetting what Bin Laden was doing.
We didn't bear arms against Indonesia because of a number of reasons:
* They are our neighbour and have a much bigger defence force than us
* The Governments of both nations had agreed to fight terrorism together
* The ramifications of such an aggressive act on Indonesia itself would have led to war, right on our doorstep....smart move? I think not.
RemoteTiger said:
Al-Qaeda would not have been obliterated, because we (and every other nation) have our own terrorist cells already in this country to keep the ideals of this group alive and well into the future.
I'm not too worried about the (using your words) 'veil of lies', because I think they made a big blunder by not finishing the job off after Desert Storm, and letting Hussein still run the country.....so to get him out of there is o.k by me.
However, I think the Coalition were naive with the amount of animosity between Shi'ites and Sunnis, which has escalated.
Remember, we hear about suicide bombings that occur in Iraq most days, but the majority of them are aimed at civilians, NOT the armed forces.
RemoteTiger said:
Never said it was all one-sided, however I can't remember the last time an Israeli strapped a bomb to himself and blew up a bus of schoolkids, or rammed a car laden with explosives into a crowded market.
The attacks on Israel have been indiscriminate and random, and aimed at civilians....NOT military targets.
It was only a couple of years ago that the Iranian president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/27/wiran27.xml
...and remember, Iran are getting closer to nuclear capability....something nice to look forward to, isn't it?
I wonder if the 'veil of lies' to get into Iraq and Afghanistan (which surround Iran, by the way) was part of a plan after all?
RemoteTiger said:
Of course supporting the 'war on terror' has put us in the spotlight of terrorists.
I agree with Howard.
But it is the price we have to pay, to try and defend our way of life....a way of life that we are entitled to.
Even if we didn't support the 'war on terror', do you think terrorists check the passports of passengers on planes and trains they blow up in US, Britain, Spain, or Bali?
No.
Innocent Aussies are going to be killed all around the world regardless of our status on the 'war on terror'....so we may as well support it, and try are darndest to try and halt it, or eradicate it altogether.
Personally, I think we'll never be able to stop terrorism, especially when you have hardline clerics and mosques, promoting such ideals here and in many other countries.
What can the Government do?
What can WE do?
The Government removing our troops might take the focus off us, which would be good.......but then again, it sends a signal to the terrorists that just a threat of terrorism occurring on mainland Australia, would be enough to make us surrender what we believe in. If anything, it will encourage even more terrorism outside of Australia, and more Australians will be killed because of it.
Also, American troops were not in Baghdad or Kabul, when 9/11 happened, so terrorists haven't got the *smile* because the Coalition were in Iraq/Afghanistan. They disapprove of non-Islamic ways, simple as that.
So a government (whether it be Rudd or Howard) removing troops isn't going to guarantee us safety from terrorists.
So what can we do.
Be alert, be vigilant, be suspicious.
Doesn't sound like a great way to live, but that is the fact of the matter.
btw Liv, what did you think of Nelson coming out saying oil security and prestige were reasons for staying in Iraq? I reckon when Howard heard those comments (just prior to making his speech on this very issue) he would have spat out his cornflakes.
I know Nelson wants to be the next PM, but this fool needs to know there is some things you just do not say to the press.
I know Nelson wants to be the next PM, but this fool needs to know there is some things you just do not say to the press.
Tiger74 said:
Tiger74,
I don't think anyone should be surprised with this.
Of course oil is one of the reasons we went into Iraq/Afghanistan....I've never denied that.
But it isn't the ONLY reason we went in, and it wasn't even the MAIN reason we went in.
Even Nelson said himself:
"The defence update we're releasing today sets out many priorities for Australia's defence and security, and resource security is one of them," he told ABC radio.
"The entire (Middle East) region is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world.
"Australians and all of us need to think well what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq?"
How much do you think petrol would be if we had not gone into Iraq and Afghanistan, and Al-Qaeda were able to get even a bigger stonghold in the region, and maybe, even take over (or sabotage) a resource the the Western lifestyle and economy relies on?
How much more support would Iran have for getting their nuclear arsenal up and running, if they were surrounded by Al-Qaeda and anti-Western led countries, instead of being surrounded by Coalition troops and military might on each side of them?
you missed my point Liv.
Firstly I think the whole oil issue has been blown up too much here. Granted Mr. Bush may not have had the purest of motives, but I honestly believe Howard committed forces for the reasons he believed at the time (WMD's and terrorism).
That being said, there has been the ugly inference that oil was the real motive, but Howard has done a good job say "we are there for the Iraqis and the oil is theirs".
Then Nelson comes along, and gives a sound bite which basically gives a sub-editor the chance to say "we are fighting for oil". A bad mistake for someone who wants to be PM, especially in a week when the PM was getting some good traction on the back of the union issues.
On that, how stupid are these fools? No-one will vote ALP if they think union puppetmasters pull their strings, yet you have these morons coming out speaking cr@p to them members to make themselves look big. Worst bit about it for Labor is that while their views get listened to, once in power the unions power will remain as it always has been in the last 20 years, influence and not control.
Between them and Nelson Im not sure who the weeks award for best political foot-in-mouth should be :cutelaugh
Firstly I think the whole oil issue has been blown up too much here. Granted Mr. Bush may not have had the purest of motives, but I honestly believe Howard committed forces for the reasons he believed at the time (WMD's and terrorism).
That being said, there has been the ugly inference that oil was the real motive, but Howard has done a good job say "we are there for the Iraqis and the oil is theirs".
Then Nelson comes along, and gives a sound bite which basically gives a sub-editor the chance to say "we are fighting for oil". A bad mistake for someone who wants to be PM, especially in a week when the PM was getting some good traction on the back of the union issues.
On that, how stupid are these fools? No-one will vote ALP if they think union puppetmasters pull their strings, yet you have these morons coming out speaking cr@p to them members to make themselves look big. Worst bit about it for Labor is that while their views get listened to, once in power the unions power will remain as it always has been in the last 20 years, influence and not control.
Between them and Nelson Im not sure who the weeks award for best political foot-in-mouth should be :cutelaugh
Tiger74 said:
Fair enough....lets run with that.
Tiger74 said:
O.k...so Nelson told the truth...isn't that what we want from politicians?
It is the sub-editor who has twisted things around from Nelson saying "The defence update we're releasing today sets out many priorities for Australia's defence and security, and resource security is one of them"....to reading "We are fighting for oil".
If Howard's motives for going to Iraq/Afghanistan was for WMDs and fighting terrorism, as you believe.......and another reason (but not THE reason) was for 'resource security', then what Nelson has stated with the above quoted sentence is backing up what you believe to be the Prime Minister's motives as well...and that oil is another separate issue.
I think if anyone's ethics need to be qustioned in all this, it is the media and their 'journalistic twisting'.....or as our mate Sheik Hilali used to say, "I've been taken out of context again and misquoted".... :hihi
But coming from the ABC, I'm not surprised.
Word Up - sign Snoop Dogg's petition for Australian citizenship
http://www.myspace.com/voteforsnoop
http://www.myspace.com/voteforsnoop
