Fascinating program last night providing a rare insight into the thinking of some of our nearest neighbours.

Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia.

Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast.

What now, Tony?

So your saying Indonesia has the right to dictate to Australia that their vessels can enter our boarders as they see fit?

No. When did I say that?

I am saying that an extremely influential person states very clearly Indonesia will never accept boats turned back by Australia.

Would you not agree that puts Abbott's "turn back the boats" policy down the dunny?

Does he have a fall back position?

I think an Indonesian with no power to dictate Australia's Boarder security policies can stick his opinion up his bum and he will soon be faced with tuff titties when Abbott gets tough on our border security.

The speaker was a woman.

There is nothing here about Indonesia dictating anything, just setting their own policy.

So if Tony turns back the boats, and Indonesia won't accept them, where do they go?

I think you will find that's Indonesia's problem after all they are Indonesian vessels.

So? Who is going to force them to accept the boats back?

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:50am:

I think you will find that's Indonesia's problem after all they are Indonesian vessels.

They arent indonesians on the vessels so they arent really indonesian vessels

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:17am:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:50am: I think you will find that's Indonesia's problem after all they are Indonesian vessels. They arent indonesians on the vessels so they arent really indonesian vessels SOB http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

The crew on these boats are Indonesians and the boats are owned by Indonesians.

To say they are not Indonesians would be to say an Australian Naval Boat with a load of boat people on board is not an Australian Vessel

It certainly was an interesting episode. Shame sophia was on monday and not thursday's episode. Indonesia might of liked her and kept her.

Guess there would be more chance of that than conservatives being able to returning Australian bound refugee boats around.

All abbott wants to do is destroy diplomatic work done to build the relationship between the two countries.

If Abbott wants to stop any of the boats, just concentrate on the live cattle boats.

Stop the Live Cattle Boats

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:16am:

Fascinating program last night providing a rare insight into the thinking of some of our nearest neighbours. Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia. Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast. What now, Tony?

Can we have a say on some of Indonesia's policies? How 'bout they run their 2013/2014 budget by us for final approval? What about their defence policy? Social security may need some scrutiny as well.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:42am:

I think an Indonesian with no power to dictate Australia's Boarder security policies can stick his opinion up his bum and he will soon be faced with tuff titties when Abbott gets tough on our border security.

you seem to have no problem dictating to them what they must do?

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:16am:

Fascinating program last night providing a rare insight into the thinking of some of our nearest neighbours. Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia. Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast. What now, Tony?

Gunboat Diplomacy.

Instead of the Border Patrol boats being used as a taxpayer-funded escort service for the asylum-seeker frauds, Abbott's highly innovative idea (for its commonsense) to have them actually used for border protection purposes is a guarantee of effectiveness.

I hope nobody is still labouring under the delusion that the 44,000 boat-people arrivals since Labor came to power was unintended.

Of COURSE it was part of Labor policy to encourage as many Labor-voting Third Worlders to arrive ~ hook or by crook ~ as could be managed during their time in office.

Abbott will be holding a Royal Flush to Indonesia's lousy hand when it comes time for him to read them the Riot Act.

Foreign Aid and Gunboat diplomacy for starters.

Indonesia's petulant hostage-keeping of Schapelle Corby all these years has been designed to embarrass Australia. Abbott won't forget that.

Abbott will also be mindful of the fact he is dealing with one of the most corrupt regimes in the world ~ and that as Muslims, their default attitude to the White Christian nation of Australia is one of resentful inferiority complex.

salad in wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 9:00am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:16am: Fascinating program last night providing a rare insight into the thinking of some of our nearest neighbours. Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia. Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast. What now, Tony? Can we have a say on some of Indonesia's policies? How 'bout they run their 2013/2014 budget by us for final approval? What about their defence policy? Social security may need some scrutiny as well.

Indonesia isn't dictating Australian policy. They will simply refuse to accept boats back, that's their policy.

So come on, what's Abbott going to do now?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 9:33am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:16am: Fascinating program last night providing a rare insight into the thinking of some of our nearest neighbours. Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia. Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast. What now, Tony? Gunboat Diplomacy. Instead of the Border Patrol boats being used as a taxpayer-funded escort service for the asylum-seeker frauds, Abbott's highly innovative idea (for its commonsense) to have them actually used for border protection purposes is a guarantee of effectiveness. I hope nobody is still labouring under the delusion that the 44,000 boat-people arrivals since Labor came to power was unintended. Of COURSE it was part of Labor policy to encourage as many Labor-voting Third Worlders to arrive ~ hook or by crook ~ as could be managed during their time in office. Abbott will be holding a Royal Flush to Indonesia's lousy hand when it comes time for him to read them the Riot Act. Foreign Aid and Gunboat diplomacy for starters. Indonesia's petulant hostage-keeping of Anita Corby all these years has been designed to embarrass Australia. Abbott won't forget that. Abbott will also be mindful of the fact he is dealing with one of the most corrupt regimes in the world ~ and that as Muslims, their default attitude to the White Christian nation of Australia is one of resentful inferiority complex.

HEAR HEAR!

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 9:39am:

salad in wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 9:00am: Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:16am: Fascinating program last night providing a rare insight into the thinking of some of our nearest neighbours. Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia. Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast. What now, Tony? Can we have a say on some of Indonesia's policies? How 'bout they run their 2013/2014 budget by us for final approval? What about their defence policy? Social security may need some scrutiny as well. Indonesia isn't dictating Australian policy. They will simply refuse to accept boats back, that's their policy. So come on, what's Abbott going to do now?

Then it will be up to the United Nations to act against Indonesia. I'm sure the United nations might have a problem with Indonesia refusing to allow their own boats to come back to port.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 9:59am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 9:39am: salad in wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 9:00am: Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:16am: Fascinating program last night providing a rare insight into the thinking of some of our nearest neighbours. Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia. Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast. What now, Tony? Can we have a say on some of Indonesia's policies? How 'bout they run their 2013/2014 budget by us for final approval? What about their defence policy? Social security may need some scrutiny as well. Indonesia isn't dictating Australian policy. They will simply refuse to accept boats back, that's their policy. So come on, what's Abbott going to do now? Then it will be up to the United Nations to act against Indonesia. I'm sure the United nations might have a problem with Indonesia refusing to allow their own boats to come back to port.

How are they "their own boats"?

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:17am: BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:50am: I think you will find that's Indonesia's problem after all they are Indonesian vessels. They arent indonesians on the vessels so they arent really indonesian vessels SOB http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg The crew on these boats are Indonesians and the boats are owned by Indonesians. To say they are not Indonesians would be to say an Australian Naval Boat with a load of boat people on board is not an Australian Vessel

If the indonesians on the boats are criminals then why would they want them back? Its not like they own the boats. Its not like they are filled with indonesians. Its not like they will be all semantic about it like you - they dont want the criminals or the asylum seekers and the govt doesnt own the boats. Why would they want them?

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 9:39am:

They will simply refuse to accept boats back, that's their policy.

And it's one they can't keep.

The Australian navy will tow the Muslim fraud-boats back into Indonesian waters.

Next move ~ Indonesia's.

What are they going to do then?

Stamp their feet and refuse to accept Australia's annual dole cheque of millions in 'Foreign Aid'?

Back to the drawing-board, Peter.

Nice try, but no Hero of the Soviet Union medal for you this time.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:32am:

No. When did I say that? I am saying that an extremely influential person states very clearly Indonesia will never accept boats turned back by Australia. Would you not agree that puts Abbott's "turn back the boats" policy down the dunny? Does he have a fall back position?

The Coalition doesn't need a fall back position.
Perhaps if Labor 'had some ticker', they could have the boats towed back just like Rudd stated he would do in 2007.
However, it doesn't matter what Indonesia accepts actually.
These boats won't be towed into Indonesian waters, and never have been in the past, so Indonesian acceptance is irrelevant.
They will only towed to the limit of Indonesian territorial waters, and be released in international waters with enough fuel to make port.
These boats are Indonesian boats, registered and crewed by Indonesians.
They have just left an Indonesian port, so for the Indonesians to say they don't want their boats or crews back is silly.
Perhaps they don't want the smugglers to give names of the Indonesian police and officials who have aided these criminals in their enterprise, who knows.
The US Coast Guard have been towing back boats since the eighties, and have towed back 2000 this year alone quite successfully.
The Sri Lankan navy has also been towing back boats with great success.
You think our naval personnel are happy being an escort service for smugglers.
These professional service people have been boarding pirate vessels in the Gulf and nearby waters for over ten years with great success also.
So they can certainly handle a couple of scumbag criminals on smugglers vessels who are inclined to sabotage the boat they are on.
And what happens to them after they are in Indonesian waters is Indonesia's problem eh.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:07am:

If the indonesians on the boats are criminals then why would they want them back? Its not like they own the boats. Its not like they are filled with indonesians. Its not like they will be all semantic about it like you - they dont want the criminals or the asylum seekers and the govt doesnt own the boats. Why would they want them? SOB http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

Are you thick or something? The crews are Indonesian and the boats are Indonesian fishing boats originating from Indonesia. The crews are generally not criminals the way you would define it but poor fisherman recruited from remote villages to act as patsies for the organisers. Most of them cant even read or write and many of them are not legally adults. You are right in 1 thing, thier government doesnt really want them back. They have an abundance of poor subsistence fishermen in Indonesia, they are only too willing to let us look after them, educate, clothe and feed them and supply them with a wage far above what they could ever expect from fishing. And then deport them after about 5 years.

Heres a suggestion, the boats come from Indonesia then they can f.....,g well go back there whether those arseholes like it or not.

They let them come, then they can take them back.

Game over.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:15am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 9:39am: They will simply refuse to accept boats back, that's their policy. And it's one they can't keep. The Australian navy will tow the Muslim fraud-boats back into Indonesian waters. Next move ~ Indonesia's. What are they going to do then? Stamp their feet and refuse to accept Australia's annual dole cheque of millions in 'Foreign Aid'? Back to the drawing-board, Peter. Nice try, but no Hero of the Soviet Union medal for you this time.

Under international law we cant do it. Its just a nonsense gambit by Abbot for the thicko vote.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:05am:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 9:59am: Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 9:39am: salad in wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 9:00am: Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:16am: Fascinating program last night providing a rare insight into the thinking of some of our nearest neighbours. Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia. Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast. What now, Tony? Can we have a say on some of Indonesia's policies? How 'bout they run their 2013/2014 budget by us for final approval? What about their defence policy? Social security may need some scrutiny as well. Indonesia isn't dictating Australian policy. They will simply refuse to accept boats back, that's their policy. So come on, what's Abbott going to do now? Then it will be up to the United Nations to act against Indonesia. I'm sure the United nations might have a problem with Indonesia refusing to allow their own boats to come back to port. How are they "their own boats"? SOB http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

Indonesian criminal crew, Indonesian registered boats, Indonesian fuel, just left an Indonesian port.
That's Indonesian enough eh. :)

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:19am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:15am: Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 9:39am: They will simply refuse to accept boats back, that's their policy. And it's one they can't keep. The Australian navy will tow the Muslim fraud-boats back into Indonesian waters. Next move ~ Indonesia's. What are they going to do then? Stamp their feet and refuse to accept Australia's annual dole cheque of millions in 'Foreign Aid'? Back to the drawing-board, Peter. Nice try, but no Hero of the Soviet Union medal for you this time. Under international law we cant do it. Its just a nonsense gambit by Abbot for the thicko vote.

And what 'International' law is that?
Is that the one International Rescue work under?
The US Coast Guard tows their  smuggler boats back, the Sri Lankan does the same.
Is this 'International' law from some lefties space cadet manual eh. ;D

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:16am:

Fascinating program last night providing a rare insight into the thinking of some of our nearest neighbours. Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia. Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast. What now, Tony?

oh dear here we go again...
I watched it too and yes there was one person quite strident in her attitude no doubt playing to the people.  Well we have a sovereign nation too and since they are Indonesian vessels, crewed by Indonesians, under orders from Indonesian criminals, then in all rationality they must accept their return.

I note the same woman did not mention any conflict/war and just that they would talk to our government about the process.

I note the Indonesian part of the panel was underwhelming in their intelligence and ability to see and consider the problem realistically.

I note Abbott has a much broader and consultative idea for how this would work, than the ALP and it's moronic rusted-ons would have one believe.

I note that corruption is accepted as part of the Indonesian culture and a member of the panel if not embracing that used it and poverty as an excuse for criminal actions.  There lies a cultural difference for sure.  We do not accept that poverty is an excuse for criminality.

As for the non-Australian panel members they seemed to have an even more negative stereotype of Australians than we have of them.  If Indonesian elites harbour these ideas how much more ignorant and misguided are the rest?

