Islamic State crisis: Australia to send 600 troops to UAE

[arjunadawn]

Now that the discourse concerning ISIS is back down to earth it can continue to move forward constructively to say that Washington is involved with all sides in almost any conflict almost anywhere. One needs only to look locally over the past several years to Washington's active involvement with those of all colors and persuasions. The local situation here, while serious, is nowhere near the same or similar to the complexities and nuances that attend the events and the peoples of the ME.

Washington has involved itself in its U.S. Central Command theatre with just about any and every group there is or has been, over a long period of time as groups turnover or come and go. That is a given. There is no question of Washington's involvement with ISIS, al Qaeda and many other extremist Muslim military jihadist groups - no question of it whatsoever.

My objection is to the warped portrayal by too many of Washington's involvement with the many and various ISIS styled groups of the region over several decades. The myth persists for instance that the U.S. created al Qaeda so I attack the simple minded myth when I see it, and I continue to see it regularly and predictably. In other words, Washington's policy of involving itself with groups on all sides, to include as many as possible in Iraq and Syria, does not mean it necessarily has "created" its own enemies of the moment.

You and I probably agree that armchair analysis here and elsewhere miss this important point of the US's long time policy to politically and personally interact inside all sides of a given conflict. It hasn't always been possible for Washington to insert itself among all the parties to a given conflict in a given place at a given time, but that as you should know is the policy and it has been effective over a long haul of decades.

It goes back to the latter phase of the Chinese civil war (1941-49) when Washington (the OSS) had two different teams of operatives, each opposite team quietly accepted by and into the camp of each rival combatant Mao Zedong, Chiang Kai Shek. Mao had OSS operatives trying to make him purr while Chiang had opposite operatives stroking him.

If I may mix it up, two can play this game and there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Where we differ is not simply the main point, but from where the view is obtained; "I dont observe from an armchair!"

I am one of the ppl on the ground. Good luck with that theory thing.

[Publicus]

Now that the discourse concerning ISIS is back down to earth it can continue to move forward constructively to say that Washington is involved with all sides in almost any conflict almost anywhere. One needs only to look locally over the past several years to Washington's active involvement with those of all colors and persuasions. The local situation here, while serious, is nowhere near the same or similar to the complexities and nuances that attend the events and the peoples of the ME.

Washington has involved itself in its U.S. Central Command theatre with just about any and every group there is or has been, over a long period of time as groups turnover or come and go. That is a given. There is no question of Washington's involvement with ISIS, al Qaeda and many other extremist Muslim military jihadist groups - no question of it whatsoever.

My objection is to the warped portrayal by too many of Washington's involvement with the many and various ISIS styled groups of the region over several decades. The myth persists for instance that the U.S. created al Qaeda so I attack the simple minded myth when I see it, and I continue to see it regularly and predictably. In other words, Washington's policy of involving itself with groups on all sides, to include as many as possible in Iraq and Syria, does not mean it necessarily has "created" its own enemies of the moment.

You and I probably agree that armchair analysis here and elsewhere miss this important point of the US's long time policy to politically and personally interact inside all sides of a given conflict. It hasn't always been possible for Washington to insert itself among all the parties to a given conflict in a given place at a given time, but that as you should know is the policy and it has been effective over a long haul of decades.

It goes back to the latter phase of the Chinese civil war (1941-49) when Washington (the OSS) had two different teams of operatives, each opposite team quietly accepted by and into the camp of each rival combatant Mao Zedong, Chiang Kai Shek. Mao had OSS operatives trying to make him purr while Chiang had opposite operatives stroking him.

If I may mix it up, two can play this game and there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Where we differ is not simply the main point, but from where the view is obtained; "I dont observe from an armchair!"

I am one of the ppl on the ground. Good luck with that theory thing.

I though I had been clear I wasn't referring to you as someone sitting in an armchair pontificating.

I wrote "You and I probably agree that armchair analysis here and elsewhere...." and in the final sentence of the graf "but as you should know" meaning as I expect you do know.

If that wasn't clear in the writing of the post I want to make it clear here and now. I was not including you in the public that is remote or detached from the realities on the ground of recent decades or presently.

I agree with your prior post that you and I probably have more shared views concerning the topic than either you or I had thought or believed.

Someone could probably get a sheet of paper between you and I lengthwise but that would be about it in these respects

[arjunadawn]

Now that the discourse concerning ISIS is back down to earth it can continue to move forward constructively to say that Washington is involved with all sides in almost any conflict almost anywhere. One needs only to look locally over the past several years to Washington's active involvement with those of all colors and persuasions. The local situation here, while serious, is nowhere near the same or similar to the complexities and nuances that attend the events and the peoples of the ME.

Washington has involved itself in its U.S. Central Command theatre with just about any and every group there is or has been, over a long period of time as groups turnover or come and go. That is a given. There is no question of Washington's involvement with ISIS, al Qaeda and many other extremist Muslim military jihadist groups - no question of it whatsoever.

My objection is to the warped portrayal by too many of Washington's involvement with the many and various ISIS styled groups of the region over several decades. The myth persists for instance that the U.S. created al Qaeda so I attack the simple minded myth when I see it, and I continue to see it regularly and predictably. In other words, Washington's policy of involving itself with groups on all sides, to include as many as possible in Iraq and Syria, does not mean it necessarily has "created" its own enemies of the moment.

You and I probably agree that armchair analysis here and elsewhere miss this important point of the US's long time policy to politically and personally interact inside all sides of a given conflict. It hasn't always been possible for Washington to insert itself among all the parties to a given conflict in a given place at a given time, but that as you should know is the policy and it has been effective over a long haul of decades.

It goes back to the latter phase of the Chinese civil war (1941-49) when Washington (the OSS) had two different teams of operatives, each opposite team quietly accepted by and into the camp of each rival combatant Mao Zedong, Chiang Kai Shek. Mao had OSS operatives trying to make him purr while Chiang had opposite operatives stroking him.

If I may mix it up, two can play this game and there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Where we differ is not simply the main point, but from where the view is obtained; "I dont observe from an armchair!"

I am one of the ppl on the ground. Good luck with that theory thing.

I though I had been clear I wasn't referring to you as someone sitting in an armchair pontificating.

I wrote "You and I probably agree that armchair analysis here and elsewhere...." and in the final sentence of the graf "but as you should know" meaning as I expect you do know.

If that wasn't clear in the writing of the post I want to make it clear here and now. I was not including you in the public that is remote or detached from the realities on the ground of recent decades or presently.

I agree with your prior post that you and I probably have more shared views concerning the topic than either you or I had thought or believed.

Someone could probably get a sheet of paper between you and I lengthwise but that would be about it in these respects

Nice! Its an odd fact that some of my closest friends were those I once threw fists with. :-)

[Thorgal]

If the West will not destroy Islamic State, no one else will.

It's the right decision.

In fact the West is providing training and weapons in Syria to the rebels fighting against Assad.

Some of these rebels are...yes...ISIS...for a long time now...

Furthermore, the West is providing training and weapons to Iraqi Kurdish army now. They need to fight ISIS on the Iraqi front. It's known that some of those Kurdish soldiers are former PKK terrorists...

And to make the story complete, many ex-soldiers of the new Iraqi government were again trained and armed by the West for years. Many of them went over to ISIS...

Pandora's box with 'Axis of Evil' is indeed in Western Hollywood hands...

Maybe the West should bomb the effin lot...dead men tell no tales.

They are also conveniently located out in the desert away from collateral damage.

They are mainly concentrated now in dence populated area's in Iraq, Syria and the Kurdish mountains.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurd_Mountains

In most cases they have civilian or Western hostages.

Took a time to understand to West Point boys that in mountain area's like Tora Bora you can't apply search and destroy as in the desert.

+/- 150 precise US bombings in the region till now didn't stop them to invade new area's.

Furthermore you forget the radical home front in Western cities.

Australia should not be involved in this Apocalypse Now.

[Matej]

If the West will not destroy Islamic State, no one else will.

It's the right decision.

In fact the West is providing training and weapons in Syria to the rebels fighting against Assad.

Some of these rebels are...yes...ISIS...for a long time now...

Furthermore, the West is providing training and weapons to Iraqi Kurdish army now. They need to fight ISIS on the Iraqi front. It's known that some of those Kurdish soldiers are former PKK terrorists...

And to make the story complete, many ex-soldiers of the new Iraqi government were again trained and armed by the West for years. Many of them went over to ISIS...

Pandora's box with 'Axis of Evil' is indeed in Western Hollywood hands...

This region is very complex. Many ethnic and religion groups, extremism, terrorism ...

United States refused to deliver arms Syrian rebels, fighting against Asad's regime.

Airstrikes are sign of weakness and indecision.

Look at Vietnam War and Kennedy's decision pulls infantry out and deploys aviation, bombing.

[rijb]

I'd like to know what 10 Arab states have signed up. And will they (and the UAE) be committing as much as Australia & co.?

[Credo]

I have no problem with Western countries getting involved in this situation, but I think they should take a go-slow policy. At this point in time, ISIS is a sectarian war between Sunni and Shiite Muslims (and infidels in the area). They are not a terrorist organization, per se. That isn't an attempt to minimize the fact that they use barbaric methods of dealing with people. They are not much closer to a conventional military force.

At this point, they are not threatening any western country other than some nasty rhetoric and horrendous methods of executing. That doesn't mean that at some point in the future they won't be a threat, but right now, they aren't. The biggest factor is the number of foreign fighters which could be a threat in the future. Most of those fighters aren't going to fight against the West; they are going to fight for the brand of Islam they support.

So, by all means, we want people on the ground. We want intelligence and we want to know what is going on. We want to have humanitarian assistance for those displaced and for those that need help.

Right now, we need to make as many friends in the region as we can. We don't need any more enemies.

[arjunadawn]

If IS is not bombing Australia, why is Australia helping to bomb them?

So don’t be surprised when IS attacks Australia. Just remember who upped the ante first.

Who is going to protect the 6-8 million Sunni civilians from the Iraqi Shia army once the 30,000 IS forces have been neutralized. There have already been massacres in “liberated” villages, and the Iraqi air force has been dropping indiscriminate barrel bombs on Sunni villages killing hundreds of their own civilian citizens.

In the process Australia and its allies are in danger of getting dragged into a sectarian war that is none of their business. The consequences not the cause will probably be to bring terror to the streets of Sydney and Melbourne. Thus it all becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Wasn’t one of the issues that caused the former Australian PM Howard to lose an election, his recklessly involving Australia in unnecessary foreign wars. When the body bags start coming home, maybe it will be ditto for Abbott.

You are spot on, Dexterm. Why would AU join the US to get involved on the other side of the world? Had they a comprehensive anti jihad policy at home it could be argued they were projecting that policy forward to disable returning jihadis; but this is not the case. I am unaware IS declared war on AU, or really any ME entity. I understand why US is getting involved (I understand, not that I approve of anything the US is currently doing). Unless the US, AU, and all coalition partners had a viable global vision for reducing the menace of islamic jihad by defining it, attacking it, and sustaining this resolution, doing actions such as this ad hoc fiasco in Syria/Iraq is really the same thing as kicking a hornet's nest; the hornets will only disperse.

"It is F--ing amazing how utterly blind the Western vision is."

[arjunadawn]

I have no problem with Western countries getting involved in this situation, but I think they should take a go-slow policy. At this point in time, ISIS is a sectarian war between Sunni and Shiite Muslims (and infidels in the area). They are not a terrorist organization, per se. That isn't an attempt to minimize the fact that they use barbaric methods of dealing with people. They are not much closer to a conventional military force.

At this point, they are not threatening any western country other than some nasty rhetoric and horrendous methods of executing. That doesn't mean that at some point in the future they won't be a threat, but right now, they aren't. The biggest factor is the number of foreign fighters which could be a threat in the future. Most of those fighters aren't going to fight against the West; they are going to fight for the brand of Islam they support.

So, by all means, we want people on the ground. We want intelligence and we want to know what is going on. We want to have humanitarian assistance for those displaced and for those that need help.

Right now, we need to make as many friends in the region as we can. We don't need any more enemies.

Fair enough; I have a different take, though. Once I suspend my conspiracy theory of the US intentionally manipulating events on the ground I am left with the question "what do we do?"

IS is massacring the Shi'ite and this is their reason for being (cause sectarian strife and facilitate murdering each other). But they are also murdering many sunnis and causing life long neighbors to do the same to each other. They are destroying Kurds. I have known many people and it just sucks to know their nightmare never ends and after ridding Saddam and thinking they have a shot at a future, they are mowed down in atrocities that reflect the previous 1,300 years of islamic expansion and hundreds of millions dead, in the first two great jihads.

IS most definitely is a terrorist organization, "per se." I can hardly think a better description can be found unless we pound square pegs into round holes. IS has threatened western countries! Period! IS poses a direct and immediate threat to the remaining regional partners such as Jordan; it is an existential and immediate threat to Jordan.

Your points generally are agreeable but I feel once a decision is made military action must be violent, total, and decisive. Actions less than this will destroy a stronger army every single time. When political restraints are less than above, the military resolve is destroyed when the first shot is fired. Returning now to my conspiracy theory: I would not be surprised if the end result was a tail between the legs debacle for the west, and gross expansion of IS, as whatever it is will next morph into. I predict Jordan will fall because Jordan is allied with the US. Jordan cast its hat in with the US, and the Hashemite Kingdom has little inherent legitimacy. I say this because all of the US allies suffer under Obama as more and more victories are handed to the Muslim Brotherhood and related organs. One could not accidentally assist the enemy this much. Remove all conclusions and simply look at the swath of land and victories islamic jihad has had in the in the past 6 years. Then look at every instance the the US was involved. You will note a steady, significant increase in the power and scope of jihad across the world. Then draw a conclusion.

[chooka]

*Deleted post edited out*

. Before the beheadings.. Nobody wants to get involved in UK.

Now the government has the backing of the country.

And has for Cameron harping on about the danger of isis coming to the UK in force.

It's all scripted. And so many can not see it.

We gave saddam the gas to kill kurds.

Now we're arming them.

Assad may be a dictator. But the opposition does not bear thinking about.

oh please, so you are saying the world framing Islam???? Who was in power in the U.S 1,400 years ago when Islam 1st declared death to all non believers.

[Credo]

I have no problem with Western countries getting involved in this situation, but I think they should take a go-slow policy. At this point in time, ISIS is a sectarian war between Sunni and Shiite Muslims (and infidels in the area). They are not a terrorist organization, per se. That isn't an attempt to minimize the fact that they use barbaric methods of dealing with people. They are not much closer to a conventional military force.

At this point, they are not threatening any western country other than some nasty rhetoric and horrendous methods of executing. That doesn't mean that at some point in the future they won't be a threat, but right now, they aren't. The biggest factor is the number of foreign fighters which could be a threat in the future. Most of those fighters aren't going to fight against the West; they are going to fight for the brand of Islam they support.

So, by all means, we want people on the ground. We want intelligence and we want to know what is going on. We want to have humanitarian assistance for those displaced and for those that need help.

Right now, we need to make as many friends in the region as we can. We don't need any more enemies.

Fair enough; I have a different take, though. Once I suspend my conspiracy theory of the US intentionally manipulating events on the ground I am left with the question "what do we do?"

IS is massacring the Shi'ite and this is their reason for being (cause sectarian strife and facilitate murdering each other). But they are also murdering many sunnis and causing life long neighbors to do the same to each other. They are destroying Kurds. I have known many people and it just sucks to know their nightmare never ends and after ridding Saddam and thinking they have a shot at a future, they are mowed down in atrocities that reflect the previous 1,300 years of islamic expansion and hundreds of millions dead, in the first two great jihads.

IS most definitely is a terrorist organization, "per se." I can hardly think a better description can be found unless we pound square pegs into round holes. IS has threatened western countries! Period! IS poses a direct and immediate threat to the remaining regional partners such as Jordan; it is an existential and immediate threat to Jordan.

Your points generally are agreeable but I feel once a decision is made military action must be violent, total, and decisive. Actions less than this will destroy a stronger army every single time. When political restraints are less than above, the military resolve is destroyed when the first shot is fired. Returning now to my conspiracy theory: I would not be surprised if the end result was a tail between the legs debacle for the west, and gross expansion of IS, as whatever it is will next morph into. I predict Jordan will fall because Jordan is allied with the US. Jordan cast its hat in with the US, and the Hashemite Kingdom has little inherent legitimacy. I say this because all of the US allies suffer under Obama as more and more victories are handed to the Muslim Brotherhood and related organs. One could not accidentally assist the enemy this much. Remove all conclusions and simply look at the swath of land and victories islamic jihad has had in the in the past 6 years. Then look at every instance the the US was involved. You will note a steady, significant increase in the power and scope of jihad across the world. Then draw a conclusion.

Some of our disagreements are simply with semantics. I think they are more a conventional military force than a terrorist organization in the usual sense. They aren't likely to fly planes into buildings in the western world, at this point in time. They most certainly do use terror.

The powers in the Middle East had better get their act together and they need to fight their own battles on this one. The West largely sees this threat through different eyes. ISIS isn't after us, right now. They are after other sects. They aren't after us right now.

The west needs to be involved but a knee-jerk reaction is not in our best interest. We need eyes and ears on the ground and we need a long term strategy. Then we need to act.

[Credo]

I should also add, I have friends and relatives in Northern Iraq. I have a close relative living and working in Irbil and I have friends and former colleagues living in Suleiymaniyah and Dohuk.

[Matej]

I'd like to know what 10 Arab states have signed up. And will they (and the UAE) be committing as much as Australia & co.?

Iran will not take part in this campaign.

Reuters several minutes ago ...

[OZEMADE]

There are 10 countries that have signed up to fight ISIL/ISIS. To date they are Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Turkey and the USA. The Aussies will be using the UAE base at al-Minhad, they are already there using the base .

The only one against us fighting the Terrorists is Christine Milne from the Greens Party, what a dill.

See link to see what is exactly going on, save a lot of arguments on TVF.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-declares-war-on-the-islamic-state-death-cult-20140914-3fol3.html

Edited September 15, 2014 by OZEMADE

[Thorgal]

I'd like to know what 10 Arab states have signed up. And will they (and the UAE) be committing as much as Australia & co.?

Iran will not take part in this campaign.

Reuters several minutes ago ...

Iran is not taking part in this coalition campaign, but ISIS started attacks on Iranian soil not so long ago.

Also Iran has a Kurdish minority.

Iran provided weapons to the Iranian Kurds to fight ISIS.

A dream scenario for the average US war strategist to enter Iran for its 'Right Cause'.

By the way, the US special forces and military advisors are still looking in vain for weapons of mass destruction in the region...perhaps more luck in Iran...

Australian Christine Milne's opinion is not so stupid at all.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Thorgal

[Chicog]

I'd like to know what 10 Arab states have signed up. And will they (and the UAE) be committing as much as Australia & co.?

Iran will not take part in this campaign.

Reuters several minutes ago ...

As I said before, Iran has been taking part in this campaign since the start of August.

If you mean that America won't let them join the coalition, that part is true.

Which I think is dumb, because I'd rather see Iranian soldiers in the firing line than American ones, and that's coming from a Brit.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Chicog

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[bbbbooboo]

i suggest it looks like Abbot is going to get more Aussies killed in this apparently pointless war that nobody's going to "win". I would be a very angry father(mother etc) if my son was needlessly slaughtered in this sh*thole piece of desert. The Russians learned their lesson in Afghanistan and the Americans never seem to learn theirs having lost 65,000 troops in Vietnam for another unobservable outcome. And so the killing goes on at the behest of our idiot political leaders or "big ears" as Abbot is affectionately known

[boomerangutang]

If the West will not destroy Islamic State, no one else will.

It's the right decision.

Iran, which is nearly all Shiite, should be up in arms re; the Shiite-hating/killing Sunni dominated ISIL. What are the Iranians doing, besides sitting tight, while the US/Aussies/Europeans do the dirty work of combat.

If IS is not bombing Australia, why is Australia helping to bomb them?

So dont be surprised when IS attacks Australia. Just remember who upped the ante first.

It's a continuation of the Middle East's endless problems. How much stems from their mean-spirited belief systems and how much stems from frustrations/anger ....is debatable. Among other things, the Aussies are doing a precautionary move. If you have a house in a dry area and there's tall grass all around, you'd be smart to go and cut the grass , even when it's green.

In today's news: Australian security forces defused a group of Muslims (in Australia) who were purportedly hatching a plan to go out and randomly cut peoples' heads off. It sounds alarmist to mention it, but the story was broadcast on a reputable news outlet (US's NPR).

[boomerangutang]

i suggest it looks like Abbot is going to get more Aussies killed in this apparently pointless war that nobody's going to "win". I would be a very angry father(mother etc) if my son was needlessly slaughtered in this sh*thole piece of desert. The Russians learned their lesson in Afghanistan and the Americans never seem to learn theirs having lost 65,000 troops in Vietnam for another unobservable outcome. And so the killing goes on at the behest of our idiot political leaders or "big ears" as Abbot is affectionately known

Some prior wars proved to be mistakes. However, sometimes the front lines of a battle are far from one's home country. Any Aussies killed in the fight against ISIS will have put their lives on the line to help keep their home country from getting more screwed up (from Islamic extremist threats). If you don't believe that, then you might think: let's not show any aggression towards Islamic extremism, because we don't want to piss off those young men who are already on an angry crusade, and who respond with beheadings whenever the mood suits them, for whatever reason - as long as they're shouting 'Allah Akbar' it makes whatever they do justified.

[RickBradford]

^^^

Exactly. Trying to appease these sort of people never works.

In fact, they see appeasement efforts as a sign of weakness on our part, so they pursue their goals all the more strongly.

EDIT: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

Edited September 19, 2014 by RickBradford

[ABCer]

Good on Oz not only for committing forces to this important task, but for assigning to it as many as 600 troops and eight top of the line combat aircraft.

This broad and inclusive coalition of 40 nations takes the bite out of the hounds that accuse the United States of warmongering. The reality is that it's a dangerous and treacherous world and in the ME it can literally be a world of barbarians.

This from the OP is a good one that really misses the mark entirely and completely......

In taking a big jump ahead of international bodies, America seeks to emerge as a Hollywood-style hero battling a crisis of its own making," Admiral Ali Shamkhani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told state news agency IRNA

America again. So it seems that the good admiral has already seen too many Batman, Superman, Spiderman movies in the covert secrecy of his private basement movie studio or wherever he and the Iranian elites catch their Hollywood movies.

Glib and culturally deficient statements such as these reflect the nature and character of those who not only oppose countering barbarian terrorists but who actively support them as state sponsors of terror and terrorists.

In my opinion it is a hasty move. Dangerous and treacherous world it is. Fanatical barbarians they are. But...

France is providing a Tourism incentive programme.

USA is wagging the dog and drumming up a coalition of unwilling.

Kerry is wagging his tongue - what else he has ever done?

Most of the brave 40 will just sign on a dotted line and throw in a few $$$ collected from us.

But Tony Abott plays Tony Abbot jumping ahead of himself again.

There is no substitute for brains. And no compensation for the lack of such.

600 bodies! Not at his own expense again. Just returned from 'The Deep' but forgot our money there.

Could have used these 600 men in combatting home dangers from the same barbarians.

No, I am not impressed.

Edited September 21, 2014 by ABCer

[jamhar]

Australia has a tiny defence force compared to the U.S but is always one the first to stand shoulder to shoulder

No doubt from me. A lot of talkers out there, very few back it up.

From my experience, Aussies back it up.

[Seastallion]

i suggest it looks like Abbot is going to get more Aussies killed in this apparently pointless war that nobody's going to "win". I would be a very angry father(mother etc) if my son was needlessly slaughtered in this sh*thole piece of desert. The Russians learned their lesson in Afghanistan and the Americans never seem to learn theirs having lost 65,000 troops in Vietnam for another unobservable outcome. And so the killing goes on at the behest of our idiot political leaders or "big ears" as Abbot is affectionately known

Some prior wars proved to be mistakes. However, sometimes the front lines of a battle are far from one's home country. Any Aussies killed in the fight against ISIS will have put their lives on the line to help keep their home country from getting more screwed up (from Islamic extremist threats). If you don't believe that, then you might think: let's not show any aggression towards Islamic extremism, because we don't want to piss off those young men who are already on an angry crusade, and who respond with beheadings whenever the mood suits them, for whatever reason - as long as they're shouting 'Allah Akbar' it makes whatever they do justified.

Rubbish. You're showing how inculcated you are to the propaganda. No amount of Ozzy lives lost in Syria or Iraq will stop anything happening inside Australia itself. No victory in the ME will affect Australia at all except in diplomatic relations with the US.

If Australia wants to address the problem, they need to look inwards, not send men to battlefields that are not of Australian making, nor are they battlefields that will give anything positive, even if there is victory.

[F430murci]

i suggest it looks like Abbot is going to get more Aussies killed in this apparently pointless war that nobody's going to "win". I would be a very angry father(mother etc) if my son was needlessly slaughtered in this sh*thole piece of desert. The Russians learned their lesson in Afghanistan and the Americans never seem to learn theirs having lost 65,000 troops in Vietnam for another unobservable outcome. And so the killing goes on at the behest of our idiot political leaders or "big ears" as Abbot is affectionately known

Some prior wars proved to be mistakes. However, sometimes the front lines of a battle are far from one's home country. Any Aussies killed in the fight against ISIS will have put their lives on the line to help keep their home country from getting more screwed up (from Islamic extremist threats). If you don't believe that, then you might think: let's not show any aggression towards Islamic extremism, because we don't want to piss off those young men who are already on an angry crusade, and who respond with beheadings whenever the mood suits them, for whatever reason - as long as they're shouting 'Allah Akbar' it makes whatever they do justified.

Rubbish. You're showing how inculcated you are to the propaganda. No amount of Ozzy lives lost in Syria or Iraq will stop anything happening inside Australia itself. No victory in the ME will affect Australia at all except in diplomatic relations with the US.

If Australia wants to address the problem, they need to look inwards, not send men to battlefields that are not of Australian making, nor are they battlefields that will give anything positive, even if there is victory.

Haha, you complain about methods of inward protection, outward protection, manner in which passports are canceled for whack job supporters and any all measures employed by intelligent countries to strike at the heart of the problem before it spirals out of control. Your little attempts at prefaces or deflection of your true thought processes are double talk, obvious, thinly veiled double talk.

The problem with people like you is you and supporters of the nutcases is that you guys don't have the courage to just say how you really feel without trying to be all PC and act like you have no true agenda.

[Ulysses G.]

The problem with people like you is you and supporters of the nutcases is that you guys don't have the courage to just say how you really feel without trying to be all PC and act like you have no true agenda.

100% true. These types are nothing propagandists that try to manipulate people with spin, distortion and lies, but they never come out and admit their true agenda, as no one would listen to them if they did.

[OZEMADE]

(AFP) - Prime Minister Tony Abbott on Monday warned Australians fighting with extremists in the Middle East they face lengthy jail terms if they return home as the government tightens counter-terrorism laws. AFP

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/25078488/pm-promises-jail-for-returning-australian-jihadists/