Prev
Next

Pakistan has a long history of supporting terrorist groups

Anthony Moorhouse

by Anthony Moorhouse

13 May 05:50am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Barack Obama, Deal, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Taliban, Terroism, United States

40 comments

American special forces not only assassinated Osama bin Laden in their precision strike on Abbottabad. They also shot holes in Pakistan’s status as a credible and trustworthy ally in the fight against terrorism.

It'll be a while before the US and Pakistan walk hand in hand on security. Photo: AP.

With the now-famous words “Geronimo EKIA”, the USA’s elite SEAL Team Six gave President Barack Obama the solution to a problem that had dogged the world’s major military power for close to a decade.

However, the success of the clandestine raid also handed Obama a new dilemma which may remain with the United States for an equally long period – the question of whether it can trust Pakistan as an ally in the fight against terrorism.

With bin Laden’s corpse in their possession, SEAL Team Six raced for Afghan airspace in order to avoid a military confrontation with the Air Force jets that had been scrambled in response to their incursion into Pakistani air space.

In getting out before the jets arrived, the Americans avoided a damaging confrontation with their allies. But only temporarily. The euphoria that flowed in the days after the successful mission has since given way to increasingly strident language between the two nations.

On the Pakistani side, there is growing resentment of the mistrust inherent in the decision to keep the raid secret, and anger at the breach of sovereignty that took place.

On the American side, the details of bin Laden’s long stay in Abbottabad have prompted public and political anger at the incompetence or complicity (or both) of Pakistan’s military and intelligence communities.

The question for Obama now is what to do with the Pakistan relationship in the future.

There can be no doubt that senior officials were involved in protecting bin Laden. We can be certain of this because of the way Pakistan’s counter-terrorism services historically have operated in conjunction with terrorist groups, including those known to support al-Qaeda.

Terrorist organisations have a lot in common with insurgent networks and organised crime groups; they all require support within communities and protection from officials in order to reside in a single location.

Far from rooting them out, Pakistan’s military and in particular the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has a long history of supporting such groups who act as Pakistan’s proxies in Afghanistan and India.

One such group is Hizbul Mujahedeen, which is the largest Islamist militant group fighting Indian troops in Kashmir. Hizbul Mujahedeen has been allowed to operate freely within Pakistan as it shares the common goal with Pakistan’s military of controlling all of Kashmir.

It is known that Hizbul Mujahedeen owned the compound in which bin Laden had been living, thus providing the support and ‘cover’ for bin Laden to live under the noses of Pakistan’s generals.

Bin Laden, given the time he had been in the locality, was clearly confident in the security provided by his support network. The arrest of the Indonesian Islamist Umar Patek, one of the 2002 Bali bombing conspirators, in Abbottabad earlier this year did not even scare him into relocating.

Neither had other security operations around Abbotabad. Obviously, he knew the Pakistani intelligence services posed no threat to him.

The continued support of militant groups within Pakistan’s borders continues to complicate the war against al-Qaeda, the frontline of which now lies firmly within that nation.

For the United States and its allies, access to bases and airspace is vital for intelligence collection and allowing counter-terrorist operations to take place.

Australia participates in several confidence-building measures with Pakistan’s military, such as sending individuals to attend each other’s training courses, and AusAid is active in Pakistan.

The Unites States provides military training in counterinsurgency techniques to Pakistan, last year allocating USD$800 million to that purpose alone, and has provided USD$18 billion in aid since 2002. All of this is designed to woo Pakistan’s military into cooperating with our security goals.

To some extent it has worked. Pakistan’s military conducted large scale operations in the Swat Valley during 2009 to regain control from Tehrik-i-Taliban (Pakistan’s own Taliban insurgents) who had seized control of the region. This action supported Western goals in Afghanistan.

But Tehrik-i-Taliban is also a direct threat to the Pakistani state and defeating it is very much in Pakistan’s national interest. Therein lies the problem. No matter how much aid and support the West provides to Pakistan, its government, and particularly its military, will always do what they believe is best for Pakistan.

