Lock ’em up or send ’em back home
Up to six Australians have died fighting with terrorist group al-Qa’ida and its affiliates in Syria, according to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation’s director-general David Irvine.
Australian nationals were also travelling to the Middle East to join the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah, Mr Irvine said.
Australia is at war with these terrorists. We have soldiers fighting al-Qa’ida and the Taliban and have taken killed and wounded casualties so we can clearly state that they are the enemy. Why is it then that these so called “Australians” aren’t charged with Aiding the Enemy or Treason and either incarcerated for lengthy stretches or have their citizenship revoked and deported back to the shit hole they come from.
If I had signed up with the Viet Cong, my father with Hitler or my Grandfather with the Boers we would’ve been in all sorts of strife with my Grandfather probably hung at the yardarm. Yet these men come to Australia, often enough via boats, take advantage of our hospitality viz a viz Social Security payments, put shit on us publically in their mosques, travel back over seas and fight with the enemy and all ASIO can do is watch them while human rights lawyers defend their situation.
It is indefensible.
At the very least can we just revoke their citizenship and send them and their families back where they come from. Lets face it, the money for the tickets to fly back home most probably came from you and me via taxes for social security payments.
Bad show all round.
Facebook
Twitter
Yet these men come to Australia, often enough via boats,
Big call Kev.
Can you provide a citation?
The Australians who have traveled to the war zone come from the northern Lebanese immigrant community. They are first or second generation in this country, and not new boat arrivals.
Here is the ASIO DGs actual statement. He makes no mention of boat arrivals. This is a myth constructed to demonize asylum seekers.
aside of course for the forger wanted by interpol for terrorist links (the same guy who was originally wanted by interpol for a terrorist bombing and got into low security mainland detention and after being finally detected here, had his warrant downgraded to the forgery and terrorist links charge).
and the 15 Tamils who hijacked a fishing boat to get here (by definition an act of terror).
and the Sri Lankan woman deported for being a Lt Col in the Tamil Tigers and training child soldiers.
I can see how that would constitute demonisation. If only we would stop being so mean…
BTW, how many of these nice people do you have staying at your house numbers?
It isn’t too hard to find these examples, you just have to want to find them, and being the hypocritical sack of shit that you are numbers, you just don’t want to find them.
aside of course for the forger wanted by interpol for terrorist links
Charges were dropped by Interpol.
The worst this bloke (Sayed Ahmed Abdellatif) did was to forge documents. He was caught up in unreliable (and hysterical) Interpol reaction to 9/11 and forgotten by them until the Coalition made an issue of it in the runup to the election. When he was identified, Interpol said “oh shit” and cleaned up their files.
15 Tamils who hijacked a fishing boat to get here
These were ethnic Tamils who survived a quarter-century civil war. Vietnamese refugees often stole or hijacked fishing boats to escape Vietnam after 40 years of war. I don’t remember them being regarded as terrorists.
They never made it to the mainland, by the way.
and the Sri Lankan woman deported for being a Lt Col in the Tamil Tigers and training child soldiers.
I’m not sure if you are referring to Ranjini, but if you are, you have the bull by the foot, because she is in indefinite detention, not deported. ASIO have a negative assessment against her, which was made after she had been granted asylum, so she can’t be deported. No one is aware of the reason for the assessment as ASIO won’t release it.
One hypothesis is that her detention is based on the circumstances of her former Tamil husband who was killed during fighting. It is not apparent that he was a combatant or had even chosen voluntarily to be at the scene of fighting.
She has married since coming to Australia, and has small children. Her children are allowed to live out of detention, but she isn’t. We obviously have no problem with separating kids from their mother on the basis of suspicion. Fine country we live in.
So the “dangerous” people you cite are a forger who has never committed a violent crime in his life and was pinged on suspicion 12 years ago, a bunch of Tamils who never actually got here, and a mother with small kids.
They sound absolutely terrifying.
They’re probably a damn sight less of a threat to the average Australian than the bikies creating mayhem at Little Baghdad on the Nerang at the moment.
