Asylum-seekers 'dead, missing' in explosion on way to Christmas Island

helicart · 23 April 2009

Julia said:
Helicart: why do I call them asylum seekers? What would you like me to call them? Illegal immigrants? OK, I'm fine with that. I probably just used the term asylum seekers because that is how they are most commonly referred to. I don't think it's all that important. If they feel they are religiously persecuted I'd imagine it's reasonably appropriate for them to 'seek asylum'.

Then you haven't appreciated anything I said above about the total fallacy of Afghanis travelling as far as Australia to claim asylum....and there's no real point in me engaging you further on the matter.

I don't think we know yet the stated reasons for the currently hospitalised people's attempting to come here. Religious persecution by the Taliban was stated by the bunch which were intercepted in Indonesia.

All Afghanis have asylum in Pakistan Julia, and Hazara get it in Iran. They are Shiite Muslims. Australia isn't a Muslim nation. They come here not to pursue their religion with like mindeds but to pursue economic benefits that they then remit back to their communities in Afghanistan....

Are you saying they are not persecuted in Afghanistan? (and please it would be good if you just answer the question without attempting to paint me as a left wing refugee advocate which I'm not.)

There's 3.3 million Hazara in Afghanistan.
They have been getting a hard time again from the Taliban....the group the Coalition have been trying to keep from imposing Sharia law on women just like you. If the Coalition leave, Hazara are likely to be marginalized moreso.

But that doesn't concern me. The population of Afghanistan has grown enormously in the last 20 years, far beyond what the disrupted farmland can support.....a similar situation exists in Sudan where genocide has been carrried out. One way or the other, overpopulation has to be resolved. Do you want 10 million Sudanese and 3 million Afghanis to roll up in Australia seeking asylum from persecution?

My previous post raised the point that the invasion by the West of both Iraq and Afghanistan has caused the deterioration of living conditions in both countries. Under Saddam, e.g. Iraquis had to tread carefully, but the country was largely functional, they had consistent electricity, water supply, education, etc and did not have to fear being blown up every time they left their homes.

The reasons offered by GWB - and supported by our own government at the time and apparently still supported with respect to Afghanistan - for invading both these countries is complete bull**** imo. In Iraq there were no weapons of mass destruction - though this was later swept under the carpet and replaced by the apparent messianic zeal to bring democracy to the Middle East.

If Middle East countries are not attracted to democracy, then I don't think it's any of our business. It was a completely spurious rationale for being over there.

I'm simply attempting to tread an objective path in this discussion. I don't want these people in Australia, but at the same time I can appreciate what hell their lives must be in their home countries, and at least part of this misery has been contributed by the US, Australia et al.

The lives of most of the world are hell compared to yours Julia.

Your opinions demonstrate a superficial populist anti American interpretation of recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan and the repressive violent threat of extremist Islamism, not only to non Islamist democracies, but to moderate Islamists everywhere.

Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, Al Queda's ongoing destructive destablization of Iraq, Afghanistan's history (feudal kings, communist revolution, Russia's muderous invasion, mujahideen and civil war, taliban and Sharia law) need to be understood to engage meaningfully on these matters.

It's Snake Pliskin · 23 April 2009

helicart said:
Snake, with a name like that, are you ex defence forces or did you just enjoy the movie?

Helicart,
No, but I love the two movies which Snake Pliskin is in. It's a really cool name I think.

GumbyLearner · 23 April 2009

Can anyone on this thread confirm or deny that the refugees identity papers eg. passports, birth certificates etc... were not consumed by the fire resulting from the explosion on the vessel they were chartered on?

Julia · 23 April 2009

helicart said:
The lives of most of the world are hell compared to yours Julia.

Could be a bit of an overstatement.

Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, Al Queda's ongoing destructive destablization of Iraq, Afghanistan's history (feudal kings, communist revolution, Russia's muderous invasion, mujahideen and civil war, taliban and Sharia law) need to be understood to engage meaningfully on these matters.

None of the above were the stated reasons for the presence of the 'coalition of the willing' in either country.

Are you saying you supported the invasion of both countries, and likewise support our continued presence ? Do you think the war in Afghanistan is winnable?

Calliope · 23 April 2009

The 32 Sri Lankan illegal immigrants apprehended off Barrow Island are just the forerunner of a deluge of Tamil Tigers fleeing from the Sri Lankan government forces. In Sri Lanka they are regarded as terrorists.

I have little doubt that they will eventually be granted asylum here rather than be returned to face justice. They will join the growing band of Tamil dissidents already here attempting to carry on their divisive activities.

helicart · 23 April 2009

Julia said:
Could be a bit of an overstatement.

Ask any defence force personnel who have been there.....

None of the above were the stated reasons for the presence of the 'coalition of the willing' in either country.

Are you saying you supported the invasion of both countries, and likewise support our continued presence ? Do you think the war in Afghanistan is winnable?

You'll need to post an understanding of the political history of Afghanistan since at least 1980 before I'll debate the matter further with you.

While you at it, you better report back on the consequences of extremist Islamic control of Afghanistan on Pakistan and control of its nuclear weaponry. The attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in India by extremist elements is the tip of an iceberg you would do well to get a grip on.

Julia · 23 April 2009

They were simple questions, helicart. The history wasn't offered as any part of reason for invading either Afghanistan or Iraq. With Iraq it was because they were declared to be holding weapons of mass destruction and with Afghanistan GWB asserted he was 'going to get Bin Laden'.

Btw, I'm not - as you previously asserted - anti-American. Just anti-war. So don't draw unreasonable conclusions. Ditto asserting my life is better than most of the rest of the world. You don't know anything about what my life is like.

helicart · 23 April 2009

Julia said:
They were simple questions, helicart. The history wasn't offered as any part of reason for invading either Afghanistan or Iraq. With Iraq it was because they were declared to be holding weapons of mass destruction and with Afghanistan GWB asserted he was 'going to get Bin Laden'.

Btw, I'm not - as you previously asserted - anti-American. Just anti-war. So don't draw unreasonable conclusions. Ditto asserting my life is better than most of the rest of the world. You don't know anything about what my life is like.

Re your life, sorry, I was unaware it is so bad you have been driven to seek political and economic asylum outside Australia.

So this anti-war stance you have....how many provisos do you have on that, or is it carte blanche? If carte blanche then you must also be anti-self defence in any form.....otherwise, the anti-war cliche is just a quaint but vacuous and lacking in substance identifier you label yourself with to gain favour with other dreamy idealists..... I am surprised you are at home on the puter rather than out throwing shoes at Anzacs this morning.

If Afghanistan was invaded to get one man, then why do your anti war liberal progressive heroes Obama, Rudd, Brown, and other socialist govts support an ongoing presence there?

As I said, you need to understand the issues more deeply than portrayed by left leaning media whose intent is to lampoon conservatives, dumb down the issues, and get feel good 'head in the sand' govt into power.

derty · 23 April 2009

Helicart, you write with eloquence and it appears from experience. Some of your points I agree with, some I do not.

However, your apparent necessity to demean through gross generalisations anyone who presents a view or question counter to your held ideologies is not necessary and lessens the value of what you have to say.

helicart · 23 April 2009

derty said:
Helicart, you write with eloquence and it appears from experience. Some of your points I agree with, some I do not.

However, your apparent necessity to demean through gross generalisations anyone who presents a view or question counter to your held ideologies is not necessary and lessens the value of what you have to say.

derty, thanks for the backhander. unfortunately, you are expressing a bias against me, in not demonstrating the subtlety to note my antagonists demean my posts by
A: repetitively retorting to my elaborated and time intensive posts, with the same generalist PC rhetoric I get every night on the news.
B: the prolific use of non sequiturs, and other logical fallacies such as post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I am yet to see signs that those who wish to demean my views have bothered to deepen their understanding of issues they have strong opinions about, specifically Julia and GnomeBoy.

Well might you consider my posts demeaning to my antagonists, as I equally consider their posts demeaning and disrespectful to those we charge with responsibility for our national security (govt and the defence forces), who don't have the quaint convenient and delusional luxury of an anti-war anti-panty 'she'll be right mate, the future can sort itself out' Darwinian survival disadvantage.

Julia · 23 April 2009

Julia said:
Do we have some sort of moral obligation towards asylum seekers from Iraq and Afghanistan, given our participation in the so called coalition of the willing which wreaked destruction on these countries?

helicart said:
I agree we shouldn't be there at all........like the US, we'll go insolvent if we try to sort out every country's problems.

helicart, my apologies. I overlooked that you had already answered the question.

mayk · 23 April 2009

helicart said:
You'll need to post an understanding of the political history of Afghanistan since at least 1980 before I'll debate the matter further with you.

While you at it, you better report back on the consequences of extremist Islamic control of Afghanistan on Pakistan and control of its nuclear weaponry. The attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in India by extremist elements is the tip of an iceberg you would do well to get a grip on.

Helicart, never let facts get in the way of a good story?

P.S. I hope it is a technical error. I do enjoy your posts.

helicart · 23 April 2009

mayk said:
Helicart, never get facts get in the way of a good story?

P.S. I hope it is a technical error. I do enjoy your posts.

Whoops....my mistake.....I confused attacks on the Mumbai Taj and the Sri Lankan Cricket team.

helicart · 23 April 2009

Some news on the latest from Afghanistan....even though Australia has troops over there, the Aust media rarely report the bigger picture. This story gives some credence to the desire of the Taliban and other extremist Islamics to take hold of Pakistan. This is a serious concern to democracies especially India....because Al Queda and supporters would then have access to plutonium to make dirty bombs, let alone 55 nuclear warheads.... It has been suggested Iran has postponed its own nuclear weapon development in preference to fund subversive operations aimed at placing an Al Queda sympathetic govt in Pakistan.....

Meanwhile the Obama administration is funding Pakistan to the tune of 1.5B usd per year to take on these insurgents....ineffectively.

A short quote by Hillary Clinton from one of the articles

"Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, testifying for the first time before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the "existential threat" posed by Taliban extremists in Pakistan should not be underestimated, painting the picture of a nuclear-armed state that is in danger of collapsing.

"Pakistan poses a mortal threat to the security and safety of Americans and the world," said Clinton, who asserted that the Pakistani government is "basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists" with the cease-fire, which was approved by Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari."

And let's not forget Hilary is no conservative Hawk.

If Pakistan falls, the world will change very very quickly. POG will go over 2000USD very quckly imho. and you can be certain there will be a Coalition of the Willing tax imposed on all democracies to deal with the situation....though if the west waits until Taliban sympathizers control military assets, it will be too late. The plutonium will be taken out to Iran and Afghanistan hideouts and the West will be at risk of terrorist attacks that will make 911 look like a Sunday picnic.

I am sure some of you are aware of Nassim Taleb's Black Swan events.....this is a biggie.....Scroll back through your charts and have a look what happened to the indices on 11/9/01, and then again in the hours after the London transit bombings.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/04/taliban_flex_muscles.php
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/04/23/us_fears_taliban_gains_in_pakistan/

helicart · 23 April 2009

Something to make Aussies think about the pitfalls of Muslim migrants coming to Australia in numbers too large to integrate in a timely manner.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0327/p04s01-woeu.html

mayk · 23 April 2009

helicart said:
Some news on the latest from Afghanistan....even though Australia has troops over there, the Aust media rarely report the bigger picture. This story gives some credence to the desire of the Taliban and other extremist Islamics to take hold of Pakistan. This is a serious concern to democracies especially India....because Al Queda and supporters would then have access to plutonium to make dirty bombs, let alone 55 nuclear warheads.... It has been suggested Iran has postponed its own nuclear weapon development in preference to fund subversive operations aimed at placing an Al Queda sympathetic govt in Pakistan.....

Meanwhile the Obama administration is funding Pakistan to the tune of 1.5B usd per year to take on these insurgents....ineffectively.

A short quote by Hillary Clinton from one of the articles

"Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, testifying for the first time before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the "existential threat" posed by Taliban extremists in Pakistan should not be underestimated, painting the picture of a nuclear-armed state that is in danger of collapsing.

"Pakistan poses a mortal threat to the security and safety of Americans and the world," said Clinton, who asserted that the Pakistani government is "basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists" with the cease-fire, which was approved by Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari."

And let's not forget Hilary is no conservative Hawk.

If Pakistan falls, the world will change very very quickly. POG will go over 2000USD very quckly imho. and you can be certain there will be a Coalition of the Willing tax imposed on all democracies to deal with the situation....though if the west waits until Taliban sympathizers control military assets, it will be too late. The plutonium will be taken out to Iran and Afghanistan hideouts and the West will be at risk of terrorist attacks that will make 911 look like a Sunday picnic.

I am sure some of you are aware of Nassim Taleb's Black Swan events.....this is a biggie.....Scroll back through your charts and have a look what happened to the indices on 11/9/01, and then again in the hours after the London transit bombings.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/04/taliban_flex_muscles.php
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/04/23/us_fears_taliban_gains_in_pakistan/

Hahaha!

This is paranoia!

First, Pakistan's Nuclear technology is not based on Plutonium, a simple Google search can reveal that. But you were busy connoting a story to scare people, again never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Second, Taliban are not the existential threat as reported by the media. It is a strategy (although stupid) of making the west coughing up the money, so that it can prop up its army and bureaucracy, which is creating this whole charade.

Third, Iran and Pakistan are not friends, just neighbors, and that too bitter ones (again shiite and sunni rivalry at play here).

Fourth, If in the end shiit does hit the fan, US must have planned to secure the nukes. Or buy them off. Seeing how greedy they are I don't think they would mind selling them off to US...

Lastly, Creating paranoid scenarios is the quickest way to try to shoot up the price of gold (at least in your head and justify hanging on to your GOLD) and trying to connect the dots might lead to only more dots, as not explained by Dr. Taleb.

mayk · 23 April 2009

helicart said:
Something to make Aussies think about the pitfalls of Muslim migrants coming to Australia in numbers too large to integrate in a timely manner.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0327/p04s01-woeu.html

But you would agree to keep the Tamils?

helicart · 24 April 2009

mayk said:
Hahaha!

This is paranoia! Classic case of that too! Stop smoking what ever you are smoking...

First, Pakistan's Nuclear technology is not based on Plutonium, a simple Google search can reveal that. But you were busy connoting a story to scare people, again never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

deary me, yet another Glass House devotee....

Thanks for clarifying the limits of your ability to google MayK.....Did I say the nuclear warheads were plutonium based and are you saying Pakistan can't produce plutonium?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/nuke-stockpile.htm

Second, Taliban are not the existential threat as reported by the media. It is a strategy (although stupid) of making the west coughing up the money, so that it can prop up its army and bureaucracy, which is creating this whole charade.

hhahahahhaha......got a live one here.
Quick, go enlighten the UN, India, the UK, and US about your views May

Third, Iran and Pakistan are not friends, just neighbors, and that too bitter ones (again shiite and sunni rivalry at play here).

You must be tired May.....did I even imply Iran and Pakistan are friends.....

Fourth, If in the end shiit does hit the fan, US must have planned to secure the nukes. Or buy them off. Seeing how greedy they are I don't think they would mind selling them off to US...

toking some Afghani resin late at night hey May? That's the most puerile thing said on this thread yet. Here's the US giving 1.5b a year to pakistan, and half the world in Afghanistan trying to stop nuclear arms and material falling into extremist hands, and you think the US can just walk in and buy them from the Pakis hahaha

Lastly, Creating paranoid scenarios is the quickest way to try to shoot up the price of gold (at least in your head and justify hanging on to your GOLD) and trying to connect the dots might lead to only more dots, as not explained by Dr. Taleb.

.........how much GOLD have I got MayK?

for anyone else reading this, there's enough legitimate resources on the net confirming the threat is real.....even though MayK couldn't find them, and decided to make it up on the cannabis resin assisted fly.....

helicart · 24 April 2009

mayk said:
But you would agree to keep the Tamils?

I was happy pre Rudd Mayk.....and you're happy to put up all Hazara and Tamils at your place? as they're all persecuted in your books...maybe you and Barnesy can lease a P&O liner and help them over for visa and asylum seeker processing....save them the stress of dealing with Rudd's scumbag low life new pubic enemy no.1 'People Smugglers'

and hey, I hear Iran can't handle anymore than the 2 million afghanis refugees it has accepted over the years. better go fetch them too.....life would be a bitch there huh? better bring em out here..... I mean otherwise how are you going to retain your smug moral superiority and righteous indignation....

disarray · 24 April 2009

mayk said:
First, Pakistan's Nuclear technology is not based on Plutonium, a simple Google search can reveal that. But you were busy connoting a story to scare people, again never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

a simple google search begs to differ.

wiki said:
In the mid 1980s, Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission began to pursue Plutonium production capabilities. Consequently Pakistan built the 40-50 MW (megawatt, thermal) Khushab Research Reactor at Joharabad, and in April 1998, Pakistan announced that the nuclear reactor was operational.

In late 2006, the US Institute for Science and International Security released intelligence reports and imagery showing the construction of a new plutonium reactor at the Khushab nuclear site. The reactor is deemed to be large enough to produce enough plutonium to facilitate the creation of as much as "40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year." The New York Times carried the story with the insight that this would be Pakistan's third plutonium reactor, signalling a shift to dual-stream development, with Plutonium-based devices supplementing the nation's existing HEU stream to atomic warheads.

mayk said:
Second, Taliban are not the existential threat as reported by the media. It is a strategy (although stupid) of making the west coughing up the money, so that it can prop up its army and bureaucracy, which is creating this whole charade.

and you base this on what?

mayk said:
Third, Iran and Pakistan are not friends, just neighbors, and that too bitter ones (again shiite and sunni rivalry at play here).

sunni and shia muslims will fight the infidel first before turning back upon each other. in 2007 iran and saudi arabia held a summit with ahmadinejad coming home and saying ...

President Ahmadinejad of Iran said:
"Both Iran and Saudi Arabia are aware of the enemies' conspiracies. We decided to take measures to confront such plots. Hopefully, this will strengthen Muslim countries against oppressive pressure by the imperialist front."

mayk said:
Fourth, If in the end shiit does hit the fan, US must have planned to secure the nukes. Or buy them off. Seeing how greedy they are I don't think they would mind selling them off to US...

i have heard of quite a few contingencies the US may have planned in the event of pakistan losing control of their nuclear arsenal. bunker buster strikes, suicide commando squads and so on. i'm sure israel would also let the nukes fly before they let the radicals get their hands on the pakistani stockpile.

mayk said:
Lastly, Creating paranoid scenarios is the quickest way to try to shoot up the price of gold (at least in your head and justify hanging on to your GOLD) and trying to connect the dots might lead to only more dots, as not explained by Dr. Taleb.

it doesn't seem overly paranoid to me. given the current state of the country pakistan may very well collapse, and given the current state of the global economy it may very well have severe economic repercussions.

Asylum-seekers 'dead, missing' in explosion on way to Christmas Island

helicart

It's Snake Pliskin

GumbyLearner

Julia

In Memoriam

Calliope

helicart

Julia

In Memoriam

helicart

derty

helicart

Julia

In Memoriam

mayk

helicart

helicart

helicart

mayk

mayk

helicart

helicart

disarray

Asylum-seekers 'dead, missing' in explosion on way to Christmas Island

In Memoriam

In Memoriam

In Memoriam

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency