Father Bob : "Australia's Majestic Military"

"In australia, questioning the military is like questioning the prophet"

I'm trying to think of the word he used... I guess "a thrashing" is close enough - for what happpens if you make a prophet cartoon ^^

I don't think you realise, that if you are going to tell me that all our wars are the same, and that Iraq is as noble a cause as was the WW's...

That maybe i will think poorly of the world wars instead of highly of the current ones... Perhaps WW1 was based on just as much bullshit, and you just want me to applaud some old idiot to inspire the current ones..?

You wanted some circumstance in which it is Good and Right to kill people... So what if there is?

Maybe the ones you are fighting have found themselves in such a circumstance?

I don't really even like the "Killing in self-defence" rule...
And i doubt you'll find any better excuse..

If someone attacks you, do you instantly have a license to kill?
It depends on what weapon you are carrying?
eg. Gun = yes, knife = maybe, taser = unlikely, pepper spray = unlikely, car = no

If people are using guns you Are allowed to use bombs..?

You are just as guilty of escalation as they..?

How does more people fighting make the problem less?

You have nastier weapons? hiphip...

Should i wait until you have completely lost your way..?

Where words can get you arrested..? ^^

Prophet adf says : It is written, ISIS must be destroyed, because we are incapable of anything else... So destruction it is..

Not very convincing are we?

The only people capable of defeating ISIS without death and destruction are the people of Iraq / Syria.
If they are not interested why are we?

People will, one way or another, set their own standards as to their culture and environment...
I don't know where they learnt all this violence, but they should have what they should choose.. And they should choose wisely =)

They're certainly not the only one with a `Violence Problem`, hmm..?

>>11
Well we should so as to prevent the destruction/robbing of historical things.

wahhabis are to islam what evangelism is to christianity

I want to see evangelicals and isis fight each other with spears and arrows.

I don't think there is a rule, that if you start a war in another country, it is confined to that other country...

I have every right to protest =)

I'd doubt your rules can even distinguish between an act of terror and an act of war...

Fact is, where-ever ISIS is supported in majority by the local population, without coercion, it is more-or-less legitimate..

All these foreign kids charging in there are a bit silly, but you have helped militarise their ideals..?

Military is what you use when you've got nothing else?

I've got my mind =)

It's true though isn't it?

The army is kind of playing the jesus card with all this `We Saved You, We died for your sins`...

The ones who died are dead though..

Still you go to war at the drop of a hat, sending men to their death...
If i should feel guilty, it's that no-one else has clipped you round the ears yet..

It does make me laugh though, 40 nations to stop a few thousand men..

Maybe i will stop those few thousand with a voice ^^

ISIS already has it's leader though
I don't envy his bloodied hands

Holy samefag, batfucker!

Laws of War :
Declaration on the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons; July 29, 1899

The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a term of five years, the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other new methods of a similar nature.

They didn't have missiles and jet planes back then...

CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE OPENING OF HOSTILITIES

Article 1
The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.

Is That It?!?

You really can go to war over a dropped hat..?

You missed a spot there, Hague..

No Flying Guns or Bombs for the first 5(Five) years into a War.

courtesy of Hague =)

The Wright brothers, Orville (August 19, 1871 – January 30, 1948) and Wilbur (April 16, 1867 – May 30, 1912), were two American brothers, inventors, and aviation pioneers who are credited[1][2][3] with inventing and building the world's first successful airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight, on December 17, 1903. From 1905 to 1907, the brothers developed their flying machine into the first practical fixed-wing aircraft.

Hence Balloons?

Balloons had been used on a small scale in previous wars, and there was much speculation about the future use of aircraft in war. At the First Hague Conference the prohibition was accepted for a period of five years which expired on 4 September 1905.

What a weak law... didn't even make it into WW1

Your Freedom to engage in warfare has been utterly abused...
The government speaks of Anti-terror laws, then implements Orwell's Laws..

Must be time to unleash the Jerramungup Convention!

Act 1 Article 1
The initialisation and escalation of Hostilities are strictly forbidden. Breaking this act transfers authority to the next peaceful organisation, or group of organisations, unrelated to the hostile party.
In the case of no peaceful groups, it is recommended one be formed.

Act 1 Article 2
All laws and customs applicable to an individual by the collective, also apply to the collective as an individual, including taxes.
Taxes levied at 30% shall repay 30% of that income, divided equally amongst and payable to each individual.

I think the scariest thing is How Perfectly Reasonable these two little laws are...
Reject them at your own peril ^^

A good question might be where to draw the line on what constitutes Hostilities..
At the moment `spying' is rated at ten years prison, so spying must be considered Quite Hostile..?
About the same as murder i guess.. lol

Don't murder too many people ASIO...

Oh no... just look at the synonyms for culpable

to blame, guilty, at fault, in the wrong, blameworthy, blameable, censurable, reproachable, reprovable, found wanting;
..responsible, answerable, liable, accountable

That is a serious misjudgement..

In early human history the national interest was usually viewed as secondary to that of religion or morality (Public Interests). To engage in a war rulers needed to justify the action in these contexts. The first thinker to advocate for the primacy of the national interest is usually considered to be Niccolò Machiavelli. ...

States could now openly embark on wars purely out of self-interest. (Or so they thought..) Mercantilism can be seen as the economic justification of the aggressive pursuit of the national interest.

These notions became much criticized after the bloody debacle of the First World War, and some sought to replace the concept of the balance of power with the idea of collective security, whereby all members of the League of Nations would "consider an attack upon one as an attack upon all," thus deterring the use of violence for ever more. The League of Nations did not work, partially because the United States refused to join and partially because, in practice, nations did not always find it "in the national interest" to deter each other from the use of force.

Machiavelli is sometimes seen as the prototype of a modern empirical scientist, building generalizations from experience and historical facts, and emphasizing the uselessness of theorizing with the imagination.[15] (lol)

He emancipated politics from theology and moral philosophy. He undertook to describe simply what rulers actually did and thus anticipated what was later called the scientific spirit in which questions of good and bad are ignored, and the observer attempts to discover only what really happens.
—Joshua Kaplan, 2005[19]

It's funny how National Interests can even conflict with National Security.. So much so even mentioning actual National interests might be a security risk?

Maybe your just another crook...