Punch on: Open thread 18/10/2011

TChong says:

07:21am | 18/10/11

They ( your comments) are being carved in stone, so they belong to Humanity and Immortality.

ibast says:

07:45am | 18/10/11

I think it just reflects the fact the Tele has become an opinion publication rather than a journalistic publication.  Opinion articles shouldn’t’ win journalistic awards.

Erick says:

07:52am | 18/10/11

@Macca - The Walkley Awards are purely a reward to journalists for following politically-correct left wing lines. As such, the ABC and Fairfax will always dominate.

Some News Ltd journalists may be sufficiently left-wing to merit a Walkley, but the instinctive hatred of anything associated with Murdoch works against them.

fairsfair says:

09:18am | 18/10/11

Doesn’t Ant have a Walkley?

gobsmack says:

12:18pm | 18/10/11

@Erick
“The Walkley Awards are purely a reward to journalists for following politically-correct left wing lines.”
What nonsense.
In the case of television, the core business of the commercial channels is to sell advertising time.  The higher the ratings, the higher the price they can charge.  Their journalism is geared to increasing the ratings not quality reporting.
It is apparent that you dislike any journalist whose expressed views don’t accord with your preconceived notions.

Markus says:

01:30pm | 18/10/11

@gobsmack, if quality is not determined at least in part by the level of demand, then what is it determined by? A select group of people who think they know best?

fairsfair says:

01:48pm | 18/10/11

Thanks Dan, thought I had read that somewhere.

We are in the presence of greatness! You don’t need another one Ant - you’ve proven you can do it. I gave up on Dux after I got it in grade 8 - it was old news after that

Anna C says:

08:25am | 18/10/11

Sounds good to me Kipling. Belgium has managed to survive 482 days without a government and they seem to be doing just fine.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20111008/belgium-may-get-government-111008/

Kipling says:

09:23am | 18/10/11

Hey Anna C, I didn’t know that, but a friend of mine pointed out to me that whilst Australia was waiting for a Government to form after the last election we had no wars breakout, our economy remained stable and the country continued to function relatively well. It was only after Government formed that problems started up. Says it all really.

Aitch B says:

09:39am | 18/10/11

Great idea. The fines will fix Swannie’s budget deficit quick smart!!

RyaN says:

10:51am | 18/10/11

@Kipling: Which will mean that this grossly incompetent Labor government who lie to the people and have no interest in listening to the electorate, will remain in power for longer. Yeah sounds like a great idea!

Kipling says:

11:52am | 18/10/11

LOL,

@ Aitch B, only if the insighters of anarchy, you know the non voting public buckle in their protest and pay the fines. Oh, what budget deficit is that anyway?

@ RyaN, nice try but no cigar, they would have no mandate and there would be no consensus allowing them to form Government, hence we would have anarchy. Like I said, since politicians all HATE anarchy I am starting to think it can’t be too bad an idea…

DriveByHeckler says:

01:41pm | 18/10/11

I believe the period of political limbo was one of the most successful in modern times.  Everyone beavered away as they always do, without politicians’ counter productive activities but they still diverted the news onto themselves, away from interesting stories.  There’s too much attention and tax payer dollars spent on those, that are so far up themselves, they can see out of their mouths.

Aitch B says:

02:15pm | 18/10/11

@Kipling

Oh you know…. the one that Swannie says will be back in surplus in 2012/13. If he says that now then it must be in deficit, right?

Or are you going to deny what he actually said?

Aitch B says:

02:19pm | 18/10/11

@DriveByHeckler

Beavering? In Canberra it was actually Brown nosing, mate!

acotrel says:

06:20pm | 18/10/11

@KIpling
Boycotting an election is not an option.  !00,000 of our men fought and died in two world wars so we could have the right to vote.  Would you throw their sacrifice back in their faces ?

Tim says:

08:04am | 18/10/11

Why buy new when you can save massively by buying second hand?

ibast says:

09:19am | 18/10/11

Have to agree with Tim.  From your description I can guess which brand you are looking at and with them second hand can save you lots of money, which can buy you a lot of petrol and save you a lot of heartache at selling time.

gobsmack says:

10:44am | 18/10/11

I got my current car at an auction of ex-govt vehicles.  At these auctions you’re mostly up against dealers who have a fixed limit so it’s easy to get something cheap.

John Smythe says:

10:52am | 18/10/11

I’m quite taken by the Audi Q7. The Toyota Landcruisers (I had a Prado once) are just too large. Problem is, what used to be very few and far between Audi’s are now commonplace. Q7s are not so common, but I preferred it when not so many people had them. The R8 would be very nice, but only when I am as rich as Tony Stark.

Maserati on the other hand….. mmmmmm

Steve Perry says:

11:49am | 18/10/11

I wouln’t mind an R7 @John Smythe - but im holding out for an Aston Martin DBS…

Anyone got a spare $400k they wanna donate to the cause..?

S.L says:

01:19pm | 18/10/11

Toyota 3.9% finance UMMMMMMM AAAAAARRRRRR?????????

fairsfair says:

01:46pm | 18/10/11

Get one of those suped up Aurions then S.L. My friend is a policeman and he claims that they go better than any falcon or commodore he has driven.

Thats a pretty good finance deal. Is there a catch?

Wynston Cruso says:

03:33pm | 18/10/11

Cars are a liability, rarely an investment, so if you have the choice, salary package instead of getting a loan. I’ve salary packaged last years Rex for 3 years, after which i pay out what i owe and still sell it for at least 35 grand Good form of forced saving.

stephen says:

04:37pm | 18/10/11

You can get a Ford turbo xr6 manual drive away from Denmac at Richlands, (and probably at all ford dealers) for $34, 995.
If it’s small you want, try the Holden Cruze, cdx with auto.

But i’m not too keen on diesels. They take too long to build up compression once you step on it, and by the time you get going, the transmission runs through too many gears by 60 kph.
Hopeless.
They’re still good truck engines though, and even then you have to vary your cruising speed a lot so’s you dont leave rings in the cylinders.

If it’s not holden of ford, Mazda 3 is a good choice, but not the mps.
(Two and a half litre turbo, and a front-wheel drive ? Gotta be dreamin.)

AdamC says:

08:28am | 18/10/11

Not me. I am a royalist. I look back with horror at my youthful error of voting ‘yes’ to a republic in the 1999 referendum. (Thankfully, the vast bulk of the Australian population were sensible enought o overrule me.) Australia doesn’t need to become a republic just because other countries have, often to their great detriment. Likewise, we don’t need to turf out the Windsors merely to demonstrate an independence we already have.

I say keep the constitutional Monarchy that has guaranteed Australia’s peace, stability and democracy for over 100 years. (Incidentally, anyone know how many republics the French have been through in the same period of time?)

fairsfair says:

08:54am | 18/10/11

Oh my god Seanr - we have finally reached our crossroads… *tears*

I love the Queen. I don’t mind Charles and well I think the Monarch (in additional to its political base) is just a tie to the pomp and ceremony of yesteryear. It is something different. I enjoyed the Royal Wedding because it wasnt about politics or a war. At the time I wondered what was so wrong with some happy news for a change.

Even being Irish, I hold no resentment. They didn’t do it, there is no sign of them doing it again and I am prepared to just move on from all of that. I’m with AdamC on this one champ.

Seanr says:

09:16am | 18/10/11

We’ll agree to disagree on this one AdamC. I don’t believe that a constitutional monarchy has guaranteed us peace and security, more our location, small population relative to land size (reduced internal conflict pressures) and alliances with more powerful nations, first with the UK and now the USA.

I find it archaic that due to an accident of birth a foreigner can rule over us, not just symbolically because through her representative, the GG, she has broad constitutional powers.

I believe that there are more pressing issues facing Australia but I would like to see us become a Republic in my lifetime.

Seanr says:

09:34am | 18/10/11

First the aprichick, then I find out you’re from around Gordonvale and now this…I don’t know if our online friendship can last either fairsfair , but I’m willing to give you and AdamC another chance…please tell me neither of you are closet yodellers.

Elphaba says:

09:41am | 18/10/11

Me three.

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:58am | 18/10/11

I’ll be playing “God Save The Queen” by the Sex Pistols in honor of the Queen’s visit and “You’ve Got Nothing I Want” by Cold Chisel in honor of Obama’s visit…..

palone says:

11:01am | 18/10/11

Adam C. The Monarchy has guaranteed ‘peace’, etc for over 100 years? I think our boys laying in Flanders Field, Tobruk, Sth Africa, and many places elsewhere on the globe, and all of their families, may tend to disagree.
“For King and Country”? Whose King? Whose Country?
Democracy? You mean conscripting young men, our best, to fight a bloody insane war because the King of England had a family spat with Germany’s Kaiser?
Stability? When did sending our finest to die on forein fields for foreign interests ever produce stability in Australia?
I think some people think war is glorious, that death is worthwhile, and that sacrifice is justified, as long as they ensure that the rulers remain, be they Kings, Queens, or Emperors.
You’ve never been to war, have you Adam. I hope you never do.

AdamC says:

11:44am | 18/10/11

@Fairs, I agree. What’s wrong with a little pomp, ceremony and hereditary privilege in moderation? It is only the republicans who insist on taking the Monarchy so seriously!

