War – resistance is futile?

Some time ago I put up a post about an Australian peace activist who was involved in a trial in Ireland with four others for damaging a US warplane which was refuelling at Ireland’s Shannon airport on its way to Iraq. The group ended up being acquitted by a jury. I wanted to provoke some debate about how far one could or should logically go with nonviolent resistance to wars which you believe to be wrong, but which your own country supports and participates in, and I was using this guy as an example.

The comments on the post ended up getting quite personal and for a variety of reasons I ended up taking the whole post down. I thought I’d have another go at briefly exploring a few of the issues raised by our country’s involvement in wars in various ways, and whether risking long jail terms in nonviolently opposing such involvement is a useful form of resistance.

These types of actions have some extra relevance at the moment, as there is a trial happening in Australia at the moment of four local Christian pacifists who at the end of 2005 conducted a ‘citizens inspection’ of Pine Gap, a USA-Australia military intelligence facility near Alice Springs in central Australia.

This led to them being the first people ever charged under the Cold War era Defence (Special Undertakings) Act of 1952 which carries a seven year jail term. The decision to charge them under this Act for unlawfully entering a prohibited area and operating a camera in a prohibited area (as well as trespass offences under the Crimes Act) was made by the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock. Aspects of the case are also currently subject to a suppression order (and I can’t tell you what it’s about, because it’s suppressed.)

There have been a few of these types of actions in the UK, Ireland and the USA in recent years where protestors enter military bases to damage equipment or to ‘bear witness’. This article by George Monbiot details a few recent cases where the defendants have been acquitted.

The justification for these sorts of actions often touches on the Nuremberg Principles, where following orders is no excuse in committing or allowing a war crime to occur, and where arguably citizens have a duty to act to stop the commission of a war crime. These Principles are not just some ‘left wing’ piece of utopian puristry. They were used as part of the trials of Nazis after World War II. They are not specifically codified in Australian law, but this does not stop them from applying under international law.

However much I wrestle with the issues involved with war and military activity, I’m not a pacifist. I opposed the invasion of Iraq, but supported our troops staying there (until it became obvious their presence was causing more harm than good). I supported invading Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and opposed the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in the lead up to the Iraq war.

But I still admire the courage of someone who follows through with their beliefs to the extent that they are prepared to risk severe personal consequences for an action that most people would consider fairly futile. One of the aims of such (in some ways) extreme actions is to raise awareness and get people to confront their own responsibilities and actions in regard to war. I doubt it will turn me into a total pacifist, but I figure the least I can do is to consider the questions and challenges they put to us all as part of undertaking such actions.

I am a big fan of the principle that the ends shouldn’t justify the means, and the ‘means’ of war are truly terrible regardless of the ‘ends’ that purport to justify them. However, the means used do also affect the end that is reached, and total nonviolence can lead to some terrible ends too, no matter how noble the means.

This link goes to an interesting review of a book called “A History of Nonviolence”. It starts by referring to George Orwell (who was writing around the time of World War II, which brings these sorts of issues into very stark relief).

George Orwell was never much for pacifists. He wrote of his nonviolent political adversaries during World War II: If they “imagine that one can somehow ‘overcome’ the German army by lying on one’s back, let them go on imagining it, but let them also wonder occasionally whether this is not an illusion due to security, too much money and a simple ignorance of the way in which things actually happen.” To Mohandas Gandhi, his Indian contemporary and fellow anti-imperialist, he accorded only a grudging and critical respect. Yet because he viewed many pacifists as specialists in evading unpleasant truths, Orwell did admire Gandhi’s unflinching honesty with regard to the Holocaust: When asked about resistance to the Nazis, Gandhi argued that the Jews should have prepared en masse to sacrifice their lives in nonviolence — something Orwell regarded as “collective suicide” — in order to “[arouse] the world and the people of Germany to Hitler’s violence.”

It is easy to become relatively immune to just how horrific war is, (whilst also not ignoring some of the horrors that the promoters of war often say they are trying to confront), as most of us only experience it through a television screen. It really should be a last resort and we should be doing a lot more to seek to prevent and condemn it except where it is absolutely necessary, not least through putting much greater priority on disarmament and doing something to reduce the burgeoning global arms trade, which many western nations are up to their necks in.

