Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

[SupermanCapes]

The discussion is framed around unarmed civilians, not why the SAS were in the house looking for that specific person for that specific reason.

I'm saying that when the discussion is framed in such a fashion so as to evoke the emotive response, as with killing civilians, it's done to position the SAS as the bad guys and when a bomb kills all those same people the humanity is lost in the numbers - that the person was a valid target only comes up in the one with the bulk casualties because the media aren't interested if the unarmed person killed by a SAS soldier was an enemy combatant.

It seems like for the purposes of writing an article against an Australian institution of power, a person is considered unarmed the second they are not in contact with a weapon and considered a civilian as soon as they are no longer actively engaged against coalition forces.

Just randomly walking into a house looking to find someone non specific, finding that exact person and executing the mission isn't done at random from a roll call list of names chosen at random.

And when a bomb is dropped on a convoy the amount of problems caused for those involved isn't proportional to that caused in these cases by a single executed hit on a targeted individual.

But the counterfactual you presented was the US conducting drone strikes that kill an ISIS leader while also killing their friends and family as collateral. So whether there is a legitimate target in the vicinity is critical to your point. Otherwise you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

And what are you basing this on, "that the person was a valid target only comes up in the one with the bulk casualties because the media aren't interested if the unarmed person killed by a SAS soldier was an enemy combatant"? Do you have examples of instances where the media accused SAS soldiers of war crimes for killing unarmed individuals that were also enemy combatants?

What about the war crimes charges that are likely to come from this report, released by the ADF? Report finds Australian troops unlawfully killed 39 Afghans

The part where the report described how troops planted radios and weapons on murdered prisoners so they would be categorised as enemy combatants seems particularly relevant.

Are these also reports that don't take into account whether the unarmed person was an enemy combatant?

That the US find ways to justify their own, arguably illegal actions doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that Australian soldiers are likely to have been murdering people outside of the rules of engagement and in contravention of international law.

 

[poshman]

Your views on the ABC are your own, they're pretty hectic in my view but you're entitled to them.

What's not super chill is making broad statements about the veracity of an article when the exact point it was being used to support was there factually and had absolutely no relationship to the "sensationalised portions".

Hecitc: full of incessant or frantic activity.

Ok?

As with your description of my view of the ABC - the rest of our post doesn't make sense. I would interact but I don't know what you mean.

 

[SupermanCapes]

Hecitc: full of incessant or frantic activity.

Ok?

As with your description of my view of the ABC - the rest of our post doesn't make sense. I would interact but I don't know what you mean.

Come on mate, at least engage in good faith. In that context hectic can be used as a substitute for full-on or intense.

I think that calling the national broadcaster "officially gutter trash, click bait journalism and almost exclusively far left to hard left" is pretty full-on or intense. That is my view.

As for the second part, you accused the article of focusing "on the sensationalised portions" and giving "little or no focus on the actual outcomes of the statement while focussing on the potential outcomes (negative)".

The point that the article was being used to support was factual, namely that the US had made noise about not working at a military level with Australia in future because Australian soldiers being accused of war crimes might trigger some domestic legislation prohibiting such collaboration.

The article was perfectly accurate and factual in the way it reported what Angus Campbell relayed to the Senate Estimates hearing. In fact, the article doesn't make any assertions, good or bad, about the potential fallout of that messaging from the US. It simply recounts what Angus Campbell told the hearing.

Your response was then to say "you can assume anything written by the ABC when it comes to the military is very skewed". What about that article was skewed? Did they misreport what was said?

 

[poshman]

Come on mate, at least engage in good faith. In that context hectic can be used as a substitute for full-on or intense.

I think that calling the national broadcaster "officially gutter trash, click bait journalism and almost exclusively far left to hard left" is pretty full-on or intense. That is my view.

As for the second part, you accused the article of focusing "on the sensationalised portions" and giving "little or no focus on the actual outcomes of the statement while focussing on the potential outcomes (negative)".

The point that the article was being used to support was factual, namely that the US had made noise about not working at a military level with Australia in future because Australian soldiers being accused of war crimes might trigger some domestic legislation prohibiting such collaboration.

