Home » Posts tagged 'current-events' (Page 3)
Tag Archives: current-events
In a portion entitled “Limiting the Use of Weapons,” the manual explains that:
The soldiers and commanders (of the IDF) must limit their use of weapons and tactics that lead to the harm and unnecessary loss of people and [destruction of] civilian facilities. It is difficult for them to get the most use out of their firearms, especially of supporting fire [e.g. artillery].
Clearly Hamas knows the IDF will limit its use of weapons in order to avoid harming civilians, including refraining from using larger firepower to support for infantry.
The manual goes on to explain that the “presence of civilians are pockets of resistance” that cause three major problems for advancing troops:
(1) Problems with opening fire
(2) Problems in controlling the civilian population during operations and afterward
(3) Assurance of supplying medical care to civilians who need it
Lastly, the manual discusses the benefits for Hamas when civilian homes are destroyed:
The destruction of civilian homes: This increases the hatred of the citizens towards the attackers [the IDF] and increases their gathering [support] around the city defenders (resistance forces[i.e. Hamas]).
It is clear that Hamas actually desires the destruction of homes and civilian infrastructure, knowing it will increase hatred for the IDF and support their fighters.
The truth is often far from pretty Comrades
Labor’s NBN is damned by the latest review:
“By contrast, with NBN Mark I, the public policy process for developing NBN Mark II was rushed, chaotic and inadequate,” it says.
The plan got just 11 weeks’ consideration and “there is no evidence that a full range of options was seriously considered”.
“There was no business case or any cost-benefit analysis, or independent studies of the policy undertaken, with no clear operating instructions provided to this completely new government business enterprise, within a legislative and regulatory framework still undefined, and without any consultation with the wider community,” the report says.
In other findings, the audit says full cabinet did not consider the policy until very early on the April 2009 morning it was announced, and its role was to “rubber-stamp” a decision by the strategic priorities and budget committee of cabinet.
It also revealed that public servants had “difficulty” in having their “voice” heard on many of the most important policy matters related to Labor’s NBN policy, often finding their advice was ignored or that they were excluded from contributing.
Ah How I remember the many minions of the left were singing the praises of the NBN MK2, the problem for them was/is that what they were really praising was the idea and the dream of super-fast internet even though the reality had turned into a nightmare of confusion and delay that would vex any engine.
If there is any disease that strikes terror into anyone’s hearts it should be Ebola if you have just come back form the Link I posted I have no doubt that you will have experienced that shiver down your spine of REAL terror. Sadly I think that we are witnessing the African pandemic that I have been expecting for a very long time. You see I don’t think that this outbreak will be contained and that the current death toll is going to become exponentially worse in a very short time frame Frankly all it will take is one international traveler to contract the disease and this could have global consequences.
I hope my dark prediction is wrong Comrades but I see no reason that it should be, its already getting past current attempts to contain it and I’m also sure that among all of the hand wringing, the sackcloth and ashes from the “compassionate Green left” there will also be more than a few devotees of Gaia who are going to see this as the will of the goddess. And maybe there is more than a seed of truth to the nation that disease and pandemics are the way that balance is restored when a species begins to reach the limits of its ecosystem to sustain it. After all humanity messed with all of the other checks and balances on our numbers globally with our vaccines and disease prevention programs we have made possible the global population boom in the last couple of centuries. Sadly try as we might modern technological society has not been able to make the idea of restraining fecundity popular in the over crowded third world the same way that it has become the norm in the first world. Its obvious to me the “refugee” crisis that the planet faces is also an artifact of the same rubric. Well if things go the way that I am imagining then much of that impetus to move into the first world may be hugely diminished. Simply put empty countries will not provide the same incentive to emigrate.
For the duration of an active pandemic may well provide the understandable urge to flee but the need for disease containment and quarantine will constrain people movement and after up to 90% mortality every able body will be needed to rebuild viable societies competitive pressures will be for all intents and purposes be gone and healthy citizens will be at a premium in all of the countries where life is now so cheap that snuffing them out means nothing. If we need to look for historical precedents the effects of the bubonic plague in Europe gives us some idea of what we can expect. Whole cities essentially emptied of their people, the dead lest unburied, houses and farms abandoned and left to decay.