So as long as elements within Pakistan’s military believe supporting Islamist militant groups who target India is in their national interest they will continue to do so. That these groups then support al Qaeda is a risk the ISI seems willing to take.

Just how long the United States is prepared to tolerate this double standard remains to be seen. For now, however, Barack Obama has little choice.

Most commented

40 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • rajend naidu says:

      07:58am | 13/05/11

      It’s no new revelation. it’s a well known fact. India in particular has been saying this for donkeys years. But in pursuit of its own vested interest and agenda the US has been propping up Pakistan. That over time Pakistan became the main sanchuary for terrorist is not surprising. It’s a case of chickens coming home to roost!

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      08:19am | 13/05/11

      Hey Rajend any possibility that varios Indian Intelligence Services have been funding militant pro Indian groups in Kashmir etc ?
      Pretty good chance ? What do you reckon rajend ?

    • Zaf says:

      09:57am | 13/05/11

      @ TChong - much to our distress, there are no militant pro-India groups in Kashmir.  If there were any India would gladly fund them, but at this point in time, it is but a dream.

    • TChong says:

      08:02am | 13/05/11

      Anthony -For an international action man, you hold some pretty quaint ideas.
      No doubt the ISI was protecting OBL.
      EXACTLY the same way the US harbors terrorists - eg Luis Poda Carriles , who has boasted in US media how he planted bombs and murdered innocent people.-the US assisted, and now protects this piece of rat filth.
      “Just how long ..., ( final para)
      US expediency will see them “tolerate this double standard"as long as it suits them,- the CIA will be helping the ISI weed ot the unreliable, then it will be back to business as usual- financing those groups they can use,, helping the ISI , and other intelligence agencies , remove groups that arent part of their overall plan.

      Reply

    • Angus says:

      08:35am | 13/05/11

      Pakistan has been wielding a double edged sword for some time. Receiving billions in aid from the US so their state does not topple over completely and funding and supporting the taliban to counter any Indian influence on their northern border.

      Their claims of not knowing that OBL was in the garrison town of Abbottabad, a stone’s throw from the capital, are laughable. Persons very high up in the military hierarchy in Pakistan must have known and supported him hiding in that location.

      At least the Americans know now that the real problem for them (and by extension most of the rest of the world) lies in Pakistan and are now describing that theatre of operations ‘AFPAK’ and are increasing the tempo of their operations inside the country - with and without approval from the military junta in Pakistan.

      Pakistan apparently means ‘land of the pure’ and was meant to create a separate state for Muslims from the rump of British India. Separate and better than what had come before.

      By what standards do they measure success in Pakistan, Economic, Political, Social or Moral? The state has lurched from one military dictatorship to another since its inception. The majority of the population are engaged in agriculture and live in absolute poverty. I think that any nation whose lawyers throw rose petals at the assassin of a politician for opposing the oppressive blasphemy laws shows that on all the indicators, political, economic, moral and social that Pakistan is a failed state.

      Zulfikar Ali Bhutto former Prime Minister and President of Pakistan famously said, “even if we have to eat grass, we will make nuclear bombs”. Looks like Pakistan got everything they wanted.

      Take away their dangerous toys and let them drown in their own defile.

      Reply

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:53am | 13/05/11

      And therin lies the rub, we can’t ‘take away their toys’ as it were.

      Like it or not, and for the record I don’t, Pakistan is a Nuclear State. IF we don’t prop up the Pakistani Military with Western training, and hopefully more than a little western influence then we have a very real danger of a hard line fundy Islamic cadre getting their hands on Nuclear Weapons in that region. And thats not going to do ANYONE any good at all.

      The time for ‘sorting out’ Pakistan was 20 years ago - before they got Nuclear Weapons…its too late now, sadly.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:51am | 13/05/11

      The other issue with “dealing with” Pakistan is because you by default then lose in Afghanistan.  From memory, the US’s only ground routes for mass resupply of their troops there are, you guessed, through Pakistan.  If you make Pakistan a hostile nation, Pakistan then either blows up its bridges or starts attacking NATO convoys heading to Afghanistan, at which point the troops there are cut off.

