Post by Soren on Jul 12th, 2012 at 9:34am
John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:35am:
|
So WTF do they travel to Indonesia? Why not buy a ticket to a country that has signed the Refugee Convention (in green)??
| Australian Politics Forum | |
|
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> General Board >> Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1342012619 Message started by Yadda on Jul 11th, 2012 at 11:16pm |
|
|
Title: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 11th, 2012 at 11:16pm
An argument too good, not to post.
Quote:
IMO, this 'asylum issue' conundrum is an absurdity. And many Australians are eeeediots, for not 'waking up' to what is REALLY occurring, regards these moslem 'asylum seekers'. You are being led down the garden path darlings! And you know what happens next, after we go into the tool shed. Yadda. The above came in an email, without a link. But i'm sure a lil Googling can find a source. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Grey on Jul 11th, 2012 at 11:24pm Yadda wrote on Jul 11th, 2012 at 11:16pm:
Indonesia is not a signatory to the convention on refugees. As far as I know no refugee has ever become a citizen of Indonesia, they are just imprisoned forever. so.... Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 11th, 2012 at 11:36pm Grey wrote on Jul 11th, 2012 at 11:24pm:
Grey, Indonesia, as a moslem nation, is obligated [by ISLAM] to give sanctuary to fellow moslems. So, the fact that Indonesia is not a signatory to the convention on refugees is totally irrelevant - IN FACT. And regards your argument, that moslems refugees [within Indonesia], would be imprisoned forever in a moslem nation...... hmm, what a horrific thought!!!! /sarc off Grey, Where would moslems rather live ??? Would moslems much rather live, in an infidel nation, among infidels, whom they despise and hate ??? Yes, of course!! /sarc off |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 11th, 2012 at 11:44pm Yadda wrote on Jul 11th, 2012 at 11:36pm:
Great, another drooling moron. Just what we needed. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:43am Gist wrote on Jul 11th, 2012 at 11:44pm:
Great, debate, is personal abuse. Another intellectual giant. "Errr, i don't like your argument. And, you are a fuxxing moron!!" Let me guess, you are a moslem ? +++ And here is me thinking that debate, was a contest of ideas in a public place. Dictionary; idea = = 1 a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action. a mental impression. a belief. 2 (the idea) the aim. 3 Philosophy (in Platonic thought) an eternally existing pattern of which individual things in any class are imperfect copies. (in Kantian thought) a concept of pure reason, not empirically based in experience. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 1:15am Yadda wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:43am:
Gist, You are either, a Mohammedan, OR, you are 13 years old. Right ? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 5:29am
Basically indonesia cant handle the influx of refugees and arent signatory to the refugee convention. their policy is to lock them up in detention centres indefinitely until they can send them to a third country. They do not allow them to stay.
article from 2009 http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2009-08-20-voa8-68656257/354512.html Article from 2011 http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/06/21/indonesia-hosting-close-3000-refugees-unhcr.html Article from 2012 http://refugeeadvocacynetwork.org/indonesia-asylum-seekers-take-boats-frustration/ It has nothing to do with religion. Despite what some rabid ppl here say about the muslim politics and religion thing that is only an extremist thing. There are plenty of countries with mainly muslims that have separation of state and religion. Also yadda this is not an xtian country. There are some xtians here but we are not a theocracy. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Armchair_Politician on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:14am
It's this simple. If they were genuine refugees, they would stop their journey in Indonesia. Most of these illegal (economic) immigrants are muslim and Indonesia is the most populous muslim nation in the world. It's also safe. Yet these people continue on trying to reach Australia because they see how good life can be here (or was until Gillard became PM). That they leave a safe country to try to reach ours is indicitive of the fact they are not genuine refugees, but country-shopping queue-jumpers.
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:17am Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:14am:
you obviously didnt read any of my post. I explained why they cant stay in indonesia. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Shane B on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:23am
Well they're getting in to Indonesia. Why aren't they fettuing turned away at the airport?
They then stay in Jakarta or wherever, sometimes for a couple of years or more until they can get on a boat. There doesn't seem to be too many getting locked up. It is a corrupt trade, and the 4 Corners report speculated that kick backs from people smuggling are reaching very senior government officials. They have an incentive to turn a blind eye. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by philperth2010 on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:24am
Australia signed the refugee convention and agreed to grant asylum to genuine refugees.....Refugees are not recognised by Indonesia making it impossible for them to get a job or make a living in Indonesia.....The argument you put forward just proves how you have no idea what you are talking about as usual.....It is not illegal to seek sanctuary in any country who has signed the refugee convention and anyone who makes such claims is ignorant and stupid!!!
::) ::) ::) Ignorance gives one a large range of probabilities. George Eliot (1819 - 1880) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:30am philperth2010 wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:24am:
SO why did thy travel to Indonesia and lie to the Indonesians about the purpose of the trip? About the sanctuary - they o not want sanctuary in Australia, they want permanent settlement. Normally, a refugee flees the troubles and waits in the nearest safe haven to be resettled in a country that wants him. Post-war refugees did not fly to Indonesia or Cuba and sailed for Australia or the US and then claim refuge. They fled to the US/UK/French occupation areas of Europe and asked for [protection and waited until one of the re-settling countries took them. Big diff. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Sprintcyclist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:31am Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:14am:
yep, they are illegals |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:35am
What an absolute load of Bollocks ..... you rednecks have no idea
Any refugee in Indonesia can NEVER get a job, Never own a home or business, they live in jails, slums or on the streets begging and stealing for enough food to survive .....the odd ones that do work, do so for cash money only and usually at a lessor rate than an Indonesian may get for the same job .....they have no rights ... this isn't living ... it's no way to raise a family or plan for a future ... I'd like to see any one of you morons settle for that ..... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by progressiveslol on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:44am John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:35am:
Then they should make an application to come to Australia. They are atleast safe for now. They could also go back to their country of origin. UN want open borders, same as Soreass. Isnt going to happen. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:57am progressiveslol wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:44am:
many of them have already made applications and been in limbo for 2 or 3 years , some refugees wait 8 or 9 yrs for 'applications' to go through ... I don't blame anyone for wanting a future for their families ... the way things are in Indonesia, there is no future ...just a constant state of limbo ... never knowing when they'll be arrested, if they'll be deported or worse .. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 9:03am Shane B wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:23am:
Well I have to ask where you are getting your information that not too many are getting locked up because all three of those articles say that they are SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 12th, 2012 at 9:05am Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 9:03am:
The liberal party policy booklet on the other thread perhaps? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by cods on Jul 12th, 2012 at 9:29am Yadda wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 1:15am:
hey watch it! I know quite a few 13 yr olds and they have a much better vocabulary than this one.. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by cods on Jul 12th, 2012 at 9:32am
I guess the Imam on Christmas Island where there are 300 muslims in residence.. claims even his followers doubt these are true asylum seekers..
is also a redneck...of course he is anyone that say different to a lefty is most definitely a redneck.. CHEERS ALL REDNECKS. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 12th, 2012 at 9:34am John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:35am:
So WTF do they travel to Indonesia? Why not buy a ticket to a country that has signed the Refugee Convention (in green)?? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Shane B on Jul 12th, 2012 at 9:44am John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:35am:
That's their problem - they choose to stop there. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 9:57am
Why not choose where they go? They are desperate and need to find a new country. Why not choose which one? Its not like many of them overall choose australia either.
SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by gizmo_2655 on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:00am Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 9:57am:
Because it's not supposed to be about 'choice'.....it's supposed to be about survival..... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Shane B on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:04am
Well if they've got the cash to pay a people smuggler US$10,000 or more they can't be too destitute. That type of money buys a lot in Indonesia.
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:22am Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 9:57am:
Turkey. Azerbaijan. Turkmenistan. Signed the Refugee Convention. Tick. Majority Muslim. Tick. Walkable. No need for airfares nd to pay smugglers. Tick. Egypt. Tajikistan. Kyrgisistan. Kazakhstan. Signed the Refugee Convention. Tick. Majority Muslim. Tick. Cheap, short flights. No need for intercontinental airfares and to pay smugglers. Tick. So why don't they go to these places, on their door steps? They could have asylum in any one of these countries, all good and faithful signatories to the all-important Refugee Convention. Because they are not refugees. They are migrants. And who wants to migrate to these places?i |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:26am Shane B wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:04am:
Because its not about money. Quote:
So? If they can choose why shouldn't they? Maybe they dont want to be under extremist muslim rule Maybe thats what they are fleeing from. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:28am gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:00am:
well , the world is full of things that aren't as they are supposed to be ... a person isn't supposed to killed for differing religious or political beliefs , but it happens .... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Elvis Wesley on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:29am John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:35am:
So? They don't get jobs here either. Why would they, when they can fleece the infidels instead? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by FriYAY on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:29am John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:35am:
Sounds like they should have stayed dam home, hey. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:29am Shane B wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:04am:
Who says asylum seekers have to be destitute? It's a well know fact that in any civil unrest the ones with money are often the first targetted by those without ..... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:32am Soren wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:22am:
because , just like you, they want what is best for their families, they want to go where they will feel secure and free from persecution, where they can follow their beliefs without threat of harm ...australia consistantly ranks in the top 2 countries to live in by the UN, that makes us a target ... you don't like it, put abbott in govt. for a few years, he'll drag us down to 20 or 30 and we won't be such a target .... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:33am ... wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:29am:
your an idiot. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Elvis Wesley on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:37am Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:26am:
Maybe the world doesn't revolve around the whims of individuals? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Elvis Wesley on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:38am John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:33am:
*ahem* That should be you're an idiot. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:40am ... wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:38am:
the fact that you argue the spelling and not the point just proves my point .... fine, you're an idiot .... happy now? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:44am John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:32am:
Thank you. You have conceded that they are migrants. They want to migrate but they are not wanted as migrants so they use the refugee ruse to gain permanent residence. Finally you got it. Well done. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:53am John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:35am:
So, Indonesia. It is just another ISLAMIC 'paradise' then ? Q. And what makes Indonesia, an 'ISLAMIC paradise' ? A. Indonesia, is an 'ISLAMIC paradise' because of the influence of ISLAM in that country. And because of the rule of moslems [ISLAMISTS, duh!], who are the majority, in that country. So your argument then, is, that because >> MOSLEMS << have made societal hell holes of every nation that they have taken over, your argument is that non-moslem nations like Australia, must absorb displaced >> moslems << so that >> moslems << can bring their dysfunctional and violent and unjust culture, to non-moslem counties like Australia ??? Why ? Why, if we [non-moslems] have rejected the barbarity and injustice of a philosophy like ISLAM [which e.g. sanctions, and makes it lawful [in ISLAMIC law] for moslems to kill [i.e. MURDER!!] their own children], would we want moslems around us, and to have moslems seeking to impose their BARBARIC philosophy upon us ??? ISLAM, is a death cult, moslems have chosen to embrace that death cult. "....the death of those who are killed for the cause of God gives more impetus to the cause, which continues to thrive on their blood." ISLAMIC scholar, Sayyid Qutb, .......A moslem, promoting, justifying, ISLAM's murder of those who do not believe, as they believe. I, as an Australian, reject ISLAM, and i reject its religious call to subjugate me, to ISLAM's incessant and sick urgent desire for the political supremacism, worldwide, of ISLAM. "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Koran 9.29 "O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)." Koran 9.123 If moslems want ISLAM, then let them seek 'political asylum' and sanctuary, in >> moslem << countries like Egypt... "The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal." Morsi - Recently elected PRESIDENT of Egypt. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Elvis Wesley on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:54am John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:40am:
Was posting "your (sic) an idiot" arguing the point? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:04am cods wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 9:29am:
:) ;) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Dnarever on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:14am
Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post.
