Latest terrorist threat to Australia
Moderator: GH Moderators
-
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
It's totally different because it is declared hostilities between nation states and fought within certain rules.
I'm sure you can find people referring to the VC as terrorists, you guys are calling NATO and the US terrorists.
Doesn't make it right under the accepted definition.
I'm sure you can find people referring to the VC as terrorists, you guys are calling NATO and the US terrorists.
Doesn't make it right under the accepted definition.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
SB, this is getting really, really embarrassing. There was never a declaration of war in the Vietnam conflict. How in your world were the North Vietnamese a 'nation state'?Shadow Boxer wrote:It's totally different because it is declared hostilities between nation states and fought within certain rules.
I'm sure you can find people referring to the VC as terrorists, you guys are calling NATO and the US terrorists.
Doesn't make it right under the accepted definition.
And you're not listening. The VC were nearly ALWAYS referred to as terrorists (or guerrillas, or variations of the term ie Communist guerrillas or whatever). It's not a case of 'finding people' who use the term - it was absolutely standard.
You have to get a bare minimum of facts right if you want to be taken seriously.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
-
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
Everyone I know and everything I read refers to it as the Vietnam war.
It seems a pretty simple concept to me but if you want to refer to every war ever as two lots of terrorists going at it you can.
Pretty insulting to lots of good people who put their lives on the line to do what was right though.
It seems a pretty simple concept to me but if you want to refer to every war ever as two lots of terrorists going at it you can.
Pretty insulting to lots of good people who put their lives on the line to do what was right though.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
Are you serious? I'm somehow insulting people? Can we pause for a second and check through this thread?Shadow Boxer wrote:Everyone I know and everything I read refers to it as the Vietnam war.
It seems a pretty simple concept to me but if you want to refer to every war ever as two lots of terrorists going at it you can.
Pretty insulting to lots of good people who put their lives on the line to do what was right though.
You've made a series of claims that are demonstrably false. In almost every post you've made here, you've just made things up.
You claimed that Vietnam was a declared war between two nation states. I corrected you - it was never a declared war, and to refer to North Vietnam as a 'nation state' is not correct. Rather than acknowledge your errors, you simply shift on to another outrageous claim. That is clearly becoming embarrassing to you, so rather than introduce new 'facts' you decide to suggest that by being right, I'm somehow insulting people.
The only insult being handed out here is to the intelligence of anyone trying to make sense of the mangled line of reasoning in your posts.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
Technically it was a "police action" but my advice never call it that in front of someone who fought there, I saw a young American cop here call it that to one of the camera security guys next door and he almost belted him, the cop was ushered out very quickly for his own sake.
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
Whatever it's called, SB was trying to suggest that its status as a 'declared war' impacted on whether terrorist acts were carried out there. I was just pointing out that the entire premise of his argument, yet again, was false.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
-
- Steve Walters
- Posts: 7426
- Joined: August 13, 2008, 3:39 pm
- Favourite Player: Bae
- Location: Canberra
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
Friends?Pigman wrote:I have never heard anyone say this, read anyone write this, or even tweet it!Manbush wrote:On a related note getting sick to death of the quote, "not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims". So factually incorrect yet people are regurgitating it.
What sort of **** idiots are you hanging with/listening to/reading to come across this. Vintage MB
Wesley Pipes, Kim Bong-un and Billy Bong Thornton.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
I guess it come down to if you differentiate between state sponsored ones or groups that have no "authority" under a national banner, like IS, Al Qaeda, Hutaree and JDL who are just groups based around a single belief.
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
This thread is fantastic.
-
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
It's just warming up I reckon, there's a massive **** storm brewing.
So TR, NATO bombing Serbian civilians and infrastructure, legitimate military tactic or terrorism ?
So TR, NATO bombing Serbian civilians and infrastructure, legitimate military tactic or terrorism ?
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
.
Last edited by Off on September 18, 2014, 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
This place is woke.
-
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 13407
- Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
- Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
- Location: Canberra :(
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
The rules of war do no permit the intentional targeting of civilians. So strictly speaking the US and Israel have been guilty of countless war crimes just this year.Shadow Boxer wrote:It's just warming up I reckon, there's a massive **** storm brewing.
So TR, NATO bombing Serbian civilians and infrastructure, legitimate military tactic or terrorism ?
But the US don't follow the rules of war. Look at the 1000's of Laotian civilians with missing limbs or the 1000's of Iraqi or Vietnamese parents raising children with birth defects thanks to the toxic and radioactive waste the US dumped all over their countries.