The article was perfectly accurate and factual in the way it reported what Angus Campbell relayed to the Senate Estimates hearing. In fact, the article doesn't make any assertions, good or bad, about the potential fallout of that messaging from the US. It simply recounts what Angus Campbell told the hearing.

Your response was then to say "you can assume anything written by the ABC when it comes to the military is very skewed". What about that article was skewed? Did they misreport what was said?

I was engaging in good faith - I haven't got any mates who use the term 'hectic' in the way you mean it. I do my best to engage here at all times in good faith. To the extent that I went and got a definition and asked a question. I didn't mock or tease or laugh, just supplied the definition and asked a question.

I don't think it is a full on or intense view at all. They are far left to hards left in their reporting. And I cant think of one major main stream outlet who isn't click baitey. They all are as that is what the game rewards. I am equally unimpressed by all on that point.

Now to the article.

I am not sure you read my comments - or maybe you are not interacting in good faith yourself?

Articles shouldn't be making a point unless they are opinion, in this case it was a report. So it shouldn't be making a point.

If it is reporting and focussing on the fact that there 'MAY' or MIGHT be an impact. They could also report that there hasn't been as far as they know instead of focussing on all the possible negative. Does that make sense?

How something is reported, the words in the headline, the tone etc all influence the reader and sway them a certain way. Do you need example to understand that or do you get that?

 

[SupermanCapes]

I was engaging in good faith - I haven't got any mates who use the term 'hectic' in the way you mean it. I do my best to engage here at all times in good faith. To the extent that I went and got a definition and asked a question. I didn't mock or tease or laugh, just supplied the definition and asked a question.

I don't think it is a full on or intense view at all. They are far left to hards left in their reporting. And I cant think of one major main stream outlet who isn't click baitey. They all are as that is what the game rewards. I am equally unimpressed by all on that point.

Now to the article.

I am not sure you read my comments - or maybe you are not interacting in good faith yourself?

Articles shouldn't be making a point unless they are opinion, in this case it was a report. So it shouldn't be making a point.

If it is reporting and focussing on the fact that there 'MAY' or MIGHT be an impact. They could also report that there hasn't been as far as they know instead of focussing on all the possible negative. Does that make sense?

How something is reported, the words in the headline, the tone etc all influence the reader and sway them a certain way. Do you need example to understand that or do you get that?

Thank you for clarifying that misunderstanding re my use of hectic - the way you write can come across as condescending which may just be a function of communicating over text. Your last sentence above has the same condescending tone but I'll assume you didn't intend it to come across that way.

I agree that the article shouldn't be making a point, and it doesn't.

I quoted your comment for you so I could respond to it accurately and in good faith and you can see that you were the one that said the article focused on the potential outcomes of the communication from the US. It simply doesn't. The headline is also devoid of any commentary. So help me understand how this article in particular was in any way gutter-trash, click-bait journalism?

 

[Taylor]

But the counterfactual you presented was the US conducting drone strikes that kill an ISIS leader while also killing their friends and family as collateral. So whether there is a legitimate target in the vicinity is critical to your point. Otherwise you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

And what are you basing this on, "that the person was a valid target only comes up in the one with the bulk casualties because the media aren't interested if the unarmed person killed by a SAS soldier was an enemy combatant"? Do you have examples of instances where the media accused SAS soldiers of war crimes for killing unarmed individuals that were also enemy combatants?

What about the war crimes charges that are likely to come from this report, released by the ADF? Report finds Australian troops unlawfully killed 39 Afghans

The part where the report described how troops planted radios and weapons on murdered prisoners so they would be categorised as enemy combatants seems particularly relevant.

Are these also reports that don't take into account whether the unarmed person was an enemy combatant?

That the US find ways to justify their own, arguably illegal actions doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that Australian soldiers are likely to have been murdering people outside of the rules of engagement and in contravention of international law.

I'm quite literally suggesting that the people being characterised by the media as unarmed civilians are in fact enemy combatants. Were they armed and wearing enemy uniforms? No. So you can characterise them however you wish.

US drone strike kills 3 suspected terrorists - 12 others dead
SAS executes three unarmed prisoners prisoners - 0 others dead

Same three people killed for the same reason, but the first one is a legitimate targeting, the second is being suggested as a war crime.

That's what I'm saying is happening.

 

[poshman]

Thank you for clarifying that misunderstanding re my use of hectic - the way you write can come across as condescending which may just be a function of communicating over text. Your last sentence above has the same condescending tone but I'll assume you didn't intend it to come across that way.

I agree that the article shouldn't be making a point, and it doesn't.

I quoted your comment for you so I could respond to it accurately and in good faith and you can see that you were the one that said the article focused on the potential outcomes of the communication from the US. It simply doesn't. The headline is also devoid of any commentary. So help me understand how this article in particular was in any way gutter-trash, click-bait journalism?

People on here like to engage, be critical, accuse and then when someone is direct and to the point they get upset and think it is condescending.

I was asking a question about understanding and it seems that you did not fully understand otherwise you wouldn't have made a comment about the articles headline, which I never alluded to specifically. I was saying and am saying - the way things a written, tone, examples, emphasis can lead to people making claims based on any article. It is called bias. We all have it and communicate with it. Headlines - images - highlighted or bolded text all add to a narrative that is in every article. I wasn't saying (and did not write) that this article had a headline that was biased, I was saying they are a one of the many tools used in media. Do you think that the ABC has no bias at all?

I ask if you understand so that we can get on the same page and move the discussion forward, otherwise we could be talking about different things or using completely different definitions of things. For example - hectic. So instead of being upset about your accusation of not discussing in good faith, I explained so we could move on. If I have a question I will ask it - for example how you could use the word hectic.

It makes things far easier when I don't have to guess at implied meanings and I like to provide that for others.

Do you think that article is positive towards the relationship with the US, Negative or Neutral?

 

[wahooo]

People on here like to engage, be critical, accuse and then when someone is direct and to the point they get upset and think it is condescending.

I was asking a question about understanding and it seems that you did not fully understand otherwise you wouldn't have made a comment about the articles headline, which I never alluded to specifically. I was saying and am saying - the way things a written, tone, examples, emphasis can lead to people making claims based on any article. It is called bias. We all have it and communicate with it. Headlines - images - highlighted or bolded text all add to a narrative that is in every article. I wasn't saying (and did not write) that this article had a headline that was biased, I was saying they are a one of the many tools used in media. Do you think that the ABC has no bias at all?

I ask if you understand so that we can get on the same page and move the discussion forward, otherwise we could be talking about different things or using completely different definitions of things. For example - hectic. So instead of being upset about your accusation of not discussing in good faith, I explained so we could move on. If I have a question I will ask it - for example how you could use the word hectic.

It makes things far easier when I don't have to guess at implied meanings and I like to provide that for others.

Do you think that article is positive towards the relationship with the US, Negative or Neutral?

The article is neutral in the sense that it is entirely factual.

There is not a single opinion offered. Every paragraph either directly quotes someone, paraphrases someone, summarises correspondence or paraphrases/summarises a report.

To suggest this particular article is skewed simply because it comes from the ABC is complete and utter nonsense.

 

[poshman]

The article is neutral in the sense that it is entirely factual.

There is not a single opinion offered. Every paragraph either directly quotes someone, paraphrases someone, summarises correspondence or paraphrases/summarises a report.

To suggest this particular article is skewed simply because it comes from the ABC is complete and utter nonsense.

And you don't think that summaries or a paraphrase can be presented to enhance or lessen a bias at all?

 

[wahooo]

And you don't think that summaries or a paraphrase can be presented to enhance or lessen a bias at all?

It can be.

But you've not provided any evidence to prove that the paraphrasing of statements or the summary of the documents referred to is inaccurate.

 

[Kram]

Decent article, I'm also pretty bearish atm.

https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wir...n-the-firing-line-as-middle-australia-suffers

These sectors are in the firing line as Middle Australia suffers

---

The recent CPI figure is just another indicator that the RBA is not finished, with others outlined below.





Richard Coppleson
Bell Potter



I still believe the Australian economy looks to be heading for a big slowdown/recession, as I’ve been highlighting for the last month.
I think it will be in real trouble in the second half of 2023 and as a result, retail stocks here will be crucified, with falls of between 30% and 40% before it's all over. On top of this, additional pressure will be felt by banks, domestic cyclicals and anyone exposed to the housing sector.
The CPI we saw this week is just another indicator that the RBA is not finished. The next one or two rate hikes could be the match that finally breaks the camel’s back.

The market has been shell-shocked since last RBA bombshell rate hike (combined with its “hawkish rhetoric that more hikes could still be in the pipeline) and after the latest inflation figure, that is not going to suddenly go away.

RBA rate hikes will come after the inflation data, despite weak building approvals and employment numbers a few weeks ago (jobs were down -4,300 versus market +25,000), with unemployment increasing from 3.5% to 3.7%.


As we know, once the “worm turns” it keeps going. Throw in 400,000 new immigrants coming into Australia in the next year and we’ll see the unemployment rate rise to 4.5%, maybe even 5%. That may be good at first, in containing wage rise demands wage inflation, but the negatives will weigh heavily:

• sticky inflation,
• increasing unemployment,
• weak retail sales numbers,
• a mortgage cliff about to hit,
• energy prices are about to be hiked another +25%,
• building approvals collapsing.

These factors will be accompanied by huge wage rises (+7% in some cases) that are about to hit. And with inflation up, they will not accept anything less than that now, all with little productivity growth. So, I see more rate hikes at the same time as the economy slows – not a good combination.

"It's looking dire"​

I recently heard from someone who manages a water heater production line, that as residential construction slows, heater orders are declining 15% and more. With consumer confidence its lowest since 1990, it's looking dire out there.


Confidence is a massive driver of consumers. As soon as we start to feel things have really turned, we stop spending. The RBA will like that but the government (which is more concerned with non-economic issues) is about to get a massive shock.


Albo has not been “tested” once in 12 months – he’s had the best first year of any PM in living memory – not one Black Swan problem (no major floods, drought, bushfires, COVID outbreak or other catastrophes). So, he had better start concentrating on how to avert a recession or minimise the danger. If not, he’ll lose a lot of his rock star popularity very quickly. Then we may suddenly see a lot more of the ”Missing Minister” Tanya Pilbersek – who Albo regards as a “clear and present danger.”


Governments often get thrown out of office when a recession hits. So, even though Albo is trying to set up for his second and third terms, it will all be in vain if the government is at the steering wheel and Australia goes into a recession.

“Rising unemployment is what really kills a government”

When you lose your job, you’re often looking for someone to blame. Something I observed back in March 1996, when I was working for one of the major parties in a very marginal Labor electorate on election day, left a deep impression


During the day, many people complained to me they had lost their job as the unemployment rate (due to the 1990 recession) had surged from 5.8% to 11%. The comments were “I’ve been a Labor voter all my life and would never vote anything else, but I lost my job (one, two or three years ago) and it’s the fault of the Labor Government (Keating was PM at the time) – so I’m voting Liberal for the first time ever.”


As we know, John Howard won in March 1996 with a huge 5% swing, winning 44 seats in the second-biggest margin ever. The three biggest margins where a government has been thrown out all occurred after economic disasters.


One was when the above government was thrown out after 1996, the other two are:

• 1975: Gough Whitlam took inflation (with big wage rises – sound familiar?) from 2% to 16% and unemployment from 0.3% to 2.6%. Fraser won the December 1975 election with a majority of 55 – still the biggest ever.
• 1983: The Coalition Government under Fraser saw the economy go into recession, with unemployment rising to 9.7% from 5.7%. He lost to Bob Hawke, who grabbed a 25-seat majority.

The following chart shows the long-term unemployment rate. The yellow highlights indicate when the Fraser and then Keating Government were each “swept from power”.

Even though my Teal friends say the Coalition will be out of power for the next 10 to 15 years (yes they do really honestly believe that), history says that:

• Opposition parties fix up their messes and improve, and
• Governments that cannot run the economy smoothly WILL be thrown out.