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:24am:

ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:19am: Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:15am: Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 9:39am: They will simply refuse to accept boats back, that's their policy. And it's one they can't keep. The Australian navy will tow the Muslim fraud-boats back into Indonesian waters. Next move ~ Indonesia's. What are they going to do then? Stamp their feet and refuse to accept Australia's annual dole cheque of millions in 'Foreign Aid'? Back to the drawing-board, Peter. Nice try, but no Hero of the Soviet Union medal for you this time. Under international law we cant do it. Its just a nonsense gambit by Abbot for the thicko vote. And what 'International' law is that? Is that the one International Rescue work under? The US Coast Guard tows their  smuggler boats back, the Sri Lankan does the same. Is this 'International' law from some lefties space cadet manual eh. ;D

I have never heard of US coast guard towing back refugee boats. And are you really saying that Sri Lanka should be a role model for Australia? Really? I would be interested to see any information you have on this. Despite which, international maritime law we are required to help any vessel in distress. Theres no way out of this unless we want to cause an international incident, Abbot knows this, he is just blowing hot air. We need a sane acceptable solution to this issue.

But they left out a few questions:

They could have talked about their Muslim extremists.

Also animal cruelty - what did they think about the way the animals were treated?

What about Sharia law?

What about their quite large army?
How big & powerful is it?

Sharia law only exists in remote provinces in Indonesia, but nowhere do they practise the extreme version you see in the middle east. You have a point about animal cruelty. They are doing a good job on the Muslim extremist front. Their army is geared up for internal policing, they have no reach capability,

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:44am:

Sharia law only exists in remote provinces in Indonesia, but nowhere do they practise the extreme version you see in the middle east. You have a point about animal cruelty. They are doing a good job on the Muslim extremist front. Their army is geared up for internal policing, they have no reach capability,

I think Tony Jones was given a tap on the shoulder by ASIO
not to inflame issues too much.

There is nothing to stop the Australian Navy escorting illegal arrivals out of Australian waters. It worked last time and it will work again.

Rudd's solution is to throw more taxpayer's money at Indonesia, a corrupt regime.

There's always good old China for him to borrow more billions from on our behalf. He hasn't got the first clue in how to sort out a problem of his own making.

red baron wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:48am:

There is nothing to stop the Australian Navy escorting illegal arrivals out of Australian waters. It worked last time and it will work again.

It did work for 4 boats until the crews started scuttling their own boats.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:47am:

ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:44am: Sharia law only exists in remote provinces in Indonesia, but nowhere do they practise the extreme version you see in the middle east. You have a point about animal cruelty. They are doing a good job on the Muslim extremist front. Their army is geared up for internal policing, they have no reach capability, I think Tony Jones was given a tap on the shoulder by ASIO not to inflame issues too much.

Probably right. Beleive it or not one of the biggest issues from the Indo side is Bali, the fundamentalists and more increasingly the average middle class  view it as a colonisation of western values. i.e. drugs, prostitution etc. i wouldnt be surprised to see another terrorist attack there. Its only because the Indos are doing such a good job agains the terrorist threat that there hasnt been, they have averted quite a few but my bet is that it will happen again.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:51am:

red baron wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:48am: There is nothing to stop the Australian Navy escorting illegal arrivals out of Australian waters. It worked last time and it will work again. It did work for 4 boats until the crews started scuttling their own boats.

yes and thats exactly why it wont work.

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:52am:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:47am: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:44am: Sharia law only exists in remote provinces in Indonesia, but nowhere do they practise the extreme version you see in the middle east. You have a point about animal cruelty. They are doing a good job on the Muslim extremist front. Their army is geared up for internal policing, they have no reach capability, I think Tony Jones was given a tap on the shoulder by ASIO not to inflame issues too much. Probably right. Beleive it or not one of the biggest issues from the Indo side is Bali, the fundamentalists and more increasingly the average middle class  view it as a colonisation of western values. i.e. drugs, prostitution etc. i wouldnt be surprised to see another terrorist attack there. Its only because the Indos are doing such a good job agains the terrorist threat that there hasnt been, they have averted quite a few but my bet is that it will happen again.

Yes & Tony Jones looked very staged.

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:43am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24am: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:19am: Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:15am: Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 9:39am: They will simply refuse to accept boats back, that's their policy. And it's one they can't keep. The Australian navy will tow the Muslim fraud-boats back into Indonesian waters. Next move ~ Indonesia's. What are they going to do then? Stamp their feet and refuse to accept Australia's annual dole cheque of millions in 'Foreign Aid'? Back to the drawing-board, Peter. Nice try, but no Hero of the Soviet Union medal for you this time. Under international law we cant do it. Its just a nonsense gambit by Abbot for the thicko vote. And what 'International' law is that? Is that the one International Rescue work under? The US Coast Guard tows their  smuggler boats back, the Sri Lankan does the same. Is this 'International' law from some lefties space cadet manual eh. ;D I have never heard of US coast guard towing back refugee boats. And are you really saying that Sri Lanka should be a role model for Australia? Really? I would be interested to see any information you have on this. Despite which, international maritime law we are required to help any vessel in distress. Theres no way out of this unless we want to cause an international incident, Abbot knows this, he is just blowing hot air. We need a sane acceptable solution to this issue.

The US Coast Guard has been towing back people smugglers boats that come from the Caribbean looking to land people on the US mainland illegally since Ronald Reagan was President.
Do your own research.
And whether Sri Lanka is a 'role model' really is irrelevant to this issue eh.
I'm sure your Dilmah tea tasted fine this morning.
Sri Lanka are entitled to round up suspected Tamil terrorists, and they are right to ensure that these people do not escape justice by sailing off into the sunset.
And not every boat found at sea is in 'distress' eh, and those that are actually are assisted.
The rest go back to where Indonesian territorial waters meet International waters with enough fuel to sail into the nearest port which will usually be 20nm due north.
You may like to know that during Howards time, only 6 smugglers boats were returned in this way by our navy before the smugglers realised this wasn't doing their business any good, and stopped coming.
Naval personnel board these vessels, plug any bad leaks, check for sufficient food and water, check the engine and ensure their is enough fuel to make a 20nm journey and stay on board until the vessel reaches the limit of Indonesian territorial waters to ensure their is no sabotage.
And this is the only sane acceptable solution to stopping this filthy trade.

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:54am:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:51am: red baron wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:48am: There is nothing to stop the Australian Navy escorting illegal arrivals out of Australian waters. It worked last time and it will work again. It did work for 4 boats until the crews started scuttling their own boats. yes and thats exactly why it wont work.

Perhaps this is how some boats have been lost at sea with all hands never to be seen again.
Silly way to run a business as this wouldn't be a good advertisement for the people smuggling trade.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 11:06am:

ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:43am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24am: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:19am: Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:15am: Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 9:39am: They will simply refuse to accept boats back, that's their policy. And it's one they can't keep. The Australian navy will tow the Muslim fraud-boats back into Indonesian waters. Next move ~ Indonesia's. What are they going to do then? Stamp their feet and refuse to accept Australia's annual dole cheque of millions in 'Foreign Aid'? Back to the drawing-board, Peter. Nice try, but no Hero of the Soviet Union medal for you this time. Under international law we cant do it. Its just a nonsense gambit by Abbot for the thicko vote. And what 'International' law is that? Is that the one International Rescue work under? The US Coast Guard tows their  smuggler boats back, the Sri Lankan does the same. Is this 'International' law from some lefties space cadet manual eh. ;D I have never heard of US coast guard towing back refugee boats. And are you really saying that Sri Lanka should be a role model for Australia? Really? I would be interested to see any information you have on this. Despite which, international maritime law we are required to help any vessel in distress. Theres no way out of this unless we want to cause an international incident, Abbot knows this, he is just blowing hot air. We need a sane acceptable solution to this issue. The US Coast Guard has been towing back people smugglers boats that come from the Caribbean looking to land people on the US mainland illegally since Ronald Reagan was President. Do your own research. And whether Sri Lanka is a 'role model' really is irrelevant to this issue eh. I'm sure your Dilmah tea tasted fine this morning. Sri Lanka are entitled to round up suspected Tamil terrorists, and they are right to ensure that these people do not escape justice by sailing off into the sunset. And not every boat found at sea is in 'distress' eh, and those that are actually are assisted. The rest go back to where Indonesian territorial waters meet International waters with enough fuel to sail into the nearest port which will usually be 20nm due north. You may like to know that during Howards time, only 6 smugglers boats were returned in this way by our navy before the smugglers realised this wasn't doing their business any good, and stopped coming. Naval personnel board these vessels, plug any bad leaks, check for sufficient food and water, check the engine and ensure their is enough fuel to make a 20nm journey and stay on board until the vessel reaches the limit of Indonesian territorial waters to ensure their is no sabotage. And this is the only sane acceptable solution to stopping this filthy trade.

Like I said, I would like to see any sources or links you have on the US towing back boats. Your Sri Lankan comparison is completely off topic. Yopu alos missed the point about the people smugglers being able to scuttle thier boats, thats the big flaw. we are never going to tow them back, its just a ploy by Abbot.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 11:10am:

Perhaps this is how some boats have been lost at sea with all hands never to be seen again. Silly way to run a business as this wouldn't be a good advertisement for the people smuggling trade.

These boats that they use are just old fishing boats, they are leaking old tubs that thye dont even use for fishing anymore because even the fishermen think they are unsafe. Thats why they sink. and if you thin k it isnt a good advertisment then why do these economic migrants keep wanting to come here  at great risk in increasing numbers?

The Indonesians had a good point:

How can they control their 17,000  islands?

Chickenlips, I just read Abbotts comments this morning about the US and Sri Lankan navies towing back boats so I see where you are getting this from. I wouldnt be relying on Abbots comments for any accurate information, hes wrong more times than GreggaryPeccary. In fact Abbott is currently showing an ever increasing shallowness of intellect on this and just about any other subject.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 9:59am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 9:39am: salad in wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 9:00am: Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:16am: Fascinating program last night providing a rare insight into the thinking of some of our nearest neighbours. Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia. Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast. What now, Tony? Can we have a say on some of Indonesia's policies? How 'bout they run their 2013/2014 budget by us for final approval? What about their defence policy? Social security may need some scrutiny as well. Indonesia isn't dictating Australian policy. They will simply refuse to accept boats back, that's their policy. So come on, what's Abbott going to do now? Then it will be up to the United Nations to act against Indonesia. I'm sure the United nations might have a problem with Indonesia refusing to allow their own boats to come back to port.

The UN?

Now your're right at the bottom of the barrel. You rightards HATE the United Nations, they're useless. Never doing anything, piss up in a brewery, etc etc.

Besides, the Indonesians can ignore the UN. If they want lessons, go to Bush and Blair. And, by association, Australia.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 11:25am:

The Indonesians had a good point: How can they control their 17,000  islands?

Like Australia hasn't got a big coastline?

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:06am: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:43am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:24am: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:19am: Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:15am: Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 9:39am: They will simply refuse to accept boats back, that's their policy. And it's one they can't keep. The Australian navy will tow the Muslim fraud-boats back into Indonesian waters. Next move ~ Indonesia's. What are they going to do then? Stamp their feet and refuse to accept Australia's annual dole cheque of millions in 'Foreign Aid'? Back to the drawing-board, Peter. Nice try, but no Hero of the Soviet Union medal for you this time. Under international law we cant do it. Its just a nonsense gambit by Abbot for the thicko vote. And what 'International' law is that? Is that the one International Rescue work under? The US Coast Guard tows their  smuggler boats back, the Sri Lankan does the same. Is this 'International' law from some lefties space cadet manual eh. ;D I have never heard of US coast guard towing back refugee boats. And are you really saying that Sri Lanka should be a role model for Australia? Really? I would be interested to see any information you have on this. Despite which, international maritime law we are required to help any vessel in distress. Theres no way out of this unless we want to cause an international incident, Abbot knows this, he is just blowing hot air. We need a sane acceptable solution to this issue. The US Coast Guard has been towing back people smugglers boats that come from the Caribbean looking to land people on the US mainland illegally since Ronald Reagan was President. Do your own research. And whether Sri Lanka is a 'role model' really is irrelevant to this issue eh. I'm sure your Dilmah tea tasted fine this morning. Sri Lanka are entitled to round up suspected Tamil terrorists, and they are right to ensure that these people do not escape justice by sailing off into the sunset. And not every boat found at sea is in 'distress' eh, and those that are actually are assisted. The rest go back to where Indonesian territorial waters meet International waters with enough fuel to sail into the nearest port which will usually be 20nm due north. You may like to know that during Howards time, only 6 smugglers boats were returned in this way by our navy before the smugglers realised this wasn't doing their business any good, and stopped coming. Naval personnel board these vessels, plug any bad leaks, check for sufficient food and water, check the engine and ensure their is enough fuel to make a 20nm journey and stay on board until the vessel reaches the limit of Indonesian territorial waters to ensure their is no sabotage. And this is the only sane acceptable solution to stopping this filthy trade. Like I said, I would like to see any sources or links you have on the US towing back boats. Your Sri Lankan comparison is completely off topic. Yopu alos missed the point about the people smugglers being able to scuttle thier boats, thats the big flaw. we are never going to tow them back, its just a ploy by Abbot.