I’m interested in people’s comments on the issue. (but please keep comments to the issues and principles involved, rather than the individuals).

(PS – click here to see some background on the phrase “resistance is futile”

Please like & share:

134 Comments

  1. cont,
    It is U.S.(facilitating multinationals) domination of Asian economies that is the basis for U.S. influence in Asia/Pacific. This dominance, in the same way the U.N. is manipulated, is the very essence of the problem not a stepping stone for negotiations, especially with N.Korea.

    I have no doubt that the role of Pine Gap has changed since the last time there was a serious questioning of its purpose (Ball etc in the cold war). However the purpose of the base is still to serve U.S. Unilateralism, not OZ interest and certainly not any international agendas.

    The way the U.S. punished N.Z. for its neutrality is just the same process, and it is true they would punish us for our independence too (which is why the ALP supports P.G. too, not because of any assessment of the bases worth to Oz). However Oz has a better economic capacity than N.Z. to cope with such bullying. It is our blind adherence to the U.S. economic agenda (which cannot be separated from its military agenda) that makes us economically vulnerable (as we are military vulnerable)

  2. Also E.P., you should not believe someone just because they know more about something.

    e.g. Mark said that P.G is not about missile targeting, but concedes.

    “If you mean that the information used to derive the DMPI may well flow from space-based systems to the mob who develop the DMPI sets, then I guess (Note the word) that PG would play a role as a point on that comms path. It is, first and foremost, a communications downlink site for geosyncronous satellites. SO it would be logical that the data would flow through that site.”

    my link on Raetheon missile shield geosyncronous technology (post 90) confirms Marks guess, which tends to undermine his very argument that Pine Gap does not do these things.

    It is totally naive to think experts have no bias or self interest. They must be questioned to find out what that bias is.

  3. MarkL asserts that I want Pine Gap closed, and wish therefore to deny “us” a means of defence against nuclear attack. Wrong.

    He also asserts that a ballistic missile defence can serve no aggressive purpose. Wrong again.

    The problem with a missile defence shield is that it can prevent retaliation as much as it can prevent aggression. So an unscrupulous full-scale nuclear power could use nukes against a weaker country, and then prevent or ameliorate any missile-based counter-attack.

    The principal offender in both the use of nuclear weapons, and the threat of using nuclear weapons is the USA. While Pine Gap is in the service of the USA it will help fuel a nuclear arms race.

    If we want to use Pine Gap for verication and arms control, we’ll have to transfer ownership to the UN, so the shield can be applied equally to all..

    The only safe nuclear shield is universal disarmament.

    The USA is a bully and a menace.

    Transform Pine Gap

  4. My Dad lived and worked in Alice Springs some years ago and knew some of the gardener types at Pine Gap. He was told that the yanks controlled and imported everything into the place from the US, even such basics as toilet paper are brought in from the US.

    Why?

  5. There is no defensive component to missile shields, it is a componant of an aggressive system.

    The purpose of a missile shield is to take out your oponents missiles before they take out your own missile infrastructure, ensuring the aggressive missiles hit their targets and continue to do so.

    In the event of a conventional or nuclear exchange the missile shield will be used to protect .U.S. infrastructure and not civilian populations, especially Australians. Mark refered earlier of the Barricade scenario that allowed N.Z. and Oz to be hit in a nuclear strike as a necessary loss to protect U.S. interests. I have no doubt current missile shield scenarios are equally willing to sacrifice us.

    Sorry to challenge you on details Bryan but this scenario is also relevent to war with other super powers, not just smaller weaker nations, because, just like cold war scenario’s, the tactical advantage of first strike allows you to take out your opponents infrastructure as the backlash begins. The shield protects prioritised military interests but does not have the capacity to take out all retaliatary missiles. The massive retaliation of a superpower is acceptible collateral damage to protect military infrastructure, or at least it was in the old days of the cold war.

  6. It’s good to see Bryan in #104 being partially honest for a moment, and finally admitting that the target of his “actions” is the US.

    A real peace activist would, of course, oppose all militaries. But Bryan is not one of those — he is an active campaigner against the US and its allies, including all of us. He is objectively supporting our enemies.