I don't think you will find too many people condoning what IS is doing but this is regional conflict that requires a regional solution. The intervention of Australia and the US can't bring stability to the region because our presence and influence is the major reason the whole region is so volatile in the first place.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
Instead of asking more questions, how about you go back through the thread and actually ANSWER a few, instead of just changing the subject.Shadow Boxer wrote:It's just warming up I reckon, there's a massive **** storm brewing.
So TR, NATO bombing Serbian civilians and infrastructure, legitimate military tactic or terrorism ?
Let's start with a few pages back. You said that Iraqi civilians could have prevented the half a million civilian deaths by 'stopping being terrorists'. You said that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism.
Compelling facts, and they give you a strong case. Could you please list the worst five terrorist attacks by Iraqis in the decade leading up to the Gulf war, where they were justly punished for their crimes?
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
that "stop being terrorists" line literally made spit out my drink.
Astounding.
Astounding.
-
- Steve Walters
- Posts: 7426
- Joined: August 13, 2008, 3:39 pm
- Favourite Player: Bae
- Location: Canberra
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
Intentional? I thought it was just incompetence and/ or collateral damageGreen eyed Mick wrote:The rules of war do no permit the intentional targeting of civilians. So strictly speaking the US and Israel have been guilty of countless war crimes just this year.Shadow Boxer wrote:It's just warming up I reckon, there's a massive **** storm brewing.
So TR, NATO bombing Serbian civilians and infrastructure, legitimate military tactic or terrorism ?
But the US don't follow the rules of war. Look at the 1000's of Laotian civilians with missing limbs or the 1000's of Iraqi or Vietnamese parents raising children with birth defects thanks to the toxic and radioactive waste the US dumped all over their countries.
I don't think you will find too many people condoning what IS is doing but this is regional conflict that requires a regional solution. The intervention of Australia and the US can't bring stability to the region because our presence and influence is the major reason the whole region is so volatile in the first place.
That's surely enough to engage Schifty on drone rant
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
I have absolutely zero opinion on how ridiculous it is that people are sitting in the middle of the Nevada desert dropping bombs on foreign countries and wiping out hundreds of civlians a year via a joy stick and flimsy information.Raider 85 wrote:Intentional? I thought it was just incompetence and/ or collateral damageGreen eyed Mick wrote:The rules of war do no permit the intentional targeting of civilians. So strictly speaking the US and Israel have been guilty of countless war crimes just this year.Shadow Boxer wrote:It's just warming up I reckon, there's a massive **** storm brewing.
So TR, NATO bombing Serbian civilians and infrastructure, legitimate military tactic or terrorism ?
But the US don't follow the rules of war. Look at the 1000's of Laotian civilians with missing limbs or the 1000's of Iraqi or Vietnamese parents raising children with birth defects thanks to the toxic and radioactive waste the US dumped all over their countries.
I don't think you will find too many people condoning what IS is doing but this is regional conflict that requires a regional solution. The intervention of Australia and the US can't bring stability to the region because our presence and influence is the major reason the whole region is so volatile in the first place.
That's surely enough to engage Schifty on drone rant
It's also not disturbing at all that a government can assassinate their own citizen in another country based on one dude ticking a box.
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16586
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
I'm never filling out a form again I promise!Schifty wrote:
It's also not disturbing at all that a government can assassinate their own citizen in another country based on one dude ticking a box.
-
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
I've already posted why the state department placed Iraq on the list of States that sponsor terrorism.
My posts have simply made the point there is a difference between legitimate military action and criminal terrorism. Something you clearly disagree with. Your call if it doesn't suit your agenda.
This debate has got quite obnoxious now, as someone who actually knows people in the Australian and US military your claim they deliberately target covilians is both incorrect and offensive.
Perhaps we can discuss at the next moderate Muslims against jihad and violence protest meeting.
My posts have simply made the point there is a difference between legitimate military action and criminal terrorism. Something you clearly disagree with. Your call if it doesn't suit your agenda.
This debate has got quite obnoxious now, as someone who actually knows people in the Australian and US military your claim they deliberately target covilians is both incorrect and offensive.
Perhaps we can discuss at the next moderate Muslims against jihad and violence protest meeting.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
Shadow Boxer wrote:I've already posted why the state department placed Iraq on the list of States that sponsor terrorism.
My posts have simply made the point there is a difference between legitimate military action and criminal terrorism. Something you clearly disagree with. Your call if it doesn't suit your agenda.
This debate has got quite obnoxious now, as someone who actually knows people in the Australian and US military your claim they deliberately target covilians is both incorrect and offensive.
