- Popular Post
Duffman
-
Posts
90 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Duffman
-
-
12 hours ago, Tesla said:
Yeah definitely he has played his cards well, making himself basically the 2nd most famous "pro-Muslim" (for lack of a better term) personality in the country and also non-stop repping Western Sydney, but still I imagine they dont just hand out senate seats to nobodys. Just read that he was president of Young Labor, that would explain it.
In b4 first effnick PM. All the anti-muslim shit & Pauline Hanson is just gonna push people to do some retarded democratic affirmative action like what happened with Obama. The thing about his parents being Muslim but him not being Muslim reminds me of how Obama is only half black, 'diverse' enough to get the affirmative action but not really 'diverse' so it's still acceptable.
You two are significant underestimating the connections and influence that Dastyari has. He's a former general secretary of NSW Labor and one of Shorten's key backers, he would be one of the most influential factional figures in the party. Suggesting that he got to the top by positive discrimination is a bit insulting to him, you can say a lot of things about him but you can't deny that he is one of the most effective political figures moving about today, he was secretary general of the country's biggest Labor branch before he turned 30.
-
-
4 minutes ago, Tesla said:
I believe that's more like a financial market, hence the accuracy.
How's that so? Is there a big difference between a futures market and an informed betting market? To me it seems like it would operate in much the same was as the political markets.
-
44 minutes ago, NewConvert said:
I think that you are onto something here. It must be about information and with sports it is easier to follow and track information as well as there being fewer uncontrolled factors (eg inclement weather) compared to politics. The fact that bookmakers restrict betting reflects that there is a greater degree of uncertainty than with sports. Are there any stats as to the accuracy of betting markets vs polls? Mind you, if as you say, the polls feed into the betting markets then I am not sure whether this kind of data would be useful - as I mentioned earlier the polls and betting markets would most likely converge closer to polling day. Do bookmakers tighten up the restrictions as they get closer to polling day?
An interesting thing is that betting markets tend to be so accurate that the US Government was at one point looking at setting up what were in effect betting markets to predict global events https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol50no4/using-prediction-markets-to-enhance-us-intelligence-capabilities.html. Apparently it got shut down because the public wasn't too happy that terrorists could make money by gambling on where they would next carry out an attack. http://www.economist.com/node/1957767
-
5 hours ago, cadete said:
I said for years on here... Malcom is the favourite Liberal MP of every Non Liberal Voter.
And we don't even like him that much anymore
-
4 hours ago, Tesla said:
ATO collecting it is the only way it will work IMO, but yeah the strange thing was the limitations regarding how much they can add etc. In the long term I'm sure those limitations would have gone away though which is why I liked it, just a standard case of softening the public up to the idea with a more palatable version first and then over time being able to push it further.
Yeah, it was so clearly a way of shifting the blame for he eventual rise to the states. Leave it at the same level for a couple of years and wait until they demand it.
-
On 3/31/2016 at 6:42 PM, Tesla said:
And out of nowhere Turnbull grows some balls, must be election season.
I'm a long time of advocate of giving the states a greater ability to tax, while reducing taxes at a federal level, so I'm all for the idea. Though I haven't paid too much attention to the details, sounds a bit strange, but it doesn't matter in the long term it will simply become a case of the states adding their own income tax on top of the federal levels.
A win for federalism, and a win for lower taxes and more efficient government (tax competition > *)
Strange plan that got shut down quickly. While I agree it makes a lot of sense to allow the states to collect their own taxes for their constitutional duties this idea didn't go far enough to allow them to do that. Turnbull made it clear that the states wouldn't put up the taxes any more than the commonwealth lowered their, and since the taxes would still have to be paid to the ATO it doesn't really seem like it would have made a difference to the current system. More red tape for no public gain.
-
23 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:
Shit's about to get real it seems. Good play by Malcy Malc
I am not looking forward to a 15 week election campaign.
-
Just now, marn11 said:
I'd suck him off.
If he accepted my bloody Facebook friend request I would
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, Jimmy said:
@Tesla Don't you think he's turned a corner though? I admit I thought he had absolutely no hope of being a serviceable A-League player but over the last few months he's definitely changed my mind. Has been close to MOTM in a few matches. Form still a bit patchy but is showing there's some talent there now.
Completely agreed. I used to be on Clisby as a bit of a joke but over the last couple months he has genuinely impressed me, sure he still makes mistakes but he has made a couple of great tackles each game I'd say. Definitely a solid option and glad he got a new contract.
-
1
-
-
I, for one, welcome our new terrace overlords.
-
1
-
-
What's that huge thing near the away fans corner and can we organise one for home games?
-
Dan Garb reporting Brattan will most likely join us on loan, which wouldn't take the guest player spot... so who knows what will happen.
Yeah I saw that too. God knows why man city would want to buy Brattan. I don't really see why we'd need him either but not complaining about extra depth which bypasses the salary cap.