      The military effort in Afghanistan does not allow a Berlin Airlift style resupply mission, not to mention that during the Berlin Airlift the opposition wasn’t wielding SAMs across hundreds of miles of open ground.

      Although in one sense, and it is an apocalyptic scenario: if an Islamic fundamentalist group got control of Pakistan, you would have a much better case for proactively nuking the whole joint.

      In fact, should Pakistan head in that direction, I would have thought the strategic approach would be to get the hell out of Afghanistan and start cutting off Pakistan instead, mostly because Afghanistan doesn’t have, and will never have, nukes.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      09:37am | 13/05/11

      “Welcome back to Islam Watch where we take you inside one of the most bloodthirsty death cults in the world.”

      “What have you got for us Jim?”

      “Well the Islamic Attack counter has just hit 17,183 attacks since 9/11. Can you believe that?”

      “Is that more than any other religion?”

      “Why yes it is Marie. It’s miles in front of every other religion known to man.”

      “And the bodies.”

      “They’re everywhere, Marie. In the last month alone, Islam has racked up 907 dead and 1603 critically injured.”

      “Wow! That’s just amazing.”

      “I know right.”

      “So why don’t we see any of this in the national media, Jim?”

      “Multiculturalism, Marie.”

      “I can’t possibly foresee any problems with that.”

      “Me either.”

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      09:59am | 13/05/11

      SSR - inventing ridiculous scenarios proves what ?
      Do you and your good blue eyed , blond haired (truly a miracle , when you remember when and where he was born-  as an arayan , no less! ) middle eastern Jesus have such discussions?

    • Kevin says:

      10:19am | 13/05/11

      “Voices, I hear voices ....”

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      11:34am | 13/05/11

      907 dead. 1603 critically injured in April. Thanks Islam.

    • rajend naidu says:

      09:50am | 13/05/11

      Tchong , India does not need to fund ” pro India groups”. India does its own dirty job fairly effeciently. See Amnesty International reports on India’s “internal terrorism”!

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      10:14am | 13/05/11

      Of course rajend.
      India, like Pakistan , like The US, like Australia, Britian,  China, Israel and almost 200 hundred other countries plays games, some deadly.
      The only difference between countries, and motives, is a flag.
      All are self righteous, all fighting for justice and hope, peace and security, all are standing up for represssed minoritories, or trying to protect the the majority from extremists, via their proxies. The claims, counter claims and justiifications are endless.
      But, fortunately for all those who like to use violence, The Supreme Being is a pretty easy going sort of chap, hes on everyones side, from GW to the next OBL.

    • David of the Grand Academy of Adelagado. says:

      10:10am | 13/05/11

      Think about who makes these decisions about who we support. Generals who have never worked outside the military system. Politicians whose only previous work experience is as party hacks or ‘ministerial advisors’. Narcissist fruitcakes like Kevin Rudd. Is it any wonder we are in this mess.

      Reply

    • Aaron says:

      10:14am | 13/05/11

      Personally I think that not only has Pakistan’s credibility been damaged here but so has the US’. How can you trust a country that will enter your country, do a raid and ensure there is enough firepower to attack your countries forces should they respond to the ‘invasion’?

      Reply

    • mike j says:

      01:52pm | 13/05/11

      As long as the definition of ‘invasion’ is ‘strategic and otherwise bloodless operation to remove self-confessed international terrorist and mass murderer being harboured by a backwards theocracy’, I don’t see the problem.

      What, exactly, is yours?

    • Paulb says:

      10:19am | 13/05/11

      Who directed you to write this neocon-friendly rubbish Anthony?  Murdoch himself?

      Reply

    • C1 says:

      12:02pm | 13/05/11

      No Paul B,

      Anthony would have sourced his material from the Murdoch Press, that is why it looks that way. No direction, just cut and paste.