    Beware of those who call themselves “peace activists”. In almost all cases, they are simply partisan propagandists, often working for the bad guys.

  7. but if a super power did attack a weaker nation, such as Iran or Nth Korea, in light of military superiority including missile shields the smaller nation is more likely to attack a weaker U.S. ally such as Iraq hitting Israel when the U.S. hit Iraq. Who would Nth Korea strike at, especially keeping in mind its limited range delivery systems?

    Missiles may be deflected from Pine Gap or any of the other U.S. bases imposed here but Darwin, Townsville, Brisbane and maybe Sydney are very vulnerable in the event of any conflict with Nth. Korea.

  8. It is a bit cheap of you to attack Bryan … Attack me…
    COMMENT: I am not attacking any person. I am attacking law’s delusional and biased worldview, and trying quite hard to inform you of some realities (which you can verify – what ever you do, do not take my work for it!).

    You said
    COMMENT: The USA is LEADING the UN push for sanctions. ….
    Do you consider the U.S. bombing raids in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya to be part of the U.S. “leading” U.N. sanctions?
    COMMENT: We were discussing the single case of the DPRK. This is extension of the argument. And I am sorry, you do not remember correctly. For example, Iraq was in an ARMISTICE arrangement with the UN, which it then breached (a clear cassus belli). In the end, it was in breach of (IIRC) 17 UN resolutions: and for over a decade the UN took NO action. This is not the UN dancing to the US tune, like a puppet.
    What always surprises me with intelligent people is how opinions can be formed as yours has on the basis of bad information. Essentially, you have been ‘got at’ to the point where you are not giving me YOUR opinions based on observed facts, but the predigested opinions of others.
    I think that is sad.

  9. It is U.S.(facilitating multinationals) domination of Asian economies that is the basis for U.S. influence in Asia/Pacific.
    COMMENT: Japan, the PRC, Russia, the ROK and ROC are hardly economically dominated by either US companies. Again, you are an intelligent fellow, where are you getting this utter nonsense from? Go on-line and check out who owns what among the Zaibatsu, the huge Chinese companies, the big Korean corporations. THEY dominate the economies of Asia, AND YOU CAN EASILY VERIFY THIS FOR YOURSELF. Again, you seem to be parroting the erroneous concepts of others. Where are JOHN TRACEY’s opinions?

    I have no doubt that the role of Pine Gap has changed…. However the purpose of the base is still to serve U.S. Unilateralism, not OZ interest ….
    COMMENT: Sigh.It serves ALLIANCE needs, US national needs and AUSTRALIAN national needs. That is why all Australian governments, even Whitlam’s, agree to it. Among the requirements served by the system of which PG is part are OUR OWN UNIQUE NATIONAL NEEDS.

  10. The way the U.S. punished N.Z. for its neutrality is just the same process, and it is true they would punish us for our independence too (which is why the ALP supports P.G. too, not because of any assessment of the bases worth to Oz). However Oz has a better economic capacity than N.Z. to cope with such bullying. It is our blind adherence to the U.S. economic agenda (which cannot be separated from its military agenda) that makes us economically vulnerable (as we are military vulnerable)
    COMMENT: NZ was not punished by the US AND AUSTRALIA for its neutrality, it was punished because it abandoned its Alliance and in doing has cost (and is costing) us a hell of a lot of money. They dropped some burden-sharing tasks which we had to pick up. Essentially, NZ defence policy is to hide behind Australia while NOT helping with the load – in our vernacular, bludging.
    Example: their elderly Skyhawks were the ground-attack aircraft for AS&NZ under both ANZUS and the ANZAC Treaties. They did not want to pay for their replacement. So Australia had to buy attack helicopters to cover the gap.

  11. e.g. Mark said that P.G is not about missile targeting, but concedes.
    “If you mean that the information used to derive the DMPI may well flow from space-based systems to the mob who develop the DMPI sets, then I guess (Note the word) that PG would play a role as a point on that comms path. It is, first and foremost, a communications downlink site for geosyncronous satellites. SO it would be logical that the data would flow through that site.”
    my link on Raetheon missile shield geosyncronous technology (post 90) confirms Marks guess, which tends to undermine his very argument that Pine Gap does not do these things.
    It is totally naive to think experts have no bias or self interest. They must be questioned to find out what that bias is.
    COMMENT: You are conflating data flow with data processing. By this reasoning, the internet is JUST as nasty as PG, because data obtained from open source internet sources can also be used to calculate DMPI for weapons systems. As can paper maps.

  12. MarkL asserts that I want Pine Gap closed, and wish therefore to deny “us” a means of defence against nuclear attack. Wrong.
    COMMENT: Yet, that would be an outcome of your ACTIONS.
    He also asserts that a ballistic missile defence can serve no aggressive purpose. Wrong again.
    COMMENT: This’ll be good…
    The problem with a missile defence shield is that it can prevent retaliation as much as it can prevent aggression. So an unscrupulous full-scale nuclear power could use nukes against a weaker country, and then prevent or ameliorate any missile-based counter-attack.
    COMMENT: Lemme get this straight. We must not defend ourselves and must let weaker countries have the ability to attack us. Even if systems exist which are purely defensive, we must always leave ourselves vulnerable to unprovoked aggression.
    You are therefore willing to risk Australian cities (note that we are not a nuclear power) to unstable regimes such as the DPRK. How is this morally correct?
    BTW, you invalidate your own reasoning if you lock your house at night, because you are using defensive systems (locks) to deny access by weaker powers (drug addicts).

  13. The principal offender in both the use of nuclear weapons, and the threat of using nuclear weapons is the USA. While Pine Gap is in the service of the USA it will help fuel a nuclear arms race.
    COMMENT: The core of your ‘reasoning at last’ – mindless anti-Americanism. They are the ‘main offender’ eh? HOW? None have been used since 1945, and in doing so they saved a lot of lives (when confronted with a choice between bad now and worse later, choose bad now) including those of some of my friends.
    The ‘nuclear arms race’ ended with SALT 1. A generation ago. Perhaps you missed this?
    If you refer to DPRK or IRI nuclear programs, what exactly does PG have to do with them?

    If we want to use Pine Gap for verication and arms control, we’ll have to transfer ownership to the UN, so the shield can be applied equally to all.
    COMMENT: How does an earth station, a communications node and satellite stationing facility, ‘verify arms control’?

  14. The only safe nuclear shield is universal disarmament.
    COMMENT: Ooh, a slogan! So safety from NUCLEAR attack comes from discarding CONVENTIONAL weapons.
    I assume you protect yourselves from thieves by locking your house. But safety from theft comes from not having any possessions, Bryla. You must give them up! You really are incapable of thinking this… well… anything, through, aren’t you.

    The USA is a bully and a menace.
    COMMENT: Ooh, a second slogan! At least your rabid anti-Americanism and lack of cognitive skills are self-expounded.
    Transform Pine Gap
    COMMENT: Ooh, a THIRD slogan! Yes, it must be transformed in to a free range fluffy bunny tofu farm to provide land rights for nuclear free vegan gay whales.
    Are you even aware of how infantile you look when you spout simple slogans as your REASONED DISCOURSE?

  15. Deborah
    My Dad lived and worked in Alice Springs some years ago and knew some of the gardener types at Pine Gap. He was told that the yanks controlled and imported everything into the place from the US, even such basics as toilet paper are brought in from the US.
    Why?
    COMMENT: Because the US folks there are a long way from home and like their own goods? Because US goods might be subsidised by the US government for remote postings? Because they have to fly in heavy air transports anyway for personnel rotations and parts, and might as well carry commissary stock to complete the cargo loads? All of the above? I am not defending this, but these may be valid reasons. I know that having lived overseas myself for years, it is amazing how you appreciate something as simple as a familiar brand of flour, or condensed milk.

  16. There is no defensive component to missile shields, it is a componant of an aggressive system.
    COMMENT: see below.
    The purpose of a missile shield is to take out your oponents missiles before they take out your own missile infrastructure, ensuring the aggressive missiles hit their targets and continue to do so.
    COMMENT: But we have got no nuclear missile infrastructure at all. So for us an ABM battery would be (by definition) purely defensive.
    This undermines your argument.
    It is also invalid for the USA. ABM are limited. They CANNOT be effective against a Russian nuclear strike – too many missiles from mobiles (subs, acft, land TEL’s). You can’t predict their trajectory.
    So it’s against ‘rogue’ powers in a proliferated world.
    The future DPRK ICBM force can’t hit US missile capability.
    They can only hit big cities.
    So the ABM system is to protect their cities. Why is this bad?
    You can check this.
    Look at the location of the US ABM site, it is in ALASKA. It has 24 (IIRC) missiles. Scribe the ballistic great-circle arc from North Korea to Seattle and Los Angeles.
    It lies within intercept range of this arc.
    So YOU can prove to YOURSELF that the stuff you discussed above… is wrong.

  17. In the event of a conventional or nuclear exchange the missile shield will be used to protect .U.S. infrastructure and not civilian populations, especially Australians.
    COMMENT: You cannot protect Sydney from Alaska, true. We’ll have to build our own in a proliferated world – where PG will be critical to Australian city defence (unless Law has his way, in which case you, John, may personally fry in consequence). The verifiable logic process above will prove that US ABM is indeed intended to protect their cities.

    Mark refered earlier of the Barricade scenario that allowed N.Z. and Oz to be hit in a nuclear strike as a necessary loss to protect U.S. interests.
    COMMENT: READ IT AGAIN. This was a SOVIET plan to protect SOVIET interests. I learned of it from a retired SOVIET general. It was NOT a US plan and I made that VERY PLAIN.
    DO NOT PUT FALSE WORDS IN MY MOUTH PLEASE.

    I have no doubt current missile shield scenarios are equally willing to sacrifice us.
    COMMENT: How does having the ability to shoot down ‘rogue nuclear state’ nuclear missiles aimed at Australian cities sacrifice us? This is defence in its purest form!

  18. Sorry to challenge you on details Bryan but this scenario is also relevent to war with other super powers, not just smaller weaker nations, because, just like cold war scenario’s, the tactical advantage of first strike allows you to take out your opponents infrastructure as the backlash begins.
    COMMENT: You will have to learn a lot about the VERY esoteric world of nuclear strike planning to have the smallest bit of credibility on this topic. Essentially, you do not have the knowledge to say this. NS Planners think in a squirrelly way – odd folks. I may be able to point you at some books on the topic. What you have said above makes insufficient sense.

    The shield protects prioritised military interests but does not have the capacity to take out all retaliatary missiles. The massive retaliation of a superpower is acceptible collateral damage to protect military infrastructure, or at least it was in the old days of the cold war.
    COMMENT: As above.

  19. EP
    It’s good to see Bryan in #104 being partially honest for a moment, and finally admitting that the target of his “actions” is the US.
    A real peace activist would, of course, oppose all militaries. But Bryan is not one of those — he is an active campaigner against the US and its allies, including all of us. He is objectively supporting our enemies.
    Beware of those who call themselves “peace activists”. In almost all cases, they are simply partisan propagandists, often working for the bad guys.
    COMMENT: Yeah, he really let the mask slip, EP. The KGB used to funded ‘em, as Vasily Mitrokin’s Archive proves. Wonder if his mob are being funded by a hostile state?

  20. but if a super power did attack a weaker nation, …, in light of military superiority including missile shields the smaller nation is more likely to attack a weaker U.S. ally such as Iraq hitting Israel when the U.S. hit Iraq. Who would Nth Korea strike at, … keeping in mind its limited range … systems?
    COMMENT: No superpower has attacked anyone with nukes. This is a chimera.
    The key is ‘limited range’. They will hit whatever they can hit, because they do not care a tinker’s damn about human life. This is why the Japanese are building an ABM system at frantic speed, of course. According to Law, they should NOT do so, but he is a self-confessed amoral monster.

    Missiles may be deflected from Pine Gap or any of the other U.S. bases imposed here but Darwin, Townsville, Brisbane and maybe Sydney are very vulnerable in the event of any conflict with Nth. Korea.
    COMMENT: So, logically, WE should also build an ABM system. Missiles cannot be ‘deflected’. They are in a ballistic arc and the laws of physics do not permit it. They can only be shot down by an ABM system, or not. If they are aimed at Sydney, then they are AIMED at Sydney.
    Also, PG is not imposed, and it is the last US base here. There are no others.

