SAS storm refugee boat
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS storm refugee boat
I know this isnt aviation related, sorry Woomera, but with the military contacts on this forum i was hoping for some confirmation on whether it is true that the SAS stormed the refugge boat, the Tampa, and it is now under SAS control sitting off the coast of WA. I did read a report in The Age Online, but i was hoping for some one to confirm this through other sources, whether be other newspapers or TV or anything.
Looks like John Howard is finally doing something serious about this refugee crisis and its good to see its something positive and something sending a clear message
Looks like John Howard is finally doing something serious about this refugee crisis and its good to see its something positive and something sending a clear message
Guest
Posts: n/a
Couldn't agree more, if it was up to me the ******s would be shot.
Why don't the p!ss of to Saudi..to their "Muslim Brother's" surely they'll take them in...
Good on you John Howard, don't back down.
Australia aint such somewhere you can float into cause you're country is screwed up.
SEND THEM ALL BACK, IN RAFTS!
Why don't the p!ss of to Saudi..to their "Muslim Brother's" surely they'll take them in...
Good on you John Howard, don't back down.
Australia aint such somewhere you can float into cause you're country is screwed up.
SEND THEM ALL BACK, IN RAFTS!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seen the polls the networks are running at the moment about the support howard has and the results are better than 90% to refuse entry and send them back...I agree but what are our subs doing, couldn't these boats be used as torpedo fodder or (to keep this aviation orientated) target practice for a few air to ground missiles. that would cure the problem... 
Moderator
There are some bleeding hearts out there who say this is "an election issue". Even though the opposition are standing behind Howard's decision!!
It's good to see that the Government are doing what (according to a Ten television poll) 90% of Australians who voted WANT them to do. Because we are sick of seeing our money spent this way, when there are many disadvantaged Australians who need it, on these ungrateful people who abuse our system.
For those of us who waited years to migrate here legally it's good to see that the immigration people are taking a firm stand and that it isn't just us White Europeans who have to wait our turn (and wait, and wait, and wait) and prove ourselves worthy.
Apparently these people have been happily waiting for their boats in Indonesia, NOT being persecuted, AT AUSTRALIAN TAXPAYERS EXPENSE! Then their leaky boat starts to sink, so the nice Norwegian guy goes to help, as he should; and instead of being thanked he is threatened. The "asylum seekers" are behaving like pirates. They have caused this situation, not Australia, not Norway, and if it takes the SAS to get rid of them then go for it.
I'd say if they are involved then there may be some threat to national security. The Norwegian captain has ignored directives not to enter Australian waters. Our troops are there to defend our country.
I say if the bleeding hearts want these people to be allowed in, they should be willing to house and feed them themselves for the next few years.
[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: Charlie Foxtrot India ]
It's good to see that the Government are doing what (according to a Ten television poll) 90% of Australians who voted WANT them to do. Because we are sick of seeing our money spent this way, when there are many disadvantaged Australians who need it, on these ungrateful people who abuse our system.
For those of us who waited years to migrate here legally it's good to see that the immigration people are taking a firm stand and that it isn't just us White Europeans who have to wait our turn (and wait, and wait, and wait) and prove ourselves worthy.
Apparently these people have been happily waiting for their boats in Indonesia, NOT being persecuted, AT AUSTRALIAN TAXPAYERS EXPENSE! Then their leaky boat starts to sink, so the nice Norwegian guy goes to help, as he should; and instead of being thanked he is threatened. The "asylum seekers" are behaving like pirates. They have caused this situation, not Australia, not Norway, and if it takes the SAS to get rid of them then go for it.
I'd say if they are involved then there may be some threat to national security. The Norwegian captain has ignored directives not to enter Australian waters. Our troops are there to defend our country.
I say if the bleeding hearts want these people to be allowed in, they should be willing to house and feed them themselves for the next few years.
[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: Charlie Foxtrot India ]
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was quite surprised when in Australia recently to see how (apparently) overwhelming opinion in the Letters to the Editor pages is against Phillip Ruddock’s hard stance regarding the (I don’t think it too strong a word to say) ‘flood’ of illegal arrivals.
No one seems to have asked how much money these people would need to shell out to the low-life scum who are arranging and ‘equipping’ the leaking rust buckets they pile them onto. Neither do they ask where they would have got that amount of money if they’ve actually been living hand to mouth in a refugee camp for ‘x’ years. The truth is, in many cases, that they are pure and simple economic refugees in search of a better life, (and who can blame them?). The Olympic coverage, a generous Social Services system that must sound to someone from the Third World like money for nothing, as well as the many letters home from the very many who’ve already been allowed in after ‘jumping the queue’ has made Oz the flavour of the month, and the situation’s not likely to change in the short term.
Unless these very people seeking refuge do something themselves about kicking the people currently in power in their own countries, the flood looks like continuing indefinitely – and growing exponentially. And if the current lot of crazies running Afghanistan and Iraq get the flick, they’ll be lining up at Port Hedland and Ashmore reef to ‘escape persecution’ by the people who replace them!
If Ruddock doesn’t continue his hard stand, (a stand that will almost certainly ensure his and his government’s political demise at the next election if the ‘touchy-feely’ brigade have their way), the flood will become overwhelming. It would not be inaccurate to use the word ‘invasion’ to describe the numbers that would begin to arrive if jumping the queue to get into Australia looked any easier than it is now to the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people in desperate straits both inside AND OUTSIDE refugee camps all over the world.
No one among the ‘touchy-feelies’ seems to understand the social impact such large numbers of people of ANY different culture would have on a country with the small population base of Australia, let alone people with deep cultural and religious beliefs totally at odds with those of most Australians. I know I’m straying dangerously into political incorrectness here, but I am not in any way Muslim-bashing. I acknowledge that Australia already has a large Muslim population and that they have enriched the country. However, I would hazard a guess that many if not most Australians would not like to see the country become predominantly Muslim, especially the brand of Islam practised in Afghanistan.
Face the fact, unpleasant as it may be, that that is exactly what we would be achieving if we allowed as many people into the country as want to come here. We would not be offering them refuge, but turning Australia into a country very much like the one they are escaping. Below is a letter from a Middle Eastern newspaper that a mate sent to me by e-mail a week or two ago. What’s interesting is that in a later letter, the writer identified himself as a native born citizen of the Third World who still lived in the Third World. If someone from that part of the world can see where this current flood of displaced persons is leading, you have to ask why most Australians can’t.
Migration
From Mr. F.M., Abu Dhabi.
In recent years the number of migrants to Western countries has increased phenomenally, so have the methods they employ and the risks they take!
What prospective migrants should know is these promised lands are worth migrating to only because the majority of their citizens are law abiding, tax paying and tolerant. Developed countries have stable political, judicial, health and educational systems because their population is productive, discerning and fortunate.
Third World migrants leave behind the precise opposite. They are plagued by corruption, poverty sickness and wars. Again, it is the citizens of these ravaged countries who are responsible It is their own lack of adaptability, work ethics and civic sense that renders their country unlivable.
Sadly most migratory birds merely transplant their own, tax dodging, drug dealing, gun-toting, intolerant and work shy ways to the countries they go to. So it is just a matter of time before host countries end up like the nations the immigrants left. Then where will they go?
* Full name withheld by request
The above letter is seriously politically incorrect, but, especially when you acknowledge that is not written by some bigoted Westerner, it poses a few questions no one seems keen to have asked, namely isn’t it only the small percentage of illegal migrants not allowed to stay on permanently as refugees because their stories of political persecution don’t hold water who are making all the noise in the Port Hedland camps?
Just where does a country like Australia draw the line? You can be sure that when it’s standing room only in Oz, there’ll be places elsewhere in the world where people want to get away from to live better, more comfortable lives. Australia might be a very large land mass, but it simply will not support the population who’d like to come here and allow them (and those already there) to maintain anything like the standard of living they now enjoy.
The very standard of living that attracts so many would-be immigrants, legal and illegal, now.
Everyone will have his own personal ‘line in the sand’. I think I’d rather see it drawn now rather than in ten years time.
No one seems to have asked how much money these people would need to shell out to the low-life scum who are arranging and ‘equipping’ the leaking rust buckets they pile them onto. Neither do they ask where they would have got that amount of money if they’ve actually been living hand to mouth in a refugee camp for ‘x’ years. The truth is, in many cases, that they are pure and simple economic refugees in search of a better life, (and who can blame them?). The Olympic coverage, a generous Social Services system that must sound to someone from the Third World like money for nothing, as well as the many letters home from the very many who’ve already been allowed in after ‘jumping the queue’ has made Oz the flavour of the month, and the situation’s not likely to change in the short term.
Unless these very people seeking refuge do something themselves about kicking the people currently in power in their own countries, the flood looks like continuing indefinitely – and growing exponentially. And if the current lot of crazies running Afghanistan and Iraq get the flick, they’ll be lining up at Port Hedland and Ashmore reef to ‘escape persecution’ by the people who replace them!
If Ruddock doesn’t continue his hard stand, (a stand that will almost certainly ensure his and his government’s political demise at the next election if the ‘touchy-feely’ brigade have their way), the flood will become overwhelming. It would not be inaccurate to use the word ‘invasion’ to describe the numbers that would begin to arrive if jumping the queue to get into Australia looked any easier than it is now to the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people in desperate straits both inside AND OUTSIDE refugee camps all over the world.
No one among the ‘touchy-feelies’ seems to understand the social impact such large numbers of people of ANY different culture would have on a country with the small population base of Australia, let alone people with deep cultural and religious beliefs totally at odds with those of most Australians. I know I’m straying dangerously into political incorrectness here, but I am not in any way Muslim-bashing. I acknowledge that Australia already has a large Muslim population and that they have enriched the country. However, I would hazard a guess that many if not most Australians would not like to see the country become predominantly Muslim, especially the brand of Islam practised in Afghanistan.
Face the fact, unpleasant as it may be, that that is exactly what we would be achieving if we allowed as many people into the country as want to come here. We would not be offering them refuge, but turning Australia into a country very much like the one they are escaping. Below is a letter from a Middle Eastern newspaper that a mate sent to me by e-mail a week or two ago. What’s interesting is that in a later letter, the writer identified himself as a native born citizen of the Third World who still lived in the Third World. If someone from that part of the world can see where this current flood of displaced persons is leading, you have to ask why most Australians can’t.
Migration
From Mr. F.M., Abu Dhabi.
In recent years the number of migrants to Western countries has increased phenomenally, so have the methods they employ and the risks they take!
What prospective migrants should know is these promised lands are worth migrating to only because the majority of their citizens are law abiding, tax paying and tolerant. Developed countries have stable political, judicial, health and educational systems because their population is productive, discerning and fortunate.
Third World migrants leave behind the precise opposite. They are plagued by corruption, poverty sickness and wars. Again, it is the citizens of these ravaged countries who are responsible It is their own lack of adaptability, work ethics and civic sense that renders their country unlivable.
Sadly most migratory birds merely transplant their own, tax dodging, drug dealing, gun-toting, intolerant and work shy ways to the countries they go to. So it is just a matter of time before host countries end up like the nations the immigrants left. Then where will they go?
* Full name withheld by request
The above letter is seriously politically incorrect, but, especially when you acknowledge that is not written by some bigoted Westerner, it poses a few questions no one seems keen to have asked, namely isn’t it only the small percentage of illegal migrants not allowed to stay on permanently as refugees because their stories of political persecution don’t hold water who are making all the noise in the Port Hedland camps?
Just where does a country like Australia draw the line? You can be sure that when it’s standing room only in Oz, there’ll be places elsewhere in the world where people want to get away from to live better, more comfortable lives. Australia might be a very large land mass, but it simply will not support the population who’d like to come here and allow them (and those already there) to maintain anything like the standard of living they now enjoy.
The very standard of living that attracts so many would-be immigrants, legal and illegal, now.
Everyone will have his own personal ‘line in the sand’. I think I’d rather see it drawn now rather than in ten years time.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: bucks
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess they thought Australia would do what Britain did when Afghans 'hijacked' a plan and landed at Stansted. Despite reports to the contrary, that had all the appearance of a planned escape from a desparate situation.
Interesting that they didn't want to go back to Indonesia, but demanded to be taken to Australia. With the situation worsening in Afghan, I suspect this will happen more and more.
What I fail to see is the logic behind both Norway and Indonesia claiming it is Australia's problem - it is in fact Afghan's problem, which is reaching global proportions with Afghans now the largest refugee population in the world. Maybe the oil rich Islamic nations would like to offer a haven to any muslim refugees.
The western nations (does Australia qualify for that appelation as it is somewhat east of the Far East), can only support so many displaced persons, before the infrastructures collapse. Especially, as they frequently insist that their particular religious, custom and lifestyles have to be accommodated by the host-country.
What they have done though is make it far more likely that ships will try to avoid picking up what appear to be refugees (how many will die as a result).
Interesting that they didn't want to go back to Indonesia, but demanded to be taken to Australia. With the situation worsening in Afghan, I suspect this will happen more and more.
What I fail to see is the logic behind both Norway and Indonesia claiming it is Australia's problem - it is in fact Afghan's problem, which is reaching global proportions with Afghans now the largest refugee population in the world. Maybe the oil rich Islamic nations would like to offer a haven to any muslim refugees.
The western nations (does Australia qualify for that appelation as it is somewhat east of the Far East), can only support so many displaced persons, before the infrastructures collapse. Especially, as they frequently insist that their particular religious, custom and lifestyles have to be accommodated by the host-country.
What they have done though is make it far more likely that ships will try to avoid picking up what appear to be refugees (how many will die as a result).
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of hours ago Johnny tried to push
emergency powers to remove this ship and
is now F***** by the Senate, how in the hell
is a govt surpposed to fix problems even
when 90+% of the population want it ???:
The Senate has rejected emergency Government legislation which would have given legal cover for any attempt to forcibly remove the Norwegian ship, Tampa, from Australia's waters.
The Government attempted to ram through the Parliament the retrospective legislation which would have given it broad powers to forcibly remove any ship from Australia's waters while preventing any legal challenge to such a move.
The Prime Minister demanded the Parliament pass it last night.
But the Opposition gave up what had been a bi-partisan approach to the issue of Tampa and the more than 400 asylum seekers on board, and rejected the legislation calling it politically motivated and too sweeping.
Labor was joined by the Democrats, Greens Senator Bob Brown and Independent Brian Harradine in voting the bill down.
The Tampa remains in Australian waters just off Christmas Island.
Australian SAS troops have been on board since yesterday, but despite repeated demands, the ship's captain is refusing to move it out to international waters.
While the legislation the Government says would reinforce its legal position has been rejected, the Government is still likely to act to force the freighter out of Australian waters
emergency powers to remove this ship and
is now F***** by the Senate, how in the hell
is a govt surpposed to fix problems even
when 90+% of the population want it ???:
The Senate has rejected emergency Government legislation which would have given legal cover for any attempt to forcibly remove the Norwegian ship, Tampa, from Australia's waters.
The Government attempted to ram through the Parliament the retrospective legislation which would have given it broad powers to forcibly remove any ship from Australia's waters while preventing any legal challenge to such a move.
The Prime Minister demanded the Parliament pass it last night.
But the Opposition gave up what had been a bi-partisan approach to the issue of Tampa and the more than 400 asylum seekers on board, and rejected the legislation calling it politically motivated and too sweeping.
Labor was joined by the Democrats, Greens Senator Bob Brown and Independent Brian Harradine in voting the bill down.
The Tampa remains in Australian waters just off Christmas Island.
Australian SAS troops have been on board since yesterday, but despite repeated demands, the ship's captain is refusing to move it out to international waters.
While the legislation the Government says would reinforce its legal position has been rejected, the Government is still likely to act to force the freighter out of Australian waters
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see the govt standing up to these "poor unfortunates". It seems they have travelled through several other "better" countries to get to OZ.
Australia cannot allow itself to be seen as a soft touch when it comes to taking in asylum seekers or it will end up like the UK.
Over this way (UK)they que up in France looking for a chance to cross the channel. Once in the UK they B**ch and moan that the free housing they recieve is not good enough and that the govt should look after them better. I reckon if its so bad pi*s off back to were they came from.
Australia cannot allow itself to be seen as a soft touch when it comes to taking in asylum seekers or it will end up like the UK.
Over this way (UK)they que up in France looking for a chance to cross the channel. Once in the UK they B**ch and moan that the free housing they recieve is not good enough and that the govt should look after them better. I reckon if its so bad pi*s off back to were they came from.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Buckinghamshire
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what "The Independent" said about it in London today.
(I am not expressing an opinion, just showing what some of the papers in the UK think.)
Quote begins:
You can understand why the Australians aren't keen to let in those asylum-seekers crammed on that boat in the Pacific. After all, there's hardly any room left in Australia, is there? If they carried on letting people in at that rate, within a millennium or two they'd be down to their last half a dozen deserts.
And you can see why a nation with a proud history like Australia would find it strange that anyone would want to leave the country they were brought up in to go somewhere where there was already a native population. And for all the Australians know, some of those trying to get in have got criminal records. You can't build a nation from stock like that!
And it's quite possible the people hoping to claim asylum are planning to sponge off the state. Because their behaviour up to now displays a classic sign of laziness and wanting everything on a plate. Anyone who's ever interviewed people for a job knows that if someone has got to the interview by escaping from a tyrannical regime, squeezing onto a fishing boat and bobbling across the Pacific, he'll be the type who is never prepared to put in any effort.
Somehow, the authorities concerned are already discussing how those who are "genuine" refugees will be treated differently from the "economic migrants". Which suggests that some of them are not genuine, but simply trying to better themselves, in the same way someone might do a course in computers to get a better job in the office. They sit in their Afghan gardens, looking at the brochures, and say to the wife: "Hmm, there's something here that would ease our financial burden. It would mean going short for a few weeks, while we drift through shark-infested seas on a rickety trawler held together with staples surrounded by our own **** and vomit and groaning from dysentery, but the extra 90 quid a month wouldn't 'alf come in handy."
To which she'll reply "I'm sure you're right, dear" – as anything else would render her liable to be stoned to death for being too lippy.
But the tone of the Australians is similar to that of most Western countries. The British Government has just decided to maintain the system that denies cash benefits to asylum-seekers, granting them vouchers instead because, as yesterday's Daily Mail gleefully reported, "scrapping vouchers would encourage more asylum-seekers".
Because once word got round in Kabul that refugees were entitled to cash, Britain would seem like a game show beaming at you to come on and try to win 56 whole pounds. Afghans would be running through the mosque gulping vodka and baring their arses in the hope that the Taliban might chop off an arm so that they could cling to the bottom of a Eurostar train with their remaining fingers and frolic amid the nightlife of Margate.
Now they are taking seriously the call to deny jobs to foreigners who can't speak English, an idea first mooted by Labour MP Ann Cryer. Just as the English never fail to master our hosts' language before we set foot in another country. If a group of English tourists are in Rome and one of the party, having listened to an Italian speaking fluent English, says "Oh well, arriva derci then", the others will say: "Oooo, aren't you clever? Where did you pick that up?"
The language test would be fair enough, if they were allowed to employ English methods of speaking to foreigners. Then asylum-seekers could go up to a stranger in Canterbury and yell "Which way is the Post Office? I said WHICH WAY IS THE POST OFFICE? THE POST OFFICE. YOU KNOW, THE POST OFFICE, PO-ST-OF -ICE." And all in fluent Arabic.
Then they would have to throw their arms in the air and tut loudly before miming licking a stamp, and finally declare that this old dear was obviously typical as she didn't speak a word of bloody Arabic.
For the English could be in the middle of the rainforest in Borneo, come across a remote ancient tribe sitting in a clearing and ask: "Excuse me mate, you don't happen to know if there's a cashpoint anywhere round here, is there?"
Like the reaction to the poor sods on board that boat, there is a complete lack of logic in the language theory. It's not that all those who support it are racist, but they surrender to the racists. So now Britain gets rebuked on almost a weekly basis by bodies such as the United Nations for breaking international laws and standards on refugees. But the Government behaves like the hard kid returning from a caning in the headmaster's office, proudly smirking that his beating proves his toughness.
Then, however draconian their plan, they claim that it's to ensure healthy race relations. You can't help thinking that if the current leaders of Western governments had been in charge of Nazi Germany, they'd have made a statement that went: "There's nothing anti-Semitic about our plans. We're only gassing these ones to allay the fears of the German people, and to ensure a healthy prosperous climate for the genuine Jews that are left."
(I am not expressing an opinion, just showing what some of the papers in the UK think.)
Quote begins:
You can understand why the Australians aren't keen to let in those asylum-seekers crammed on that boat in the Pacific. After all, there's hardly any room left in Australia, is there? If they carried on letting people in at that rate, within a millennium or two they'd be down to their last half a dozen deserts.
And you can see why a nation with a proud history like Australia would find it strange that anyone would want to leave the country they were brought up in to go somewhere where there was already a native population. And for all the Australians know, some of those trying to get in have got criminal records. You can't build a nation from stock like that!
And it's quite possible the people hoping to claim asylum are planning to sponge off the state. Because their behaviour up to now displays a classic sign of laziness and wanting everything on a plate. Anyone who's ever interviewed people for a job knows that if someone has got to the interview by escaping from a tyrannical regime, squeezing onto a fishing boat and bobbling across the Pacific, he'll be the type who is never prepared to put in any effort.
Somehow, the authorities concerned are already discussing how those who are "genuine" refugees will be treated differently from the "economic migrants". Which suggests that some of them are not genuine, but simply trying to better themselves, in the same way someone might do a course in computers to get a better job in the office. They sit in their Afghan gardens, looking at the brochures, and say to the wife: "Hmm, there's something here that would ease our financial burden. It would mean going short for a few weeks, while we drift through shark-infested seas on a rickety trawler held together with staples surrounded by our own **** and vomit and groaning from dysentery, but the extra 90 quid a month wouldn't 'alf come in handy."
To which she'll reply "I'm sure you're right, dear" – as anything else would render her liable to be stoned to death for being too lippy.
But the tone of the Australians is similar to that of most Western countries. The British Government has just decided to maintain the system that denies cash benefits to asylum-seekers, granting them vouchers instead because, as yesterday's Daily Mail gleefully reported, "scrapping vouchers would encourage more asylum-seekers".
Because once word got round in Kabul that refugees were entitled to cash, Britain would seem like a game show beaming at you to come on and try to win 56 whole pounds. Afghans would be running through the mosque gulping vodka and baring their arses in the hope that the Taliban might chop off an arm so that they could cling to the bottom of a Eurostar train with their remaining fingers and frolic amid the nightlife of Margate.
Now they are taking seriously the call to deny jobs to foreigners who can't speak English, an idea first mooted by Labour MP Ann Cryer. Just as the English never fail to master our hosts' language before we set foot in another country. If a group of English tourists are in Rome and one of the party, having listened to an Italian speaking fluent English, says "Oh well, arriva derci then", the others will say: "Oooo, aren't you clever? Where did you pick that up?"
The language test would be fair enough, if they were allowed to employ English methods of speaking to foreigners. Then asylum-seekers could go up to a stranger in Canterbury and yell "Which way is the Post Office? I said WHICH WAY IS THE POST OFFICE? THE POST OFFICE. YOU KNOW, THE POST OFFICE, PO-ST-OF -ICE." And all in fluent Arabic.
Then they would have to throw their arms in the air and tut loudly before miming licking a stamp, and finally declare that this old dear was obviously typical as she didn't speak a word of bloody Arabic.
For the English could be in the middle of the rainforest in Borneo, come across a remote ancient tribe sitting in a clearing and ask: "Excuse me mate, you don't happen to know if there's a cashpoint anywhere round here, is there?"
Like the reaction to the poor sods on board that boat, there is a complete lack of logic in the language theory. It's not that all those who support it are racist, but they surrender to the racists. So now Britain gets rebuked on almost a weekly basis by bodies such as the United Nations for breaking international laws and standards on refugees. But the Government behaves like the hard kid returning from a caning in the headmaster's office, proudly smirking that his beating proves his toughness.
Then, however draconian their plan, they claim that it's to ensure healthy race relations. You can't help thinking that if the current leaders of Western governments had been in charge of Nazi Germany, they'd have made a statement that went: "There's nothing anti-Semitic about our plans. We're only gassing these ones to allay the fears of the German people, and to ensure a healthy prosperous climate for the genuine Jews that are left."
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: COLD COUNTRY
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reply to JPJ, why doesn't good ol' mother england come and take them????? I mean we are just of convict backgrounds, and you guys are the angels on earth....... by the way what kind of a F***KED up country sends prisoners to a paradise island and keep S**TTY old england for themselves?????????? 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What else would you expect from the British press?? I find the Independent a funny name for the paper anyway. It should be more like the 'far left' or something more fitting.
I am not sure that this is the general sentiment from the UK, but more likely the crap stirring pommie press having a dig. Any people in the UK like to comment on feeling in the UK?!?!?
I am not sure that this is the general sentiment from the UK, but more likely the crap stirring pommie press having a dig. Any people in the UK like to comment on feeling in the UK?!?!?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like i said early its about time that something was done and even better that force was used as it sends out a clear message to all the people smugglers. I only fear that this action will lead to condemnation from most countries though i did see that Helen Clark approved of John Howard's decision. (though she did say that NZ would do the same thing, i was wondering what with??)
It seems ridiculious and ironic that Kim Beazley is the one opposing this decision, i would have thought that as a former Defence Minister he would have been ecstatic at this decision, or do i have the wrong impression of Kim??
Unfortunately though, now that our troops are on board it does become our problem and now the illegal immigrants must come onto Australian soil. So either way they were getting on board, just by using the SAS sends a strong message. A message that is way overdue
It seems ridiculious and ironic that Kim Beazley is the one opposing this decision, i would have thought that as a former Defence Minister he would have been ecstatic at this decision, or do i have the wrong impression of Kim??
Unfortunately though, now that our troops are on board it does become our problem and now the illegal immigrants must come onto Australian soil. So either way they were getting on board, just by using the SAS sends a strong message. A message that is way overdue
Primitive Aviator
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: australia
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Independent? Never heard of it! Why would you believe anything emanating from a source that doesn't know that the Pacific Ocean is to the East of Australia and Christmas Island is in that other ocean on the West of Australia and is a very long way from the mainland but a stone's throw from Indonesia where these people set out from.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something that I have not seen mentioned anywhere is where was this freighter heading in the first place? If it was here then maybe we should not stop it, however if it was not heading to Australia then it should continue to its destination. If these people do finally end up on Australian soil, then we should pack them onto another ship and send them straight back home. While they are on board they can spend their time filling out the correct application forms and wait in line like all other applicants. While we're at it doing that we might as well fill the ship with the rest of them who are in the detention centres as well.
I do not apologise for being "politically incorrect" because I don't believe that I am.
BSB
I do not apologise for being "politically incorrect" because I don't believe that I am.
BSB