Norwegian ship boarded
David Bromage
has been boarded by Australian troops. The ship has been anchored 17nm
off Christmas Island since Monday. The ship's engines reportedly started
up and it started moving towards Christmas Island.
RAAF C-130s brought SAS troops and "fast boats" (presumably Zodiacs or
similar) to the island yesterday.
HMAS Arunta is en route to the island.
cheers
David
David Bromage
just after 1pm AEST. A police boat also approached the ship behind the
zodiacs.
Apparently the locals on the island a just sitting on the beach watching
the show.
And thanks to the BBC. I didn't know that Australia had "marines". :)
Cheers
David
JollyGreenGiant
own uk audience rember..
--
ListMum, "Soap Naturally"
<http://www.programmer-software.com/soapnaturally>
Buy Australian made soap moulds at
http://www.dianesnatural.soap.it/traymolds.html
JollyGreenGiant
illegals that we are not a dumping ground for their problems.. go
elsewhere...
jacko
<so...@ihug.com.au> wrote:
>ahh we did along time ago remebr in 1788 they wana sound pommie to their
>own uk audience rember..
>
>
>
>David Bromage wrote:
>>
>> And thanks to the BBC. I didn't know that Australia had "marines". :)
>>
Quoted by the BBC but was in fact reported by Mark McGill, Channel
Nine News, on Christmas Island
"Australian marines powered out to the ship as it came towards land"
But in any case Marines = amphibious troops.
What's the difficulty with that?
Cheers
jacko
David Bromage
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1514000/1514390.stm
Re the audio grabs, good to hear Red Harrison is still going! I remember
the days of "Good morning. This is AM, and I'm Red Harrison" in the
early 80s.
Cheers
David
Kenny MacLeod
news:3b8c7357...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> But in any case Marines = amphibious troops.
Hmm, i know the Aussies have been somewhat isolated for the last couple of
hundred years... but gills???
Daniel Kekäläinen
Just fooling around... 8-]
/Daniel
Daniel Kekäläinen
he only did what any person should do - respond to an SOS and rescue
those who can be rescued. But I understand the Australian point of view.
Probably a problem that will grow over time... The high tide has not
come yet.
Jim Watt
<kecke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Thew norwegian skipper is said to be at least a little bit annoyed since
>he only did what any person should do - respond to an SOS and rescue
>those who can be rescued. But I understand the Australian point of view.
I don't, they could easily hide a few small countries in unpopulated
areas of Australia and as they are all immigrants (one or two
oppressed natives excluded) they have a pretty shitty attitude.
As you say, the guy who is in the worst position is the skipper who
behaved decently and legally.
Sending in the military achieves nothing, except vote catching
from xenophobes.
--------
Jim Watt - see the website http://www.gibnet.com
--------
Russell Miles
refugees ... international law and convention is not specific on the ponit
... He doesn't have to go to the nearest port ... he has to balance the
safety of his ship, the survivors, owners wishes and his own countries laws
...
Commonly, survivors are taken to the next port of call ... time is money ...
and the master would not go through a storm or warzone just to go to the
nearest port ... The ship's master seems to have been emotionally hijacked.
It may all be a sham but why would he risk being faced with a deranged mob.
The refugees can be landed, care for, processed and repatriated where they
can be safely returned to their country of origin. The government should
negotiate a mutually agreed protocol within Indonesia to deal with future
such incidents. Pity they had not thought to do so earlier.
Russell
Brash
nationality, call a Marine a soldier and watch what happens. Same applies
in reverse.
--
Bring on the herbivores, I'm hungry.
"jacko" <jac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3b8c7357...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Brash
spaces than you can poke a stick at................ slight problem
though...... what are the folks you propose to populate that open space
with supposed to drink?
You're a bloody Marianne Antoinette. "There's no water? Let them drink
coke".
--
Bring on the herbivores, I'm hungry.
"Jim Watt" <jim...@nospam.gi> wrote in message
news:7e9potcotrbr32rk8...@4ax.com...
Graham Watson
> <kecke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >But I understand the Australian point of view.
>
> I don't, they could easily hide a few small countries in unpopulated
> areas of Australia and as they are all immigrants (one or two
> oppressed natives excluded) they have a pretty shitty attitude.
water etc to support a sizeable population.
Maybe you would like them to be redirected to Gibraltar, along with all the
rest that are in transit illegally to Australia (estimated at about 2000 at
the moment) plus the thousands already in detention here while their refugee
applications are being considered. If people want to migrate to Australia
fine, but apply through the legal channels, don't try to sneak into the
country illegally and then riot in the detention centres complaining about
not being released into the community.
> As you say, the guy who is in the worst position is the skipper who
> behaved decently and legally.
I agree he is unfortunately caught between a rock and a hard place.
> Sending in the military achieves nothing, except vote catching
> from xenophobes.
I think many people (including refugees who came to Australia legally) agree
with stopping illegal immigrants entering the country and sympathise with
sending in the military. Bear in mind the military has also been mobilised
to provide medical and food supplies etc to the survivors. Australia is one
of the most multicultural countries on Earth and the majority of people who
support these moves would not be xenophobes (although I wouldn't deny there
are some)
Graham Watson
Demon
things to do...heeee
"David Bromage" <dbro...@fang.omni.com.au> wrote in message
news:3B8C6850...@fang.omni.com.au...
JollyGreenGiant
SASR will where a refugee medal one day .. and be able to tell their
kids.. unlike the majority of us
--
jacko
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:17:00 +0200, Daniel Kekäläinen
><kecke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>..............................But I understand the Australian point of view.
>
>I don't,
You're right on the money there Sunshine - you bloody DON'T
understand!
And several polls reveal an overwhelming 95% of the Aussie public
supports the current national stance.
So just p*ss off to somewhere else where your 5% minority limpwristed
views may receive a lukewarmer reception Jimbo.
jacko
<acrobat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Oh frogshit Brash - it was a frickin press report. I mostly respeck
your posts mate but you're being a bit precious here
The reporter said small "m" marines amigo - get it?
It's a generic term - he didn't call them the 15th West Australian
Prince Leonard of Hutt Royal Marines did he?
No - they were troops in rubber duckies, therefore marine troops by
any reasonable definition - especially from a TV reporter.
And I doubt that they'd be inclined to give him a pre-embarkation
briefing on their identity or task.
And anyway if you had any clue about the SASR cadre you'd know they
were in fact Marines - Royal Marines in case you've not heard of them.
It's not all storming embassies or crawling thru the sand after
ragheads and eating lizards mate. They do occasionally get their feet
wet you know..
Brash wrote:
>
> It would make a huge difference...... to a Marine. No matter the
> nationality, call a Marine a soldier and watch what happens. Same applies
> in reverse.
>
Maybe to a jarhead - cut's no ice with me.
Just lighten up a bit mate
Cheers
jacko
Malcolm
jacko writes
Because in the UK marines is very specific - Royal Marines or their
equivalent (US Marines being one). All RM are trained in amphib
operations, but not all people trained in amphib operations are RM.
--
Regards
Malcolm
www.tosd.demon.co.uk - HMS SOLEBAY and Battle class website.
I love to cook with wine: sometimes I even put it in the food.
Malcolm
JollyGreenGiant writes
>ahh we did along time ago remebr in 1788 they wana sound pommie to their
>own uk audience rember..
>
>
too. I think referring to them as marines is simply BBC lazyspeak - if
it wears a brown uniform and comes from the sea it must be marines.
Roger Fleming
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:20:56 +1000, JollyGreenGiant
><so...@ihug.com.au> wrote:
>
>>lets hope they turn away this boat and make a good message to the
>>illegals that we are not a dumping ground for their problems.. go
>>elsewhere...
>
No, they didn't. He was directed to the rescue of an Indonesian vessel,
sailing from an Indonesian port, within the Indonesian sea rescue zone of
responsibility, by Indonesian sea rescue authorities, not Australian
authorities. He then proceeded to make for the nearest appropriate port, which
was in Indonesia, but was forced to Christmas Island by his "rescuees" [1].
Christmas Island is a tiny, remote community with no ports large enough for
a vessel the size of MV Tampa. It's 2500 population is already swollen to 3400
by the illegal immigrants who arrived ~last~ week, so there may be some
concern over its very limited water supply (they mainly get it from a cave).
And there's another boatload of illegals on the way.... An emergency mission
has been dispatched but it may take some time to get there.
It's 1600 km to the nearest point in Australia and 2500 km from the nearest
large town, but only 380 km from the nearest Indonesian town. Both logically
and legally, they should go to Merak, which is where they just came from,
instead of being foisted on a tiny remote community that can't handle the
pressure it is already under. The Indonesian authorities are denying there is
any possibility that they may have come from Indonesia, even though the vessel
from which they were rescued was a ^%$*ing Merak town ferry.
Note:
1. For the benefit of those unaware of Australia's long running saga with this
problem, these vessels, which are operated by organised crime outfits, have an
uncanny knack for starting to sink just as a sucker^W vessel or plane hoves in
sight.
Cheers,
Roger
(to avoid spam, an obvious part of my email address is reversed)
Iberian
"David Bromage" <dbro...@fang.omni.com.au> escribió
> The SAS moved after the Tampa crossed into Australian territorial waters
> just after 1pm AEST. A police boat also approached the ship behind the
> zodiacs.
<snip>
I haven't seen any news on the matter, but I have a doubt after reading your
post. If they already had the police boat on station, why did they need the
military intervention?
Regards.
Jim Watt
<graham...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>"Jim Watt" <jim...@nospam.gi> wrote in message
>news:7e9potcotrbr32rk8...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:17:00 +0200, Daniel Kekäläinen
>> <kecke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >But I understand the Australian point of view.
And got the reply;
>> I don't, they could easily hide a few small countries in unpopulated
>> areas of Australia and as they are all immigrants (one or two
>> oppressed natives excluded) they have a pretty shitty attitude.
>Gee I wonder why they are unpopulated?? Maybe due to a lack of sufficient
>water etc to support a sizeable population.
>Maybe you would like them to be redirected to Gibraltar
Where we have the highest population density per square
mile in Europe, no natural water resources, and despite what it
says in the CIA world factbook, plenty of water.
Jeez you are complaining about a just few thousand people, the
UK made room for millions of displaced asians, and its now
full of East Europeans who are housed in the community rather
than concentration camps.