    • james says:

      12:23pm | 13/05/11

      Paulb and C1

      Not really sure why you guys think this is some kind of neo-conservative, murdoch-esq article. Saying that Pakistan has cultivated islamic extremists to further its own strategic objectives - and is now rebounding to bite them in the arse is hardly controversial or conservative fpr that matter. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the region knows they have been doing it since Zia was in office and that it has not really worked out the way they had planed. The Taliban would never have triumphed in Afghanistan in 1996 were it not for their Pakistani backers and look what that has done for Pakistan and the wider region. Nearly worse, after Pakistani backed militants - in conjunction with the Pakistani military - crossed the line of control in Kashmire in 1998 it nearly brought Pakistan and India into an all out war. Given that a major conflict between India and Pakistan could likely lead to the use of nuclear weapons this would have hardly been in anyone’s interest.

    • C1 says:

      12:48pm | 13/05/11

      James,

      I apologise that it was not more clearer in my comment. My comment related to the potential sources of information that were accessed to write this article and the fact that there is very little contributes to the overall context of the issue. As you rightly stated in your response - news that this is happening is hardly groundbreaking nor kept within the remit of conservative thinkers.
      I think if you had to pay for this type of information - you would be disappointed.

    • OchreBunyip says:

      10:45am | 13/05/11

      Have we forgotten the USA supported Saddam when they wanted stability in the ME at any cost, backed the Taliban against the Russians in Afghanistan, allied with Gadaffi when he promised to help in the “war” against Al Qaeda and supported the Shah’s regime in Iran; do we forget Australia looked the other way when East Timor was invaded and failed to address US use of torture of prisoners held by its military.

      Are we really that naive that we cannot see the opportunism and dirty tricks on all sides that we think Pakistan’s conduct with OBL was so unusual? Pakistan can now play the “we need money to help us be better allies for you” card and not all ISI are bad people rubic and their international shame can be converted into a virtue while they clean house.

      Reply

    • St. Michael says:

      12:00pm | 13/05/11

      The US’s support for Saddam had always arisen out of its irrational hard-on against Iran, or more particularly because of Operation Eagle Claw which made the US’s special forces services look really, really bad in Iran.  The US never hated Saddam more than it has Iran.  (P.S.: Not that I support Iran.  As Lionel Logue might say, they’re idiots.  But the US’s foreign policy fixation with the country goes beyond simple agitation against another tinpot religious dictatorship, and elevates its credibility far more than it should have.)

      Backing the Taliban against the Russians was mostly due to private interest group appeals for US aid: see “Charlie Wilson’s War” for details.  Wilson himself says the US’s failing was that after overthrowing the Russians they didn’t go in to help rebuild the country—although that probably would’ve been inviting a direct conventional military confrontation between the US and Russia with the possibility of a nuclear exchange shortly thereafter.

      Arguably you could justify it for similar reasons to going into Vietnam and Korea: to prevent the further expansion of a communist regime towards sea ports on the eastern and southern oceans of the Earth.

      But hey, Pakistan playing both ends against the middle is no surprise at all.  They’ve got nukes and the only overland routes into Afghanistan, so the US had to play nice with them; on the other hand, they also have a Muslim population, so they have to kowtow when a neighbouring country’s Muslim regime is getting its ass handed to it.

    • The other Archangel says:

      12:17pm | 13/05/11

      irrational hard-on against Iran?
      You mean the nation that it supported as it kept the Shah in power, or the one that imprisoned those in the American embassy for more than a year?
      You know, the one that had an Islamic revolution that dragged it’s people back to the stone age. The one that wants to move from sticks and stones to nuclear weapons with a stone age mindset behind the trigger?
      Yeh, that sounds irrational to me.

    • St. Michael says:

      12:44pm | 13/05/11

      @ The other Archangel:
      “You mean the nation that it supported as it kept the Shah in power, or the one that imprisoned those in the American embassy for more than a year?
      You know, the one that had an Islamic revolution that dragged it’s people back to the stone age. The one that wants to move from sticks and stones to nuclear weapons with a stone age mindset behind the trigger?”