Still, the bikies are creating a wonderful diversion from Newman’s stuff ups and his governments’ routine corruption and cronyism – Caltabiano, Driscoll, Jonathon Flegg, Ros Bates……etc
As for asylum-seekers? We simply don’t know what’s going on because there’s a news blackout in place, very similar to the kind of control of the media exerted by totalitarian regimes, e.g North Korea.
What a dishonest piece of shit you are numbers. a forger is a key part of a terrorist group, far more valuable than those dimwits who strap on a C4 vest, but you are OK with us letting a forger with terrorist links in.
The Tamil terrorists who didn’t get here, didn’t get here because we intercepted the terrorists, but you say no terrorists come by boat, we all know you are dishonest and stupid, but terrorists, on a boat intercepted on the way to Australia. sort of put a hole in your no terrorists have come here by boat theory.
And poor innocent Mummy with Kids led child soldiers, but you are OK with that, you whine like a turbocharged baby about having been conscripted, but now you are OK with a woman who was involved in kidnapping children and leading them to commit atrocities being in Australia. you sad fucking hypocrite.
What a dishonest piece of shit you are numbers.
Not only are you dishonest, but you are also abusive.
The abuse is neither here nor there, but the lies are an issue.
a forger is a key part of a terrorist group
What terrorist group was Abdellatif a member of? What did he forge? Who came to harm by this alleged activity? Lets examine the facts.
The Egyptian judicial system at the time of his conviction had to be regarded with a great deal of caution, and it is only this system that has condemned him.
According to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Federal Police, Abdellatif was convicted in 1999 on a charge of belonging to an organisation prohibited by the ousted Mubarak regime.
At the time he was an accountant working for Kuwait-based Society of the Revival of Islamic Heritage,
The defendants in this trial were tortured to extract confessions and some, including Abdellatif, were not actually present at the trial. The worst that this corrupt Egyptian court could find was that he belonged to an anti-Mubarak organisation.
So in answer to the above questions –
He was not a member of a terrorist group. He was part of a society for the revival of Islamic heritage.
What did he forge? Well, nothing apparently, although it was alleged that he knew how to do so.
Who came to harm through his activity? Well no one apparently.
The Tamil terrorists who didn’t get here, didn’t get here because we intercepted the terrorists, but you say no terrorists come by boat, we all know you are dishonest and stupid, but terrorists, on a boat intercepted on the way to Australia. sort of put a hole in your no terrorists have come here by boat theory.
Excuse me if I get a bit literal here, but the contention is that terrorists have come here by boat. Now if by “here” you mean the Australian mainland, they did not. I have no idea where else you could mean by “here”.
I would have thought that if they were intercepted, they didn’t actually arrive. What part of “no terrorists have come here by boat” do you not understand?
a woman who was involved in kidnapping children and leading them to commit atrocities
When and where did she kidnap children? What child soldiers did she lead? When? Where? and by the way, what on God’s good earth does this have to do with conscription?
Ranjini was 11 years old when she first became involved in the conflict in Sri Lanka. She must have a had a hard time kidnapping children and leading child soldiers at that age.
She was never charged, tried or convicted of any offence in Sri Lanka.
At most, she was in the, wrong place at the wrong time and made the mistake of marrying a Tamil (himself never convicted of any offence) who was later killed. Guilt by association is a pretty fair description. Of course, much of this is surmise, as ASIO won’t tell her why she is considered a threat.
Have a go at providing the detail to back up your assertions. You could begin by answering the questions I’ve asked.
So you’re the one making accusations without any evidence except for your bigotry. Bigotry is not a substitute for fact, and laying out the facts of the case is not “lying”.
Fuck off Numbers, you hypocritical piece of shit.
In light of your constant evasions, unwillingness to answer direct questions, shifting of goalposts and flat out lies, how dare you demand anyone answer YOUR questions.
I’m just here to point out to the sane what a worthless piece of shit you are.
I put up the facts, others can follow up the details for themselves if they honestly believe that there is any chance that you are telling the truth.
Fuck off Numbers, you hypocritical piece of shit.
Best and clearest indication of your class and intellect displayed so far on this thread…..