-
Of course they'd install a Shia government in a Shia country, anything else would be retarded. I'm not saying they're pro-Sunni and anti-Shia, rather they've allied themselves with Sunni nations (eg Saudia Arabia & co) and are against Shia nations (Iran) and so naturally they'll be generally allied with other Sunni governments and against other Shia governments. The whole thing is just a USA vs Russia proxy any way, which is why there are exceptions (eg Saddam, because Saddam was aligned with Russia)
As for Kurdistan, would you like to make a wager?
I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, there will be a Kurdish state within the next 5 years.
Hopefully I can still find you then to collect my money.
Iraqs only roughly 60% Shia, arguably that's why ISIS got so much support, the Sunnis to the north were completely disenchanted by the Shia government in Baghdad. I think a Saudi Arabia vs Iran proxy war is probably closer to the mark.
no way am I taking that bet, betting on anything in the Middle East would be like putting a multi on the last weekend of the afl.
-
To add to what I said about Yemen, it actually backs up what I've said pretty well. Because in many ways Yemen is similar to Syria, except that the government are Sunnis and therefore natural allies of the west while the rebels are Shia so natural allies of Iran and Russia. And in this case the US haven't supported 'liberty and democracy', but rather they've helped squash the rebels.
America is now working with Iraq and Iran because they realise they fucked up with IS establishing itself, and if course there is no greater enemy of IS than Iran. TBH I haven't followed what went on with Iraq too much but I believe the US had issue with their government's closeness to Iran before all this happened. And the US is just itching to create a Kurd state in Iraq which would inevitably reduce the power of Iraq.
Iraqs been a Shia for years, the government the U.S. installed was Shia. Sorry but you clearly haven't followed a lot of Iraq. They want a united strong Iraq, if they wanted a Kurdish state there would be a Kurdish stage. America bought Iraq an army, a shitty poorly trained but well equiped army
-
You'll find Jordan is very much a Sunni dominated country as well, but King Abdullah is probably the most pro-western leader in the region which I think is why they are different to an extent.
Saudia Arabia is hated because they are pretty much the architects of wahhabism (the irony that they are Western allies lol).
The other Shia countries you haven't mentioned are Iraq, but they're fucked as well so not really an option, and Bahrain (tbh I have no explanation for Bahrain, probably more interested in keeping peace in their own country). Seemingly some time ago the US choose the Sunnis in this whole Shia vs Sunni mess and have had to continue backing them because that's how alliances and enemies were divided, despite the Sunnis being the ones causing them problems (eg 911). Yemen is a fairly even split but its funny how quickly the west backed the Sunnis and to contrast it with the Western response to the other Arab uprisings tells you all you need to know about Western strategy regarding the ME.
Having said all that, there are still other countries closer than the EU (they'd be safe going through Iran to locations to the East or North for example) and the fact that Hungary isn't good enough but they'd rather go to Germany and the UK still shows there is an element of economic migration
America hasn't actually chosen either side really, they just go with whoever suits their strategic instance at that time. The Iraqi government is practically propped up by them, yet it is shi'a and is very very close to Iran. In fact Iran and the U.S. are reportedly sharing intelligence is the fight against ISIS. So the region is basically a clusterfuck and America is stumbling around making reactionary moves to try and bandaid the problem while actually making it a hell of a lot worse.
bahrain's tiny so I suppose we can let them off. And from memory they have a Sunni king but a majority Shia population, so they probably have no inclination to mess with that balance.
add to the Syrian mix that Assad is an alawite which is a arguably a sect of Shia but arguably not.
-
Conspiracy? It's well documented fact. I'm not sure what your article is meant to prove (please explain?), but here's one showing that even after shit started to hit the fan Assad still had the support of the majority of Syrians: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda
They didn't support him absolutely. 55% supported him remaining "motivated by fear of civil war," and of that 55% percent half believe there must be "free elections in the near future". So the majority of Syrians were actually in favour of a free democracy rather than a civil war. That isn't a very surprising result, probably why it didn't make any major news.
Yeah so what the US was giving fairly small amounts of support to the groups which most closely aligned with western ideals, big surprise. Plus, the group doing the fighting was Syrian, at least they were until they were crushed between ISIS and Assad's forces.
My article had a brief description of why the protest movement emerged.
-
Did I ever say Assad is a good bloke or that he didn't commit war crimes?
I just said that the was no uprising or even any real opposition before the US created it.
That's an easily disprovable conspiracy http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26116868.
-
LOL. I know being a lefty you like the idea of the people uprising against the dictatorial government using hastags and what not, but the reality is that these opposition elements were tiny minorities and had no power or influence, they wouldn't have even been able to organise a protest of any notoriety let alone launch a full blown rebellion without US assistance. The majority of Syrians supported Assad, even when shit was starting to hit the fan.
Syria is a classic example of the US strategy of finding minority opposition groups in Russian influenced countries, supporting these groups both publicly and through covert operations (and we just know of the covert operations that then become public, who knows what shit is going on that is never made public), these groups create a period of instability in the country but even with US backing they aren't big enough to overthrow the government so the US just waits until the government uses excessive force in fighting back against the opposition, and then once it has this justification it intervenes militarily. It happened exactly like that in Kosovo, it happened exactly like that in Syria.
So poor Assad was forced by the big bad US to use nerve gas (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399) and barrel bombs (http://www.smh.com.au/world/assad-regimes-barrel-bomb-attacks-caused-many-civilian-deaths-in-syria-un-envoy-20150722-giihvw.html) against those damn opposition groups which want democratic reforms. I didn't know a democratic and liberal society was a left wing concern.
-
2
-
-
The west does not give a fuck what is best for the ME. The west cares about stopping Russian influence and that's why they won't back Assad and why they created this whole mess in the first place by supporting opposition groups and destabilising the Assad government.
I don't think it's fair to blame the US for destabilising Assad. That happened when his own people rose up in the Arab Spring, it's just he was one of the the only leaders desperate enough to declare full-scale war on his own population.
On another note, Abbott said that Australia takes in the most refugees per capita of any nation, while I have been making the argument that we do take in a lot per capita based on the data I have seen, this data I have seen certainly doesn't show Australia as the highest (eg you have nations like Jordan where 1/3 of their country is refugees). I assume there is some sort of difference in definitions between the data (eg people living temporarily in refugee camps vs people being granted PR in a new country), but does anyone know what data Abbott is quoting?
I think he means through official UNHCR channels, which I'm pretty sure means straight out of camps based overseas. This makes sense because that is of course the only place we take them from but it is disingenuous considering countries in Europe or the Middle East which have to take the ones which show up inside their land borders.
-
Obama never should have made that statement, especially given he wasn't prepared to back it up. Anyway if they'd done that IS would just have a bigger territory now, spreading their evil.
That's probably true, even without the loss of credibility the US-backed groups probably would've been too weak. I'm glad it's not my decision to make and that it doesn't directly effect me.
-
if I can just correct the above post, up to the present time. Australia had not been involved in the civil war in Syria.
im not sure what we could have done to prevent it, as even backing Asaad (a questionable approach to put it mildly) probably wouldn't have achieved a lot.
as to tesla's argument, well if money's tight why could we waste 1 billion on a tunnel that will be built 1 day anyway?
the only argument that makes sense is the social fabric 1 and that probably doesn't stand close scrutiny (asio can weed out the undesirables)
We (or rather the US) could've gotten rid of Assad when he crossed Obama's "red line" of using chemical weapons against his own people. Not doing anything about that showed syrians that the free syrian army could never win and the US would never help meaning they could either join ISIS with the hope of beating Assad, sit back and pray Assad didn't drop a cluster bomb on them or get the fuck out of the country ASAP.
-
Reasons for taking more refugees is that Australia has been helping dropping bombs in the neighbourhood. I really don't get the logic that says to a civilian stay right there whilst we drop bombs around you.
As far as Syria is concerned nothing sickens me more than seeing British PM David Cameron claiming a moral high ground when it was he along with Obama that first removed recognition from the Assad regime and then fermented the civil war by providing intelligence and access to weapons. Australia followed closely behind. Those two are responsible for the mass exodus of Syrian, Iraqi, and Libyan refugees. And yes I am aware that Assad is as homicidal as his father but Assad is a man we know how to deal with - ditto Hussein and Qaddafi. Islamic State and others we have no idea how they will pan out.
As far as being concerned about infiltrating terrorists the story so far is mixed. The most successful infiltration was of course in 2001 when highly qualified Saudi Arabians (and one Lebanese) were studying in the USA through normal visa channels. The second most successful attack was in Madrid followed by the bus attack in London. I don't know the details of the Madrid bombers but the London attack was conducted by young men born in the UK and by all accounts were reasonably intelligent. The gist is that for terrorist attacks to be successful the terrorist cannot be dumb. So far in Australia, the arrests and killing of Harron Monis have consisted of dumb pricks or with people suffering mental health issues. These cases also tend to be affected by a sense of discrimination (possibly true) and a sense of entitlement. I would be more concerned as to the integration of children into Australian society rather than any direct infiltration. Way back in the 1980s the then Syrian regime had sent an undercover spy into Australia but he was quickly reported to authorities by the Syrians themselves. About a year later a bloke with terrorist tendencies and mental health issues also arrived and once again the local community chose the police to deal with him.
Your analysis in the second paragraph is spot on. First generation migrants tend not to be the ones who carry out attacks, the are too busy trying to settle in a new country and rebuilding their lives. It is almost always the second generation which has difficulties as they struggle to fully integrate into society. This is true of all those idiots who have gone to join or tried to join ISIS.
There's probably not gonna be any ISIS fighters trying to infiltrate the west through refugee immigration because for one they've already got sympathisers over here and two they're doing their best to build a state over there. There's no way they're gonna be sending anyone half-decent to the west when they're in a battle to the death with Assad and Iraq, the individuals might be dumb but their leaders aren't.
-
Biggest refugee crisis since WW2; should Australia take more?
EF 2: Melbourne City vs Perth Glory, 23/04/17, 7:00pm, AAMI Park
in Melbourne City
Posted