The Serious Discussion Thread.

Top Contributors
Vince said:
I'd forgotten about tehrantimes. It was an interesting read in the noughties then I think it disappeared for a while. Was hosted in Iran and got DOSd a lot. IIRC it came back as an obvious imposter and I stopped reading it, and I didn't look at your link properly till yesterday.
Odd coincidence here: I saw what must be the same photo of damaged residential buildings on a mainstream site, probably BBC or WAPO, and came quite quickly to the same conclusion for the source of damage. The building had been partly opened by a powerful bulldozer.

Military public affairs units sometimes make stuff up from scratch (it's fun, apparently) and sometimes just gild the lily. This seems to be the latter.
It actually looks amateurish at first sight. But then you remember that the only people they're trying to fool are readers of English language tabloids, and that's just a science these days.
Click to expand...
Pleased someone is joining me on this thread.

The simple answer is that Hamas did not burn anyone, nor did their fighters leave concrete buildings flattened with babies inside.
The Israeli military did.

Surprised this article was permitted to go to print, being an Israeli masthead.
 
Ritchie said:
being an Israeli masthead.
Click to expand...
Hah, I'm not surprised. Remind me not to write to the editor. It's probably just a trawling project to see who gets attracted and is dim and interesting enough to keep tabs on. Job offers! Can I work from home, officer?

I think both combatants on the first day made severe mistakes. Israeli garrisons by being uninformed and so unable to give intelligent orders.
eg as soon as they knew it was a hostage raid should have driven like hell to occupy Hamas' re-crossing points. Failure to do that means that they never trained for it. If they were of the common early opinion that the Hamas strategy was massacre, they would have driven to the wrong points; which possibly they did. Verdict: lack of orders.

Hamas' mistake was probably worse: having a desperate plan that failed because they don't understand normal psychology.
I think it's clear that they planned to take many hundreds of captives, and that it was clever to time it with the music festival which would have yielded large numbers of non-Israeli citizens and resulted in real western pressure on Israel to show some restraint.
So in go the paragliders and hatchbacks, disgorging armed men who say "Come with us and you will not be harmed"
How does a normal person respond to that? Wisdom of the crowd - they run for their lives. Hamas is left to choose between shooting them down and letting them go; they do a bit of both, and are left with mainly old and young people who couldn't run. Verdict: clear orders issued by incompetents.

I rejected the "42 decapitated babies" line as soon as hearing it. Such stuff is nowhere in Islamic history, and indeed Israeli spokesmen soon stopped mentioning it. If it were so, it would be the greatest antisemitic outrage since the 40s and already rival the trial of Eichmann.
ISIS did that stuff sporadically but they were mainly poor Asian kids with autism and a head full of God. Maybe Hamas are just what Palestinians look like at the end of their tether.

Dead kids open the ledger in the red column, there were going to be plenty in the black later on.
 
Last edited:
Vince said:
Hamas are just what Palestinians look like at the end of their tether.
Click to expand...
Yes 80 years of repression, occupation, humiliation. The emotions of some of the more militant such as Islamic Jihad boiled over when they breached the border then failed to find sufficient Jewish soldiers to kill so they killed Jewish civilians in the kibbutz instead.
 
Moving my response to another thread here, Ritchie: I just happened to be up and the timing fits.

I'm fortunate to have read David Kilcullen's "The Accidental Guerilla" and recommend it to anyone puzzled by the dilemmas of expeditionary wars. That's not just us layfolk: very senior military often have little idea what they are sending troops into when it's an alien culture, and this is one of Kilcullen's main arguments. Another relevant one is that Afghanistan is an "honour based" culture where every man is armed and is obliged to take at least a symbolic shot at the invader, or say that they have. Because the resulting lack of clarity in our military eventually becomes obvious to all, it becomes possible for different kinds of leadership to come from the ranks and even a corporal can have his day. Lack of oversight can then lead to pockets of really wild men who can arrange their own way of doing things and keep this up as long as they know how to fudge an action report. This can go on for a while, until some decent observer is determined enough to push a complaint to senior levels. In the meantime, even a corporal can get a Gong.
 
Vince said:
Moving my response to another thread here, Ritchie: I just happened to be up and the timing fits.

