Bikie gunned down - Neal Todorovski

[George S.]

brian i never heard a mo truer spoken word.Hoiw hard is the macedonian govt when all else fails the civilians will do the rest.So there is allways a way out.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

EM, what do you consider to be the 'American path'? There are 50 different jurisdictions in the US with differing gun laws, which have differing effects on crime.

A lot of people perceive America as a messed up country, where the quote is brought up 'only in America.' Of course that is an exaggeration and America is probably one of the best places to live in the world, but I don't think that can be attributed to arming the civilian population.

Making firearms more accessible for the everyday person can help in defending their civil liberties, but there are a lot of nut cases out there who aren't criminals. Australia's system is far more safe in my opinion, and dangerous weapons should only be available to special forces and the army. If anything the restrictions should be tightened to prevent criminals accessing such weaponry, however that is extremely difficult to regulate.

Despite the dramatic difference in population between the US and Australia, I doubt we get half the proportion of massacres that occur in the US by what the community once perceived as 'normal' people. I sure wouldn't want to walk around in a community where every second person is carrying a handgun. Wouldn't you feel intimidated?

Fair enough in the case of a war, the civilian population could be used as a type of militia, but this doesn't really apply at the moment to a country that is secluded and 'down under.' I remember when I was in Macedonia in 2001, being at a restaurant, a friend of one of our relatives was waving a gun around while drunk and cursing about Albanians. It's not a comfortable feeling, and I wouldn't want to potentially be exposed to those kind of encounters on a daily or weekly basis.

Perhaps it is because the crime rate in my area is extremely low that I don't see the necessity in a right to carry arms. Maybe if I saw something like this first-hand my opinion would change, but currently I just don't see the need.

Wish Australia did.

We already have with fast food franchises like McDonalds. Now we have adopted the American lifestyle and find ourselves as one of the most overweight countries in the world. No thanks.

[Big Bad Sven]

In Perth a lot of macedonians are involved with the Bikie's here.

The biggest criminal in Perth is a aegean macedonian called John Kizon, who has "business ties" with many bikie gangs.

Recently i have also seen a lot of macedonians on the news here getting killed in drug related issues.

Apparently a lot of the younger macedonian people here are involved with bikies and drug dealing from what i am told, and hear of a lot of macedonians going to jail. Which is a real shame.

From what i can see a lot of the greeks in Perth are slowly going up on the "social" ladder having met a lot of greek accountants, doctors, lawyers and engineers, while it seems a lot of the perth macedonians are turning to crime.

[Brian]

A lot of people perceive America as a messed up country, where the quote is brought up 'only in America.' Of course that is an exaggeration and America is probably one of the best places to live in the world, but I don't think that can be attributed to arming the civilian population.

Making firearms more accessible for the everyday person can help in defending their civil liberties, but there are a lot of nut cases out there who aren't criminals. Australia's system is far more safe in my opinion, and dangerous weapons should only be available to special forces and the army. If anything the restrictions should be tightened to prevent criminals accessing such weaponry, however that is extremely difficult to regulate.

Despite the dramatic difference in population between the US and Australia, I doubt we get half the proportion of massacres that occur in the US by what the community once perceived as 'normal' people. I sure wouldn't want to walk around in a community where every second person is carrying a handgun. Wouldn't you feel intimidated?

Fair enough in the case of a war, the civilian population could be used as a type of militia, but this doesn't really apply at the moment to a country that is secluded and 'down under.' I remember when I was in Macedonia in 2001, being at a restaurant, a friend of one of our relatives was waving a gun around while drunk and cursing about Albanians. It's not a comfortable feeling, and I wouldn't want to potentially be exposed to those kind of encounters on a daily or weekly basis.

Perhaps it is because the crime rate in my area is extremely low that I don't see the necessity in a right to carry arms. Maybe if I saw something like this first-hand my opinion would change, but currently I just don't see the need.



We already have with fast food franchises like McDonalds. Now we have adopted the American lifestyle and find ourselves as one of the most overweight countries in the world. No thanks.

Unless McDonald's sells guns (which I have never known them to do) I have no idea what you are talking about.

My statement, "Wish Australia did" (Post013), was in reference to your post, "Lol I remember the gun debate thread getting pretty heated at times. Interesting point of discussion. I still think it would be a mistake to follow in the path of the US." (Post008).

My understanding of your post was that you were talking about guns following on from RtG's Post004 where he states that he, "...used to be indifferent to guns.", likewise talking about guns, and Vangelovski's Post005 referring to RtG's post (ie guns) implying guns and his preferred view on guns. Then George S's Post006 and RtG's Post007 both refer to guns. All the preceding posts to yours are referring to guns. In fact you also state you, "remember the gun debate thread" (ie referring to guns), and that you think it was an, "Interesting point of discussion."(Post008), so you are also referring to guns. How then could anyone understand the remaining sentence of your post, "I still think it would be a mistake to follow in the path of the US.", to be referring to anything other than guns, let alone somehow be referring to "fast food...(and) overweight countries" (Post017)? One could say you lost the plot, but it's your own post and you specifically mention the "gun debate" so you must know you are referring to guns. You even respond to Vangelovski in the same post referring to guns.

Then why the flippant response? Am I going to have to stop responding to your posts? Was this your intent? You know you could have just said don't talk to me, but then maybe it's better this way that you show your stupidity and inhuman nature to everyone.

Don't reply to my posts in future.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

Calm down, you're making yourself look like a complete fool Brian. You seem to have some sort of prejudice against me, which clouds your judgement in response to my posts.

My statement: " I still think it would be a mistake to follow in the path of the US" was a general one. And I think I've made it quite clear in other discussions that I'm not an advocate of everything the US does. If you made the mistake of grouping that statement with this discussion then that is your own problem, and purely due to miscommunication over the internet, but I'll apologise for it nonetheless.

I was implying that I don't want to see Australia follow in the direct footsteps of the US in some matters. We saw enough arse-kissing during the Howard era. The fast food franchise example was proving that the US isn't the number 1 example for everything, which can easily be applied to this situation.

Don't respond to my posts Brian, frankly I don't give a shit. You're the one who keeps asking questions. I'm happy to reply to your posts, but if don't want to show the same respect then perhaps it isn't worth my time responding to someone who seems to develop personal agendas against people for no apparent reason.

Odi doma kuche.

[Phoenix]

Calm down, you're making yourself look like a complete fool Brian. You seem to have some sort of prejudice against me, which clouds your judgement in response to my posts.

My statement: " I still think it would be a mistake to follow in the path of the US" was a general one. And I think I've made it quite clear in other discussions that I'm not an advocate of everything the US does. If you made the mistake of grouping that statement with this discussion then that is your own problem, and purely due to miscommunication over the internet, but I'll apologise for it nonetheless.

I was implying that I don't want to see Australia follow in the direct footsteps of the US in some matters. We saw enough arse-kissing during the Howard era. The fast food franchise example was proving that the US isn't the number 1 example for everything, which can easily be applied to this situation.

Don't respond to my posts Brian, frankly I don't give a shit. You're the one who keeps asking questions. I'm happy to reply to your posts, but if don't want to show the same respect then perhaps it isn't worth my time responding to someone who seems to develop personal agendas against people for no apparent reason.

Odi doma kuche.

Careful EM, our Brian is hard core gangster...

[Vangelovski]

EM,

I'm a firm believer in the right to own and use guns for all people, so long as they don't have a violent criminal history. In fact, I am of the view that it is an inalienable right (for reasons that I can expand on in further detail if I have to). But I also support civilian gun ownership because of the evidence/research that I have seen. On the basis of this research/evidence, guns actually save many more people than they harm.

I think many people in Australia have an irrational fear of weapons, and in particular guns, and this is partly the result of an anti-gun agenda by most political parties, mainstream media and extremist interest groups. In terms of media coverage, I have not seen a news item for perhaps over a decade that reports the benefits of gun ownership and use or how they have been used to save lives and protect families and neighbours, even though there are literally millions of instances annually across the world (including Australia) where this happens. It seems that the media in Australia, as opposed to many international outlets, only want to report bad news stories when it comes to guns, even though they are outweighed by the good news stories by huge ratios.

On another note, I think you overestimate Australia's 'seclusion'. In the past 60 years alone, Australia has been threatened with invasion twice, once by the Japanese in World War II and again during the armed conflict with Indonesia in the mid-60's. There have also been some other minor instances with Indonesia that could have potentially led to war and risk invasion. But even now these threats exist, in particular with Indonesia and China. Seeing as Australia refuses to arm itself with nuclear weapons, the next best thing (by a long shot) is to have an armed civilian population, which while it may not necessarily deter invasion, particularly in the north, it will give us the means to try and defend ourselves.

I might start a separate thread to include news items of where people have used guns to protect themselves, family and neighbours - the vast majority of which the guns were never even fired.

[Phoenix]

EM,
On another note, I think you overestimate Australia's 'seclusion'. In the past 60 years alone, Australia has been threatened with invasion twice, once by the Japanese in World War II and again during the armed conflict with Indonesia in the mid-60's. There have also been some other minor instances with Indonesia that could have potentially led to war and risk invasion. But even now these threats exist, in particular with Indonesia and China. Seeing as Australia refuses to arm itself with nuclear weapons, the next best thing (by a long shot) is to have an armed civilian population, which while it may not necessarily deter invasion, particularly in the north, it will give us the means to try and defend ourselves.

Vangelovski, I think you're being very alarmist. It could be strongly argued that a WWII era Japan and a 60's era Indonesia didn't have the logistical capability to invade Australia...I believe an equally strong case can be presented that no Asian capacity exists today to invade Australia.

I think your statement that "Australia refuses to arm itself with nuclear weapons" is also misleading...
The history of Australia's participation in an atomic weapons program goes back to the end of WWII and was most active between the 1950's and 1970's.
The story of Australia's failure to arm itself is more to do with the betrayal of the British MoD to this end and American self interest than it is about Australian unwillingness.

Australia provided several key components in the development of the British atom bomb...Australia provided access to supplies of Uranium, the Woomera rocket range, scientific expertise through the establishment of the ANU and Lucas Heights atomic falicilty, other logistical infrastructure such as the Snowy Mountains scheme and finally a launch platform with the delivery of F1_11 bombers to the RAAF...sadly no bomb eventuated after US pressure to abide to a non-proliferation treaty.

Military experts are united in the belief that Australia has the required knowledge to fast track a nuclear weapon if the need arises...

Vangelovski, forget about your armed population defending Australia, the ultimate defence of Australia will be from Australia itself...the harsh Northern regions, the desert and lack of water is Australia's primary defence from an invader...simply you let them in, let nature take its course and then send in the Special Forces to put down the rest...that is the current AU defence doctrine, assuming any marine landing craft have even come close to Australia's northern coastline...

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski, I think you're being very alarmist. It could be strongly argued that a WWII era Japan and a 60's era Indonesia didn't have the logistical capability to invade Australia...I believe an equally strong case can be presented that no Asian capacity exists today to invade Australia.

I think your statement that "Australia refuses to arm itself with nuclear weapons" is also misleading...
The history of Australia's participation in an atomic weapons program goes back to the end of WWII and was most active between the 1950's and 1970's.
The story of Australia's failure to arm itself is more to do with the betrayal of the British MoD to this end and American self interest than it is about Australian unwillingness.

Australia provided several key components in the development of the British atom bomb...Australia provided access to supplies of Uranium, the Woomera rocket range, scientific expertise through the establishment of the ANU and Lucas Heights atomic falicilty, other logistical infrastructure such as the Snowy Mountains scheme and finally a launch platform with the delivery of F1_11 bombers to the RAAF...sadly no bomb eventuated after US pressure to abide to a non-proliferation treaty.

Military experts are united in the belief that Australia has the required knowledge to fast track a nuclear weapon if the need arises...

Vangelovski, forget about your armed population defending Australia, the ultimate defence of Australia will be from Australia itself...the harsh Northern regions, the desert and lack of water is Australia's primary defence from an invader...simply you let them in, let nature take its course and then send in the Special Forces to put down the rest...that is the current AU defence doctrine, assuming any marine landing craft have even come close to Australia's northern coastline...

Phoenix, if Australia has the capability to develop a nuclear weapon, then the only thing stopping it from having one is its UNWILLINGNESS - nothing else.

The argument that 'nature will take its course' in defending Australia is a load of rubbish. Foreign invasion is likely to focus on the mineral rich north, not the population centres to the south-east. The last I checked, the north is not a 'harsh desert environment lacking water'. Even if it was, your argument would imply the the Americans were unable to sustain a war in the Middle East and Afghanistan because of its 'harsh desert environment'. Nor is it Australian military doctrine to 'allow nature to take its course'.

Finally, if you believe that the Japanese did not have the logistical capability to invade Australia, you would first need to explain how they managed to invade and occupy East Asia and the entire western Pacific. As for the Indonesian threat, I think you need not look any further than their capacity to use unorthodox measures, such as a mass crossing through small sea vessels into Northwest Australia, which the Australian navy and air force would be virtually powerless to stop simply because of its sheer numbers. This is demonstrated by the large number of undetected boat arrivals every year. You need only look at wars in Africa, parts of Asia and South America to get an idea of how effective military campaigns with relatively primitive weapons and tactics can actually be.

[Phoenix]

Phoenix, if Australia has the capability to develop a nuclear weapon, then the only thing stopping it from having one is its UNWILLINGNESS - nothing else.

Vangelovski, Australia has without any doubt the ability to develop a nuclear arsenal, all the pieces of the puzzle are present and have been for many decades.
I've (very) briefly touched on the reasons why it didn't happen.
Here's a great insight into Australia's quest to build a bomb...

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/documentaries/stories/s650355.htm

The argument that 'nature will take its course' in defending Australia is a load of rubbish. Foreign invasion is likely to focus on the mineral rich north, not the population centres to the south-east. The last I checked, the north is not a 'harsh desert environment lacking water'. Even if it was, your argument would imply the the Americans were unable to sustain a war in the Middle East and Afghanistan because of its 'harsh desert environment'. Nor is it Australian military doctrine to 'allow nature to take its course'.

TV, I think you're twisting and taking quotes totally out of context here...I definately didn't suggest that Australia's military doctrine is to "allow nature to take its course".

Australia's military doctrine is based on many considerations and assumptions, that take into account the dynamics of current and future threats. At the heart of Australia's defense strategy is it's naval and airforce assets to protect the northern air/sea gap and the strategic use of it's special forces capability, that has decades of real world warfare experience in conditions that are similar to those of Northern Australia...from the jungles of Vietnam and SE Asia to the deserts of Afghanistan and Iraq.

At the moment Australia has the capability to counter any potential conventianal threat from Asia.

I don't think you're taking the logistical challenge of invading Australia seriously enough, considering the physical challenges of the nothern Australian landscape, the need for an enemy to re-arm, fuel and feed its forces.

Your example of America is misleading because of America's sole 'superpower' standing, no other military power on the planet can currently match the US in logistical capacity, certainly none of our Asian neighbours.

Even with the technological sophistication and logistical capacity of US forces, they have been bogged down in protracted conflicts in the Middle East where they've endured equipment failure in the harsh environments that would be even more challenging for a far less capable and less sophisticated potential Asian invader of Australia.

Finally, if you believe that the Japanese did not have the logistical capability to invade Australia, you would first need to explain how they managed to invade and occupy East Asia and the entire western Pacific.

I don't think the Japanese invaded and occupied East Asia and the entire western Pacific, once agian you're being deliberately misleading.
The Japanese on entering the war after attacking Pearl Harbour continued attacks on British colonies in Southeast Asia as well as the Philippine Islands and U.S. possessions (Guam and Wake Island)...that alone doesn't constitute an invasion and occupation of all of East Asia and the entire western pacific...let alone having the means to be a serious and credible threat to invade and occupy Australia.

As for the Indonesian threat, I think you need not look any further than their capacity to use unorthodox measures, such as a mass crossing through small sea vessels into Northwest Australia, which the Australian navy and air force would be virtually powerless to stop simply because of its sheer numbers. This is demonstrated by the large number of undetected boat arrivals every year. You need only look at wars in Africa, parts of Asia and South America to get an idea of how effective military campaigns with relatively primitive weapons and tactics can actually be.

I think you're totally off the mark here Vangelovski.
Australia's defence doctrine specifically envisages the potential of such threats emminating in the northern air/sea gap and hence such a reliance on military assets being stationed in the northern regions of Australia, particularly intelligence gathering capability in the form of Orion aircraft, submarine assests and 'over the horizon' radar arrays.
Australia is extremely well equipped to handle those threats you've mentioned...

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski, Australia has without any doubt the ability to develop a nuclear arsenal, all the pieces of the puzzle are present and have been for many decades.
I've (very) briefly touched on the reasons why it didn't happen.
Here's a great insight into Australia's quest to build a bomb...
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/documentari...es/s650355.htm

Phoenix,

Ultimately, Australia is unwilling to develop nuclear weapons - there is nothing else stopping a genuinely sovereign state from doing so.

TV, I think you're twisting and taking quotes totally out of context here...I definately didn't suggest that Australia's military doctrine is to "allow nature to take its course".

Yes you did, here is your quote again:

...the harsh Northern regions, the desert and lack of water is Australia's primary defence from an invader...simply you let them in, let nature take its course and then send in the Special Forces to put down the rest...that is the current AU defence doctrine, assuming any marine landing craft have even come close to Australia's northern coastline...

Your example of America is misleading because of America's sole 'superpower' standing, no other military power on the planet can currently match the US in logistical capacity, certainly none of our Asian neighbours.

No, you basically said that our deserts would prevent foreign invaders. That logic on its own (nothing else was provided) would mean that deserts anywhere could prevent foreign invaders.

I don't think the Japanese invaded and occupied East Asia and the entire western Pacific, once agian you're being deliberately misleading.
The Japanese on entering the war after attacking Pearl Harbour continued attacks on British colonies in Southeast Asia as well as the Philippine Islands and U.S. possessions (Guam and Wake Island)...that alone doesn't constitute an invasion and occupation of all of East Asia and the entire western pacific...let alone having the means to be a serious and credible threat to invade and occupy Australia.

Are you for real? You don't think Japan invaded and occupied East Asia (I didn't say ALL) and the Western Pacific? Who did then? Can you explain this map of Japanese occupied territories during World War II and the ease with which it bombed northern Australia?:

I think you're totally off the mark here Vangelovski.
Australia's defence doctrine specifically envisages the potential of such threats emminating in the northern air/sea gap and hence such a reliance on military assets being stationed in the northern regions of Australia, particularly intelligence gathering capability in the form of Orion aircraft, submarine assests and 'over the horizon' radar arrays.
Australia is extremely well equipped to handle those threats you've mentioned...

Australia is not equipped to handle anything. It can barely put out a couple of subs to sea at any given time because of a lack of maintenance and crew members. If it were, why is it that so many boats turn up undetected prior to making it to the mainland?

[Phoenix]

No, you basically said that our deserts would prevent foreign invaders. That logic on its own (nothing else was provided) would mean that deserts anywhere could prevent foreign invaders.

Vangelovski, surely we can agree that harsh physical environments and topography create challenging theatres of war for an invading force operating far from home...?

Surely we can agree that our Asian neighbours are generally ill equipped for such an adventure in any potential invasion of Australia?

Deserts alone won't prevent a foreign invasion but they will go a long way in creating an extremely hostile environment, one that could work in the favour of the Australian Defence Forces particularly the well drilled Australian SAS and other special forces units who have experience in conducting operations in such environments.

Australia is not equipped to handle anything. It can barely put out a couple of subs to sea at any given time because of a lack of maintenance and crew members. If it were, why is it that so many boats turn up undetected prior to making it to the mainland?

That's not a fair or objective analysis of the ADF's capability... the ADF is a lightly manned but reasonably well funded and equipped force by international standards which is reflected in the proud history of service in armed conflicts and peace keeping operations around the world.

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski, surely we can agree that harsh physical environments and topography create challenging theatres of war for an invading force operating far from home...?

Surely we can agree that our Asian neighbours are generally ill equipped for such an adventure in any potential invasion of Australia?

Deserts alone won't prevent a foreign invasion but they will go a long way in creating an extremely hostile environment, one that could work in the favour of the Australian Defence Forces particularly the well drilled Australian SAS and other special forces units who have experience in conducting operations in such environments.

That's not a fair or objective analysis of the ADF's capability... the ADF is a lightly manned but reasonably well funded and equipped force by international standards which is reflected in the proud history of service in armed conflicts and peace keeping operations around the world.

We certainly can agree on the desert being relatively harsher than some other environments. Then we can move back to my original assertion that the most likely target, Northern Australia (which is not a desert) is basically defenceless against a committed enemy capable of utilising the resources it has.

The ADF being well funded, trained and armed BY INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS, does not mean it has the capability of defending Australia. However, I think if you do a little more research, you'll find that its only our special forces that meet world class standards and our regular forces are fairly mediocre. In addition, I think you'll find that our military is not as well equipped as popular perception has it, nor does our defence industry have the capacity to expand rapidly in times of crisis. In fact, I think you'll find that our ultimate line of defence is waiting for the, yes you guessed it, Americans to arrive

[sydney]

is it acceptable to name a bikie gang "lone wolf"? doesn't quite make sense. shouldn't they still be considered a pack?

agree with earlier comments that maks are increasingly associating themselves with these gangs and illegal activities. unfortunate.

[Risto the Great]

We were all lone wolves once upon a time.
You can be in our wolf pack sydney.