      There’s any number of tinpot dictatorships across the planet which arguably fit that description, and which are not the subject of trade sanctions or foreign policy invective from the US.

      I’m not saying Iran’s any sort of angel; as demonstrated, it’s a destructive and insane regime, but why exactly the US gives them standing amongst their other enemies by focusing openly on them as public enemy #1 is beyond me.  I’d have to conclude it’s mostly because despite all its attempts the US hasn’t been able to really influence Iran in a permanent way—that the US has to save face against them.

      Point being: I meant irrational in the context of overall defence and foreign policy, not irrational the way you think I meant.

    • The other Archangel says:

      01:06pm | 13/05/11

      St Michael
      Guess you missed this part
      although you cut and pasted it - go figure
      “the one that imprisoned those in the American embassy for more than a year?”
      I would have thought that the determination that America showed in pursuing Bin Laden all those years at an incredible cost might have given you a clue. Or perhaps you also missed Obama at ground zero last week saying “When we say we will never forget, we mean what we say”  might give you a clue as to the memory retention that to you manifests itself as an “irrational hard-on”

    • marley says:

      01:12pm | 13/05/11

      @OchreBunyip and St. Michael - we certainly have forgotten that the US “backed the Taliban against the Russians in Afghanistan” because it didn’t.  The Taliban only emerged in the 90s, after the Russians were long gone.  The US indirectly backed the mujaheddin against the Russians, but that’s not the same thing at all.  Let’s not forget that one of the Taliban’s dubious accomplishments was assassinating a real mujaheddin, Ahmed Shah Masood.

    • John says:

      09:37pm | 13/05/11

      St Michael, I think you should go and watch Charlies Wilsons war again and you will see the US backed the Mujjahaddein and they did this because of the mass murders been done by the soviets. If you do some reading, yes reading you will find Bin Laden only asked for weopons and intelligence on the Russians. Pakistan also had a role in this war by sending soldiers. The reason for this was it wanted battle hardened troops for when it next went to war with India (note two wars were fought in 1965 and 1971 and in both India won and Pakistan lost).

      The taliban was introduced after the war with the soviets and the main reason why they were introduced was because the newly established Afghan govt was starting to trade and deal with Pakistans arch enemy India. At this point Pakistan sent in the Taliban to take Afghanistan. Pakistan also supported this force the same way it supported the Mujjahaddin by providing fighters for the future wars with India.

      Also you should learn that Bin Laden actually declared war on the US many years ago and stated that till the US converted to the true religoin Islam then they would be at war with Islam.

      In regards to Pakistan you will also find not only has Pakistan been caught out many times by India but the biggest came during the mumbai attacks and also during operation Kargill in 1999. Operation Kargill occurred when LeT fighter snuck accross the border backed by Pakistan forces and took points in side India and targeted Indian troops. India soon reponded to get these terrorists out. It took the lives of many Indian soldiers but they soon took the mountains back. Pakistan stated they had nothing to do with the operation and denied helping LeT. Funny thing is Pakistan awarded to bravery awards to soldiers for this operation.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

      In regards to Iran, you are accepting of a country that charges non muslims a jirza (tax) because they are not muslims and has law bias against non muslims.

      Read this article

      http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112004/tehran.htm

      Also note even Iran itself couldnt come up with a flag themselves they stole it.

      http://iranpoliticsclub.net/flags/IRI/index.htm

      Learn more about the world before commenting.

    • Ryan says:

      11:33am | 13/05/11

      Its an Islamic country, why would you be surprised?
      It is not until the world pulls it head out if its proverbial that it will realise what is actually going on here.

      Reply

    • Warwick says:

      11:52am | 13/05/11

      Truly, the time to sort out Pakistan was twenty years ago, before they had nuclear weapons that they could give to terrorist groups who would smuggle them into London, New York or Sydney.

      By the same token, the time to sort out Theocratic Iran is now.

      Reply

    • St. Michael says:

      12:45pm | 13/05/11

      ...anybody found a backpack nuke made in Pakistan and given to Al Qaeda to transport into a Western city?

      Anybody?

      We’ve had at least 10 years or so to detect one or stop the attempt, you know.

    • Kika says:

      01:42pm | 13/05/11

      Is anyone surprised? Like I say if the Pakistan Cricket team is a snapshot of the national moral ethos, what is the national ethos like? Corrupt, that’s what.  By the way I still don’t believe the Yanks.

      Reply

    • michael j says:

      02:56pm | 13/05/11

      While i would like to know if Binny was killed while trying to escape/executed/
      or murdered in warm blood,did Seal team 6 have time to torture him for vital
      information,or did they just make sure no-one will ever know the Truth,?
      Also the two fellows in the photo almost seem to be holding hands,wouldn’t
      this be more dangerous than bomb making in Pakistan ?

      Reply

    • Bikinis on Top says:

      07:06pm | 13/05/11

      Your comment:Pakistan is better than United States of America!
      Any cricket buff knows that.

      Reply

    • bikinis on top says:

      07:08pm | 13/05/11

      Pakistan knows its the only way to get good cricketers and win the cricket world cup!
      How many good cricketers come out of USA??

      Reply

    • John says:

      09:48pm | 13/05/11

      Considering the USA doesnt play much cricket and the fact also it is not its national sport your comment is ill adviced. Also note the main sports of both India and Pakistan is hockey, wrestlng and Khabbadi (which is kinda like wrestling). Pakistan hockey team has never risen to the hieghts of it neighbour India and is not even a top team. Same deal for wrestling as well and Khabbadi, only played in India and Pakistan competively.

    • The Liberal Loafer says:

      03:21pm | 14/05/11

      USA is not Ok!
      For 45 of the last 50 years, Honest John’s favorites USA have spent more money than they have made.
      Pakistan has a better hockey record than USA and a much better cricket record than USA.
      John deserves a trip to Abbottobad with Abbott

    • John says:

      10:54pm | 14/05/11

      The Liberal Loafer have you ever been to Kashmir. Met the hindu and sikhs who live in constant fear of been killed. Have you ever been asked to pay a tax just because you are a non muslim or face been killed or driven from your home? I guess not maybe you should join me and Abbott visiting there.

    • LC says:

      07:31pm | 13/05/11

      We don’t know how long Osama was hiding that mansion right under the Pakistani Government’s nose. But it does seem very clear that, whether intentionally or through negligence, they allowed him to be there.

      But knowing that Pakistan has nukes, if they did intentionally allow him to be there this opens a whole new can of worms.

      The remainder of this year may get quite interesting…

      Reply

    • SpadeTwo says:

      02:52am | 14/05/11

      Mate, you sound like someone who has been following what Pakistan is about from the news in media.
      What you say has no relation to what is happening in Pakistani society, a nation struggling to understand itself.
      All your arrogance serves to do is further alienate a group of people who already feel victimized.
      “There can be no doubt that senior officials were involved in protecting bin Laden” —Even a trivial study of Bin Laden’s arrangements would make his limited circle of trust evident

      “No matter how much aid and support the West provides to Pakistan, its government, and particularly its military, will always do what they believe is best for Pakistan.”—And shouldn’t they ? Should the Australian army and government not do what it believes is best for Australia ?

      Reply

    • Waz says:

      08:55pm | 15/05/11

      Pakistan. Sharia Law at work. Just remember that. All the suicide murders, where the terrorists have been convinced some kind ofvweird gog will give them dozens of virgins as a reward. In so very many places not just the blood soaked anarchy in, and around, Pakistan. Sharia at work.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

David Penberthy

penbo 19 May 13 12:24AM

@KevCorduroy @SallyHitchiner it's a great idea I doubt he'd go for it though far too laid back

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 18 May 13 10:48PM

. @mcguiremi is journo of the year! #samediaawards

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 18 May 13 10:35PM

.@mariamosco @msmarto Super Smarto. And Shirley Stott Despoja into the Hall of Fame #samediaawards

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 18 May 13 10:14PM

Best print journo to @mcguiremi woot! #samediaawards

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter