The Next Wave of Boat People…?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Next Wave of Boat People…?
So let’s hypothesise for a moment and say the American attack on Afghanistan goes exactly to plan and the Taliban are kicked out of power and replaced by some other regime more acceptable to the West.
For any such regime to maintain even a semblance of power in such a wild, lawless place as Afghanistan, it will have to be every bit as tough and ruthless as the Taliban – and will in all likelihood not treat kindly the many thousands of defeated ex-Taliban fighters in their midst.
So, it stands to reason that many of the ex-Taliban will be forced to leave the country or risk being hunted down. (And of course, be about as welcome in other Muslim countries as the Palestinian refugees were in 1948 and 1967.)
If this purely hypothetical situation were to come to pass, is there anyone out there who’d care to guess how many of these ‘caring, new age’ young (and not so young) men will find their way to Ashmore Reef and Christmas Island over the next few years in ships that magically sink the moment an RAN warship hoves into view?
And of course the multicultural lobby will tell us that such people will fit seamlessly into Australian society.
For any such regime to maintain even a semblance of power in such a wild, lawless place as Afghanistan, it will have to be every bit as tough and ruthless as the Taliban – and will in all likelihood not treat kindly the many thousands of defeated ex-Taliban fighters in their midst.
So, it stands to reason that many of the ex-Taliban will be forced to leave the country or risk being hunted down. (And of course, be about as welcome in other Muslim countries as the Palestinian refugees were in 1948 and 1967.)
If this purely hypothetical situation were to come to pass, is there anyone out there who’d care to guess how many of these ‘caring, new age’ young (and not so young) men will find their way to Ashmore Reef and Christmas Island over the next few years in ships that magically sink the moment an RAN warship hoves into view?
And of course the multicultural lobby will tell us that such people will fit seamlessly into Australian society.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiley
Interesting point that.
I was listening to an exiled Afghani academic on the radio the other day suggesting that the actual number of comitted Taliban as a %age of the apparent total is quite small, he was suggesting much less than 40%.
The balance are only "members" because it's the only way they can get whatever food there is and the fear of the alternatives for their families.
It seems that the Taliban control the food distribtuion and therefore the hearts and minds.
The breaking of that nexus apparently will see a rapid migration away from the Taliban.
I sould venture that the reason they are more visible than they should be is that they are the last left standing. Repopulate, reeducate and provide the food and support and we will in time see a return to some form of normality.
There are some similarities in the Cambodian situation with the Khmer Rouge and that countries subsequent rebuilding.
I will never forget a speech to the National Press Club by the Cambodian journalist who was immortalised in the movie "The Killing Fields" and subsequently murdered/assasinated in the US.
He was pleading for our help in rebuilding but even more committed to having ALL Cambodians, especially the educated, return to their country of birth as they were desperately needed for the rebuilding of both the infrastructure and the social fabric.
I can still hear his voice.
Interesting point that.
I was listening to an exiled Afghani academic on the radio the other day suggesting that the actual number of comitted Taliban as a %age of the apparent total is quite small, he was suggesting much less than 40%.
The balance are only "members" because it's the only way they can get whatever food there is and the fear of the alternatives for their families.
It seems that the Taliban control the food distribtuion and therefore the hearts and minds.
The breaking of that nexus apparently will see a rapid migration away from the Taliban.
I sould venture that the reason they are more visible than they should be is that they are the last left standing. Repopulate, reeducate and provide the food and support and we will in time see a return to some form of normality.
There are some similarities in the Cambodian situation with the Khmer Rouge and that countries subsequent rebuilding.
I will never forget a speech to the National Press Club by the Cambodian journalist who was immortalised in the movie "The Killing Fields" and subsequently murdered/assasinated in the US.
He was pleading for our help in rebuilding but even more committed to having ALL Cambodians, especially the educated, return to their country of birth as they were desperately needed for the rebuilding of both the infrastructure and the social fabric.
I can still hear his voice.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty, as usual, an erudite reply from you. However, I think you may have missed the point I hoped I was making, (which, for the sake of brevity – [not usually my strong point] – I perhaps didn’t make as clear as I might have).
It is that ‘n’ percent of hard liners – (you say 40% - I suspect it is much lower) – of whom I refer. History has shown that the vast majority of people will ‘go with the flow’, whatever the flow may be, and will change with the flow when and as required.
It’s that ‘n’ percent of hard liners I was writing about, the ones that no new Afghan government, whatever its persuasion, will want hanging around in the hills stirring up trouble. (And remember, many of these hard liners are not Afghans, but Saudi, Palestinian, Iranian and Iraqi nationals whom none of their governments want back unless it’s in a casket.) Any new Afghan government will want them out – or dead – and I suspect they won’t worry too much about due process in achieving either aim. (And let’s face it, who but a human rights lawyer could blame them?)
So it will be the real hard liners who’ll need to find somewhere else to live, and I suspect the Pakistanis, Taliban supporters or not, won’t be too keen to have a couple of thousand ‘fire and brimstone’ ex-freedom fighters sitting about in refugee camps – or ‘integrating’(!) into Pakistani society.
And so my question is this. If in twelve months time a boatload of stateless people with no papers turns up off Darwin – or Sydney Heads – and starts throwing their children overboard – and it turns out (or is even suspected) that many or only some of these unfortunate people are ex-Taliban fighters, will the Australian government, (whatever its persuasion after 10 Nov), do what it has done up to now? What it has done up to now, when the person has no papers AND does not meet the requirements to be classified as a refugee, is generally to release that person into the community after a period of time in a detention camp.
Sorry, people, if it makes me a racist not to want such people and their ideas as part of my community, particularly their ideas on how women should be treated, then I must plead guilty to the charge.