Even the Irish, have an immigration problem after hundreds of
years of doing it unto others.
>> As you say, the guy who is in the worst position is the skipper who
>> behaved decently and legally.
>I agree he is unfortunately caught between a rock and a hard place.
And the incentive is for the next one to look the other way.
>> Sending in the military achieves nothing, except vote catching
>> from xenophobes.
>I think many people (including refugees who came to Australia legally) agree
>with stopping illegal immigrants entering the country and sympathise with
>sending in the military. Bear in mind the military has also been mobilised
>to provide medical and food supplies etc to the survivors.
I see and not of course to ensure they don't land.
The real solution is to try and help the countries where the migrants
come from to be better places to live.
However, its a global problem and it looks like the Australians are
addressing it with a gun rather than humanity.
Jim Watt
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:30:03 +0200, Jim Watt <jim...@nospam.gi>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:17:00 +0200, Daniel Kekäläinen
>><kecke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>..............................But I understand the Australian point of view.
>>
>>I don't,
>
>You're right on the money there Sunshine - you bloody DON'T
>understand!
>And several polls reveal an overwhelming 95% of the Aussie public
>supports the current national stance.
More shame on them then.
>So just p*ss off to somewhere else where your 5% minority limpwristed
>views may receive a lukewarmer reception Jimbo.
Guess your wrist gets plenty of exercise.
RT
"Iberian" <Ibe...@terra.es> wrote in message
news:9mj5h5$mal$1...@diana.bcn.ttd.net...
IIRC there are only 4 police on the island - and amongst other things I
guess they're keeping an eye on the 1,000 odd illegals already there.
http://www.christmas.net.au/ has general info on the place.
<http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:inX1zR-HH4c:www.afp.gov.au/territories
/xmas.htm+christmas+island+police&hl=en>
is an article about the police written by a copper who was there for a
while - quite informative. Note the URL is for the item as cached by
Google - the original page is not available (or wasn't when I tried it)
Tornado
With my old man in the RM commando's for 27 years I was raised around the
mob, and if there was one thing I noticed, any RM would be decidedly
un-chuffed if they were thought to be Army....especially Para!
Also it was known that the US Marines were not of the same standard as a RM
when coming from basic training, the length of the training at Lympstone and
the content is greater than that of those in the US I believe.
I have done the Potential -recruit course which is 5 days at Lympstone as a
'pretend' recruit. This gave me a new respect for my father, who served in
Radfan, Borneo & Falklands.
Because someone is classed as a Marine of any sort, it doesn't make them a
Commando (unless your RM). (One who has done the commando course at
Lympstone).
This course isn't only done by RM, who do it as part of their basic
training, it can also be done by Army types and when passed from the course
it allows them to wear the commando flash on their upper arm on the uniform.
--
Mark - Maddington
Western Australia
"Patience my Arse...I'm gonna kill somthin'"
"You can run...but you'll only die tired"
L'acrobat
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:36:51 +1000, "Brash"
> <acrobat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Oh frogshit Brash - it was a frickin press report. I mostly respeck
> your posts mate but you're being a bit precious here
>
> The reporter said small "m" marines amigo - get it?
>
> It's a generic term -
No, its a technical term that describes troops with specific roles and
training.
L'acrobat
The captain had already ignored instructions and had 400+ annoyed people on
board, you want more than just the local plod for that.
L'acrobat
Given that Australia accepts more refugees per capita than any country in
the world (with the sole exception of Canada) it is a little strange to see
Australias position on refugees criticised, perhaps your country could take
them since it hasn't even lived up to Australias standard that you seem so
happy to criticise?
Re Aust is a big place, indeed it is - but it has some of the worst soil in
the world and the vast majority of Aust cannot support life - or are you
advocating that we dump them in the simpson desert and let them die there?
L'acrobat
>
> Jeez you are complaining about a just few thousand people, the
> UK made room for millions of displaced asians, and its now
> full of East Europeans who are housed in the community rather
> than concentration camps.
Yet the UK has not taken as many refugees per capita as Aust - perhaps you
should rectify that before criticising?
> However, its a global problem and it looks like the Australians are
> addressing it with a gun rather than humanity.
As noted, first live up to Australias generous standards in accepting
refugees before criticising Australias standards, then you don't get left
looking a little foolish...
L'acrobat
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:20:03 GMT, jac...@my-deja.com (jacko) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:30:03 +0200, Jim Watt <jim...@nospam.gi>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:17:00 +0200, Daniel Kekäläinen
> >><kecke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>..............................But I understand the Australian point of
view.
> >>
> >>I don't,
> >
> >You're right on the money there Sunshine - you bloody DON'T
> >understand!
>
> >And several polls reveal an overwhelming 95% of the Aussie public
> >supports the current national stance.
>
> More shame on them then.
>
Indeed they must be ashamed, yet think of the shame felt by everyone else in
the world (bar the Canadians) when they consider their own national efforts
in this regard.
L'acrobat
"Demon" <uda...@singapore.com> wrote in message
news:3b8cea37$1...@news.starhub.net.sg...
> the elite special forces to tackle some refugees ? Don't they have better
> things to do...heeee
No not at this time, they are also the most conveniently located, most
strategically mobile, have the best equipment for the job and have the
training to board ships regardless of the captains wish to be boarded.
Should we have sent untrained reservists?
David Bromage
> Quoted by the BBC but was in fact reported by Mark McGill, Channel
> Nine News, on Christmas Island
> "Australian marines powered out to the ship as it came towards land"
>
> But in any case Marines = amphibious troops.
Actually, Australia did have marines at one stage, or more correctly
"naval infantry". Some were sent to China during the Boxer rebellion.
Cheers
David
David Bromage
island. It was flown out by Herc on Tuesday.
There is supposed to be another helo going out on HMAS Arunta. Anybody
know if it's a Squirrel or a Seahawk?
Cheers
David
Geoff Hansford
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:17:00 +0200, Daniel Kekäläinen
> <kecke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Thew norwegian skipper is said to be at least a little bit annoyed since
> >he only did what any person should do - respond to an SOS and rescue
> >those who can be rescued. But I understand the Australian point of view.
>
> I don't, they could easily hide a few small countries in unpopulated
> areas of Australia and as they are all immigrants (one or two
> oppressed natives excluded) they have a pretty shitty attitude.
Really? Australia has more refugees (and other migrants) per capita than
almost any other country in the world. The issue is that these people are
jumping the line, and getting in front of other legitimate refugees waiting
in camps in countries around the world. It isn't a matter of how many, it's
a matter of if we take these que jumpers the same number of refugees (who've
waited longer, and in worse conditions) will miss out. Personally I have
_never_ like que jumpers.
> As you say, the guy who is in the worst position is the skipper who
> behaved decently and legally.
And was instructed (and aware of from the start) that after rescuing these
people he would be returning them to thier port of departure in Indonesia.
It wasn't until later he changed his mind. If he was unwilling to return
them he should have stated so in the beginning when first contacted.
> Sending in the military achieves nothing, except vote catching
> from xenophobes.
Dribble... it achieves fairness for those refugees waiting in camps who
would otherwise have their places in the line taken unfairly from them.
Geoff Hansford
Geoff Hansford
> Jeez you are complaining about a just few thousand people, the
> UK made room for millions of displaced asians, and its now
> full of East Europeans who are housed in the community rather
> than concentration camps.
Australia takes more immigrants and refugees per head of population than
almost any other country in the world. You forget we have a small
population, and we need to be able to provide adequate support for those
people we do take in. There are limits, and we _are_ close to those limits
on a yearly basis already. By people jumping the refugee and immigration
que these illegal immigrants are taking places from those who might well be
more worthy, and certainly have been waiting thier turn longer, often under
difficult circumstances!
<SNIP>
> >I think many people (including refugees who came to Australia legally)
agree
> >with stopping illegal immigrants entering the country and sympathise with
> >sending in the military. Bear in mind the military has also been
mobilised
> >to provide medical and food supplies etc to the survivors.
>
> I see and not of course to ensure they don't land.
Of course, they need to wait until _after_ those people that have indicated
a want and a need to come here as refugees _earlier_ are catered for....
much as one would like to, one country with a small population cannot
support the entire world refugee population. If other 1st world countries
around the world were to take similar per capita intakes of refugees and
migrants to australia then the situation would be much reduced!
> The real solution is to try and help the countries where the migrants
> come from to be better places to live.
And we have a significant input in many countries in the region in the way
of humanitarian aid, training, development help etc!
> However, its a global problem and it looks like the Australians are
> addressing it with a gun rather than humanity.
Australia doesn't have a separate Coast Guard like for example the US. We
use troops (well trained and very well behaved ones by world standards) for
duties like this. As for not dealing with this in a humane manner Australia
_has_ provided more aid to these people than any other country has so far!
We have provided food, medical aid and clothing... unlike for example
Indonesia (whom also have refused entry) and have provided nothing, or
Norway (who's ship the refugees are on, and who have provided nothing and
have refused all responsibility).
Geoff Hansford
Geoff Hansford
> >And several polls reveal an overwhelming 95% of the Aussie public
> >supports the current national stance.
>
> More shame on them then.
Not likely... as stated in several other posts (read them and you'll see),
Australia has _nothing_ to be ashamed about when it comes to comparing us
with almost any other country!
Geoff Hansford
Geoff Hansford
news:Py3j7.2$ni....@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> The ship's master has full discretion as to where he seeks to land the
> refugees ... international law and convention is not specific on the ponit
> ... He doesn't have to go to the nearest port ... he has to balance the
> safety of his ship, the survivors, owners wishes and his own countries
laws
And also the wishes of the country where he wishes to disembark them!
> Commonly, survivors are taken to the next port of call ... time is money
...
Are you trying to imply the next port of call was Christmas Island?!?! It
isn't even big enough in the harbour for that ship. From my memory the next
port of call was in Singapore.
> and the master would not go through a storm or warzone just to go to the
> nearest port ... The ship's master seems to have been emotionally
hijacked.
> It may all be a sham but why would he risk being faced with a deranged
mob.
There is no risk now, the SAS are on board.
> The refugees can be landed, care for, processed and repatriated where
they
> can be safely returned to their country of origin. The government should
> negotiate a mutually agreed protocol within Indonesia to deal with future
> such incidents. Pity they had not thought to do so earlier.
You are assuming that the Indonesian government actually has a genuine
desire for such an agreement, it seems more likely that they are either
unwilling and/or unable to deal with such incidents in any meaningful
manner. I agree it would be desirable for such an agreement, just don't
hold your breathe waiting for it. This situation has basically arisen
because the approaches of the Australian government to the Indonesian
government on this very issue haven't been acted upon.
Geoff Hansford
Andy.B
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:17:00 +0200, Daniel Kekäläinen
> <kecke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Thew norwegian skipper is said to be at least a little bit annoyed since
> >he only did what any person should do - respond to an SOS and rescue
> >those who can be rescued. But I understand the Australian point of view.
>
> I don't, they could easily hide a few small countries in unpopulated
> areas of Australia and as they are all immigrants (one or two
> oppressed natives excluded) they have a pretty shitty attitude.
>
> behaved decently and legally.
>
> from xenophobes.
this matter. Firstly more than 90% of the more than 250 000 polled
defended the goveernments position on this matter and even the
opposition party is in agreeance which speaks volumes itself. Have you
ever been to Australi and seen the places where you thinf we could
hide small countries? It is desert.
Australia is a friendly nation but too many other counties seem to
mitake kindness for weakness and 1000 illegal immigrants in one week
is not good. We have a process for allowing refugees to come to our
country and these boat people are hindering that process. You cannot
expect me to believe that the rest of the world expects us to just
open our arms to anyone who isn't too happy with their lot and wants
an easy change. I don't think so.
And as for the 'they are all immigrants' comment you can shove you
opinions where the sun don't shine you pompous loser!
Roger Fleming
[...]
>Jeez you are complaining about a just few thousand people, the
It's not a few thousnad people, it's a few thousand ~per week~ over and above
the very large numbers of both immigrants and refugees who are accepted
legally.
>UK made room for millions of displaced asians, and its now
>full of East Europeans who are housed in the community rather
>than concentration camps.
Read the facts before you embarrass yourself. UK's record on immigration and
refugee settlement is very inferior to Australia's. In fact we have the
second highest per capita refugee settlement rate in the world, on top of our
large immigration program. This is a program which has existed since at least
WW II. Nearly 30% of the population of Sydney, our largest city, were born
overseas, and a similar proportion do not have English as their primary
language. Our refuggess and immigrants have made Sydney one of the most
ethnically diverse cities in the world, with over 140 cultures represented in
numbers large enough to be classed as "communities" by the government, and
many official government publications now including seventeen languages.
We do, however, have one little caveat; after some embarrassing incidents
involving Nazis sneaking in among refugees after World War II, and more
recently Tong syndicates and suspected SLA war criminals, we do like to do a
little background check to make sure the "refugees" aren't war criminals or
organised crime figures on the run from justice.
Curiously, the current wave of "boat people" have spent a lot of money to go
straight past local free refugee application points to enter the illegal,
dangerous and slow way. Yet at this great cost all they seem to have avoided
is the background check. Things that make you go "Hmmm".
>Even the Irish, have an immigration problem after hundreds of
>years of doing it unto others.
>
>>> As you say, the guy who is in the worst position is the skipper who
>>> behaved decently and legally.
>
>>I agree he is unfortunately caught between a rock and a hard place.
>
>And the incentive is for the next one to look the other way.
Yep. But what he is a victim of, is piratical activities by the people he
rescued. Skippers operating in the area might be well advised to insist their
shipping lines restore their arms lockers.
>>> Sending in the military achieves nothing, except vote catching
>>> from xenophobes.
>
>>I think many people (including refugees who came to Australia legally) agree
>>with stopping illegal immigrants entering the country and sympathise with
>>sending in the military. Bear in mind the military has also been mobilised
>>to provide medical and food supplies etc to the survivors.
>
>I see and not of course to ensure they don't land.
They quite obviously had three roles:
o To provide emergency medical aid to a very remote location from which a PAN
PAN call was received;
o To protect a skipper and crew who reported they feared violence by several
hundred men on board their vessel;
o To prevent crime syndicate employees on the vessel from trying to run it
aground (something they have done in several of the most recent incidents as
they don't get paid unless the passengers touch Australian soil, dead or
alive).
There is no need for them to try to prevent it landing because MV Tampa is
too large to land on or dock at Christmas Island, and the only nearby places
it could dock are in Indonesia, which is where it is meant to be going.
>The real solution is to try and help the countries where the migrants
>come from to be better places to live.
>
>However, its a global problem and it looks like the Australians are
>addressing it with a gun rather than humanity.
Just goes to show the wildly inaccurate opinions that one develops by
accepting 60 second TV sound bites as information, I guess.
Paul J. Adam
<torn...@iprimus.com.au> writes
>The US Marines are equivalent in name only......
They aren't RM Commandos. But the USMC are very good soldiers IMO.
>With my old man in the RM commando's for 27 years I was raised around the
>mob, and if there was one thing I noticed, any RM would be decidedly
>un-chuffed if they were thought to be Army....especially Para!
Of my infantry Permanent Staff Instructors, three were Paras, two were
Light Division (LI or RGJ) and two were RM.
Let's just say that I'd follow any of those gentlemen anywhere without
arguing about the colour of their berets.
Now, each had their own strengths and weaknesses... but that's life.
And they were all _very_ proud of what they had proved and earned. (Else
why is it worth sweating blood to earn?)
Having worked with them and being trained by them, I'd follow any of
those seven WO2s into combat, without hesitation and without pausing to
wonder what colour their beret was.
>Because someone is classed as a Marine of any sort, it doesn't make them a
>Commando (unless your RM). (One who has done the commando course at
>Lympstone).
Nope. But then, you (and I, and most of this group's readership) have
not passed USMC Basic at Parris Island, which is the requirement to call
oneself a "US Marine". The US Marines I've met have caused me to respect
that title.
I like to think I could have earned it if I'd tried when I was younger
(not true of the RM green beret, for me) but, leaving my hubris aside,
the USMC is a much larger force with different needs and requirements.
>This course isn't only done by RM, who do it as part of their basic
>training, it can also be done by Army types and when passed from the course
>it allows them to wear the commando flash on their upper arm on the uniform.
Which would have been nice, but I trained with RM POCs and they
_definitely_ earned that green beret. I know my limits.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
jacko
<husky65@delete_me.iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
>"jacko" <jac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:3b8cec18...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> It's a generic term -
>
>No, its a technical term that describes troops with specific roles and
>training.
>
Wrong again - in the context it was used generically and quite
accurately to describe the waterborne operation.
Do you seriously think the reporter on the spot was unaware of the
unit's actual ID???
Your deeply flawed reasoning would have us believe that all big "M"
Marines are created equal.
This is patently untrue as others have pointed out.
Roger Fleming
"Russell Miles" <rmi...@axs.com.au> wrote:
> The ship's master has full discretion as to where he seeks to land the
> refugees[...]
And on that basis he set course for Merak, clearly the best destination.
However he was forced to Christmas Island, a totally inappropriate
destination, by threats.
> and the master would not go through a storm or warzone just to go to the
> nearest port ...
Merak wasn't through a storm or warzone. It was only 240 km away across open,
fairly calm seas.
> The ship's master seems to have been emotionally hijacked.
I would have said he was literally hijacked. In fact, IANAL but I would hope
some of those on board are going to be charged with piracy. Incidentally, the
latest report from the doctor flown onto the Tampa by the army, is that the
PAN PAN call seems to have been bogus, and no-one on board is seriously
unwell. So there's another crime to charge them with.
> It may all be a sham but why would he risk being faced with a deranged
mob.
> The refugees can be landed, care for, processed and repatriated where
they
> can be safely returned to their country of origin. The government should
> negotiate a mutually agreed protocol within Indonesia to deal with future
> such incidents. Pity they had not thought to do so earlier.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. This is not a new problem
for Australia, although the intensity has been increasing exponentially. The
Australian government has been negotiating with Indonesia for years, and has
even offered to pay outright all costs involved in meeting their obligations
in this area! But Indonesia has done nothing. There are two probable,
speculative reasons for this:
a) Indonesian regional government officials are probably getting kickbacks
from the Tong syndicates who run these rackets. (This was nicely displayed by
the official who recently denied any possibility they current lot had come
from Indonesia, even though the vessel they were on was a large ferry from a
port under his jurisdiction); and
b) The Indonesian government is highly antipathic toward Australia, and
couldn't care less about causing problems for us.
As for repatriating them after they land, that isn't how it works. From that
point on, they cannot be expelled until their refugee status is determined.
They will be detained in a detention centre as illegal immigrants while their
bona fides as refugees are checked. During this process they will be provided
full access to publicly funded solicitors although many seem to hire their own
lawyers. On past experience, about 15% will be determined to be criminal
undesirables and will be deported, while the remaining 85% will eventually be
granted refugee status under the "benefit of the doubt" rule because
investigators will be unable to determine exactly who they are.
jacko
wrote:
> >
> The Pommie audience is well used the hearing about SAS - we've got 'em
> too. I think referring to them as marines is simply BBC lazyspeak
Not at all lazyspeak - it was in fact an Australian reporter on the
spot correctly using a generic term to describe the waterborne
operation in progress.
Do you think they should have interrupted proceedings to provide a
press briefing?
>- if it wears a brown uniform and comes from the sea it must be marines.
They didn't wear brown either - so who's using lazyspeak now? .<grin>
I'm 100% certain that the reporter concerned was well aware of the
unit concerned, the delicacy of the op. and was commendably IMHO being
circumspect A pity the pedants among us choose to make an issue of it.
> I love to cook with wine: sometimes I even put it in the food.
Most commendable!
Cheers
jacko
jacko
wrote:
> In article <3b8c7357...@news.optusnet.com.au> Wed, 29 Aug 2001,
> jacko writes
> >Quoted by the BBC but was in fact reported by Mark McGill, Channel
> >Nine News, on Christmas Island
> >"Australian marines powered out to the ship as it came towards land"
> >
> >But in any case Marines = amphibious troops.
> >
>
> Because in the UK marines is very specific - Royal Marines or their
> equivalent (US Marines being one).
Wrong - the RM and USMC are not equivalent.
> All RM are trained in amphib
> operations, but not all people trained in amphib operations are RM.
> --
Tell me something new..
I'm rather more familiar with the above than you suggest.
Cheers
jacko
David Bromage
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:06:44 +0100, Malcolm <mal...@tosd.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > The Pommie audience is well used the hearing about SAS - we've got 'em
> > too. I think referring to them as marines is simply BBC lazyspeak
>
> Not at all lazyspeak - it was in fact an Australian reporter on the
> spot correctly using a generic term to describe the waterborne
> operation in progress.
I was listening to the BBC World Service over the next few hours. After
the initial gaff they just used "special forces".
> I'm 100% certain that the reporter concerned was well aware of the
> unit concerned
We're talking about Channel 9 here. :)
Cheers
David
L'acrobat
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:08:38 +1000, "L'acrobat"
> <husky65@delete_me.iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >"jacko" <jac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b8cec18...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >> The reporter said small "m" marines amigo - get it?
> >>
> >> It's a generic term -
> >
> >No, its a technical term that describes troops with specific roles and
> >training.
> >
> Technical schmechnical!
Catchy but hardly proves a point does it.
Main Entry: 2marine
Function: noun
Date: 1669
1 a : the mercantile and naval shipping of a country b : seagoing ships
especially in relation to nationality or class
2 : one of a class of soldiers serving on shipboard or in close association
with a naval force; specifically : a member of the U.S. Marine Corps
Not really any soldier in a boat is it?
>
> Wrong again - in the context it was used generically and quite
> accurately to describe the waterborne operation.
Wrong.
>
> Do you seriously think the reporter on the spot was unaware of the
> unit's actual ID???
I suspect that the reporter on the spot was not actually on the spot.
>
> Your deeply flawed reasoning would have us believe that all big "M"
> Marines are created equal.
>
> This is patently untrue as others have pointed out.
and has nothing to do with the issue raised.
Marines are marines, soldiers in boats are not marines.
"Marine" is a technical term, just as "tank" is a technical term the fact
that reporters frequently ID anything with tracks as a tank does not make it
correct.
Jim Watt
<husky65@delete_me.iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Jim Watt" <jim...@nospam.gi> wrote in message
>news:2q9qot82cvm64t390...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> Jeez you are complaining about a just few thousand people, the
>> UK made room for millions of displaced asians, and its now
>> full of East Europeans who are housed in the community rather
>> than concentration camps.
>
>Yet the UK has not taken as many refugees per capita as Aust - perhaps you
>should rectify that before criticising?
Bollocks, the UK has accepted millions of economic migrants and the
Australians are complaining about a few hundred. Cite the source of
+your+ statistics.
>> However, its a global problem and it looks like the Australians are
>> addressing it with a gun rather than humanity.
>
>As noted, first live up to Australias generous standards in accepting
>refugees.
How many concentration camps have you built for them?
JollyGreenGiant
avg taxpayer money when we dont want them here.. cant they understand
they arent welcomed
another supsected boatload is now off FNQ also
Jim Watt
<husky65@delete_me.iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Jim Watt" <jim...@nospam.gi> wrote in message
>news:7e9potcotrbr32rk8...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:17:00 +0200, Daniel Kekäläinen
>> <kecke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Thew norwegian skipper is said to be at least a little bit annoyed since
>> >he only did what any person should do - respond to an SOS and rescue
>> >those who can be rescued. But I understand the Australian point of view.
>>
>> I don't, they could easily hide a few small countries in unpopulated
>> areas of Australia and as they are all immigrants (one or two
>> oppressed natives excluded) they have a pretty shitty attitude.
>>
>> As you say, the guy who is in the worst position is the skipper who
>> behaved decently and legally.
>>
>> Sending in the military achieves nothing, except vote catching
>> from xenophobes.
>
>Given that Australia accepts more refugees per capita than any country in
>the world (with the sole exception of Canada) it is a little strange to see
>Australias position on refugees criticised, perhaps your country could take
>them since it hasn't even lived up to Australias standard that you seem so
>happy to criticise?
Really? and what +exactly+ do you know about Gibraltar ?
>Re Aust is a big place, indeed it is - but it has some of the worst soil in
>the world and the vast majority of Aust cannot support life
Intelligent or otherwise?
Anyway, the way its being presented in the international media is that
Australians are a bunch of xenophobic bastards who are frantically
trying to bring in laws and deploy troops to try and keep out a few
hundred economic migrants from Afghanistan. The pictures of the
military intervention showed guys with guns, not food parcels.
That may not be the accurate picture, but its the one the world
now has of you. Perhaps you should show the dessert more on
TV rather than more attractive images of Australia previously
seen internationally.
However, perhaps the Afghans are ideally suited to living in
parts of your country. They certainly have come a long way
to get there.
However this is way off topic, so I'll leave it there.
Geoff Hansford
> >the world (with the sole exception of Canada) it is a little strange to
see
> >Australias position on refugees criticised, perhaps your country could
take
> >them since it hasn't even lived up to Australias standard that you seem
so
> >happy to criticise?
>
> Really? and what +exactly+ do you know about Gibraltar ?
Gibraltar is hardly relevant to this conversation... a better ask would be
what is the per capita intake of refugees for Norway and for Indonesia, and
what is thier respective governments treatment of refugees compared to
Australia.
> >Re Aust is a big place, indeed it is - but it has some of the worst soil
in
> >the world and the vast majority of Aust cannot support life
>
> Intelligent or otherwise?
Resorting to abuse when you are losing an argument? *sigh*
> Anyway, the way its being presented in the international media is that
> Australians are a bunch of xenophobic bastards who are frantically
> trying to bring in laws and deploy troops to try and keep out a few
> hundred economic migrants from Afghanistan. The pictures of the
> military intervention showed guys with guns, not food parcels.
And you believe everything that is presented in the media without any
question no doubt! Never mind the fact that a sifnificant portion of the
media are after sensationalism and ratings and little concerned with
presenting a balanced and fair picture of the actual situation.
> That may not be the accurate picture, but its the one the world
> now has of you. Perhaps you should show the dessert more on
> TV rather than more attractive images of Australia previously
> seen internationally.
Why should I care what people who can't be bothered taking the time to
accurately assess a situation care about things? Unless they can effect
some action upon us of course... it would be a different matter if things
could not be demonstrated to be different than the way they are being
portrayed if it became necessary.
> However, perhaps the Afghans are ideally suited to living in
> parts of your country. They certainly have come a long way
> to get there.
Perhaps they have come a long way because the countries at the intermediate
points of their journey already have rejected them... however one might
ask... where is their adverse media coverage?
Geoff Hansford
Geoff Hansford
news:3b8d...@nexus.comcen.com.au...
>
>
> "Russell Miles" <rmi...@axs.com.au> wrote:
> > The ship's master has full discretion as to where he seeks to land the
> > refugees[...]
>
> And on that basis he set course for Merak, clearly the best destination.
> However he was forced to Christmas Island, a totally inappropriate
> destination, by threats.
So it has been claimed... there has not been any proof of this claim. And
with some of the other claims (like medical conditions) having been
disproved I would express doubt about this claim of his as well.
> > and the master would not go through a storm or warzone just to go to the
> > nearest port ...
>
> Merak wasn't through a storm or warzone. It was only 240 km away across
open,
> fairly calm seas.
I never said that it was! He _should_ have gone there...
> > The ship's master seems to have been emotionally hijacked.
>
> I would have said he was literally hijacked. In fact, IANAL but I would
hope
> some of those on board are going to be charged with piracy. Incidentally,
the
> latest report from the doctor flown onto the Tampa by the army, is that
the
> PAN PAN call seems to have been bogus, and no-one on board is seriously
> unwell. So there's another crime to charge them with.
You can't have it both ways. Either the master is being honest with us or
he is not. You can't quote his words to support your argument, then doubt
them in another paragraph!
> > It may all be a sham but why would he risk being faced with a deranged
> mob.
Because that is his job! And his legal responsibility! Noone forced him to
become a captain of a vessel.
> > The refugees can be landed, care for, processed and repatriated where
> they
> > can be safely returned to their country of origin.
And that is obviously _not_ Australia, since Australia has had so little
luck repatriating illegal immigrants in the past.
The government should
> > negotiate a mutually agreed protocol within Indonesia to deal with
future
> > such incidents. Pity they had not thought to do so earlier.
I did not say this... you are attributing a comment to me that was quoted
from a previous post. Be careful of your attributions :-/
> You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. This is not a new
problem
> for Australia, although the intensity has been increasing exponentially.
The
> Australian government has been negotiating with Indonesia for years, and
has
> even offered to pay outright all costs involved in meeting their
obligations
> in this area! But Indonesia has done nothing. There are two probable,
> speculative reasons for this:
> a) Indonesian regional government officials are probably getting kickbacks
> from the Tong syndicates who run these rackets. (This was nicely displayed
by
> the official who recently denied any possibility they current lot had come
> from Indonesia, even though the vessel they were on was a large ferry from
a
> port under his jurisdiction); and
> b) The Indonesian government is highly antipathic toward Australia, and
> couldn't care less about causing problems for us.
Both of these seem possible... but they are not reasons for Australia to
roll over and let whoever is responsible get away with thier crimes.
> As for repatriating them after they land, that isn't how it works. From
that
> point on, they cannot be expelled until their refugee status is
determined.
> They will be detained in a detention centre as illegal immigrants while
their
> bona fides as refugees are checked. During this process they will be
provided
> full access to publicly funded solicitors although many seem to hire their
own
> lawyers. On past experience, about 15% will be determined to be criminal
> undesirables and will be deported, while the remaining 85% will eventually
be
> granted refugee status under the "benefit of the doubt" rule because
> investigators will be unable to determine exactly who they are.
This comment refers to the previous poster yet again! Please be more
careful in future!
Geoff Hansford
Graham Watson
>
> That may not be the accurate picture, but its the one the world
> now has of you. Perhaps you should show the dessert more on
> TV rather than more attractive images of Australia previously
> seen internationally.
>
the illegal immigrants have been coming from that shows how arid and
inhospitable the places they are being landed in are.
Brash
--
Bring on the herbivores, I'm hungry.
"Jim Watt" <jim...@nospam.gi> wrote in message
news:1leqotsvmfvfp30e0...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:20:03 GMT, jac...@my-deja.com (jacko) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:30:03 +0200, Jim Watt <jim...@nospam.gi>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:17:00 +0200, Daniel Kekäläinen
> >><kecke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>..............................But I understand the Australian point of
view.
> >>
> >>I don't,
> >
> >You're right on the money there Sunshine - you bloody DON'T
> >understand!
>
> >And several polls reveal an overwhelming 95% of the Aussie public
> >supports the current national stance.
>
> More shame on them then.
Oh? We aren't allowed to determine what happens in our own country? Who
died and made you dictator? If it's all the same with you we'll be master's
our own destinies thanks.
>
> >So just p*ss off to somewhere else where your 5% minority limpwristed
> >views may receive a lukewarmer reception Jimbo.
>
> Guess your wrist gets plenty of exercise.
Brash
insertion ability. Bit hard dropping paratroops onto a moving ship at sea,
don't you think?
--
Bring on the herbivores, I'm hungry.
"Demon" <uda...@singapore.com> wrote in message
news:3b8cea37$1...@news.starhub.net.sg...
> the elite special forces to tackle some refugees ? Don't they have better
> things to do...heeee
> "David Bromage" <dbro...@fang.omni.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3B8C6850...@fang.omni.com.au...
> > Just heard on ABC Newsradio that the Norwegian container ship MV Tampa
> > has been boarded by Australian troops. The ship has been anchored 17nm
> > off Christmas Island since Monday. The ship's engines reportedly started
> > up and it started moving towards Christmas Island.
> >
> > RAAF C-130s brought SAS troops and "fast boats" (presumably Zodiacs or
> > similar) to the island yesterday.
> >
> > HMAS Arunta is en route to the island.
> >
> > cheers
> > David
>
>
Brash
know more about the topic.
--
Bring on the herbivores, I'm hungry.
"jacko" <jac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3b8cec18...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:36:51 +1000, "Brash"
> <acrobat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Oh frogshit Brash - it was a frickin press report. I mostly respeck
> your posts mate but you're being a bit precious here
Hardly. Just pointing out the facts. I can recall how pissed off some
Green Berets were once when they were referred to as "Rangers". It's the
same all over.
arines did he?
>
> No - they were troops in rubber duckies, therefore marine troops by
> any reasonable definition - especially from a TV reporter.
>
> And I doubt that they'd be inclined to give him a pre-embarkation
> briefing on their identity or task.
>
> And anyway if you had any clue about the SASR cadre you'd know they
> were in fact Marines - Royal Marines in case you've not heard of them.
What are you smoking? I have a clue. It's clear you don't. What have the
British Royal Marines got to do with the Australian SASR?
>
> It's not all storming embassies or crawling thru the sand after
> ragheads and eating lizards mate. They do occasionally get their feet
> wet you know..
No shit Sherlock? Kinda like the water ops Troop me and few other blokes
worked with around Cooktown in 1993?
>
> Brash wrote:
> >
> > It would make a huge difference...... to a Marine. No matter the
> > nationality, call a Marine a soldier and watch what happens. Same
applies
> > in reverse.
> >
> Maybe to a jarhead - cut's no ice with me.
>
> Just lighten up a bit mate
>
> Cheers
> jacko
Brash
--
Bring on the herbivores, I'm hungry.
"Iberian" <Ibe...@terra.es> wrote in message
news:9mj5h5$mal$1...@diana.bcn.ttd.net...
>
> "David Bromage" <dbro...@fang.omni.com.au> escribió
>
> > The SAS moved after the Tampa crossed into Australian territorial waters
> > just after 1pm AEST. A police boat also approached the ship behind the
> > zodiacs.
> <snip>
>
> I haven't seen any news on the matter, but I have a doubt after reading
your
> post. If they already had the police boat on station, why did they need
the
> military intervention?
>
> Regards.
>
>
Brash
--
Bring on the herbivores, I'm hungry.
"Jim Watt" <jim...@nospam.gi> wrote in message
news:1btrotgrs2v5j0ktr...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:36:18 +1000, "L'acrobat"
> <husky65@delete_me.iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jim Watt" <jim...@nospam.gi> wrote in message
> >news:2q9qot82cvm64t390...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>
> >> Jeez you are complaining about a just few thousand people, the
> >> UK made room for millions of displaced asians, and its now
> >> full of East Europeans who are housed in the community rather
> >> than concentration camps.
> >
> >Yet the UK has not taken as many refugees per capita as Aust - perhaps
you
> >should rectify that before criticising?
>
> Bollocks, the UK has accepted millions of economic migrants and the
> Australians are complaining about a few hundred. Cite the source of
> +your+ statistics.
And it's not a few hundred dummy. We've had these bastards illegally
entering the country for years. The then consume Australian taxpayer's
money with legal bullshit. Money that could be spent on the Australian
public health system (among other things). You're so worried about these
law-breaking arsholes... have 'em stay at your place.
>
> >> However, its a global problem and it looks like the Australians are
> >> addressing it with a gun rather than humanity.
> >
> >As noted, first live up to Australias generous standards in accepting
> >refugees.
>
> How many concentration camps have you built for them?
You suggest we just let 'em run free? These people are criminals, don't
forget.
Brash
least. Got another wake up call for you buddy. Urban Afghans (or who ever)
would die in the Aussie outback. Why the f**k do you think the aborigines
were nomads?
--
Bring on the herbivores, I'm hungry.
"Jim Watt" <jim...@nospam.gi> wrote in message
news:0qtrot8e8ol84di4t...@4ax.com...
Tornado
| >The US Marines are equivalent in name only......
|
| They aren't RM Commandos. But the USMC are very good soldiers IMO.
Without a doubt, like you indicate each meet the required needs of their
country and their training and expertese is a reflection of each countries
culture, IMO
|
| >With my old man in the RM commando's for 27 years I was raised around the
| >mob, and if there was one thing I noticed, any RM would be decidedly
| >un-chuffed if they were thought to be Army....especially Para!
|
| Of my infantry Permanent Staff Instructors, three were Paras, two were
| Light Division (LI or RGJ) and two were RM.
|
| Let's just say that I'd follow any of those gentlemen anywhere without
| arguing about the colour of their berets.
I wasn't trying to indicate that the differences were serious...in fact I
think a little good natured competition is healthy between services and of
course each service are specialists in their fields.
|
| Now, each had their own strengths and weaknesses... but that's life.
|
| And they were all _very_ proud of what they had proved and earned. (Else
| why is it worth sweating blood to earn?)
|
| Having worked with them and being trained by them, I'd follow any of
| those seven WO2s into combat, without hesitation and without pausing to
| wonder what colour their beret was.
|
|
| >Because someone is classed as a Marine of any sort, it doesn't make them
a
| >Commando (unless your RM). (One who has done the commando course at
| >Lympstone).
|
| Nope. But then, you (and I, and most of this group's readership) have
| not passed USMC Basic at Parris Island, which is the requirement to call
| oneself a "US Marine". The US Marines I've met have caused me to respect
| that title.
|
| I like to think I could have earned it if I'd tried when I was younger
| (not true of the RM green beret, for me) but, leaving my hubris aside,
| the USMC is a much larger force with different needs and requirements.
|
| >This course isn't only done by RM, who do it as part of their basic
| >training, it can also be done by Army types and when passed from the
course
| >it allows them to wear the commando flash on their upper arm on the
uniform.
|
| Which would have been nice, but I trained with RM POCs and they
| _definitely_ earned that green beret. I know my limits.
When I done the PRC, I came away battered and bruised, I decided I prefered
the Navy (I know...hell of a cop-out) but in my defence I had originaly
applied for the RN as a Tiffie, but changed to 'follow in dads foot steps'
only to find it wasn't my cup of tea.
| --
| When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
| W S Churchill
|
| Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
At the end of the day each service in each country train hard at what they
do, and I have nothing but respect for the men & women of these services
that put themselves through the pains of all the involved training to
achieve this.
BR
--
Mark - Maddington
Western Australia
"Patience my Arse...I'm gonna kill somthin'"
"You can run...but you'll only die tired"
Keith Willshaw
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:36:18 +1000, "L'acrobat"
> <husky65@delete_me.iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jim Watt" <jim...@nospam.gi> wrote in message
> >news:2q9qot82cvm64t390...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>
> >> Jeez you are complaining about a just few thousand people, the
> >> UK made room for millions of displaced asians, and its now
> >> full of East Europeans who are housed in the community rather
> >> than concentration camps.
> >
> >Yet the UK has not taken as many refugees per capita as Aust - perhaps
you
> >should rectify that before criticising?
>
> Bollocks, the UK has accepted millions of economic migrants and the
> Australians are complaining about a few hundred. Cite the source of
> +your+ statistics.
>
Millions !
I think not. According to the UNHCR the total number of
refugees in the UK in 1999 was 137,000
From the UNHCR
Refugee Population per 1000 inhabitants in 1999
Australia 3.16
Canada 3.96
France 2.2
Germany 11.86
Norway 10.73
Sweden 17.9
UK 2.33
USA 1.84
Keith
Tom Bickle
the Norwegian to pick them up.
In article <3B8C96EC...@hotmail.com>, Daniel Kekäläinen
<kecke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thew norwegian skipper is said to be at least a little bit annoyed since
> he only did what any person should do - respond to an SOS and rescue
> those who can be rescued. But I understand the Australian point of view.
> Probably a problem that will grow over time... The high tide has not
> come yet.
jacko
<husky65@delete_me.iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
>"jacko" <jac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:3b8dae1d...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:08:38 +1000, "L'acrobat"
>> <husky65@delete_me.iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >"jacko" <jac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3b8cec18...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> Do you seriously think the reporter on the spot was unaware of the
>> unit's actual ID???
>
>I suspect that the reporter on the spot was not actually on the spot.
>
He was!! - and you're a perennial idiot.!
>
>"Marine" is a technical term, just as "tank" is a technical term the fact
>that reporters frequently ID anything with tracks as a tank does not make it
>correct.
>
Tanks eh?
You're really floundering.
PLONK!
jacko
wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 03:09:55 GMT, jac...@my-deja.com (jacko) wrote:
>
>>Not at all lazyspeak - it was in fact an Australian reporter on the
>>spot correctly using a generic term to describe the waterborne
>>operation in progress.
>>
>According to DoD, the use of the word "marine" in the fashion you have
>used it is completely correct, both with and without capitalisation of
>the M. Certainly, no one could sensibly deny that it was a marine
>operation.
>
Well thanks for that Paul - saves me the time and bother of
demolishing the lexicographically challenged L'acrobat et al.
jacko
<acrobat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I've just spent 10 days training with a couple of these blokes. Obviously I
>know more about the topic.
>
Bwahahaha - gotta luv ya Brash but you're such a bloody goose
sometimes.
>"jacko" <jac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:3b8cec18...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>............................................
>> And anyway if you had any clue about the SASR cadre you'd know they
>> were in fact Marines - Royal Marines in case you've not heard of them.
>
>What are you smoking? I have a clue. It's clear you don't. What have the
>British Royal Marines got to do with the Australian SASR?
>
Oh boy - never before have I seen somebody shoot themselves so
spectacularly in the foot!!!!
Ask somebody in the unit - do you understand the term cadre????
Apparently not.
>> It's not all storming embassies or crawling thru the sand after
>> ragheads and eating lizards mate. They do occasionally get their feet
>> wet you know..
>
>No shit Sherlock? Kinda like the water ops Troop me and few other blokes
>worked with around Cooktown in 1993?
>
Really? 1993? Wow!!!!!!!
You're only a rookie mate - try 1957.
And show some bloody respect to your elders. <VBG>
Cheers
jacko
Malcolm
jacko writes
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:08:35 +0100, Malcolm <mal...@tosd.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> In article <3b8c7357...@news.optusnet.com.au> Wed, 29 Aug 2001,
>> jacko writes
>> >Quoted by the BBC but was in fact reported by Mark McGill, Channel
>> >Nine News, on Christmas Island
>> >"Australian marines powered out to the ship as it came towards land"
>> >
>> >But in any case Marines = amphibious troops.
>> >
>> >What's the difficulty with that?
>>
>> Because in the UK marines is very specific - Royal Marines or their
>> equivalent (US Marines being one).
>
>Wrong - the RM and USMC are not equivalent.
Depends on what you mean by equivalent - both come under the Navy rather
than the Army, both are primarily amphibious forces. I agree that they
are not exactly equivalent (since all RMs must be commando trained in
order to pass out, whereas the US Marines operate in a broader
spectrum).
>
>> All RM are trained in amphib
>> operations, but not all people trained in amphib operations are RM.
>> --
> Tell me something new..
>
>I'm rather more familiar with the above than you suggest.
Then why do you seem to be saying that because marines = amphibious
troops and the SAS used boats to get to the ship the use of the word
marine is correct? The Concise Oxford defines a marine as a member of a
body of troops trained to fight on land or sea. By your definition,
troops from various regiments who were put ashore in Normandy are
marines - but try telling them that. I suggest you also try telling a
member of the SAS (Britsh or Australian) that he is a marine and then
wait for the consequence. Or call a marine a soldier and watch the
sparks fly.
The reporter was in error - to describe the SAS as marines because they
used a boat is like saying that I am an airman because I was ferried out
to Singapore by the RAF.
It's all nit-picking, but I'm sure that the SAS blokes were as unchuffed
as a marine would be at the description.
--
Regards
Malcolm
www.tosd.demon.co.uk - HMS SOLEBAY and Battle class website.
Iain Rae
>>news:3b8cec18...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>>>............................................
>>>And anyway if you had any clue about the SASR cadre you'd know they
>>>were in fact Marines - Royal Marines in case you've not heard of them.
>>>
>>What are you smoking? I have a clue. It's clear you don't. What have the
>>British Royal Marines got to do with the Australian SASR?
>>
>>
> Oh boy - never before have I seen somebody shoot themselves so
> spectacularly in the foot!!!!
>
> Ask somebody in the unit - do you understand the term cadre????
> Apparently not.
>
>
hmmm...
Pronunciation: 'ka-"drA, 'kä-, -drE; esp British 'kä-d&(r), 'kA-, -dr&
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Italian quadro, from Latin quadrum square --
more at QUARREL
Date: 1830
1 : FRAME, FRAMEWORK
2 : a nucleus or core group especially of trained personnel able to
assume control and to train others; broadly : a group of people having
some unifying relationship <a cadre of lawyers>
Somehow the thought of 40 bewigged legal counsel boarding a Norwegian
container ship seems strangely appealing :)
Whether they are Royal Marines... I can't see any mention of Marines,
(Royal or Republican) on the RAN website. AFAIAA in recent years the
core qualification is to have passed through the CTCRM at Lympstone and
somehow I can't see that being standard training for Aussie SAS.
Or is this a historical roots thing, in which case maybe it would be
easier just to group them all into "The Duke of York and Albany's
Maritime Regiment of foot"...then again maybe not.
Jim Watt
<keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>Refugee Population per 1000 inhabitants in 1999
>
>Australia 3.16
>Canada 3.96
>France 2.2
>Germany 11.86
>Norway 10.73
>Sweden 17.9
>UK 2.33
>USA 1.84
>
>Keith
Maybe thats 'refugees' for 1999 Keith, not immigrants
over a period. Go to Bradford or Oldham and let me
know if you come across any asians ...
it all rather depends how one defines 'refugee',
techically most are economic migrants.
All in all there are too many, particularly in small boats
crossing the med, sinking and drowning for anyone's
comfort. Not to mention the ones walking down the
channel tunnel, well I know france is bad, but ...
Jim Watt
<geof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Jim Watt" <jim...@nospam.gi> wrote in message
>> >
>> >Given that Australia accepts more refugees per capita than any country in
>> >the world (with the sole exception of Canada) it is a little strange to
>see
>> >Australias position on refugees criticised, perhaps your country could
>take
>> >them since it hasn't even lived up to Australias standard that you seem
>so
>> >happy to criticise?
>>
>> Really? and what +exactly+ do you know about Gibraltar ?
>
>Gibraltar is hardly relevant to this conversation...
You refer to MY country and that is Gibraltar. We also know
a lot about economic migrants, they are washed up on the beaches
regularly.
>And you believe everything that is presented in the media without any
>question no doubt!
Until I discover something to the contrary.
>Why should I care what people who can't be bothered taking the time to
>accurately assess a situation care about things? Unless they can effect
>some action upon us of course...
On that self centered note, what can one say ...
Wirraway
of what Howard and Ruddock are doing. These are
NOT refugees they are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, the
reason you never here of them sinking between
Afganastan and Indonesia is they PAY for commercial
flights to Indonesia than PAY US$10,000 for the
boat to Australia and then dispose of all forms of I.D.
so the Australian govt cannot run a check on them
or verify their bullshit stories, in fact a lot of these
people are Pakistanis pretending to be Afgahns, thank
god the wimps only make 10%.
Wirraway
Roger Fleming
[...]
>I never said that it was!
>I did not say this... you are attributing a comment to me that was quoted
>from a previous post. Be careful of your attributions :-/
>This comment refers to the previous poster yet again! Please be more
>careful in future!
Dude, why don't you _read_ my attributions? My entire post was quoting and
replying to Russell Miles and Russell Miles only, and all quoted text was
correctly attributed to him. I didn't mention your name anywhere.
Cheers,
Roger
(to avoid spam, an obvious part of my email address is reversed)
Vince Brannigan
Wirraway wrote:
I assume that by "australians" you means the descendants of the folks
who were criminals and outcasts in their own land and were dumped in the
southern continent as a way to purge respectable society of their
lotheseome presence after Georgia revolted? Sort of like the reformed
Whores in Judge roy bean.
Vince (who likes australians very much thank you, and enjoyed his time
there.)
Steve Bartman
<keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Refugee Population per 1000 inhabitants in 1999
>
>Australia 3.16
>Canada 3.96
>France 2.2
>Germany 11.86
>Norway 10.73
>Sweden 17.9
>UK 2.33
>USA 1.84
Given that 1 in 7 Mexicans lives in the USA I'd be suspicious of the
definitions used in this list. I doubt many of our migrant and
undocumented workers would call themselves refugees, but they are,
nevertheless, here.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Steve
--
Author of "The PaxAm Solution"
Read excerpts and order on-line at:
http://www.iuniverse.com/marketplace/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0%2D595%2D12935%2D8
Rod Speed
Vince Brannigan <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote in
message news:3B8E85F...@pressroom.com...
> Wirraway wrote
>> I am one of the 90% of Australians that is in favour
>> of what Howard and Ruddock are doing. These are
>> NOT refugees they are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, the
>> reason you never here of them sinking between
>> Afganastan and Indonesia is they PAY for commercial
>> flights to Indonesia than PAY US$10,000 for the
>> boat to Australia and then dispose of all forms of I.D.
>> so the Australian govt cannot run a check on them
>> or verify their bullshit stories, in fact a lot of these
>> people are Pakistanis pretending to be Afgahns,
>> thank god the wimps only make 10%.
> I assume that by "australians" you means the descendants of the
> folks who were criminals and outcasts in their own land and were
> dumped in the southern continent as a way to purge respectable
> society of their lotheseome presence after Georgia revolted?
Just goes to show how stupid your assumptions are then doesnt it ?
Wota pig ignorant wanker.
Vince Brannigan
Rod Speed wrote:
Gee, I thought they made a big thing of being descendants of the "first
fleet" of prisoners and jailers
http://www.pcug.org.au/~pdownes/dps/1stflt.htm
From the "LONDON GAZETTE", October 1788
CONVICTS TRANSPORTED TO THE NEW COLONY
Your Correspondent looks to our Readers and has ascertained
as far as possible the names of those who have been convicted of
crimes in the Country of England since 1783 and have been
sentenced by His Majesty's Judges to be sent to that part of New
Holland known as New South Wales
Your Correspondent looks to our Readers for their indulgence
to involuntary errors and omissions, and trust general attention
will secure us from trespassing on their kindness too often.
Convicts outnumbered jailors and sailors.
Vince
Keith Willshaw
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:51:07 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Refugee Population per 1000 inhabitants in 1999
> >
> >Australia 3.16
> >Canada 3.96
> >France 2.2
> >Germany 11.86
> >Norway 10.73
> >Sweden 17.9
> >UK 2.33
> >USA 1.84
> >
> >Keith
>
> Maybe thats 'refugees' for 1999 Keith, not immigrants
> over a period. Go to Bradford or Oldham and let me
> know if you come across any asians ...
>
You may want to check what percentage of the population
of Australia are either immigrants or descendants of
immigrants.
Its a wee bit higher than that of the UK.
> it all rather depends how one defines 'refugee',
> techically most are economic migrants.
>
The definition is rather clear. Economic Migrants are
denied asylum and get sent home unless they have
a skill we need
> All in all there are too many, particularly in small boats
> crossing the med, sinking and drowning for anyone's
> comfort. Not to mention the ones walking down the
> channel tunnel, well I know france is bad, but ...
>
Does the name Watt originate in Gibraltar or are you too
the descendant of an economic migrant ?
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:dk7totg33dmsefd2t...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:51:07 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Refugee Population per 1000 inhabitants in 1999
> >
> >Australia 3.16
> >Canada 3.96
> >France 2.2
> >Germany 11.86
> >Norway 10.73
> >Sweden 17.9
> >UK 2.33
> >USA 1.84
>
> Given that 1 in 7 Mexicans lives in the USA I'd be suspicious of the
> definitions used in this list. I doubt many of our migrant and
> undocumented workers would call themselves refugees, but they are,
> nevertheless, here.
>
Yes but they are NOT refugees by and large.
There are rather a lot of WASP's and African Americans in the
USA too. None of their ancestors were native to that continent
either.
> Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
>
> Steve
> --
Keith
Andy.B
> Photos in today's Canberra Times of an Iroquois being assembled on the
> island. It was flown out by Herc on Tuesday.
>
> There is supposed to be another helo going out on HMAS Arunta. Anybody
> know if it's a Squirrel or a Seahawk?
>
> Cheers
> David
I will be a Seahawk. HMAS Westralia is enroute also with supplies and
fuel.
I see that the UN is bringing pressure to bear on the government to
find a peaceful resolution to this matter. Gee, it's unlike the UN to
sit on their hands when Indonesia is involved.
L'acrobat
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:30:36 +1000, "L'acrobat"
> <husky65@delete_me.iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >"jacko" <jac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b8dae1d...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:08:38 +1000, "L'acrobat"
> >> <husky65@delete_me.iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"jacko" <jac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:3b8cec18...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >>
> >> Do you seriously think the reporter on the spot was unaware of the
> >> unit's actual ID???
> >
> >I suspect that the reporter on the spot was not actually on the spot.
> >
> He was!! - and you're a perennial idiot.!
Not doing too well are you.
> >
> >"Marine" is a technical term, just as "tank" is a technical term the fact
> >that reporters frequently ID anything with tracks as a tank does not make
it
> >correct.
> >
> Tanks eh?
>
> You're really floundering.
>
> PLONK!
I note you chose not to dispute the common dictionary definition of Marine
(as supplied) and have concentrated on the example give - yet been unable to
refute it.
L'acrobat
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:36:18 +1000, "L'acrobat"
> <husky65@delete_me.iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jim Watt" <jim...@nospam.gi> wrote in message
> >
> >>
> >> Jeez you are complaining about a just few thousand people, the
> >> UK made room for millions of displaced asians, and its now
> >> full of East Europeans who are housed in the community rather
> >> than concentration camps.
> >
> >Yet the UK has not taken as many refugees per capita as Aust - perhaps
you
> >should rectify that before criticising?
>
> Bollocks, the UK has accepted millions of economic migrants and the
> Australians are complaining about a few hundred. Cite the source of
> +your+ statistics.
Look it up, it's commonly available info - UNHCR is a good starting place.
>
> >> However, its a global problem and it looks like the Australians are
> >> addressing it with a gun rather than humanity.
> >
> >As noted, first live up to Australias generous standards in accepting
> >refugees.
>
> How many concentration camps have you built for them?
Yawn, emotive tripe - a little embaressed about how few your country has
actually taken in light of you spouting off about it perhaps?.
L'acrobat
DoD (which one BTW) is simply wrong on this issue (if they actually said
it - a reference would be nice) - Water Ops Sqn of SASR are not marines.
L'acrobat
> >>
> >> Sending in the military achieves nothing, except vote catching
> >> from xenophobes.
> >
> >Given that Australia accepts more refugees per capita than any country in
> >the world (with the sole exception of Canada) it is a little strange to
see
> >Australias position on refugees criticised, perhaps your country could
take
> >them since it hasn't even lived up to Australias standard that you seem
so
> >happy to criticise?
>
> Really? and what +exactly+ do you know about Gibraltar ?
How many refugees per capita has Gibraltar taken in?
>
> >Re Aust is a big place, indeed it is - but it has some of the worst soil
in
> >the world and the vast majority of Aust cannot support life
>
> Intelligent or otherwise?
Losing the argument here and tending to the ad hom, aren't you? - do you
want me to insert comments re the monkey population of Gibraltar or can we
stay above that level.
>
> Anyway, the way its being presented in the international media is that
> Australians are a bunch of xenophobic bastards who are frantically
> trying to bring in laws and deploy troops to try and keep out a few
> hundred economic migrants from Afghanistan. The pictures of the
> military intervention showed guys with guns, not food parcels.
So we find that you take your info from what the TV spoon feeds you, no
surprise here.
>
> That may not be the accurate picture, but its the one the world
> now has of you. Perhaps you should show the dessert more on
> TV rather than more attractive images of Australia previously
> seen internationally.
>
I see so Aust should attempt to kneecap its own tourism (or sweets?)
industry in an effort to prevent illegals getting in?
> However, perhaps the Afghans are ideally suited to living in
> parts of your country. They certainly have come a long way
> to get there.
No they aren't, even the aboriginals had a tough time in much of Aust - a
bunch of Afghans who can afford to pay for the trip are not any more suited
to living in the Simpson desert than you or I.
Geoff Hansford
> who were criminals and outcasts in their own land and were dumped in the
> southern continent as a way to purge respectable society of their
> lotheseome presence after Georgia revolted? Sort of like the reformed
> Whores in Judge roy bean.
I am an Australian, I was born here... I cannot however claim ancestry from
a criminal outcast element! :-) Not alll can you know... my ancestors for
example arrived as voluntary settlers in the 1850's. They went through the
system to arrive legally... they did *not* try and get around the legal
requirements for entry. Nor did almost all of the hundreds of thousands of
refugees and immigrants that Australia has taken in since the second world
war. We welcome legal immigrants, and genuine refugees who have gone
through the relevant procedures. I do not (and most Australians do not)
welcome people attempting to bypass the systems that are already in place by
paying up to $10000 US for a passage to the country I live in just so they
may get entry ahead of many other people whose situation is often much
worse, and who have been waiting often much longer times.
Geoff Hansford
Geoff Hansford
L'acrobat
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:58:47 +1000, "Geoff Hansford"
> <geof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Jim Watt" <jim...@nospam.gi> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >Given that Australia accepts more refugees per capita than any country
in
> >> >the world (with the sole exception of Canada) it is a little strange
to
> >see
> >> >Australias position on refugees criticised, perhaps your country could
> >take
> >> >them since it hasn't even lived up to Australias standard that you
seem
> >so
> >> >happy to criticise?
> >>
> >> Really? and what +exactly+ do you know about Gibraltar ?
> >
> >Gibraltar is hardly relevant to this conversation...
>
> You refer to MY country and that is Gibraltar. We also know
> a lot about economic migrants, they are washed up on the beaches
> regularly.
Could you provide the figures for per capita intake of refugees for your
country? - the UNHCR ones will do.
Or are they a little embaressing in light of your stance on Aust?
>
> >And you believe everything that is presented in the media without any
> >question no doubt!
>
> Until I discover something to the contrary.
Oh dear, a "it was in colour and explained to me in 20 seconds by a pretty
tart so it must be right" admission.
L'acrobat
"Tom Bickle" <thomas-...@unibas.ch> wrote in message
news:300820011537542648%thomas-...@unibas.ch...
> But the SOS was intercepted by the Australian coastguard, who REQUESTED
> the Norwegian to pick them up.
>
I think you'll find it was passed onto Indonesian SAR (25 Aug) who requested
it (being in Indonesias area of responsibility), Aust assisted.
Vince Brannigan
Geoff Hansford wrote:
> "Vince Brannigan" <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote in message
> >
> > I assume that by "australians" you means the descendants of the folks
> > who were criminals and outcasts in their own land and were dumped in the
> > southern continent as a way to purge respectable society of their
> > lotheseome presence after Georgia revolted? Sort of like the reformed
> > Whores in Judge roy bean.
>
> I am an Australian, I was born here... I cannot however claim ancestry from
> a criminal outcast element! :-)
given how many were Irish nationalists , im sorry for you :-)
(ther eis a great line about it in the quiet man.
> Not alll can you know... my ancestors for
> example arrived as voluntary settlers in the 1850's. They went through the
> system to arrive legally... they did *not* try and get around the legal
> requirements for entry. Nor did almost all of the hundreds of thousands of
> refugees and immigrants that Australia has taken in since the second world
> war. We welcome legal immigrants, and genuine refugees who have gone
> through the relevant procedures. I do not (and most Australians do not)
> welcome people attempting to bypass the systems that are already in place by
> paying up to $10000 US for a passage to the country I live in just so they
> may get entry ahead of many other people whose situation is often much
> worse, and who have been waiting often much longer times.
Ah yes, the Majestic equality of hte law that eqally forbids the rich and the
poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread" The USA in its
xenophobic anit semetic purity turned away jews fleeing form the Nazis under
exactly these arguments. We do not solve the problems of tghe world by hoping
that the poor and distressed will jsut kindly kill themselves and stop bothering
us.
vince
Geoff Hansford
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:36:18 +1000, "L'acrobat"
> >>
> >> Jeez you are complaining about a just few thousand people, the
> >> UK made room for millions of displaced asians, and its now
> >> full of East Europeans who are housed in the community rather
> >> than concentration camps.
> >
> >Yet the UK has not taken as many refugees per capita as Aust - perhaps
you
> >should rectify that before criticising?
>
> Bollocks, the UK has accepted millions of economic migrants and the
> Australians are complaining about a few hundred. Cite the source of
> +your+ statistics.
We are complaining about the few hundred? What about the 5000 or so this
past year that *were* stopped. Australia has a migrant and refugee
population in it's 2 major cities of almost 30%! Can London claim the same?
We do not object to legitimate refugees who go through the established
procedures arriving, we object to illegal arrivals attempting to bypass
these systems by paying bribes to criminal people smugglers. Australia has
accepted qround the 100,000 people per year mark and often much more than
that for many years. With our population that is a huge impost, but one we
_*are* willing to take. We are *not* willing to take people who are
attempting to enter illegally!
> >> However, its a global problem and it looks like the Australians are
> >> addressing it with a gun rather than humanity.
> >
> >As noted, first live up to Australias generous standards in accepting
> >refugees.
>
> How many concentration camps have you built for them?
Zero *frown* We have built detention centres (at substantial cost) for
illegal immigrants... these are not concentration camps, they are not jails.
If people wish to not be detained whilst their claim to be assessed as a leg
itimate refugee or not is assessed then they should go through the correct
procedures for entering Australia. The people on the ship in question
passed through countries where they could have applied for Australian entry.
They chose not to... no doubt because they wished to get a jump on other
people (many of which are in greater need).
Geoff Hansford
Geoff Hansford
> >
> >Gibraltar is hardly relevant to this conversation...
>
> You refer to MY country and that is Gibraltar. We also know
> a lot about economic migrants, they are washed up on the beaches
> regularly.
I never mentioned Gibraltar, I merely stated it wasn't relevant because you
mentioned it! Another poster made the Gibralter comment earlier in the
thread! *GET YOUR ATTRIBUTIONS CORRECT!*
> >And you believe everything that is presented in the media without any
> >question no doubt!
>
> Until I discover something to the contrary.
Not a very realistic approach :-)
> >Why should I care what people who can't be bothered taking the time to
> >accurately assess a situation care about things? Unless they can effect
> >some action upon us of course...
>
> On that self centered note, what can one say ...
There isn't a law against self interest you know... one (and ones country)
does the possible, not the impossible. There are limits to what can be
done! *after* one looks after one's families needs, and one's countries
needs etc, *then and only then* it is incumbent to offer what aid can be
given. There is not any moral imperative to offer aid in excess of
capability to the detriment of the aider *frown*
YMMV (and it probably does)
Geoff Hansford
Geoff Hansford
"Roger Fleming" <ro...@liamsat.com> wrote in message
news:3b8e...@nexus.comcen.com.au...
> "Geoff Hansford" <geof...@hotmail.com> replied to me:
> [...]
> >I never said that it was!
> [...]
> >I did not say this... you are attributing a comment to me that was quoted
> >from a previous post. Be careful of your attributions :-/
> [...]
> >This comment refers to the previous poster yet again! Please be more
> >careful in future!
>
> Dude, why don't you _read_ my attributions? My entire post was quoting and
> replying to Russell Miles and Russell Miles only, and all quoted text was
> correctly attributed to him. I didn't mention your name anywhere.
You posted under my reply not under his, that is (correctly) regarded as
defacto attribution in many ng's.
YMMV
Geoff Hansford
Ozee Baron
and that is for the United nations to begin taking control of all the Boat
people every where and for the united nations to determine if they are true
Refugees and then the United nations can assign proportionally the people
around the world....
Also the United nation should have their own Camps to export all boat people
to when they arrive untill proof has been assertained that they are true
refugees....and then they will be assigned a country of the united nations
choice and not the refugees.
That would solve Australias probelems to no end......but untill then we
don't want em at all.
That is the future and it is the only fair way it can be done....but until
it is done
kaos....These people only want Australia and that has to be stopped ....
the latest I have heard is that some blood stupid Labor civil liberty
lawyers in Australa have offered free services to the 400 or so people to
get them into Australia....Well Fuck them....Typical socialist friggin
lawyers....
give free work to non Australians but if you live in Australia you pay
throught the nose for them....
Ozee Baron
"Malcolm" <mal...@tosd.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:isyZqdAVihj7Ewb$@tosd.demon.co.uk...
Andrew
"Brash" <acrobat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3b8cc58c$0$20912$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>...
> It would make a huge difference...... to a Marine. No matter the
> nationality, call a Marine a soldier and watch what happens. Same applies
> in reverse.
>
> --
> Bring on the herbivores, I'm hungry.
>
>
> "jacko" <jac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:3b8c7357...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:19:56 +1000, JollyGreenGiant
> > <so...@ihug.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > >ahh we did along time ago remebr in 1788 they wana sound pommie to their
> > >own uk audience rember..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >David Bromage wrote:
> > >>
> > >> And thanks to the BBC. I didn't know that Australia had "marines". :)
> > >>
> > Quoted by the BBC but was in fact reported by Mark McGill, Channel
> > Nine News, on Christmas Island
> > "Australian marines powered out to the ship as it came towards land"
> >
> > But in any case Marines = amphibious troops.
> >
> > What's the difficulty with that?
> >
> > Cheers
> > jacko
> >
Ozee Baron
Well well what have we here....
A slightly intelligent man that can hold his own in conversation ....
I would figure this man to be at least a socialist or Labour voting man that
has the poor little guy on the street
in dire need held very high in his heart...... Hmmmmm makes ya wonder don't
it, I could even place this guy ( Vince ) in
some little Uni sometime in the past....you know those types that just keep
on studying and never using the
greater knowledge that they suck out of the system except to protest the
civil rights of the lesser people of the world.
Chain them selves to the wharf while uranium exits the country etc.
I can only say my dear chap....oh dear what have they taught you up there in
those halls of knowledge.....how to
solve the crisis of the world and fix mankinds problems by the power of the
word....... etc etc blah blah
I say as far as the boat people go ......fuck em.....
Ozee Baron
problems with some immigrant types such as the Indian or Pakistan intake..
if memory serves me there were riots in the streets of the UK and loss of
control by the government ...and I am sure that the people of The UK did
complain a bit about the intakes of these people.....
There is more Racial tension and violence in the UK than any other
country...so I dont think that anyone from the UK can even have a minor say
here about the boat people until they fix themselves first.
Terry
"L'acrobat" <husky65@delete_me.iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3b8e...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Ozee Baron
throw in
a different argument to divert the attention to your inability to answer or
give any credible reponse
You simply try to attack the sole of the person writing such as "Wirraway "
You most definatly are a Uni student ( Or were ) full of spitefull knowledge
that does not work to any good.
Terry O'Brien
"Vince Brannigan" <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote in message
news:3B8E85F...@pressroom.com...
Vince Brannigan
Ozee Baron wrote:
> I say as far as the boat people go ......fuck em.....
Is that Zyklon B or soemthing else you would use?
Vince
Vince Brannigan
Ozee Baron wrote:
> Typical , you can't think of a sensible response so you have to resort to
> throw in
> a different argument to divert the attention to your inability to answer or
> give any credible reponse
> You simply try to attack the sole of the person writing such as "Wirraway "
> You most definatly are a Uni student ( Or were ) full of spitefull knowledge
> that does not work to any good.
>
> Terry O'Brien
I have never attacked any person on the internet in any way shape or form. I
was simply pointing out the incongruity of Australians, a nation that celebrates
its descent from criminals and outcasts, heaping such intemperate scorn on
person who are , in many ways no different from those who populated the First
fleet. A quick search of the Internet would easily reveal who I am and what I
do. http://www.enfp.umd.edu/faculty/faculty_bran.htm
I have spent a career trying to save folks from technological hazards. I have
even taken this effort to Australia.
I will make and continue to make the following responses
1) the effort by australia to use force to push persons rescued at sea out of
its territorial waters rather than adjudicate their claims for asylum is
unprecedented under international law. The USA currently has many thousands of
person under detention who are not entitled to asylum but cannot be deported.
It si a problem but that is part of the burden of being a nation.
2) more specifically, once australia puts its armed forces on a ship, it is
responsible for the ship.
All the tub thumping by Australian politicans to appeeal for votes does not
chage the burdens put on a country by international law.
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Peter Kemp
news:bUAj7.2904$jK5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> There is more Racial tension and violence in the UK than any other
> country...so I dont think that anyone from the UK can even have a minor
say
> here about the boat people until they fix themselves first.
Get real. Zimbabwe? South Africa? Irian Jaya? If you think the UK compares
to any of those in intolerance of immigrant populations you hsven't been
there for a loooong time, or spent your time in BNP headquarters.
In case you hadn't noticed the UK has a major problem with IIs as well, with
hundreds trying to break into the Eurotunnel every night, dozens more trying
to paddle across the channel in toy dinghys. One group even hung onto the
side of a cross channel ferry. I'd say we have every right to comment.
Peter Kemp
Greg Yantz
> "Steve Bartman" <sbar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:dk7totg33dmsefd2t...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:51:07 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
[snip]
> There are rather a lot of WASP's and African Americans in the
> USA too. None of their ancestors were native to that continent
> either.
To clarify:
NOBODY is native to this continent.
-Greg
Rod Speed
>>>> I am one of the 90% of Australians that is in favour
>>>> of what Howard and Ruddock are doing. These are
>>>> NOT refugees they are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, the
>>>> reason you never here of them sinking between
>>>> Afganastan and Indonesia is they PAY for commercial
>>>> flights to Indonesia than PAY US$10,000 for the
>>>> boat to Australia and then dispose of all forms of I.D.
>>>> so the Australian govt cannot run a check on them
>>>> or verify their bullshit stories, in fact a lot of these
>> >> people are Pakistanis pretending to be Afgahns,
>>>> thank god the wimps only make 10%.
>>> I assume that by "australians" you means the descendants of the
>>> folks who were criminals and outcasts in their own land and were
>>> dumped in the southern continent as a way to purge respectable
>>> society of their lotheseome presence after Georgia revolted?
>> Just goes to show how stupid your assumptions are then doesnt it ?
>> Wota pig ignorant wanker.
> Gee, I thought
Liar, dog shit cant think.
> they made a big thing of being descendants
> of the "first fleet" of prisoners and jailers
More fool you. As usual.
> http://www.pcug.org.au/~pdownes/dps/1stflt.htm
> From the "LONDON GAZETTE", October 1788
> CONVICTS TRANSPORTED TO THE NEW COLONY
> Your Correspondent looks to our Readers and has ascertained
> as far as possible the names of those who have been convicted of
> crimes in the Country of England since 1783 and have been
> sentenced by His Majesty's Judges to be sent to that part of New
> Holland known as New South Wales
> Your Correspondent looks to our Readers for their indulgence
> to involuntary errors and omissions, and trust general attention
> will secure us from trespassing on their kindness too often.
> Convicts outnumbered jailors and sailors.
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to work out that its just a
tad unlikely that we are all descended from those on that particular list, stupid.
Rod Speed
> A quick search of the Internet would easily reveal who I am and what I do.
Wank.