And as I said, do your own research on the US.
The Sri Lankan comparison is not off topic.
Country shoppers there are being smuggled out of there country, and are being stopped and returned to port by the authorities.
And it doesn't matter whether the crews scuttle the boats, we can't stop them if that's what they wish to do.
No doubt they have lost people doing this, and no doubt will again.
The fact remains that the Coalitions policy will be to turn back the boats when it is safe to do so.
This has already proven to be successful.
Rudd stated in 2007, that he too would have the boats turned back.
Now if the crew scuttle the boats and people drown, then any surviving crew will face justice.
But pretending the policy is flawed and we are hamstrung because of what the smugglers might do, and we should allow this filthy trade to continue is just plain wrong.
The Australian government should not in the business of sponsoring foreign criminal enterprises because of weak ineffective policy and laws.
The Indonesians want us to 'take the sugar off the table' and stop inviting these people to take these risks.
And this is precisely what the Coalition will do again.
Labor doesn't have what it takes to fix this problem they made, so let the other side have a go eh.
When Rudd took over in 2007, there was 4 detainees left on Nauru with few boat arrivals, all the mainland detention centres closed down with the exception of Villawood, and the annual border protection budget was a small fraction of what it is today.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:15am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 9:39am: They will simply refuse to accept boats back, that's their policy. And it's one they can't keep. The Australian navy will tow the Muslim fraud-boats back into Indonesian waters. Next move ~ Indonesia's. What are they going to do then? Stamp their feet and refuse to accept Australia's annual dole cheque of millions in 'Foreign Aid'? Back to the drawing-board, Peter. Nice try, but no Hero of the Soviet Union medal for you this time.

No problem Herbert. I already have a HOSUM, it hangs proudly beide a photo of me, Fidel and Che.

What are the Indonesians going to do? Nothing, just refuse to allow the boats to berth.

So these poor people will sail round and round till a nation with true decency accepts them. NZ, perhaps.

red baron wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:48am:

Rudd's solution is to throw more taxpayer's money at Indonesia, a corrupt regime.

As if that will work. Turning back boats aside, the most important issue raised on the show was Indonesia's ability to do ANYTHING to stop the boats.

Indonesia is a country with thousands of islands. Stop people smuggling on one island, and it will move to another, and another, and another. The people smugglers will take their bribes with them to the small, isolated and underfunded police stations on each one of those islands. Short of a network of Australian spies throughout the Indonesian archipelago, how can Jakarta stop the boats?

Tackling corruption tops the popular agenda in Indonesia right now. People want it stopped. They're fed up with paying taxes that prop up corrupt government officials. Blaming Indonesians for corruption is pointless.

The Indonesians on Q&A rightly said that Indonesia is a transit country, not the point of origin. The visas on arrival are issued in Malaysia. The boats are crewed by Indonesian fishermen - that's the extent of Indonesian involvement. Most of the people smuggling networks are Iranian and Pakistani organized crime syndicates.

Blaming Indonesia won't do a thing. Funding regional processing centres in Indonesia is pointless too - Indonesia already has two of these, jointly funded by the UNHCR. The people in those processing centres are the many of the ones who make their way to Australia. After waiting 3 years, they tend to get a little twitchy.

Turning back boats relies on Indonesian cooperation. The risk here is that with hundreds of men, women and children on board, the boats will be sabotaged and search and rescue procedures would come into effect. If this happens in Australian waters, it's Australia's problem. If it happens in Indonesian waters and Indonesia doesn't respond, it's still Australia's problem.

Indonesian "search and rescue" teams are largely fishing boats themselves. It's not like the entire Indonesian archipelago is staffed with on-call helicopters, speedboats and naval vessels. If people are drowning at sea, they need to be rescued. Who does this at the time is irrelevant.

Where they go when they're rescued is another matter. If Indonesia does not take them in, they're Australia's problem.

No matter what the Australian government puts on the table, it will require Indonesia's cooperation. But Indonesia does not have the ability to tackle the problem itself.

From Indonesia's point of view, we're talking about a few thousand refugees a year. Indonesia has a population of 240 million.

What's the incentive for Indonesia?

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 11:19am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:10am: Perhaps this is how some boats have been lost at sea with all hands never to be seen again. Silly way to run a business as this wouldn't be a good advertisement for the people smuggling trade. These boats that they use are just old fishing boats, they are leaking old tubs that thye dont even use for fishing anymore because even the fishermen think they are unsafe. Thats why they sink. and if you thin k it isnt a good advertisment then why do these economic migrants keep wanting to come here  at great risk in increasing numbers?

It's called the 'Labor Suck factor' which draws them here.
Once Abbott 'takes the sugar off the table', the boat arrivals dry up.
I'm also sure the criminals don't go out of their way to inform people if boats fail to arrive in Australian waters.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 11:46am:

ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:19am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:10am: Perhaps this is how some boats have been lost at sea with all hands never to be seen again. Silly way to run a business as this wouldn't be a good advertisement for the people smuggling trade. These boats that they use are just old fishing boats, they are leaking old tubs that thye dont even use for fishing anymore because even the fishermen think they are unsafe. Thats why they sink. and if you thin k it isnt a good advertisment then why do these economic migrants keep wanting to come here  at great risk in increasing numbers? It's called the 'Labor Suck factor' which draws them here. Once Abbott 'takes the sugar off the table', the boat arrivals dry up. I'm also sure the criminals don't go out of their way to inform people if boats fail to arrive in Australian waters.

How is Abbott going to take the "sugar off the table"? We're still a signatory to the UN treaty on refugees. Any refugee who gets here will still have their claims of asylum assessed.

Abbott won't - and can't - change that.

Quote:

Indonesia is a country with thousands of islands, and most of them poor. Stop people smuggling on one island, and it will move to another, and another, and another. The people smugglers will take their bribes with them to the small, isolated and underfunded police stations on each one of those islands. Short of a network of Australian spies throughout the Indonesian archipelago, how can Jakarta stop this?

All the more reason to have a working turn back the boats policy. If the moochers see they are wasting their money then surely they will see the futility in their stupidity and stop.


Quote:

Tackling corruption tops the popular agenda in Indonesia right now. People want it stopped. They're fed up with paying taxes that prop up corrupt government officials. Blaming Indonesians for corruption is pointless.

Yet they admit it is cultural and they expect it will need to be a generational change perhaps several.  No one needs to "blame" them when they admit culpability.

Quote:

The Indonesians on Q&A rightly said that Indonesia is a transit country, not the point of origin. The visas on arrival are issued in Malaysia.

And accepted in Indonesia.  They also keep records of them.


Quote:

The boats are crewed by Indonesian fishermen - that's the extent of Indonesian involvement.

No it is not...  people smuggling is global and the fishermen are just hired hands.


Quote:

Most of the people smuggling networks are Iranian and Pakistani organized crime syndicates.

Many are also fronted by Indonesian and corrupt Indonesian officials.


Quote:

Blaming Indonesia won't do a thing. Funding regional processing centres in Indonesia is pointless too - Indonesia already has two of these, jointly funded by the UNHCR.

yep covered that already.


Quote:

The people in those processing centres are the many of the ones who make their way to Australia. After waiting 3 years, they tend to get a little twitchy.

Yet they arrived with visas.  Indonesia not being a signatory to the UN Refugee Protocol could simply deport them.

Quote:

Turning back boats relies on Indonesian cooperation.

yep.


Quote:

The risk here is that with hundreds of men, women and children on board, the boats will be sabotaged and search and rescue procedures would come into effect. If this happens in Australian waters, it's Australia's problem.

yep.


Quote:

If it happens in Indonesian waters and Indonesia doesn't respond, it's still Australia's problem.

But in that case they can be returned to Indonesia.  :)


Quote:

Indonesian "search and rescue" teams are largely fishing boats themselves. It's not like the entire Indonesian archipelago is staffed with on-call helicopters, speedboats and naval vessels. If people are drowning at sea, they need to be rescued. Who does this at the time is irrelevant.

yet they have billions to spend on their military....  :)


Quote:

Where they go when they're rescued is another matter. If Indonesia does not take them in, they're Australia's problem.

Not if they are not in our waters and not if we don't know about them.


Quote:

No matter what the Australian government puts on the table, it will require Indonesia's cooperation. But Indonesia does not have the ability to tackle the problem itself.

Which is why Abbott's plan involves consultation and cooperation.  :)


Quote:

From Indonesia's point of view, we're talking about a few thousand refugees a year. Indonesia has a population of 240 million. What's the incentive for Indonesia?

They don't want to house 1000s of so-called refugees.
They don't want dead people in the ocean.
They don't want to be the meat in the asylum seeker sandwich.
In 50 years they will be the drawcard and muslim people will stop transiting to Australia.  they need it fixed before then.

Grendel wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:25am: The Indonesians had a good point: How can they control their 17,000  islands? Like Australia hasn't got a big coastline?

What is your point?

Grendel wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:29am:

oh dear here we go again... I watched it too and yes there was one person quite strident in her attitude no doubt playing to the people.  Well we have a sovereign nation too and since they are Indonesian vessels, crewed by Indonesians, under orders from Indonesian criminals, then in all rationality they must accept their return.

The point is, it doesn't really help does it? Indonesia is a transitory country. The people-smuggling network starts at the source country - not at Indonesia. Indonesia is as much a victim of the people-smuggling trade as Australia - in fact much more so.

So you have a lot of stateless people holed up in Indonesia - they don't want them, Australia doesn't want them. The point here is that there is a thriving market for people smuggling, that is run, controlled and centred outside both Australia's and Indonesian's area of legal jurisdiction. Attempting to stop the boats doesn't address the root cause of the problem. Thats why labor and the Indonesian authorities are correct to say this needs a regional solution, not simple slogans.

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 11:56am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:46am: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:19am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:10am: Perhaps this is how some boats have been lost at sea with all hands never to be seen again. Silly way to run a business as this wouldn't be a good advertisement for the people smuggling trade. These boats that they use are just old fishing boats, they are leaking old tubs that thye dont even use for fishing anymore because even the fishermen think they are unsafe. Thats why they sink. and if you thin k it isnt a good advertisment then why do these economic migrants keep wanting to come here  at great risk in increasing numbers? It's called the 'Labor Suck factor' which draws them here. Once Abbott 'takes the sugar off the table', the boat arrivals dry up. I'm also sure the criminals don't go out of their way to inform people if boats fail to arrive in Australian waters. How is Abbott going to take the "sugar off the table"? We're still a signatory to the UN treaty on refugees. Any refugee who gets here will still have their claims of asylum assessed. Abbott won't - and can't - change that.

How is Abbott going to do it?
Easy.
Re-introduce TPV's.
Mandatory long term goal sentencing for boat crews.
Turn back the boats policy.
No settlement in Australia for those who arrive via smugglers boats.
Sell the country shoppers and crew to North African slavers.
Sink the boats.
Abbott can do many things to fix Labor's mess.
And fix it he will.

Abbott will stand on the bow of a customs boat with a loud hailer
& yell out STOP.

That will do it.

Grendel wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

Quote: What's the incentive for Indonesia? They don't want to house 1000s of so-called refugees. They don't want dead people in the ocean. They don't want to be the meat in the asylum seeker sandwich. In 50 years they will be the drawcard and muslim people will stop transiting to Australia.  they need it fixed before then.

From Indonesia's point of view, this is not their problem. I'm only repeating what Indonesians themselves said on Q&A. We're talking about a few thousand refugees amongst a population of 240 million.

The US, with a comparable population, estimated its number of illegal immigrants to be 11 million in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

Do you really think that the Indonesian government has the ability to plan 50 years into the future? Here in Australia, governments can't even plan beyond the next election.

Think about the question: what's the incentive for Indonesia to stop a few thousand refugees transiting to Australia?

High-minded moral arguments aren't going to do a thing.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:29am: oh dear here we go again... I watched it too and yes there was one person quite strident in her attitude no doubt playing to the people.  Well we have a sovereign nation too and since they are Indonesian vessels, crewed by Indonesians, under orders from Indonesian criminals, then in all rationality they must accept their return. The point is, it doesn't really help does it? Indonesia is a transitory country. The people-smuggling network starts at the source country - not at Indonesia. Indonesia is as much a victim of the people-smuggling trade as Australia - in fact much more so. So you have a lot of stateless people holed up in Indonesia - they don't want them, Australia doesn't want them. The point here is that there is a thriving market for people smuggling, that is run, controlled and centred outside both Australia's and Indonesian's area of legal jurisdiction. Attempting to stop the boats doesn't address the root cause of the problem. Thats why labor and the Indonesian authorities are correct to say this needs a regional solution, not simple slogans.

Exactly.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 9:39am:

Indonesia isn't dictating Australian policy. They will simply refuse to accept boats back, that's their policy. So come on, what's Abbott going to do now?

Is that so. There is no international law that says hordes of people can jump on a 'leaky boat' and sail to the country of his or her choice. Abbott doesn't have to tow the boats back. Our navy is not allowed to enter Indonesian's maritime zone (unless of course the navy is delivering our foreign aid) so international waters belong to no one. He need only 'tow the boats' to international waters. Leave them there. No threat to Indonesia and no bludging off us.

salad in wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 3:26pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 9:39am: Indonesia isn't dictating Australian policy. They will simply refuse to accept boats back, that's their policy. So come on, what's Abbott going to do now? Is that so. There is no international law that says hordes of people can jump on a 'leaky boat' and sail to the country of his or her choice. Abbott doesn't have to tow the boats back. Our navy is not allowed to enter Indonesian's maritime zone (unless of course the navy is delivering our foreign aid) so international waters belong to no one. He need only 'tow the boats' to international waters. Leave them there. No threat to Indonesia and no bludging off us.

ah good to see you advocate people dying at sea :)

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 12:55pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 12:01pm: Quote: What's the incentive for Indonesia? They don't want to house 1000s of so-called refugees. They don't want dead people in the ocean. They don't want to be the meat in the asylum seeker sandwich. In 50 years they will be the drawcard and muslim people will stop transiting to Australia.  they need it fixed before then. From Indonesia's point of view, this is not their problem. I'm only repeating what Indonesians themselves said on Q&A. We're talking about a few thousand refugees amongst a population of 240 million. The US, with a comparable population, estimated its number of illegal immigrants to be 11 million in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States Do you really think that the Indonesian government has the ability to plan 50 years into the future? Here in Australia, governments can't even plan beyond the next election. Think about the question: what's the incentive for Indonesia to stop a few thousand refugees transiting to Australia? High-minded moral arguments aren't going to do a thing.

They are in denial.
They are trying to avoid the truth.
That is they way they deal with things in their culture.
But with our help and a plan we can both get a satisfactory result and put and end to it.

I'm guessing you didn't actually watch the show last night...  sigh.

Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia.  This was done in International Waters.

Isn't that an act of piracy?

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia.  This was done in International Waters. Isn't that an act of piracy?

No.

But they did intercept People Smugglers?  These days they are just an escort service.  :D

Sooo....if, while bristling with weapons, (and even if I'm not) I board a vessel on the high seas, steal their cat, take their DVDs.....that is not piracy?

:-?

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:16am:

Fascinating program last night providing a rare insight into the thinking of some of our nearest neighbours. Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia. Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast. What now, Tony?

We did it before okay.  We turned them around in international waters and gave them just enough food water and fuel to return.  It is both legal and not without precedence.  All Indonesia can do is let them die of starvation, dehydration or drowning in their own waters - all people that came from INdonesia in the first place.

Grendel wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 12:01pm: Quote: What's the incentive for Indonesia? They don't want to house 1000s of so-called refugees. They don't want dead people in the ocean. They don't want to be the meat in the asylum seeker sandwich. In 50 years they will be the drawcard and muslim people will stop transiting to Australia.  they need it fixed before then. From Indonesia's point of view, this is not their problem. I'm only repeating what Indonesians themselves said on Q&A. We're talking about a few thousand refugees amongst a population of 240 million. The US, with a comparable population, estimated its number of illegal immigrants to be 11 million in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States Do you really think that the Indonesian government has the ability to plan 50 years into the future? Here in Australia, governments can't even plan beyond the next election. Think about the question: what's the incentive for Indonesia to stop a few thousand refugees transiting to Australia? High-minded moral arguments aren't going to do a thing. They are in denial. They are trying to avoid the truth. That is they way they deal with things in their culture. But with our help and a plan we can both get a satisfactory result and put and end to it. I'm guessing you didn't actually watch the show last night...  sigh.

I'm guessing you haven't read my previous posts.

In denial? About what?

A few thousand refugees hanging out in Indonesia, a country of 240 million. Their culture?

Indonesia is a poor, rapidly developing country. Indonesians have a lot more to deal with than accepting "our help" to solve our problems.

47 thousand boat people coming to Australia in 6 years?

Who's fooling who?

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia.  This was done in International Waters. Isn't that an act of piracy?

Not if it's done in a special protection zone. The RAN would have jurisdiction there.

If it's done in Indonesian waters, definitely.

Alexander Downer had a perfect solution to the problem and it would be rather anal of the Indonesians to refuse since it solves the problem permanently and costs them nothing - not even face.

The plan is a simple one. EVERY SINGLE boat person is simply flown back to Indonesia and we take one person from the queue (and there is one) and fly them here.  For a couple months we will end up spending a sizable amount of money and alucky few Indonesian refugees will get first class travel to Oz.  But the boat people trade will very quickly grind to a complete halt once they realise that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be simply loaded back on a 747 and set back home.

It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution.

Now tell me how this could fail!!

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:31pm:

Alexander Downer had a perfect solution to the problem and it would be rather anal of the Indonesians to refuse since it solves the problem permanently and costs them nothing - not even face. The plan is a simple one. EVERY SINGLE boat person is simply flown back to Indonesia and we take one person from the queue (and there is one) and fly them here.  For a couple months we will end up spending a sizable amount of money and alucky few Indonesian refugees will get first class travel to Oz.  But the boat people trade will very quickly grind to a complete halt once they realise that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be simply loaded back on a 747 and set back home. It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution. Now tell me how this could fail!!

Sounds Like the Malaysian solution :o

The only problem with that was the cap.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:31pm:

Alexander Downer had a perfect solution to the problem and it would be rather anal of the Indonesians to refuse since it solves the problem permanently and costs them nothing - not even face. The plan is a simple one. EVERY SINGLE boat person is simply flown back to Indonesia and we take one person from the queue (and there is one) and fly them here.  For a couple months we will end up spending a sizable amount of money and alucky few Indonesian refugees will get first class travel to Oz.  But the boat people trade will very quickly grind to a complete halt once they realise that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be simply loaded back on a 747 and set back home. It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution. Now tell me how this could fail!!

Well, what do you know?

You've just described the Malaysian "Solution" in a nutshell.

I can't see Mr Abbott doing that. He voted against it, remember?

Malaysia, like Indonesia, is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:31pm: Alexander Downer had a perfect solution to the problem and it would be rather anal of the Indonesians to refuse since it solves the problem permanently and costs them nothing - not even face. The plan is a simple one. EVERY SINGLE boat person is simply flown back to Indonesia and we take one person from the queue (and there is one) and fly them here.  For a couple months we will end up spending a sizable amount of money and alucky few Indonesian refugees will get first class travel to Oz.  But the boat people trade will very quickly grind to a complete halt once they realise that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be simply loaded back on a 747 and set back home. It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution. Now tell me how this could fail!! Sounds Like the Malaysian solution :o The only problem with that was the cap.

Couldn't do that, Smithy. That was JuLiar's policy.

Mr Abbott has a policy of DITCH THE WITCH.

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 3:59pm: Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia.  This was done in International Waters. Isn't that an act of piracy? Not if it's done in a special protection zone. The RAN would have jurisdiction there. If it's done in Indonesian waters, definitely.

Yeas....agreed, but if it is done in international waters, the 'high seas,' it's got to be illegal.  And if it happens in a 'special protection zone,' I guess that must be an Australian zone, and if the people on board scuttled, they are in our dung hill for 'special' assistance?

High seas referred to here.  I'll keep digging.

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:26pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 3:38pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 12:01pm: Quote: What's the incentive for Indonesia? They don't want to house 1000s of so-called refugees. They don't want dead people in the ocean. They don't want to be the meat in the asylum seeker sandwich. In 50 years they will be the drawcard and muslim people will stop transiting to Australia.  they need it fixed before then. From Indonesia's point of view, this is not their problem. I'm only repeating what Indonesians themselves said on Q&A. We're talking about a few thousand refugees amongst a population of 240 million. The US, with a comparable population, estimated its number of illegal immigrants to be 11 million in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States Do you really think that the Indonesian government has the ability to plan 50 years into the future? Here in Australia, governments can't even plan beyond the next election. Think about the question: what's the incentive for Indonesia to stop a few thousand refugees transiting to Australia? High-minded moral arguments aren't going to do a thing. They are in denial. They are trying to avoid the truth. That is they way they deal with things in their culture. But with our help and a plan we can both get a satisfactory result and put and end to it. I'm guessing you didn't actually watch the show last night...  sigh. I'm guessing you haven't read my previous posts. In denial? About what? A few thousand refugees hanging out in Indonesia, a country of 240 million. Their culture? Indonesia is a poor, rapidly developing country. Indonesians have a lot more to deal with than accepting "our help" to solve our problems. 47 thousand boat people coming to Australia in 6 years? Who's fooling who?

have you seen their defence spending of late?????   and for the life of me I cannot remember the last time Indonesia was attacked...but their spending is far more than we spend.. go figure.


sounds more like Nth Korea better to spend on weapons than food.

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 3:59pm: Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia.  This was done in International Waters. Isn't that an act of piracy? Not if it's done in a special protection zone. The RAN would have jurisdiction there. If it's done in Indonesian waters, definitely. Yeas....agreed, but if it is done in international waters, the 'high seas,' it's got to be illegal.

Not if they're intending to enter Australian waters. There are plenty of precedents for navies turning away vessels in international waters who are attempting to enter their waters.

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:59pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:41pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 3:59pm: Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia.  This was done in International Waters. Isn't that an act of piracy? Not if it's done in a special protection zone. The RAN would have jurisdiction there. If it's done in Indonesian waters, definitely. Yeas....agreed, but if it is done in international waters, the 'high seas,' it's got to be illegal.  Not if they're intending to enter Australian waters. There are plenty of precedents for navies turning away vessels in international waters who are attempting to enter their waters.

Got some links?

cods wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:57pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:26pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 3:38pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 12:01pm: Quote: What's the incentive for Indonesia? They don't want to house 1000s of so-called refugees. They don't want dead people in the ocean. They don't want to be the meat in the asylum seeker sandwich. In 50 years they will be the drawcard and muslim people will stop transiting to Australia.  they need it fixed before then. From Indonesia's point of view, this is not their problem. I'm only repeating what Indonesians themselves said on Q&A. We're talking about a few thousand refugees amongst a population of 240 million. The US, with a comparable population, estimated its number of illegal immigrants to be 11 million in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States Do you really think that the Indonesian government has the ability to plan 50 years into the future? Here in Australia, governments can't even plan beyond the next election. Think about the question: what's the incentive for Indonesia to stop a few thousand refugees transiting to Australia? High-minded moral arguments aren't going to do a thing. They are in denial. They are trying to avoid the truth. That is they way they deal with things in their culture. But with our help and a plan we can both get a satisfactory result and put and end to it. I'm guessing you didn't actually watch the show last night...  sigh. I'm guessing you haven't read my previous posts. In denial? About what? A few thousand refugees hanging out in Indonesia, a country of 240 million. Their culture? Indonesia is a poor, rapidly developing country. Indonesians have a lot more to deal with than accepting "our help" to solve our problems. 47 thousand boat people coming to Australia in 6 years? Who's fooling who? have you seen their defence spending of late?????   and for the life of me I cannot remember the last time Indonesia was attacked...but their spending is far more than we spend.. go figure.

Why do you think plenty of ordinary Indonesians are p!ssed off?

Mind you, there's a big nationalist sentiment in Indonesia. The army has had a huge role to play in nationalizing Indonesia. Their army doesn't have a foreign defensive role as such, it has a domestic role. It's about controlling the provinces it has.

The generals are still big players in Indonesia, but power is slowly shifting towards the government.

You're not going to make any friends in Indonesia by suggesting that it cut its military budget so that it can protect Australia's borders.

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:02pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:59pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:41pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 3:59pm: Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia.  This was done in International Waters. Isn't that an act of piracy? Not if it's done in a special protection zone. The RAN would have jurisdiction there. If it's done in Indonesian waters, definitely. Yeas....agreed, but if it is done in international waters, the 'high seas,' it's got to be illegal.  Not if they're intending to enter Australian waters. There are plenty of precedents for navies turning away vessels in international waters who are attempting to enter their waters. Got some links?

None, but I'm thinking of Florida and numerous disputes in the South China Sea.

I don't think there's any "international" space in the Torres Strait. It's not in the UN's interest to have unprotected international waters.

The UN likes to STOP THE BOATS too.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:16am:

Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia. Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast. What now, Tony?

It doesn't MATTER

MUCH was learnt from Tony Nutt's brilliant campaign that saw the highly incompetent Baillieu LibNats elected to government in Victoria, 2010

The brilliance - although deceitful aspect - of the campaign was to promise "all things to all people" ( ... think the pledge to Andrei, to cut back on those "revenue raising" hidden speed cameras - which they then severely increased in both number and penalty value)

Getting into GOVERNMENT is the priority

Policy change, broken promises and pledges can be explained away at a later date - generally blaming the previous government for their failures

If the electorate fails is too stupid to see this - they fully deserve the government they get

Shame this is so bloody murky.  Some clarification from some credible source would be great, wot?

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:16am:

What now, Tony?

Wasn't "pick up the phone, Julia - and call the President of Nauru" the way to "stop the boats" ?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:31pm: Alexander Downer had a perfect solution to the problem and it would be rather anal of the Indonesians to refuse since it solves the problem permanently and costs them nothing - not even face. The plan is a simple one. EVERY SINGLE boat person is simply flown back to Indonesia and we take one person from the queue (and there is one) and fly them here.  For a couple months we will end up spending a sizable amount of money and alucky few Indonesian refugees will get first class travel to Oz.  But the boat people trade will very quickly grind to a complete halt once they realise that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be simply loaded back on a 747 and set back home. It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution. Now tell me how this could fail!! Sounds Like the Malaysian solution :o The only problem with that was the cap.

no the problem was the UNHCR obligations. in this plan it is simply swap queue jumpers for queue applicants.  But mainly it just stops the boat people period. Who would take a dangerous and expensive boat trip when you know 100% you will be sent back immediately (or drown).

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:31pm: Alexander Downer had a perfect solution to the problem and it would be rather anal of the Indonesians to refuse since it solves the problem permanently and costs them nothing - not even face. The plan is a simple one. EVERY SINGLE boat person is simply flown back to Indonesia and we take one person from the queue (and there is one) and fly them here.  For a couple months we will end up spending a sizable amount of money and alucky few Indonesian refugees will get first class travel to Oz.  But the boat people trade will very quickly grind to a complete halt once they realise that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be simply loaded back on a 747 and set back home. It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution. Now tell me how this could fail!! Well, what do you know? You've just described the Malaysian "Solution" in a nutshell. I can't see Mr Abbott doing that. He voted against it, remember? Malaysia, like Indonesia, is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention.

the Malaysian plan was to give back 800 in return for 4000.  how was that even similar???  and this plan is unlimited.  the malaysian plan was never going to stop the boats.

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 3:59pm: Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia.  This was done in International Waters. Isn't that an act of piracy? Not if it's done in a special protection zone. The RAN would have jurisdiction there. If it's done in Indonesian waters, definitely. Yeas....agreed, but if it is done in international waters, the 'high seas,' it's got to be illegal.  And if it happens in a 'special protection zone,' I guess that must be an Australian zone, and if the people on board scuttled, they are in our dung hill for 'special' assistance?

according to whom?  its been done before and Indonesia didnt even complain.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:41pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 3:59pm: Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia.  This was done in International Waters. Isn't that an act of piracy? Not if it's done in a special protection zone. The RAN would have jurisdiction there. If it's done in Indonesian waters, definitely. Yeas....agreed, but if it is done in international waters, the 'high seas,' it's got to be illegal.  And if it happens in a 'special protection zone,' I guess that must be an Australian zone, and if the people on board scuttled, they are in our dung hill for 'special' assistance? according to whom?  its been done before and Indonesia didnt even complain.

Tampa ring a bell?

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:41pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 3:59pm: Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia.  This was done in International Waters. Isn't that an act of piracy? Not if it's done in a special protection zone. The RAN would have jurisdiction there. If it's done in Indonesian waters, definitely. Yeas....agreed, but if it is done in international waters, the 'high seas,' it's got to be illegal.  And if it happens in a 'special protection zone,' I guess that must be an Australian zone, and if the people on board scuttled, they are in our dung hill for 'special' assistance? according to whom?  its been done before and Indonesia didnt even complain. Tampa ring a bell?

not even close to the same thing.  The Tampa was trying to dump them HERE not return them to indonesia.

try and keep up.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:39pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:41pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 3:59pm: Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia.  This was done in International Waters. Isn't that an act of piracy? Not if it's done in a special protection zone. The RAN would have jurisdiction there. If it's done in Indonesian waters, definitely. Yeas....agreed, but if it is done in international waters, the 'high seas,' it's got to be illegal.  And if it happens in a 'special protection zone,' I guess that must be an Australian zone, and if the people on board scuttled, they are in our dung hill for 'special' assistance? according to whom?  its been done before and Indonesia didnt even complain. Tampa ring a bell? not even close to the same thing.  The Tampa was trying to dump them HERE not return them to indonesia. try and keep up.

only after Indonesia refused to accept them.

alziemers kicking in is it?

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 12:55pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 12:01pm: Quote: What's the incentive for Indonesia? They don't want to house 1000s of so-called refugees. They don't want dead people in the ocean. They don't want to be the meat in the asylum seeker sandwich. In 50 years they will be the drawcard and muslim people will stop transiting to Australia.  they need it fixed before then. From Indonesia's point of view, this is not their problem. I'm only repeating what Indonesians themselves said on Q&A. We're talking about a few thousand refugees amongst a population of 240 million. The US, with a comparable population, estimated its number of illegal immigrants to be 11 million in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States Do you really think that the Indonesian government has the ability to plan 50 years into the future? Here in Australia, governments can't even plan beyond the next election. Think about the question: what's the incentive for Indonesia to stop a few thousand refugees transiting to Australia? High-minded moral arguments aren't going to do a thing.

The 11m figure puts this whole issue into context.

The Australian problem is small beans, magnified by the two major parties for their own dirty political advantage.

And the rightard sheep, having their buttons pushed go: "Baaa, baaa, baaa."

For economic illegal migrants -
why don't we hire large passenger ships &
take them back to their country of origin 10,000 at a time?


That seems like a simple solution.

Quote:

only after Indonesia refused to accept them. alziemers kicking in is it?

"I have seen most of what there is to see in this profession, but what I experienced on this trip is the worst. When we asked for food and medicine for the refugees, the Australians sent commando troops on board. This created a very high tension among the refugees. After an hour of checking the refugees, the troops agreed to give medical assistance to some of them… The soldiers obviously didn't like their mission."

Indonesia did not refuse to accept them.  The asylum seekers forced Tampa to head to Christmas Island.

Hayseed sent troops on Board.  Most of the asylum seekers ended up on Nauru and or New Zealand.

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:05pm:

Quote: only after Indonesia refused to accept them. alziemers kicking in is it? "I have seen most of what there is to see in this profession, but what I experienced on this trip is the worst. When we asked for food and medicine for the refugees, the Australians sent commando troops on board. This created a very high tension among the refugees. After an hour of checking the refugees, the troops agreed to give medical assistance to some of them… The soldiers obviously didn't like their mission." Indonesia did not refuse to accept them.  The asylum seekers forced Tampa to head to Christmas Island. Hayseed sent troops on Board.  Most of the asylum seekers ended up on Nauru and or New Zealand.

The Australian government tried to persuade Indonesia to accept the asylum seekers; Indonesia refused. Norway also refused to accept the asylum seekers and reported Australia to the United Nations, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Maritime Organisation for alleged failure to obey its duties under international law, though it did not ask for the assistance of these organisations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:28pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:31pm: Alexander Downer had a perfect solution to the problem and it would be rather anal of the Indonesians to refuse since it solves the problem permanently and costs them nothing - not even face. The plan is a simple one. EVERY SINGLE boat person is simply flown back to Indonesia and we take one person from the queue (and there is one) and fly them here.  For a couple months we will end up spending a sizable amount of money and alucky few Indonesian refugees will get first class travel to Oz.  But the boat people trade will very quickly grind to a complete halt once they realise that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be simply loaded back on a 747 and set back home. It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution. Now tell me how this could fail!! Well, what do you know? You've just described the Malaysian "Solution" in a nutshell. I can't see Mr Abbott doing that. He voted against it, remember? Malaysia, like Indonesia, is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. the Malaysian plan was to give back 800 in return for 4000.  how was that even similar???  and this plan is unlimited.  the malaysian plan was never going to stop the boats.

Of course it wasn’t. But how are you going to get Indonesia to take all those refugees unless Australia pays to accommodate them?

And how can Mr Abbott impliment Mr Downer’s marvellous policy when he refuses to send refugees to non-signatory countries?

Please explain.

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:05pm: Quote: only after Indonesia refused to accept them. alziemers kicking in is it? "I have seen most of what there is to see in this profession, but what I experienced on this trip is the worst. When we asked for food and medicine for the refugees, the Australians sent commando troops on board. This created a very high tension among the refugees. After an hour of checking the refugees, the troops agreed to give medical assistance to some of them… The soldiers obviously didn't like their mission." Indonesia did not refuse to accept them.  The asylum seekers forced Tampa to head to Christmas Island. Hayseed sent troops on Board.  Most of the asylum seekers ended up on Nauru and or New Zealand. The Australian government tried to persuade Indonesia to accept the asylum seekers; Indonesia refused. Norway also refused to accept the asylum seekers and reported Australia to the United Nations, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Maritime Organisation for alleged failure to obey its duties under international law, though it did not ask for the assistance of these organisations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair

True, Mr Smith, but at almost all times, Tampa's heroic Skipper was not heading to Indonesia.  The asylum seekers forced his hand to go to Christmas Island, even though he did make one thwarted (by the asylum seekers) attempt to head to Indonesia.

Indonesia's denial was not challenged by the Skipper who chose, under the circumstances he was presented with, to take Hayseed on. Being the girlie little bugger he was, he tried to re-write the Law to justify his order that our Navy board a Norwegian vessel, and he was blocked by The Senate.

Still, in the end, the little Methodist bigotted bugger had a win using the slogan "We will decide who comes to Australia and how they get here."

Australia nailed him for it in 2007.

*flip*

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:12pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:05pm: Quote: only after Indonesia refused to accept them. alziemers kicking in is it? "I have seen most of what there is to see in this profession, but what I experienced on this trip is the worst. When we asked for food and medicine for the refugees, the Australians sent commando troops on board. This created a very high tension among the refugees. After an hour of checking the refugees, the troops agreed to give medical assistance to some of them… The soldiers obviously didn't like their mission." Indonesia did not refuse to accept them.  The asylum seekers forced Tampa to head to Christmas Island. Hayseed sent troops on Board.  Most of the asylum seekers ended up on Nauru and or New Zealand. The Australian government tried to persuade Indonesia to accept the asylum seekers; Indonesia refused. Norway also refused to accept the asylum seekers and reported Australia to the United Nations, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Maritime Organisation for alleged failure to obey its duties under international law, though it did not ask for the assistance of these organisations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair True, Mr Smith, but at almost all times, Tampa's heroic Skipper was not heading to Indonesia.  The asylum seekers forced his hand to go to Christmas Island, even though he did make one thwarted (by the asylum seekers) attempt to head to Indonesia. Indonesia's denial was not challenged by the Skipper who chose, under the circumstances he was presented with, to take Hayseed on. Being the girlie little bugger he was, he tried to re-write the Law to justify his order that our Navy board a Norwegian vessel, and he was blocked by The Senate. Still, in the end, the little Methodist bigotted bugger had a win using the slogan "We will decide who comes to Australia and how they get here." Australia nailed him for it in 2007.

Tampa still managed to win Howard an unwinnable election ....... he was a lucky little sucker that Howard was.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 12:01pm: Quote: What's the incentive for Indonesia? They don't want to house 1000s of so-called refugees. They don't want dead people in the ocean. They don't want to be the meat in the asylum seeker sandwich. In 50 years they will be the drawcard and muslim people will stop transiting to Australia.  they need it fixed before then. From Indonesia's point of view, this is not their problem. I'm only repeating what Indonesians themselves said on Q&A. We're talking about a few thousand refugees amongst a population of 240 million. The US, with a comparable population, estimated its number of illegal immigrants to be 11 million in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States Do you really think that the Indonesian government has the ability to plan 50 years into the future? Here in Australia, governments can't even plan beyond the next election. Think about the question: what's the incentive for Indonesia to stop a few thousand refugees transiting to Australia? High-minded moral arguments aren't going to do a thing. The 11m figure puts this whole issue into context. The Australian problem is small beans, magnified by the two major parties for their own dirty political advantage. And the rightard sheep, having their buttons pushed go: "Baaa, baaa, baaa."

