For dual citizens or Aussie citizens only?

Didn't think we legally could without changes to certain laws?

-PB

The guy i work with lived through shelling and attacks, he lived near Sarajevo. His dad was captured and put into a camp and doesn't sleep more than 2 hours a night as a result. It's messed up.

Yep it is. Wife's best friend's brother and dad both have ptsd . The dad is now building a two meter fence as his new neighbour's are serbian . He didn't have a problem before . Then bam . Hell we know a Bosnian serb and he was fine with the dad up until 2 weeks ago . The brother has it tough and he is suffering from the nightmares . My mother in law hates the sight of tanks and still finds it hard to hear sirens , my father in law isn't that bad as he lived in the country and his town wasn't targeted as much

Edited by mvfcarsenal16.8: 1/10/2014 07:04:18 PM

That's fucked. A bit of perspective at how great things are here though right?

Yep they love it hear . They are free to be themselves. They lived in Germany for 10 years as refugees but adore australia as it's the country who let them in permanently . It was either here or the us . They chose hear as they heard the stories of the koalas and kangaroos :lol:

ISIS has guaranteed its own destruction by executing hostages





This story was published: 16 hours ago October 04, 2014 6:54PM

THIS article was written by William Saletan for the American website Slate. It has been republished with permission.

Islamic State’s beheading videos have done nothing but mobilise the West for war.

“Another message to America and its allies,” says the grisly video, released Friday by the jihadist group. This time, the victim is British hostage Alan Henning. “Because of our Parliament’s decision to attack the Islamic State, I, as a member of the British public, will now pay the price for that decision,” the doomed man says in his scripted farewell. The video ends with a warning to President Obama: If U.S. air strikes on ISIS continue, an American hostage, Peter Kassig, will be next.

Morally, these are homicide videos. But politically, they’re suicide videos. They’re the means by which ISIS accelerates its own destruction. For months, ISIS rampaged through Iraq, seizing land, wealth, and weapons. No power capable of stopping the militia was willing to stand in its way. The United States, sick of war, hoped to stay out or do as little as possible. Even after President Obama announced air strikes on Iraq on Aug. 7, more Americans opposed the strikes than strongly supported them.

The videos changed that. By issuing threats and ripping off the heads of Americans, Brits, and a Frenchman, IS thought it would scare us away. The words spoken on camera delivered that message explicitly: Get out and stay out, or we’ll kill more of your people. But the videos didn’t dampen American, British, or French support for military action. They increased it.

On Aug. 19, nearly two weeks after Obama announced his air strikes, IS posted its first video of the murder of a U.S. citizen. The victim was journalist James Foley. “You have plotted against us and gone far out of your way to find reasons to interfere in our affairs,” the executioner told Obama. He presented Foley’s death as a warning that further assaults “will result in the bloodshed of your people.”

The air strikes continued, and on Sept. 2, IS posted another beheading video, this one ending in the death of journalist Steven Sotloff. The executioner, again addressing Obama, called Sotloff’s death a punishment for “your insistence on continuing your bombings.” He concluded:

“Just as your missiles continue to strike our people, our knife will continue to strike the necks of your people. We take this opportunity to warn those governments that enter this evil alliance of America against the Islamic State to back off and leave our people alone.”

Along the way, IS posted other decapitation videos. One featured a Kurdish soldier, with a message to Kurdish leaders: “You have made a big mistake by joining hands with America.” Others showed the murders of captive Lebanese soldiers. On Sept. 13, IS posted another video, this time beheading aid worker David Haines and addressing British Prime Minister David Cameron. “This British man has to pay the price for your promise … to arm the Peshmerga against the Islamic State,” said the executioner.

“Your evil alliance with America, which continues to strike the Muslims of Iraq and most recently bombed the Haditha Dam, will only accelerate your destruction, and playing the role of the obedient lapdog, Cameron, will only drag you and your people into another bloody and unwinnable war.”

On Sept. 22, IS urged its followers to kill “the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State.” The message singled out “especially the spiteful and filthy French.” A militant group in Algeria, claiming allegiance to IS, responded by seizing a Frenchman and threatening to kill him unless France stopped bombing IS in Iraq within 24 hours. Two days later, the group released a video of his decapitation.

If, as advertised, these videos were meant to intimidate citizens of the United States, Britain, and France, they failed. In June, well before most Americans knew much about IS, a CBS News/New York Times poll asked about the possibility that “U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria will lead to a long and costly involvement there.” Fifty-four per cent of U.S. adults said they were very concerned about that risk. But in the latest CBS/Times poll, taken more than a week after the Sotloff video, the percentage expressing that level of concern was down to 40. In fact, after the videos, Americans were more likely to say Obama should have kept troops in Iraq all along. In the June poll, 50 per cent of respondents said the U.S. “should have removed all U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011.” Only 42 per cent said the U.S. “should have left some troops.” By September, that gap had vanished. Forty-seven per cent said we should have left some troops in Iraq; 46 per cent said we should have removed them all.

Public support for arming the Kurds also increased. In an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken Aug. 13­—17, prior to the Foley video, a plurality of U.S. adults — 49 per cent to 45 per cent — opposed “providing arms and ammunition to the Kurdish military forces, who are opposing the Sunni insurgents in Iraq.” But in a follow-up ABC/Post poll, taken Sept. 4—7, just after the Sotloff video, those numbers flipped. Fifty-eight per cent of respondents supported arming the Kurds; only 32 per cent were against it.

Cutting off the heads of Americans, while telling the U.S. public to stay out, clearly backfired. A Pew survey taken Aug. 14—17, prior to the Foley video, asked Americans whether they were more concerned that U.S. military action against IS would go too far or that it wouldn’t go far enough. Fifty-one per cent worried more about going too far; only 32 per cent worried more about not going far enough. A month later, after the Foley and Sotloff videos, that entire 19-point margin had dissolved. The percentage of respondents who worried more that the United States wouldn’t go far enough had jumped 9 points, while the percentage who worried more that we would go too far had dropped 10 points.

The videos can’t account for every shift in the polls. Advances by IS on the battlefield no doubt played a role, as did panicky rhetoric from U.S. politicians. Still, it’s noteworthy how much of the surge in enthusiasm for military action occurred during the period in which the videos were released, as opposed to the period in which Obama declared IS a threat to U.S. interests and launched strikes against it. In the June ABC/Post poll, only 45 per cent of Americans endorsed “U.S. air strikes against the Sunni insurgents in Iraq.” Fewer than half of these supporters (20 per cent of the total sample) said they supported such air strikes strongly. By Aug. 13—17, a week after Obama’s announcement, support had increased by about 10 points: 54 per cent supported air strikes, and 31 per cent supported them strongly. But by Sept. 4—7, after the Sotloff video, support had climbed much higher. Seventy-one per cent of Americans supported air strikes, and 52 per cent supported them strongly. From these numbers, one could argue that the IS videos were twice as effective as Obama in rallying American support for war.


Support also rose in Britain. YouGov surveys of U.K. adults show two big spikes in public support for “the RAF taking part in air strike operations” against IS: one after the Foley video, another after the Sotloff video. From Aug. 11 to Sept. 5, the British public’s net margin of support for air strikes ballooned from 1 to 28 percentage points. The Haines video, released on Sept. 13, did nothing to stop this trend. In fact, the margin of support continued to increase. By Sept. 25, it stood at 33 points (57 to 24 per cent), giving the British parliament a mandate to join the fight.

In France, the effect was more dramatic. In a survey taken Sept. 18—19, French adults were almost evenly divided on whether their country should participate in military intervention against IS. Fifty-three per cent supported joining the fight; 47 per cent opposed it. A week later, after Algerian IS followers decapitated a Frenchman to punish the country for its meddling, support for a French role in the military campaign rose to 69 per cent, while opposition fell to 31 per cent.

U.S. military leaders call IS a “learning organisation.” But a learning organisation would have figured out by now that its videos, despite their message to stay out, were having the opposite effect. To rationalise the continuing production of videos, you’d have to postulate that IS, while trying to form an infant caliphate, wants to engulf itself in a war not just with the United States, but with European military powers (and Australia and Canada) as well. That’s just too far-fetched.

There’s a simpler explanation. IS isn’t a learning organisation. It’s a killing organisation. And it can’t stop killing, even when what it’s killing is itself.

This article was written by William Saletan from Slate and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.
http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/isis-has-guaranteed-its-own-destruction-by-executing-hostages/story-fnh81ifq-1227080133936

Edited by Joffa: 5/10/2014 12:18:24 PM

Australia has just conducted it's first airstrikes in Northern Iraq. Dropped two bombs on an 'ISIS facility' (whatever that is). No reports as of yet on whether it killed an ISIS members.

First use of Australian attack aircraft since the preliminary bombing mission of Iraq 2003.

Dem humanitarian bombs

Yes. ISIS are going to be stopped with love, kindness, and kinder surprises.

They're not going to be stopped with collateral damage, that's for sure.

Are you really this thick?

Too thick to be able to untangle this extremely witty ad hominem, yes.

Well the Government did say it was a humanitarian mission o:)

-PB

well there you have it
someone with credibility finally weighs in


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/mh370-airline-boss-claims-missing-flight-did-not-crash-into-indian-ocean-9790455.html

Fucken illuminate

So if the plane isn't off the coast of Australia, where is it?

I love all of the conspiracy theories out there about it, supposedly the cure for aids and invisibility technology were on the same plane flying to Beijing of all places.

It's probably sitting in a hangar on Diego Garcia or the Rothschild's were bored and wanted to fuck shit up.

Poor passangers be getting a good probing.

there are a multitude of possibilities however why is it that as far as the stupids are concerned, if its not the story the lying media tell us then it must be aliens? this is of course a rhetorical question as thats the world view the stupids subscribe to.

being presented with such a limited choice means either you believe the bullshit or you must believe in aliens

If I remember correctly, you think it's in the South China Sea, is that still your final answer?

no, how should I know...
I said its the most likely explanation so far but i'm far from committed to it

i only know when i'm being bullshitted to and called it out as such

World’s deadliest jihadists are not in Iraq or Syria — they’re in Mali

THIS is the world’s most dangerous place to be right now.

It’s a region overrun by Islamic militants baying for blood — but it is not Iraq or Syria.

It’s northern Mali in West Africa.

French forces won back the territory from al-Qaeda in early 2013 with more than 4500 soldiers in the region, according to Foreign Policy.

But now that France has withdrawn most of its troops, Mali has become the deadliest place on the planet.

In the past 15 months alone, a floundering UN peacekeeping mission has suffered 31 deaths and 91 injuries.

Now the United Nations’ Mali envoy Bert Koenders is leaving after less than a year in the role to become the Netherlands’ foreign minister.

Malian foreign minister Abdoulaye Diop last week begged the UN Security Council to take urgent measures in the increasingly unstable area, the BBC reported.

He warned that the region ran “the risk of becoming the destination of hordes of terrorists”.

UN peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous promised that combat helicopters and drones would be sent to Mali in the coming months as it faces ambushes, rockets, mortar shells and suicide attacks.

But in the meantime, the neglected area is descending into chaos, with the spectre of Ebola also looming large in the country, which borders the epicentre of the viral epidemic, Guinea.

The UN mission’s website says Mali “has been confronted by a profound crisis with serious political, security, socio-economic, humanitarian and human rights consequences.”

It attributed the problem to years of weak infrastructure and governance, fragile social cohesion and deep-seated feelings among communities in the north of being neglected, marginalised and unfairly treated.

Mali has also faced problems with environmental degradation, climate change and economic shocks.

“These conditions were exacerbated by more recent factors of instability, including corruption, nepotism, abuse of power, internal strife and deteriorating capacity of the national army,” the UN reports.

Al-Qaeda took control of northern Mali in 2012 after a coup sparked by Tuareg rebels in the country’s vast desert.

The extremists sidelined the Tuaregs and had begun to advance on the capital, Bamako, when French and African troops intervened in January 2013.

Minusma, a 9000-strong UN peacekeeping mission, took over in July 2013, but has faced continuing insurgent attacks.

With French forces leaving the area, the UN is struggling to cope.

Will the world take notice of Mali’s predicament?

http://www.news.com.au/world/worlds-deadliest-jihadists-are-not-in-iraq-or-syria-theyre-in-mali/story-fndir2ev-1227091213032

Africa is so yesterday, the middle east is the in thing right now

Maybe if Mali had Oil it would be different.

If you only listened to the popular news channels you'd get the impression that Syria, Ukraine and Iraq are the only countries in the world currently experiencing unrest.

Mali does have oil :roll:

so do most of the ebola nations :roll:

How much ?

So it looks like there could be a Russian submarine grounded under the Stockholm Archipelago. Apparently the Swedish military intercepted some encrypted Russian codes, and a Liberian flagged, Russian Oil Tanker has been making some pretty odd movements in the area, basically criss-crossing the same patch of water for the last couple of days. The Swedish military has swung into full action, deploying anti-submarine boats and planes to the area.

If it turns out it is a Russian submarine that has become grounded, and the oil tanker is covering as a mothership, this could lead to some red faces for Russia. Surely they don't want another Kursk incident.

Liberian huh
the timing is exquisite

*eagerly awaits another rice crackers explanation for this*

dont believe everything you hear and read is all i'm saying

I read that reptilians aren't a thing, should I believe or disbelieve?

Poland to move 1000s of troops toward eastern border

DateOctober 28, 2014 - 5:19AM
Monika Scislowska

Warsaw, Poland: Poland will move thousands of troops toward its eastern borders in a historic realignment of a military structure built in the Cold War, the country's defence minister told The Associated Press on Monday.

Tomasz Siemoniak said the troops are needed in the east because of the conflict in neighbouring Ukraine.

"The geopolitical situation has changed, we have the biggest crisis of security since the Cold War and we must draw conclusions from that," Mr Siemoniak said.

He said that at least three military bases in the east will see their populations increase from the current 30 per cent of capacity to almost 90 per cent by 2017, and that more military hardware will be moved to those bases as well.



He said it was not some "nervous or radical move" but that because of this "situation of threat we would like those units in the east of Poland to be more efficient."

Although Poland joined NATO in 1999, most of Poland's 120,000-member army is based along the country's western border, as a relic of its former status as a Soviet Bloc member.

The units in the east, like the air defence unit in Siedlce, have only 30 per cent of jobs filled in line with a plan that calls for 100 per cent of troops "only in the case of war."


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/poland-to-move-1000s-of-troops-toward-eastern-border-20141028-11cq52.html#ixzz3HNbtNXgk

Edited by Joffa: 28/10/2014 07:39:29 AM