Opinion The Adelaide Board Politics/COVID Thread Part 3

[Eagleboy2011]

No, we just don't like them murdering prisoners, which is definitely against the laws of war.

Mr. Putin says hello.

 

[adelaidecrows]

No, we just don't like them murdering prisoners, which is definitely against the laws of war.

Name any proof you have, any country in the world abides by that law? Its a convenient law that no one abides by and enemies who started the wars can play victim too when they lose. Its a hilarious double standard of morality preached by those that have never served a day in their life.

 

[Vader]

Mr. Putin says hello.

Beautiful strawman. Since when have I ever made any positive comments about Putin?

 

[Vader]

Name any proof you have, any country in the world abides by that law? Its a convenient law that no one abides by and enemies who started the wars can play victim too when they lose. Its a hilarious double standard of morality preached by those that have never served a day in their life.

FFS - it's called the Geneva Convention.

The ADF's own Inspector General reported on this crap. I'm not making it up. You can read the public version of the report here:
https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/de...fghanistan-Inquiry-Public-Release-Version.pdf

Here's paragraph 7, from the report's cover letter:

7. The nature and extent of the misconduct allegedly committed by ADF members on operations in Afghanistan is very confronting. The Report discloses allegations of 39 unlawful killings by or involving ADF members. The Report also discloses separate allegations that ADF members cruelly treated persons under their control. None of these alleged crimes was committed during the heat of battle. The alleged victims were non-combatants or no longer combatants.

This is not stuff that can be explained away by the "fog of war". These are allegations of premeditated murder.

What these SAS soldiers are alleged to have done are horrendous war crimes. I'm not saying that the Taliban didn't also commit war crimes (though they aren't signatories to the Geneva Convention), and the way the UK & US have swept their war crimes under the rug is a stain on the reputations of their militaries. Saying "everyone else was doing wrong, so we did it too" is an excuse that even 4 year olds know is wrong. If it can be proven in a court of law that these attrocities happened, as reported by the ADF Inspector General, then these soldiers should be locked away in prison for the rest of their lives.

 

[relapse]

We all need a laugh on a Sunday, listen to these gooses. If they even think that moving further to the right will get it done then they might as well just close up shop now. If they think that courting the religious is a winning move I say go for it.

And the IPA - yep this bald goose has no idea.

I had to stop it after the bald guy said "the children are being indoctrinated in school to hate this country"

It's nothing but hyperbolic alarmism and if they think that trying to peddle that nonsense is what is going to win an election then go right ahead, but I can tell you now it won't end well.

The sad thing is outlets like Sky News pass this guff off as "real news" and claim their opinions are the thoughts and beliefs of "normal everyday thinking people" it's all designed to make their audience (which primarily is just a bunch of rusted on Liberal voting boomers) think that their opinions are mainstream whereas reality couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[fortunatecrow]

Adelaidecrows said (my highlighting):

Name any proof you have, any country in the world abides by that law?

Your response (again my highlighting):

These are allegations of premeditated murder.

What these SAS soldiers are alleged to have done are horrendous war crimes...If it can be proven in a court of law that these attrocities happened, as reported by the ADF Inspector General, then these soldiers should be locked away in prison for the rest of their lives.

1. "Allegations = proof" is clam logic.
2. The Inspector General reported the existence of the allegations, he did not adjudicate.
3. "The alleged victims were non-combatants or no longer combatants." It was a war, not a rotary club, with an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform. There's "temporarily not a combatant" and "dead" but "no longer combatants" is very clearly a guess on the Inspector-General's part.

 

[Slippery Pete]

LOL

Kirky's an ALP man through and through Pete

That was a response to Relapse

 

[Slippery Pete]

From the ABC, no surprise. Pesuto ahead in Kew so one of the likely candidates you would think.

Matthew Guy to resign as Liberal leader after second Victorian election defeat​

Opposition Leader Matthew Guy has announced he will resign as leader of the Victorian Liberals after a second bruising election defeat.

Labor has won a third consecutive term and is on track to retain a comfortable majority in the lower house. Mr Guy released a statement saying once the results of the election were firmed up, a new Liberal leader would be chosen. "As soon as it is clearer which Liberal Party candidates will form the next parliamentary party room, I will call them together to elect their new leadership team," he said.

"I will not be a candidate for the position of leader."

Four years too late. Idiot.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Your sources are deeper than mine, for sure!

She is an expert in everything and now has sources deep into the polling group. Nothing she can't do.

 

[MrKK]

 

[Slippery Pete]

They got rid of Abbott - and we are all bloody thankful for that.

It was what they replaced him with.

Look, it’s all on the record. Abbott won 90 seats in 2013. Less than three years later Turnbull just squeaked home losing a whopping 14 of those seats.

I don’t know what part of that equation told the Liberal party they need to have a leftist in charge of their party.

I’m not saying Tony Abbott as an individual was overly liked, but he was an effective politician and his Howard-esque policies were popular in the mainstream.

None of what’s happening right now has much to do with the political alignment of either party, it is to do with messaging, narrative control and political strategy.

People vote on emotion, not logic.

 

[relapse]

No, not necessarily.

My theory is that it’s a problem of political strategy, not of political alignment.

You have your Mutineers who always vote one way, and your OneGreatCommies who always vote another. Then you have a whole swathe of voters (probably includes you) who vote according to the hot issues of each election. The Liberal party for a period had captured a lot of these voters, especially at the Federal level.

But the current incarnation of the Liberal party is completely, entirely, unequivocally hopeless at taking those hot issues and turning them into campaign strategies and ultimately election victories.

Ask yourself why the only two incumbents to be turfed out of office during Covid were Marshall and Morrison? How does Marshall lose post-Covid and Dan Andrews wins? Is that an accurate representation of their respective performances?

Of course not. What it is, is a representation of their political prowess. Marshall is an idiot. Andrews is an evil genius.

Almost every poster in here to a man (even the hardcore commies!) admit that Dan f*cked Victoria hard for three years straight.

Yet, Guy couldn’t lay a glove on him. I don’t care where you sit on the political spectrum, not being able to lay a glove on Dan Andrews for the last three years is a monumental feat of political incompetence.

A cardboard cutout should’ve been able to beat Dan Andrews if you’re basing it just on his performance.

But it is not just about that, elections never are. Andrews knows how to play the game of politics. I hate the c*nt, but I have no problem admitting he’s one of the most effective politicians I’ve ever seen.

That’s why he wins.

And the other party continue to sit around dumbfounded, like a bunch of losers, as if this is all some big surprise. “Oh, we better introduce gender quotas! That will fix it!”

I agree with what you're saying, it all comes down to hitting the right points and being able to out politic your opponent.

I still believe the SA public were harsh to dump Marshall after one term, but Marshall was out politicked (if that's even a word), When you go in with a poor election strategy then you're immediately going to be up against it, throw in the fact that Malinauskas is a born and bred politican who hit on the big issues and Labor's campaign was completely on point which means that Marshall was in some serious trouble.

The SA election in my opinion was ultimately won and lost on the issue of ramping. There is a double edged sword to it because if we're sitting here in 3 years time with ramping still a massive issue then Labor deserve to be put to the sword on it and that's exactly where Liberal will need to hit with their campaigning in SA.

I don't know too much about the Victorian side of things, but as you said you need an opposition leader that can lay a few hits and more importantly you need something to sell to voters, not just pointless fear and scaremongering but something tangible to sway voters opinions on election day.

As the boomers die off I think scare campaigns are becoming less and less effective with voters. Voters now seem more interested in what they're getting if they vote for them.

The Victorian Liberals need a reset and a decent opposition leader.

 

[Vader]

1. "Allegations = proof" is clam logic.
2. The Inspector General reported the existence of the allegations, he did not adjudicate.
3. "The alleged victims were non-combatants or no longer combatants." It was a war, not a rotary club, with an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform. There's "temporarily not a combatant" and "dead" but "no longer combatants" is very clearly a guess on the Inspector-General's part.

1. Correct - I have not stated that it's proof, though Brereton did conduct a thorough investigation. At this stage, all we have are allegations.
2. The Inspector General interviewed 403 people, many of whom are or were serving members of the ADF. Brereton didn't just "report the existence of the allegations", he investigated them thoroughly, and reported on the findings of his investigation. However, you are correct that he did not adjudicate. Nobody has yet been charged, let alone tried and sentenced.
3 . This is just a bullshit argument. Brereton made it clear that the allegations he's investigated are not anything that could be covered by "fog of war", or mistakes happening in combat. What he's talking about are acts of premeditated murder.

Your posting here indicates that you don't understand what is meant by "no longer combatants" and "temporarily not a combatant". It doesn't mean that they spontaneously stop being Taliban, it means that they are prisoners who have been captured & disarmed, and are out of the fight. There is no excuse for murdering people under these circumstances.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Adelaidecrows said (my highlighting):



Your response (again my highlighting):

1. "Allegations = proof" is clam logic.
2. The Inspector General reported the existence of the allegations, he did not adjudicate.
3. "The alleged victims were non-combatants or no longer combatants." It was a war, not a rotary club, with an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform. There's "temporarily not a combatant" and "dead" but "no longer combatants" is very clearly a guess on the Inspector-General's part.

Forget any trials. General Campbell has already found them guilty plus he wants more. He wants some of his most senior officers surrender their honours and medals related to service in Afghanistan. None of the top officers were believed to have been implicated or included in the adverse findings against 39 soldiers involved in 23 incidents currently the subject criminal police investigation.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Slippery Pete ... just as well we are not in China!

As anger rises and tragedies mount, China shows no sign of budging on zero-Covid | CNN

Zhou, an auto dealer in northeastern China, last saw his father alive in a video chat on the afternoon of November 1, hours after their home on the far outskirts of Beijing was locked down.

www.cnn.com

What do you think of this?

 

[relapse]

It was what they replaced him with.

Look, it’s all on the record. Abbott won 90 seats in 2013. Less than three years later Turnbull just squeaked home losing a whopping 14 of those seats.