I’d prefer to answer guilty to the charge of ‘culturist’, as it seems to me that too many of the ‘tree-hugging’ fraternity in Australia can’t get it into their woolly skulls that the tolerance of other cultures and religions that is practised – even forced upon us by legislation – in the West is NOT reciprocated by people from some other cultures, notably the cultures we’re dealing with here.
I don’t want my own country to become one where, if a small group of residents don’t like what the local police are doing to curtail their illegal activities, they machine gun the local police station. I also don’t my country to become a society where my daughter or grand daughter cannot walk down the street dressed in what most would consider totally appropriate clothing and be pack raped by a group of young men whose religious leaders have told them that they are not at fault for doing such an unspeakable thing because the woman ‘brought it upon herself’ by the way she dressed.
Or have I left it a bit too late for that already?
It is that ‘n’ percent of hard liners – (you say 40% - I suspect it is much lower) – of whom I refer. History has shown that the vast majority of people will ‘go with the flow’, whatever the flow may be, and will change with the flow when and as required.
It’s that ‘n’ percent of hard liners I was writing about, the ones that no new Afghan government, whatever its persuasion, will want hanging around in the hills stirring up trouble. (And remember, many of these hard liners are not Afghans, but Saudi, Palestinian, Iranian and Iraqi nationals whom none of their governments want back unless it’s in a casket.) Any new Afghan government will want them out – or dead – and I suspect they won’t worry too much about due process in achieving either aim. (And let’s face it, who but a human rights lawyer could blame them?)
So it will be the real hard liners who’ll need to find somewhere else to live, and I suspect the Pakistanis, Taliban supporters or not, won’t be too keen to have a couple of thousand ‘fire and brimstone’ ex-freedom fighters sitting about in refugee camps – or ‘integrating’(!) into Pakistani society.
And so my question is this. If in twelve months time a boatload of stateless people with no papers turns up off Darwin – or Sydney Heads – and starts throwing their children overboard – and it turns out (or is even suspected) that many or only some of these unfortunate people are ex-Taliban fighters, will the Australian government, (whatever its persuasion after 10 Nov), do what it has done up to now? What it has done up to now, when the person has no papers AND does not meet the requirements to be classified as a refugee, is generally to release that person into the community after a period of time in a detention camp.
Sorry, people, if it makes me a racist not to want such people and their ideas as part of my community, particularly their ideas on how women should be treated, then I must plead guilty to the charge.
I’d prefer to answer guilty to the charge of ‘culturist’, as it seems to me that too many of the ‘tree-hugging’ fraternity in Australia can’t get it into their woolly skulls that the tolerance of other cultures and religions that is practised – even forced upon us by legislation – in the West is NOT reciprocated by people from some other cultures, notably the cultures we’re dealing with here.
I don’t want my own country to become one where, if a small group of residents don’t like what the local police are doing to curtail their illegal activities, they machine gun the local police station. I also don’t my country to become a society where my daughter or grand daughter cannot walk down the street dressed in what most would consider totally appropriate clothing and be pack raped by a group of young men whose religious leaders have told them that they are not at fault for doing such an unspeakable thing because the woman ‘brought it upon herself’ by the way she dressed.
Or have I left it a bit too late for that already?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Three Tors
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiley, re your last para, I fear that that time is already at hand, it is just that for anyone to speak of it, it would leave one very open to ridicule by persons who only see what they want to in your words, and not the real message that you speak of. 
You only echo what most think.
Regards, CJ
You only echo what most think.
Regards, CJ
Evertonian
No arguments from me Wiley.
I thought it ironic, though, that the Taliban protested at Australias handling of the Tampa boat people! I guess most societies & religions have a "lunatic" fringe, I guess with the profile of Islamic fundamentalists being so high, we don't tolerate them as a whole as we would, say, orthodox Jews in Israel etc.
Were you also making a point that Taliban refugees from a reformed Afghanistan might request refugee status here? Now there's a quandry!
I thought it ironic, though, that the Taliban protested at Australias handling of the Tampa boat people! I guess most societies & religions have a "lunatic" fringe, I guess with the profile of Islamic fundamentalists being so high, we don't tolerate them as a whole as we would, say, orthodox Jews in Israel etc.
Were you also making a point that Taliban refugees from a reformed Afghanistan might request refugee status here? Now there's a quandry!
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's beyond me how anyone would want those poeple into the country after the tactics they have enployed in recent times.
1) Throwing their children overboard into the sea.
2) Sabotaging their vessels when HMAS ships in view.
3) Refusing to disembark HMAS vessels.
4) Hi-jacking the Tampa vessel and demanding to be taken to Australia.
5) Palastinians holding Bin Laden's photo as their local hero.
These people are sick in the head along with the rest of them in Afghanistan. Do you think these people are normal and will integrate well into Western societey? No is the simple answer.
These people are of the Muslim faith and this is just not compatible with western culture and never will be, their perception of the value of life is completely different, they believe flying hi-jacked jets into buildings and killing 7000+ people, will get them into Allah's magic kingdom. Just look at recent footage of the Palastinians paradeing Bin Ladins' photo as a local hero of the Islamic world...absolutely nuts. These are your so called "normal people" who seek refuge and assylum in a Western World. They are abusing Western sympathy and values. Blackmail.
Now there are 20,000 more people willing to die for the arab cause, unfortuantely they feel that this cause involves the slaughter of westerners and damaging the Global economy.
I for one don't want to see them come within 100nm of the mainland and if it were up to me they'd be blown out of the water.
The government has my full support in it's hard stance against illegals. As does the Us and UK in their illimination of terrorists in Afghanistan.
[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: compression ratio ]
1) Throwing their children overboard into the sea.
2) Sabotaging their vessels when HMAS ships in view.
3) Refusing to disembark HMAS vessels.
4) Hi-jacking the Tampa vessel and demanding to be taken to Australia.
5) Palastinians holding Bin Laden's photo as their local hero.
These people are sick in the head along with the rest of them in Afghanistan. Do you think these people are normal and will integrate well into Western societey? No is the simple answer.
These people are of the Muslim faith and this is just not compatible with western culture and never will be, their perception of the value of life is completely different, they believe flying hi-jacked jets into buildings and killing 7000+ people, will get them into Allah's magic kingdom. Just look at recent footage of the Palastinians paradeing Bin Ladins' photo as a local hero of the Islamic world...absolutely nuts. These are your so called "normal people" who seek refuge and assylum in a Western World. They are abusing Western sympathy and values. Blackmail.
Now there are 20,000 more people willing to die for the arab cause, unfortuantely they feel that this cause involves the slaughter of westerners and damaging the Global economy.
I for one don't want to see them come within 100nm of the mainland and if it were up to me they'd be blown out of the water.
The government has my full support in it's hard stance against illegals. As does the Us and UK in their illimination of terrorists in Afghanistan.
[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: compression ratio ]
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Smoke City
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiley i am sure that there will be some creepey crawleys who have been involved with all sorts of atrocities coming out of that part of the world looking for somewhere to hide, it happened after WW2. Political correctness is really only a good way to sweep issues under the mat. Here in the UK there is a much more serious racist problem to that down under and people from various cultures tend to not communicate with each other very well because it has to be done with "political correctness" which tends to stifle direct speech and debate therefore less resolve and then resentment ETC ETC..
Your direct and open questions are appreciated.
Your direct and open questions are appreciated.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Valid point/s Wiley - but we don't need to import them - we already have our very own fanatics breeding program underway.....
I saw a sad piece of Australian multicultural reality on the news late last week.
A young female Australian Muslim, no more than 15 years old, was asked by a reporter on the street what she thought of Bin Laden. Her answer was immediate and sincere - "He's a hero".
It's extremely unfortunate and disturbing to say the least, that the parents of these kids are breeding the same hatred into them that they themselves have supposedly escaped from.
Following is a recent quote from an emminent Muslim living in the U.S., and refers to the U.S., but is obviously applicable to any western country that offers a better life to people seeking to escape violence and oppression:
I saw a sad piece of Australian multicultural reality on the news late last week.
A young female Australian Muslim, no more than 15 years old, was asked by a reporter on the street what she thought of Bin Laden. Her answer was immediate and sincere - "He's a hero".
It's extremely unfortunate and disturbing to say the least, that the parents of these kids are breeding the same hatred into them that they themselves have supposedly escaped from.
Following is a recent quote from an emminent Muslim living in the U.S., and refers to the U.S., but is obviously applicable to any western country that offers a better life to people seeking to escape violence and oppression:
It is time that we acknowledge that the freedoms we enjoy in the U.S. are more desirable to us than superficial solidarity with the Muslim world. If you disagree, then prove it by packing your bags and going to whichever Muslim country you identify with. It is time that American Muslim leaders fought to purify their own lot.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiley
We are in heated agreement.
I watched Foreign Correspondent on ABC with a BBC report which basically covered this subject.
There was a subsequent interview with a prominent British historian who basically said that there was only one solution and it wasn't the courts, it was to kill them.
The reporter as usual tried the PC line, but was promptly but politely put in her place by him saying that it wasn't the point it was not him it was history speaking. Deal with it now explicitly or spend the next 20 years in the courts.
He was careful to make the point that these people just dont care how many or how they kill. He also pointed that Bin Liner is vigourously looking for nuclear weapons and that it wouldn't be out of the question for him to order, without any compunction, whatsoever, simultaneous nuclear attacks on 6 or 7 of the worlds great cities.
He also suggested that the method was "very Arab" and if one understands the history of Islam and Arabic Islam war making, it is always "surprise" and without regard for life.
Then on Lateline there is film of a woman radio talk back host, with Reith in the studio, holding a photograph of the kids in the water, saying inter alia;
In effect calling him a liar and suggesting that it was some government propaganda concoction.
I think it was the most Reith could do to stop himself from punching her out.
These people just don't get it.
We are in heated agreement.
I watched Foreign Correspondent on ABC with a BBC report which basically covered this subject.
There was a subsequent interview with a prominent British historian who basically said that there was only one solution and it wasn't the courts, it was to kill them.
The reporter as usual tried the PC line, but was promptly but politely put in her place by him saying that it wasn't the point it was not him it was history speaking. Deal with it now explicitly or spend the next 20 years in the courts.
He was careful to make the point that these people just dont care how many or how they kill. He also pointed that Bin Liner is vigourously looking for nuclear weapons and that it wouldn't be out of the question for him to order, without any compunction, whatsoever, simultaneous nuclear attacks on 6 or 7 of the worlds great cities.
He also suggested that the method was "very Arab" and if one understands the history of Islam and Arabic Islam war making, it is always "surprise" and without regard for life.
Then on Lateline there is film of a woman radio talk back host, with Reith in the studio, holding a photograph of the kids in the water, saying inter alia;
Mr Reith... there's nothing in this photograph that proves that these are people that you say jumped of the ship
I think it was the most Reith could do to stop himself from punching her out.
These people just don't get it.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Melbourne,Victoria, Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does'nt Australia do what the Irish Government does: namely, send all illegal entrants/assylum seekers back!
The rationale is that these people have already passed through another country, usually a number of countries, enroute to Ireland; therefore application should have been made at the first border they came to! Not to have done so is to have committed a criminal offence upon that country - entering illegally, i.e., without visa or the approval of that State. Criminals are not acceptable: under international law no country is obliged to allow a known criminal in, so back thay go!
None of the boat people have arrived off Ashmore Reef, or wherever else off Australia's coastline, without having passed through other countries; therefore Australia can legally apply the same justice as the Irish.
It has amazed me for years that the U.K. has not applied the same lawful logic. Note that the French have moved them all on - either go back or go forward to the U.K. but dont't stop here! The Indonesian Government has ostensibly been doing the same thing as the French. That means that Australia has been approaching the problem as stupidly as the British.
Let us welcome those who are deserving and have gone through the proper channels!
The rationale is that these people have already passed through another country, usually a number of countries, enroute to Ireland; therefore application should have been made at the first border they came to! Not to have done so is to have committed a criminal offence upon that country - entering illegally, i.e., without visa or the approval of that State. Criminals are not acceptable: under international law no country is obliged to allow a known criminal in, so back thay go!
None of the boat people have arrived off Ashmore Reef, or wherever else off Australia's coastline, without having passed through other countries; therefore Australia can legally apply the same justice as the Irish.
It has amazed me for years that the U.K. has not applied the same lawful logic. Note that the French have moved them all on - either go back or go forward to the U.K. but dont't stop here! The Indonesian Government has ostensibly been doing the same thing as the French. That means that Australia has been approaching the problem as stupidly as the British.
Let us welcome those who are deserving and have gone through the proper channels!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahmed died and went to heaven.
He was met at the pearly gates by St. Peter, which was a bit of a shock. St Peter being an infidel and all.
St. Peter welcomed him with open arms, and invited him into paradise.
As a part of the initiation, St. peter gave Ahmed a briefing as to what was going to happen, including a meeting with God.
However, Ahmed, being a devout Muslim, wanted only to see the prophet Mohammed, to whom he had spent his life praying along with Allah.
As it happened, God was coming down the pearly path, and saw St. Peter with Ahmed. So over He came, and joyfully welcomed him into heaven.
Ahmed responded by saying he wanted to see Mohammed.
“All in good time, Ahmed”, said God. “First, let me show you around heaven”.
This was quite an honour, as that normally fell to St. Peter.
So off they went with God’s arm around Ahmed’s shoulder, and as they went past all the beautiful areas, filled with the souls of the faithful, God pointed out the various groups.
“Hindus over there, Buddhists over there.” “All the Protestants are over there, Ahmed”.
“Oh – and way over there Ahmed, we have the Catholics. (God whispered – “they think they’re the only ones here”.
By this stage, Ahmed was beside himself, and he persisted with his plea to see the prophet Mohammed.
“All in good time Ahmed,” God said, “all in good time”.
So they wandered around with God showing Ahmed all the recreational sites, The Angels clouds, the harp bazaar, and so on, but by now, Ahmed was near to tears, and begged God to let him meet the prophet Mohammed.
So God said “OK Ahmed you want to see Mohammed, let’s go have a cup of tea”.
So they walked into the Tea Garden, and took a seat.
God clicked his fingers at the nearby waiter, and said “HEY MOHAMMED! – TWO TEAS!”
George - Tell the Arabs they are either for you, or against you.
Terror has nothing to do with religion.
Religion is often used for terror.
He was met at the pearly gates by St. Peter, which was a bit of a shock. St Peter being an infidel and all.
St. Peter welcomed him with open arms, and invited him into paradise.
As a part of the initiation, St. peter gave Ahmed a briefing as to what was going to happen, including a meeting with God.
However, Ahmed, being a devout Muslim, wanted only to see the prophet Mohammed, to whom he had spent his life praying along with Allah.
As it happened, God was coming down the pearly path, and saw St. Peter with Ahmed. So over He came, and joyfully welcomed him into heaven.
Ahmed responded by saying he wanted to see Mohammed.
“All in good time, Ahmed”, said God. “First, let me show you around heaven”.
This was quite an honour, as that normally fell to St. Peter.
So off they went with God’s arm around Ahmed’s shoulder, and as they went past all the beautiful areas, filled with the souls of the faithful, God pointed out the various groups.
“Hindus over there, Buddhists over there.” “All the Protestants are over there, Ahmed”.
“Oh – and way over there Ahmed, we have the Catholics. (God whispered – “they think they’re the only ones here”.
By this stage, Ahmed was beside himself, and he persisted with his plea to see the prophet Mohammed.
“All in good time Ahmed,” God said, “all in good time”.
So they wandered around with God showing Ahmed all the recreational sites, The Angels clouds, the harp bazaar, and so on, but by now, Ahmed was near to tears, and begged God to let him meet the prophet Mohammed.
So God said “OK Ahmed you want to see Mohammed, let’s go have a cup of tea”.
So they walked into the Tea Garden, and took a seat.
God clicked his fingers at the nearby waiter, and said “HEY MOHAMMED! – TWO TEAS!”
George - Tell the Arabs they are either for you, or against you.
Terror has nothing to do with religion.
Religion is often used for terror.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sydney NSW AUS
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These are ALL very valid questions/postings and I agree with all! There are some things that puzzle myself as well:
1.In recent weeks I heard alot on idiot box that muslim or islam = peace (uncle SAM said it himself), if this is the case than what is the deal with the so called "holly war"?
I have no knowledge of any other religion on the face of this earth that asks the faithfull to go and KILL others. So call me dumb, but somehow I don't see the PEACE LOVING people in muslims.
2.Some of those boat people admitted to paying $30K(I assume US) and more, to be taken to AUS. With apparent annual incomes of well less then $1000, I ask where did those poor refugees get the money from?
On the basis of this alone I would question their refugee status. Genuine refugees live in the border camps let alone travel on airlines to Indonesia.
3.These people on the way to AUS. pass through other muslim countries yet they do not want to stay there. WHY? After all Austraila is still officially a Christian country, and one would logically think that muslims would prefer countries where the religious lifestyles are similar to what they believe. Like some of the posts pointed out they come here for better life, yet they do not respect the lifestyle we have here.
4.How come that other rich muslim countries like Saudi Arabia do NOT help poor muslim countries? This question has been asked a muslim by a friend and the replay given was "because they have no such obligation to help each other"!! Amazing!! They have obligation to participate in the "holly wars" but not to help each other in need.