@Seanr, it seems a rare disagreement. And, no, not a yodeller. (Are there people who, like, yodel for fun or something? You wouldn’t want them as your neighbour!)

@Palone, for Pete’s sake, I was obviously referring to civil peace, not world peace! Of course no Monarch (or President or whatever) could guarantee that there would be no wars or conflicts between states. You would think you would have switched your brain on before writing that ridiculous comment.

fairsfair says:

12:08pm | 18/10/11

boo yeah - I am cooking me some aprichick tonight! Thanks - I was wondering what to have… I’ll swim across to Woolies-eh-hee-hoo

ausspud says:

12:09pm | 18/10/11

I for one welcome our royal overlord.
And I would like this country to continue to have strong links with England and the Monarchy.Not this multicultural bullshit.

palone says:

12:12pm | 18/10/11

Adam C. Your brain, your fault. Why do people keep switching simply to avoid criticism. You know you are wrong. Accept it, move on, and think before you type. You only had to insert “civil”. You didn’t. My fault?
BTW France, to my recollection has had ONE Republic in the last 100 years. Unless you expected the same President to preside for 100 years in your example of a successful republic?

AdamC says:

12:34pm | 18/10/11

Palone, I think it is pretty clear you just saw whatever you want to see in my post. After all, nobody else seems to have misunderstood my point. And I don’t need to insert words simply because certain individual commenters don’t understand concepts like using words in context. Put simply, I am not ‘wrong’. You are wrong, and you should ‘admit’ that you misunderstood a comment written in plain English and wrote a bafflingly silly response to it.

On top of that, you fail to do even a cursory check of Wikipedia (or other reference) before claiming, completly wrongly, that there has only been one French republic in the last 100 years. Seriously, Palone, do you think I would have asked the, clearly rhetorical, question if the answer was only one? How horribly embarrassing for you.

TimB says:

01:35pm | 18/10/11

Adam, Adam, Adam. You missed Palone’s qualifier: “to my recollection”.

If Palone is under the age of say 53, then the establishment of the Fifth French Republic in 1958 would of course spark no recollection in Palone’s memory.

Of course then we have to ask the question of why Palone would rely on the personal memory of less than 53 years to fill in 100 years worth of history….

Puzzling indeed.

But back to the main topic of the thread. As long as retaining the monarchy doesn’t cost us a bundle (apart from the odd Royal visit), and there remains no tangible benefit from becoming a Republic…I’m quite happy to stay loyal to the Crown. Status quo and all that.

Seanr says:

02:31pm | 18/10/11

Just another matter for us to duel on TimB…the list grows long…long indeed.

TimB says:

02:54pm | 18/10/11

And you still labour under the delusion that you have a chance at defeating me Seanr. How cute .

James1 says:

03:55pm | 18/10/11

I can’t stand the English royal family for two reasons.  Firstly is my Irishness.  Secondly is my disdain for people who are famous/rich simply for existing.  To me, the English queen is no better or more deserving of her position than is Paris Hilton.  As a person who has worked hard for everything he has (having refused any assistance from my or my wife’s parents due largely to my stupid Irish pride) the type of inherited status so evident in England chafes on my sense of self worth.  Do these royals have no pride?  No self-respect?  Surely if they did, they would stop living in public housing…

However, while I would love to see a republic in Australia which ditches the monarchy in much the same way that de Valera ditched it, the rational part of me knows it will make no difference, and at this stage is not really worth pursuing.  In any case, if I want to live in a republic where the English royals are widely disdained, I can always go back to Ireland.

stephen says:

04:53pm | 18/10/11

Says he’s Irish and calls himself James1 ?
Mate you must have to look each way 10 times crossing the road huh ?

nihonin says:

09:33am | 18/10/11

Obviously nossy, what she’s offering male voters just isn’t ‘doing’ it for us!

Wilma J Craig says:

04:00pm | 18/10/11

Nossy,
It’s not just male voters who have turned against her! She may have gotten a little boost in the latest polls but when you’re on a hiding to nothing it is meaningless. If that minuscule rise is thanks to feamle voters then that is understandable. Solidarity of the Sisterhood comes into play. Everone seems tobe against Orstrylya’s 1st female PM so the Sisterhood will swing behind her, not because she is a good PM ( She isn’t) but simply because she is a female.
I know what we should do!
Emasculate all the male MPs & Senators with radical, non-reversible operations & do the same to the women. Makeém all dress in identical uni-sex clothes, no make-up ( including the closet gays in our parliaments too), no fancy hairstyles, no feature which can even hint at the gender of any of our less than useless MPs!

nossy says:

04:42pm | 18/10/11

@Wilma J Craig   hhahaah Wilma - thems “fightin woids”! Glad I am not a pollie Wilma.

TChong says:

09:04am | 18/10/11

NikkyC
If ( JG ) wants to , she can do anything,
She is strong,
She is invincible…
She is ..woman.
Just hear her roar, with a voice too powerful to ignore. 

NicoleG says:

09:25am | 18/10/11

LOL Chongy. You’re funny. But please, I don’t want to hear her roar. Just listening to her talk is torture enough  

nossy says:

09:44am | 18/10/11

@NicoleG Gillard still has one ace up her sleeve Nicole and that is to marry Timmy - the resultant press coverage of the “blushing bride” may give her a boost - of course if it doesnt then Kevin11 may have to step in!

ausspud says:

12:18pm | 18/10/11

@NicoleG
Id much rather see her stay the full term,wouldnt it be just tops if a first term pm were to lose her seat
It might be possible and I think it will be the first time ever

NicoleG says:

12:57pm | 18/10/11

I suppose that would be fun to see. If that’s how it pans out auspud, can we PLEASE gag her? I don’t think I can take anymore of her shrieking ‘wrecking blocking NOOOO’ or her complete smashing of the English language ‘Gubement, Ostralya, Hyperbowl’. I just can’t take it!

And nossy, I doubt if that’s going to happen. Poor Tim :(

Ben C says:

10:01am | 18/10/11

Hmmm, I’m guessing the rain means no personal training sessions for you tonight, fairs?

fairsfair says:

10:12am | 18/10/11

Actually, my above comment got me thinking….. (wow!)

We are about to move into our wet season and already we are seeing articles like this:
http://www.news.com.au/national/more-cyclones-than-usual-are-on-the-way-to-australian-coast/story-e6frfkvr-1226169301854

Plus, I happened to catch the Brisbane news last night and by christ I am over that city’s obsession with the weather. Generally speaking each night, story #3 is some flood follow up, storm story, story on unreliable long range predictions backed up with a panic on the long range prediction this summer. I was wondering if anyone else has noticed the QLD capitals rediculous obsession with the weather?

When I lived there, each afternoon my colleagues would be watching the BOM radar loop. Leaving early “to make it home” if it looked like a storm was on the way. Then they’d gab on about that storm that hit in 2002 - god, it was huge! When I asked them how much damage they received it was always answered with “oh none, it just was really windy and stuff”.

I am a bit over it to be honest. Qld weather has always been unpredictable, storms and cyclones and floods are a part of life. I am really annoyed that they are still talking about the floods almost a year later. Cardwell is not contantly on my local news chatting about Yasi - they are too busy rebuilding their lives and getting on with the job. If Yasi had not affected the price of Bananas it would have been forgotten on 02/03/2011. Yet in recent days Brisbane news have been visiting the homes of flood victims, just having a chat.

I find it weird and almost melancholy. Get a f* life Brisbane!

/rant

fairsfair says:

10:15am | 18/10/11

No rest for the wicked Ben. I’ll be slumming it in the puddles with the rest of them Interval training tonight - so at least I won’t have to lay down in a muddy field…

John Smythe says:

12:41pm | 18/10/11

interesting topic…...Fairs, do you tend to walk in the rain…like no umbrella or the like?

Given our tropical location the rain is usually warm (in that it isn’t cold!) and large rain drops.

Having grown up loving the rain and getting absolutely drenched by it jsut walking home from school…I have the tendency now as well….cept rain in Japan is cold, smaller drops….but still something about the feeling is relaxing. (well minus the radiation part but hey…)

fairsfair says:

01:24pm | 18/10/11

I used a brolly at lunch today JS (being at work), but my shoes are satched. I refuse to remove them like other people. If I am at home I will just run it. Donning a rain poncho (like so many tourists are doing today) almost seems like you are admitting defeat. We can’t have that.

Cold rain is horrid. I remember getting caught in frozen rain (what is that it isn’t snow, is it sleet?) when I was living in Dublin. It was horredous. I ended up running home for like 10km. Its amazing what a need to keep warm will do for your fitness!

It certainly is a whole other world of pain   Speaking of radiation… how are things up there? You don’t hear a peep in the Australian media about the recovery or the ongoing remairs at Fukushima. Oh man just imagine a Tsunami hitting Brisbane - good god, that would be decades worth of daily news….

Steve Perry says:

11:55am | 18/10/11

I reckon the TAB should be able to sort that out…

We can vote and place a bet on the outcome at the same time…

iansand says:

09:33am | 18/10/11

Because people might do it twice…

fml says:

05:56pm | 18/10/11

@iansand,

Best comment all day and no one has taken the time to appreciate it,

i like :D.

fml says:

09:58am | 18/10/11

We should be allowing them more free speech not less!!

Spam is just a derivative of free speech anyways

Forza spam!

Simonious says:

10:17am | 18/10/11

Thanks for that Ryan. I didnt know blocklists like that existed.

RyaN says:

10:37am | 18/10/11

@Simonious: The entire list of blocklists can be found here http://www.iblocklist.com/lists.php and if you are using a PC you can just download something like PeerBlock (free) which can subscribe to your chosen lists as a personal firewall.

To be quite honest, companies that don’t do business in countries that don’t take action against spammers and hackers should really consider blocking the offending countries.

This guy does a good blog about it http://www.darrenpopham.com/?p=231

ibast says:

09:40am | 18/10/11

I was thinking the same thing.  What are they protesting about?  Executive salaries?  If so learn to use a calculator.  I’ll give you the five cents you’ll get if you shut up and go away.

As for the Coal Seam methane, if think they don’t know what they are protesting about either.  The one in Illawarra wasn’t aimed at any project in particular, just NIMBY, whatever it is.

I think if you asked anyone if they could use a dangerous, greenhouse gas to make free energy, would they? most people would say, “Shit yeah”.  There are some questions about fragging, but the protest against CSM is disproportionate to the risk.  It seems most people saying, “No” are doing so because they’re are expecting some major mine or big ugly power station, when the reality is really the opposite.

Elphaba says:

09:44am | 18/10/11

I think the fact that the people protesting corporate greed and capitalism were also busy tapping away on their iPhones was hysterical.

Talk about having no freakin’ clue…

Aitch B says:

09:47am | 18/10/11

Interesting that at one of the protests here (can’t remember which one) the protesters had an ‘arrests scoreboard’. I don’t know whether there were any arrests but to me that indicates that the protesters were planning on activities that might raise the interest of the constabulary.

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:04am | 18/10/11

@ibast- Free energy sounds good (yeah right as if the energy companies aren’t going to jack up the prices anyway) but a polluted water table and contaminated agricultural land not so good.

Arise says:

10:55am | 18/10/11

I have been watching this movement very closely,  even went to the Sydney protest. There were a lot of very well intentioned people there, and their gripes were legitimate, but I think they are being very cleverly manipulated by the very people they claim to be fighting against. They are now beginning to call for a “run on the banks” (which is highly illegal), as if this is will be some way to pay back the bank for bail outs and high salaries . History has shown us who really benefits from bank runs and why. Either this has been a clever plan from the start or the movement has been subverted. Regardless, I withdraw all support for it.

Knemon says:

11:32am | 18/10/11

1% of the world’s richest people control 40% of the world’s wealth.

40% of the planets adults control 1% of the world’s wealth.

Bank and financial executives earning more than 10 million dollars a year…for what exactly?

While scientists and other academics working for the betterment of mankind, like finding cures for cancer are lucky to earn 100K a year.

These are only part of the reason why they are protesting, they probably won’t achieve much but this IS the start of a revolution.

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

John Smythe says:

12:45pm | 18/10/11

Knemon, you realise where a lot of funding and donations come from right?

Knemon says:

01:13pm | 18/10/11

@ John Smythe - No I don’t…tell me where.

TimB says:

01:22pm | 18/10/11

To sum up Knemon’s comment:

‘You have money. We want money. Give us money.’

Bugger off protesters. Go do something productive.

Markus says:

01:24pm | 18/10/11

@Knemon, the problem with that idea is that the second said scientists start earning the big bucks the protestors say they deserve, they would group them into the evil 1% as well.
After all, pharmaceutical companies are researching cures for the betterment of mankind too, yet are apparently the spawn of Satan.

So essentially the entire argument can be summed up as “nobody deserves to earn more money than anyone else, except those that deserve it”. Hardly a coherent stance to be protesting.

John Smythe says:

01:25pm | 18/10/11

I’ll bite then..and use a local company as an example. Macquarie often matches $ for $ any donations raised to legitimate charities and the like. Albeit, this is mostly charities, but institutional firms have philanthropy division that get allocated money to invest in a multitude of research/charities and the like.

So being all envious about some executive’s salary is quite misguided. Look what Bill Gates has done for one.

ibast says:

02:08pm | 18/10/11

Knemon, Communism has been tried and has failed.  The experiments have proven that regulated capitalism provides the best economic position for the most people.

Beside who gets to decide who’s job is important?  Scientists you say?  So a Scientist working on knot theory should be payed more than a financial expert taking responsibility for millions of peoples pension funds?

What about an Engineer who works on national infrastructure?  What if that infrastructure in Coal fire power stations?

Knemon says:

02:15pm | 18/10/11

@ TimB (& others) - How many more years do you think the current system of world financial markets and economics can keep operating for…10? 20? 30?

Countries looking at bankruptcy, the few are getting richer, the many are getting poorer, at some stage something has to give, the current system has failed, you even said yourself the other day - the world is in a dire financial situation and that Wayne Swan was lucky to be named finance minister of the year when the rest of the world is f**ked economically. Like it or not, capitalism is doomed.

I do admit to being lucky, perhaps even a hypocrite, I took advantage of the system and now I’m living off the rewards, others, including yourself, won’t be so lucky.

TimB says:

02:30pm | 18/10/11

“Countries looking at bankruptcy, “

Yes Knemon. Countries like Greece.

Have a look at what kind of government has been in charge there. Have a look at some of the insane policies they have, paticularly when it comes to funding the members of their public service, or their tax laws. Then you might have an idea about *why* they’re bankrupt.

Isn’t it funny how many members of the Greek citizenry seem to have the same sort of entitlement mentality as these ‘Occupy Wall St” protesters?

John Smythe says:

02:36pm | 18/10/11

keep telling yourself that Knemon.

Mark G says:

03:07pm | 18/10/11

I think the most interesting thing when it comes to the salaries of people in our society is that people get annoyed when an executive take home a big salary but are perfectly fine when and actor, singer or sports person takes home millions. Apparently if you are an entertainer its ok to get a big payday but if you are a bank manager you are the spawn of Satan. Look at a list of the richest people in our society. They are not all execs. I always find this interesting. Even amongst executives, the banking sector doesn’t produce the richest people. Guys like Richard Branson got rich on the entertainment sector. Bill Gates got rich in IT. Rupert Murdoch got rich in media and so on. This is always interesting to me, Bankers cop the most abuse and yet they are far from the most immorally funded millionaires.

Adam Diver says:

11:44am | 18/10/11

Again the west loses. Its hard to fight a battle when only one side has consequences. It reminds me of “the dark knight” fighting an enemy that doesn’t place equal value on human life/liberties/freedom etc.

fml says:

12:05pm | 18/10/11

Adam, are you talking about Israel or the palestinians?

ausspud says:

12:34pm | 18/10/11

Unfortunately It sounds like their very own Malaysian solution

AdamC says:

12:59pm | 18/10/11

Adam Diver, well, to the extent that this legion of killers will now be at large, the west has lost. However, I suspect (as other Middle East observers have pointed out) Hamas is not releasing Shalit from a position of strength. So it is not all bad.

Fml, well, I dunno, the Palestinians seem to want these criminals back. Personally, if I were in charge of the Palestinians, I would tell the Israelis they could keep the prisoners. Having said that, I wouldn’t have kidnapped Shalit in the first place, so I’m not the guy to ask.

Shane* says:

01:12pm | 18/10/11

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. It’s was true for the IRA and it is true for the Palestinians.

SimonFromLakemba says:

01:26pm | 18/10/11

Do we know these prisoners are violent? they could well be political prisoners as well, as Israel has locked up a few over time.

I couldnt see Israel releasing hardened terrorists back into society

fml says:

01:33pm | 18/10/11

Adam,

While i think that violence is never the answer, i thought that Mr Diver’s last sentence, especially the part about “equal value on human life/liberties/freedom etc.”, could be quite aptly used to describe both sides.

While you mention the palestinians are criminals, you have to mention that the israelies are also criminals (the settlers) with their stealing of palestinian land, which has been said so by the international court of justice.

Its a complicated situation where both sides are breaking laws and acting immorally, i dont think ethics should be applied to one side only.

Adam Diver says:

02:09pm | 18/10/11

Please don’t read too much into my comment, I do not suggest a great knowledge of middle east politics, but a release of hundreds of individuals for one, suggest severe inequality (although you could argue that one side had locked up more).

My point was directed more at terroism in general.

AdamC says:

02:37pm | 18/10/11

SimonFromLakemba, they are definitely releasing some real nasty ones. That is why some Israelis sought to injunct the release. In essence, Israel is releasing terrorists who have killed Israeli civilians.

Fml, neither side is blameless in this conflict. However, this case highlights the ridiculousness of the double standards that are applied to Israel. There is no way the Israelis could have gotten away with kidnapping and holding Palestinians hostage. (And, indeed, they haven’t.) Yet everyone seems to think it is just de rigeur for the Palestinians to force Israel to release hundreds of dangerous criminals in exchange for an Israeli they have abducted and held, on no legitimate grounds, for five years. (I would add that they also haven’t followed accepted norms such as allowing the Red Cross access to the ‘prisoner’, but that goes without saying.)

And the useful idiots who screech and howl at Israel’s smallest infraction seemingly sew their lips together on this one.

Shane* says:

03:29pm | 18/10/11

AdamC, Your use of cleverly worded phrases is as impressive as any IDF media release.

Terrorists. Murderers. Kidnapping. Abducted.

Well as someone who is (I would wager) more objective than you are, I would argue that the dynamic in the Middle East hasn’t been one of traditional warfare for many generations. Shalit’s capture fits the technical description of a kidnapping, yes. However in practice he is a POW. In practice the “murderers” and “terrorists” you jump so quickly to label as such are actually new-dynamic soldiers (actually many are also women and children… but whatever…)

A significant number of Palestinians consider themselves at war with Israel. It may not be trench warfare but it is warfare nonetheless. Why would the Palestineans allow the Red Cross see Shalit when there is no chance in hell the Israeli government would allow a similar process take place with any captured Palestinean?

This war continues because of rampant human rights abuses on both sides, bombs being fired from Gaza and tanks marching through the West Bank and the illegal settlements undertaken by the supposedly ‘civil’ Israelis, who believe the land was granted to them by God. Their sense of self-entitlement is the only reason this war continues.

fml says:

03:30pm | 18/10/11

AdamC,

This line must be a typo right?

“There is no way the Israelis could have gotten away with kidnapping and holding Palestinians hostage. (And, indeed, they haven’t.) Yet everyone seems to think it is just de rigeur for the Palestinians to force Israel to release hundreds of dangerous criminals in exchange for an Israeli they have abducted and held, on no legitimate grounds, for five years.”

The Israelies have not kept anyone hostage?? or are you just assuming that All palestinians held by Israel are criminals and hence prisoners and not hostages?

gobsmack says:

03:45pm | 18/10/11

@AdamC
“There is no way the Israelis could have gotten away with kidnapping and holding Palestinians hostage.”
Are you joking?
A large number of the palestinian prisoners have been held for years without trial.
The hypocrisy is that when Israel does it, they “capture” the palestinians” and “imprison” them, whereas when Hamas does it to one Israeli (a member of the Israeli defence force), he is “abducted” and “held hostage”.
The Israeli defence force has killed many more palestinian civilians than Hamas terrorists, yet none are held to account.
I agree that when it comes to Israel, double standards apply.

AdamC says:

03:59pm | 18/10/11

Shane*, you are clearly no more ‘objective’ than I am. Even if you could seriously argue that the Hamas operatives who abducted Shalit were akin to ‘soldiers’ (which is ridiculous, but I am being indulgent here) the circumstances of Shalit’s kidnapping could never amount to the taking of a ‘prisoner of war’. That, and Hamas has not treated Shalit like a prisoner of war, anyway.

Indeed, the only people who confuse Hamas criminals and terrorists with ‘soldiers’  are the deluded members of that organisation’s unlikely western fan club. Even Hamas memebers don’t seem to see themselves as soldiers. They certainly don’t act like soldiers. They act like criminals and terrorists, which is what they are.

I am actually quite happy to hear criticisms of Israel, and disagree with many aspects of Israel’s recent conduct. But people making excuses for fanatics who indiscrimintely (indeed, deliberately) attack civilian targets and intentionally murder non-combatants is another thing entirely. 

Fml, there are some Palestinians who are held in Israel under ‘administrative detention’ - which is not ideal but still based on law. However, most Palestinians in Israeli jails are convicted criminals. So, yes, I do dispute that Israel is holding Palestinian hostages, because they are not.

James1 says:

04:23pm | 18/10/11

Shane*, the IRA is in a totally different category to the likes of Hamas.  Sure, since the Civil War, when large numbers split from the Free Staters, and particularly as the Troubles escalated, much of the IRA has lost its way.  But it began as a genuine army of liberation during the War of Independence, when they turned back the Black and Tans and freed Ireland from the tyrants.  Even during the Troubles and since, they are not fighting for a religious theocracy - they are fighting for the eight lost counties of Ulster to be part of the Republic.  Hamas was founded as and remains nothing more than a terrorist group.  And if you were to add anything to that description, surely it would have to be tyrants.  They were never a professional army like the IRA, they are not fighting for a just cause (no theocracy can possibly be just), and it seems to me that while the IRA fought tyrants and murderers, Hamas is fighting for tyrants and murderers.

Shane* says:

04:30pm | 18/10/11

AdamC, if you’re Jewish (and I’m going to go out on a limb and say you are), then yes… I am more objective than you are.

Unlikely Western Fan Club = Any objective person who’s read the facts for themselves.

fml says:

04:57pm | 18/10/11

Adam,

See a few of your sentences can equally be applied to Israel, especially the one about attacking civilians intentionally.

Now for this doozey, ‘administrative detention’. What you mean held hostage? ‘administrative detention’ doesnt mean prisoner, it means you are being held for administrative purposes, so, yes hostage, you seriously think just because you call it, ‘administrative detention’, (heheh i like saying that), that you can argue that it is not hostage?

James1, Hamas has a majority of seats in the palestinian parliament, does this mean if Palestine ever get state borders that they will be considered a national army instead of a terrorist organisation? What is the definition of the term terrorism?

” Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).” Shane, is right, the One man’s freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

AdamC says:

05:50pm | 18/10/11

Shane*, no, I am not Jewish. I am an agnostic Australian with mainly Protestant Scots/English heritage. I should thank you for asking, though.

Pro-Isreal means you must be Jewish = Obvious anti-semitic idiot/troll. Having said that, maybe I am actually a gentile double agent for the conspiracy?

Fml, administrative detention is not the same as holding people hostage. This is for two reasons:

1) While administrative in nature, the detention is still based on an established process and subject to judicial review. And

2) In any event, administrative detention in Israel must be based on security grounds. Unlike Hamas with Shalit, who was kidnapped for quite different reasons.

Sometimes I wonder what Hamas makes of its western apologists. I personally suspect they would find many of the desperate rationalisations and equivalising quite funny.

fml says:

08:09pm | 18/10/11

AdamC

Thats where you are wrong, i never apologised on behalf of hamas, all i did was point out that Israel are just as much at fault in the middle east conflict and much of what you said can equally be applied to them.

Everybody, who even makes a claim about Israel must be an apologist hey? why dont you just go on and call me a terrorist supporter, i am half way there right???

” I personally suspect they would find many of the desperate rationalisations and equivalising quite funny” of course you would. You are incapable of seeing blame on both sides. What is funny is that you cant even see that i said that both sides are to blame, and yet i am an apologist. Clearly you think Israel are not at all at fault, Your one sided viewpoint is the real hilarity.

TimB says:

01:07pm | 18/10/11

What’s this I hear? Is that the sound of a crazed Trekker begging to be Lightsabred?

Regarding the comment I suppose it *is* easy for the unenlightened to get confused between ‘proton torpedoes’ and ‘photon torpedoes’

Shenanigans says:

02:37pm | 18/10/11

Star Wars is real man, don’t be telling lies, don’t be doing this to me man

nossy says:

12:22pm | 18/10/11

@palone well done there palone keeping “Poetry Tuesday” going in style! Looks like Richard has done a runner?

palone says:

05:00pm | 18/10/11

Thank you Nossy, it is always nice to be reminded of those beautiful words by D.M. and to understand that we were, as a nation, a bit selective in our choice of just one verse. I personally love the last, and tried very hard, ( in the 60s,70s), to have immortalised as the “..sunburnt country..” verse was. A stanza is a stanza, as e.e. cummings was wont to say and yes, its all beautiful.
Don’t think that you can’t write poetry, Nossy. Everyone writes poetry everytime they say to their wife, daughter son, or enemy, “I love the fact of your being”.
Or when a child says, “I love you, Mummy.”
It’s all good.

nossy says:

05:05pm | 18/10/11

@fairsfair   fair comment there FF - sadly we now live in a world where everything is instant - we have Twitter, Facebook blah blah blah and everyone is aboard the instant information highway and so we get stories that years ago wouldnt have rated a mention being blown up way out of all proportion. And I think things will get even worse as time goes on FF - brace yourself! Tomorrow I am skiing down Mt Everest naked so be prepared for that story to be HUGE!  hahahahah

palone says:

05:14pm | 18/10/11

Fairsfair, this is what happened. (They won’t tell you, but I will).
The journos went out to do a story on drugs, but heard a bloke had been shot in that scenario, so no go. Then they heard that a guy, through no fault of his own tripped on a deck and his baby died, so they said bugger that, and back to base. too dangerous, by far.
They tried hard with the project story, (they really went out and chased it), but unfortunately couldn’t find it because it was built on the wrong spot.
Frustrated out of their investigative minds they then determined to get to the bottom of the ‘flood-fear’ story you mentioned, but, wouldn’t you know—it bloody rained. Back to the office fellahs. We don’t get paid to put our lives on the line.
Who said that investigative journalism is dead? Answer? The investigative journalists!  And what a fine job they did.