I don’t know what part of that equation told the Liberal party they need to have a leftist in charge of their party.

I’m not saying Tony Abbott was overly popular, but his Howard-esque policies were very popular.

None of what’s happening right now has much to do with the political alignment of either party, it is to do with messaging, narrative control and political strategy.

People vote on emotion, not logic.

An interesting take, but I think you're trying to look back now and drawing your own conclusion without looking too deep into what was going on below the surface. I could be wrong, but I have a hunch after reading this that you may not have been following politics very closely back then

Yes the Abbott government swept into power in 2013, but Tony Abbott the opposition leader was very different to Tony Abbott as PM. He soured very quickly with the Australia public and went from hero to zero (Abbott's approval rating dropped down 24% not long before he was dumped) and all the polls suggested that they were going to lose the next election under Abbott.

Flipping to Turnbull didn't cost them seats, poll wise it suggested that it actually saved him from losing even more.

 

[Slippery Pete]

As someone that lives in Victoria I think the supposed hatred of Dan Andrews is overstated. Sure there are lots of people that don't like him, but the way the media speaks about it makes you think that's nearly everyone, which really isn't the case

Saw a tweet yesterday, can’t remember who it was, but said something along the lines of… .. during Howard’s reign the ALP kept making the mistake of thinking everyone hated Howard as much as they did. And the Libs made the same mistake with Andrews.

In the final analysis it is not enough just to be “not Dan Andrews.”

You actually have to be electable yourself.

Hillary Clinton learned that lesson the hard way.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Flipping to Turnbull didn't cost them seats, poll wise it suggested that it actually saved him from losing even more.

They did have a leadership problem, and Abbott wasn’t well liked, but Turnbull wound up being even less popular by those same polls he used to oust Abbott.

But Turnbull’s real “achievement” was working from the inside to change the political alignment of the party, which they tried to claw back with Morrison, which worked for a little while, but not very long, because Scomo is an idiot.

 

[Bearded Clam]

Adelaidecrows said (my highlighting):



Your response (again my highlighting):

1. "Allegations = proof" is clam logic.
2. The Inspector General reported the existence of the allegations, he did not adjudicate.
3. "The alleged victims were non-combatants or no longer combatants." It was a war, not a rotary club, with an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform. There's "temporarily not a combatant" and "dead" but "no longer combatants" is very clearly a guess on the Inspector-General's part.

When have I ever claimed Allegations = proof?..

Provide evidence of past comments of me doing so please or retract the comment ya little grub..

As far as this subject is concerned.. its something I couldnt really give a fxxk about but since i’ve had my name dragged into it..

we are signed up to the Geneva convention and, if we want to continue holding some percieved moral high ground over lowlife dogs like the taliban, putin etc, then we should stick to its rules..

But I’d also never criticise any of our soldiers if they broke those rules occassionally as I’d never pretend to understand the terrible s**t they have to deal with.

So really… what I’ve got is splinters in my arse from sitting on the fence on this one..

Maybe we should pull out of the Geneva convention?

 

[fortunatecrow]

3 . This is just a bullshit argument. Brereton made it clear that the allegations he's investigated are not anything that could be covered by "fog of war", or mistakes happening in combat. What he's talking about are acts of premeditated murder.

Yes. There's a whole stack of context which is lost when you put up a two line quote.

 

[Vader]

Yes. There's a whole stack of context which is lost when you put up a two line quote.

I linked to the whole document, if you want to read it. Everything I've said was widely reported when the Brereton Report was released - it's not new news.

 

[Mutineer]

Couple of interesting attendees to Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's Adelaide lecture last night...Reilly O'Brien

43

Reilly O'brien

Age

28

Ht

202cm

Wt

105kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.4

4star

K

5.9

2star

HB

8.5

5star

CL

1.6

4star

HO

23.8

5star

D

14.4

3star

K

5.9

2star

HB

8.5

4star

CL

1.6

4star

HO

23.8

5star

D

12.6

4star

K

4.8

2star

HB

7.8

5star

CL

1.0

3star

HO

24.8

5star

and Connor Rozee

1

Connor Rozee

Age

24

Ht

185cm

Wt

79kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.6

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

7.0

4star

M

3.3

3star

T

3.6

5star

CL

1.0

3star

D

12.8

3star

K

7.4

3star

HB

5.3

3star

M

2.9

3star

T

2.4

3star

CL

1.6

4star

D

16.4

4star

K

8.0

3star

HB

8.4

5star

M

4.2

4star

T

3.4

5star

CL

0.8

3star

both putting up pics on their Insta story.

 

[fortunatecrow]

"Allegations = proof" is clam logic.

I'm going to apologise for that, it was uncalled for and I don't blame you for being angry.

 

[Jetafl]

I want to walk into a store with a sign saying ugly people must wear a mask.

 

[relapse]

Couple of interesting attendees to Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's Adelaide lecture last night...Reilly O'Brien and Connor Rozee both putting up pics on their Insta story.

Someone on here once shared some of Reilly O'Brien's Twitter history so I am not that surprised he was there.

I'd also bet London to a brick on one or two of the regular posters on here would have been there too.