    MarkL
    Canberra

    This character limit is a bit of a pain!

  21. Mark
    I’ll read all this soon, I’m a bit busy for a while.
    but in the likely event of an irate moderator, I would like to thank you for taking this discussion seriously and I urge Andrew to allow you to continue doing this.

    Pine Gap and our involvement in international war is secret and discussion is not allowed, to extremes in the case of Bryan’s supression order.

    I believe there is grounds for relaxing the comments policy in order for basic info to go up where it can be assessed from any opinion.

    But that’s not my decision though. i will respect Andrew call if this is becoming a problem.

  22. I try to answer your points logically – that is fair to all. This discussion has been very calm and rational. This befits the blog. People may agree or not agree with Andrew’s policies, but at the end of the day this is a public forum belonging to a Senator of our Parliament. Rude behaviour is simply inappropriate here.

    For that reason and because you are civil too, I have tried to address the points and issues you raise (all of which deserve the courtesy of a reply because they were calmly asked). The length is due to there being so many point to address, nothing more.

    That is merely an observation, not a criticism or negative comment in any way whatsoever. I much prefer shorter posts, but have only my lunch time available to write replies up. So I only get one chance.

    MarkL
    canberra

  23. Mark,
    I apologise for the Barricade misrepresentation

    I made the comments policy comment because I was blocked on the weekend. i think it was the machine but I often get hints about multiple posting.
    anyway

    You seem to miss my point that if we were independent we would not be at threat from Nth Korea. Like the U.S/Iraq/Israel scenario, it is because we are an ally that makes us a target.

    You said….
    “You will have to learn a lot about the VERY esoteric world of nuclear strike planning to have the smallest bit of credibility on this topic”.

    My reply is
    “If you are looking under a microscope you cannot see what is going on around you” which I think explains the esotricism of the nuclear strike planners as well as defence strategists across the board.

    Someone could hit the microscope expert on the head from behind, like the twin towers or Bali bombing, and there is nothing they could do about it except spend billions panicking.

    Such esotericism dismisses opportunities and possibilities, including military strategy but more importantly diplomacy and trade, for no other reason than they do not conform to the orthodox logic of that narrow focus.

  24. The essence of the cold war arms race was to push the USSR to spend trillions of dollars on weaponry beyond its capacity and therefore collapsing its economy.

    As China and other emerging economic super powers and blocs emerge the stock exchange will allow money to flow into these thriving economies at the expense of the U.S. economy and lifestyle. This may be a deliberate policy of many nations.

    Bin Ladin types, Nth Korea, and Iran are all standing at the Gates of the U.S. demanding to bring it on just like Iraq did. Howard and Bush run in as predicted, Bush ignorantly reinforcing Iranian position in their traditional wars with Iraq. The Iraq war was indeed won, by Iran!

    The U.S. has been in perpetual war since the alleged end of the second world . The nation can no longer afford all this war and the growing underclass is paying for it, just like it happened in the USSR

    By direct involvement of Arms manufacturers including systems technology companies in the U.S. government including massive funding of election campaigns to “get their guy in”, American foreign policy predictably races towards its own economic disadvantage by engaging in wars it cant afford.

    All America’s enemies have learnt how you bring down a super power because they saw it done to the USSR.

  25. You cannot separate Pine Gap from the U.S./Oz military from U.S./Oz economic interests, especially energy, which cannot be separated from Australian industry, modes of transport and mining, which cannot be separated from our affluent and energy intensive lifestyles.j

    All of the above cannot be separated from the basic sources of raw materials and cheap labour that drive the massive economies that can afford the militaries to defend their interests against those whose land the raw materials come from or the labourers themselves.

    Today U.S. interests have become blurry as the big money is in the global stock market, not the U.S. economy as in the 20th century

    In Iraq, the first thing the invaders did immediately after Shock and Awe was to secure oil pipelines, not the hospitals or the water or the electricity. The one reason Bhagdad is burning is because all of the security effort is going into protecting oil flow at the expense of the cities and towns. “Private Security Guards” protecting oil infrastructure is where all the money goes while G.I. Joe gets blown up directing traffic.

