The 2014/15 Off Season Thread

[Poupou Escobar]

Whats the go with selling all the farm too the Chinese? Whys is the government allowing it?

They're privately owned mate. The government can't stop the owners selling, and changing the rules now would be unfair because it would lower the value of the farms. Governments have to be careful about devaluing people's investments.

Anyway who cares who owns the farms? We get our food from supermarkets, not farms. And if we ever have trouble importing the food we need (i.e. if the Yanks ever lose control of the sea lanes) then we can just nationalise the farms and take all the food for ourselves. Same as any other country would do. It would push the Chinese government to get involved (i.e. military invasion) but if the Yanks have lost control of the seas it'll mean China's got them, and they could come and take our farmland anyway.

 

[Suitman]

Whats the go with selling all the farm too the Chinese? Whys is the government allowing it?

They're buying our houses too.
What's the problem?

You haven't been listening to 2GB again, have you?

Suity

 

[Bigfella]

Awful stuff from Paris tonight. Just awful.

She hasn't "forgotten" to wear undies for the paparazzi again has she?

 

[Suitman]

She hasn't "forgotten" to wear undies for the paparazzi again has she?

lol.

 

[lingard]

agree, shocking and cold blooded. Direct attack on freedom of speech

The 2 gunmen on the lose

Well, you know, with freedom of speech comes a certain level of responsibility also. I'm not condoning what those blokes did. Just saying.
And that magazine's been warned before. This is not some random attack.

 

[strider]

Well, you know, with freedom of speech comes a certain level of responsibility also. I'm not condoning what those blokes did. Just saying.
And that magazine's been warned before. This is not some random attack.

yeah i kinda agree .... this is terrible - but you gotta be careful stirring the pot these days

just like normal day to day life now - some f**ker cuts you off in your car, you need to think twice before giving it to him cos he's likely to get out and f**kin kill you

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I kind of agree lingard. Why piss people off for no reason? Just because you despise a group of people is no reason to antagonise them.

Charlie Hebdo should go back to stirring up Christians like every other comedy act in the West. Then they can whinge about Christian oppression when the peaceful protests come in, rather than fearing for their lives when Muslims get pissed off.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Well, you know, with freedom of speech comes a certain level of responsibility also. I'm not condoning what those blokes did. Just saying.
And that magazine's been warned before. This is not some random attack.

In what way do you think they breached that responsibility Lingard? Or more specifically....what is the 'responsibility'?


PS: Shots are being fired again in Paris.

 

[hindy111]

I find it funny people are saying the thing in Sydney was not a terrorist attack - I mean how wasn't it?

 

[strider]

I find it funny people are saying the thing in Sydney was not a terrorist attack - I mean how wasn't it?

depends on your definition of terror

the guy in sydney was more an attention seeking fruitloop than a full blown terrorist

 

[Poupou Escobar]

It certainly was a terrorist attack, though I don't really know what anyone would gain by denying it as such. Maybe they think an admission of terrorism would take people's focus away from the real enemy, which I assume is the government, the church and corporations?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

depends on your definition of terror

the guy in sydney was more an attention seeking fruitloop than a full blown terrorist

Trying to enforce social or political change through the threat of violence is the purest definition of terrorism.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Trying to enforce social or political change through the threat of violence is the purest definition of terrorism.

But what change did he try to effect? It seemed to be basically all about himself and his own perceived persecution by authorities. Yeh, he got them to hold up an ISIS flag, but then what?

I mean it doesn't make any difference to me what people call it.....it was equally wrong / evil etc.

 

[strider]

Trying to enforce social or political change through the threat of violence is the purest definition of terrorism.

i think the sydney dickhead was a fruitloops trying to use it as an excuse for his attention seeking

but yeah i guess it was terrorism regardless of whether he was a few sandwiches short of a picnic or not ...... hell, every terrorist is a nut job in some way

 

[Noise]

It certainly was a terrorist attack, though I don't really know what anyone would gain by denying it as such. Maybe they think an admission of terrorism would take people's focus away from the real enemy, which I assume is the government, the church and corporations?

I've heard* they are not calling the sydney one a terrorist attack so as to compensate the victims. In a terrorist attack the government does not financially compensate the victims. (Imagine how much the world trade centre would have cost the stAtes). They do however compensate regular crimes. I guess it is more good will on the governments behalf.

*Not 100% sure if this is correct

 

[hindy111]

Under the Criminal Code Act an “Act of Terrorism” is defined as the following ..

“An act or threat, intended to advance a political, ideological or religious cause by coercing or intimidating an Australian or foreign government or the public. This action must cause serious harm to people or property, create a serious risk to the health and safety to the public, or seriously disrupt trade, critical infrastructure or electronic systems”

· He acted by taking hostages at gun point
· He was displaying a religious flag (Islamic symbols – Shahada creed)
· He held the hostages to coerce our PM
· He caused serious harm by killing atleast 1 person not to mention the risk he placed the others under
· He disrupted the biggest and busiest City in Australia

 

[Poupou Escobar]

But what change did he try to effect? It seemed to be basically all about himself and his own perceived persecution by authorities. Yeh, he got them to hold up an ISIS flag, but then what?

I mean it doesn't make any difference to me what people call it.....it was equally wrong / evil etc.

He has been protesting against Australia's pro-US foreign policy for years.

 

[bartman]

I find it funny people are saying the thing in Sydney was not a terrorist attack - I mean how wasn't it?

It was a mentally ill person simply using the topical terrorism of the day (IS) as a means to his own unbalanced personal ends.

If he;d chosen to wave an Eels flag while holding hostages, demanding to go on TV and claim the Storm should give their 2009 rings and tattoos back, would it become a "sports crime"? No, it'd still be a lone nutcase taking his own things too far. So while it was terrible and terrifying, it's not exactly terrorism (in the way most people would think about or define it).

 

[Noise]

How do most people define terrorism Bartman? I think hindy111 expressed it pretty clearly in his post regarding terrorism.

 

[hindy111]

Id say its more too keep our good name for people keen to travel.Tourism is a big thing in Australia right? Who wants to go to a country where there's been terrorist attacks.