I don’t need to cite anything other than common knowledge. The boat that come to grief in Indonesia recently that the Left somehow construed as Abbotts fault, was full of Lebanese and they poured in over the ALP years of open borders.
It is not a myth that some of the illegal boat people were Lebanese and the fact that the ASIO DG didn’t mention how the Terrorists got here is of no significance. He wasn’t talking about how they got here, just that they were fighting for the enemy.
Do you have an opinion on whether they should be charged and incarcerated – now that would be significant
What would the charge be?
It is also not illegal to arrive on a leaky boat without ID.
It’s not illegal in this country to be Lebanese.
It’s also not illegal to be Muslim (or Catholic for that matter, although being a catholic was definitely frowned upon when my ancestors came to this country on the Erin-go-Bragh in 1862. That was a boat, by the way, and the people on it were seeking a better lifestyle than what they had experienced during the potato famine).
It’s not a new development for people to come to this country on boats seeking a better life, and many of them were members of minority religious groups such as Huguenots, for example, many of whom settled in the Barossa Valley.
What is new is that they are demonised to the point of being called criminals (why else would you advocate charging them and locking them up?)
In any case they are locked up now in what amount to concentration camps for indeterminate without charge.
What is indefensible is that any people in this country actually support this. At least the good citizens of Germany during WW2 had an excuse. Many of them are alleged not to have known about the camps back then. Australians know all about it. They have no excuse.
1735099…..I believe the subject of the post was idiots who have sought and been given asylum in AUstralia fighting/supporting terrorist groups at war or in conflict with Australia or its allies. You have included asylum seekers in general and have gone off on your usual defence of all things asylum seekers wish to be afforded. A person entering any sovereign country without papers is an illegal immigrant until refugee status has been established. The fact that they have no papers slows the process.
Any way you should reread Kev’s original post and get a grip. I am beginning to think you intentionally paint a target on your forehead.
Any way you should reread Kev’s original post and get a grip.
Kev’s original post said (inter alia) –
If I had signed up with the Viet Cong, my father with Hitler or my Grandfather with the Boers we would’ve been in all sorts of strife with my Grandfather probably hung at the yardarm. Yet these men come to Australia, often enough via boats, take advantage of our hospitality viz a viz Social Security payments, put shit on us publically in their mosques, travel back over seas and fight with the enemy and all ASIO can do is watch them while human rights lawyers defend their situation.
As I have pointed out, no one off a boat has committed terrorism in this country.
To say that asylum seekers have “traveled overseas and fought with the enemy” is very dodgy. Some (and you’d need to identify those amongst them who came on boats, if indeed any did) have returned to Syria to fight both for and against the Assad regime. Many are medical volunteers. We have declared war on neither side in the Syria conflict, so as far as Australia is concerned there is not definition of “enemy”.
Which of these are at war with Australia or our allies? For that matter, who in Syria are our allies, and who are our enemy? It has all the trappings of a civil war or a sectarian conflict. Trying to reduce the complexity of Middle Eastern conflict to a simple goodies and baddies proposition is precisely why Iraq is such a basket case at the moment. The Coalition of the Willing told us that all that was necessary was the removal of Saddam Hussein and democracy would miraculously follow.. Ten years down the track we’re seeing what rubbish that was. They’re averaging about 1000 deaths a month at the moment.
“Putting shit on us” as Kev so delightfully puts it is not an offense. In fact, if you scroll back through this blog, you find that smearing your political opponents is more or less a pastime in this country.
It’s called “free speech”, and is enshrined in our national values.
The trouble with Middle Eastern conflict is that it is far too complex to simply “get a grip”. Looking at the quality of what passes for comment here, I doubt that any of you have the slightest understanding of what you’re railing about.
The problem is not how they come here, it’s what they do in this country.
Wrapping up the asylum seeker issue with Islamic terrorism is simply conflation. It’s used to demonize Muslims, and the end result of that is resentment and hostility, which given the right conditions, leads to acts of terror. There are two groups – Islamic terrorists and unauthorised boat entries. They are not the same.
No war has been declared, so there is no legal/constitutional basis for “locking them up”.
Look at the record of attempted/successful acts of terror in this country.
“Successful” attempts –
1. Sydney Hilton Bombing – Feb 1978. No conviction – prime suspect was not a Muslim nor did he enter the country on a boat.
2. Turkish Consulate bombing in November 1986 – South Yarra – Bomber killed – not a Muslim nor did he enter the country on a boat. He was Levon Demirianan, an Australian citizen of Armenian descent.
3. Peter James Knight attacked a private abortion clinic in East Melbourne in July 2001. He killed a security guard and was convicted and sentenced to 23 years non-parole. He was an Australian citizen and did not get here by boat.
“Unsuccessful” attempts
1. Plot to bomb Sydney electricity grid – Faheem Khalid – Muslim – Architect. Emigrated to Australia in 1998 from Pakistan and gained citizenship. I believe he came on a plane – not a boat.
2. Mohammed Abderrahman (AKA Willie Brigitte) – Muslim – deported to France in 2006. Activity in Australia consisted of trying to elicit information from his Australian wife, an army signaler. Arrived in Australia by air in 2003 – not by boat.
3. Joseph Thomas (AKA Jihad Jack) – Australian who converted to Islam. Convicted of terrorism in 2006 but conviction overturned on appeal in August that year. A control order was placed on him and he ended up convicted of a passport offence for which he served time. He did not enter Australia on a boat because he lived here.
3. Khaled Cheikho, Moustafa Cheikho, Mohamed Ali Elomar, Abdul Rakib Hasan, and Mohammed Omar Jamal were tried in the New South Wales Supreme Court in 2008 and convicted of terrorism. One of the Cheikho brothers was born in Lebanon, the other in Sydney. Ali Elomar was born in Lebanon in 1965, and migrated to Australia with his family in the seventies. Hasan was born in 1969 in Bangladesh and was a legal immigrant. All were Muslim. None of these came to Australia as unauthorised entries on boats.
4. Holsworthy attempt – Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, Saney Edow Aweys and Nayef el_Sayed were convicted in 2010 of plotting to attack Holsworthy barracks in Sydney. All were Islamic jihadists. Fattal was a legal mmigrant from Lebanon, Aweys and el Sayed from Somalia. None came on boats.
5. Australian terror network. 18 suspects were arrested in August 2005 in coordinated sweeps in Sydney and Melbourne Mazen Touma, Mirsad Mulahalilovic, Khaled Sharrpof, Abdul Nasser Benbrika and Omar Baladjam were convicted on various charges. All were Islamic jihadists. Benbrika came to Australia from Algeria by air in 1989 and overstayed his visa. Mulahalilovic came to Australia from Yugoslavia legally in 1996. Touma was born in Sydney in 1979 to a family of Lebanese descent. Sharroof was born in Australia in 1981 to a Lebanese family. None of this group arrived on a boat as an unauthorised entry.
The trouble with “common knowledge” is that it is often bullshit.
None of these convicted terrorists came on a boat.
Most of them were born into Lebanese Islamic communities living in Australia. These communities are increasingly marginalised by the rhetoric about boat arrivals being Islamic terrorists. Young men growing up in this environment will be radicalised – whether they are Irish (the IRA) or Lebanese.
The message is simple. Home grown terrorists are being created by the hostility shown to Islamic refugees by the shock jocks and Right wing commentariat. Remember the GI who said (referring to Vietnam “If they weren’t VC when we arrived, they sure as hell were when we left”.
We reap what we sow.
1735099…aka…the goose….you’ve missed the boat on this one ……”Yet these men come to Australia, or their parents have, take advantage of our hospitality viz a viz Social Security payments, put shit on us publically in their mosques, travel back over seas and fight with the enemy and all ASIO can do is watch them while human rights lawyers defend their situation”…..there fixed. The mode of travel is not the subject of the post. What is indefensible is that fools like you seek at every opportunity to defend illegal immigration into this country.
The mode of travel is not the subject of the post.
So why is it there?
It’s called guilt by association. If there’s an inference that boat people are terrorists that demonizes them.
As the record shows no boat people have committed acts of terror in Australia. In fact, all the successful acts of terror in this country in recent history have been committed by non-Muslims.
