To be fair this whole discussion is going way over his head.

You know, you'd be alot more convincing in your arguments if you didn't take every opportunity to insult him.

:lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

-PB

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/09/24/man-shot-dead-after-two-counter-terror-police-stabbed


An 18-year-old man has been fatally shot in Melbourne after stabbing two counter-terrorism officers, police say.
Source AAP 24 SEP 2014 - 12:44 AM UPDATED 22 MINS AGO
   

A teenage terrorism suspect shot dead in Melbourne greeted two officers with a handshake before stabbing them multiple times, police say.

The 18-year-old Narre Warren man, who police believe may have previously displayed an ISIS flag, met the officers outside Endeavour Hills police station on the city's outskirts on Tuesday night.

He then stabbed one, an AFP officer, a number of times, before twice stabbing a Victorian officer in the forearm, Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius said.

Mr Cornelius said the Victorian officer fired a single shot that killed the man.

"Our members had no inkling that this individual posed a threat to them," he told reporters at the scene early on Wednesday morning.

"It's absolutely clear to us that our members really had no choice other than to act in the way in which they did."

Both officers were taken to hospital, where they remain in a stable condition.

AFP Commander Bruce Giles said the officers and the man had spoken cordially before the stabbing.

"The incident took place in the course of normal greetings; so, meeting with the individual, shaking hands, introducing and then the incident unfolded," he said.

He said it appeared the man had been acting alone.

Commander Giles confirmed there was information suggesting the man had recently been seen with a flag of the jihadist group ISIS, also known as Islamic State.

However, Commander Giles said the officers had wanted to speak to the man about a "routine" issue.

"Police had cause for concern," he said.

Neither police spokesman would comment on media reports that the man had made specific threats against Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Mr Cornelius said police had not singled the man out.

"Where we see individuals behaving in a way which causes concern for public safety, we have to reach out to those individuals," he said.

Police would not confirm the man's name or occupation, or comment on suggestions he had recently had his passport cancelled.

Bomb squad members and police dogs scanned the scene, but Mr Cornelius said the measures were precautionary.

The homicide squad and professional standards officers are investigating.

Incredible :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Fair call, but I wouldn't really call it an arguement when all he does is speculate on bullshit and put words in your mouth.

Sorry guys, I’m sceptical on all this. I don’t even know who or what this ISIS is for starters? I think the West is using the fear of ‘terrorism’ to make laws that take away our liberties. Sorry, I’m sceptical.

I'm going to watch a lot of Doomsday Prepers and America Unplugged over the next few days. Shits gonna go down soon, and when the zombies emerge from nuclear war, I'm going to be f*cking stoked. This life is so boring without zombies.

Did lol a bit.

The legal argument for Australian military action against Islamic State must be watertight

Date
September 25, 2014 - 12:00AM

Would Australian military action against the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq, and potentially Syria, comply with international law? Even if it is lawful, is it morally justified to kill terrorist fighters?

In Iraq, the answer is broadly yes and Prime Minister Abbott is right to say so.

A country is permitted to use military force against terrorism in another country with the consent of the latter's government. Iraq has a sovereign right to protect itself from terrorist violence, and to call on other countries to help. A coalition of countries, including Australia and Arab states, is heeding Iraq's call. The Iraqi government is the legitimate political authority in that country, competent to request external assistance.

Some international lawyers may argue that when terrorist violence rises to the level of an armed conflict – as it has in Iraq – foreign countries may no longer intervene to aid the government. This is because foreign intervention is thought to interfere in the right of a foreign population to freely choose its political future, even by resorting to civil war to change its government.
Advertisement

Legal opinions are divided on this view. Even if it were correct, other factors are decisive in Iraq. The Islamic State is largely not a domestic rebellion by Iraqis against their own government, even if some Iraqi Sunni groups are involved. IS largely comprises foreign fighters from Syria and elsewhere. The UN Security Council has commanded all states to cooperate in repressing terrorism generally, and has previously authorised international assistance to fight terrorism in Iraq specifically. Foreign military assistance to the Iraqi government is not prohibited in these circumstances.

Iraq's consent is, however, also the limit of what Australia can do. Australian forces must act within any boundaries imposed by Iraq, or risk illegally using force contrary to Article 2(4) the United Nations Charter.

Otherwise the only other authority to use force in Iraq would arise if Australia had been attacked and was acting in self-defence, or if the UN Security Council had authorised military intervention. Neither has occurred. There is no right of unilateral humanitarian intervention, nor any right to kill any terrorists wherever they are.

Prime Minister Abbott is also correct to say that the legal situation is entirely different from Australia's invasion of Iraq in 2003. At that time, Saddam Hussein's government did not consent to military intervention, Australia had not been attacked, and there was no Security Council authorisation. That was an illegal, aggressive war.

Even if Iraq consents to Australia's current military involvement, Australian forces must also comply with the international law of war and international human rights law. In particular, the law of war requires Australia only to target military objectives and to spare civilians, and not to cause excessive civilian casualties.

Some Australian government ministers have suggested Australia would not be at "war" but is rather conducting a "humanitarian" mission. Such political labelling does not determine the legal situation. If Australia uses military force against IS fighters in Iraq, it is thereby engaged in a non-international armed conflict to which the law of war applies. In short, Australia would then be at "war".

For now Australia is limiting its deployment to Iraq. The Prime Minister is correct to say that intervention in Syria would be a different legal story. To intervene lawfully, Australia would have to show that Syria's Assad government had consented, or that it was acting in self-defence against an armed attack by a terrorist group, or that the Security Council approved of it. So far, none of those conditions has been fulfilled.

The US has now attacked IS and other terrorist groups in Syria. It is yet to fully explain its legal reasons. It has suggested that one group, Khorasan, was about to launch an imminent attack on the US or other western countries. More information is needed to know if attacking that group would be lawful in self-defence.

There is no evidence that the Assad government consented in advance to US strikes on terrorist groups. Syrian media reports quote the Syrian government as saying that "Syria supports any international effort that aims at fighting terrorism". The lack of protest by Syria may signal its acquiescence or approval of foreign strikes.

These are highly uncertain legal arguments. No terrorist group is currently mounting or threatening an armed attack on Australia. Terrorist crimes or campaigns do not usually meet the high threshold of an "armed attack" which triggers a right of military self-defence under international law, particularly where the terrorist group is not controlled by another country.

Australia has also said that it does not "recognise" Assad's authority as the government of Syria, perhaps implying that its consent may be unnecessary. That argument is highly doubtful. Under international law, Assad's regime is presumptively still Syria's effective government, even if its authority is under severe strain, and regardless of what we may morally think of Assad. Australia's non-recognition of Assad does not entitle it to attack groups in Syrian territory without Assad's consent, unless in self-defence or UN approved.

Australia should ensure it has a much clearer legal basis on which to act before getting involved in Syria. UN Security Council authorisation is by far the preferable option. Collective control of violence is almost always superior to unilateral action by individual countries, which tends to be more subjective and open to abuse.

For similar reasons, arming anti-IS forces in Iraq or Syria (whether the Kurdish Peshmerga or the Free Syrian Army) is only legal with the consent of the governments concerned, or if UN authorised. International law prohibits countries from interfering in other countries by supporting non-state armed groups.

The political and moral justifications for attacking IS in Iraq and Syria are also relevant to the legal issues. There are good reasons for international action to counter the Islamic State. The threat to Australia's national security, and the beheading of westerners, are not particularly persuasive grounds.

Far more important is averting the humanitarian catastrophe that they are inflicting on ordinary people in Iraq and Syria. IS has executed thousands of unarmed prisoners in cold blood. They torture, rape and enslave with impunity. They threaten minorities with genocide. They show no respect for the law of war or human rights, and are committing mass war crimes and crimes against humanity on an industrial scale.

As one Free Syrian Army commander, who fights alongside IS in Syria, told me on the Syrian border this month, "IS is crazy. They shoot you for no reason." It does not help cool legal analysis to call IS evil or monsters, but perhaps they are. Our society, and the international community, must stand against them.

IS has also driven hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians from their homes. Neighbouring countries like Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey are bursting at the seams with many millions of refugees, and still more come every day. The Syrian crisis is now the largest in the UN refugee agency's history.

There are acute risks of the terrorist contagion destabilising other countries. Already Turkey is a "jihadi highway" into Syria. On the Syrian border there this month, I saw and met Syrian fighters walking openly in Turkish towns, with the full knowledge of the Turkish authorities – who sympathise with Islamists. I saw IS medical centres patching up the wounded. There are even army disposal stores where you can kit up before heading off to fight.

Regrettably, violence is necessary to stop IS. Human rights sometimes need to be defended by hard military power. IS fighters on the battlefield must be killed or captured. As long as they are winning on the battlefield, hard violence is the only signal they will respond to. Our killing must comply with international law, and be strictly necessary and proportionate to the threat.

It also matters who does the killing. It is not the responsibility of the United States to provide global public security, and to assume all the risks which that entails. The international community as a whole must share in it.

Australia is the world's 12th largest economy. We are more than a middle power. We cannot bury our heads in the sand in splendid isolation. Who will protect civilians from death and terror if we do not? When should we act for humanity, if not now?

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-legal-argument-for-australian-military-action-against-islamic-state-must-be-watertight-20140924-10lisw.html#ixzz3EHdpNZTR

That Cambodia deal has this country hitting a new low.

-PB

Yes. Not sure how Scott Morrison can sleep at night after doing a deal like this.

He does look uncomfortable in this pic, it's almost like he knows how despicable this deal is

This guys videos are brilliant :lol:
[youtube]ohghRjfGdUg[/youtube]

"She's telling the truth, or at least she thinks she is"

:lol:

Sorry all, I pay out on the other codes for not being good citizens, so I have to apply the same rule to our own….

http://world.einnews.com/article/226323988/fmdmYCKNBLvXr4DR

Tax Justice Network report reveals tax burden shifting from companies to ordinary taxpayers
KRISTIN SHORTEN AND AAP NEWS CORP AUSTRALIA NETWORK SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 1:55PM
BE THE FIRST TO RESPOND

MANY of Australia’s biggest companies are dodging tax, forcing ordinary taxpayers to fund vital services, according to a new report.

Released today, the report Who Pays for Our Common Wealth? Tax Practices of the ASX 200 claims companies including Frank Lowy’s Westfield aren’t coughing up enough cash at tax time.

“While most individuals pay their fair share, some corporations bend the rules to legally lower their tax obligations. The rest of us pay the price,” the report says.

The report, which examines the tax practices of Australia’s largest publicly listed companies, shows the effective tax rate of ASX 200 companies over the last decade is only 23 per cent.

If the largest Australian listed companies paid taxes at the statutory corporate tax rate of 30 per cent, it would produce an additional $8.4 billion in annual revenues.

Report producers, United Voice union and Tax Justice Network Australia, say the report also reveals that 29 per cent of Australia’s top 200 listed companies pay effective corporate tax rates of 10 per cent or less.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/fy14-budget-deficit-blows-out/story-e6frg90f-1227071767224?nk=95296249d193e736a0f815a6e4101708

FY14 budget deficit blows out
AAP SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 4:11PM


The final federal budget deficit for the 2013/14 year has come in at $48.5 billion, $30 billion more than initially forecast.

"It is not a confected number, it is the real figure," Treasurer Joe Hockey told reporters in Canberra on Thursday.

Mr Hockey noted his Labor predecessor, Wayne Swan, had promised an $18 billion deficit when he delivered his last budget in May 2013.

"Two years ago he promised a $5.4 billion surplus."

Mr Hockey said successive Labor governments had delivered six successive deficits totalling $240 billion with many more forecast.

"The coalition inherited a shambles of a budget, a weakening economy and rising unemployment," he said, adding if no policy action was taken, gross debt would have spiralled to $667 billion over the medium term.


strange how this didn't get much air time?

Ofcourse not Bat - notor/jules and support cast here know better how to run the country - they'll blame the Libs forced Swan's hand whilst in gov :lol:

Everyone's a bit bored of the LNP refusing to take responsibility for their own shortcomings.

Remember when Abbott said that the corruption in NSW Libs was Labor's fault?

You are just deflecting from the truth that you can't handle Matt....these figures are the ACTUALS from when labor handed over, when they handed over they forecast the deficit to be $18 billion........oh well a lazy $30 billion out......really close and accurate forecasting there by the world's best treasurer...LOL\:d/ \:d/ \:d/ \:d/

well i guess everyone except you and a handfull of greenie lefty commo's in here are a bit bored of the ALP refusing to take responsibility for the fucken great mess and pack of lies left behind by the incompetent morons call the ALP

;) ;)

I'm a bit chuffed that I've been made a poster child of the left :lol: I think there are others that are more deserving but thanks!

BERDGERT ERMERGERNCERRRRR

So it's ok to blame the LNP in 4 years time when they still have a wrecked budget? :lol:

-PB

funny how all of you just can't face the fact and accept the truth, ducking and weaving like scared mice....anything to avoid facing the facts that the ALP left a fucken great mess, pure and simple, the worlds best treasurer fucken up and here is the
proof.

and in 4 years if the LNP have done the same, go right ahead rip them a new one, i am in no way a hard and fast LNP voter, each and every election i decide who i think is best for the job, i have voted for the ALP previously as well as independants.

In our local area, i am currently fighting our LNP candidate against a development in our area that doesn't meet our local zoning laws........and to be quite frank getting some great help from the Greens and the ALP along with one independant, probably because there is an election in the next 6 months here is NSW

Where have I ever dodged the ALP fucking things up? :lol:

I know they have, everybody else knows they did.

People are laughing at the fact that the LNP will use that as excuse to hide behind their own poor governance for the next three years lol.

-PB

The current plan is to take forever to try and get the budget measures passed, guess who they can blame for the budget being worse then?

Wayne Swan was on Q&A last night, gave a good explanation of what the budget issues are at the moment. They've been covered many times here in vain so won't repeat them. Was just nice to have a politician not work in 3 word catch phrases and not treat the audience as fools.