The current economic problems​

Just four weeks ago, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia noted declining discretionary consumer spending on household goods, down -5.7% over the year to March, the weakest annual growth in 19 months.


Retail Sales in April were 1% which followed weak gains in March and February when they were up just 0.4% and 0.2% – on the cusp of going negative.


The last RBA rate hike and threats of more to come, does NOT bode well for the Australian economy in the second half of 2023.


Many recently argued that inflation has already peaked and that the RBA is out of touch with reality. But the central bank has acknowledged that “price push inflation” or “services inflation” – seen on everyday goods – has declined, in part because supply chains are reopening. It is concerned by sticky wage inflation – the current level of wage growth is the highest in around a decade, up from extremely low levels – but further rises will worry the RBA.


Throw in the possibility of more wage rises across the economy in many areas, a potential “wages spiral” – and we could see a continuation of “wage push inflation”. This means that anything that is “leveraged to the Australian economy or consumer” will come under pressure.


House prices could be under pressure later this year if we see unemployment go up quickly. Combining this with higher interest rates, we could see housing defaults – for the first time since the 1990’s recession.

Retailers and other Australian businesses exposed to housing demand would get torched.

I’ve heard talk of sharp downturns in many areas of the economy in recent weeks. So, I was particularly interested to read several very relevant points made by respected journalist Robert Gottliebsen:

• The dam has burst. Suddenly, in the last two weeks, large areas of retail trade have turned down sharply.
• In some areas, the decline is between -15% to -20%.
• Combined with the latest catastrophic fall in building approvals, the long-awaited acceleration in the downturn is now fully underway.

In the last few months, there have been small falls in the food sector, though inflation masked larger but manageable falls in other retail areas, including appliances and clothing. That won’t be easy for the RBA to address because inflation is well and truly embedded in the economy.


As in the US, inflation is being driven by the impact of higher wage growth on services costs and prices. That wage pressure will continue until it's broken by a severe downturn.


Meanwhile, many service companies are still able to raise prices – efficiency becomes secondary. But the game will change in the coming months.


I was first alerted to the downturn acceleration by people in the transport industry. Then I checked with the network of floor people. These are the same people who, three years ago, told me sales were booming when the official figures said there was a slump.

The Reserve Bank ignored comments made by myself and others at the time, refusing to look outside its Martin Place bunker. The RBA relied on out-of-date official figures, leaving rates too low for too long.

Now, because the 2023 downturn acceleration has occurred in the last two weeks of May, the fall may not be seen in official figures for another month or so. But the ANZ-Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence index has now spent 13 straight weeks below the 80 mark – a clear warning of trouble ahead. The last time anything like this occurred was during the 1990-91 recession, which was infamously described by Paul Keating as “the recession we had to have”.


The May 2023 retail downturn was triggered by a combination of events:

• Adjusting for inflation, Australian wages have fallen 3.2% over the last year and 7.2% since their peak. There have been only a few instances of such big falls in real wages. Middle Australia is hurting.
• The vast number of heavily mortgaged householders who received their interest bill as they converted from fixed low-rate borrowing terms to today’s rates. They knew it was coming but the receipt was still a deep shock.
• Volleys of misleading statements about what politicians are going to do to reduce energy prices, which was all nonsense. Disastrous policies over the last two years are exploding power bills, which really hit middle-income Australia. Any relief was delivered to the lower income areas, not middle Australia.
• The Reserve Bank further increased interest rates in May, and there was speculation of more to come. Whether the speculation was right or wrong was irrelevant. It increased fear.
• The fall in consumer demand has been delayed by unexpected stabilisation and even an increase in house prices despite higher interest rates. Meanwhile, potential buyers of new houses are too scared of builder failures to place orders, so the shortages will continue.

When the Federal Budget landed, a series of low-income people were given aid. But those in middle Australia, the wealth creators, were given nothing and told to suffer because “you are affluent”. It was a cruel blow.


Australians coming to the supermarkets are met with regular price rises, which are being offset by people buying cheaper goods. The trend towards buying lower-priced goods is spreading in all retail markets.


During COVID-19, people did not travel overseas and spent much of that money locally, including home improvements. Now among the affluent, that “local” spending money is being outlaid on overseas travel.

Skills shortage, labour shedding​

At the moment there is a shortage of skills, but as workers in retailers and their suppliers see sales fall sharply, they know that the survival of their enterprise will depend on labour shedding.


Many under mortgage stress are meeting their repayments via the gig economy, often in the retail sector, and so are very vulnerable to this downturn. And those who study the Canberra political manoeuvrings know that the government wants to hit them harder, restricting the gig economy to make it more difficult to supplement extra income.

“The one thing the Budget got right…”​

At this stage, because the fall has been sudden and only for about two weeks, naturally retailers want more time before pronouncing a downturn.


But the one thing the budget got right was forecasting a sharp fall in the Australian economy in 2023-24, which has started a little earlier than expected, despite strong mining and agriculture,


The stock market has been driven by interest rate trends, so the accelerated downturn is good news because it will curb rate rises. But in terms of the looming profit blows for many enterprises, the market has ignored the budget predictions and is not priced for this downturn.

 

[poshman]

Decent article, I'm also pretty bearish atm.

Yes - decent article.

I think the writing has been on the wall for 24 months re: the economy.

There will be between 1-3 more rate rises, hopefully just the one.

Hopefully the gov, state and federal tighten spending and cut government employees in bureaucratic positions. Unfortunately many of those who are the best paid know how not to lose their position so the more on the ground employees in middle level positions will find the budget for their position is now .5 to .7

Great time to start a business if you have a trade. Amazing opportunity.

 

[Bicco]

Great time to start a business if you have a trade. Amazing opportunity.

Interesting. Why do you say that?

 

[poshman]

Interesting. Why do you say that?

People have had it easy here and it is about to get more difficult and then it will get hard.

Small biz owners who are average and below average that have been making good money will struggle as the economy slows further. it hasn't mattered if they don't show up, don't clean up, don't communicate or market well, don't follow up. It will matter and there are a bunch of tradies who have been pulling in great $$ while providing average service and average work with a below average attitude.

However, if you can do some basics well, there will be great opportunity and the competition will fall away. If you build right, the business is then primed for the next economy increase and then a fortune can be made.

I could go on for days about this. But don't want to bore anyone.

If someone wants to make an extra $100-250k a year - build a small business in a trade. Buy one, invest in one. If you want to have one and not work in it/keep your existing job, do that and earn $50-90k on the side for 2-4 hours per week. The first three months will be 12-16 hours per week and after that you should be able to drop it to 2-4 hours per week.

I would be happy to help anyone who doesn't know how or is interested. Seriously, even those I don't agree with on here. We need strong small businesses for the community to thrive. There is so much opportunity for well run small businesses in Perth and that will only increase as the situation with the economy worsens in the coming months.

I have bought into 3 since Feb 1 and am helping 2 friends do the same.

The other thing about it is that it is AI resistant. People will always need an electrician (well for the next 50 years at least).

Sorry for the long answer.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

People have had it easy here and it is about to get more difficult and then it will get hard.

Small biz owners who are average and below average that have been making good money will struggle as the economy slows further. it hasn't mattered if they don't show up, don't clean up, don't communicate or market well, don't follow up. It will matter and there are a bunch of tradies who have been pulling in great $$ while providing average service and average work with a below average attitude.

However, if you can do some basics well, there will be great opportunity and the competition will fall away. If you build right, the business is then primed for the next economy increase and then a fortune can be made.

I could go on for days about this. But don't want to bore anyone.

If someone wants to make an extra $100-250k a year - build a small business in a trade. Buy one, invest in one. If you want to have one and not work in it/keep your existing job, do that and earn $50-90k on the side for 2-4 hours per week. The first three months will be 12-16 hours per week and after that you should be able to drop it to 2-4 hours per week.

I would be happy to help anyone who doesn't know how or is interested. Seriously, even those I don't agree with on here. We need strong small businesses for the community to thrive. There is so much opportunity for well run small businesses in Perth and that will only increase as the situation with the economy worsens in the coming months.