As both an Island and a first world nation Australia is well placed to weather this coming storm we can quarantine ourselves against the ingress of the pandemic in a way that others won’t be able to do. The global politics of this will not be at all pretty but I suspect that it will prove one thing and it is this. “Climate change*” just won’t matter because a world with substantially fewer people on it is going to have substantially lower emissions of CO2 and that is the salvation the Profits of the faith say we need…
Tin foil hat time:
Maybe the Ebola outbreak has been engineered by “Deep Green” activists to “save” the planet… Would they really do it? I would hope not but you just never know when it comes to those who are driven by a mad ideology
No Cheers on this one Comrades
*assuming that the Profits of the Green religion are right which is a big ask
While i don’t want to dismiss the angst I see in the commentary on the Welfare review lets keep a couple of things in perspective here, firstly no matter how much the government may want to do any of the things that make up the sum of all of the fears expressed here they do not have the senate and those with the balance of power there are not going to be able to pass the enabling legislation to change very much of the status quo.
Secondly one thing that the review is right about is that the current welfare system is very complicated and confusing both for those who now rely on it for their sustenance and for those who have to administer it. Further to that there is the popular myth that getting on to the DSP is in any sense easy or that it is subject to a great deal of fraud. Frankly if this government were to find savings with better administration and simpler process without hurting any of the vulnerable I don’t think anyone would object. Given the senate we have now I do expect some changes in the way that the department is run are very likely to eventuate rather than this government doing to the disabled what Gillard did to single mothers .
On the matter of encouraging work, well its fine in principle but I find it difficult to believe that there is even enough unpaid volunteer work to viably engage very many of the disabled especially when you consider the extra support that many of the disabled would need to be able to work at all. So if you are starting form a purely economic point of view it may well be that the cost of forcing or coercing the “unwilling” disabled to “work” is far greater than the value of the work that they may be able to do. Further to this there has been no consideration of the contributions that so many disabled people make to their families and communities. Things like the child care and good old domestic duties that they do for their families and the contributions that they already make to their communities with their involvement in a great deal of volunteering. Of course much of this is totally invisible to the general public who sadly think that shows like “Housos ” is reality TV rather than greatly exaggerated satire. There certainly has to have been some fraud because no system of welfare can be immune to it. But there are enough checks and balances that make it less common than some would have us believe.
Taking that all on board I can’t help but think that this whole thing is a very big ambit claim because the government must know that they will not get the sort of changes that are mooted here through the senate so I think that their end game here has to be to seek simpler and less expensive ways to administer the welfare system while minimizing the possibility of having to run a gauntlet angry starving cripples on the way to the next election, because if they don’t tread lightly here then the desire to reform welfare could become Tony Abbotts’ “Gimpchoices” that sees their much needed tenure in the lodge cut short .
While many of my friends from the left are trying desperately to ignore the religiosity of the current situation in both Syria and Iraq those of us with functioning brains take these neo-barbarians at their word when they clam to be committing their atrocities in the name of Allah and in pursuit of the creation of a new caliphate. Frankly as long as Islam has such an agenda we just can not be sanguine about its goals and intentions. That we have a substantial number of Muslims on Australia is a consequence of history and I am more than happy to acknowledge that, at present, the majority of them are mainly interested in getting on with their lives like any other Aussie. However the religion itself is not like other faiths it is a totalitarian ideology that seeks to control/dictate every aspect of a believer’s life from what they eat, the way that they wash, the way that they treat their children and even the way that they beat their wives. Worst of all the faith commands the faithful to kill unbelievers, homosexuals and those who find reason and leave the faith. What this boils down to in modern Australia is that its only those who are only just nominally Muslim who we can see as no possible threat to the peace and harmony of Australian society. Now with the news that 150 Australian citizens who hold dual nationality are probably playing at Jihad in the middle east it seems utterly reasonable that if these young men are going to take up the gun or the bomb against western civilization then we should help them out in resolving their divided loyalties by revoking their Australian citizenship:
As part of the ramped-up security push, Immigration Minister Scott Morrison said he was prepared to consider the British model that allows authorities to strip dual nationals of their passports, provided it does not render them stateless.
The power has been used to considerable effect during the Syria crisis, which has seen scores of Britons flock to jihad.
Mr Morrison said while the government was prepared to contemplate the idea, he labelled it an extreme measure. “Cancelling the citizenship of a dual citizen is a very extreme measure,’’ he said. “There are existing provisions within the citizenship act that deal with these sorts of things … and at this stage there are no formal proposals before the parliament.’’
The comments follow a recommendation by the federal government’s Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Bret Walker SC, who recommended the government consider the measure.
“The INSLM is concerned that the concept of dual citizenship raises issues of divided loyalties and does not see why, as a matter of policy, an Australian citizen should also be able to be a citizen of another country,” Mr Walker said in his report, tabled in parliament this week.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop yesterday confirmed that about 150 Australians had joined the fighting in Iraq and Syria, among them Khaled Sharrouf, a convicted terrorist who slipped out of Australia illegally last year and is fighting with the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.
This blog has even had its own brush with one of those playing the Jihad game a few weeks ago I was contacted by an ABC journalist about this post
because he believed that the person writing to me had gone to Syria to play the Jihad game this contact was made subsequent to his wife being arrested at Sydney Airport when she tried to take materials to her husband in Syria The ABC were even going to interview this humble blogger about the email correspondence that I discussed in the post linked to above. The interview did not eventuate simply because the Journalist was concerned that it was hard to be definitive that the man I corresponded was the same person playing Jihad. Frankly we just don’t want or need anyone who wants to spread Islam by the sword to be citizens of this country and the sooner that he and others of the same ilk are sent packing the sooner that our country will be a better place for the rest of us.
But, as Cook points out, this means that ‘only four per cent of the authors “voted”‘ which is hardly grounds to claim a consensus.
Here is a lovely exposition of the way that statistics can be manipulated and distorted as a propaganda tool and then cited ad infinitum as if they have some intrinsic meaning, sorry in advance to the true believers in Climate change but this may just upset your apple cart just a little next time you cite the “97% consensus” claim.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday 28 May 2014
Media Contact: Tim Black
+44 (0)207 40 40 470
Today on spiked, Michael Cook takes apart the claim, cited by President Barack Obama, that 97 per cent of scientists are in agreement that climate change is man-made and poses a serious danger.
‘Do 97 per cent of scientists really agree on both propositions? Let?s do a reality check here’, writes Cook. ‘On what issue do academics reach 97 per cent agreement other than that they are being underpaid? That the sun will rise tomorrow? No, some of them will say, because the sun doesn?t rise; the earth revolves. No, because we can only assert that it is probable, not certain. No, because we might be living in a multiverse where the sun will not rise on 28 May, etc, etc.’
So how did an Australian scientist at the University of Queensland, and several colleagues, arrive at the this now famous figure of 97 per cent?
Cook discovered that the researchers had sorted through thousands of academic abstracts featuring the words ‘global climate change’ and ‘global warming’, dividing them up into four piles to indicate whether they held a position on climate change (the biggest pile (66.4 per cent) held no position)
Cook writes: ‘Of the smaller piles which did express an opinion, 97.1 per cent “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming”.’
The researchers then emailed a survey to 8,547 out of the 29,083 authors who ‘endorsed the consensus position’ on climate change, of which only 1,189 responded (nearly all of whom did agree that climate change was man made (97.2 per cent)).
But, as Cook points out, this means that ‘only four per cent of the authors “voted”‘ which is hardly grounds to claim a consensus.
Furthermore, Cook points out, ‘Obama rashly added the word “dangerous” to the claim. Not even [the Australian reseachers] dared to assert that 97 per cent of scientists believe that global warming is “dangerous”.’
Cook concludes: ‘Scientists and politicians do themselves no favours when they use shoddy statistics and public relations flim-flam to sell scientific hypotheses to the public.’
Read the full article:
When we are given any numerical value as a signifier of a proposition’s veracity we should, of course always ask the obvious question of just how was that number made or settled upon. Especially when it is a major dot point in the climate change debate. In any event in scientific terms “consensus” is and always has been close to utterly meaningless, not that any of the true believers will ever admit that because to them its their ticket to ride in the Chariots of the Dogs.
Federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne has floated the idea of collecting student debts from the dead as a way of boosting the budget bottom line.
Mr Pyne told Fairfax Media on Wednesday he had no “ideological opposition” to collecting debts from the estates of former students who died owing money to the government.
Hang on a minute this is merely a suggestion its not any kind of settled policy Heck it hasn’t even been discussed by the coalition parties yet the usual suspects are going on as if its done and dusted policy.
Personally I think that it would be an extremely unpopular thing to do that would cost a motza to administrate and would in all likelihood raise far less revenue than many are suggesting here.
In other words all of those panic merchants who are frothing at the mouth here should just take a chill pill and save their rancor until this idea is more than just a thought bubble. After all we are not talking about the party that gave us the laughable mining tax we are talking about the coalition who take a much more considered view to any changes to the tax regime.