Perhaps we can discuss at the next moderate Muslims against jihad and violence protest meeting.
OK, let's do this.
Firstly, you have NOT been able to produce ANY act of terrorism committed by Iraq. None. Yet you've used it as the justification for the slaughter of half a million people. I wonder if you'd be so happy with that if they were Australian, or English, or Americans? Or are dead brown babies easier for you to handle?
Will you answer the question I asked, or will you just keep dodging it?
The whole 'i know people in the military' thing actually made me laugh out loud. I really don't want to start the 'i know more than you do' thing without facts to back it up, and I'm limited in what I can say. Let me just put it here - a substantial part of what I do for a living is military training. I train US military intelligence bods in Seoul, I am a very very very modest part of the world's largest military procurement program through the US in Saudi, I've spent a LOT of time in military bases in the middle east and have met with everyone from grunts to Brigadier Generals in the US and Saudi military. I say all this so I can tell you with some kind of authority that I can absolutely 100% guarantee that these people would NOT be offended by the assertion that civilians are targeted in combat.
Finally, please answer this. You say that there is a 'difference between legitimate military action and state sponsored terrorism'. Can you please tell me what the difference is between deliberately targeting a civilian with a car bomb, and deliberately and randomly bombing a civilian area from the air? Or will you just dodge another question?
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
-
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
That's quite a moral dilemma for you. It must cause you sleeples nights.
If you are trying to say the Us sits around blowing up women going shopping as part of. Terrorist campaign designed to sack the will of the people I'm not buying it.
Are civilians killed as part of legit are military action, yes I've already said I consider Dresden, Hiroshima, Serbia and the shock and awe campaign of Iraq 1 legotimAte military action.
It's probably run it's course mate, don't want to drag peoples clearances into it.
If you are trying to say the Us sits around blowing up women going shopping as part of. Terrorist campaign designed to sack the will of the people I'm not buying it.
Are civilians killed as part of legit are military action, yes I've already said I consider Dresden, Hiroshima, Serbia and the shock and awe campaign of Iraq 1 legotimAte military action.
It's probably run it's course mate, don't want to drag peoples clearances into it.
-
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 13407
- Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
- Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
- Location: Canberra :(
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
There is a fine line between intent and wilful disregard. Dumping 1000's of cluster bombs on Laos may not be the intentional targeting of civilians but it sure as hell shows a callous and wilful disregard for the lives of those who inhabit the areas targeted. Firing 100's of thousands of depleted uranium ordnance in and around civilian areas in Iraq may not be the direct targeting of civilians but the 1000's of people suffering as a result of deadly and dangerous radiation once again shows a wilful disregard for the safety of civilians. Drone strikes are another good example.Raider 85 wrote:Intentional? I thought it was just incompetence and/ or collateral damageGreen eyed Mick wrote:The rules of war do no permit the intentional targeting of civilians. So strictly speaking the US and Israel have been guilty of countless war crimes just this year.Shadow Boxer wrote:It's just warming up I reckon, there's a massive **** storm brewing.
So TR, NATO bombing Serbian civilians and infrastructure, legitimate military tactic or terrorism ?
But the US don't follow the rules of war. Look at the 1000's of Laotian civilians with missing limbs or the 1000's of Iraqi or Vietnamese parents raising children with birth defects thanks to the toxic and radioactive waste the US dumped all over their countries.
I don't think you will find too many people condoning what IS is doing but this is regional conflict that requires a regional solution. The intervention of Australia and the US can't bring stability to the region because our presence and influence is the major reason the whole region is so volatile in the first place.
That's surely enough to engage Schifty on drone rant
There is obviously plenty of incompetence as well but the culture in the military is very toxic. dehumanising the 'enemy' might be considered essential battle prep but the development of a callous disregard for the civilian population is often an unwanted side effect.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
So TR you're a willing part of the US terror machine?
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
Sleepless nights? None whatsoever.Shadow Boxer wrote:That's quite a moral dilemma for you. It must cause you sleeples nights.
If you are trying to say the Us sits around blowing up women going shopping as part of. Terrorist campaign designed to sack the will of the people I'm not buying it.
Are civilians killed as part of legit are military action, yes I've already said I consider Dresden, Hiroshima, Serbia and the shock and awe campaign of Iraq 1 legotimAte military action.
It's probably run it's course mate, don't want to drag peoples clearances into it.