I have bought into 3 since Feb 1 and am helping 2 friends do the same.

The other thing about it is that it is AI resistant. People will always need an electrician (well for the next 50 years at least).

Sorry for the long answer.

Young friend is in the army and has a side business managing Airbnbs. He’s bought himself three investment properties so far.

 

[SupermanCapes]

I'm quite literally suggesting that the people being characterised by the media as unarmed civilians are in fact enemy combatants. Were they armed and wearing enemy uniforms? No. So you can characterise them however you wish.

US drone strike kills 3 suspected terrorists - 12 others dead
SAS executes three unarmed prisoners prisoners - 0 others dead

Same three people killed for the same reason, but the first one is a legitimate targeting, the second is being suggested as a war crime.

That's what I'm saying is happening.

Ok so the issue is that the US can indiscriminately drone strike the 3 suspected terrorists (and cause collateral damage) without recrimination, but if SAS soldiers successfully capture the same 3 suspected terrorists and then execute them (with no collateral damage) it's a war crime. Is that the point?

I can't say why the US is entitled to do that and it not be a war crime, but I'm comfortable with the idea that it is a war crime to execute individuals extra-judicially where there is no present threat to the soldiers and the option to imprison the individuals safely is available.

I personally abhor the use of drones and bombings too. If the option was there to charge anyone that had ok'd a drone strike resulting in collateral damage for war crimes I would vote for it immediately.

 

[SupermanCapes]

People on here like to engage, be critical, accuse and then when someone is direct and to the point they get upset and think it is condescending.

I was asking a question about understanding and it seems that you did not fully understand otherwise you wouldn't have made a comment about the articles headline, which I never alluded to specifically. I was saying and am saying - the way things a written, tone, examples, emphasis can lead to people making claims based on any article. It is called bias. We all have it and communicate with it. Headlines - images - highlighted or bolded text all add to a narrative that is in every article. I wasn't saying (and did not write) that this article had a headline that was biased, I was saying they are a one of the many tools used in media. Do you think that the ABC has no bias at all?

I ask if you understand so that we can get on the same page and move the discussion forward, otherwise we could be talking about different things or using completely different definitions of things. For example - hectic. So instead of being upset about your accusation of not discussing in good faith, I explained so we could move on. If I have a question I will ask it - for example how you could use the word hectic.

It makes things far easier when I don't have to guess at implied meanings and I like to provide that for others.

Do you think that article is positive towards the relationship with the US, Negative or Neutral?

Yep, articles can contain bias. This article doesn't.

 

[poshman]

Young friend is in the army and has a side business managing Airbnbs. He’s bought himself three investment properties so far.

Excellent! As long as he has modelled based on the long term average interest rate ~7.5% he will be in a great position even if all he does is keep working and holds those.

 

[Taylor]

Ok so the issue is that the US can indiscriminately drone strike the 3 suspected terrorists (and cause collateral damage) without recrimination, but if SAS soldiers successfully capture the same 3 suspected terrorists and then execute them (with no collateral damage) it's a war crime. Is that the point?

I can't say why the US is entitled to do that and it not be a war crime, but I'm comfortable with the idea that it is a war crime to execute individuals extra-judicially where there is no present threat to the soldiers and the option to imprison the individuals safely is available.

I personally abhor the use of drones and bombings too. If the option was there to charge anyone that had ok'd a drone strike resulting in collateral damage for war crimes I would vote for it immediately.

What is the difference between an extra judicial killing of someone where the soldiers aren't in danger in the field and an extra judicial killing of someone where the soldiers aren't in danger in a shipping container in Utah flying the drone?

As I said previously, if the soldiers can't turn over a prisoner/captured enemy combatant to the national authorities for justice then we should have pulled out of the nation entirely.

But that's the reality of the world. If you lock them up they get released due to rampant corruption and are back building bombs that kill and maim people with roadside IEDs, including innocent children. They aren't doing that anymore.

It's a good bit of evidence though for reductions in power of the state though, we don't want trained killers executing the whims of power machines.

 

[poshman]

Yep, articles can contain bias. This article doesn't.

Can you answer the original question?

Is that article positive/neutral or negative in relation to the US relationship?

I don't think I have ever read an article that does not contain bias. I think it is close to impossible. From any publication I have ever read.

We know that communication is founded on it written and oral. And even historical data is influenced in its presentation by bias.

Scientific papers when they are to the old standard are closer to being without bias but a news article? Without any bias... Maybe I am just cynical and I should check my thinking?

 

[wahooo]

Can you answer the original question?

Is that article positive/neutral or negative in relation to the US relationship?

I don't think I have ever read an article that does not contain bias. I think it is close to impossible. From any publication I have ever read.

We know that communication is founded on it written and oral. And even historical data is influenced in its presentation by bias.

Scientific papers when they are to the old standard are closer to being without bias but a news article? Without any bias... Maybe I am just cynical and I should check my thinking?

Maybe you should provide evidence that the article contains bias? You made the argument it was biased, now you're being challenged on that point and you're yet to provide any evidence that is has cited sources inaccurately. Don't deflect.

 

[poshman]

Maybe you should provide evidence that the article contains bias? You made the argument it was biased, now you're being challenged on that point and you're yet to provide any evidence that is has cited sources inaccurately. Don't deflect.

I have said how it is biased, a couple of times actually.

Then sensational claims were made that it had no bias - which is an impossibility. So now you deflect because that claim is nonsensical.

 

[SupermanCapes]

Can you answer the original question?

Is that article positive/neutral or negative in relation to the US relationship?

I don't think I have ever read an article that does not contain bias. I think it is close to impossible. From any publication I have ever read.

We know that communication is founded on it written and oral. And even historical data is influenced in its presentation by bias.

Scientific papers when they are to the old standard are closer to being without bias but a news article? Without any bias... Maybe I am just cynical and I should check my thinking?

The question is impossible to answer because there are any number of different lenses to read the article through. Informing the Australian public, and the world, that the US takes allies committing war crimes seriously might improve our relationship as it shows we're not, as a nation, burying that embarrassing interaction. Equally, that communication might have been intended for ADF ears only, in which case it might strain our political relationship with the US.

Either way, this article can't be held responsible for moving the dial because it is essentially Hansard with push notifications. It simply recounts what was said in the Senate Estimates hearing. I don't think that Hansard as a function can be found responsible for impacting political relationships.

What was said in the hearing certainly can, but that is the responsibility of the people asking the questions and those answering them.

Your question also has nothing to do with bias, which you brought up in the first place. Bias means there is some sort of agenda being pushed. I don't think the article is pushing an agenda.

 

[SupermanCapes]

I have said how it is biased, a couple of times actually.

Then sensational claims were made that it had no bias - which is an impossibility. So now you deflect because that claim is nonsensical.

Can you provide the quotes where you show how this article is biased? You've said multiple times that writing can be biased, which no one is contending. That's not the same as pointing to the ways that this article in particular, in your view, is biased.

 

[SupermanCapes]

What is the difference between an extra judicial killing of someone where the soldiers aren't in danger in the field and an extra judicial killing of someone where the soldiers aren't in danger in a shipping container in Utah flying the drone?

As I said previously, if the soldiers can't turn over a prisoner/captured enemy combatant to the national authorities for justice then we should have pulled out of the nation entirely.

But that's the reality of the world. If you lock them up they get released due to rampant corruption and are back building bombs that kill and maim people with roadside IEDs, including innocent children. They aren't doing that anymore.

It's a good bit of evidence though for reductions in power of the state though, we don't want trained killers executing the whims of power machines.

The difference there is in one instance you have the opportunity to imprison the individual without putting soldiers in harm's way, in the other you don't.

This isn't a matter of opinion, there are legal distinctions between the two scenarios.

Having said that, the US justification for drone strikes is far from universally supported (https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2296&context=facpub) and so should arguably be considered a war crime as well.

Either way, the Australian examples are indefensible and I'm glad we're mature enough to call them out.