I'm fortunate to have read David Kilcullen's "The Accidental Guerilla" and recommend it to anyone puzzled by the dilemmas of expeditionary wars. That's not just us layfolk: very senior military often have little idea what they are sending troops into when it's an alien culture, and this is one of Kilcullen's main arguments. Another relevant one is that Afghanistan is an "honour based" culture where every man is armed and is obliged to take at least a symbolic shot at the invader, or say that they have. Because the resulting lack of clarity in our military eventually becomes obvious to all, it becomes possible for different kinds of leadership to come from the ranks and even a corporal can have his day. Lack of oversight can then lead to pockets of really wild men who can arrange their own way of doing things and keep this up as long as they know how to fudge an action report. This can go on for a while, until some decent observer is determined enough to push a complaint to senior levels. In the meantime, even a corporal can get a Gong.
Click to expand...
Interesting.
 
Corporal Benjamin Roberts-Smith distinguished himself as an outstanding junior leader on more than 50 high risk counter-leadership operations against a determined enemy. He invested heavily in training and mentoring the members of his patrol and less experienced members in the wider Task Group. In planning operations, he drew on a detailed understanding of enemy networks and the human and physical terrain in which they operate to develop lateral tactical concepts. In execution, he consistently demonstrated great courage, resourcefulness and endurance.

As a veteran of several previous tours, Corporal Roberts-Smith took responsibility for mentoring and developing both his own patrol and the personnel of the wider Special Operations Task Group. He readily offered advice on planning, equipment, and tactical techniques, contributing directly to individual and collective capability. His efforts ensured the effective transfer of his professional knowledge and experience to a new generation of special forces soldiers.

Corporal Roberts-Smith led from the front in even the most difficult and dangerous of circumstances, maintaining the highest levels of motivation and readiness in his patrol. His performance in leading five special reconnaissance missions exemplified his professional approach and technical skill. These high-threat missions required superior situational awareness, patience, and preparedness. Corporal Roberts-Smith planned meticulously and executed skilfully, ensuring the security of his patrol and enabling mission success.

This was written by the Australian War Memorial. Was it read at his trial.
 
Ritchie said:
Corporal Benjamin Roberts-Smith distinguished himself as an outstanding junior leader on more than 50 high risk counter-leadership operations against a determined enemy. He invested heavily in training and mentoring the members of his patrol and less experienced members in the wider Task Group. In planning operations, he drew on a detailed understanding of enemy networks and the human and physical terrain in which they operate to develop lateral tactical concepts. In execution, he consistently demonstrated great courage, resourcefulness and endurance.

As a veteran of several previous tours, Corporal Roberts-Smith took responsibility for mentoring and developing both his own patrol and the personnel of the wider Special Operations Task Group. He readily offered advice on planning, equipment, and tactical techniques, contributing directly to individual and collective capability. His efforts ensured the effective transfer of his professional knowledge and experience to a new generation of special forces soldiers.

Corporal Roberts-Smith led from the front in even the most difficult and dangerous of circumstances, maintaining the highest levels of motivation and readiness in his patrol. His performance in leading five special reconnaissance missions exemplified his professional approach and technical skill. These high-threat missions required superior situational awareness, patience, and preparedness. Corporal Roberts-Smith planned meticulously and executed skilfully, ensuring the security of his patrol and enabling mission success.

This was written by the Australian War Memorial. Was it read at his trial.
Click to expand...
😳 That was my job in the army exactly. Eternally glad I didn't have to show it in a real war like those poor souls in Ukraine.
 
Thomas I have no military experience and would not have qualified for peactime service in any case. If there was a war you would see me most likely sitting on a chair and guarding some railway crossing. Nevertheless, it's in my bones somehow.

For the AWM accolades
Ritchie said:
Was it read at his trial
Click to expand...
It might take a day to look that up but you could assume yes. It couldn't be dismissed as irrelevant. The original leak to the press shows some sort of complicated blunder happened, and I have no idea what form it took. A lot of people in Army certainly will, though. Maybe without the leak and publicity they would not have? As Harry Potter might have said: "It's probably complicated". On a balance, I'll stand up with Grier and say that I think
more good than harm comes out of the revelations.
 
In a return to 'mad Joe' Stalin-era tactics of using the dregs of Russian society as expendable forces in warfare,'mad Vlad' Putin has enlisted convicted criminals, including cannibals and murderers, to fight in Ukraine as part of the so-called "Storm-Z" squads, according to the media Newsweek.
The Kremlin's initiative involves recruiting tens of thousands of prisoners, offering them presidential pardons in exchange for six months of service on the front lines in Ukraine.
 
