Waleed thinks war should be fair
Waleed Ali complains about drones and pontificates;
War is a kind of contract. Each side confronts the other, with the risk of death and defeat. In short, war should come at a cost. That contract is shredded when you’re attacked by something that cannot itself be killed. It’s not remotely a fair fight.
War is not supposed to be a fair fight and if it is it’s a pain in the arse. As David Hackworth once said “If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn’t plan your mission properly”. As further evidence Waleed is a military illiterate he says;A US drone costs anywhere from $5 million to $10 million. Depending on who you believe, China can build them for less than $1 million. If that’s true, you can forget any idea of an American monopoly on the drone market. Now consider China’s customers: countries who want cheap weapons, and who’d rather not buy them from America or Israel. Really, anyone in the developing world is a candidate. It’s hard to resist the conclusion that we’re staring at the future of warfare.
Waleed, the reason drones are so good at clobbering your mates is that Islamic terrorists generally, Al Quaida and the Taliban have a notable shortage of jet fighters to kill the drones. Do you think for one moment that if a terrorist organization brought a drone from China that the US and/or other western powers wouldn’t have a F18 waiting to meet said drone on it’s inaugeral flight and another to sever the hand on the joystick. Still, if you believe all that stuff then encourage your mates to fork out a million dollars for a 30 second flight – any drain on their budget is a win for the good guys.
Facebook
Twitter
Waleed doesn’t seem to have a handle on the numbers of civilian deaths that have been attributed to military action in wars in the past 100 years. Millions of these civilians were actually targeted and not therefore ‘collateral’. Political sensitivities have brought about waging war with a requirement to keep casualties to a minimum, but the rules only apply to those who put the rules in place and are prepared to adhere to the requirements. It is unfortunate that our current enemies do not have the same ‘noble’ beliefs. His assertions that civilian deaths resulting from military action are ballooning shows a complete misunderstanding of the history of modern warfare.
His assertions that civilian deaths resulting from military action are ballooning shows a complete misunderstanding of the history of modern warfare.
They’re certainly ballooning in Iraq….MAY TOTAL: 883 CIVILIANS KILLED.
But wait, that war was “won”, wasn’t it?
See – http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
1735099
Killed by whom? I don’t have time go through your link, but the subject here seems to be about military caused civilian deaths and the inference is by drones or coallition action. Sorry if you missed that, I probably should have included that information especially for you.
As a result of surgical assassinations by drones the cost in civilian casualties is remakably less than would be effected by full scale incursions or carpet bombing, the like of which you claim to have some knowledge.
Numbers can I ask you whose side you are on? Do you suppport extremists fundamentalists” Do you support attacks on Australia or it’s allies not your lies or left wing sophistry. Answer a legitimate question legitimately.
Why isn’t there a Syrian body count site, like Iraq body count, or is that too hard. Did you support the treatment of Iraq by Hussein, the treatment of Libya by Gaddafi. Did you support the Lockerbie bombing by Libya, S11 Bombings on the trade centre, the Bombings in Bali as legitimate acts of war.
Ol son you are a quisling, a traitor and on the wrong side of history and most importantly you are a proven liar on too many occasions.
Iraq is not the subject of this post, the real question is, Is Waheed Ali an Al Quaeda and Taleban supporter, apologiser and so on, does he want sharia law for Australia. Where is his condemnation of the use of chemical weapons in Syria and Hussein’s use of them against minorities in Iraq.
No sophistry just whose side are you on? The same for that idiot Waheed Ali. It’s all very well being a pacifist but condemn equally or be branded a traitor and a quisling.
Link
ROFLMDO. hee hee.
Numbers can I ask you whose side you are on?
If you’re referring to me – I don’t have enough arrogance to take sides. I mind my own business, and don’t believe in invading countries who present no threat to my community. Ever considered that terrorism is a reaction to American projection of power, and that the best way to help it grow and develop is to continue military aggression? An over-the-top military reaction simply strengthens an asymmetric response. I thought we learned that in Vietnam.
I wonder how you’d react if some future American administration decided that they didn’t like our government and instituted a war of aggression on our soil to “save” us from them. Would you turn a blind eye, or would you resort to guerrilla warfare to protect your country?