On the final note, a few months ago I have red in one of the foreign newspapers about the way the Saudi's deal with the illegal muslim migrants. Without any fuss whatsoever they send them back where they came from!!!
Does anyone know why we can't do the same here?????
1.In recent weeks I heard alot on idiot box that muslim or islam = peace (uncle SAM said it himself), if this is the case than what is the deal with the so called "holly war"?
I have no knowledge of any other religion on the face of this earth that asks the faithfull to go and KILL others. So call me dumb, but somehow I don't see the PEACE LOVING people in muslims.2.Some of those boat people admitted to paying $30K(I assume US) and more, to be taken to AUS. With apparent annual incomes of well less then $1000, I ask where did those poor refugees get the money from?
On the basis of this alone I would question their refugee status. Genuine refugees live in the border camps let alone travel on airlines to Indonesia.
3.These people on the way to AUS. pass through other muslim countries yet they do not want to stay there. WHY? After all Austraila is still officially a Christian country, and one would logically think that muslims would prefer countries where the religious lifestyles are similar to what they believe. Like some of the posts pointed out they come here for better life, yet they do not respect the lifestyle we have here.
4.How come that other rich muslim countries like Saudi Arabia do NOT help poor muslim countries?
This question has been asked a muslim by a friend and the replay given was "because they have no such obligation to help each other"!! Amazing!! They have obligation to participate in the "holly wars" but not to help each other in need.On the final note, a few months ago I have red in one of the foreign newspapers about the way the Saudi's deal with the illegal muslim migrants. Without any fuss whatsoever they send them back where they came from!!!
Does anyone know why we can't do the same here?????
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: back in europe
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty and Wiley, as usual some excellent points.
A few things to consider.
These people attempt to come to Australia because of:
A. Immigration laws which allow a very good chance of success of progression from a 'protection visa' to residency.
B. The worldwide organised people smuggling rackets, most of which are also intimately linked with elements of organised slavery, are able to exist and flourish under the unique geopolitical conditions to our north, ie: easy to get from island to island - lots of low level officials ready to take a bribe to help out.
The other side of the coin is that 22 years of war in central asia has put millions of people on the road. Personally I dont want them coming here,, but if it was myself and my familiy stuck in these circumstances I would be seeking to use the above mentioned conditions to try and get a better life also.
So the problem is complex. I watched that idiot Stan Zamanek saying on TV yesterday that we should 'cut off aid to Indonesia unless they stop the boat people'. The reality is that regardless of state policies, the susceptability of individuals to corruption in South East Asia (and in Aust - have a look at the Manly cops !) means that the people / drugs / gun smugglers will always find a way to operate.
We have changed our immigration laws and it looks like that no matter who wins the election, there will be further changes designed to reduce the likelyhood of success of illegetimate assylum seekers.
The other part of the solution is to assist in taking away the root cause of the problem - overwhelming poverty and anarchy in Afghanistan and the rest of central asia. As was pointed out during an earlier post - people will be less inclined to jump into the refugee pipeline if their home country becomes a better place to live. To provide aid for peace maintenance and nation building is probably more cost effective in the long run for Australia and the west anyhow.
'Islamic Fundamentalism' occurs as a result of a complex mix of circumstances - poverty and war are obvious, but the moral construct that allows people to suicide, and in the process kill thousands of innocent civilians is not.
Personally I am interested in this not because I wish to justify it like the 'chardonay socialists' of upper middle class, but because to be able to defeat your enemy you must understand him (Sun Tzu).
The reality is that the vitreol and hate that comes out of Usama Bin Laden and his Al-Queda cronies has about as much to do with the Koran / Hadith and Sunna as the Spanish Inquisition or the Branch Dividians had to do with the basic principles of christianity.
The sooner the moderate world, from all religions realises that, the faster and better we will be able to wipe the terrorists off the face of the earth.
Ultimately I don't think we have to worry about the hard core ex Taliban arriving in boats to Aust. Most of them have never left Afghanistan, most could not live in the 'infidel' world, and ultimately most are going to die shortly anyhow.
rgs
FS
[ 11 October 2001: Message edited by: fartsock ]
A few things to consider.
These people attempt to come to Australia because of:
A. Immigration laws which allow a very good chance of success of progression from a 'protection visa' to residency.
B. The worldwide organised people smuggling rackets, most of which are also intimately linked with elements of organised slavery, are able to exist and flourish under the unique geopolitical conditions to our north, ie: easy to get from island to island - lots of low level officials ready to take a bribe to help out.
The other side of the coin is that 22 years of war in central asia has put millions of people on the road. Personally I dont want them coming here,, but if it was myself and my familiy stuck in these circumstances I would be seeking to use the above mentioned conditions to try and get a better life also.
So the problem is complex. I watched that idiot Stan Zamanek saying on TV yesterday that we should 'cut off aid to Indonesia unless they stop the boat people'. The reality is that regardless of state policies, the susceptability of individuals to corruption in South East Asia (and in Aust - have a look at the Manly cops !) means that the people / drugs / gun smugglers will always find a way to operate.
We have changed our immigration laws and it looks like that no matter who wins the election, there will be further changes designed to reduce the likelyhood of success of illegetimate assylum seekers.
The other part of the solution is to assist in taking away the root cause of the problem - overwhelming poverty and anarchy in Afghanistan and the rest of central asia. As was pointed out during an earlier post - people will be less inclined to jump into the refugee pipeline if their home country becomes a better place to live. To provide aid for peace maintenance and nation building is probably more cost effective in the long run for Australia and the west anyhow.
'Islamic Fundamentalism' occurs as a result of a complex mix of circumstances - poverty and war are obvious, but the moral construct that allows people to suicide, and in the process kill thousands of innocent civilians is not.
Personally I am interested in this not because I wish to justify it like the 'chardonay socialists' of upper middle class, but because to be able to defeat your enemy you must understand him (Sun Tzu).
The reality is that the vitreol and hate that comes out of Usama Bin Laden and his Al-Queda cronies has about as much to do with the Koran / Hadith and Sunna as the Spanish Inquisition or the Branch Dividians had to do with the basic principles of christianity.
The sooner the moderate world, from all religions realises that, the faster and better we will be able to wipe the terrorists off the face of the earth.
Ultimately I don't think we have to worry about the hard core ex Taliban arriving in boats to Aust. Most of them have never left Afghanistan, most could not live in the 'infidel' world, and ultimately most are going to die shortly anyhow.
rgs
FS
[ 11 October 2001: Message edited by: fartsock ]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m a little saddened to see some of the comments some people have made in support of my original posts. While acknowledging their right to an opinion, I think I need to say that I don’t share the more extreme views of all my ‘supporters’ o this thread.
Having said that, I’m about to delve (yet again) even deeper into Political Incorrectness, and look forward to hearing from people who can tell me why my suggestion is ‘unworkable’.
So let’s look at another hypothesis. (And apologies for the lack of brevity. Just can’t help myself.)
John Smith, (I’m attempting to avoid racial/religious stereotyping here), accompanied by his wife and four children, arrives in Australia as an illegal immigrant. It’s immaterial how he and his family get here, but for the sake of the argument, let’s say the Smith family, with some 200 others, arrives in a ship that magically founders off Melville Island when a Royal Australian Navy patrol boat draws alongside, so the Navy has no choice but to take them on board. (I know, 200 people on a ‘Freemantle’ class boat’s bit of a stretch, but it’s just an hypothesis, OK?)
Along with their 200 companions, the Smith family, who have destroyed their travel documents, claim refugee status. ( (OK, let’s be a bit P.C here: ‘…who have arrived without any travel documents’…) However, after exhaustive and lengthy investigation by the Australian immigration authorities, (during which time the Smith family and their 200 companions are fed and accommodated at the expense of the Australian taxpayer – I agree not very comfortably – and during which time Mrs Smith gives birth to their fifth child), they, (like the vast majority of their companions on the ‘refugee’ ship), are found not to be refugees, but to be in the rather nebulous category of ‘economic refugees’.
Indeed, Immigration Department officers are more than a little doubtful that Mr Smith actually comes from the war-torn country he says he does, since his speech patterns seem to suggest that he (along with many of his companions) actually come from a neighbouring country that is not suffering the ravages of war. But Mr Smith cannot produce any documentation – and none of the information he gives of his life in the country of his supposed origin can be verified. But now he has a child who, being born in Australia, is an Australian citizen, and since there is no country to which he can be sent since the place he says he comes from is in utter turmoil, Mr Smith and his family, along with the vast majority of the people who arrived with them, are at last released from the detention camp and allowed to settle in Australia.
Now to my Politically Incorrect question. Why can’t Mr Smith be obliged to sign a contract with the government of the nation he has forced himself upon? A binding contract stating that he will:
(a) Live in an area allocated to him for a period of (say) two years (just as all the post WW2 assisted passage European migrants to Australia had to do). (This is probably the most important clause of the contract, for it would force Mr Smith to move into an area – and stay there – away from the rapidly growing ethnic ghettos of the major cities, where immigrants can basically continue to live in a society very similar to the one they have escaped from, speaking their own language, maintaining their own customs, and delaying the process of their learning to fit into mainstream Australian society. Probably most importantly, it would get them away from the Mafia-like influence of the radical political, religious and/or criminal groups with ties to their countries of origin. Probably just as importantly, it would expose the people of small town Australia to many ‘Mr & Mrs Smiths’, and both immigrant and native born would get to see and know each other as real people rather than as faceless groups who never mix.)
(b) Agree that should any member of his family covered in the contract break the law, (or at least laws of a serious nature, that would be stated clearly in the contract), that person will be deemed to have broken their contract and would have to leave the country, no matter how many years after the event the crime is committed. Even if citizenship has been granted in the meantime, the commission of any of the stated crimes would be deemed as negating said citizenship. (How could he be ‘sent back’ if we don’t know where he came from? Because Mr Smith would have to nominate a country of origin to which he would be sent when signing the contract, and if he was unable or unwilling to do so, he would remain in the detention camp indefinitely or agreed to be sent home, wherever that may be.)
(c) Agree to give up ALL political activities associated with his country of origin. After all, Mr Smith has come to Australia ILLEGALLY to escape the violence and/or oppression of his homeland. If he wants to stay in the new country of his choice, (which was not, by the way, the first country he passed through after escaping from his homeland), he must agree not to become involved in activities that his adopted country might consider disruptive.
Now, think as I am, I can’t see anything in such a contract that someone genuinely attempting to make a new life in a new country would find unacceptable.
But I’m sure I’ll hear otherwise from the tree huggers.
Having said that, I’m about to delve (yet again) even deeper into Political Incorrectness, and look forward to hearing from people who can tell me why my suggestion is ‘unworkable’.
So let’s look at another hypothesis. (And apologies for the lack of brevity. Just can’t help myself.)
John Smith, (I’m attempting to avoid racial/religious stereotyping here), accompanied by his wife and four children, arrives in Australia as an illegal immigrant. It’s immaterial how he and his family get here, but for the sake of the argument, let’s say the Smith family, with some 200 others, arrives in a ship that magically founders off Melville Island when a Royal Australian Navy patrol boat draws alongside, so the Navy has no choice but to take them on board. (I know, 200 people on a ‘Freemantle’ class boat’s bit of a stretch, but it’s just an hypothesis, OK?)
Along with their 200 companions, the Smith family, who have destroyed their travel documents, claim refugee status. ( (OK, let’s be a bit P.C here: ‘…who have arrived without any travel documents’…) However, after exhaustive and lengthy investigation by the Australian immigration authorities, (during which time the Smith family and their 200 companions are fed and accommodated at the expense of the Australian taxpayer – I agree not very comfortably – and during which time Mrs Smith gives birth to their fifth child), they, (like the vast majority of their companions on the ‘refugee’ ship), are found not to be refugees, but to be in the rather nebulous category of ‘economic refugees’.
Indeed, Immigration Department officers are more than a little doubtful that Mr Smith actually comes from the war-torn country he says he does, since his speech patterns seem to suggest that he (along with many of his companions) actually come from a neighbouring country that is not suffering the ravages of war. But Mr Smith cannot produce any documentation – and none of the information he gives of his life in the country of his supposed origin can be verified. But now he has a child who, being born in Australia, is an Australian citizen, and since there is no country to which he can be sent since the place he says he comes from is in utter turmoil, Mr Smith and his family, along with the vast majority of the people who arrived with them, are at last released from the detention camp and allowed to settle in Australia.
Now to my Politically Incorrect question. Why can’t Mr Smith be obliged to sign a contract with the government of the nation he has forced himself upon? A binding contract stating that he will:
(a) Live in an area allocated to him for a period of (say) two years (just as all the post WW2 assisted passage European migrants to Australia had to do). (This is probably the most important clause of the contract, for it would force Mr Smith to move into an area – and stay there – away from the rapidly growing ethnic ghettos of the major cities, where immigrants can basically continue to live in a society very similar to the one they have escaped from, speaking their own language, maintaining their own customs, and delaying the process of their learning to fit into mainstream Australian society. Probably most importantly, it would get them away from the Mafia-like influence of the radical political, religious and/or criminal groups with ties to their countries of origin. Probably just as importantly, it would expose the people of small town Australia to many ‘Mr & Mrs Smiths’, and both immigrant and native born would get to see and know each other as real people rather than as faceless groups who never mix.)
(b) Agree that should any member of his family covered in the contract break the law, (or at least laws of a serious nature, that would be stated clearly in the contract), that person will be deemed to have broken their contract and would have to leave the country, no matter how many years after the event the crime is committed. Even if citizenship has been granted in the meantime, the commission of any of the stated crimes would be deemed as negating said citizenship. (How could he be ‘sent back’ if we don’t know where he came from? Because Mr Smith would have to nominate a country of origin to which he would be sent when signing the contract, and if he was unable or unwilling to do so, he would remain in the detention camp indefinitely or agreed to be sent home, wherever that may be.)
(c) Agree to give up ALL political activities associated with his country of origin. After all, Mr Smith has come to Australia ILLEGALLY to escape the violence and/or oppression of his homeland. If he wants to stay in the new country of his choice, (which was not, by the way, the first country he passed through after escaping from his homeland), he must agree not to become involved in activities that his adopted country might consider disruptive.
Now, think as I am, I can’t see anything in such a contract that someone genuinely attempting to make a new life in a new country would find unacceptable.
But I’m sure I’ll hear otherwise from the tree huggers.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wo-hah! Some heavy discussion on this particular flight deck.
The current situation, where many have-nots quite understandably decide they want to have a piece of the action enjoyed by the haves has happened before, and with predictable results – everyone ended up with next to nothing for many hundreds of years.
Most of us have heard how the Barbarians ‘invaded’ ancient Rome. But an army of hairy Goths and Huns didn’t turn up from out of the blue at the gates of Rome one summer day and storm the battlements. Although it did eventually come to something similar to that, the important word is ‘eventually’.
What most people don’t understand is that for a couple of hundred years before that final sacking of the city and the destruction of what was probably the most advanced civilisation of its day, Rome was almost overwhelmed by – the only term that comes to mind is ‘economic refugees’ – from the outer reaches of its Empire. And when, eventually, EVERYONE wanted ‘in’ for the good life Rome gave its citizens, and decided to take it at the point of the sword, Rome became so unattractive to its rulers that many of them moved away – to the ‘new’ Rome in Constantinople, where they managed to hang onto the good life for only a few hundred years more before the have-nots took that from them too.
And the end result? Almost 1,200 years of the brutish Dark Ages, where only the most wealthy enjoyed anything approaching a good life.
Anyone who thinks I am wrong in drawing this parallel should look a little further into the similarities between the two civilisations and see whether they don’t agree that we in the West are at the same stage the ancient Romans were at immediately before their civilisation imploded and collapsed.
- The Romans were protected in their safe ivory tower environment by a strong army that kept the hungry masses at bay – so successfully, that eventually the people at home thought they didn’t need a strong army any more and stopped paying for it. (Does that sound familiar? Particularly to any New Zealanders out there? Or to the left-leaning voters and short-sighted politicians who dissemble our armies repeatedly immediately after every war because ‘there’s no perceived threat any more’? Only to proven wrong again and again?)
- The Romans became increasingly dissolute, demanding the government provide for their every whim without putting any effort themselves into maintaining the structure Rome had built up over hundreds of years. They also demanded diversion, and were given increasingly grandiose ‘circuses’ by their rulers to keep them happy. (Of course, that doesn’t sound anything like a certain Antipodean nation whose population idolises sport and sporting heroes, very much the way the ancient Romans flocked to the Colosseum, does it?)
Sadly, I think what’s happening has a certain inevitably about it. I just hope some semblance of what we’ve got now can be made last another forty of fifty years. But I fear it might all come tumbling down a lot sooner than that, particularly since people like Mr Bin Liner seem quite intent on destroying everything that doesn’t meet with their approval by whatever means available.
On the subject of Mr Bin Liner, I think by far the best suggestion I’ve heard so far is this: stop the bombing immediately and allow the Taliban to maintain their iron rule over Afghanistan. Capture Mr Bin Liner but don’t prosecute or imprison him. Instead, give him a sex change operation – and send him/her back to Afghanistan where he/she can ‘enjoy’ the rest of his/her long life as a female under the Taliban.
The current situation, where many have-nots quite understandably decide they want to have a piece of the action enjoyed by the haves has happened before, and with predictable results – everyone ended up with next to nothing for many hundreds of years.
Most of us have heard how the Barbarians ‘invaded’ ancient Rome. But an army of hairy Goths and Huns didn’t turn up from out of the blue at the gates of Rome one summer day and storm the battlements. Although it did eventually come to something similar to that, the important word is ‘eventually’.
What most people don’t understand is that for a couple of hundred years before that final sacking of the city and the destruction of what was probably the most advanced civilisation of its day, Rome was almost overwhelmed by – the only term that comes to mind is ‘economic refugees’ – from the outer reaches of its Empire. And when, eventually, EVERYONE wanted ‘in’ for the good life Rome gave its citizens, and decided to take it at the point of the sword, Rome became so unattractive to its rulers that many of them moved away – to the ‘new’ Rome in Constantinople, where they managed to hang onto the good life for only a few hundred years more before the have-nots took that from them too.
And the end result? Almost 1,200 years of the brutish Dark Ages, where only the most wealthy enjoyed anything approaching a good life.
Anyone who thinks I am wrong in drawing this parallel should look a little further into the similarities between the two civilisations and see whether they don’t agree that we in the West are at the same stage the ancient Romans were at immediately before their civilisation imploded and collapsed.
- The Romans were protected in their safe ivory tower environment by a strong army that kept the hungry masses at bay – so successfully, that eventually the people at home thought they didn’t need a strong army any more and stopped paying for it. (Does that sound familiar? Particularly to any New Zealanders out there? Or to the left-leaning voters and short-sighted politicians who dissemble our armies repeatedly immediately after every war because ‘there’s no perceived threat any more’? Only to proven wrong again and again?)
- The Romans became increasingly dissolute, demanding the government provide for their every whim without putting any effort themselves into maintaining the structure Rome had built up over hundreds of years. They also demanded diversion, and were given increasingly grandiose ‘circuses’ by their rulers to keep them happy. (Of course, that doesn’t sound anything like a certain Antipodean nation whose population idolises sport and sporting heroes, very much the way the ancient Romans flocked to the Colosseum, does it?)
Sadly, I think what’s happening has a certain inevitably about it. I just hope some semblance of what we’ve got now can be made last another forty of fifty years. But I fear it might all come tumbling down a lot sooner than that, particularly since people like Mr Bin Liner seem quite intent on destroying everything that doesn’t meet with their approval by whatever means available.
On the subject of Mr Bin Liner, I think by far the best suggestion I’ve heard so far is this: stop the bombing immediately and allow the Taliban to maintain their iron rule over Afghanistan. Capture Mr Bin Liner but don’t prosecute or imprison him. Instead, give him a sex change operation – and send him/her back to Afghanistan where he/she can ‘enjoy’ the rest of his/her long life as a female under the Taliban.
Moderator
Some very good points there, Wiley.
The other day we were discussing this situation at work, and one person said that they can't be called queue jumpers because there is no queue!!!! How naive is that?
I probably feel more strongly than many because I was stuck in that queue for seven years, gaining additional qualifications to gain points, because the immigration department initially told me that four years of British university education put me in the class of "semi-skilled manual labourer" and this here white native english speaking healthy christian educated person was not considered qualified for immigration. I got in eventually, but had to gain a lot more expensive quals (ie a UK CPL!) to be accepted, by which time I was within days of losing points for passing the magic age of 29 when I would have lost those points for being too old.
I can only wonder how many white Zimbabweans find themselves in this same situation now.
Who is asking Aboriginal folk who they want let into their native land?
If fifteen year olds are saying B-L is a hero, then some adult, presumably an Australian citizen, that they trust is telling them so. How scary is that.
PS to Fubaar, good points, isn't that close to what is happening in Britain now.
If BL is to be given a sex change, make sure they put him through the female circumcision too. Then they should put him and his Taliban mates in that football stadium they use for public executions, and let the women decide what to do with him.
Can't help thinking of Life of Brian "Who threw that stone?" "She did she did she did him him him"
[ 11 October 2001: Message edited by: Charlie Foxtrot India ]
The other day we were discussing this situation at work, and one person said that they can't be called queue jumpers because there is no queue!!!! How naive is that?
I probably feel more strongly than many because I was stuck in that queue for seven years, gaining additional qualifications to gain points, because the immigration department initially told me that four years of British university education put me in the class of "semi-skilled manual labourer" and this here white native english speaking healthy christian educated person was not considered qualified for immigration. I got in eventually, but had to gain a lot more expensive quals (ie a UK CPL!) to be accepted, by which time I was within days of losing points for passing the magic age of 29 when I would have lost those points for being too old.
I can only wonder how many white Zimbabweans find themselves in this same situation now.
Who is asking Aboriginal folk who they want let into their native land?
If fifteen year olds are saying B-L is a hero, then some adult, presumably an Australian citizen, that they trust is telling them so. How scary is that.
PS to Fubaar, good points, isn't that close to what is happening in Britain now.
If BL is to be given a sex change, make sure they put him through the female circumcision too. Then they should put him and his Taliban mates in that football stadium they use for public executions, and let the women decide what to do with him.
Can't help thinking of Life of Brian "Who threw that stone?" "She did she did she did him him him"
[ 11 October 2001: Message edited by: Charlie Foxtrot India ]
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent hypothesis Wiley. If only it were that simplistic.
Unfortunately the reality is that such an agreement would hold about as much water as a sun dried tomato - absolute zero.
Lawyers would have a field day and all such cases would drag on for many years in the courts.
Unfortunately the reality is that such an agreement would hold about as much water as a sun dried tomato - absolute zero.
Lawyers would have a field day and all such cases would drag on for many years in the courts.