Richie said:
www.euronews.com

Trump encouraging Russia to attack puts allies at risks - NATO leader

Moscow could 'do whatever the hell they want' with NATO members that didn't meet spending targets, warned Trump on Saturday.
www.euronews.com www.euronews.com

''appalling and unhinged'' is spot on. This guy must not be permitted to lead the Free Worlds strongest nation.
Click to expand...
Trump's statement is once again ridiculous just like the whole guy himself is. Such a plan is infeasible and aims at dividing NATO. A shame that NATO has got member states like Hungary and Turkey.
 
Richie said:
Not when it is an open invitation for a deluded tyrant to invade his nations allies.
Click to expand...
I meant his plan only to aid certain NATO countries , should they be attacked. Such a plan is infeasible. He'll have to make a decision on whether to aid NATO as a whole or not. He cannot single out certain countries only. Clause 5 of the NATO Treaty works differently.
 
looker-on said:
Trump's statement is once again ridiculous just like the whole guy himself is. Such a plan is infeasible and aims at dividing NATO. A shame that NATO has got member states like Hungary and Turkey.
Click to expand...
What a great article Craig! I read it all which confirmed my own memories and thinking.
Trump is a dumb menace not realising NATO is "One for all and all for one. "He's a very angry and stupid man with no regard for anything but money. A greedy self serving business man treating America like a business with little regard for higher concerns. His yardstick is money.
I checked today that he's worth about $US2 billion and that woman he raped and denigrated publically was awarded about $US800million from Trump. I bet that hurt him badly losing 40% of his wealth. I liked that and he's got a long list of other court cases to attend too like his insurrection one given the go ahead. Karma has got him by the goolies (aussie slang for testicles).

I liked this quote below from the article in your link Craig.
I'll pass it on, and your gif.

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates called Trump's comments "appalling and unhinged", saying that “encouraging invasions of our closest allies... endangers American national security, global stability, and our economy at home."
 
Grier said:
A greedy self serving business man treating America like a business with little regard for higher concerns. His yardstick is money.
Click to expand...

Yes, his driving force is greed, the greed for money but also for power. He keeps telling the audience what they want to hear and, consequently, what will bring him into office. He has no principles and no shared values with the West as we understand it.

The interesting, and for that matter, vital question is why so many people listen to him, buy into his lies, and are prepared to follow him - eventually into a different society? Doesn't he use figures of speech like the "us 'n' them" dichotomy which, to my surprise, Craig also used some time ago?

It starts with those kinds of concepts, with distortions, lies, with language that is used to divide, to say the unspeakable, and which gives ideas and terms a new, distorted content before it finally leads to, sometimes violent, actions and practical steps aiming at putting those ideas into practice.

Why do right-wing populists often, some may even say too often, dominate arguments and walk away from discussions as the perceived winner for many people? How can we prevent them from setting agendas, how can we avoid discussing their topics, using their language, reacting to their framing?

Since all those efforts have obviously not been successful (right-wing populist and extremist parties keep growing in Europe and the US), a completely different approach is needed: Rather than attempting to debunk their framing and rhetoric, explaining their strategies time and again, exposing them as long-term liars, in short, going down their propaganda-lined path, we should ignore their rhetoric and advocate our own truth, our own narratives and ideas. Who is "we"? Any opponent of far-right or right-wing populist movements, anyone who wants to live in a free society, i.e., people working in the media, researchers, writers, the civil society in fact.

Are there populist parties in AUS I wonder? If not, why not, would you say?
 
What we heard about the UK military was a BIT OF A SHOCK for the Brits. I am ashamed to say we Aussies are in a worse position should we become involved in a conflict.

I think the only solution to avoid quitters is to reintroduce conscription. Two years national service for say 19-25 yrs single men (women?). I was on the brink of being called up but the change of government saved my bacon. Several of my friends and a cousin were not so lucky and found themselves in Vietnam. All survived but two were mentally scarred. In all 15,300 young Aussie nashos served in the Vietnam War, with 200 killed and 1,279 wounded.
 
Last edited:
Sco Mo committed $270B in defense spending over 10 years in 2020. Comprising more potent strike weapons, cyber capabilities and a high-tech underwater surveillance system. Has the current government honored that or dumped it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top