Terrorist Attacks in the United States
Cookie...~Ü~
for personal reasons, those reaons pale into insignificance in comparison to
the recent events in the United States and if they are all I have to worry
about then I am very fortunate.
The worthless cowards who carried out these attacks are neither humans nor
legitimate followers of the religion they purport to be members of. These
lunatics hide behind a religion to further their own cause, they spread
propaganda and know the only hope they have of achieving their goal is to
drag muslims into a false "holy war".
I have heard people mention their concerns over innocent people being killed
in Afghanistan if military attacks occur, whilst it is a legitimate concern
that innocent people will undoubtedly die, one must remember that in any war
innocent people die.
Some will say that this is not a war, but merely a campaign, I can assure
you that it is a war, it can only be a war. The current count is somewhere
in the vicinity of 6800+ innocent people dead from these terrorist attacks.
Some people believe that retaliation will not solve anything, it most
certainly will, Countries that harbour terrorists further the cause of
terrorism by provided sanctuary to those who have no respect for anyone or
anything including life.
Idealism never solves anything & attempting to apply it to this situation &
the ideology of world peace (a highly noble intention) is a fruitless
exercise. Terrorists will never listen to reason, they are not normal human
beings, they don't negotiate, their only currency is death & destruction.
Terrorists will use the good nature of normal people against them, they are
a cancer where the only cure is omplete removal & eradication.
If you help a criminal then you too are a criminal.
The Australian people are completely behind the United States & any action
they choose to take.
Afghanistan has been given a choice to make; hand over the terrorists or
suffer their fate. The ball is in Afghanistan's court.
World peace can be achieved, but not while the cancer called terrorism still
exists.
My sincere condolences to all people who have lost family, friends & loved
ones in the most horrific acts of cowardice the world has ever seen.
Kind regards
Paul Cook
brucie
Cookie...~Ü~ said...
> As most regs in this group would recall, I departed this
> group some time ago [...]
welcome back!
--
brucie
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/ - jerrys FAQs
http://www.ayzball.com/ - phils handy programs
Rob - Rock13.com
<news:MPG.161823c08...@news-central.giganews.com>:
> In message <3bad846c$0$20...@echo-01.iinet.net.au>,
> Cookie...~Ü~ said...
>
>> As most regs in this group would recall, I departed this
>> group some time ago [...]
>
> welcome back!
>
<aol>ditto</aol>
Uhm, I missed your departure. Whatever the personal reasons were I
hope all is well.
--
Rob - http://rock13.com/
Web Stuff: http://rock13.com/webhelp/
Cookie...~Ü~
> brucie
> <news:MPG.161823c08...@news-central.giganews.com>:
>
> > In message <3bad846c$0$20...@echo-01.iinet.net.au>,
> > Cookie...~Ü~ said...
> >
> >> As most regs in this group would recall, I departed this
> >> group some time ago [...]
> >
> > welcome back!
> >
> <aol>ditto</aol>
>
> Uhm, I missed your departure. Whatever the personal reasons were I
> hope all is well.
Thanks, both of you. Things are looking up.
Cheers
Cookie
David Venn-Brown
news:3bad846c$0$20...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
> The Australian people are completely behind the United States & any action
> they choose to take.
The reason that Australia is backing the US in this has nothing to do with
terrorism, really.
I just thought that I'd point that out.
--
David.
http://www.vbdave.iwarp.com
dav...@ozemail.com.au fat...@hotmail.com
Cookie...~Ü~
> "Cookie...~Ü~" <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > The Australian people are completely behind the United States & any
action
> > they choose to take.
>
> The reason that Australia is backing the US in this has nothing to do with
> terrorism, really.
>
> I just thought that I'd point that out.
I tend to disagree with you, whilst terrorism is not the entire reason it
certainly is part of it.
Cheers
Cookie
David Venn-Brown
Well, IMO, all John Howard is doing is putting Australia in a good political
position with America. Backing up America on terrorism is only a symbol of
Australia's alliance with the US.
The Korean War, among others, was exactly the same thing. Australia had no
real interest in fighting North Korea (except some may argue, the spread of
communism) but Australia was determined to ally themselves with the US
before the British announced any participation in the conflict. Australia's
contingent throughout that war was only symbolic of the Australia-America
relation.
Remember that politicians usually do not (if ever?) fight wars for the sake
of defeating another nation (or in the US's case, faction).
Although it may seem that Australia is doing something good and noble by
pledging to fight terrorism along side the US, there is an ulterior motive
for John Howard, especially in an election year.
Steven
terrorism- the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a
person or an organized group against people or property with the intention
of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological
or political reasons.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
When the United States says it will bomb or attack a nation, because said
nation is known to support terrorism then the United States threat is a
terrorist action. The United States is a terrorist nation, no strong
argument can be made against this. For the United States to stop terrorism,
as our politicians claim they want to in their rhetoric, they would have to
refrain from bombing nations such as Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, etc., and avoid
even threatening nations for political reasons. They could do so, but it
would be extremely difficult for them.
When so many people use the word terrorism incorrectly(as is happening in
lieu of the bombings), it is easy to not know the real meaning of the word.
In context the mass media is using it people with little power who use or
threaten violence are terrorists. An entity with power such as the United
States the way they are using the word is not considered a terrorist, yet
none of the media caught this. Might does not make right, though. If you are
not sure what a word means sometimes it may be a good idea to look it up. If
you download Wordnet you can do so quickly.
This was something written by a friend of mine, which I happen to agree with
Marcy
*eyeroll*
Personally, I don't see how he was elected to
begin with. I don't like the guy, and I swear,
everyone I know voted Labour.
I think he's got to cover himself though, or
Canberra could be the next target. Think about
it - you've got Parliament, there are strategical
military and space equipment sites there, and
to be blunt, Canberra is to Sydney what D.C.
is to New York... even geographically speaking.
(They're about the same position in Australia
as NY and DC are in the US, and Canberra is
only a little closer to Sydney than D.C. is to NY.)
Also... Australia is a conduit from the Western
World to the asian-pacific nations, which are a
huge financial center of the world. The terrorists
were *specifically* targeting the financial center
of the US, which did cause a ripple effect through
the entire world.
John Howard is undoubtedly a putz... or in aussie
words, a total wanker. Still, he's not being dumb
on this issue, IMO.
(:
.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.
http://www.livin-it-up.net
.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.¤.
"David Venn-Brown" <dav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:Wuir7.2449$cu4.1...@ozemail.com.au...
: "Cookie...~Ü~" <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
:
:
Boclair
: news:3bad979c$0$20...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
: > "David Venn-Brown" <dav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
: > > "Cookie...~Ü~" <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
: > > > The Australian people are completely behind the United States & any
: > action
: > > > they choose to take.
: > >
: > > The reason that Australia is backing the US in this has nothing to do
: with
: > > terrorism, really.
: > >
: > > I just thought that I'd point that out.
: >
: > I tend to disagree with you, whilst terrorism is not the entire reason it
: > certainly is part of it.
:
: Well, IMO, all John Howard is doing is putting Australia in a good political
: position with America. Backing up America on terrorism is only a symbol of
: Australia's alliance with the US.
:
: The Korean War, among others, was exactly the same thing. Australia had no
: real interest in fighting North Korea (except some may argue, the spread of
: communism) but Australia was determined to ally themselves with the US
: before the British announced any participation in the conflict. Australia's
: contingent throughout that war was only symbolic of the Australia-America
: relation.
What is it you do not understand about the following?
25 June North Korean People's Army crosses the 38th parallel and invades South
Korea (Republic of Korea). North Korean radio proclaims that the South Korean
army had tried to invade North Korea (People's Democratic Republic of Korea) and
that they had been forced to invade the south.
25 June UN Security Council calls for a withdrawal of North Korean troops.
UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie comments "This is war against the United
Nations".
27 June UN Security Council calls for its member states to support South Korea.
Are you still basing your *opinions* loosely on opinion? There has yet to be
one skerrick of fact underlying anything you have yet posted on this topic.
Nobody could object to contrary opinion but please!
Tim Morris
David Venn-Brown
news:ERir7.179$gM3....@news.uswest.net...
> John Howard is covering his bases, Mr. Speaker.
>
> *eyeroll*
>
> Personally, I don't see how he was elected to
> begin with. I don't like the guy, and I swear,
> everyone I know voted Labour.
Either do I like Howard, but look at Labour - there's nothing there. No
policies, no nothing much.
> I think he's got to cover himself though, or
> Canberra could be the next target.
Yes cover himself, but I think that by what you're saying it would make
Australia more of a target to terrorists if we sided with the US.
> Think about
> it - you've got Parliament, there are strategical
> military and space equipment sites there, and
> to be blunt, Canberra is to Sydney what D.C.
> is to New York... even geographically speaking.
> (They're about the same position in Australia
> as NY and DC are in the US, and Canberra is
> only a little closer to Sydney than D.C. is to NY.)
True. However if you look at the world, Australia is right down the list of
targets.
On the other hand, we are a symbol of freedom, and no-one would expect an
attack here, so it *could* cause as much/even more damage.
> Also... Australia is a conduit from the Western
> World to the asian-pacific nations, which are a
> huge financial center of the world. The terrorists
> were *specifically* targeting the financial center
> of the US, which did cause a ripple effect through
> the entire world.
But I'm not sure if I would rate Australia as the major financial player in
the Pacific. Still there could be truth in that.
> John Howard is undoubtedly a putz... or in aussie
> words, a total wanker. Still, he's not being dumb
> on this issue, IMO.
Yes. But if he was serious about being in this for the anti-terrorism there
would be a lot more military movement. Howard has pledged support, but so
far he has not directed anyone to take any REAL action yet. He may in the
future, but I doubt it. And if he does, most likely it will only be
symbolic.
You are quite possible right, but you are obviously too smart to be a
politician, as are 99% of the people.
Jerry Muelver
<Ste...@NOSPAM.operamail.com> wrote:
>terrorism- the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a
>person or an organized group against people or property with the intention
>of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological
>or political reasons.
>The American Heritage?Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
>When the United States says it will bomb or attack a nation, because said
>nation is known to support terrorism then the United States threat is a
>terrorist action. The United States is a terrorist nation, no strong
>argument can be made against this. For the United States to stop terrorism,
>as our politicians claim they want to in their rhetoric, they would have to
>refrain from bombing nations such as Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, etc., and avoid
>even threatening nations for political reasons. They could do so, but it
>would be extremely difficult for them.
>
>When so many people use the word terrorism incorrectly(as is happening in
>lieu of the bombings), it is easy to not know the real meaning of the word.
>In context the mass media is using it people with little power who use or
>threaten violence are terrorists. An entity with power such as the United
>States the way they are using the word is not considered a terrorist, yet
>none of the media caught this. Might does not make right, though. If you are
>not sure what a word means sometimes it may be a good idea to look it up. If
>you download Wordnet you can do so quickly.
>
>
>
>This was something written by a friend of mine, which I happen to agree with
>
>
You need to choose less pedantic, more politically aware
friends.English is not the only language involved in global
terrorism. Besides, the liquidity of language allows anyone
to interpret (or twist) meanings to suit their own fears and
prejudices. There is no magic power in a dictionary
definition. Every culture and society on Earth has its own
preferred list of terrorists and terrorist nations, and many
of those have no overlap. The current American campaign
against terrorism will of course, and by necessity, enroll
the aid of nations whose lists are close matches with the
American list.
---- jerry
A Modest Proposal for All-out Psychological Warfare
http://northernvibes.com/proposal.htm
--
David Venn-Brown
news:Knjr7.83033$bY5.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> David Venn-Brown <dav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:Wuir7.2449$cu4.1...@ozemail.com.au...
> : "Cookie...~Ü~" <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> : news:3bad979c$0$20...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
> : > "David Venn-Brown" <dav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> : > > "Cookie...~Ü~" <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> What is it you do not understand about the following?
What goddam hole did you crawl out of and why didn't you stay there.
> 25 June North Korean People's Army crosses the 38th parallel and invades
South
> Korea (Republic of Korea). North Korean radio proclaims that the South
Korean
> army had tried to invade North Korea (People's Democratic Republic of
Korea) and
> that they had been forced to invade the south.
>
> 25 June UN Security Council calls for a withdrawal of North Korean troops.
> UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie comments "This is war against the United
> Nations".
>
> 27 June UN Security Council calls for its member states to support South
Korea.
>
> Are you still basing your *opinions* loosely on opinion? There has yet to
be
> one skerrick of fact underlying anything you have yet posted on this
topic.
Yeah, I follow. You say that you're right over everyone else in the world
(even though you don't talk about Australia at all), then you call me dumb.
Now it depends what you call this topic. This thread?
Obviously you could argue why John Howard is doing what he is solely to stop
terrorism, and not to further his politcal score with Australia and
Washington. Deny that it's an election year in Australia (Mum works in the
Australian Electoral Commision, so I wouldn't argue if I were you - heaven
forbid)? And you obviously could refute that Australia had an excellent
tactical reason to fight the Korean War.
How's this for facts: 4500 Australians served in Korea. That's approximately
the size of the East Timor Operation. As you may see, this is not a large
number of people. And you're saying that Robert Menzies sent just 4500
people to defend Australia tooth and nail.
Obviously your retarded mind was on another planet.
Your brief summary is correct, but (although you may not have realised) I
was talking about the Australian contingent.
> Nobody could object to contrary opinion but please!
Please f*** off. You have nothing useful to offer. You gave no reason why I
was wrong. Your brief summary doesn't even mention Australia, just the UN in
general. I'm sorry that I have to stoop to your level, but if you insist I
will. All you want to do is start a flame war. Well, go ahead. If you have
nothing better to do with your life I'd be quite obliged.
If you do want to, do it via email so that your crap doesn't fill up an HTML
newsgroup.
BTW Despite Australia's best attempts, the US still shits on us. Argue with
that, mate.
Jerry Muelver
<co...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
. . .
>Idealism never solves anything & attempting to apply it to this situation &
>the ideology of world peace (a highly noble intention) is a fruitless
>exercise. Terrorists will never listen to reason, they are not normal human
>beings, they don't negotiate, their only currency is death & destruction.
>Terrorists will use the good nature of normal people against them, they are
>a cancer where the only cure is complete removal & eradication.
>
Terrorism is not a snake -- cut off one head and you are
done with it. It is the Hydra that Hercules battled against
-- cut off one head, and it is replaced by two others.
Hercules' solution was to cauterize each stump with a
flaming brand to prevent regrowth, until all the heads were
destroyed. Then he dipped his arrows in the Hyrda's blood to
use its poison -- bad idea. The blood of the Hydra
eventually killed Hercules.
Repression is not the solution. Wishful thinking idealism is
equally ineffective. We need to do more with festering sores
than to pick aimlessly at the scabs.
Jim Ley
<co...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>As most regs in this group would recall, I departed this group some time ago
>for personal reasons, those reaons pale into insignificance in comparison to
>the recent events in the United States and if they are all I have to worry
>about then I am very fortunate.
The topic is alt.html, not alt.talk.politics
>The worthless cowards who carried out these attacks are neither humans nor
>legitimate followers of the religion they purport to be members of.
Cowards? they were prepared to die for their beliefs, that's not a
definition of cowardice in any dictionary I've seen.
>I have heard people mention their concerns over innocent people being killed
>in Afghanistan if military attacks occur, whilst it is a legitimate concern
>that innocent people will undoubtedly die, one must remember that in any war
>innocent people die.
Your point being what, well it's fair enough people die, after dead
Afgans don't matter, they aren't like "us"? or what exactly is your
point?
>Some will say that this is not a war, but merely a campaign, I can assure
>you that it is a war, it can only be a war.
Really, who against? you do understand there are laws conducting the
affairs between countries, and how wars can be declared etc. There is
no legal justification for a war on Afganistan, I'd be surprised if
the Australian Government had used the word, only US and UK
Governments had used it so far (along with such words as "Crusade" -
which I hope you understand the connotations.)
>The current count is somewhere
>in the vicinity of 6800+ innocent people dead from these terrorist attacks.
Which is still a pretty low number compared to other terrorist kills
in the world, why did they never result in "war against terrorism" ?
Could it be they weren't like "us" ?
>Some people believe that retaliation will not solve anything, it most
>certainly will,
Exactly what will it _solve_ ? The re-election of the US president, a
happy feeling for people that someone got killed for it?
> Countries that harbour terrorists further the cause of
>terrorism by provided sanctuary to those who have no respect for anyone or
>anything including life.
Lots of countries have done and do harbour terrorists, which one would
you like the US to invade next, the US itself? Or Australia maybe.
>Idealism never solves anything & attempting to apply it to this situation &
>the ideology of world peace (a highly noble intention) is a fruitless
>exercise. Terrorists will never listen to reason, they are not normal human
>beings, they don't negotiate,
An interesting conclusion, lets look at some of the other "Terrorists"
we have in the world - Nelson Mandela is perhaps the most obvious
"terrorist" who is now extremely respected, should the USA invade
South Africa to get him?
>The Australian people are completely behind the United States & any action
>they choose to take.
Have you spoken to them all?
>Afghanistan has been given a choice to make; hand over the terrorists or
>suffer their fate. The ball is in Afghanistan's court.
They need prove, not unreasonable is it, Australia certainly doesn't
hand over people to foriegn Governments without some evidence that
they have actually commited a crime
Try and think a little, one barbaric act, does not need to beget
another, restraint is needed, that doesn't mean there's no place for
military action, but 5 million Afgan dead (and there was a good enough
chance of that before all the aid agencies pulled out, and the borders
were closed.) is not an answer to terrorism, it's an invitation for
more.
In any case Australian Government has said Afganistan is a fine place
to live, there's no need for anyone to claim asylum from it, or have
your opinions changed now?
Jim.
Marcy
"David Venn-Brown" <dav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:DTjr7.2503$cu4.1...@ozemail.com.au...
: You are quite possible right, but you are obviously too
smart to be a
: politician, as are 99% of the people.
: --
: David.
: http://www.vbdave.iwarp.com
: dav...@ozemail.com.au fat...@hotmail.com
:
Oh... and I'm an American. So that rules me out too.
(:
Cookie...~Ü~
"If you are not sure what a word means sometimes it may be a good idea to
look it up. If you download Wordnet you can do so quickly.
You may wish to take some of your own advice. I don't need you or anyone
else for that matter trying to 'enlighten' me as to the meaning of any word.
I couldn't care less about your opinion on what does or does not constitute
terrorism. These acts were carried out by terrorists and most certainly do
constitute terrorism by any definition.
Cookie...~Ü~
> "Cookie...~Ü~" <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > "David Venn-Brown" <dav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > "Cookie...~Ü~" <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > > > The Australian people are completely behind the United States & any
> > action
> > > > they choose to take.
> > >
> > > The reason that Australia is backing the US in this has nothing to do
> with
> > > terrorism, really.
> > >
> > > I just thought that I'd point that out.
> >
> > I tend to disagree with you, whilst terrorism is not the entire reason
it
> > certainly is part of it.
>
> Well, IMO, all John Howard is doing is putting Australia in a good
political
> position with America. Backing up America on terrorism is only a symbol of
> Australia's alliance with the US.
Any Australian Politician with any common sense (although generally not an
attribute of politicians) who happened to be the Prime Minister at the time
would take exactly the same steps in backing the US. Whilst our support may
be seen only as a symbol of our alliance, that is only because the US have
infinitely more resources than we do and we are limited in what we can
supply. Australia is very fortunate to have the US as staunch allies, I'm
yet to find anyone who thinks that we should not provide 100% support to our
US friends.
> The Korean War, among others, was exactly the same thing. Australia had no
> real interest in fighting North Korea (except some may argue, the spread
of
> communism) but Australia was determined to ally themselves with the US
> before the British announced any participation in the conflict.
Australia's
> contingent throughout that war was only symbolic of the Australia-America
> relation.
>
> Remember that politicians usually do not (if ever?) fight wars for the
sake
> of defeating another nation (or in the US's case, faction).
>
> Although it may seem that Australia is doing something good and noble by
> pledging to fight terrorism along side the US, there is an ulterior motive
> for John Howard, especially in an election year.
As i mentioned above any politician in John Howard's position would have
done exactly the same, so many people are quick to jump down his throat
about the Tampa incident, it was high time that our politicians prevented
Illegal Immigrants from entering this Country. I hear the bleeding-heart
do-gooders whining about how everyone who lands on our doorstep in a leaky
boat is a refugee, this is complete bullshit. The Modus Operandi of these
Illegal Immigrants is the following:
1] Leave their Country from alleged persecution
2] Safely & without any form of persecution arrive in Indonesia, living in
hotels, eating McDonalds & having a good time
3] Pay People Smugglers ~US $10000 each to be transported illegally to
Australian waters.
additionally the following occurs:
1] Purposely avoid claiming refugee status at an Australian Embassy
2] Discard passports & all Identification
3] Purposely sabotage the vessel in which they came in
Resulting in:
1] Being rescued by Australian Tax Payers
2] Being detained for lengthy periods due to the fact they purposely
discarded their passports & identification so that the process takes
infinitely longer, along with making up whatever story they like to suit
their own purposes (ie. Not the truth).
3] Abusing our legal system with endless appeals, all funded by Australian
Tax Payers, no other Country has the ridiculous levels of appeal available
to illegal immigrants.
4] Finally being deported.
The only reason these queue jumping illegal immigrants (illegal immigrant
does NOT equal refugee) avoid claiming asylum at our Embassies & discard
their identification & pay very large sums of money to people smugglers is
because they don't have any legitimate claim in the first place.
Finally a politician has actually done something that the people want.
Cookie...~Ü~
> >
> > *eyeroll*
> >
> > Personally, I don't see how he was elected to
> > begin with. I don't like the guy, and I swear,
> > everyone I know voted Labour.
>
> Either do I like Howard, but look at Labour - there's nothing there. No
> policies, no nothing much.
I hate all politicians so it really doesn't matter either way :-)
> > I think he's got to cover himself though, or
> > Canberra could be the next target.
>
> Yes cover himself, but I think that by what you're saying it would make
> Australia more of a target to terrorists if we sided with the US.
>
> > Think about
> > it - you've got Parliament, there are strategical
> > military and space equipment sites there, and
> > to be blunt, Canberra is to Sydney what D.C.
> > is to New York... even geographically speaking.
> > (They're about the same position in Australia
> > as NY and DC are in the US, and Canberra is
> > only a little closer to Sydney than D.C. is to NY.)
>
> True. However if you look at the world, Australia is right down the list
of
> targets.
>
> On the other hand, we are a symbol of freedom, and no-one would expect an
> attack here, so it *could* cause as much/even more damage.
Apathy will not protect anyone from a terrorist attack.
> > Also... Australia is a conduit from the Western
> > World to the asian-pacific nations, which are a
> > huge financial center of the world. The terrorists
> > were *specifically* targeting the financial center
> > of the US, which did cause a ripple effect through
> > the entire world.
>
> But I'm not sure if I would rate Australia as the major financial player
in
> the Pacific. Still there could be truth in that.
>
> > John Howard is undoubtedly a putz... or in aussie
> > words, a total wanker. Still, he's not being dumb
> > on this issue, IMO.
>
> Yes. But if he was serious about being in this for the anti-terrorism
there
> would be a lot more military movement. Howard has pledged support, but so
> far he has not directed anyone to take any REAL action yet. He may in the
> future, but I doubt it. And if he does, most likely it will only be
> symbolic.
Having served in the Australian military I can assure you that the public
are not going to be told of every movement of our armed forces, don't you
think it'd be pretty stupid to make general knowledge the exact movements of
our military & any operation they undertake. Howard has pledged support but
remember that he needs to wait for instructions from the US before deploying
our forces anywhere, it would be pretty useless deploying forces somewhere
without any defined goal and without direction from the US a deployment
would be useless.
> You are quite possible right, but you are obviously too smart to be a
> politician, as are 99% of the people.
There are Liars, Damn Liars & Politicians
Cheers
Cookie
Cookie...~Ü~
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 14:41:45 +0800, "Cookie...~Ü~"
> <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> >As most regs in this group would recall, I departed this group some time
ago
> >for personal reasons, those reaons pale into insignificance in comparison
to
> >the recent events in the United States and if they are all I have to
worry
> >about then I am very fortunate.
>
> The topic is alt.html, not alt.talk.politics
I am well aware of what this groups topic is, stiff shit if you don't happen
to like what I'm talking about. I happen to consider a few American
participants in this group as my friends along with many others & having
been participating in this group for about 2 years I don't need you telling
me what to do.
> >The worthless cowards who carried out these attacks are neither humans
nor
> >legitimate followers of the religion they purport to be members of.
>
> Cowards? they were prepared to die for their beliefs, that's not a
> definition of cowardice in any dictionary I've seen.
Killing innocent people who are unable to defend themselves certainly is an
act of cowardice, I'm sure mopst people don't need a dictionary to explain
that.
> >I have heard people mention their concerns over innocent people being
killed
> >in Afghanistan if military attacks occur, whilst it is a legitimate
concern
> >that innocent people will undoubtedly die, one must remember that in any
war
> >innocent people die.
>
> Your point being what, well it's fair enough people die, after dead
> Afgans don't matter, they aren't like "us"? or what exactly is your
> point?
What do you think the bloody point is, simply that if a Country openly
harbours terrorists then they are as bad as the terrorists themselves & that
innocent people always die in any war. Do you need it spelled out, would
you like to get a dictionary.
> >Some will say that this is not a war, but merely a campaign, I can assure
> >you that it is a war, it can only be a war.
>
> Really, who against? you do understand there are laws conducting the
> affairs between countries, and how wars can be declared etc. There is
> no legal justification for a war on Afganistan, I'd be surprised if
> the Australian Government had used the word, only US and UK
> Governments had used it so far (along with such words as "Crusade" -
> which I hope you understand the connotations.)
Their certainly is justification for a war against Afghanistan, they either
hand over Osama Bin Laden or face the consequences.
> >The current count is somewhere
> >in the vicinity of 6800+ innocent people dead from these terrorist
attacks.
>
> Which is still a pretty low number compared to other terrorist kills
> in the world, why did they never result in "war against terrorism" ?
> Could it be they weren't like "us" ?
Really, in 3 decades of IRA bombings only 4500 people have died, small
number my arse, you really need to get a grip.
> >Some people believe that retaliation will not solve anything, it most
> >certainly will,
>
> Exactly what will it _solve_ ? The re-election of the US president, a
> happy feeling for people that someone got killed for it?
Do you think Countries will be keen to harbour terrorists if their Country
is bombed to shit.
> > Countries that harbour terrorists further the cause of
> >terrorism by provided sanctuary to those who have no respect for anyone
or
> >anything including life.
>
> Lots of countries have done and do harbour terrorists, which one would
> you like the US to invade next, the US itself? Or Australia maybe.
You really are a smarmy smart-arse prick aren't you. So now you think
Australia harbours terrorists, better get back on your medication.
> >Idealism never solves anything & attempting to apply it to this situation
&
> >the ideology of world peace (a highly noble intention) is a fruitless
> >exercise. Terrorists will never listen to reason, they are not normal
human
> >beings, they don't negotiate,
>
> An interesting conclusion, lets look at some of the other "Terrorists"
> we have in the world - Nelson Mandela is perhaps the most obvious
> "terrorist" who is now extremely respected, should the USA invade
> South Africa to get him?
>
> >The Australian people are completely behind the United States & any
action
> >they choose to take.
>
> Have you spoken to them all?
Do you live in Australia or is it just your infinite wisdom speaking.
> >Afghanistan has been given a choice to make; hand over the terrorists or
> >suffer their fate. The ball is in Afghanistan's court.
>
> They need prove, not unreasonable is it, Australia certainly doesn't
> hand over people to foriegn Governments without some evidence that
> they have actually commited a crime
Well that's funny isn't it, do you think that the FBI don't have evidence,
do you think they would commit to taking action without it. You really must
have your head up your arse.
> Try and think a little,
You try & think, I don't need your arrogant bleating.
one barbaric act, does not need to beget
> another, restraint is needed, that doesn't mean there's no place for
> military action, but 5 million Afgan dead (and there was a good enough
> chance of that before all the aid agencies pulled out, and the borders
> were closed.) is not an answer to terrorism, it's an invitation for
> more.
>
> In any case Australian Government has said Afganistan is a fine place
> to live, there's no need for anyone to claim asylum from it, or have
> your opinions changed now?
You do realise that Illegal Immigrants DON'T equal refugees, but don't let
that little distinction worry you.
Rob - Rock13.com
> Remember that politicians usually do not (if ever?) fight wars
> for the sake of defeating another nation (or in the US's case,
> faction).
I should hope not. If to merely defeat someone is the only
objective its alot of senseless death. There must be other
motivations e.g. to stop crimes against humanity, to decrease the
violence in the world, to modify a culture, or what have you.
Rob - Rock13.com
> Jim Ley said:
>> Cookie said:
[big snip]
>> >The current count is somewhere
>> >in the vicinity of 6800+ innocent people dead from these
>> >terrorist attacks.
>>
>> Which is still a pretty low number compared to other terrorist
>> kills in the world, why did they never result in "war against
>> terrorism" ? Could it be they weren't like "us" ?
It could be. Then again the US has lost lives to terrorism. Could
the reason be that 'we' were using restraint? Who gives a damn, its
in the past.
> Really, in 3 decades of IRA bombings only 4500 people have
> died, small number my arse, you really need to get a grip.
Didn't feel like quoting the whole post for a short statement. At
any rate it seems too many people are trying to compare historical
events with current events. The past is over, you learn from your
mistakes, and move on.
Perhaps the US or someone else should've stepped up to the plate in
the past and made a stand against terrorism. No one did.
Now, someone is. That someone happens to be the US and other
countries are lending their support. Yes people will die. Yes
innocent people will die. But this must happen for humanity to move
on and hopefully prosper.
When cancer infested cells are removed from a body, healthy
(innocent) cells are killed as well. This is necessary for the body
to hopefully survive. Cancer can return but we hope it doesn't and
treat the body to prevent it from returning.
Jim Ley
<co...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>"Jim Ley" <j...@jibbering.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 14:41:45 +0800, "Cookie...~Ü~"
>> Cowards? they were prepared to die for their beliefs, that's not a
>> definition of cowardice in any dictionary I've seen.
>
>Killing innocent people who are unable to defend themselves certainly is an
>act of cowardice, I'm sure mopst people don't need a dictionary to explain
>that.
Well, ~7% of the US ordanance fired in the Gulf War, hit their target,
the rest missed, many killing innocents, so by your assertion, all of
the US servicemen are also cowards fair enough, just make sure you
keep consistent, do you really think an Afgan or Iraqi or Australian
is capable of defending themselves against cruise missiles?
>> Your point being what, well it's fair enough people die, after dead
>> Afgans don't matter, they aren't like "us"? or what exactly is your
>> point?
>
>What do you think the bloody point is, simply that if a Country openly
>harbours terrorists then they are as bad as the terrorists themselves & that
>innocent people always die in any war. Do you need it spelled out, would
>you like to get a dictionary.
So that's the country, the Government and anyone under arms, the rest
are surely innocents, so you're saying it's fair enough for those to
die, I'm asking why? (hint: Afganistan/Iraq etc. aren't
democracies...)
>> Really, who against? you do understand there are laws conducting the
>> affairs between countries, and how wars can be declared etc. There is
>> no legal justification for a war on Afganistan, I'd be surprised if
>> the Australian Government had used the word, only US and UK
>> Governments had used it so far (along with such words as "Crusade" -
>> which I hope you understand the connotations.)
>
>Their certainly is justification for a war against Afghanistan, they either
>hand over Osama Bin Laden or face the consequences.
Do you understand that countries, like people have laws they must
obey, normally by virtue of being signatories to treaties etc. well,
that's not sufficient justification, the UN could eventually create
such, but this very abuse of international law, is what many
terrorists have a problem with the USA, it abuses international law -
I agree with lots of their actions, but I don't think it's
constructive, and I also believe the way to defeat terrorists is to
remove their popular support, it's what has has most effect in the
Northern Ireland for example.
>> Which is still a pretty low number compared to other terrorist kills
>> in the world, why did they never result in "war against terrorism" ?
>> Could it be they weren't like "us" ?
>
>Really, in 3 decades of IRA bombings only 4500 people have died, small
>number my arse, you really need to get a grip.
I was more thinking of the Congo or Sierra Leone, etc. where death
rates are huge, certainly Northern Ireland terrorists haven't killed
all that many, but then they are "like us", so wouldn't've made my
point in any case.
>> >Some people believe that retaliation will not solve anything, it most
>> >certainly will,
>>
>> Exactly what will it _solve_ ? The re-election of the US president, a
>> happy feeling for people that someone got killed for it?
>
>Do you think Countries will be keen to harbour terrorists if their Country
>is bombed to shit.
Afganistan is already "bombed to shit" The soviets did it, and since
there's been a civil war, it has no roads, no hospitals, not a lot of
much but mountains, and mountains can take a lot of bombs, and they
have done. Iraq's been "bombed to shit" in recent time, there's lots
of talk of that country "harbouring terrorists" - And then we've got
Palestine, regularly "bombed to shit", and yet people keep fighting,
and keep the terrorists. Bombing a country to shit, doesn't win a
war, all it does is breed resentment and resolve to fight back.
>> >Afghanistan has been given a choice to make; hand over the terrorists or
>> >suffer their fate. The ball is in Afghanistan's court.
>>
>> They need prove, not unreasonable is it, Australia certainly doesn't
>> hand over people to foriegn Governments without some evidence that
>> they have actually commited a crime
>
>Well that's funny isn't it, do you think that the FBI don't have evidence,
>do you think they would commit to taking action without it. You really must
>have your head up your arse.
You were the one, who doesn't have evidence are calling for it, aren't
you, the assumption, "well they must have evidence" is a nice idea,
and may well be true, but you do not have evidence, yet your calling
for the killing of innocents in revenge, I find that abhorant.
>> In any case Australian Government has said Afganistan is a fine place
>> to live, there's no need for anyone to claim asylum from it, or have
>> your opinions changed now?
>
>You do realise that Illegal Immigrants DON'T equal refugees, but don't let
>that little distinction worry you.
Asylum seekers, that's what they were, there's simple due legal
process to decide if their asylum was correct, and is pretty much down
to whether they would be safe in their county - I can't possibly see
how an Australian Government, or an Australian who supported it, can
now just weeks later say that Afganistan is anything but a fine place
to live, it was 3 weeks ago, what's changed?
Or is it just that the Australian Government has no thought on
International (or even domestic?) law on Asylum - I guess if that's
the case then other abuses is just as simple.
Jim.
David Venn-Brown
Yes, I agree with that. That's kinda what I was saying.
> Australia is very fortunate to have the US as staunch allies, I'm
> yet to find anyone who thinks that we should not provide 100% support to
our
> US friends.
Well that's a much deeper issue. I don't think I could support the
American's until I had some idea of what they are doing. Now, obviously
George W Bush (speaking of dumb pollies) isn't going to ring me up and tell
me, but I'm sure that some people in Australia are fully aware and the rest
of us have to trust that they take the right decision.
> > The Korean War, among others, was exactly the same thing. Australia had
no
> > real interest in fighting North Korea (except some may argue, the spread
> of
> > communism) but Australia was determined to ally themselves with the US
> > before the British announced any participation in the conflict.
> Australia's
> > contingent throughout that war was only symbolic of the
Australia-America
> > relation.
> >
> > Remember that politicians usually do not (if ever?) fight wars for the
> sake
> > of defeating another nation (or in the US's case, faction).
> >
> > Although it may seem that Australia is doing something good and noble by
> > pledging to fight terrorism along side the US, there is an ulterior
motive
> > for John Howard, especially in an election year.
>
> As i mentioned above any politician in John Howard's position would have
> done exactly the same, so many people are quick to jump down his throat
> about the Tampa incident, it was high time that our politicians prevented
> Illegal Immigrants from entering this Country. I hear the bleeding-heart
> do-gooders whining about how everyone who lands on our doorstep in a leaky
> boat is a refugee, this is complete bullshit. The Modus Operandi of these
> Illegal Immigrants is the following:
Hey, I wasn't talking about illegal immigrants. But you are exactly right.
> 1] Leave their Country from alleged persecution
> 2] Safely & without any form of persecution arrive in Indonesia, living in
> hotels, eating McDonalds & having a good time
> 3] Pay People Smugglers ~US $10000 each to be transported illegally to
> Australian waters.
>
> additionally the following occurs:
>
> 1] Purposely avoid claiming refugee status at an Australian Embassy
> 2] Discard passports & all Identification
> 3] Purposely sabotage the vessel in which they came in
>
> Resulting in:
>
> 1] Being rescued by Australian Tax Payers
> 2] Being detained for lengthy periods due to the fact they purposely
> discarded their passports & identification so that the process takes
> infinitely longer, along with making up whatever story they like to suit
> their own purposes (ie. Not the truth).
> 3] Abusing our legal system with endless appeals, all funded by Australian
> Tax Payers, no other Country has the ridiculous levels of appeal available
> to illegal immigrants.
> 4] Finally being deported.
I'd like to add that these people travel, in many cases, by plane to
Indonesia to get on the boats. Indonesia is a free country, although nothing
compared to Australia, but nevertheless they should be happy to seek asylum
in any nation where they feel safe. I don't think they have the right to
pick and choose.
> The only reason these queue jumping illegal immigrants (illegal immigrant
> does NOT equal refugee) avoid claiming asylum at our Embassies & discard
> their identification & pay very large sums of money to people smugglers is
> because they don't have any legitimate claim in the first place.
Yes.
> Finally a politician has actually done something that the people want.
True, but I was talking more specifically about relations with the US.
I am not complaining that Howard should not have taken the action that he
did, but I am questioning his motives, that's all.
Rob - Rock13.com
> "Cookie.:
>>"Jim Ley":
>>>"Cookie...~Ü~":
>
>>> Cowards? they were prepared to die for their beliefs, that's
>>> not a definition of cowardice in any dictionary I've seen.
>>
>>Killing innocent people who are unable to defend themselves
>>certainly is an act of cowardice, I'm sure mopst people don't
>>need a dictionary to explain that.
>
> Well, ~7% of the US ordanance fired in the Gulf War, hit their
> target, the rest missed, many killing innocents, so by your
> assertion, all of the US servicemen are also cowards fair
> enough,
How in the hell do you arrive at that conclusion?! I've seen you
demonstrate an understanding of HTML and various web related ideas
but in this you seem to have inserted your head about 18 inches up
your arse.
Were the U.S. soldiers aiming at the innocents? Were they making
the first strike?
> Afganistan is already "bombed to shit" The soviets did it, and
> since there's been a civil war, it has no roads, no hospitals,
> not a lot of much but mountains, and mountains can take a lot
> of bombs, and they have done. Iraq's been "bombed to shit" in
> recent time, there's lots of talk of that country "harbouring
> terrorists" - And then we've got Palestine, regularly "bombed
> to shit", and yet people keep fighting, and keep the
> terrorists. Bombing a country to shit, doesn't win a war, all
> it does is breed resentment and resolve to fight back.
But for what reasons have they been bombed? I don't really know but
I doubt that it has been for harboring terrorists.
That part of the planet has always been a problem. One choice would
be to turn the whole damn area into a parking lot.
> You were the one, who doesn't have evidence are calling for it,
> aren't you, the assumption, "well they must have evidence" is a
> nice idea, and may well be true, but you do not have evidence,
> yet your calling for the killing of innocents in revenge, I
> find that abhorant.
I'm not calling for the death of innocents. I'm calling for the
death of the murders and their accomplices. If innocents get in the
way so be it.
Granted the innocents I'm talking about are unknowns from another
country--but I'll go so far as to say that I'd include myself in
those innocent dead if it means the rest of humanity, my family and
friends perhaps included, can go on living in a more peaceful
world.
David Venn-Brown
"Jim Ley" <j...@jibbering.com> wrote in message
news:3bae163d....@west.usenetserver.com...
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 00:08:23 +0800, "Cookie...~Ü~"
> <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> >"Jim Ley" <j...@jibbering.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 14:41:45 +0800, "Cookie...~Ü~"
> >> In any case Australian Government has said Afganistan is a fine place
> >> to live, there's no need for anyone to claim asylum from it, or have
> >> your opinions changed now?
> >
> >You do realise that Illegal Immigrants DON'T equal refugees, but don't
let
> >that little distinction worry you.
>
> Asylum seekers, that's what they were, there's simple due legal
> process to decide if their asylum was correct, and is pretty much down
> to whether they would be safe in their county - I can't possibly see
> how an Australian Government, or an Australian who supported it, can
> now just weeks later say that Afganistan is anything but a fine place
> to live, it was 3 weeks ago, what's changed?
You have no idea of the problem with "asylum seekers" (they are illegal
immigrants and they have no right to queue jumpt into Australia as I have
already said).
> Or is it just that the Australian Government has no thought on
> International (or even domestic?) law on Asylum - I guess if that's
> the case then other abuses is just as simple.
QED.
Australia is one of nine (?) countries that take REAL asylum seekers in.
Don't ask me to name the rest, Norway is the only one I remember, but I can
easily look it up.
By international standards Australia is very leanient towards asylum seekers
(real ones) in this very sensitive issue.
Spooky Guy Next Door
(dav...@ozemail.com.au) posted the following...
> "Cookie...~Ü~" <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3bad846c$0$20...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
> > The Australian people are completely behind the United States & any action
> > they choose to take.
>
> The reason that Australia is backing the US in this has nothing to do with
> terrorism, really.
>
> I just thought that I'd point that out.
I put it down to the fact that Little Johnny has just been trying to
install the latest AOL CD...
pHw34x: heh, I hate the Tampa, heh
Johnny: me too!
pHw34x: wow, I'm gonna voet 4 u d00d!
Johnny: me too!
Later...
Dubya: Watch this, Little Johnny - I'm about to fuck Afghanistan!
Johnny: me too!
--
Mark Gallagher
A thousand thousand slimy things lived on, and so did I
blog - http://www.cyberfuddle.com/infinitebabble/
cyberfuddle - http://www.cyberfuddle.com/
alt.startrek FAQ - http://www.altstartrek.f2s.com/
learn HTML - http://smiley.vh.mewl.net/markhtml/
Boclair
: "Boclair" <boc...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
: news:Knjr7.83033$bY5.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
: >
: > David Venn-Brown <dav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
: > news:Wuir7.2449$cu4.1...@ozemail.com.au...
: > : "Cookie...~Ü~" <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
: > : news:3bad979c$0$20...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
: > : > "David Venn-Brown" <dav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
: > : > > "Cookie...~Ü~" <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
: > What is it you do not understand about the following?
:
: What goddam hole did you crawl out of and why didn't you stay there.
I do not care what your opinions are. I may agree or not but it matters not a
wit.
I am not picking on you but you continue to attest as fact what are untruths.
To be kind I will not list them, nor do I intend to comment on all your wrong
assertions regarding the facts, but, for example, did you not say, in spite of
the *fact* that the Korean War was an United Nations Operation conducted with
the participation of 21 nations
--------
Australia was determined to ally themselves with the US
before the British announced any participation in the conflict. Australia's
contingent throughout that war was only symbolic of the Australia-America
relation.
--------
Did you know that the Australian ground contingent, specifically 3RAR and
supporting arms and services were drawn from the British Commonwealth Occupation
Forces and served in the British Commonwealth Brigade for the duration. 77Sqn
RAAF was also deployed from the Occupation Forces located in Japan. Something
doesn't gel does it? If you have information to the contrary, don't rant; tell
me where I can find it.
: How's this for facts: 4500 Australians served in Korea. That's approximately
: the size of the East Timor Operation. As you may see, this is not a large
: number of people. And you're saying that Robert Menzies sent just 4500
: people to defend Australia tooth and nail.
And these are not the facts on the Australian personnel contribution to the
Korean War
----------
29 Jun 1950 - 27 Jul 1953
Number of People who served overseas
ARMY 10,657
RAN 4,507
RAAF 2,000 (approx)
Total 17,164
TOTAL CASUALTIES OF THE AUSTRALIAN FORCES
Deaths
All Services 339 (All causes)
Wounded In Action
All Services 1,216
Prisoners Of War
By North Korean 29 - 1 died while captive
Total Battle Casualties including Deaths
All Services 1,584
---------------
If this information is incorrect, please cite your references. How could this
be?
As it stands, the comparison with East Timor seems to be of a different order
and so it was; it was an entirely different level of confrontation although it
may be argued that the motivation in both cases was partly comparable.
It is not a case of either of us being right or wrong. I cannot and do not
object to you expressing opinion but if you or anybody else tries to change
historical fact to suit an argument, those who know something of the real facts
are bound to publish counters to mis-information whether it be in alt.html or
elsewhere.
As to alt.html, I have been around the traps for some years, more active at some
times than others. But you are right, this is very OT and I would not appeared
here (for the fifth time) except to refute gross mis-handling of facts, which
happened to have been perpetrated by you. You may be sure I will do so again
should the case arise.
Tim Morris
David Venn-Brown
news:MPG.161980efc...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> As slimy things with legs walked upon the slimy sea, David Venn-Brown
> (dav...@ozemail.com.au) posted the following...
>
> > "Cookie...~Ü~" <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:3bad846c$0$20...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
> > > The Australian people are completely behind the United States & any
action
> > > they choose to take.
> >
> > The reason that Australia is backing the US in this has nothing to do
with
> > terrorism, really.
> >
> > I just thought that I'd point that out.
>
> I put it down to the fact that Little Johnny has just been trying to
> install the latest AOL CD...
>
> pHw34x: heh, I hate the Tampa, heh
> Johnny: me too!
> pHw34x: wow, I'm gonna voet 4 u d00d!
> Johnny: me too!
>
> Later...
>
> Dubya: Watch this, Little Johnny - I'm about to fuck Afghanistan!
> Johnny: me too!
>
ROTFLMAO
Jim Ley
<rob...@excite.com> wrote:
>Jim Ley <news:3bae163d....@west.usenetserver.com>:
>
>> "Cookie.:
>>>"Jim Ley":
>>>>"Cookie...~Ü~":
>>
>>>> Cowards? they were prepared to die for their beliefs, that's
>>>> not a definition of cowardice in any dictionary I've seen.
>>>
>>>Killing innocent people who are unable to defend themselves
>>>certainly is an act of cowardice, I'm sure mopst people don't
>>>need a dictionary to explain that.
>>
>> Well, ~7% of the US ordanance fired in the Gulf War, hit their
>> target, the rest missed, many killing innocents, so by your
>> assertion, all of the US servicemen are also cowards fair
>> enough,
>
>How in the hell do you arrive at that conclusion?!
Okay, perhaps the conclusion isn't clear from the bear statistics, so
I'll attempt to explain further - an analogy:
You're facing a large crowd of people there are 10 evil people who you
are instructed to kill right in amongst them, I give you 100 bullets,
if you know you have a 1 in 14 chance of hitting them with each
bullet, would you shoot, knowing that you're almost guaranteed to kill
some of those innocents - could you really claim that you weren't
aiming at the innocents - when you _know_ you have little chance of
hitting?
Of course if you want to go for more definitive targetting of
innocents then we do have examples from Kosovo. (A Chinese Embassy,
not even innocents who had any say in the internal running of the
country.)
>Were the U.S. soldiers aiming at the innocents?
If they no their weapons are so innaccurate as to ensure, yes I
believe they were in effect aiming at innocents, of course I also
agree that it was necessary, my only reason for bringing it up, is the
claim that shooting innocents is an act of cowardice.
>Were they making the first strike?
So the innocent are legitimate targets if their Governments started
it? I'd like to believe human life is kind of important, and no-one
should be a target, but that's idealistic, but those who do not pick
up a weapon, have no say in the Government, must surely be thought of
as innocent, no matter what side they are on.
>> Afganistan is already "bombed to shit" The soviets did it, and
>> since there's been a civil war, it has no roads, no hospitals,
>> not a lot of much but mountains, and mountains can take a lot
>> of bombs, and they have done. Iraq's been "bombed to shit" in
>> recent time, there's lots of talk of that country "harbouring
>> terrorists" - And then we've got Palestine, regularly "bombed
>> to shit", and yet people keep fighting, and keep the
>> terrorists. Bombing a country to shit, doesn't win a war, all
>> it does is breed resentment and resolve to fight back.
>
>But for what reasons have they been bombed? I don't really know but
>I doubt that it has been for harboring terrorists.
The main reason Israel has given for Palestine is Security, because it
"harbours" terrorists. Libya's been bombed for terrorists, Iraq
hasn't but then there's been lots of other excuses, that one wasn't
needed :-)
>That part of the planet has always been a problem. One choice would
>be to turn the whole damn area into a parking lot.
A sympathetic call I'm sure, your compassion astounds me.
>I'm not calling for the death of innocents. I'm calling for the
>death of the murders and their accomplices. If innocents get in the
>way so be it.
>
>Granted the innocents I'm talking about are unknowns from another
>country--but I'll go so far as to say that I'd include myself in
>those innocent dead if it means the rest of humanity, my family and
>friends perhaps included, can go on living in a more peaceful
>world.
Well that's good, but then from your position of security, I don't
think it's really much to say. (and even whilst horrific terrorist
acts can be carried out in the USA, you are still in a very safe
position.)
Jim.
Jim Ley
<dav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>"Jim Ley" <j...@jibbering.com> wrote in message
>news:3bae163d....@west.usenetserver.com...
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 00:08:23 +0800, "Cookie...~Ü~"
>> <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> Asylum seekers, that's what they were, there's simple due legal
>> process to decide if their asylum was correct, and is pretty much down
>> to whether they would be safe in their county - I can't possibly see
>> how an Australian Government, or an Australian who supported it, can
>> now just weeks later say that Afganistan is anything but a fine place
>> to live, it was 3 weeks ago, what's changed?
>
>You have no idea of the problem with "asylum seekers" (they are illegal
>immigrants and they have no right to queue jumpt into Australia as I have
>already said).
Why exactly do I have no idea about the problem of Asylum Seekers, I
live in a country that has a large number of both Asylum Seekers and
illegal imigrants, indeed more than Australia, although I do not know
of the per head of population rates. Do you not agree with the idea
of Asylum?
>Australia is one of nine (?) countries that take REAL asylum seekers in.
>Don't ask me to name the rest, Norway is the only one I remember, but I can
>easily look it up.
Please explain.
>By international standards Australia is very leanient towards asylum seekers
>(real ones) in this very sensitive issue.
Then please explain what a group of Afgan citizens who have escaped a
country so evil that you or your countrymen are calling for it to be
"bombed to shit" are not Asylum seekers - how are they simply illegal
immigrants?
Jim.
David Venn-Brown
>
> David Venn-Brown <dav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:Xkkr7.2514$cu4.1...@ozemail.com.au...
> : "Boclair" <boc...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> : news:Knjr7.83033$bY5.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> : >
> : > David Venn-Brown <dav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> : > news:Wuir7.2449$cu4.1...@ozemail.com.au...
> : > : "Cookie...~Ü~" <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> : > : news:3bad979c$0$20...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
> : > : > "David Venn-Brown" <dav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> : > : > > "Cookie...~Ü~" <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> : > What is it you do not understand about the following?
> :
> : What goddam hole did you crawl out of and why didn't you stay there.
>
> I do not care what your opinions are. I may agree or not but it matters
not a
> wit.
>
> I am not picking on you but you continue to attest as fact what are
untruths.
According to who? You? Just a minute while I get on my knees and pray.
> To be kind I will not list them, nor do I intend to comment on all your
wrong
> assertions regarding the facts, but, for example, did you not say, in
spite of
> the *fact* that the Korean War was an United Nations Operation conducted
with
> the participation of 21 nations
No, for the reason that I was not talking about the 21 nations as a whole,
but about Australia.
>
> --------
> Australia was determined to ally themselves with the US
> before the British announced any participation in the conflict.
Australia's
> contingent throughout that war was only symbolic of the Australia-America
> relation.
> --------
>
> Did you know that the Australian ground contingent, specifically 3RAR and
> supporting arms and services were drawn from the British Commonwealth
Occupation
> Forces and served in the British Commonwealth Brigade for the duration.
77Sqn
> RAAF was also deployed from the Occupation Forces located in Japan.
Something
> doesn't gel does it? If you have information to the contrary, don't rant;
tell
> me where I can find it.
No, you're right, but you have no point.
Here's a quote from
http://www.chuckiii.com/Reports/History_Other/Austrailian_Civilization.shtml
"The Korean War and the signing of the ANZUS treaty were landmark events in
Australian foreign policy. The Korean War was of particular importance
because it showed the world, and in particular the United States, that
Australia was serious about its forward defense policy. When Australia
decided to commit troops to Korea in 1950 the reason was ".to help restore
relations to the U.S." But further "the restoration of the alliance with the
U.S. was (Australia's) basic strategic interest, and the Korean War led
ultimately to a Pacific security system backed by the U.S. which in the
1950s and 1960s was a valuable safeguard for Australia." "
You might also want to read pages 13, 82 and 90 of this:
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/joint/commttee/j5581563.pdf
> : How's this for facts: 4500 Australians served in Korea. That's
approximately
> : the size of the East Timor Operation. As you may see, this is not a
large
> : number of people. And you're saying that Robert Menzies sent just 4500
> : people to defend Australia tooth and nail.
>
> And these are not the facts on the Australian personnel contribution to
the
> Korean War
I know - I got those figures from the Department of Veteran's Affair's -
I've since seen figures of about 17000, which is what you say. Perhaps it
was 4500 front line troops or something.
> ----------
> 29 Jun 1950 - 27 Jul 1953
>
> Number of People who served overseas
> ARMY 10,657
> RAN 4,507
> RAAF 2,000 (approx)
> Total 17,164
>
> TOTAL CASUALTIES OF THE AUSTRALIAN FORCES
>
> Deaths
> All Services 339 (All causes)
>
> Wounded In Action
> All Services 1,216
>
> Prisoners Of War
> By North Korean 29 - 1 died while captive
>
> Total Battle Casualties including Deaths
> All Services 1,584
> ---------------
> If this information is incorrect, please cite your references. How could
this
> be?
Again, somewhere on http://www.dva.gov.au
> As it stands, the comparison with East Timor seems to be of a different
order
> and so it was; it was an entirely different level of confrontation
although it
> may be argued that the motivation in both cases was partly comparable.
Yes.
> It is not a case of either of us being right or wrong. I cannot and do
not
> object to you expressing opinion but if you or anybody else tries to
change
> historical fact to suit an argument, those who know something of the real
facts
> are bound to publish counters to mis-information whether it be in alt.html
or
> elsewhere.
I'm not. Read the articles I cited above. It is quite widely acknowledged.
> As to alt.html, I have been around the traps for some years, more active
at some
> times than others. But you are right, this is very OT and I would not
appeared
> here (for the fifth time) except to refute gross mis-handling of facts,
which
> happened to have been perpetrated by you. You may be sure I will do so
again
> should the case arise.
I feel the same way about many other posts. My facts, are, on the whole,
correct. I don't know how the DVA came up with 4500.
> Tim Morris
David Venn-Brown
Cookie...~Ü~
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 00:08:23 +0800, "Cookie...~Ü~"
> <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> >"Jim Ley" <j...@jibbering.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 14:41:45 +0800, "Cookie...~Ü~"
>
> >> Cowards? they were prepared to die for their beliefs, that's not a
> >> definition of cowardice in any dictionary I've seen.
> >
> >Killing innocent people who are unable to defend themselves certainly is
an
> >act of cowardice, I'm sure mopst people don't need a dictionary to
explain
> >that.
>
> Well, ~7% of the US ordanance fired in the Gulf War, hit their target,
> the rest missed, many killing innocents, so by your assertion, all of
> the US servicemen are also cowards fair enough, just make sure you
> keep consistent, do you really think an Afgan or Iraqi or Australian
> is capable of defending themselves against cruise missiles?
It really would help if you actually compared apples with apples instead of
with oranges, wouldn't it !
> >> Your point being what, well it's fair enough people die, after dead
> >> Afgans don't matter, they aren't like "us"? or what exactly is your
> >> point?
> >
> >What do you think the bloody point is, simply that if a Country openly
> >harbours terrorists then they are as bad as the terrorists themselves &
that
> >innocent people always die in any war. Do you need it spelled out, would
> >you like to get a dictionary.
>
> So that's the country, the Government and anyone under arms, the rest
> are surely innocents, so you're saying it's fair enough for those to
> die, I'm asking why? (hint: Afganistan/Iraq etc. aren't
> democracies...)
Well you are more than welcome to attempt dialogue with terrorists since you
obviously feel that will help the situation.
> >> Really, who against? you do understand there are laws conducting the
> >> affairs between countries, and how wars can be declared etc. There is
> >> no legal justification for a war on Afganistan, I'd be surprised if
> >> the Australian Government had used the word, only US and UK
> >> Governments had used it so far (along with such words as "Crusade" -
> >> which I hope you understand the connotations.)
> >
> >Their certainly is justification for a war against Afghanistan, they
either
> >hand over Osama Bin Laden or face the consequences.
>
> Do you understand that countries, like people have laws they must
> obey, normally by virtue of being signatories to treaties etc. well,
> that's not sufficient justification, the UN could eventually create
> such, but this very abuse of international law, is what many
> terrorists have a problem with the USA, it abuses international law -
> I agree with lots of their actions, but I don't think it's
> constructive, and I also believe the way to defeat terrorists is to
> remove their popular support, it's what has has most effect in the
> Northern Ireland for example.
Yes, remove their support by denying them safe haven & the ability to
further their endeavours, ie. training more terrorists.
> >> Which is still a pretty low number compared to other terrorist kills
> >> in the world, why did they never result in "war against terrorism" ?
> >> Could it be they weren't like "us" ?
> >
> >Really, in 3 decades of IRA bombings only 4500 people have died, small
> >number my arse, you really need to get a grip.
>
> I was more thinking of the Congo or Sierra Leone, etc. where death
> rates are huge, certainly Northern Ireland terrorists haven't killed
> all that many, but then they are "like us", so wouldn't've made my
> point in any case.
>
> >> >Some people believe that retaliation will not solve anything, it most
> >> >certainly will,
> >>
> >> Exactly what will it _solve_ ? The re-election of the US president, a
> >> happy feeling for people that someone got killed for it?
> >
> >Do you think Countries will be keen to harbour terrorists if their
Country
> >is bombed to shit.
>
> Afganistan is already "bombed to shit" The soviets did it, and since
> there's been a civil war, it has no roads, no hospitals, not a lot of
> much but mountains, and mountains can take a lot of bombs, and they
> have done. Iraq's been "bombed to shit" in recent time, there's lots
> of talk of that country "harbouring terrorists" - And then we've got
> Palestine, regularly "bombed to shit", and yet people keep fighting,
> and keep the terrorists. Bombing a country to shit, doesn't win a
> war, all it does is breed resentment and resolve to fight back.
Of course dialogue will certainly assist in this endeavour wont it, these
pieces of shit are not open to negotiation, dialogue, discussion or anything
else, the only thing that will get through to a terrorist is his death.
> >> >Afghanistan has been given a choice to make; hand over the terrorists
or
> >> >suffer their fate. The ball is in Afghanistan's court.
> >>
> >> They need prove, not unreasonable is it, Australia certainly doesn't
> >> hand over people to foriegn Governments without some evidence that
> >> they have actually commited a crime
> >
> >Well that's funny isn't it, do you think that the FBI don't have
evidence,
> >do you think they would commit to taking action without it. You really
must
> >have your head up your arse.
>
> You were the one, who doesn't have evidence are calling for it, aren't
> you, the assumption, "well they must have evidence" is a nice idea,
> and may well be true, but you do not have evidence, yet your calling
> for the killing of innocents in revenge, I find that abhorant.
They most certainly *DO* have evidence, you don't need to be Einstein to
figure that out.
Afghanistan is harbouring Osama Bin Laden, it's really very simple they hand
him over they don't suffer at all.
There is no distinction between the primary offender & parties to the
offence, those who support terrorists are as guilty as the terrorist.
> >> In any case Australian Government has said Afganistan is a fine place
> >> to live, there's no need for anyone to claim asylum from it, or have
> >> your opinions changed now?
> >
> >You do realise that Illegal Immigrants DON'T equal refugees, but don't
let
> >that little distinction worry you.
>
> Asylum seekers, that's what they were, there's simple due legal
> process to decide if their asylum was correct, and is pretty much down
> to whether they would be safe in their county - I can't possibly see
> how an Australian Government, or an Australian who supported it, can
> now just weeks later say that Afganistan is anything but a fine place
> to live, it was 3 weeks ago, what's changed?
Illegal Immigrants are not asylum seekers they are parasites who purposely
avoid the proper channels, (we do have embassies you know) to claim asylum
simply because they know that they don't have a legitimate claim at all.
Australia has an Embassy in Indonesia, it's very convenient that these
so-called asylum seekers refuse to go there & instead pay thousands of US$
to people smugglers to get here illegally. It's also convenient that they
discard their passports & other identification into the ocean prior to
illegally landing here.
There is a very big difference between illegal immigrants & refugees &
finally our Government is doing something positive about it by sending them
to anywhere but Australia.
> Or is it just that the Australian Government has no thought on
> International (or even domestic?) law on Asylum - I guess if that's
> the case then other abuses is just as simple.
Our Government was well within its right to refuse entry of the Tampa & then
force it to leave our waters. When someone is refused entry to a Country &
they then enter after being refused they are Invaders. Our Courts have
ratified the absolute legality of our actions.
Cookie...~Ü~
That's always the case with issues of this magnitude & we have to trust the
decisions made by those currently in Government when these events occur.
I know :-) - But I did have to bring it up.
Exactly, when they reach Indonesia they are not persecuted or anything else,
they don't have the right to decide, hey I'll just pay some worthless piece
of shit a heap of greenbacks to drop me in Australia, they're a bunch of
suckers, plenty of handouts & the like. Legitimate refugees would have
claimed asylum in Indonesia immediately. You can't call someone who stays
in Indonesia for 3 years before illegally entering Australia a refugee under
any stretch of the imagination.
> > The only reason these queue jumping illegal immigrants (illegal
immigrant
> > does NOT equal refugee) avoid claiming asylum at our Embassies & discard
> > their identification & pay very large sums of money to people smugglers
is
> > because they don't have any legitimate claim in the first place.
>
> Yes.
Completely right, otherwise they'd utilise the appropriate channels.
> > Finally a politician has actually done something that the people want.
>
> True, but I was talking more specifically about relations with the US.
Yep :-)
> I am not complaining that Howard should not have taken the action that he
> did, but I am questioning his motives, that's all.
All politicians have motives behind everything they do, whether it be for
the benefit of all or otherwise.
Cheers
Cookie
Jerry Muelver
Ley) wrote:
> I also believe the way to defeat terrorists is to
>remove their popular support, it's what has has most effect in the
>Northern Ireland for example.
>
Yes. Point, match, and game.
---- jerry
--
David Venn-Brown
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:36:00 +1000, "David Venn-Brown"
> <dav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >"Jim Ley" <j...@jibbering.com> wrote in message
> >news:3bae163d....@west.usenetserver.com...
> >> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 00:08:23 +0800, "Cookie...~Ü~"
> >> <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> Asylum seekers, that's what they were, there's simple due legal
> >> process to decide if their asylum was correct, and is pretty much down
> >> to whether they would be safe in their county - I can't possibly see
> >> how an Australian Government, or an Australian who supported it, can
> >> now just weeks later say that Afganistan is anything but a fine place
> >> to live, it was 3 weeks ago, what's changed?
> >
> >You have no idea of the problem with "asylum seekers" (they are illegal
> >immigrants and they have no right to queue jumpt into Australia as I have
> >already said).
>
> Why exactly do I have no idea about the problem of Asylum Seekers, I
> live in a country that has a large number of both Asylum Seekers and
> illegal imigrants, indeed more than Australia, although I do not know
> of the per head of population rates. Do you not agree with the idea
> of Asylum?
Yes. I agree very much with the idea of asylum. But I agree with asylum
being given to those who really need it. I agree with justice. Not people
who are breaking our laws to start off with by entering our country. As I
have already said, many people including those rescued by the Tampa FLEW
into Indonesia (which is a free country where they will be safe) THEN took
the boat to come to Australia. If they are being persecuted so badly, then
they shouldn't be picking and chosing. They should be greatful to have
anywhere that's safe.
> >Australia is one of nine (?) countries that take REAL asylum seekers in.
> >Don't ask me to name the rest, Norway is the only one I remember, but I
can
> >easily look it up.
>
> Please explain.
Its called law. The UNHCR has set up standard conventions on asylum seekers
and to these rules countries abide. Countries cannot just support any old
people who turn up on our coastline. It just doesn't work that way.
> >By international standards Australia is very leanient towards asylum
seekers
> >(real ones) in this very sensitive issue.
>
> Then please explain what a group of Afgan citizens who have escaped a
> country so evil that you or your countrymen are calling for it to be
> "bombed to shit" are not Asylum seekers - how are they simply illegal
> immigrants?
You are not Australian. You obviously do not know any Australians. You have
not asked every Australian whether the actions of the US to bomb the shit
out of the Afghans is right. I'm not saying its wrong, I personally don't
know, but you are being bloody stupid to paint with such broad strokes.
In addition, you are not an Australian taxpayer who has to pay to support
these people (no, it isn't just free) and on the second point, see above.
You have simply been swayed by the media without taking any grain of salt.
Sadly, you are not the only one and thus is why media can be so dangerous.
Jim Ley
<dav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>"Jim Ley" <j...@jibbering.com> wrote in message
>news:3baef823...@west.usenetserver.com...
> They should be greatful to have anywhere that's safe.
There is indeed that, and it's a fair point, but you have to let them
land to do that, you cannot judge asylum on a boat, international law
was broken, they were already in Australia, you had to accept them.
>Its called law. The UNHCR has set up standard conventions on asylum seekers
>and to these rules countries abide. Countries cannot just support any old
>people who turn up on our coastline. It just doesn't work that way.
I'm afraid it does, you can then turn them away as illegal immigrants,
but you do have to accept them under the above council
>> Then please explain what a group of Afgan citizens who have escaped a
>> country so evil that you or your countrymen are calling for it to be
>> "bombed to shit" are not Asylum seekers - how are they simply illegal
>> immigrants?
>
>You are not Australian. You obviously do not know any Australians.
On what evidence can you even make either of those claims, I certainly
know Australian citizens.
> You have
>not asked every Australian whether the actions of the US to bomb the shit
>out of the Afghans is right. I'm not saying its wrong, I personally don't
>know, but you are being bloody stupid to paint with such broad strokes.
I never said anything about all Australians views being one such, I
indeed complained about "Cookie's" such generalisation, and Cookie at
least claims to be one of your countrymen, and he has called for
Afganistan to be "bombed to shit" in this very thread.
>In addition, you are not an Australian taxpayer who has to pay to support
>these people (no, it isn't just free) and on the second point, see above.
The UK has very similar issues, and I am a UK tax payer, indeed the UK
has a much larger illegal immigrant population than Australia, after
all it's a lot easier to arrive.
>You have simply been swayed by the media without taking any grain of salt.
>Sadly, you are not the only one and thus is why media can be so dangerous.
Please explain why it's so essential to prevent people landing, you
can legally return them from where they came if they aren't genuinely
in need of asylum.
Jim.
Boclair
: "Boclair" <boc...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
: news:HyBr7.86658$bY5.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
: >
: > David Venn-Brown <dav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
: > news:Xkkr7.2514$cu4.1...@ozemail.com.au...
: > : "Boclair" <boc...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
: > : news:Knjr7.83033$bY5.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
: > : >
: > : > David Venn-Brown <dav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
: > : > news:Wuir7.2449$cu4.1...@ozemail.com.au...
: > : > : "Cookie...~Ü~" <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
: > : > : news:3bad979c$0$20...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
: > : > : > "David Venn-Brown" <dav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
: > : > : > > "Cookie...~Ü~" <co...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
: Here's a quote from
: http://www.chuckiii.com/Reports/History_Other/Austrailian_Civilization.shtml
Now I am starting to understand how you have come by some of your statements.
This article is a Commentary, and, if you do not mind me saying so, badly
structured. There are quotes but not one reference is cited, even the
credentials of the author. It would fail any Higher Secondary or Uni exam.
(Mind you I do not necessarily disagree with many of the quoted passages of
"peter at sylvia...@hotmail.com" but I have access to applicable references)
I have noted some of your passing views on East Timor. If so you could not
agree with
-----------
But there are still signs of the old foreign policy in today's government. The
conflict in East Timor has once again brought violence into South East Asia.
Australia has failed to act on this matter in a way that would help prove to the
world that indeed she is a powerful nation determined to keep the peace in her
own region.
----------
Having seen the prelude to the Australian action, it is my opinion, and I think
yours, that Australia's actions did not bring violence to East Timor; even if we
were to go back to EG Whitlam. How valuable is this Commentary? Although the
author is entitled to his opinion. it is a pity he did not argue his case
properly.
: You might also want to read pages 13, 82 and 90 of this:
: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/joint/commttee/j5581563.pdf
: I'm not. Read the articles I cited above. It is quite widely acknowledged.
Yes, I know of these.
But I fail to understand what you are saying. If you are saying that Australia
should not use every means in its power to gain the support of powerful Allies,
surely this flies in the face of geo-political reality. The community of
nations has always worked on the coming and going of Treaties which always have
a finite life.
The ANZUS Treaty, now activated in relation to the *war* against terroism, has
been a pillar of Australian Foreign policy since 51/52, where Australia
basically seeks to engage the power, but not automatically, of the USA in our
protection in South East Asia. It is also true that the USA has formal
obligations to other South East Asian nations, which may not always be in our
interests. If you are arguing that the USA sometimes demands it's pound of
flesh you would again be right. Instances are in relation to Pine Gap, missile
defence, North West Cape, submarine communication and the withdrawal from SVN,
to mention just a few. Some would reason that we should have supported NZ
before they were excised from ANZUS over the visit of US nuclear powered and
weaponed ships. But we didn't. This occurred in 1985/6 when the ALP was in
power.
We would not bother about a treaty with the USA if it wasn't in our interest and
neither would the USA if it wasn't in theirs. And this in spite of the Battle
of Guadicanal and The Battle of the Coral Sea, which if the Americans had
failed, would have delivered the Australian Continent into the hands of a feudal
Japan. Australia was not a formal ally of the USA until some months after Pearl
Harbour. But in essence, the USA needed to secure their flank and damage
Japanese Naval power before destroying the Japanese fleet and opening the way to
Japan itself. It was part of a strategic plan. We were collateral winners.
As far as the current coallition against terrorism, no nations leaders, (and
including Australia's *despised* politicians on both side of parliament ) have
said they are joining to avenge those killed in the WTC attack. Although
individuals and groups of non-Americans may weep with moral indignation and
sorrow stirred by Bette Midler's rendition of "Wind Beneath My Wings", Nations
are acting for their own security and interests, including Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, Britain, France, Germany and Russia, (even Palestine) as their
leaders have stated on the public record.
It is predictable that there will be collateral winners and losers from the
current actions. This world is not run on altruism. It is hard nosed and
remains as machiavellian as ever. And this is entirely my *opinion*
: My facts, are, on the whole, correct. I don't know how the DVA came up with
4500.
Presumably you are off to Uni soon. Just as a tip, never quote a fact if you
are not able to cite the reference. You'll get hung, drawn and quartered in
some Facilties.
Tim Morris
Cookie...~Ü~
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 21:51:01 +1000, "David Venn-Brown"
> <dav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >"Jim Ley" <j...@jibbering.com> wrote in message
> >news:3baef823...@west.usenetserver.com...
>
> > They should be greatful to have anywhere that's safe.
>
> There is indeed that, and it's a fair point, but you have to let them
> land to do that, you cannot judge asylum on a boat, international law
> was broken, they were already in Australia, you had to accept them.
It would appear that not only are you lacking in the knowledge of
International Law but also in the facts. These people were not in Australia
at all, until they illegally entered our waters following our Government's
refusal of their entry. These people should have been taken to Merik (sp?)
in Indonesia because under International Law they were meant to be taken to
the nearest port. Christmas Island is not a port & they had no right to
enter Australian waters. A person's status in claiming asylum can
definitely be judged prior to their arrival clearly by their actions. The
actions of these people clearly indicate that they are not refugees by any
stretch of the imagination & Australia will no longer be a soft target with
over-generous handouts to anyone & everyone turning up on our soil in a
leaky boat.
> >Its called law. The UNHCR has set up standard conventions on asylum
seekers
> >and to these rules countries abide. Countries cannot just support any old
> >people who turn up on our coastline. It just doesn't work that way.
>
> I'm afraid it does, you can then turn them away as illegal immigrants,
> but you do have to accept them under the above council
Sorry, wrong again Jim. These illegals were in International waters outside
of Australia's zone of responsibility and we were well within our legal
rights to deny them entry & to force them out when they invaded our Country.
Additionally, the fact that they forced the Captain of the Tampa to turn off
his course to Merik & head into Australian waters constitutes piracy, that
alone precludes entry here.
> >> Then please explain what a group of Afgan citizens who have escaped a
> >> country so evil that you or your countrymen are calling for it to be
> >> "bombed to shit" are not Asylum seekers - how are they simply illegal
> >> immigrants?
> >
> >You are not Australian. You obviously do not know any Australians.
>
> On what evidence can you even make either of those claims, I certainly
> know Australian citizens.
>
> > You have
> >not asked every Australian whether the actions of the US to bomb the shit
> >out of the Afghans is right. I'm not saying its wrong, I personally don't
> >know, but you are being bloody stupid to paint with such broad strokes.
>
> I never said anything about all Australians views being one such, I
> indeed complained about "Cookie's" such generalisation, and Cookie at
> least claims to be one of your countrymen, and he has called for
> Afganistan to be "bombed to shit" in this very thread.
Actually, what I have said is that Afghanistan have a decision to make, hand
over the terrorist & his cohorts or suffer the consequences. There is no
distinction between the primary offender & those that are party to the
offence, if you aid a criminal, you are a criminal & will be charged with
the same offence as the primary offender. If they choose to disregard the
legitimate demands of the US Government then they do so at their own peril.
> >In addition, you are not an Australian taxpayer who has to pay to support
> >these people (no, it isn't just free) and on the second point, see above.
>
> The UK has very similar issues, and I am a UK tax payer, indeed the UK
> has a much larger illegal immigrant population than Australia, after
> all it's a lot easier to arrive.
>
> >You have simply been swayed by the media without taking any grain of
salt.
> >Sadly, you are not the only one and thus is why media can be so
dangerous.
>
> Please explain why it's so essential to prevent people landing, you
> can legally return them from where they came if they aren't genuinely
> in need of asylum.
I guess you don't understand the concept of a deterrent, you see if someone
pays someone US$10000 to illegally enter a Country & then winds up not
getting there because the Country they have chosen to illegally enter denies
them entry, it sends a very strong message to others who would try it. The
trouble with allowing illegal immigrants to land here is that it costs
Australian tax payers an inordinate amount of money. By them being denied
entry here they don't get to abuse our over generous system, constantly
appealing & re-appealing time & time again after their claim is rejected, no
other Country allows these people to abuse their legal system in this
manner. The entire process is funded by the tax payer & we do not intend to
fund those who have no legitimate claim to begin with.
Peter leach
--
"Jerry Muelver" <jer...@hytext.com> wrote in message
news:td2uqt01smodvr4vc...@4ax.com...
What rubbish. In Northern Ireland the IRA and UDA/UVF enjoy as much
popularity as ever.
The Government caved in to terrorism here in my opinion. Despite saying it
wouldn't.
Sein Fein is fast becoming the biggest Nationist group in the UK despite its
inability to convince the IRA to decommission.
On the mainland it would not be tolerated that the Minister for Education
was anything else but "squeeky clean" here we are supposed to accept a the
second in command IRA in that post!!!
It sickened me to see Blair stand up and spout that terrorism had to be
obliterated when it was the US dictating the way forward. Pity the
Government hadn't had that opinion years ago. I was delighted when Cowen
said on TV that ALL terrorist organisations would be treated the same and
even mention the IRA etc by name. Funny since before 11 Sept. the US were
one of the biggest bankrollers of Nationalist and Loyalist terrorist
organisations. Different story when its your own backyard though!!!
David Venn-Brown
I agree. But it proves, crap English or whatever, that there are people that
agree. Email him - I'm sure he could give you references to all his
information. It would make good reading for both of us.
> I have noted some of your passing views on East Timor. If so you could
not
> agree with
> -----------
> But there are still signs of the old foreign policy in today's government.
The
> conflict in East Timor has once again brought violence into South East
Asia.
> Australia has failed to act on this matter in a way that would help prove
to the
> world that indeed she is a powerful nation determined to keep the peace in
her
> own region.
> ----------
I think Australia handled East Timor pretty well. Of course it wasn't
perfect, but that's impossible.
> Having seen the prelude to the Australian action, it is my opinion, and I
think
> yours, that Australia's actions did not bring violence to East Timor; even
if we
> were to go back to EG Whitlam. How valuable is this Commentary? Although
the
> author is entitled to his opinion. it is a pity he did not argue his case
> properly.
See above.
> : You might also want to read pages 13, 82 and 90 of this:
> : http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/joint/commttee/j5581563.pdf
> : I'm not. Read the articles I cited above. It is quite widely
acknowledged.
>
> Yes, I know of these.
>
> But I fail to understand what you are saying. If you are saying that
Australia
> should not use every means in its power to gain the support of powerful
Allies,
> surely this flies in the face of geo-political reality.
No, I'm saying that it has and it will continue to gain the support of
chiefly the US, but other powerful nations as well.
Australia is one stuffed up place geographically and that's why it has not
been able to find its identity. We aren't powerful enough to defend
ourselves so that's why Australia has taken the action that it has recently,
and especially in the Korean War. THAT, is what I am saying.
Have you been arguing so bitterly yet not know what I'm on about? Jeez.
If you don't understand me, just ask.
> The community of
> nations has always worked on the coming and going of Treaties which always
have
> a finite life.
True. Australia started out as another part of the UK, part of the empire,
etc.
Now we are mostly allied with the US - the only things we're still involved
with the UK in is sport (cricket, football, commonwealth games, etc)
And as you are about to say, the ANZUS is now really only the AUS.
Yeah, but I don't see your point. Please explain what this has to do with
what I'm talking about.
> As far as the current coallition against terrorism, no nations leaders,
(and
> including Australia's *despised* politicians on both side of parliament )
have
> said they are joining to avenge those killed in the WTC attack. Although
> individuals and groups of non-Americans may weep with moral indignation
and
> sorrow stirred by Bette Midler's rendition of "Wind Beneath My Wings",
Nations
> are acting for their own security and interests, including Pakistan, Saudi
> Arabia, Egypt, Britain, France, Germany and Russia, (even Palestine) as
their
> leaders have stated on the public record.
Yep. Australia is acting in its interests.
> It is predictable that there will be collateral winners and losers from
the
> current actions. This world is not run on altruism. It is hard nosed and
> remains as machiavellian as ever. And this is entirely my *opinion*
>
> : My facts, are, on the whole, correct. I don't know how the DVA came up
with
> 4500.
>
> Presumably you are off to Uni soon. Just as a tip, never quote a fact if
you
> are not able to cite the reference. You'll get hung, drawn and quartered
in
> some Facilties.
I did.
Full URL: http://www.dva.gov.au/commem/korea/korea1.htm