    I predict Bush’s new Iraq agenda will be let them direct their own traffic and hang on the the oil infrastructure.

  26. Signing off now with some final comments about the US terror system.

    I continue to maintain that the principal offender in waging aggressive war over the past 60 years is the USA. As such they have been the only country to use nuclear weapons, and they have threatened to use nuclear weapons more than any other country, and they continue to plan to use new forms of nuclear weapons as part of policing the world.

    I speak of a nuclear arms race in the context of accelerating proliferation, with some thirty countries capable of developing nuclear weapons within the next five years. While Australia exports Uranium to India and China, both nuclear proliferating states.

    Our alliance with the US makes our risk of war greater. It does not protect us. This is not some recent admission confirming my status as an enemy agent. It’s a considered judgement which has been at the heart of Christians Against ALL Terrorism since its inception.

    Happy Esoteric Targeting upon you all. Transform Pine Gap.

    Under US ownership, Pine Gap will be used in an illegal and immoral way to attempt military domination of the world.

  27. Bryan Law:

    I wouldn’t disagree with what you have to say about the USA in comment #127.

    It would be nice if we could all live under “biblical communism” – where everyone shares what they have equally and are kind to others, but this is not reality – nor is it ever likely to become reality when you’re dealing with human beings.

    If we look around us, what do we see?

    I see a world that is run on the Seven Deadly Sins – Pride, Greed, Lust, Envy, Gluttony (includes Drunkenness), Anger and Laziness.

    The person who compiled the list forgot about Lies and Drugs.

  28. Fare the well in prison, Bryla, where I earnestly hope you are headed.

    It may be your very first experience of reality. You oppose that which protects you, and act on behalf of those who wish to destroy you. We have seen your ilk before, and they helped ensure a global war in which 55,000,000 died.

    If your perverted desires bear fruit, it will all happen again.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  29. Thanks for the good wishes Mark, I’ll let you know how the sentencing goes if we’re convicted.

    You have a dab line in self-assessed “expert” commentary – but you don’t seem to know much about what’s going on in the world.

    My guess is that your job and its lunch-hour, huddled over the daily Murdoch propaganda, is a much worse prison than anything I’m likely to experience in the Northern Territory.

    As Darryl Somers used to say “You’ll never never know if you never never go”.

  30. Bryan,
    you never told me you killed 55,000,000 people. I wouldn’t have taken you seriously if I had known that!

    Mark,
    you have displayed extreme bias, dare i say illogical bias, with your attacks on bryan, the peace movement and the U.N. You have not backed any of this up with a shred of argument. Instead you have retreated into your own one dimensional expertise and claimed an objectivity here based on limited fact and a grammatical rather than exploratory logic plus a few latin words.

    You have emphatically denied that Pine Gap is not used in missile targeting but the slightest questioning as to the meaning of your jargon and expertise leads straight back to the reality that it is indeed used for targeting within an agrressive first strike mode.

    May I suggest that the extreme prejudice you apply to tour broader perspectives also manifests in your technological knowledge. You are still just a U.S. military apologist.

    I would be very intersesting to hear your opinion on what I wrote about the conspiracy to collapse the U.S. economy by provoking it into perpetual war that it cannot afford. If this is correct, your calls for blind and ignorant acceptance of our role in the U.S. military machine is very dangerous. I dont think you can arrive at any other conclusions as to the intention of the S11 terrorists, whoever they were. I think it explains the arrogant provocation from Iran, Nth Korea and Sadam’s Iraq.

    As I’m sure Bryan will confer, one of the principles of non-violent theory is to use the superior weight and momentum of your opponent to your own advantage – Ju Jitsu. It is also a principle taught to every guerilla insurgent in the world and was the basis for the Mujahadines victory against the USSR as well as the viet-congs victory over the U.S. Cuban revolution too.

    The greed of the arms manufacturers and their lobbying for bigger and better and more war machines are predictably walking us all into this global guerilla ambush

  31. I don’t think we need to be “ambushed” by our own over-idealistic countrymen instead of our enemies.

    I think Mark has his finger on the pulse of this issue, while certain others are in need of immediate CPR.

Comments are closed.