What is indefensible is that fools like you seek at every opportunity to defend illegal immigration into this country.
Show me where in my post I have done that.
First up, people seeking asylum are not “illegal immigrants”.
The correct term is asylum seekers. It makes no difference what you believe are their motives – that is the legal position.
I don’t defend anything illegal, but I do object to people being used as collateral in a political dispute. It is cowardly and shameful – a bit like conscription, I guess.
“Wrapping up the asylum seeker issue with Islamic terrorism is simply conflation. It’s used to demonize Muslims, and the end result of that is resentment and hostility, which given the right conditions, leads to acts of terror. ”
Clear cut bullshit.
To take an obvious example, which of the 9/11 terrorists were demonised? the Bali bombers? or the forger with terrorist links that we let in? we didn’t create them, they hate us.
You are, at best, an overly verbose clown numbers. but I strongly suspect that you are simply a hypocritical idiot.
On the bright side, you can prove me wrong. move to Lakemba in western Sydney and wear a Kippah as you go about your daily business, the nice Muslims will be fine with that.
we didn’t create them, they hate us.
So what is it that you wish to infer…..post 1945 actions by all religions as opposed to Muslims have brought about a rewriting of the Quran to include a new definition of peace. Check out the definition of peace according to the Quran. The teaching of the Quran would indicate that there are three choices for those not of the faith. Take up Islam, become subserviant to those of the Muslim following or be put to death. I guess that obedient Muslims don’t hate us, but they follow teachings that indicate that if we are not Muslim and will not be subserviant to Muslims then we should be killed. The rules don’t include instructions including any particular method or that it should be any more humane than butchering a pig. Todays methods have in fact indicated the least humane method be used and the most graphic the better.
For your post to have meaning in the manner you wish to impart then all the hatred displayed by Muslims recently must be attributable to post WWII actions against Muslims for being Muslims…..big call Booby, and we know that there was no additional verse included in the Quran post 1945.
The bible is full of exhortations to violence on those not toeing the party line –
“I will sweep away everything in all your land,” says the Lord. “I will sweep away both people and animals alike. Even the birds of the air and the fish in the sea will die. I will reduce the wicked to heaps of rubble, along with the rest of humanity,” says the Lord. “I will crush Judah and Jerusalem with my fist and destroy every last trace of their Baal worship. I will put an end to all the idolatrous priests, so that even the memory of them will disappear. For they go up to their roofs and bow to the sun, moon, and stars. They claim to follow the Lord, but then they worship Molech, too. So now I will destroy them! And I will destroy those who used to worship me but now no longer do. They no longer ask for the Lord’s guidance or seek my blessings.” (Zephaniah 1:2-6 NLT) Strong stuff……
And
“Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you,” says the Lord. “Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction”. (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)
It also has some harsh advice for adulterers –
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife or the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and adulteress should be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
And swearing is also frowned upon –
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:09)
And you’ve got to be careful with your tucker –
You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud. However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit, or the coney.(Deuteronomy 14: 6-7)
The only people who place any value on this are a few fundamentalists, most of whom live in rural parts of the USA.
The only people who place any value on literal interpretation of the Koran are Islamic fundamentalists. Despite the rubbish routinely posted on crackpot blogs, they are very much in the minority amongst both asylum seekers and the Muslim population in this country in general.
Quoting Old Testament text doesn’t cut it – most Christians moved on after the Sermon on the Mount but the killer to your arguement is that christians stopped killing non-christians several hundred years ago. Western Education does that but a lot of Muslims consider an educated man is one who can quote all the words of Abraham. They have maintained the rage and carried out tens of thousands of atrocities against christians right up to current days just because they are christians. As much as I don’t like fundamentalists of either faith there hasn’t been much putting to death below the Mason Dixon Line lately.
The rural parts of the US might have interesting fire and brimstone church meetings but they pale into insignificance when compared with the Muslim fundamentalists bomb and bullet outings.
No one would argue that all Moslems are fundamentalists but only a few would argue that most or all killings and atrocities aren’t caused by Moslims.
Its actually getting tedious how often that a quick read of the references you provide shows that you don’t understand the references you use.
from your own reference –
”
Against Jews of Palestine
After the Partition vote, Arab leaders threatened the Jewish population of Palestine. They spoke of “driving the Jews into the sea” and ridding Palestine “of the Zionist Plague”.
So the Muslims announced that they intended to massacre the Jews (hardly news) and the Jews fought back and won.
However, as a matter of interest WTF has a war between the Jews and the Muslims got to do with justifying Muslim hatred of us?
You might also want to go a little further back than 1948 to find why the Muslims hate us, hint go back to the start of Islam and do some reading you pig ignorant buffoon.
the killer to your arguement is that christians stopped killing non-christians several hundred years ago.
Well Kev, they didn’t.
If you use the nineteenth and twentieth century as an example, they did it a great deal. What makes them different from Islamic terrorists is that they didn’t do it in God’s name, although He was often given the credit.
To give you a couple of examples, there was a fair bit of killing of Buddhists, Taoists Animists and Confucianists in Vietnam early in the war. Given that much of it was carried out in Diem’s regime (he was a Catholic), you can’t blame American or Australian Christians, but I’m Catholic and consider myself Christian.
It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded – mostly in street riots – 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps.
You can go back a bit further, to WW2.
There were catholic extermination camps run by the Ustasha in Croatia between 1942 and 1943.
Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country.
Now to remind you of this means nothing much, except to point out that massacres are not the behavior only of Muslims. The link between the Muslim religion and Islamic terrorism is much the same as that between the IRA and Irish Catholics.
The upsurge in the number and frequency of atrocities early in this century is a phenomenon that has a whole range of causes, but the existence of Islam (which has been around for 1400 years) is not the major factor. The religion is a bit like an aircraft that has been hijacked. The passengers and crew are the victims, and at the mercy of a few lunatics. You can’t put shit on them because they were on board at the time.
Doing so runs the risk of radicalizing these “passengers”.
There are better ways of dealing with it. I would have thought we might have learned something from peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
There were no diehards so inflexible as the green and orange protagonists of that country, yet peace was earned through faith, courage and persistence. It’s hard work and takes time, but it can be done.
The alternative is more death and terror.
Hello 17…
I have followed your claim that terrorists are not found among boat people and wondered why you made it. It will take just one to commit an act of terror and your whole argument falls.
I thought the following extract from The Australian of 8 Oct worth consideration: “Immigration Minister Scott Morrison said yesterday 28 asylum-seekers [illegal boat arrivals] had been removed from the community after being charged with an array of offences from murder to people smuggling …… ”
You seem to think that if we are nice to Muslims everything will be fine. But, I do not know where niceness has worked. If you want to read about the destruction of Scandinavia try researching Islam, Norway, Sweden, Denmark. Nobody has been nicer to their Muslim imports than those countries. Yet, the Muslims have shown their gratitude in the ways they know best.
Every country, with one exception, that harbours Muslims has a problem with them. That exception is Singapore, where the authorities will not put up with Muslim antics and demands. Muslim misbehaviour we wring our hands about gets you the cane in that country. Not for an instant would Singapore tolerate smashing of police cars or a sign held by a child saying: Behead those who insult the prophet.
Why on earth in spite of worldwide evidence, do you maintain that Islam is not a problem? Do you really believe Boko Haram is not Islamic, or that it is similar problem to the IRA? Likewise, do you really think the members of BH will respond to a request for a sit down and a friendly chat about their unpleasantness?
Similarly, your claim that: “The only people who place any value on literal interpretation of the Koran are Islamic fundamentalists. Despite the rubbish routinely posted on crackpot blogs, they are very much in the minority amongst both asylum seekers and the Muslim population in this country in general.”
That is an absurd statement. The most authoritative Muslim endorsed book I know of which deals with Islamic Law is “The Reliance of the Traveller”. Before repeating your claim you should read it and see for yourself what Islam requires of its followers. That some Muslims may not follow the edicts does not detract from their obligation to do so.
I will be convinced Muslims are not the most dangerous problem facing the West when I see thousands turn out to protest the murderous actions of their kin. I haven’t seen it and I don’t expect to.
Reliance of the Traveller explains why.