True. This issue is more a headache for Australia. Immigration officials and staff at detention centres get to go home.

But it’s a real problem for the hundreds or possibly thousands who die at sea each year trying to get here.

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 12:55pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 12:01pm: Quote: What's the incentive for Indonesia? They don't want to house 1000s of so-called refugees. They don't want dead people in the ocean. They don't want to be the meat in the asylum seeker sandwich. In 50 years they will be the drawcard and muslim people will stop transiting to Australia.  they need it fixed before then. From Indonesia's point of view, this is not their problem. I'm only repeating what Indonesians themselves said on Q&A. We're talking about a few thousand refugees amongst a population of 240 million. The US, with a comparable population, estimated its number of illegal immigrants to be 11 million in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States Do you really think that the Indonesian government has the ability to plan 50 years into the future? Here in Australia, governments can't even plan beyond the next election. Think about the question: what's the incentive for Indonesia to stop a few thousand refugees transiting to Australia? High-minded moral arguments aren't going to do a thing.

i agree there is no incentive for Indonesia to do anything about the problem of the boat people coming to Australia. however I disagree they cant do anything. It appears that the majority of these people are coming into Indonesia on visas issued in Malaysia by the Indonesion embassy and by plane through a controlled border. Indonesia has every ability to deny them access and disallow thier visas.

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:48pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:39pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:41pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 3:59pm: Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia.  This was done in International Waters. Isn't that an act of piracy? Not if it's done in a special protection zone. The RAN would have jurisdiction there. If it's done in Indonesian waters, definitely. Yeas....agreed, but if it is done in international waters, the 'high seas,' it's got to be illegal.  And if it happens in a 'special protection zone,' I guess that must be an Australian zone, and if the people on board scuttled, they are in our dung hill for 'special' assistance? according to whom?  its been done before and Indonesia didnt even complain. Tampa ring a bell? not even close to the same thing.  The Tampa was trying to dump them HERE not return them to indonesia. try and keep up. only after Indonesia refused to accept them. alziemers kicking in is it?

the tampa was a norwegian vessel - not indonesian.  the smugglers boats however ARE Indonesian and their only alternative is to sink them,

Quote:

Tampa still managed to win Howard an unwinnable election ....... he was a lucky little phucker that Hayseed was.

Fixed.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 12:01pm: Quote: What's the incentive for Indonesia? They don't want to house 1000s of so-called refugees. They don't want dead people in the ocean. They don't want to be the meat in the asylum seeker sandwich. In 50 years they will be the drawcard and muslim people will stop transiting to Australia.  they need it fixed before then. From Indonesia's point of view, this is not their problem. I'm only repeating what Indonesians themselves said on Q&A. We're talking about a few thousand refugees amongst a population of 240 million. The US, with a comparable population, estimated its number of illegal immigrants to be 11 million in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States Do you really think that the Indonesian government has the ability to plan 50 years into the future? Here in Australia, governments can't even plan beyond the next election. Think about the question: what's the incentive for Indonesia to stop a few thousand refugees transiting to Australia? High-minded moral arguments aren't going to do a thing. The 11m figure puts this whole issue into context. The Australian problem is small beans, magnified by the two major parties for their own dirty political advantage. And the rightard sheep, having their buttons pushed go: "Baaa, baaa, baaa."

they also have 50,000 killed a year by guns.  do we ay we dont have a problem with gun deaths until we get to 2000pa (up from 120)?  The worst argument in the world is 'but mum... billy is worse!!!'

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:28pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:31pm: Alexander Downer had a perfect solution to the problem and it would be rather anal of the Indonesians to refuse since it solves the problem permanently and costs them nothing - not even face. The plan is a simple one. EVERY SINGLE boat person is simply flown back to Indonesia and we take one person from the queue (and there is one) and fly them here.  For a couple months we will end up spending a sizable amount of money and alucky few Indonesian refugees will get first class travel to Oz.  But the boat people trade will very quickly grind to a complete halt once they realise that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be simply loaded back on a 747 and set back home. It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution. Now tell me how this could fail!! Well, what do you know? You've just described the Malaysian "Solution" in a nutshell. I can't see Mr Abbott doing that. He voted against it, remember? Malaysia, like Indonesia, is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. the Malaysian plan was to give back 800 in return for 4000.  how was that even similar???  and this plan is unlimited.  the malaysian plan was never going to stop the boats. Of course it wasn’t. But how are you going to get Indonesia to take all those refugees unless Australia pays to accommodate them? And how can Mr Abbott impliment Mr Downer’s marvellous policy when he refuses to send refugees to non-signatory countries? Please explain.

do you even read the post????  we SWAP boat people for refugees they already have in Indonesia!   its a win-win for everyone except boat people and it costs nothing fro Indonesia to comply.

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:12pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:05pm: Quote: only after Indonesia refused to accept them. alziemers kicking in is it? "I have seen most of what there is to see in this profession, but what I experienced on this trip is the worst. When we asked for food and medicine for the refugees, the Australians sent commando troops on board. This created a very high tension among the refugees. After an hour of checking the refugees, the troops agreed to give medical assistance to some of them… The soldiers obviously didn't like their mission." Indonesia did not refuse to accept them.  The asylum seekers forced Tampa to head to Christmas Island. Hayseed sent troops on Board.  Most of the asylum seekers ended up on Nauru and or New Zealand. The Australian government tried to persuade Indonesia to accept the asylum seekers; Indonesia refused. Norway also refused to accept the asylum seekers and reported Australia to the United Nations, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Maritime Organisation for alleged failure to obey its duties under international law, though it did not ask for the assistance of these organisations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair True, Mr Smith, but at almost all times, Tampa's heroic Skipper was not heading to Indonesia.  The asylum seekers forced his hand to go to Christmas Island, even though he did make one thwarted (by the asylum seekers) attempt to head to Indonesia. Indonesia's denial was not challenged by the Skipper who chose, under the circumstances he was presented with, to take Hayseed on. Being the girlie little bugger he was, he tried to re-write the Law to justify his order that our Navy board a Norwegian vessel, and he was blocked by The Senate. Still, in the end, the little Methodist bigotted bugger had a win using the slogan "We will decide who comes to Australia and how they get here." Australia nailed him for it in 2007.

6 years later after re-electing him twice??? and in 2001, it wa the Tampa that actually got him RE-ELECTED.

try again.

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:24pm:

Tampa still managed to win Howard an unwinnable election ....... he was a lucky little sucker that Howard was.

Howard turned Tampa into an incident specifically for the election.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 12:32pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:56am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:46am: ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:19am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 11:10am: Perhaps this is how some boats have been lost at sea with all hands never to be seen again. Silly way to run a business as this wouldn't be a good advertisement for the people smuggling trade. These boats that they use are just old fishing boats, they are leaking old tubs that thye dont even use for fishing anymore because even the fishermen think they are unsafe. Thats why they sink. and if you thin k it isnt a good advertisment then why do these economic migrants keep wanting to come here  at great risk in increasing numbers? It's called the 'Labor Suck factor' which draws them here. Once Abbott 'takes the sugar off the table', the boat arrivals dry up. I'm also sure the criminals don't go out of their way to inform people if boats fail to arrive in Australian waters. How is Abbott going to take the "sugar off the table"? We're still a signatory to the UN treaty on refugees. Any refugee who gets here will still have their claims of asylum assessed. Abbott won't - and can't - change that. How is Abbott going to do it? Easy. Re-introduce TPV's..

TPVs were time-limited exhemptions to the Immigration Act.They applied to specific countries during civil wars - Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. Afghans were sent back after the Taliban was ousted.

Sri Lanka’s civil war is over.

Australia can’t give temporary protection under the Refugee Convention when a permanent threat exists. All asylum seekers would need to do is appeal a TPV if they can prove this. Or apply for permanent settlement to the UNHCR.

Anyway, many temporary refugees w were sent back and hunted down by the Taliban Four Corners did an expose on this, and I haven’t heard Mr Abbott mention TPVs.

Have you?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:39pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:41pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 3:59pm: Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia.  This was done in International Waters. Isn't that an act of piracy? Not if it's done in a special protection zone. The RAN would have jurisdiction there. If it's done in Indonesian waters, definitely. Yeas....agreed, but if it is done in international waters, the 'high seas,' it's got to be illegal.  And if it happens in a 'special protection zone,' I guess that must be an Australian zone, and if the people on board scuttled, they are in our dung hill for 'special' assistance? according to whom?  its been done before and Indonesia didnt even complain. Tampa ring a bell? not even close to the same thing.  The Tampa was trying to dump them HERE not return them to indonesia. try and keep up.

The Tampa was not going to Indonesia. Their responsibility was to take them to the next port of call - Australia.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:33pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:28pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:31pm: Alexander Downer had a perfect solution to the problem and it would be rather anal of the Indonesians to refuse since it solves the problem permanently and costs them nothing - not even face. The plan is a simple one. EVERY SINGLE boat person is simply flown back to Indonesia and we take one person from the queue (and there is one) and fly them here.  For a couple months we will end up spending a sizable amount of money and alucky few Indonesian refugees will get first class travel to Oz.  But the boat people trade will very quickly grind to a complete halt once they realise that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be simply loaded back on a 747 and set back home. It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution. Now tell me how this could fail!! Well, what do you know? You've just described the Malaysian "Solution" in a nutshell. I can't see Mr Abbott doing that. He voted against it, remember? Malaysia, like Indonesia, is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. the Malaysian plan was to give back 800 in return for 4000.  how was that even similar???  and this plan is unlimited.  the malaysian plan was never going to stop the boats. Of course it wasn’t. But how are you going to get Indonesia to take all those refugees unless Australia pays to accommodate them? And how can Mr Abbott impliment Mr Downer’s marvellous policy when he refuses to send refugees to non-signatory countries? Please explain. do you even read the post????  we SWAP boat people for refugees they already have in Indonesia!   its a win-win for everyone except boat people and it costs nothing fro Indonesia to comply.

Actually, you’re right. That could work.

But what about Mr Abbott’s guilty conscience about sending boat people to non signatory countries?

He already said this WOULD NOT BE DONE UNDER A GOVERNMENT MR ABBOTT LEADS.

Thoughts?

STOP THE BOATS.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:48pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:39pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:41pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 3:59pm: Today, I heard some RAN big brass say that in 2007 the Navy did turn the boats back....four......and in doing so, they removed all the fuel on board except sufficient for the boat to get back to Indonesia.  This was done in International Waters. Isn't that an act of piracy? Not if it's done in a special protection zone. The RAN would have jurisdiction there. If it's done in Indonesian waters, definitely. Yeas....agreed, but if it is done in international waters, the 'high seas,' it's got to be illegal.  And if it happens in a 'special protection zone,' I guess that must be an Australian zone, and if the people on board scuttled, they are in our dung hill for 'special' assistance? according to whom?  its been done before and Indonesia didnt even complain. Tampa ring a bell? not even close to the same thing.  The Tampa was trying to dump them HERE not return them to indonesia. try and keep up. The Tampa was not going to Indonesia. Their responsibility was to take them to the next port of call - Australia.

the australian people apparently disagreed - and still do.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

For economic illegal migrants - why don't we hire large passenger ships & take them back to their country of origin 10,000 at a time? That seems like a simple solution.

bump

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:28pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:31pm: Alexander Downer had a perfect solution to the problem and it would be rather anal of the Indonesians to refuse since it solves the problem permanently and costs them nothing - not even face. The plan is a simple one. EVERY SINGLE boat person is simply flown back to Indonesia and we take one person from the queue (and there is one) and fly them here.  For a couple months we will end up spending a sizable amount of money and alucky few Indonesian refugees will get first class travel to Oz.  But the boat people trade will very quickly grind to a complete halt once they realise that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be simply loaded back on a 747 and set back home. It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution. Now tell me how this could fail!! Well, what do you know? You've just described the Malaysian "Solution" in a nutshell. I can't see Mr Abbott doing that. He voted against it, remember? Malaysia, like Indonesia, is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. the Malaysian plan was to give back 800 in return for 4000.  how was that even similar???  and this plan is unlimited.  the malaysian plan was never going to stop the boats. Of course it wasn’t. But how are you going to get Indonesia to take all those refugees unless Australia pays to accommodate them? And how can Mr Abbott impliment Mr Downer’s marvellous policy when he refuses to send refugees to non-signatory countries? Please explain. do you even read the post????  we SWAP boat people for refugees they already have in Indonesia!   its a win-win for everyone except boat people and it costs nothing fro Indonesia to comply. Actually, you’re right. That could work. But what about Mr Abbott’s guilty conscience about sending boat people to non signatory countries? He already said this WOULD NOT BE DONE UNDER A GOVERNMENT MR ABBOTT LEADS. Thoughts?

returning them to indonesia from whence they came which IS a signatory.  problem solved.

Jesus Christ. Are there some thick people around or what.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:16am:

Fascinating program last night providing a rare insight into the thinking of some of our nearest neighbours. Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia. Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast. What now, Tony?

They've turn boats around before and they'll do it again

We've co-operated with the Indonesians on illegal fishing so we can do it on illegals

http://www.theage.com.au/world/rohingya-refugees-a-growing-problem-for-indonesia-20130408-2hh6w.htmlhttp://www.theage.com.au/world/rohingya-refugees-a-growing-problem-for-indonesia-20130408-2hh6w.html
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:46pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:28pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:31pm: Alexander Downer had a perfect solution to the problem and it would be rather anal of the Indonesians to refuse since it solves the problem permanently and costs them nothing - not even face. The plan is a simple one. EVERY SINGLE boat person is simply flown back to Indonesia and we take one person from the queue (and there is one) and fly them here.  For a couple months we will end up spending a sizable amount of money and alucky few Indonesian refugees will get first class travel to Oz.  But the boat people trade will very quickly grind to a complete halt once they realise that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be simply loaded back on a 747 and set back home. It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution. Now tell me how this could fail!! Well, what do you know? You've just described the Malaysian "Solution" in a nutshell. I can't see Mr Abbott doing that. He voted against it, remember? Malaysia, like Indonesia, is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. the Malaysian plan was to give back 800 in return for 4000.  how was that even similar???  and this plan is unlimited.  the malaysian plan was never going to stop the boats. Of course it wasn’t. But how are you going to get Indonesia to take all those refugees unless Australia pays to accommodate them? And how can Mr Abbott impliment Mr Downer’s marvellous policy when he refuses to send refugees to non-signatory countries? Please explain. do you even read the post????  we SWAP boat people for refugees they already have in Indonesia!   its a win-win for everyone except boat people and it costs nothing fro Indonesia to comply. Actually, you’re right. That could work. But what about Mr Abbott’s guilty conscience about sending boat people to non signatory countries? He already said this WOULD NOT BE DONE UNDER A GOVERNMENT MR ABBOTT LEADS. Thoughts? returning them to indonesia from whence they came which IS a signatory.  problem solved.

You sure of that, Longy? You want to put a nice little taster down? Make this worth our while?

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:

Jesus Christ. Are there some thick people around or what.

I prefer to call them challenged, Ian.

Maqqa wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:16am: Fascinating program last night providing a rare insight into the thinking of some of our nearest neighbours. Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia. Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast. What now, Tony? They've turn boats around before and they'll do it again We've co-operated with the Indonesians on illegal fishing so we can do it on illegals

That’s right. Maybe the Indonesians will change their minds when Mr Abbott goes to Jakarta and talks tough.

All this problem needs is Mr Abbott’s superior skills at persuasion. He’ll make them see the error of their ways.

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:57pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:16am: Fascinating program last night providing a rare insight into the thinking of some of our nearest neighbours. Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia. Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast. What now, Tony? They've turn boats around before and they'll do it again We've co-operated with the Indonesians on illegal fishing so we can do it on illegals That’s right. Maybe the Indonesians will change their minds when Mr Abbott goes to Jakarta and talks tough. All this problem needs is Mr Abbott’s superior skills at persuasion. He’ll make them see the error of their ways.

Which is alot more believable than when Rudd said he'll never challenge again or when Gillard said "There will be no carbon tax..."

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:57pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:16am: Fascinating program last night providing a rare insight into the thinking of some of our nearest neighbours. Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia. Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast. What now, Tony? They've turn boats around before and they'll do it again We've co-operated with the Indonesians on illegal fishing so we can do it on illegals That’s right. Maybe the Indonesians will change their minds when Mr Abbott goes to Jakarta and talks tough. All this problem needs is Mr Abbott’s superior skills at persuasion. He’ll make them see the error of their ways.

Yes - Abbott has the right words in tough situations:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyY-xI6zgfk

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:46pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:28pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:31pm: Alexander Downer had a perfect solution to the problem and it would be rather anal of the Indonesians to refuse since it solves the problem permanently and costs them nothing - not even face. The plan is a simple one. EVERY SINGLE boat person is simply flown back to Indonesia and we take one person from the queue (and there is one) and fly them here.  For a couple months we will end up spending a sizable amount of money and alucky few Indonesian refugees will get first class travel to Oz.  But the boat people trade will very quickly grind to a complete halt once they realise that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be simply loaded back on a 747 and set back home. It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution. Now tell me how this could fail!! Well, what do you know? You've just described the Malaysian "Solution" in a nutshell. I can't see Mr Abbott doing that. He voted against it, remember? Malaysia, like Indonesia, is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. the Malaysian plan was to give back 800 in return for 4000.  how was that even similar???  and this plan is unlimited.  the malaysian plan was never going to stop the boats. Of course it wasn’t. But how are you going to get Indonesia to take all those refugees unless Australia pays to accommodate them? And how can Mr Abbott impliment Mr Downer’s marvellous policy when he refuses to send refugees to non-signatory countries? Please explain. do you even read the post????  we SWAP boat people for refugees they already have in Indonesia!   its a win-win for everyone except boat people and it costs nothing fro Indonesia to comply. Actually, you’re right. That could work. But what about Mr Abbott’s guilty conscience about sending boat people to non signatory countries? He already said this WOULD NOT BE DONE UNDER A GOVERNMENT MR ABBOTT LEADS. Thoughts? returning them to indonesia from whence they came which IS a signatory.  problem solved.

:D :D :D :D

Indonesia is as much a signatory as Malaysia .... idiot.

Maqqa wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:16am: Fascinating program last night providing a rare insight into the thinking of some of our nearest neighbours. Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia. Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast. What now, Tony? They've turn boats around before and they'll do it again We've co-operated with the Indonesians on illegal fishing so we can do it on illegals

They've turn boats around before and they'll do it again

They got it wrong before acknowledged it and stopped turning them back about 2002.

Quote:

The Tampa was not going to Indonesia. Their responsibility was to take them to the next port of call - Australia.

The Tampa had left Fremantle and was going to Singapore via the Sunda Strait. 
The Palapa was in international waters off Java.
According to international law, survivors of a shipwreck are to be taken to the closest suitable port for medical treatment. The closest suitable port was 12 hours away in Merak, Indonesia.

Grendel wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:

Quote: The Tampa was not going to Indonesia. Their responsibility was to take them to the next port of call - Australia. The Tampa had left Fremantle and was going to Singapore via the Sunda Strait.  The Palapa was in international waters off Java. According to international law, survivors of a shipwreck are to be taken to the closest suitable port for medical treatment. The closest suitable port was 12 hours away in Merak, Indonesia.

.....yeas, and please now add the rest of the Wiki, or is that too much to expect?

I corrected the errors of the previous post which you left unchallenged.

Feel free to correct any errors I have made.

there are none.  ;D

I also think you will find I did not cut and paste that info from Wiki.  Even though there is a link to the Tampa as you have shown.

Some of us are interested in politics and have good memories.

If you like I can refer you to acts of "piracy" by the people saved by the Tampa too.  Is that mentioned in your wiki link?

Grendel wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 8:08pm:

I corrected the errors of the previous post which you left unchallenged. Feel free to correct any errors I have made. there are none.  ;D I also think you will find I did not cut and paste that info from Wiki.  Even though there is a link to the Tampa as you have shown. Some of us are interested in politics and have good memories. If you like I can refer you to acts of "piracy" by the people saved by the Tampa too.  Is that mentioned in your wiki link?

Let's see now, shall we?

You said:


Quote:

According to international law, survivors of a shipwreck are to be taken to the closest suitable port for medical treatment. The closest suitable port was 12 hours away in Merak, Indonesia.

Wiki says:


Quote:

According to international law, survivors of a shipwreck are to be taken to the closest suitable port for medical treatment. The closest suitable port was 12 hours away in Merak, Indonesia.

Can anyone spot a difference between what Grendell says and what Wiki says?

:D


*Oi, Grendel.......over here ^^^^^

;)

Grendel wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:

Quote: The Tampa was not going to Indonesia. Their responsibility was to take them to the next port of call - Australia. The Tampa had left Fremantle and was going to Singapore via the Sunda Strait.  The Palapa was in international waters off Java. According to international law, survivors of a shipwreck are to be taken to the closest suitable port for medical treatment. The closest suitable port was 12 hours away in Merak, Indonesia.

Oh and if you still don't understand what "According to international law, survivors of a shipwreck are to be taken to the closest suitable port for medical treatment. The closest suitable port was 12 hours away in Merak, Indonesia." means... then I'm sure some adult with more patience with stupidity can explain it to you.  ::)

Grendel wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 8:08pm:

I corrected the errors of the previous post which you left unchallenged. Feel free to correct any errors I have made. there are none.  ;D I also think you will find I did not cut and paste that info from Wiki.  Even though there is a link to the Tampa as you have shown. Some of us are interested in politics and have good memories. If you like I can refer you to acts of "piracy" by the people saved by the Tampa too.  Is that mentioned in your wiki link?

The Palapa was 140 kms off Christmas Island, not Java.

Cherry picking doesn't make you right...  as usual.

Care to post a different way of phrasing the obvious...  because that is how I phrased it Uberdummy.

I note I also posted other facts.  I guess you left them out because wiki phrased those facts differently eh.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

you don't even cut it as a mindless pedant.  :D

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 8:18pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 8:08pm: I corrected the errors of the previous post which you left unchallenged.http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/right.gif Feel free to correct any errors I have made. there are none.  ;D I also think you will find I did not cut and paste that info from Wiki.  Even though there is a link to the Tampa as you have shown. Some of us are interested in politics and have good memories. If you like I can refer you to acts of "piracy" by the people saved by the Tampa too.  Is that mentioned in your wiki link? The Palapa was 140 kms off Christmas Island, not Java.

Oh dear...  did I say anywhere it wasn't Ian.

Should I repost the LAW for you again...  ::)

Do the words closest or suitable mean anything to you?

Grendel wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 8:23pm:

ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 8:18pm: Grendel wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 8:08pm: I corrected the errors of the previous post which you left unchallenged.http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/right.gif Feel free to correct any errors I have made. there are none.  ;D I also think you will find I did not cut and paste that info from Wiki.  Even though there is a link to the Tampa as you have shown. Some of us are interested in politics and have good memories. If you like I can refer you to acts of "piracy" by the people saved by the Tampa too.  Is that mentioned in your wiki link? The Palapa was 140 kms off Christmas Island, not Java. Oh dear...  did I say anywhere it wasn't Ian. Should I repost the LAW for you again...  ::) Do the words closest or suitable mean anything to you?

Yes you did , right here. The Palap was not off Java, it was close to Chrsitmas island. I dont have a boat in this race but just thought I would correct that little error.

Grendel wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:

[quote] The Tampa had left Fremantle and was going to Singapore via the Sunda Strait.  The Palapa was in international waters off Java. According to international law, survivors of a shipwreck are to be taken to the closest suitable port for medical treatment. The closest suitable port was 12 hours away in Merak, Indonesia.

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 8:16pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 8:08pm: I corrected the errors of the previous post which you left unchallenged. Feel free to correct any errors I have made. there are none.  ;D I also think you will find I did not cut and paste that info from Wiki.  Even though there is a link to the Tampa as you have shown. Some of us are interested in politics and have good memories. If you like I can refer you to acts of "piracy" by the people saved by the Tampa too.  Is that mentioned in your wiki link? Let's see now, shall we? You said: Quote: According to international law, survivors of a shipwreck are to be taken to the closest suitable port for medical treatment. The closest suitable port was 12 hours away in Merak, Indonesia. Wiki says: [quote]According to international law, survivors of a shipwreck are to be taken to the closest suitable port for medical treatment. The closest suitable port was 12 hours away in Merak, Indonesia.

Can anyone spot a difference between what Grendell says and what Wiki says?

:D


*Oi, Grendel.......over here ^^^^^

;)[/quote]

*bump*

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:19am:

Under international law we cant do it. Its just a nonsense gambit by Abbot for the thicko vote.

Under international law the Indonesians have not been allowed to sponsor an invasion of Australia by hundreds of boats leaving their southern shores over a period of many years.

Indonesia has never been taken to the International Court to face charges of aiding and abetting criminals in an illegal people-smuggling enterprise.

Indonesia knows it would be in their best interest not to press any charges if Australia should tow boats back into Indonesian waters.

Their own criminal involvement in the people-smuggling business would attract a very heavy penalty if brought before an International Court.

Aussie do you bore people here by continuous repetition of rubbish too?

Repeat it all you like...  won't make you right.

You know you're not  ;D

Ian...  you do know where Java is and that it's one of the biggest Indonesian islands etc don't you?  You do know where the Sunda Strait is don't you?
You do know what International waters are don't you?
You do understand international laws right?

Good...  I'll leave you to it then...

Concentrate on those 2 words i suggested earlier I'm sure things will come together for you.  ::)

Oh and get a map so you can see all that water south and west of java  ;D  If you go far enough you can see Christmas island  ;D ;D ;D

Like Aussie you will need to learn to accept it when you are wrong.

Mr Grendel.....you have some answering to do ^^^^^  You lied.

:D

I'm sorry Mr Aussie...  but I can't resist rubbing your nose in it.

I suppose if I was to type Kipling's "If" here you would also state I copied it word for word out of wiki or some other site eh?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I suppose if I said it was knowledge I retain that wouldn't be good enough for you...  But I assure you if you told me you knew Mary had a little lamb word for word...  I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and on a good day I might even believe you  ;)

You are so bad at this...  back to Relationships with you.  8-)

Grendel wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 8:50pm:

:D I'm sorry Mr Aussie...  but I can't resist rubbing your nose in it. I suppose if I was to type Kipling's "If" here you would also state I copied it word for word out of wiki or some other site eh?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You are so bad at this...  back to Relationships with you.  8-)

Yeas Mr Grendel.  When you posted this:


Quote:

According to international law, survivors of a shipwreck are to be taken to the closest suitable port for medical treatment. The closest suitable port was 12 hours away in Merak, Indonesia.

You copied it directly from Wiki which contains this:


Quote:

According to international law, survivors of a shipwreck are to be taken to the closest suitable port for medical treatment. The closest suitable port was 12 hours away in Merak, Indonesia.

About which you posted this:


Quote:

I also think you will find I did not cut and paste that info from Wiki.

And you tried to put it down to memory.


Quote:

Some of us are interested in politics and have good memories.

Liar.

Maqqa wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 7:07pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 7:03pm: Maqqa wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:57pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:16am: Fascinating program last night providing a rare insight into the thinking of some of our nearest neighbours. Most important was a blunt statement by an adviser to the Indonesian Deputy President that they will never accept asylum seeker boats turned back from Australia. Looks like one of Abbott's principal election policies has developed a serious leak and is sinking fast. What now, Tony? They've turn boats around before and they'll do it again We've co-operated with the Indonesians on illegal fishing so we can do it on illegals That’s right. Maybe the Indonesians will change their minds when Mr Abbott goes to Jakarta and talks tough. All this problem needs is Mr Abbott’s superior skills at persuasion. He’ll make them see the error of their ways. Which is alot more believable than when Rudd said he'll never challenge again or when Gillard said "There will be no carbon tax..."

THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD.

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 7:20pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:46pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:28pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:36pm: [quote author=longweekend58 link=1372965411/64 It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution. Now tell me how this could fail!! Well, what do you know? You've just described the Malaysian "Solution" in a nutshell. I can't see Mr Abbott doing that. He voted against it, remember? Malaysia, like Indonesia, is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. the Malaysian plan was to give back 800 in return for 4000.  how was that even similar???  and this plan is unlimited.  the malaysian plan was never going to stop the boats. Of course it wasn’t. But how are you going to get Indonesia to take all those refugees unless Australia pays to accommodate them? And how can Mr Abbott impliment Mr Downer’s marvellous policy when he refuses to send refugees to non-signatory countries? Please explain. do you even read the post????  we SWAP boat people for refugees they already have in Indonesia!   its a win-win for everyone except boat people and it costs nothing fro Indonesia to comply. Actually, you’re right. That could work. But what about Mr Abbott’s guilty conscience about sending boat people to non signatory countries? He already said this WOULD NOT BE DONE UNDER A GOVERNMENT MR ABBOTT LEADS. Thoughts? returning them to indonesia from whence they came which IS a signatory.  problem solved.

:D :D :D :D

Indonesia is as much a signatory as Malaysia .... idiot.[/quote]

Now now, maybe Mr Abbott has thought of a new policy - Indonesia should become a signatory to the refugee convention.

Let’s give credit where credit’s due, I say.

Quote:

THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD.

Did you cut and paste that out of Wiki karnal...  careful the 'orrible MR AUSSIE will be right onto you  ;D ;D ;D

So Mr Abbott will send the boat people to Indonesia, but he felt bad about sending them to Malaysia.

Do you think Mr Abbott might have had a secret reason to oppose the Malaysia "Solution?" You know, something he wasn’t telling us?

Answer that one, leftards.

Taking 4000 while giving 800 was crap deal?
Limit easily reached in a week under the ALP?

May as well have asked Malaysia to include a wet wipe and instructions with the deal for Rudd and Gillard on how to wipe their bot bots

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 9:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 7:20pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:46pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:28pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:36pm: [quote author=longweekend58 link=1372965411/64 It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution. Now tell me how this could fail!! Well, what do you know? You've just described the Malaysian "Solution" in a nutshell. I can't see Mr Abbott doing that. He voted against it, remember? Malaysia, like Indonesia, is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. the Malaysian plan was to give back 800 in return for 4000.  how was that even similar???  and this plan is unlimited.  the malaysian plan was never going to stop the boats. Of course it wasn’t. But how are you going to get Indonesia to take all those refugees unless Australia pays to accommodate them? And how can Mr Abbott impliment Mr Downer’s marvellous policy when he refuses to send refugees to non-signatory countries? Please explain. do you even read the post????  we SWAP boat people for refugees they already have in Indonesia!   its a win-win for everyone except boat people and it costs nothing fro Indonesia to comply. Actually, you’re right. That could work. But what about Mr Abbott’s guilty conscience about sending boat people to non signatory countries? He already said this WOULD NOT BE DONE UNDER A GOVERNMENT MR ABBOTT LEADS. Thoughts? returning them to indonesia from whence they came which IS a signatory.  problem solved. :D :D :D :D Indonesia is as much a signatory as Malaysia .... idiot.

Now now, maybe Mr Abbott has thought of a new policy - Indonesia should become a signatory to the refugee convention.

Let’s give credit where credit’s due, I say.
[/quote]


Are you saying that Abbott has given up hopes of ever becoming PM of Australia, and has now decided he's going to run for president of Indonesia? Why else would he be trying to write Indonesian policy?

Bambang might go bang bang. Isn't that how politics works over there?

Dale Ftard wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 9:20pm:

Taking 4000 while giving 800 was crap deal? Limit easily reached in a week under the ALP? May as well have asked Malaysia to include a wet wipe and instructions with the deal for Rudd and Gillard on how to wipe their bot bots

would you have been one of those first 800 knowing you would never get to settle? or do you think you might wait for others to fill the quota?

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 9:44pm:

Dale Ftard wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 9:20pm: Taking 4000 while giving 800 was crap deal? Limit easily reached in a week under the ALP? May as well have asked Malaysia to include a wet wipe and instructions with the deal for Rudd and Gillard on how to wipe their bot bots would you have been one of those first 800 knowing you would never get to settle? or do you think you might wait for others to fill the quota?

1 in 5 is pretty short odds.

Especially if that 1 happens to be one of the parents.

:)

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 8:39pm:

ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 10:19am: Under international law we cant do it. Its just a nonsense gambit by Abbot for the thicko vote. Under international law the Indonesians have not been allowed to sponsor an invasion of Australia by hundreds of boats leaving their southern shores over a period of many years. Indonesia has never been taken to the International Court to face charges of aiding and abetting criminals in an illegal people-smuggling enterprise. Indonesia knows it would be in their best interest not to press any charges if Australia should tow boats back into Indonesian waters. Their own criminal involvement in the people-smuggling business would attract a very heavy penalty if brought before an International Court.

This is all pie in the sky stuff mate, Indonesia is not officially involved in people smuggling. Corruption is rife but this is not basis for any international court proceedings. Besides which, Indonesia can just decide not to get involved in any International court proceedings. I dont want them here as much as you dont but we need to use rational and not emotional thinking here.

People smugglers run a half price sale for a week or two until they have filled the quota, then bump up the prices and double the rate of boats coming.

The smugglers already know the left aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. I'm sure they thank you for standing on the bodies of dead children while you provide succor to them.

Be proud, death dealers and border vandals. Show the Indonesians and the smugglers how the left piss their pants at the thought of securing our borders and not drowning people

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 9:42pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 9:03pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 7:20pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:46pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 6:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:28pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:36pm: [quote author=longweekend58 link=1372965411/64 It is a very simple, relatively inexpensive and totally effective solution. Now tell me how this could fail!! Well, what do you know? You've just described the Malaysian "Solution" in a nutshell. I can't see Mr Abbott doing that. He voted against it, remember? Malaysia, like Indonesia, is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. the Malaysian plan was to give back 800 in return for 4000.  how was that even similar???  and this plan is unlimited.  the malaysian plan was never going to stop the boats. Of course it wasn’t. But how are you going to get Indonesia to take all those refugees unless Australia pays to accommodate them? And how can Mr Abbott impliment Mr Downer’s marvellous policy when he refuses to send refugees to non-signatory countries? Please explain. do you even read the post????  we SWAP boat people for refugees they already have in Indonesia!   its a win-win for everyone except boat people and it costs nothing fro Indonesia to comply. Actually, you’re right. That could work. But what about Mr Abbott’s guilty conscience about sending boat people to non signatory countries? He already said this WOULD NOT BE DONE UNDER A GOVERNMENT MR ABBOTT LEADS. Thoughts? returning them to indonesia from whence they came which IS a signatory.  problem solved. :D :D :D :D Indonesia is as much a signatory as Malaysia .... idiot. Now now, maybe Mr Abbott has thought of a new policy - Indonesia should become a signatory to the refugee convention. Let’s give credit where credit’s due, I say.

Are you saying that Abbott has given up hopes of ever becoming PM of Australia, and has now decided he's going to run for president of Indonesia? Why else would he be trying to write Indonesian policy?

Bambang might go bang bang. Isn't that how politics works over there?[/quote]




Don’t be ridiculous. We decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances in which they come.

We also decide how Indonesia should punish its fishermen, prosecute its corrupt police, spend its military budget and suck up to its rich next door neighbour for its foreign aid budget.

Thoughts?

People smuggler: Don't worry about it, the ticket is cheap and if you get caught, you get a few years in a nice bed and breakfast, they give you money, phone cards, Internet and they pay you too. You'll be sent back a rich man and because you took the risk being one of the 800, ill give you a freebie once you get your free Qantas flight back into town.

The left are in charge and they are pissweak little gnats. They even give you a lawyer! The left are the best thing to happen to my business.

Dale Ftard wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:26pm:

People smuggler: Don't worry about it, the ticket is cheap and if you get caught, you get a few years in a nice bed and breakfast, they give you money, phone cards, Internet and they pay you too. You'll be sent back a rich man and because you took the risk being one of the 800, ill give you a freebie once you get your free Qantas flight back into town. The left are in charge and they are pissweak little gnats. They even give you a lawyer! The left are the best thing to happen to my business.

No, they dont get any of these. the alleged asylum seekers get these, not the smugglers.

Yes, that was a people smuggler selling the sugar the left puts on the table to an illegal immigrant.

I don’t know what’s more ludicrous - the idea that anyone other than Indonesian fishing crews end up doing the 5 year mandatory sentences for people smuggling, or the idea that the Labor Party are "left".

Suck it up, leftards. STOP THE BOATS.

Obvious troll is obvious.

If you think that the ALP aren't left, its because you are looking at them from a more insane position than that which they occupy.

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:40pm:

Obvious troll is obvious.

Obvious tard is tard

Dale Ftard wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:42pm:

If you think that the ALP aren't left, its because you are looking at them from a more insane position than that which they occupy.

Shane B, is that you?

No, but I gather someone else has picked you as insane before?

Dale Ftard wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 10:49pm:

No, but I gather someone else has picked you as insane before?

Hang on, you’re new, right? How would you know who Shane B is?

How would you know if you’re NOT Shane B? Please tell me that.

We do miss Lynn though, dear.

I don't know who he is but it is a common affliction of the left to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with batshit crazy to be accused of being someone else who doesn't agree with batshit crazy.

I figure its because they are so deluded that they think its inconceivable that many people can see their batshit craziness, so they form a shield of denial while embracing their batshittery.

I can tell, it will only get worse for you from here on in.

IKEA Debuts Flatpack Refugee Shelter

We should send a few thousand of these to Indonesia - problem solved. Scandinavian comfort while waiting for resettlement (aka secondary refugee movement.) No need to board a leaky boat when you can lounge on your KLIPPAN sofa as the kids are playing merrily on the ULLGUMP rug .
To be in Indonesia is bliss, but to be in an Ikea refugee flatpack house is very heaven.