As far as 'running it's course' ... mate, you've refused to answer a single question. You've spouted half truth and mangled facts at every point. I ask again HOW is it different to deliberately bomb civilians from the air than to bomb them with, say, a car bomb? What is the thing that makes the people less dead? Or less deliberately targetted? I simply cannot imagine what you see here, unless it's that generally little brown men get killed by bombs dropped from planes, and white people get killed by terrorist bombs.
I am staggered that you would take the fire bombing of Dresden as an example. It's at very least one of the most seriously morally ambiguous English actions of WWII, and even those intimately involved in the planning have conceded that they would have stood at war crime trials if England had not won the war. They deliberately set out to kill large numbers of civilians for political gain. It was terrorism. I cannot imagine any other legitimate word for it. So, how was it different? But you won't answer, will you.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
God yeah. I'm a complete junkie for it.Manbush wrote:So TR you're a willing part of the US terror machine?
The most thrilling part of my entire career is the contact I've had with the senior leadership of the US Army. The grunts on the ground are among the dumbest human beings to have walked the face of the earth. In contrast, the top brass are without a doubt the most impressive people I have ever met.
I spent a day earlier this year with a guy who is a real chance of being the next Chief of the Army (his predecessor in his current role now is). It's very rare to have the chance to interact with a person with that kind of intellect, training and experience, and I absolutely cherish the opportunity to have done so. His FREAKISH resemblance to Captain Picard from Star Trek just made it even cooler.
And yes, I know I exist in a moral vacuum.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
TR the fact you don't have sleepless nights suggests to me you don't really hold the US military as terrorists like IS or Al Qaeda, I do believe you've got better morals than helping an organization you believe are terrorists and deliberately kill innocent women and children just to make a dollar. I'm guessing if IS, Al Qaeda, Hutaree or JDL came to you to train their intelligence officers you'd refuse.
Edit: I posted this before I saw your above post
Edit: I posted this before I saw your above post
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
In this whole thread, that is the first argument against me that scores a hitManbush wrote:TR the fact you don't have sleepless nights suggests to me you don't really hold the US military as terrorists like IS or Al Qaeda, I do believe you've got better morals than helping an organization you believe are terrorists and deliberately kill innocent women and children just to make a dollar. I'm guessing if IS, Al Qaeda, Hutaree or JDL came to you to train their intelligence officers you'd refuse.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
-
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 13407
- Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
- Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
- Location: Canberra :(
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment ... 0i9hv.html
You know the Libs are off the reservation when Paul Sheehan is calling them out.
You know the Libs are off the reservation when Paul Sheehan is calling them out.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
Hearing there were a lot of raids in Brisbane this morning connected to the explosives found at Logan and IS.
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
I don't believe that they found explosives at Logan. I thought they only found a sawn-off rifle.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
Ah he might've meant the ones found in western Brisbane or have the two incidents mixed up.
Edit: yep incidents mixed up, looks like the raids were regarding Logan not the explosives, happening throughout Sydney as well.
Edit: yep incidents mixed up, looks like the raids were regarding Logan not the explosives, happening throughout Sydney as well.
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
-
- Steve Walters
- Posts: 7426
- Joined: August 13, 2008, 3:39 pm
- Favourite Player: Bae
- Location: Canberra
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
The only actual agreed upon theme in this thread is that whether it be intentional or unintentional, the killing of civilian men is fine - women and children? No dice.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
If your credentials are true T_R, why are you biting the hand that feeds you?
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
**** just googling about atheist terrorists and supposedly atheists are now classed as terrorists in Saudi Arabia
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
Oh, please.papabear wrote:If your credentials are true T_R,
I think there are enough people on my Facebook here that my movements are fairly well known.
I don't think the US Military apparatus is terribly concerned that I am aware that civilians are killed in bombing campaigns, or that I disapprove of innocent people being killed for political ends.papabear wrote:why are you biting the hand that feeds you?
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
-
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm
Re: Latest terrorist threat to Australia
Deary me, carry on then.T_R wrote:God yeah. I'm a complete junkie for it.Manbush wrote:So TR you're a willing part of the US terror machine?
The most thrilling part of my entire career is the contact I've had with the senior leadership of the US Army. The grunts on the ground are among the dumbest human beings to have walked the face of the earth. In contrast, the top brass are without a doubt the most impressive people I have ever met.
I spent a day earlier this year with a guy who is a real chance of being the next Chief of the Army (his predecessor in his current role now is). It's very rare to have the chance to interact with a person with that kind of intellect, training and experience, and I absolutely cherish the opportunity to have done so. His FREAKISH resemblance to Captain Picard from Star Trek just made it even cooler.
And yes, I know I exist in a moral vacuum.