Your use of the term “quisling” is ironic, when you recall that Vidkun Quisling collaborated with Axis forces in occupied Allied countries during World War II. You could accurately apply it to those Iraqis who collaborated with the army of occupation.
Iraq is not the subject of this post, the real question is, Is Waheed (sic) Ali an Al Quaeda and Taleban (sic) supporter, apologiser and so on, does he want sharia law for Australia.
That’s a big call. Please direct me to the article or broadcast where he praises the Taliban, or promotes Sharia law in Australia.
Your ignorance of what (or who) you’re talking about is indicative of your depth of understanding of this issue. His name is Waleed Aly (not Waheed Ali).
Here is an extract from a piece he wrote on Muslim riots –
Let’s start with the fact that so few of the protesters who descended on Sydney’s CBD this weekend seem actually to have seen the film that so gravely offends them. When asked by journalists, they bluntly admit this, one even adding that she refuses to watch something so offensive. It’s almost impressive how cyclical this stupidity is. But it’s also instructive. In fact, this is the key to making sense of something so gobsmackingly senseless. The protesters – at least the ones quoted in news reports – know nothing except how offended they are.
He’s calling them “stupid”. That hardly comes across as supportive. He writes accurately about the ignorance demonstrated by the demonstrators. It neatly matches yours…..
See: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-incredible-muslim-hulk-proves-to-be-no-friend-of-islam-either-20120916-260e8.html#ixzz2VEMnqjyr
Before you call me (or anyone else) names, get your facts straight.
“Ever considered that terrorism is a reaction to American projection of power, and that the best way to help it grow and develop is to continue military aggression? An over-the-top military reaction simply strengthens an asymmetric response. I thought we learned that in Vietnam.”
What utter shit. I honestly thought that you could not be more stupid than I already believed you to be, and then you state such obviously and easily disprovable nonsense as the above.
Muslim terror attacks in Sth Thailand – “a reaction to American projection of power”?
Muslim terror attacks in India – “a reaction to American projection of power”?
You are a pathetic moron. and you, again, failed to answer the question asked.
Not one question answered. Except I suppose in an over all sense with “If you’re referring to me – I don’t have enough arrogance to take sides. I mind my own business”. A quisling statement if ever I read one.
The issue is he (Ali” does not condemn acts of atrocity on one side while heaping ignominy on our side. I have never read or heard him speak against the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist
The rest is waffle. As usual. Not one reply to one question. Here is a simple question, do you support suicide bombers, bombing people not involved, as real targets and not collaterall damage, it targetted.
Piss off with your one sided incompetent bigoted relativisms. You refuse to answer uncomfortable questions which makes you not only a bigot but a moral coward you have some sort of moral belief system in which all Yanks are bad and Brits are bad, normal Aussies in Bali are bad, conservatives are evil and our side deserves everything it gets and evil is allowed against innocents for being who they are, thus making you bigoted racist.
Your false compassion ends this argument with your obfuscation making you just another liar and a political correct fraud and hater.
You refused to answer questions so the answer I guess, yes you reckon Terrorism is ok.
One final thing on this thread, if it takes drone and surgical strikes against a target,with collateral damage, ie civilian supporters of the Taleban and AQ, against thousands of dead allied troops, so effen be it.
Islamic terrorism started a war betting on the grave yard of enemies and they have been routed and rooted ever since.
One final thing on this thread,
Total arrogance – you need to pull your head in. It’s not your call to decide what’s final.
if it takes drone and surgical strikes against a target,with collateral damage, ie civilian supporters of the Taleban (sic) and AQ, against thousands of dead allied troops, so effen be it.
So there you have it – them and us – the mentality that condemns us to wars as far into the future as the eye can see. It’s OK to kill civilians so long as they’re not our civilians. And to do it with technology makes it a sterile and remote exercise – the perfect solution…nobody gets court martialed. Maybe My Lai taught us something….that affair was too untidy.
Sassoon put it well –
”If I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath,
I’d live with scarlet Majors at the Base,
And speed glum heroes up the line to death,”
Killing the adherents of any ideology simply recruits more of them – you pass control to lunatics and fundamentalists – but I guess if you’re too thick to see it, it simply doesn’t compute.
Name me one – just one – lunatic ideology that has been completely eliminated by war. Institutional Communism was destroyed by the totalitarians who exploited the ideology, but it persists (at least in name) to this day in the most populated country on earth.
Bushido, like Jihad, is incompatible with the 21st century. If the goal of your opponent is to die for the cause, killing him, by definition, aids his cause.
But still we send young men to countries like Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of democracy. We have learned nothing….
Do you really believe that after the withdrawal from Afghanistan there will be peace and enlightenment? If you do, I know a large and impressive bridge going cheap.
I’m through with you I am entitled to an opinion, and am not mouthing other people’s rhetoric or prose.
You are good at whinging, which for all the flowery phrases quotes and citations is all you do. No solutions and never ever a criticsim of one side in a two sided conflict.
As for recruitment, dead people are not the best example for a recruitment drive there is, it’s a bit of a media fiction in fact. It’s an excuse to do nothing, to stand on the sidelines.
WW2 was the best example of a do nothing and none of my business unintended consequences action plan, yep the old do nothing trick worked a treat.
These fundamental islamists were demanding a global caliphate that was the plan a) but just surviving seems to be plan b).
Like I said you are Quisling, a terrorist sympathiser by no comment and tongue in cheek support.
As for your other mendacious comments, I make the observation, a thickie quoting better intellects is still a thickie.
Have a nice day flower petal. I await your solution to Syria, I’ll be waiting a while.
If I want his gibberish and arrant left wing rent a crowd rubbish I’ll watch the drum.
Hello 17…
You wrote:
“… Ever considered that terrorism is a reaction to American projection of power, and that the best way to help it grow and develop is to continue military aggression?”
This statement does not seem to accord with Muslim happenings in, for example, Sweden, Denmark, the Philippines, China, Holland, Spain and Nigeria. It carries even less weight when applied to Syria where many thousands have been killed by Muslims fighting each other.
Before answering, you might like to read:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_(Terrorism)
There is much interesting material there. The map showing the countries which have suffered Muslim attacks indicates the USA’s behaviour cannot possibly explain the behaviour of Islam’s adherents.
With this in mind, would you kindly explain the cause of Muslim anti social behaviour where the USA is not even remotely involved?
This statement does not seem to accord with Muslim happenings in, for example, Sweden, Denmark, the Philippines, China, Holland, Spain and Nigeria. It carries even less weight when applied to Syria where many thousands have been killed by Muslims fighting each other.The most significant finding in this hodge-podge of statistics is that most terrorists are well-educated and from the middle class. In the UK at least, they are most often immigrants who came to the country legally. They are educated enough to have a view of the world, garnered usually through the media, and they see the media as their artillery. Hence the pattern of high visibility targets, significant dates, and videotaped statements. George Bush did much the same – remember the symbolism of “mission accomplished”.
The fact that this view of the world is completely opposed to western values is what generates fear in the west. In reality, the hysteria generated is its most powerful weapon, even if, statistically, the likelihood of becoming the victim of a terrorist in most western countries is on a par with being struck by lightning.
Given the hysteria about people arriving on boats, it is instructive to note that none of the handful of convicted terrorists in this country arrived in that manner.
The conflation of terrorism and irregular arrivals is an example of spin based on fear, and straight from the Joseph Goebbels handbook.
Terrorism is abhorrent in any form – whether it is carried out by groups of lunatics in the name of religion, or by technicians in a bunker guiding a drone. The killing of innocent civilians can never be OK, whether in the name of Allah or democracy and freedom.
So it persists, a fear way out of proportion to reality, an over-the-top series of counter measures that mess with our quality of life, and a convenient dog-whistle when we run out of something to loathe.
I don\’t know about you, but I\’ve always found that hope trumps fear, compassion generates better results than cruelty, and respect conquers derision.;
I\’ve been called a bleeding heart – and am proud of that…
Some (it seems most on the Right) believe compassion is a vice. It is, and always will be, a human virtue. The world would be a better place if this simple human virtue was espoused by individuals, community and government.
With this in mind, would you kindly explain the cause of Muslim anti social behaviour where the USA is not even remotely involved?
Probably no different from the cause of non-Muslim anti-social behaviour.
Your link was no help.
Terrorism is abhorrent in any form – whether it is carried out by groups of lunatics in the name of religion, or by technicians in a bunker guiding a drone.
You would have to hate the West to find moral equivalence between a jihadist deliberately blowing up woman and kids and a technician doing his level best to stop the said jihadist and, in doing so, sometimes accidentally killing civilians.
Check your moral compass 17etc or you’ll never get to where want to go.
“It is thought diphallia occurs in the fetus between the 23rd and 25th days of gestation when an injury, chemical stress, or malfunctioning homeobox genes hamper proper function of the caudal cell mass of the fetal mesoderm as the urogenital sinus separates from the genital tubercle and rectum to form the penis”
Clearly this occurred to 1735099…..surely he can’t be that silly playing with one.
Amazing – Bob has discovered Wikipedia!
From here, anything is possible.
17350??
I see you checked out the source of my quick search, but I also note that you haven’t made a denial.
jihadist deliberately blowing up woman and kids = a killer
a technician doing his level best to stop the said jihadist and, in doing so, sometimes accidentally killing civilians = a killer
Whether accidental or deliberate, the women and kids are just as dead. To draw a distinction is stark moral equivalence.
I know where my moral compass points – it’s 180 degrees away from collateral damage.
So from that startling statement my deduction is that you prefer the indescriminate targeted option adopted by the jihadist.
Your deductive powers need rebooting.
It ought to be clear to the average reader that I prefer neither.
BTW – There is nothing targeted or discriminating about using HE on villages. As I have pointed out above, if innocents are killed, the motive is largely irrelevant.
Orwell was right.
In 1942 George Orwell wrote this, in Partisan Review, of Great Britain’s pacifists: “Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist….”
You, numbers, are a supporter of fascism – you want to remove the ability of any democracy to defend itself from any attack, no matter who it comes from, by applying an impossible standard – that there be no possible collateral casualties. Fortunately, you are also widely recognised as being an idiot, so its not like your opinion will influence anyone.
If I’m a pacifist, I’m the same kind of pacifist as my father who enlisted in the RAAF when Darwin was bombed and subsequently served in New Guinea.
He was strongly opposed to our commitment in Vietnam because (as he said) he preferred being governed from Canberra than Washington.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
(Matthew 5 – 7)
For 17350?? “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”…..by other people of like mind, and they may be called sons of God, but that doesn’t make it true. What’s the version in the Koran….blessed are they who destroy Christians for they will be rewarded with a keg of beer and a room full of virgins?
I’m not suggesting you are a pacifist numbers, I’m suggesting that you hide behind pacifism, you are in fact a bitter fool who opposes western civilisation because you were required to do your duty, like many others, but you lacked the willpower to refuse and face the consequences as those who really believed that it was wrong did, so now you pretend to have some sort of moral courage by spouting nonsense on the internet.
You don’t fool anyone. not even yourself.
BTW, pacifists are not peacemakers, they are victims unless others protect them.
17350??
“I’ve been called a bleeding heart – and am proud of that”…..now we are proud of something you previously wrote off as use of an American term and not worthy of comment.
“As I have pointed out above, if innocents are killed, the motive is largely irrelevant”…..you need a reality check…..compare deaths of innocents in Iraq for the month of May as you did previously. Abhorrence of the death of innocents is restricted to the victims and only one side in the conflict you quote from. Unintended fatalities are only the concern of enemies of the Taliban/Alqaeda/Muslim fighters. Innocent victims families are only compensated by one side in this mayhem, and it is not your mates. Yeah we know the Americans are not your mates, so that leaves “the others”. How many drone strikes or deaths by direct US military action are included in your quoted figures? You really should get over your hatred of all things American.
“Given the hysteria about people arriving on boats, it is instructive to note that none of the handful of convicted terrorists in this country arrived in that manner”
and then, numbers digs even deeper – truly amoral, stupid and ignorant. The trifecta.
Are we supposed to let them in, wait for them to commit an atrocity here, then suddenly do the screening (AKA the current ALP policy /sarc) – you do know that we have a convicted terrorist (convicted of premeditated murder amongst other things), and the subject of an Interpol ‘Red’ notice, in Australia, from a boat arrival, right now, don’t you?
amoral – using fear of asylum seekers as a dog-whistle
stupid – bombing a foreign country, leaving its infrastructure in ruins so that genocide follows (Cambodia – 1970)
stupid – losing 4486 service personnel in a war that has accomplished little and permanently destabilized Iraq so that sectarian conflict now threatens civil war.
stupid – removing military resources and combat focus from Afghanistan to concentrate on Iraq, leaving the Taliban to regenerate and threaten security to the point where they inevitably hold sufficient power to force negotiation (if not control) after the withdrawal.
ignorant – believing that asylum seekers (on red notices or not) are a significant threat to our national security, when no asylum seekers have committed terrorist acts, and all evidence suggests that they are unlikely to do so.
Yeah – amoral, stupid & ignorant…..
amoral – equates terrorists with soldiers (have you ever wondered why the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of War do not?).
stupid – more examples than I could possibly post, but I’ll stick with routinely lies and gets caught, but never learns from it.
ignorant – suggests that we have not had a single terrorist enter the country by boat when the fact that we have is not only routinely reported, but is the headline post on the very website you posted your comment on, when you posted it – stunning stuff.
suggests that we have not had a single terrorist enter the country by boat when the fact that we have is not only routinely reported,
The stunning part is that this alleged “terrorist” compliantly sat behind a swimming pool fence behaving himself for months.
He was probably as much a terrorist as the hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese killed as “collateral damage” were VC.
“The stunning part is that this alleged “terrorist” compliantly sat behind a swimming pool fence behaving himself for months.”
you really are that stupid aren’t you numbers?
It doesn’t occur to you that he was counting on the failed ALP boat policy swamping our intelligence services and getting him through what was likely to be fairly cursory checks, letting him out into the wider community free to start working on setting up support systems as he sees fit, all on the taxpayers dime.
Harry, that’s almost plagiarism…….your entry on June 11 at 2147 hrs My entry on June 10 at 2039 hrs.
I posted it before I scrolled down and saw your earlier post Bob.
I’m going with the “great minds” defence.
Don’t get rid of numbers please Kev, every time I think we are all born equal and all deserve to breathe the same air, I read his crap and believe in mercy killing. hahahahaha!!!
Hello 17…
Your comment about a link I provided to you was that it “was no help”.
Subsequently, and to my astonishment, you used the same link to support your argument that: “… believing that asylum seekers (on red notices or not) are a significant threat to our national security, when no asylum seekers have committed terrorist acts, and all evidence suggests that they are unlikely to do so”.
I have reread the Wiki piece you and I linked to. and I cannot find any evidence there to support your claim. Would you direct me to the evidence please?
I was in Canada during the WTC attacks in 2001, leaving there on 29 Sep 01. On that day I picked up a copy of the Vancouver Sun which carried an article by Professor Lubomyr Luciuk who had been a member of Canada’s Immigration Refugee Board.
He was not reappointed because he refused 90% of the claims put before him. Here are extracts from the opening and closing paras respectively of his article which is titled:
“How to get into Canada? Lie”
“Be a liar. That’s the first lesson most claimants come before the IRB learn. How? First, bring no identity documents, or use fake ones. Be vague about who you are, where you’re from, how you got here and especially why you left…… Unless you’re an utter imbecile, you stand an excellent chance of getting refugee status in Canada.
—————
I know that if the IRB continues as it has, then just about anyone who wants to get into Canada will. And our country will disappear as surely as New York’s twin towers vanished in the holocaust orchestrated by the terrorists who wormed their way in among us, courtesy of lax immigration laws”.
In 2001 we did not have a big problem with a maritime Muslim invasion. Now we do. If you read Greg Sheridan’s piece in today’s Weekend Australian you will find the situation he describes is strikingly similar to that of Canada’s in 2001. Moreover, the stories produced by the “asylum seekers” appear to follow a script.
Islam has been at war with every other religion almost since its inception. Why on earth then do you continue to ignore its history and what its proponents preach?
Do you really think they are joking?
I have reread the Wiki piece you and I linked to. and I cannot find any evidence there to support your claim. Would you direct me to the evidence please?
I’m surprised that it needs to be pointed out. Let me spell it out. You and others are railing that asylum seekers are potential terrorists. The wiki you posted seems to show (through the use of statistics that you obviously accept – you linked to them) that people who commit acts of terror in their adopted country are predominately middle class and well educated, and arrived by legal means – not on refugee boats –
Taking these perceived root causes in turn, three quarters of my sample came from the upper or middle class. The vast majority—90 percent—came from caring, intact families. Sixty-three percent had gone to college, as compared with the 5-6 percent that’s usual for the third world. These are the best and brightest of their societies in many ways.
And –
Alarmingly the Prevent review says that ‘more than 30 per cent of people convicted for Al Qaeda-associated terrorist offences in the UK… are known to have attended university or a higher education institution.
‘Another 15 per cent studied or achieved a vocational or further education qualification. About 10 per cent of the sample were students at the time when they were charged or the incident for which they were convicted took place.’
All those statistics show (if they show anything at all of relevance) – is that convicted terrorists are NOT desperate people who have come to their adopted country to escape persecution, but are typically aspirant seeking education and higher status. This is from your link – which you posted.
Ultimately, irregular arrivals are vetted much more thoroughly than the hundreds of thousands of individuals who arrive annually with visas. They are in fact, less of a threat than the legals. Over 90% are found to be genuine, as opposed to 54% who arrive by plane. But hey, we can’t let the facts get in the way of a good fear meme….
Another intriguing statistic from your link is this one –
Iraq, suicide bombers have killed more than 12,000 civilians and wounded more than 30,000 since the war began in 2003, according to study released by the British medical journal Lancet. The study found that 1,003 documented suicide bombings accounted for 12,284 of 108,624 Iraqi civilian deaths, 11% of those killed between March 20, 2003, and December 31, 2010.
The interesting figure from this little gem, is that only 11% of civilian casualties in Iraq were from suicide bombings. Any idea how the remaining 89% died? We’re talking about 96,340 people.
Don’t tell me – let me guess – they were “collateral damage”.
The only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that you believe it doesn’t matter – they’re Iraqis, after all…
As to the hysteria about one “terrorist” convicted in absentia by a dodgy regime, and held in low security in Adelaide for a long time without attempting escape, it is clear that the Coalition has simply seized on the episode for political mileage, no because they believe there ever was any real threat.
In other words, it is more distilled political spin, adding the to the absolute swill of spin that assails us from both sides on refugees.
There is a solution to the problem of irregular arrivals (which is, by the way, a problem which has zero impact on the daily lives of 99.9% of Australians), but this solution requires compassion, courage and creativity, virtues sadly lacking in our current political leaders on both sides, who have competed in a race to the bottom on the issue.
The solution requires hard graft in working with the transit countries, the allocation of resources offshore, the cooperation of regional powers and regulation of refugees post arrival in terms of their geographical location in the regions and areas away from existing ghettos.
It also requires patience and statesmanship, not three word slogans, xenophobia and exploitation of ignorance and fear.
Hello 17…
To be sure, if I were told that the word ricochet was derived from the way you deflect questions, I would believe it.
Thank you for reminding me at least three times that I had linked to the Wiki about Muslim terrorism. However, I did not say I supported the figures therein. What I did say was: “There is much interesting material there”.
I asked you to point put where in the Wiki there was any evidence to support your claim.that: “… no asylum seekers have committed terrorist acts, and all evidence suggests that they are unlikely to do so”. You did not point out any such evidence because it is not there.
Instead, you claimed: “…. people who commit acts of terror in their adopted country are predominately middle class and well educated, and arrived by legal means – not on refugee boats.” The Wiki provides no basis for that claim. If you search the Wiki you will not find the words: asylum, refugees or boats. You made that claim up – nothing to be proud of there 17….
You appear to be convinced that non-terrorists will continue to arrive by sea, while terrorists will continue to arrive by air.
Just as curiously, you point out that most home grown terrorists are well educated. But, you make no mention of the terrorist acts committed by those who are not. Are their victims less dead because they were killed by a high school graduate? Or, do we simply ignore their deaths because the killers were uneducated?
I will quote your final words: “It also requires patience and statesmanship, not three word slogans, xenophobia and exploitation of ignorance and fear”.
You, along with everyone else who served in a combat arm in Vietnam experienced fear.
None of us want that for ourselves again or, for our families. Why then is it wrong to keep out those who, by their actions and threats create that emotion in us?
Type into Google the words: “There is no such thing as moderate Islam” I hope you ponder the significance of the number of Muslims and Islamic organisations who support that statement.
There is no excuse for being ignorant of Islam, its history and its goals 17…. Examine that ideology and I believe you will find it represents a threat to us no less serious than that posed by Communism, the Nazis or Bushido.
To give some local flavour on Muslim thinking watch this recent interview segment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WBAewcromXI
Good luck with patience and statesmanship. That hasn’t worked anywhere I know of but, if you have some insights the rest of us do not, please share them. In the meantime I think you would best serve your country by ceasing to be a cheerleader for potential trouble makers.
I’m convinced that we are at a greater risk from those refugees who come on aircraft because –
1. Those convicted of terrorist acts in this country did not come on boats.
2. Over 90% of refugees who come on boats are found to be genuine. About 60% who arrive on aircraft are found to be genuine.
Please specify the evidence you have to suggest the opposite.
1735099…..I’m convinced that we are at a greater risk from those refugees who come on aircraft because –
40% knockback rate for arrivals by air…..identity checks and measures to indicate fraud in identity papers are much easier when papers must be produced.
10% knockback for boat arrivals indicates huge difficulties in verifying bona fide identity when identity papers have been intentionally destroyed prior to being picked up by the naval taxi service. In the absence of evidence to the contrary or a paper trail that can be traced the information supplie by the “seeker” is hard to refute. Unless you can prove they should be knocked back, they can’t be…..hence the destruction of papers and low (by comparison) refusal percentage for boat people. Percentages aside, the actual numbers are startling.
also Bob, the tiny knockback rate for boat arrivals indicates that Labor stacked the deck in the “independent reviewer” appointments – the people who can reverse the decisions of departmental assessment officers.
when you want a particular result, appoint a “reliable” person and they won’t even need to be told what you want done.
I noticed the low rate of knockbacks by “independent” review and assumed that was the case. I’ve done some reading and it would appear that on arrival by air (with papers) immediate checks of travel dates and locations can in themselves be a bar to refugee status the way Australia implements s.31 of the refugee conventions. If an applicant for ref. status has entered and remained in a country granting refugee status for a period (determined by Dept of Immigration) then chooses to continue on to Australia, refugee status here can be knocked back as the original reason for fleeing no longer exists once safe haven is granted in the first country of choice. It apparently then becomes illegal immigration on landing in Australia. If you rock up in a boat with no date stamps or record of arrival in a safe haven, you merely deny the prior opportunity and make an application for refugee status here.
Patience and statesmanship eventually worked in Northern Ireland.
You also might check (using the Immigration Department’s website) the religious distribution of boat arrivals. You might be surprised to find that a large proportion are not Muslim. I’d link, but I’m on the road this week, and it’s dodgy on an iPad……
What proportion are Muslim…..numbers please?
1735099 “suggests that we have not had a single terrorist enter the country by boat when the fact that we have is not only routinely reported,
The stunning part is that this alleged “terrorist” compliantly sat behind a swimming pool fence behaving himself for months.
He was probably as much a terrorist as the hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese killed as “collateral damage” were VC.”
I guess if a clever convicted murderer with links to terrorists wants to remain invisible whilst in detention in a country with proven lax checks and balances, in relation to boaties, then it would be prudent to appear to have no reason to jump over the “pool fence” when the likelyhood of detection is probably low. Radical Muslims have a long term goal and he may have believed it preferable to be released into the general population without drawing attention to himself. I am not saying that he has not changed his ways but the chances are the same as a leopard changing its spots…..recidivism rates in Australia (basically Christian country) 60%. The best criminals are not arrested, convicted or jailed. Under the radar is a popular term.
As far as the return to the Vietnamese references go…..you need treatment.
Hello 17…
I’m not going to keep on with this – the argument has no end.
On the other hand, I would like you to read “The case of Eric Allen Bell” at the following link:
http://malsi-tung.blogspot.com.au/
I think it describes your attitude perfectly. In saying this I mean no offence nor am I being sarcastic.
Cheers.