Actually the argument is rather poor. Argument seriously flawed: They have escaped from their own country and are now in a country where they are not being hounded for their political or religious beliefs............ They're home; they are refugees living in Indonesia. Refugees have no status in Indonesia – the government never even recognises that they are there, they can not work their children can not go to school they get nothing. They are displaced people considered to be still in transit. They decide to leave the sanctuary of Indonesia They have no sanctuary in Indonesia. No one is persecuting them for their religion, no one is persecuting them for their political beliefs; they are safe; No they are not safe they have no means of making a living and are not recognised as even being there, no access to basic services and if caught may be locked up or returned to their home land and significant danger. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:15am Yadda wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:04am:
Seems you are correct cods. A couple of smiley faces isn't much of a vocabulary. I'm sure many three years olds could outperform that, never mind 13 year olds. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:17am Yadda wrote on Jul 11th, 2012 at 11:16pm:
More astounding ignorance. Seriously you people, do some research before you post nonsense like this. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. Read the 1951 UN Convention and 1967 Protocol, along with the Migration Act 1958 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 14). http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a14 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/ "Asylum seekers are people seeking international protection, whose claims for 'refugee status' have not yet been determined. They are not 'illegal immigrants' because under both international and domestic laws, they have a legal right to enter Australia to seek asylum. Whether they arrive by plane or by boat is immaterial, as they are not supposed to be penalised for the manner of their entry." http://www.anf.org.au/pdf/Asylum_seekers.pdf You really need to find another "argument", because the one in the OP is pure nonsense. And that's not just my opinion, that's law. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Elvis Wesley on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:19am
Yaaaaawn.
Here we go again. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Dnarever on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:21am Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:17am:
They all know that Uncle - its just that they don't care because it suites their agenda. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by .Annie. on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:21am
Oh yes. Yaaaaawn.
More facts from reputable organisations. How positively boring. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:23am ... wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:37am:
Maybe it does. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:25am John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:32am:
Your arguments #1, and #2, are contradictory. ISLAM is a religion of oppression, the 'lawful' oppression, of intimidation and threats and violence [by moslems!!] against those who do not believe, as moslems believe. So, moslems want to 'express' their own 'freedom of religion' ???? Which means that moslems should have a 'right' to oppress those, who do not believe, as moslems believe ??? John Smith, Whether you will admit it, OR NOT, that is your argument. ISLAM is a form of fascism. ISLAM >> is << religious fascism. 'Freedom of religion' for a moslem, for all moslems, is defined, as the moslem right to murder those, who do not believe, as they [moslems] believe. SO, YOUR ARGUMENT, IS THAT THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT MUST ALLOW MOSLEMS ENTRY, INTO AUSTRALIA, SO THAT MOSLEMS WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEIR OWN FORM OF 'FREEDOM OF RELIGION' [ <--- which is defined by ISLAM, as never-ending warfare against those who are not moslems.] ??? And again..... "....the death of those who are killed for the cause of God gives more impetus to the cause, which continues to thrive on their blood." ISLAMIC scholar, Sayyid Qutb, .......A moslem, promoting, justifying, ISLAM's murder of those who do not believe, as they believe. From the Koran, ISLAM's foundation religious text...... "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Koran 9.29 "O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)." Koran 9.123 |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Elvis Wesley on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:25am
In case you rubes didn't realise, we're not happy with the way the law is working out for us. The law is being exploited as it is, so the argument centres around how it australian law be amended to suit australians.
Since when has the law been above reproach? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Dnarever on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:27am Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:23am:
Depends on perspective - mine seems to |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Elvis Wesley on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:29am Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:23am:
OK then. I choose not to let this human jetsam settle here. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:35am Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:14am:
"fact" ? LOL No, merely your personal opinion based on ignorance, bigotry and xenophobia. One can claim asylum and strive to live in the best country. There's no law preventing anyone from doing both. Plus, there's no queue for asylum seekers. Never has been. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:41am Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:17am:
meat, That may be so. But it is also true, that, UNDER ISLAMIC LAW, moslems also 'have a legal right' to slit my throat [because of my criticism of Mohamed, the pirate, murderer, pedofile, the rapist, and because of my criticism of ISLAM, for calling ISLAM a barbaric, unjust, fascist, violent, murderous, philosophy]. meat, Just because the law may allow [or mandate] something, that doesn't make it 'virtuous'. And allowing the adherents [moslems] of a violent and murderous philosophy [like ISLAM] 'lawful' entry, into Australia, THAT, IS NOT RIGHTEOUS ACT. +++ And EVERY SINGLE PERSON who says "I am a moslem.", is a person who has chosen to embrace ISLAM and its tenets. There is no such thing as a tolerant or moderate ISLAM. And there is not such 'creature' as a 'moderate' moslem. A moslem, is a moslem. Period. A moslem, is a person who chooses to embrace a philosophy, ISLAM, which tells moslems that it is 'lawful' for moslems, to lie to, to plunder and to rob, to rape, to enslave, and to kill those, who do not believe, as they believe. AND THAT, IS THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by gizmo_2655 on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:41am Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:26am:
Yeah, I figured that you might not get it... The refugee concept is about moving themselves and their families away from the threat of immediate harm ( i.e the secret police/fanatics want to kill me/us for our beliefs and/or opinions)....once they are out of the country or area where the danger is, and in a place where they're safe from that danger, they then stop being 'refugees', and moving to another country from that location comes under the concept of 'immigrant'...... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:48am gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:41am:
Not if that country where they find themselves wont let them stay or locks them up. I know religious ppl cant do this but i dunno if you are religious or not so try it. Imagine you are a refugee family fleeing from something extreme. you get out of your country with your family to a place where theres no food or work for you. Remember this is you not "them" Now you discuss it and there are several countries you can go to because you have relatives in other countries willing to give you money to get transport. There are a number of countries to choose from but for this exercise you choose australia. The journey is perilous but you will have a good life there apparently but the government will only allow some of your family in on a plane so you undertake to go on the boat risking your life to get there so later you can get your family sent over and they dont have to take the boat ride. Now even if the ppl movers make you get rid of your id you have to tell the australians who you are to get your family sent over. You arent really anonymous. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:50am gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:41am:
Nope. First, you're confusing the terms 'refugee' and 'asylum seeker'. Second, there is nothing stopping them from continuing on to other countries. "An asylum seeker is a person who has fled their own country and applied for protection as a refugee. "According to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by its 1967 Protocol (the Refugee Convention), a refugee is a person who is outside their own country and is unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of their: race religion nationality membership of a particular " http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/asylum_seekers.html |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:50am Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:35am:
'Strive to live in a country' is not the same as 'foist self on a country'. For asylum, there are many, better, closer places for them. Turkey. Azerbaijan. Turkmenistan. Signed the Refugee Convention. Tick. Majority Muslim. Tick. Walkable. No need for airfares nd to pay smugglers. Tick. Egypt. Tajikistan. Kyrgisistan. Kazakhstan. Signed the Refugee Convention. Tick. Majority Muslim. Tick. Cheap, short flights. No need for intercontinental airfares and to pay smugglers. Tick. So why don't they go to these places, on their door steps? Claiming asylum only half a world away, in the country where they want to settle, is a fraud. They could not migrate here, so they come pretending to be asylum seekers because they know that they would never be let in as migrants. Asylum is NOT settlement. They want settlement, not asylum >>> they are not asylum seekers. They are settlement seers. I am not aware of any international Convention for Settlement Seekers. Are you? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:55am Soren wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:50am:
Because Australia is a far better choice. That's obvious. There's no law stopping asylum seekers from passing through (or by) other countries before they eventually make a claim for refugee status. None. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:55am Yadda wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:41am:
That's how I read it. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Elvis Wesley on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:57am Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:55am:
Better in what way, and for whom? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:59am Yadda wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:41am:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Heres a good one: Quote:
theres lots more SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:06pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:55am:
But we are under no obligation whatsoever to give them permanent settlement as a matter of course. Giving them temporary protection is all that is required under the convention. Settlement is an option but is not mandated for the countries that provide asylum. However, these 'asylum seekers' rioted when we gave them only asylum and not permanent settlement. They rioted because the ten grand they paid to the smugglers was going down the gurgler before their eyes. Not their refugee/asylum seekers status, mind you, but their chance of permanent settlement which is what they are paying the smugglers for. They are paying the smugglers to reach a position where they can force the hand of the Australian government into giving them permanent settlement which the Australian Government would not grant them if they had not been smuggled in. And when Abbott removes the possibility of permanent settlement for undocumented boat arrivals, they will stop coming even though claiming asylum will remain an option for them even under Abbott. These are illegal immigrant who have no chance to migrate legally so they are using the asylum ruse to gain a migration outcome. They are not interested in mere asylum, not for the outlay of $7-10 grand a head. Otherwise they would fly to Darwin, not Bali. But they couldn't get even a tourist visa, let alone a permanent immigrant visa. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:15pm
If i were a refugee i wouldn't want to keep moving my family from country to county I would want to settle in 1 country. A nice country.
SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by gizmo_2655 on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:16pm Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:48am:
Yes, ok...but the first country 'I' land is 'safe' but doesn't have food/work....then 'I' contact one of the many Refugee Support groups (the UN, Red Cross Unicef etc) and they recommend a country that does have food and work permits...so 'we' travel there (with all our ids)... Alternatively...'we' cross the border (still with our papers passports etc) buy a plane ticket to Australia (for a lot less than $10,000 Au per person), land in Australia, and apply for refugee status..... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Shane B on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:18pm Soren wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:06pm:
Hear hear. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:21pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:16pm:
Hmm yeah that makes sense As long as its possible. If the country was indonesia you would be locked up as soon as you present yourself. I dont know which other countries do that. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:25pm Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:15pm:
so why do they fly only as far as Bali? Why not to Darwin, genius?? Can't afford the extra $200 in airfare so they are forced to pay $10,000 to smugglers? (careful, trick question). |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:32pm Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:55am:
Gist, You need to change your 'nick'. May i suggest, 'Homer Simpson'. It would be close a intellectual 'fit' for you. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by tonegunman1 on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:35pm John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:35am:
So these people smugglers obviously don't charge anything...so on your argument they're humanitarians giving a lift to refugees out of the goodness of their hearts... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:42pm tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:35pm:
It doesnt matter if they have any money if they cant get accommodation or food or a job Savings will go fast Besides i think most of them get the money form relatives already settled in other countries. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:45pm
re post #61.....
Poor Spot, she thinks that we are living around 1,400 BC, and that Spot believes that i am an ancient Hebrew. Spot, it is the year 2012 AD And Christians quit burning witches some time ago. Whereas, moslems who live in the UK, TODAY, believe that it is 1,400 years ago. And moslems believe that they have a sanction from their god, Allah, to slaughter those who resist their will. EXAMPLE #1, Anjem Choudary is a moslem community leader in the UK.... Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4 EXAMPLE #2, Quote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece IN THIS IMAGE, PERSONS WHO SPOT EMBRACES, AND STANDS BESIDE..... IMAGE... London, moslem street protests. 'Demonstrating' just how 'peaceful' ISLAM and moslem really are. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by tonegunman1 on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:58pm Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:42pm:
So Indonesia is happy to have them until the money runs out? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:59pm Soren wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:06pm:
While I may agree with most of what you've said here, the beginning of your last paragraph is still wrong. They are not illegal immigrants. I perfectly understand that you wish them to be treated as illegal immigrants (or the laws changed so that they are illegal immigrants), and I'm not even saying that I completely disagree with you. However, (under the current law) if they are claiming asylum they are not illegal immigrants. This is not my opinion, just the legal facts. There's no such thing as an illegal immigrant asylum seeker. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 1:06pm tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:58pm:
SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by gizmo_2655 on Jul 12th, 2012 at 1:18pm Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:21pm:
Then WHY (and how) do they go TO Indonesia and then catch a boat?? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 1:19pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:59pm:
I have no argument with the last line of your post. And, any person, arriving upon our shores can make any [unsubstanti-able] claim, whatsoever. There is absolutely NO way of establishing the veracity of 'any claim', to anything, to any 'claims' which these people make. And the FACT that these people have been RESIDING in Indonesia, proves that they are NOT legitimate asylum seekers. i.e. These people, claiming to be asylum seekers, have already achieved sanctuary, within Indonesia. And, if they are happy to retain their ID papers when, and after, they arrive in Indonesia, why do these people choose to destroy their >> IDENTITIES << before they appear on our shores ?? 1/ These people are making claims about their status, 2/ AND AT THE SAME TIME, they are destroying their ID documents that, 3/ could establish if their claims are truthful. !!!!!!!! These people are lying 'snakes', who clearly, don't want They are typical moslems, imo! Lairs and deceivers. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 1:39pm Quote:
And you dont get the point. You say you dont follow certain parts of your book literally. Neither do most muslims - especially in australia. Quote:
Oh really. I havent heard of 1000s of atheists or xtians being slaughtered in uk Not even 100s. This is who yadda stands beside Because we all know that ALL xtians are alike and believe the same crap and do the same crap and should be hated /sarc off SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Dnarever on Jul 12th, 2012 at 1:39pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 1:18pm:
You know that most who go to Indonesia are not originally planning to come to Australia, it is typically 5 or 7 years later that they get on a boat - they have no future in Indonesia which is the reason thay leave there after all that time they are still displaced refugees with no possible future where they are. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Elvis Wesley on Jul 12th, 2012 at 1:51pm Dnarever wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 1:39pm:
They live there for 5 -7 years, but they have "no future" there? how does that work? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:07pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 12:59pm:
Whether you are an illegal immigrant or an asylum seeker depends on whether you utter the magic words, 'abraca dabra' (I'm sorry), "Asylum, please". If you utter,you are OK. If you do not utter, you are an illegal immigrant. You are a refugee when you cross the frontier of your country, whether you utter or not. What riles is that people are very careful NOT to utter until they can force themselves on us, rather than needing to wait for us to choose them for re-settlement. So they are blatantly exploiting us by blatantly exploiting a loop hole. That is not the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Just BTW, they gained entry into Indonesia legally but are leaving it illegally. SO they are illegal emmigrants. WHat's bang bang doin' about it? Nuffin. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:10pm ... wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:54am:
nope, it was making a point ... do you need me to repeat it? you're an idiot ..... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:11pm Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 1:39pm:
Oh really. I havent heard of 1000s of atheists or xtians being slaughtered in uk Not even 100s. [/quote] Spot, Moslem 'benevolence' is only apparent [within Australia], so far as moslems are constrained by Australian secular law. But our laws cannot always constrain moslems..... MOSLEMS IN AUSTRALIA...... Calls, texts and Facebook posts reveal girl's final hours May 5, 2011 "A man who murdered his two-year-old daughter last year posted Facebook updates about his crime, a Melbourne court has learnt. ....Yazmina’s body was found in grassland near Greenvale Reservoir, near Broadmeadows in Melbourne’s north, in the early hours of November 18. Court documents reveal she had been stabbed more than once by her father before she was dumped. .....Earlier, Yazmina’s mother, Rachelle D’Argent, had received text messages from Acar. One read: "U wanted to convert ma kid do it u wanted to lock me up I did it u wanted 2 b indapendant do it u take full custdy do it u wana kill me il do it wat eva makes u happy nw tel me" (sic)." http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bout-2-kill-ma-kid-guilty-fathers-chilling-facebook-updates-20110504-1e7g9.html#ixzz1LXX16bpR http://www.theherald.com.au/news/national/national/general/bout-2-kill-ma-kid-guilty-father-on-facebook/2152947.aspx MOSLEMS IN AUSTRALIA...... Quote:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/australia-members-of-hizb-ut-tahrir-say-country-is-god-forsaken-and-that-muslims-must-shun-secular-a.html THE 'SNAKY' LYING DECEIT OF MOSLEMS..... Raymond Ibrahim: How Circumstance Dictates Islamic Behavior Consider this video of Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami, a top-ranked figure in Egypt’s Salafi movement which won some 25% of the votes in recent elections. He makes clear a point that, in a different era, would be thoroughly eye-opening—that all notions of peace with non-Muslims are based on circumstance: when Muslims are weak, they should be peaceful; when strong, they should go on the offensive. ......Burhami is referring to the famous Mecca/Medina division: when Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in his early Mecca period, he preached peace and made pacts with infidels; when he became strong in the Medina period, he preached war and went on the offensive. This dichotomy—preach peace when weak, wage war when strong—has been instructive to Muslim leaders for ages. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/raymond-ibrahim-how-circumstance-dictates-islamic-behavior.html Google; taqiyya - the muslim doctrine of deceit Google; we smile to the face "while our hearts curse them" “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. ...One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:13pm Soren wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:44am:
no one ever said they run blindly when escaping persecution ... they've usually a destination in mind ...some choose Australia ... it's their safest option ..... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:18pm Yadda wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:25am:
Í don't give a bugger about Islam .... that has nothing to do with the asylum seeker issue .... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:21pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:41am:
the refugee 'concept' as you call it is about letting people live in safety and security safe from all forms of oppression ... denying people the right to an education, a home or employment is just another form of oppression ... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:25pm John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:18pm:
Well Smith, you continue to believe that, if that is what you want to believe. As far as i am concerned, YOU can believe whatever you want to believe. Open a dictionary... bigot = = a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others. The word 'prejudiced' means to pre-judge, OR, to judge in ignorance, without full knowledge. And how do people of this age [or in this forum], come to knowledge ? Hmmm? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by skippy. on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:29pm Yadda wrote on Jul 11th, 2012 at 11:16pm:
It looks like you've been let out of gaol again, I'll have to call asio again. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:30pm Yadda wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:25pm:
are you hitting the crack pipe? Your views on islam may well be valid ...but I DON'T CARE ... they have nothing to do with the asylum seeker debate |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:33pm skippy. wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:29pm:
That Com-car just keeps driving up and down my street. I wonder when they are going to stop, and knock on the door ??? ;) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by skippy. on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:33pm John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:30pm:
For those of you not familiar with this racist idiot, he is a repeat offender. he has been gaoled before for his extreme terrorist behavior. The problem is they keep releasing him. he is a danger to society. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:34pm Yadda wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:11pm:
Spot, Moslem 'benevolence' is only apparent [within Australia], so far as moslems are constrained by Australian secular law. But our laws cannot always constrain moslems..... MOSLEMS IN AUSTRALIA...... Calls, texts and Facebook posts reveal girl's final hours May 5, 2011 "A man who murdered his two-year-old daughter last year posted Facebook updates about his crime, a Melbourne court has learnt. ....Yazmina’s body was found in grassland near Greenvale Reservoir, near Broadmeadows in Melbourne’s north, in the early hours of November 18. Court documents reveal she had been stabbed more than once by her father before she was dumped. .....Earlier, Yazmina’s mother, Rachelle D’Argent, had received text messages from Acar. One read: "U wanted to convert ma kid do it u wanted to lock me up I did it u wanted 2 b indapendant do it u take full custdy do it u wana kill me il do it wat eva makes u happy nw tel me" (sic)." http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bout-2-kill-ma-kid-guilty-fathers-chilling-facebook-updates-20110504-1e7g9.html#ixzz1LXX16bpR http://www.theherald.com.au/news/national/national/general/bout-2-kill-ma-kid-guilty-father-on-facebook/2152947.aspx MOSLEMS IN AUSTRALIA...... Quote:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/australia-members-of-hizb-ut-tahrir-say-country-is-god-forsaken-and-that-muslims-must-shun-secular-a.html THE 'SNAKY' LYING DECEIT OF MOSLEMS..... Raymond Ibrahim: How Circumstance Dictates Islamic Behavior Consider this video of Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami, a top-ranked figure in Egypt’s Salafi movement which won some 25% of the votes in recent elections. He makes clear a point that, in a different era, would be thoroughly eye-opening—that all notions of peace with non-Muslims are based on circumstance: when Muslims are weak, they should be peaceful; when strong, they should go on the offensive. ......Burhami is referring to the famous Mecca/Medina division: when Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in his early Mecca period, he preached peace and made pacts with infidels; when he became strong in the Medina period, he preached war and went on the offensive. This dichotomy—preach peace when weak, wage war when strong—has been instructive to Muslim leaders for ages. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/raymond-ibrahim-how-circumstance-dictates-islamic-behavior.html Google; taqiyya - the muslim doctrine of deceit Google; we smile to the face "while our hearts curse them" “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. ...One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya [/quote] Yup. Like xtianity, islam is a religion that psychos use to justify their psychotic acts. It happens all over the world with all kinds of religions. Sometimes psychos do things like that and dont blame it on a religion. Go figger. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:36pm John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:30pm:
That, is your opinion. IMO, they do [i.e. my views on ISLAM have a lot to do with the asylum seeker debate], in this instance. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:36pm Quote:
Ohhhhhhhhhh. You mean like when you call me a muslim? SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:39pm skippy. wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:33pm:
LOL In your dreams skip, in your dreams. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:41pm Yadda wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:36pm:
are all asylum seekers Muslim? are you willing to allow on shore processing to those that aren't muslim? does your argument change at all for those that aren't muslim? If not then the fact that they are muslim is irrelevant .... not once have you said you're in favour of open border for asylum seekers if they are not muslem .... now go and preach your religious hatred elsewhere ... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:44pm Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:36pm:
spot, Like i have said before, regards your 'demeanour' on this forum, towards ISLAM, 'Palestinians, and moslems; "...quack, quack!" |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by corporate_whitey on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:47pm
This is our country, not theirs. :(
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:53pm Yadda wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:44pm:
Hey, retard! For someone who is supposedly obsessed with muslims, you'd think you'd know enough to know how to spell the word. But no. Too retarded I guess. And YOU'RE the sperm that WON!?? ;D ;D ;D Geez how stupid must you feel to have your stupidity pointed out to you by Homer Simpson? Must sucks to be you. Not that I care, mind. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:58pm Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:53pm:
Muslim and Moslem are both perfectly acceptable spelling of the followers of Islam. They are inter-changeable. Oxford English Dictionary. Mus·lim (mzlm, mz-, ms-, ms-) n. 1. also Mos·lem (mzlm, ms-) A believer in or adherent of Islam. 2. A member of the Nation of Islam. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:05pm ... wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 11:57am:
In way of "livability", for humans. The asylum seekers aim for the best country they can and then hope that they can eventually be resettled in that country. If it was me, I'd be aiming for Australia too rather than any of those other countries mentioned. Why do you think these people in boats are any different? They just want the best. Seeking asylum is perfectly legal, and there are no laws stating that asylum seekers must stop at the first country they arrive at, or pass by. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:09pm Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:58pm:
Maybe you should spend a buck and dispose of that door stopper then because it has changed: Quote:
The "moslem" form is used - by anti-muslim racist pig sphincters like yadda. That doesn't make it correct. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:10pm Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:31am:
Nope, legal asylum seekers. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:13pm Soren wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:07pm:
There's a good possibility that you're correct: many of them may very well be exploiting a legal loop hole. However, that (quite obviously) does not make them illegal immigrants. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Dnarever on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:15pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:10pm:
It's also safe. Yet these people continue on trying to reach Australia because they see how good life can be here (or was until Gillard became PM). Next thing you will be arguing that Labor opened the doors to let them in - go figure, seems they didn't want to come here when Howard was in charge, you could hardly be critical of them at that time - awful government running the place. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:25pm Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:53pm:
I should really refer to moslems as Mohammedans, because all moslems, are, really, the followers of the cult of Mohammed. In the Koran, Mohammed has equal standing with Allah. Read the Koran, it is all in there!! "Allah and his Prophet, ......Allah and His Apostle, .....the world belongs to Allah, AND his Prophet.....yadda, yadda, yadda......." "You should Know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to exile you from,,, this land, so whoever among you owns some property, can sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #009.085.077 hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.053.392 "Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." " hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #001.002.026 All Mohammedans are idolaters, and they can't even see it !!! ;D ;D ;DiISLAM, monotheistic ??? LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL !!!!! ISLAM is the ultimate idolatry, committed by men, by moslems. Dictionary; idolatry = = 1 worship of idols. 2 adulation. All moslems commit the crime of shirk. Shirk = = joining partners with Allah, perhaps the greatest crime. Google; shirk crime joining And all moslems commit open SHIRK, in their adulation of Mohammed. Throughout the Koran, it is clear that Mohammed is given equal status with Allah.... e.g. "The people of 'Usaiya have disobeyed Allah and His Apostle." Throughout the Koran you can see these words repeated, 100's and 100's of times..... "....Allah and His Apostle.", "....Allah and His Apostle.", "....Allah and His Apostle." e.g. In the Hadith.... " Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "Whoever possesses the following three qualities will have the sweetness (delight) of faith: 1. The one to whom Allah and His Apostle becomes dearer than anything else. 2. Who loves a person and he loves him only for Allah's sake. 3. Who hates to revert to Atheism (disbelief) as he hates to be thrown into the fire." " Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 15: Moslems are worshipping Allah and His Apostle. ISLAM's own foundation texts command moslems to venerate and adore 'Allah and His Apostle' with equal adoration. Moslems are commanded by their 'holy' texts to venerate and adore, to worship, 'Allah and His Apostle'. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by skippy. on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:29pm Yadda wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:25pm:
like you follow the CULT of jesus. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Elvis Wesley on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:30pm
I prefer the terms muselmen, mooslammers, or dune co ons.
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:35pm Yadda wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:25pm:
I see. So you're a closet muslim? It is safe to come out of the closet in this day and age you know. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Baronvonrort on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:36pm Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:09pm:
Are the Saudis anti muslim racist pig sphincters? You should inform the Saudis of their mistake, they might call you an ignorant git. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:36pm ... wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:30pm:
... or sweet cheeks (when you're alone, of course!)... :D |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Shane B on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:37pm Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:35pm:
Speaking from experience are you? Well done. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:40pm Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:36pm:
And it seems they can't spell Mecca either. But what do they know, they don't speak English. :D |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:40pm Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:09pm:
Oooowaaaaar! I can see that you are exercising your intellectual capacity again. And what a very eloquent person you are!!! Everyone, can see that! ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:42pm Shane B wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:37pm:
Snappy comeback. Next time you could also try "I know you are but what am I?" |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:43pm Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:36pm:
Absolutely!!! ......, Baron ;) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:43pm Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:58pm:
Then obviously his constant correction of the word is wrong. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:44pm Yadda wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:40pm:
Nah. You wasn't even close to waking up the neurons. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:45pm
Well i'll have to go for now, ......that Com-car has pulled up out the front.
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:45pm skippy. wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:33pm:
Islam isn't a race. Therefore it cannot be racist. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:47pm Quote:
Islam isn't a race. It can't be racist, then. Are you pro-Muslim, Git? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:50pm Quote:
In the xtian bible jesus has equal standing with "god". Read the bible its all in there! Quote:
All xtians are idolaters because the catholics worship mary statues. Go figger! Quote:
Not that anyone said it wasnt? But anyway xtians have big daddy junior and the spook. 3 gods. Yadda your fonts need to be bigger and add some red in there for some real troll art. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:54pm Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:36pm:
I think you've got the Italian there. Like I said, the word is inter-changeable. The fact some Muslims find it offensive is neither here nor there. Some Muslims in England found the nursery rhyme Three Little Pigs offensive too. We're not going to ban that either. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by gizmo_2655 on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:58pm John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 2:21pm:
Yes, that's what I said... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:59pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:58pm:
not even close .... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 4:00pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:47pm:
Oh look! The sock guy has got the whole laundry basket out to play. Correct, Islam is not a race. You score half a point for that stunning observation. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 4:02pm Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 4:00pm:
Are you pro-Muslim, Git? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by gizmo_2655 on Jul 12th, 2012 at 4:04pm John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:59pm:
Oh, so the asylum seeker refugee process ISN'T about getting people out of places where their lives are in danger??? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Grey on Jul 12th, 2012 at 4:52pm Soren wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:30am:
Yes the big diff being that they were processed in a month or two and settled into a job. Not imprisoned for years. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by tonegunman1 on Jul 12th, 2012 at 5:11pm Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 1:06pm:
Congratulations on being devoid of an argument or a point. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 5:21pm tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 5:11pm:
Congratulations for being a dick. So where exactly did i say anything about indonesia being happy to have them? Did you read the smacking thread? Ok idiot. Baby talk. Your point: ppl smugglers work for free and indonesia welcomes refugees My point: Refugees are not welcome in indonesia. Refugees cannot get a job or home or go to school in indonesia If they are caught refugees get locked up in indonesia Sometimes refugees have relatives that can send them money so they can get out of indonesia SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 5:51pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 4:02pm:
I'm anti-racist pig sphincter. Is that a problem for you? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by tonegunman1 on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:20pm Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 5:21pm:
You send them money and a decent boat then kunt... Rather than misrepresenting others. I read your fn thread and like most of the shyte you seem to squeeze out is largely anecdotal, unsubstantiated, suppositions on your part and very short on any sort of substantiation. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:25pm tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:20pm:
Hahahahha you dont like it being done back @ you do you lololol SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:26pm Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 5:51pm:
No. But that doesn't answer the question. I'll ask again, for the third time, are you pro-Muslim? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Dnarever on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:30pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:26pm:
Is that relivant? Do you need to be pro any group in order to be anti discriminating against them? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:30pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:26pm:
Well, OK, I could give another smart arse answer but just for you this once I'll give you the straight up answer - I'm neither pro nor anti Muslim. Frankly, I don't give a rats what they do or do not believe in. Now your turn: Are you a racist pig sphincter? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:44pm Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:30pm:
It's very telling that a simple question devoid of any ad hominem sends you into a rage. I've hit a nerve here. That aside, if you're neither anti or pro Muslim, then your position is one of indifference. Then why would you get angry at those who dislike Muslims? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:47pm Dnarever wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:30pm:
Well, you do to an extent. Multiculturalism tolerates or celebrates, depending on which way you look at it, different cultures. Therefore, you have to be pro-Muslim enough to allow it to exist. If you're indifferent, like our friend Git here has just confessed, then it shouldn't matter to him how they're viewed. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by tonegunman1 on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:50pm tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:20pm:
You an ignorant twat...your mother said so...although it was a bit difficult to understand seeing as she had her mouth full and I was at the other end. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Dnarever on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:54pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:47pm:
At one time people in Australia expected anyone to get a fair go. This is irrespective of if you agree with them or not. You do not need to be pro anything in order to expect people who are to be treated in a reasonable manner. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:59pm Dnarever wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:54pm:
I don't agree. Treating people in a reasonable manner means you must be pro-human to some degree. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:02pm Grey wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 4:52pm:
Really? You should ring the BBC and correct them and their sources: Poland and Slovakia pogroms broke out, in which Jews were killed. Over 100,000 Jews infiltrated to the western powers' occupation zones in Germany and Austria. Most sought permission to enter Palestine - but the British mandatory government there denied entry to all save a handful. They therefore remained stuck for years in so-called displaced persons' camps. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:04pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:44pm:
A rage? Hardly! ;D Not even close on that one. OK, just for you, sans any ad-hom so you'll feel warm and safe: Pro or anti muslim does not equate to indifference. The issue is intolerance, not religion or race for that matter. I am intolerant of intolerance. That means I dislike people who dislike muslims. Is that clear enough for you? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Elvis Wesley on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:09pm Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:04pm:
And I am intolerant of people who are intolerant of intolerance. pfft...Intolerant of intolerance...WTF does that even mean? the sort of mindless self deception the weak among us use to justify their complete and utter compliance. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:09pm tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:50pm:
Wow! Not only going into a rage at yourself in public but also publicly admitting to being a mother fvcker at the same time! Way to go retard! Did we get confused with our socks wesley? ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Elvis Wesley on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:11pm
When all elese fails let the sock puppet accusations begin.
yaaaawn. Are you even a human being or a liberal cliche-bot? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Dnarever on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:12pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:59pm:
Anyone not pro-human would be a worry - though possibly a good coalition candidate to line up with the rest of them! |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:15pm Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:04pm:
Your 'intolerance of intolerance' doesn't really work. Otherwise, you'd be intolerant of your own intolerance toward me. So we are back to square one: If you're defending them you must be doing so on some grounds. Hence, there must be something about them that's worth defending. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:15pm ... wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:11pm:
Yeah, that was his first point of attack against me as well. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:16pm ... wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:11pm:
I'll take that as a yes. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:18pm Dnarever wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:12pm:
Human beings are judged on their deeds, values, morals etc. I am entitled to judge them accordingly, just as you are, and do. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:18pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:15pm:
Wrong again. I am always tolerant of myself, naturally. So no seegar for you. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by tonegunman1 on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:09pm:
Up your noddy. Like I give a toss what the bugger you think. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:22pm Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:18pm:
You might be tolerant toward yourself, but not me. Therefore you broke the cardinal rule you set down for yourself. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:28pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:22pm:
And my problem with that should be what? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:31pm Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:28pm:
If you want to have consistency in your position then that is your problem. Having contradictory positions leads to not being taken very seriously. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:35pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:31pm:
Not being taken seriously by racist pig sphincters? Do you really imagine that I lay awake at night worrying about what they think of me? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Elvis Wesley on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:42pm Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:35pm:
Those racist pig sphincters look just like anyone else. Everytime you go out you see some. There might be one in the da dahhhhh dadaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:50pm Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:35pm:
You're back to the abuse again. I must have touched a nerve again. See, I know what's really going on here. You won't say you're pro-Muslim because this will align you with stoning women to death for adultery and other sordid acts, but you won't say you're anti-Muslim either because this will align you with the Conservatives. So you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, and the only way out was to retreat into some obscure position like 'intolerance of intolerance.' But that got you caught out too. You could not even hold up your own mantra, you showed you were intolerant toward others. So we are back to here, your last resort, abuse. All in all, you are a thoroughly intellectually deficient individual. You're big on 'moral positions' but retardant on logic. What you lack in intellect you try and make up for in 'moral superiority.' |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:51pm ... wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:42pm:
Funny thing is he admitted earlier that we were talking about religion, not race. But he's none too bright ol' Git, he forgets things not long after he says them. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by longweekend58 on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:54pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:31pm:
well pretty much no one takes Gist seriously. he is like skippy. he abuses and... well thats it. his are the posts you just skip over to find the valuable ones. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Dnarever on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:55pm Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:35pm:
Gist Racist trolls are still trolls. The mist is too thin to veil the intent and the inscrutable philosophy hides the intent no better. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by longweekend58 on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:55pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:50pm:
like greens_win he is an epic fail with every post but without the entertainment value of the former. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:01pm Dnarever wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:55pm:
A sad comment in recent decades is when people can not argue or defend their view then they shout "Racist!" at the other person,., |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:04pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:54pm:
All he does is abuse people, He is a very angry man with the world. Always attacks and personal insults. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:14pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:50pm:
Abuse? Why? Did I call you a racist pig sphincter? No. So all I can assume is that you align yourself with racist pig sphincters. You see, I know what's really going on here. You want me to align myself because you have no basis for argument, you just have a bunch of pig sphincter extreme examples that you want to use to pin whoever you're arguing against. You want me to say I am pro-muslim or pro-asian or pro-whatever you're feeling like hating today to make your life easy because you've spent your time digging through the crap of human life looking for examples. All so you can sit there smugly thinking that everyone else is really a pig sphincter under the skin so its OK that you are too. That way you don't have to feel bad for being such a little piece of human excrement. You'll feel justified spending all your time looking for the crap of life because then you'll know that somewhere out there someone else is also a piece of excrement so its OK if you are as well. Well, you're wrong. You should feel bad. Or flush yourself, whichever you choose. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:16pm Dnarever wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:55pm:
Yeah, I'm well aware they're trolls. Occasionally I like to rattle the troll cages and troll them back. Ssshhh! Don't tell 'em, they'll never catch on. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:16pm Dnarever wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:55pm:
Pardon?! It's already been established we're talking about religion, not race. Islam is a set of practices, regardless of the race practising them. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:17pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:04pm:
OOOooooo! Look! He's got another sock out to play! I thought you were in Israel dodging bombs? None hit you eh? Pity. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:21pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:04pm:
Yes, longweekend and Avram, he is highly abusive. He obviously has some unresolved personal issues. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by longweekend58 on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:44pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:21pm:
not unheard of among those that spend large time on the internet. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 12th, 2012 at 9:13pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:44pm:
4,116 posts average 14.81 per day longloser: 18,168 posts average 23.94 per day So that explains your constant abuse of others. Now I understand. ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 12th, 2012 at 9:18pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:04pm:
As opposed to Avram who only abuses Arabs and Italians .... are you hiding from the big bad arabs again? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by longweekend58 on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:56pm John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 9:18pm:
even Nasser said: "israeli soldiers are trained to fight. Arab soldiers are trained to march." (after the 1967 fiasco) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by warrigal on Jul 13th, 2012 at 4:55am [/quote]Soren SO why did they travel to Indonesia and lie to the Indonesians about the purpose of the trip? [/quote] And what is the purpose of this statement Soren. Indonesia Have not given any of them Refuge, If they had they won't be trying to get to AUSTRALIA. The only way for us to deal with the boat people, is we tell Indonesia to keep the bugger out of our way while we go into Indonesia and deal with it. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 13th, 2012 at 5:40am tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:50pm:
Mate there are suicide prevention hotlines you can ring if you hate yourself that much. You prolly need some courses in how to take your own medicine too. http://www.lifeline.org.au/ SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 13th, 2012 at 5:43am Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:01pm:
Or "anti semite!" (same thing but "special" religious ppl get a "special" word). SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 13th, 2012 at 5:46am Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:16pm:
Sometimes they explode into pretty colours and large fonts so you have to be careful. . . . SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 13th, 2012 at 8:02am longweekend58 wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 10:56pm:
If Avram were a real Israeli soldier he wouldn't be hiding in Australia ...in a country where service is mandatory, you can hardly call them all soldiers just because they wear the uniform ... there are soldiers, and then there are real soldiers ... a bit like calling primary school kids scholars .... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 13th, 2012 at 3:35pm Gist wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:04pm:
Do you dislike people who dislike scientologists? Dislike those who dislike nazis? Go on, be consistent. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 13th, 2012 at 5:09pm Soren wrote on Jul 13th, 2012 at 3:35pm:
Why do you think I would feel the need to be constrained by YOUR pathetic notions of right, wrong and outlandish? I'll dislike who I decide to dislike ta very much. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Shackdweller on Jul 13th, 2012 at 5:17pm
some of my best friends are nazis
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 13th, 2012 at 5:20pm JC Denton wrote on Jul 13th, 2012 at 5:17pm:
Then you better not tell 'em you're jewish. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 13th, 2012 at 8:19pm Gist wrote on Jul 13th, 2012 at 5:09pm:
Great. SO don't kvetch when others dislike your pets. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 13th, 2012 at 11:28pm Dnarever wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 6:54pm:
Dnarever, Your statement ASSUMES that we are dealing with reasonable people. In this world we can't always assume that all 'people', are in fact reasonable people. For example; I expect a normal and reasonable society to imprison murders. That is only reasonable, imo [....so as to protect the non-murderers in society]. And what should we do, with wanna-be murderers ??? I don't want such people, anywhere near me, or near the people that i love. +++ HOW DO MOSLEMS BEHAVE ? WHAT DO MOSLEMS BELIEVE ? "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...." Koran 9.111 "....the death of those who are killed for the cause of God gives more impetus to the cause, which continues to thrive on their blood." ISLAMIC scholar, Sayyid Qutb, .......A moslem, promoting, justifying, ISLAM's murder of those who do not believe, as they believe. IMAGE... London, moslem street protests. 'Demonstrating' just how 'peaceful' ISLAM and moslem really are. THOSE PLACARDS, AT A MOSLEM STREET PROTEST IN LONDON READ..... "Slay those who insult Islam" "Behead those who insult Islam" "Massacre those who insult Islam" "Butcher those who mock Islam" "Europe you will pay, demolition is on its way" "Europe you will pay, extermination is on its way" "Exterminate those who slander Islam" "Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer" "Islam will dominate the world" "Freedom go to hell" "Europe take some lessons from 9/11" "Be prepared for the real Holocaust" "BBC = British Blasphemic Crusaders" |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 13th, 2012 at 11:50pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 7:15pm:
Exactly so, Mist !! Mist consider; Is the reason that many 'liberals' are pro-ISLAM, precisely because ISLAM has demonstrated itself to be is so rabidly anti Western, anti Christian, and anti Jewish ??? Muslim Cleric Wants to Destroy Christianity http://guardianlv.com/2012/07/muslim-cleric-wants-to-destroy-christianity/ |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 14th, 2012 at 6:23am Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 3:50pm:
All xtians are idolaters because the catholics worship mary statues. Go figger! Quote:
Not that anyone said it wasnt? But anyway xtians have big daddy junior and the spook. 3 gods. Yadda your fonts need to be bigger and add some red in there for some real troll art. SOB[/quote] Here you go yadda Spot |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by corporate_whitey on Jul 14th, 2012 at 6:30am
Proof anti welfare policies are founded is racism and bigotry/ 8-)
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by corporate_whitey on Jul 14th, 2012 at 6:47am
Time for the Corporate maggot to start feeding the slums..... :P
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 14th, 2012 at 2:51pm Quote:
I think it's only the case with some. Some are driven by a hatred and want the West dead, so they side with Islam - 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' and all that. I think, though, that with most it's naivety, misdirected anger, and also purely reactionary. Take our friend Git here. He was so quick to not align himself with anything to do with the Conservatives, that he then unknowingly aligned himself with Islam. To be honest, I don't think Git really prefers Islam over our Conservatives, he was just not thinking his position through to its consequences. It was a reactionary and flippant response devoid of any cognition. With others I think there's a naivety involved where they think 'the grass is greener on the other side.' They seem to think it's bad here and that if we just act like the 'peaceful Muslims' we'll be a 'good people.' These characters just need some worldly experience. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 14th, 2012 at 3:12pm
Seems to me its the liberals that are the most racist and bigoted and anti-anything but xtianity.'
SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by gizmo_2655 on Jul 14th, 2012 at 4:03pm Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 14th, 2012 at 3:12pm:
Is that the political 'Liberal Party' or the sociological 'liberal' (lefty) stance??? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 14th, 2012 at 4:12pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 14th, 2012 at 4:03pm:
Hahaha. Dick. Both. Both political parties are "right" so theres no "lefty". Whatever "right" is - it certainly isnt the same thing it was in menzies day. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 14th, 2012 at 8:58pm Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 14th, 2012 at 3:12pm:
The Liberal (capital L) supporters (not the the Liberal politicians) seem the most racist and bigoted because they're the most honest. It's straight up, in your face, easy to see, easy to recognize. The converse crowd, however, are dishonest; they hide their judgements behind cozy slogans like 'tolerance,' 'equality,' and 'egalitarianism.' Question the 'humanitarian' brigade enough and out will come a mountain of judgements, a pile of enemies, a list of opponents waiting for their wrath to be lumped upon. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 15th, 2012 at 1:24am Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 14th, 2012 at 6:23am:
Not that anyone said it wasnt? But anyway xtians have big daddy junior and the spook. 3 gods. Yadda your fonts need to be bigger and add some red in there for some real troll art. SOB[/quote] Here you go yadda Spot [/quote] Yes, thank you Spot, i did notice your post. And i'm happy for you to express your point of view. Hey Spot, n.b. ...... bigot = = a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others. Spot, I do NOT want to gag moslems. I am happy for anyone, including moslems, to express their point of view. And i feel that 'plain speaking' should be encouraged in all open societies. What i object to, in ISLAM, about ISLAM, is its open incitement to a form of 'lawful' violence [by moslems] against those who do not believe as moslems believe. IMAGE... London, moslem street protests. 'Demonstrating' just how 'peaceful' ISLAM and moslem really are. THOSE PLACARDS, AT A MOSLEM STREET PROTEST IN LONDON READ..... "Slay those who insult Islam" "Behead those who insult Islam" "Massacre those who insult Islam" "Butcher those who mock Islam" "Europe you will pay, demolition is on its way" "Europe you will pay, extermination is on its way" "Exterminate those who slander Islam" "Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer" "Islam will dominate the world" "Freedom go to hell" "Europe take some lessons from 9/11" "Be prepared for the real Holocaust" "BBC = British Blasphemic Crusaders" Moslems, teaching their children the basics, about ISLAMIC values [London] Spot, The people above, are the people who's 'position', that you are defending. They are promoting religious fascism, in the UK [and everywhere that a moslem declares; "I am a moslem."] Spot, YOU, are defending religious fascism. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 15th, 2012 at 4:37am Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 14th, 2012 at 8:58pm:
you arent5 making any sense. Liberals in australia are the liberal party supporters. Bringing the american defo into it is just stupid. Especially if you just use it that way without explaining that you are being a dick and using the yank defo. Meanwhile you are going on about how nobody could possibly have actual tolerance and they they are pretending. So you are projecting because you are like that and cant imagine anyone else being different to you? Get some help. You can prolly see a psychiatrist for a free session (and see how it goes). SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 15th, 2012 at 4:42am Yadda wrote on Jul 15th, 2012 at 1:24am:
Here you go yadda Spot [/quote] Yes, thank you Spot, i did notice your post. And i'm happy for you to express your point of view. Hey Spot, n.b. ...... bigot = = a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others. Spot, I do NOT want to gag moslems. I am happy for anyone, including moslems, to express their point of view. And i feel that 'plain speaking' should be encouraged in all open societies. What i object to, in ISLAM, about ISLAM, is its open incitement to a form of 'lawful' violence [by moslems] against those who do not believe as moslems believe. IMAGE... London, moslem street protests. 'Demonstrating' just how 'peaceful' ISLAM and moslem really are. THOSE PLACARDS, AT A MOSLEM STREET PROTEST IN LONDON READ..... "Slay those who insult Islam" "Behead those who insult Islam" "Massacre those who insult Islam" "Butcher those who mock Islam" "Europe you will pay, demolition is on its way" "Europe you will pay, extermination is on its way" "Exterminate those who slander Islam" "Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer" "Islam will dominate the world" "Freedom go to hell" "Europe take some lessons from 9/11" "Be prepared for the real Holocaust" "BBC = British Blasphemic Crusaders" Moslems, teaching their children the basics, about ISLAMIC values [London] Spot, The people above, are the people who's 'position', that you are defending. They are promoting religious fascism, in the UK [and everywhere that a moslem declares; "I am a moslem."] Spot, YOU, are defending religious fascism. [/quote] No Im not defending religious fascism @ all. Im saying that ALL extreme religions should be treated the same - not just one. And im saying that not all muslems are extreme. Are all xtians like the KKK or westboro baptist? No? Muslems have different sects and figurative parts of their book too. Personally I think it should be illegal to be religious in public. Any religion. Not in the streets - not accosting others. Those krishnas can be entertaining but they should go too. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 15th, 2012 at 10:07am Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 14th, 2012 at 2:51pm:
Only to morons like you who can't think of any third alternative. Maybe you could ask your pet horse Neddy to teach you to count to three? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by warrigal on Jul 15th, 2012 at 10:58am
I think most of what is wriiten in all the posts above should go to extreame rants board.
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 15th, 2012 at 12:50pm Gist wrote on Jul 15th, 2012 at 10:07am:
Your 'third alternative' - intolerant of intolerance - was shown to be a contradiction in terms. You have been, are still are, highly intolerant toward those who don't agree with you. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 15th, 2012 at 1:03pm Quote:
If you don't use the capital L to to distinguish between Liberal and liberal then how am I to take your post? There's a world of difference between the terms. You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, so I wouldn't put it passed you that you didn't know the difference. Quote:
Dolt, all people are tolerant and intolerant toward varying phenomena. All people have their likes and dislikes, their friends and enemies; hence, everyone is tolerant toward some things and intolerant toward others. The leftwad crowd here think they have the monopoly on 'tolerance' and the Conservatives on 'intolerance.' However, this is just a moralistic word game. Ask any leftwad a number of questions (hell, just read their posts anywhere or listen to them speak), and you'll find they have a whole raft of things they are intolerant toward. Take yourself for instance, how much intolerance have you displayed toward others on here? Mountains. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 15th, 2012 at 1:08pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 15th, 2012 at 1:03pm:
Dolt, all people are tolerant and intolerant toward varying phenomena. All people have their likes and dislikes, their friends and enemies; hence, everyone is tolerant toward some things and intolerant toward others. The leftwad crowd here think they have the monopoly on 'tolerance' and the Conservatives on 'intolerance.' However, this is just a moralistic word game. Ask any leftwad a number of questions (hell, just read their posts anywhere or listen to them speak), and you'll find they have a whole raft of things they are intolerant toward. Take yourself for instance, how much intolerance have you displayed toward others on here? Mountains. [/quote] Quote:
I think if you had passed me i would have seen you Quote:
unlike you - dolt SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 15th, 2012 at 7:07pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 15th, 2012 at 12:50pm:
Me? Intolerant? Poor pet... we mustn't show intolerance towards you must we? So why can't I pick and choose? Are you intolerant of Christians or only Muslims? Why aren't you intolerant of white anglo saxons? After all, they are just as likely to be arseholes as any Afghan or Saudi. Why not hate your neighbours? Your family? No... you choose Muslim. I choose you. Suck it up. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 15th, 2012 at 7:48pm Yadda wrote on Jul 15th, 2012 at 1:24am:
Mostly from my experience, the Muslim way of life is not suited to western countries and particular to some place like Australia, Muslims - or Arabs in general - prefer to dictate how their way of life should be and are not tolerant of others. See how they demand women dress some certain way in their country - but when they come to your country they complain if they have their women not allow to wear a burqa? See how they are intolerant of the lifestyle choices of you but yet they stone to death a girl under 18 whose crime was to be raped? Let me tell you something, you do not want a lot of Muslims in your country - if you do it will be the nightmare being lived by France and England right now. In Israel we hold a firm policy on this and keep order through force - you can not take this option because of your mindset - you are frightened of the confrontation we live everyday so you can't be as firm as we are. So have great care - already I have seen too many Arabs in Sydney for it to be of comfort to me. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 15th, 2012 at 8:08pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 15th, 2012 at 7:48pm:
Ethnic jews are Arabs. YOU are an arab, you idiot. There's some dilution of the bloodlines but, still, it applies. Everything you say about arabs applies to you. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 15th, 2012 at 8:10pm
My grandparentage is Czech Republic and Poland.
I am not Arab. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 15th, 2012 at 8:35pm Gist wrote on Jul 15th, 2012 at 7:07pm:
You've changed your position again. You've gone from 'intolerant toward intolerance' to 'why can't I pick and choose.' |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 15th, 2012 at 9:14pm Gist wrote on Jul 15th, 2012 at 7:07pm:
:D :D :D Git - a militant tolerator! He will tolerate as he chooses to, OK? If he don't wanna, he's not gonna tolerate - suck it up!! Individual, innit! |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 15th, 2012 at 11:37pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 15th, 2012 at 7:48pm:
Avram, I agree with what you have stated. Most non-moslems in the Western nations cannot see the problem, ...that is coming. But non-moslems in the Western nations will get the 'juice', in the end. IMO, allowing moslems to come into Western nations, is like inviting a 3 metre saltwater crocodile to come to live in your house. http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/21/2171/2CKCD00Z/posters/griffiths-ian-twenty-four-foot-saltwater-crocodile-crocodilus-porosus-hartleys-creek-queensland-australia.jpg There is going to be a problem! .....because moslems living in the West, do not respect our laws [when no-one is 'watching' them]. ISLAMIC law allows moslems to predate [prey] upon those who are not moslems, .....and moslems bring that mindset and attitude [no respect, for those who are not moslems] with them, when they come to reside in Western nations. IMO, it is only sensible to keep 'crocodiles' within enclosures, where they can live with other 'crocodiles'. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 16th, 2012 at 8:22am Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 15th, 2012 at 8:10pm:
No? Then you are not jewish. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 16th, 2012 at 8:23am Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 15th, 2012 at 8:35pm:
No I haven't. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by chicken_lipsforme on Jul 16th, 2012 at 8:11pm John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:35am:
Pass me a hanky will you, I'm crying. :'( Move to Mexico, Japan or a dozen other countries on the planet and you'll find the same for all foreigners. What's your point. Do you have one? Either way, these economic migrants are diddling real refugees in camps overseas from having the opportunity the settle in Australia. These economic migrants can fly anywhere on the planet if they choose. Wake up. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 16th, 2012 at 8:17pm Gist wrote on Jul 16th, 2012 at 8:22am:
1) Yes i am 2) I am not a Arab. End of the discussion. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 16th, 2012 at 9:04pm chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 16th, 2012 at 8:11pm:
only a moron cannot see the point .... pull your head out of your arse for a second and think about it, and it may hit you .... (I'm doubtful, but I'm an eternal optimist) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 16th, 2012 at 9:04pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 16th, 2012 at 8:17pm:
He's not Arab ...Arab are decent people .... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by darkhall67 on Jul 16th, 2012 at 9:47pm chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 16th, 2012 at 8:11pm:
Bullshit. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by darkhall67 on Jul 16th, 2012 at 9:49pm This "argument" that is "too good" comes from someone who thinks "It's in the bible" is a good argument. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 16th, 2012 at 9:51pm John Smith wrote on Jul 16th, 2012 at 9:04pm:
These cashed up economic migrants mascarading as refugees are displacing all the refugees in camps who cannot self-select buy paying people smugglers. Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 17th, 2012 at 12:37am
this is not an easy situation to solve .... in truth i believe it is UNsolvable... there is not enough compassion and care left in this whole world to succour the starving and the dispossessed.
THIS is UNDENIABLE. We are now basically warring camps.. the HAVES and the HAVENOTS. True this has been so for many ..in past times. NOW WE get to experience some of what much of the rest of the world has been dealing with in one way or another, for centuries. But now the BAR has risen... we swarm on the earth... we face an ever increasing demand for resources which are jealously guarded by those more fortunate. the millions of dispossessed around the world are human, just like you and I. The fact that we have been fortunate enough to have escaped the worst of human desperation doesn't mean we own it. For the Christians... the Lord helps those who help themselves. Human nature demands that the most desperate circumstances demand the most desperate actions.... and yet we sit here in our comfy rooms, and denigrate , deride and condemn these fellow humans. Fate, or circumstance, means that some are doomed to be prisoners and homeless till they die. While others gamble their lives and win. How can you condemn them, when many of you would do the exact same thing in similar straits. !! |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 17th, 2012 at 1:53am John Smith wrote on Jul 16th, 2012 at 9:04pm:
John Smith, So excluding all of the abuse in your post, ......YOUR ARGUMENT IS, WHAT ? That REAL refugees trapped inside refugees camps, have got to 'get in line', .....behind those 'poor' moslem refugees in Indonesia, who have demonstrated that they have the financial means, to travel half way around the planet, and then, still have the financial means to pay another US$6,000-US$10,000 to a people smuggler, to get onto a boat to Australia ? Dictionary; smuggle = = 1 move (goods) illegally into or out of a country. 2 convey secretly and illicitly. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 17th, 2012 at 1:59am John Smith wrote on Jul 16th, 2012 at 9:04pm:
......if you are the example. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 17th, 2012 at 2:03am darkhall67 wrote on Jul 16th, 2012 at 9:49pm:
Well what are you ! ? An infidel ? Yup. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 17th, 2012 at 2:32am
well excuse you Yadda....
religion rears its UGLY head yet again infidel shmimfidel ...who gives a sweet FA about that.. really..... only the nutters of the world. and so sad... the world is full of you and yours..... oh wouldnt it be a better place by far if you just weren't around to fester and foster the hatred and resultant violence of religious frikkin dogma. YES - it would be a MUCH BETTER PLACE. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 17th, 2012 at 2:36am Emma wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 12:37am:
All problems arise, and are caused, by people choosing to do what is wrong. Most problems are solvable. This one is too. But we do not have the wisdom, or, the will, to solve our problems. Quote:
This world is full of, wickedness. HAVES and HAVENOTS ? There are some sheep, but most are wolves. Quote:
No. HE DOES NOT! Isaiah 59:1 Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: 2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. 3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. 4 None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity. Isaiah 1:21 How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers. 22 Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water: 23 Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them. 24 Therefore saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies: Quote:
Thus creating the circumstances for yet more 'problems', looking for a 'solution'. People who solve problems, solve problems, for themselves, and for others, through personal sacrifice. Quote:
We are all prisoners. And we are all, strangers in a strange land. But not all of us are, or choose to be, criminals. Not all of us choose to commit and justify our criminal acts, by pleading our poverty. The poor man, can choose, not to be a criminal. Romans 13:13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. 1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: Luke 18:24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 17th, 2012 at 2:52am
you prove my point so faithfully Yadda. Isaiah sure had a hate on didn't he?
and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. 3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. 4 None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity. Isaiah 1:21 How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers. 22 Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water: 23 Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them. 24 Therefore saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies: If GOD, the Lord Jesus or whatever, .... existed,... don't these words spit in the face of the ethic....love your brother, your neighbour, as you would your own? God is love.... forgives the sins BLAH BLAH BLAH. So conflicted you must be, in a constant rage of religious righteousness. Thats YOUR problem dkwad! I'm quite OK with sharing...with those of other cultures. Religion is a deviance which has dogged the human race for far too long. Begone with you, back to your deep dark depths, fool. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 17th, 2012 at 3:01am
yeah... because things DO change.
See?! you and your religious fellows live in a world that only exists now, because you all cling to it with the desperation of the drowning. GOD is not extant.! Certainly not now... if ever. Created by humans, for human purposes, GOD(s) have passed their 'use by' date. Maybe... just maybe.. there was some benefit to the race -- long long ago. NOW???? Religion = War Hate Human degradation. Slough it off like an old skin or caul.... it is no longer valid or viable. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 17th, 2012 at 3:11am
Another point for you.
L. Ron Hubbard... Dianetics!! ... to Scientology. methinks perhaps the man has proved a point. Not just in his writings, but in reality. A point I think is lost to Scientologists. !! And not understood by other religious either.!! What might that be?? Any idea at all??? ;D ;D ;D ::) :P |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 17th, 2012 at 3:49am chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 16th, 2012 at 8:11pm:
What has money got to do with refugee status? SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by FriYAY on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:27am Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 3:49am:
Nothing. The “point” (which I am sure you deliberately over look) is that there are nearly 50 million displaced refugees on the planet. That number isn’t going to go down in a hurry. A large % of these people would not have the where-with-all to make it to Australia. These people sit and rot whilst time, money and effort is spent on people that pay people smuggling operations. It always amuses me how the people that support those that pay people smuggling operations, conveniently by-pass the misery of these 50 million. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 17th, 2012 at 11:05am FriYAY wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:27am:
Can't pick 'em all unless you want to be mega-generous can we? That is, after all, at the heart of the argument. So there has to be some kind of selection criteria. Now, as a libbo supporter tell me, what do YOU have against people who have the gumption and the werewithall to help themselves improve their lot in life? I thought that was the basis of the libbo mantra. Is it not good enough all of a sudden? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by FriYAY on Jul 17th, 2012 at 11:18am Gist wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 11:05am:
No. I have nothing against them. I state quiet clearly that they get ahead of those more desperate because they can. What do you have against those rotting behind fences that can’t afford to pay people smuggling operations? You thought that did you? If it is only “libbo mantra” then I guess you are against these asylum seekers as well. Or do you support “libbo mantra” when it suits your partisan dribble? Is it good enough all of a sudden? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 17th, 2012 at 12:19pm FriYAY wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 11:18am:
Me? Support libbo mantra??? There must be some other Gist and you're thinking of the wrong one! ;D To answer the question, no, not at all. I have no problem with taking the ones in camps as well as the ones that arrive by boat or plane for that matter. It's the libbos that are chanting "TOW BACK THE BOATS", not me. As long as they're genuine I have no great problem with how they get here. But it does seem surprising that libbos DO want to reject the very kinds of people that they are supposed to look favourably towards. Why do you think that is? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Elvis Wesley on Jul 17th, 2012 at 12:21pm
Those damn illegal immigrants.
damn their oily hides. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by FriYAY on Jul 17th, 2012 at 12:27pm Gist wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 12:19pm:
Ok, you where that one that said .... "what do YOU have against people who have the gumption and the werewithall to help themselves improve their lot in life? I thought that was the basis of the libbo mantra" You support the assylum seekers, acting on what you say is "libbo mantra" - go figure :-/ Don't you want people to improve their lot? WTF is your actual point? Do you have a problem when they drown and smash into rocks? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 17th, 2012 at 12:35pm ... wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 12:21pm:
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 17th, 2012 at 12:41pm
You said:
FriYAY wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:27am:
You were talking about the 50 million in camps so I gather you're objection to people arriving in boats is that they are "queue jumping". Some poor sod in a camp didn't have that opportunity. I'm pointing out that this view runs contrary to Liberal philosophy. You as an individual can either support that philosophy or not, as you choose. But the Liberal party doesn't get that choice, it's their philosophy. So why do they turn their back on it? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 17th, 2012 at 12:45pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 12:35pm:
Yep. Or maybe they enjoy you telling them what they know? It avoids icky thinking. Kind of like going to Maccas for lunch - no thought required, just pick the usual and shovel it in. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by FriYAY on Jul 17th, 2012 at 2:32pm Gist wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 12:41pm:
How many times do I have to tell you dam morons I’m not Lib/Nat, I’m not ALP, I’m not Greens. bugger off with your partisan crap. Use all means possible to stop people smuggling and up our intake of refugees. Stop the miserable trade in human flesh…. …..Or live with images of people being smashed into rocks, as the ALP/Greens/Coalition/Independents are doing right now. (I see you jumped off your lib mantra garbage, what a cluster bugger you turned that in to. Nice to see someone in a deep hole stop digging for a change) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 17th, 2012 at 2:51pm FriYAY wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 2:32pm:
Neither am I. But I seem to get the leftie/labor label. You get the libbo label. It's the cross we have to bear. As for the people smashed into rocks - the ONLY way to stop that is to stop them getting into boats in the first place. Now there are two approaches to achieve that: [olist] [/olist] Now option 1 either means people keep just keep drowning (only we don't have to hear about them) or else they sit in squalid camps until they rot (and we don't hear about them). Option 2 actually achieves something worthwhile. I know which option I choose. I'm not yet clear on which one you choose. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by FriYAY on Jul 17th, 2012 at 3:57pm Gist wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 2:51pm:
I know I lean right, it is obvious, but I would never vote for an Abbott led Lib’s. The other half is Greens all the way, FFS I was sitting there nodding along with dam Milne the other day! :o 1. Yes we should ensure those paying people smugglers are not resettled. As for the bold bit, they are going to do that anyway. (Why did you have to say libbo mantra – again? Tell me what the Malaysia swap solution is intended to do if not stop people getting into boats?) 2. Yes we should do more of that. But it is not enough, it needs the tough measures as above to stop the people smuggling trade. There are 50 million displaced people world wide, that number will only increase. All these are stopgap measures for a problem that will explode into a catastrophic disaster IMO. 100’s of millions will die because no one will want them and their countries can’t sustain them (do to environmental restrictions leading famine and disease, local environment degradation, wars etc). Too many people on this planet, that’s the big problem. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 17th, 2012 at 7:41pm Yadda wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 1:59am:
Nope, I'm an Aussie with an talian background .... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 17th, 2012 at 7:44pm Yadda wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 1:53am:
You spend 10 years in limbo ..no legal identity, no legal ability to provide for your family, no prospect of that ever changing, no chance for your kids future and then tell me they are risking their lives out of choice ... its not a choice, the human mind isn't designed like that ... humans need something to work to, some sort of goal, a destination ... living in limbo is for many is akin to living in a 4 x 4 jail cell with no prospect of parole .... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 17th, 2012 at 7:49pm Gist wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 2:51pm:
Perhaps you could flesh this out more. How does the resettlement position work? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 17th, 2012 at 8:13pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 7:49pm:
With cogs and wires and a spring mechanism of course. :P What kind of question is that? Maybe you could flesh it out? You know, with a statement of YOUR position and YOUR thinking and YOUR ideas. Or is that too much for you? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 17th, 2012 at 8:47pm Gist wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 8:13pm:
It is a very good question. Your preferred option was to "Resettle them before they get to the point that they're willing to risk everything they have including their lives in boats." How many of those would you resettle? All? And if not all, how would you deal with the ones that you are not prepared to resettle and who therefore get into boats and sail for Australia because they do not want to wait in camps while you get good and ready to resettle them? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 17th, 2012 at 9:09pm Gist wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 8:13pm:
I didn't pose the solution, you did. I am merely asking how you would '[r]esettle them before they get to the point that they're willing to risk everything they have including their lives in boats' in a practical manner. How would your solution operate in a well thought out plan where workable objectives can be achieved. If you're serious about this problem, then you should be beyond vague platitudes. You are serious about 'boat people,' are you not? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 17th, 2012 at 9:16pm
How many of those would you resettle? All? And if not all, how would you deal with the ones that you are not prepared to resettle and who therefore get into boats and sail for Australia because they do not want to wait in camps while you get good and ready to resettle them?
- Soren ERR Soren --isn't that the case at present???????? What are you saying, do you know? Talk about finishing at the start of the argument. ::) Indonesia should do as Sri Lanka apparently does, and turn the boats back before they get outside the respective 'waters'. Indonesia WILL NOT DO SO....hence most of these desperate people come to us from Indonesia. That would be the pragmatists solution. Once a boat has travelled so far... as to have approached or entered Australian waters,, the suggestion to turn them back loses all credibility. A cruel and unusual and unnecessary act of punishment . Unviable, life-threatening and against all civilised thinking. LIKE IT or NOT. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 17th, 2012 at 9:44pm Emma wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 9:16pm:
SO anyone who gets a tourist visa to Indonesia and then wants to permanently settle in Australia should be allowed to come lest they take to the boats. Is that what you are proposing as the civilised thinking? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:00pm
hardly... good at your personal interpretations aren't you soren.
tourist visas indeed. What a wally. No - I am suggesting that Australia demands that Indonesia takes appropriate methods to patrol and contain their own borders. They control this. No need for these tragedies to be on our wick. But that is what Indonesia is forcing on us. Quite deliberately I might add. They get all these refugess, they don't want them, so off they send them /.. to us. I suggest the major players in the 'people-smuggling' business are well known to us. These cries to us all to deny people-smugglers their market byy being total arseholes, ... seems to disregard what(who) they are smuggling. These are people, not commodities. Sadly, big country, small people. We just don't have the numbers or the gumption - to take it to the source. They are the most populous Muslim nation in the WORLD... after all. Don't blame the refugees, the lost and homeless..... look to the heart of the matter and see that this is deliberate and orchestrated, to spread disunity within Australia. AND GUYS its working.!!!!!!!!!!! Just look at the meal Abbott and his ilk make of it. Traitorous is what I call it.!! |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:00pm Emma wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 12:37am:
Paying $7-10 K to people smugglers indicates that they are neither dispossessed nor starving. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:05pm Emma wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:00pm:
I am very sorry but I have no idea what you are trying to say. SO many words, yet no sense. Turn back the boats and not take the people?. Don't turn back the boats and take the people? Turn back the boats but take the people? Keep the boats and turn back the people? What? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by corporate_whitey on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:15pm
If you want to know why they wont defend our borders and protect our peoples - its the Corporations and big business behind it. :P
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:22pm Soren wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:05pm:
You can't understand that? Whats wrong with you.? Is english a second language?? try harder dwad. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:25pm corporate_whitey wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:15pm:
You might be fooling around Sock, but you probably have a bit of truth there. Hmm think I'll have to call everybody Sock. 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:27pm Emma wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:22pm:
A lot fewer words (than you!) but still no sense. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:35pm
So Soren Have you thought about what I have said??
I don't think you want to hear things like that eh? Much rather follow the mob of populism. Which ever swing of the pendulum you choose. Was thinking about Fahrenheit 451 last night... how desperately those powers that were.. sought to deny truth and history by burning all those books. Vonnegut had a grip on a real idea ... and yet now technology has made the premise redundant. Today ...we are much more malleable... much shorter in concentration and lacking knowledge of our past. But we have access to knowledge like never before in human history. The problem??? Most of us are too ignorant to take advantage. Truth is a philosophy, not a reality. :( |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:36pm Emma wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 9:16pm:
What does THIS mean? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:41pm
There are many people who pretend to be refugees and are not refugees at all.
The purpose of the policy that Australia must have is to keep this people out. Stop boats from coming to your country and stop allowing them to come in and make fun of your system. To do that you must be strong. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:52pm
Indonesia should do as Sri Lanka apparently does, and turn the boats back before they get outside the respective 'waters'. Indonesia WILL NOT DO SO....hence most of these desperate people come to us from Indonesia.
That would be the pragmatists solution. It means what I say above. In a nutshell. Is that helpful at all? :-? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:55pm Emma wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:52pm:
Not helpful at all, I'm afraid. You said that the 'pragmatist' solution is not available since Indonesia will not do as Sri Lanka. SO that solution is not available. SO what is your actual solution, then? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:59pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:41pm:
Exactly. Iranians and Pakistanis travel from Teheran, Lahore, Islamabad to Christmas Island in one week. Not desperate refugees. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 17th, 2012 at 11:10pm
Concentrate on Indonesia.
Request, require, INSIST,,, that Indonesia watches its borders much more carefully. INSIST. And back it with naval ships along the 'trade route' at their borders. They are the enablers. IS that CLEARER. ?? Not perhaps a very diplomatic approach -- BUT .. its the only real approach to take. IF however our current government is as ineffective as previous successive governments in the face of Indonesian opposition, ...as it has been since before the invasion of New Guinea by the Indonesians.. then we just have to swallow it. Don't we.? Or effectively order the deaths of innocents. Take these poor people in, and make them Australians. Else lose everything we consider important... in the nearing future. Forget the furphy's.... Nauru / Malaysia. Lot of BS. Red herrings.... distractions from the real game. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 17th, 2012 at 11:15pm Soren wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:59pm:
Your agenda is clear. and your fear. Nothing will change what is going to happen... all your hate and loathing is BAD for your health.!!! |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 17th, 2012 at 11:20pm Soren wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:59pm:
Correct. You have to make some strong decisions. In Israel we make the decision to ignore the UN Convention and not process any refugees at the border who come through neutral countries. The UN is not the overall law on this. Aussies need to understand this. You do not have to do anything because the UN says. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 17th, 2012 at 11:22pm
to me there is an inevitability that our 'present' cannot be kept..without change.
And not a change to our liking....obviously, from all that has been said. So :) you better be ready. It is coming to all of us in one way or another. Raising the barricades and preparing to repulse all invaders cannot work in our world, much as you might love that it could. That is very short-term thinking. Dream on . |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 17th, 2012 at 11:51pm Emma wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 11:22pm:
Then again you could just be preaching self serving tripe on behalf of Big business and the financial benefit of a separatist minority shadow economy or you could be some outsider altogether seeking territorial and economic advantage from Australia....either way you did not make a point. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 18th, 2012 at 12:35am
ooh this is exciting.....!!
I'm an unknown outsider threat !! Then again you could just be preaching self serving tripe on behalf of Big business and the financial benefit of a separatist minority shadow economy or you could be some outsider altogether seeking territorial and economic advantage from Australia....either way you did not make a point.[/quote] Soren didn't understand me ... I don't get you. At all. :-? Well actually I do ... get your agenda. !! Your post PROVES I made my point, clear enough for some to hear. Including you Prevailing. That is clear enough neh? Get over your conspiracy theories. Just because that may be your thinking, it is not everyones. I speak for myself, alone.... and for those who cannot speaK FOR THEMSELVES.! |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 18th, 2012 at 12:56am
It seems to me that the only ones who benefit from open national borders and undermined social security are greedy exclusive corporations who greedily preserve their own separatist shadow collective economic borders and demand freedom for themselves that they seek to deny other citizens. Lets remember those who seek to deny us our economic borders and security, robbed us of our national assets, resources and infrastructure through privatization and robbed us of our Government.
Greed is at the heart of those who seek open borders, because while they seek to dissolve our economic borders, they raise their own corporate economic borders - as separate self Governing economies yes we... have your number jalane, so willing to fight against the rights to economic & border security of all, so that corporate collectives as shadow self governing entities can hoard more for themselves. And this motive is self evident and miserable. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:17am
Well I think I got that CW.Sock,, Prevailing.
I despise the corporatization of our world... the unwritten Law that money is pre-eminent and desireable above all else. Corporations are indeed the shadows that run us, our lives, and our choices. Thats where we are... we have no value unless we work hard make money and spend it on crap. Chaos is preferable... almost. :o |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 18th, 2012 at 6:17am Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:41pm:
That is the policy. Thats why they go into detention. They are hardly going to tell us their process though are they - since then the pretenders would know it . SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 18th, 2012 at 11:57am Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 9:09pm:
No, you DID pose the solution only you're incapable of admitting it or more likely of recognising it. YOUR solution was option 1 in my list - that is, to stick your head up your arse and pretend it's not happening. Same answer for Soren The Simple. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 18th, 2012 at 12:03pm Emma wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 12:35am:
If they cannot speak for themselves, how the hell did they ask you to speak for them, you self-serving goose. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 18th, 2012 at 12:08pm Gist wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 11:57am:
Yeah, my solution is to stop the boats coming to Australia. In your words, "1.take away any hope of resettlement should they arrive on a boat. That's the libbo mantra. Except that it doesn't really stop them getting into boats, it only stops them getting into boats bound for Australia." If other countries are happy to get boats, that's their business, not AUstralia's. Your solution is to resettle them before they even get near a port: " "Resettle them before they get to the point that they're willing to risk everything they have including their lives in boats." SO the question, Mr Furtive, is: how many would you resettle and how would you deal with the ones who don't want to wait for you to select them but will take to the boats and self-select by sailing to Australia? You can't answer that very simple question because even you now realise how utterly stupid your suggestion really is. Now you are just slippin' and slidin' and tapdancing, pretending that to be a self-evident answer. It isn't. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 18th, 2012 at 12:22pm Soren wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 12:08pm:
Of course it isn't self evident Simple Soren. The numbers depend on the current circumstances in the world. How many we might take today would be very different to how many we might have taken in the 80s. If longloser's messiah should waft down from his heavenly throne tomorrow and bring peace unto the world then there'd be no point having a target of a zillion would there? But lets examine your solution. "STOP THE BOATS". As if. :P Why? Do you care if they drown? I don't think so. So why do you give a rats? Why the argument? Face it Simple Soren, your hypocrisy is writ large. You can't quite bring yourself to come out of the closet and admit that you just want the Navy to machine gun the bastards in their boats can you? But it is self evident, really. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 18th, 2012 at 12:32pm Gist wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 12:22pm:
So, then, how many would you "resettle [...[] beore they get to the point that they're willing to risk everything they have including their lives in boats." In today's figures (never mind the '80s) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 18th, 2012 at 12:46pm Soren wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 12:32pm:
More than we are currently resettling. How many would you machine gun? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Elvis Wesley on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:06pm
You'd only need to machine gun 1 or 2 - once the blood is in the water the sharks will take care of the rest.
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:22pm Gist wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 11:57am:
You haven't asked me for my solution. If you do I'll give you a straight answer. (In fact, we've discussed this before in another thread and I gave you my 2 cents on the issue). I'll ask again, for the third time, what is your pragmatic plan for resettling these people? This can go on for as long as you like. I am going to keep asking you until you answer. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:30pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:22pm:
Oh, your straight answer. OK, what is it? Does yours also involve machine guns? I gave you mine just a few posts ago. If you didn't understand it then maybe you could try rereading it a few times because I don't see why I should retype it over and over just for you. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:35pm Gist wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 12:46pm:
How many? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8sarHnaSp0 |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:36pm
we should abolish all corporate economic borders and zones of exclusion and place razor wire right around Australias coast and mine our waters in all sea approaches used for illegal foreign incursions.
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:41pm Soren wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:35pm:
You're not able to actually come out and say it are you? Here, I'll spoon feed you, just c&p the following: "I don't give a sh!t if they all drown. As long as the feckin' wogs don't come here!" C'mon... you KNOW that's what you really want to say. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:46pm Gist wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:30pm:
Was this attempt what you're talking about? Quote:
So your solution is to ... what? It's still not clear. I'll ask again (fourth time), what is your pragmatic solution to resettlement? (I'll answer your question after you answer mine). |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Elvis Wesley on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:46pm
Backed yourself into a corner again gits?
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:57pm ... wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:46pm:
Nah. Just playing with your socks again wesley. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:59pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:46pm:
If you don't understand what I have written then that's YOUR problem, not mine. Go borrow a brain or something. And you HAVE no answer which is why you don't want to give it. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 18th, 2012 at 2:04pm
I have an idea. How about we do a ppl swap and swap all the ppl that want to leave australia because they dont like all the muslims and the carbon tax for refugees who actually want to be here?
SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 18th, 2012 at 2:04pm Gist wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:41pm:
Yeah, turn them back, sink the ones that don't turn. Light a bonfire, drink their blood, whatever. How many would you resettle? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Karnal on Jul 18th, 2012 at 2:08pm Soren wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 2:04pm:
As many cheeseaters and ten pound loafers you can throw at us. How many in your church, old chap? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 18th, 2012 at 2:45pm Gist wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:59pm:
If you cannot communicate your point coherently then the fault lies with you. What is your pragmatic solution to resettlement? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Armchair_Politician on Jul 18th, 2012 at 3:05pm
Since Rudd dismantled the Pacific Solution in 2007:
- More than 20,000 people have arrived by boat - More than 350 boats have carried those 20,000 people here - Conservative estimates put the death toll at sea at around 1,000 dead And Labor and the loony Greens would have us believe that their approach was more "humane" and more successful than that of Rudd's predecessor, John Howard. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 18th, 2012 at 3:28pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 2:45pm:
In other words you don't have any solution, just hot air. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 18th, 2012 at 3:31pm Soren wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 2:04pm:
May as well go for every last one. That'll fix it. How many would you resettle? Or would you prefer just to machine gun 'em? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 18th, 2012 at 3:46pm Gist wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 3:28pm:
(6th time) What is your pragmatic solution to resettlement? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 18th, 2012 at 4:25pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 3:46pm:
(7th time) You don't have a solution, just hot air. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 18th, 2012 at 4:29pm Gist wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 4:25pm:
I'll give you my solution after you answer my question. (You could just recall our discussion on this topic we had only a few weeks ago and you'd find my answer. Or maybe your memory is as bad as your cognition?). What is your pragmatic solution to resettlement? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 18th, 2012 at 4:35pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 4:29pm:
My memory tells me that you gave diddly squat. My memory tells me that you CLAIMED you would answer after I gave an answer. And then you squibbed. Whodathunkit eh? But perhaps my memory is faulty, as you say. Perhaps I'm confusing you with one of the other foot odour crowd. You are all so alike after all. So perhaps you could provide a link to this answer you gave. Or perhaps you could not. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 18th, 2012 at 4:37pm
There is only one Party that truly represents defending Australian territorial and economic borders and representing the legal Australian citizenship...that is the Rise Up Australia Party... :)
http://riseupaustraliaparty.com/ |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Lobbyist on Jul 18th, 2012 at 4:45pm Prevailing wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 4:37pm:
Is that heil hitler stance an accident? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 18th, 2012 at 7:36pm Soren wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 12:03pm:
Honk Honk Honk Honk Honk Honk no doubt your tiny mind has difficulty with this concept, but not everyone is facile with language, altho they think deeply. Not talking about speech-impaired sssilly.Well ..not nec. but I do represent a significant segment of the pop... like it or not. AND NO - I don't refer to any gender related issues. Honk. :P ::) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 18th, 2012 at 9:56pm Emma wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 7:36pm:
So, is there some sign language? Or secret handshake? Nudge, nudge? Wink, wink? Message in the bottle (!) :D Or what? How do you know you speak for the ones who do not speak for themselves? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 18th, 2012 at 9:58pm FriYAY wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 3:57pm:
Oh blind one; ISLAM is the solution, to that problem.i +++ "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...." Koran 9.111 IMAGE... London, moslem street protests. 'Demonstrating' just how 'peaceful' ISLAM and moslem really are. THOSE PLACARDS, AT A MOSLEM STREET PROTEST IN LONDON READ..... "Slay those who insult Islam" "Behead those who insult Islam" "Massacre those who insult Islam" "Butcher those who mock Islam" "Europe you will pay, demolition is on its way" "Europe you will pay, extermination is on its way" "Exterminate those who slander Islam" "Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer" "Islam will dominate the world" "Freedom go to hell" "Europe take some lessons from 9/11" "Be prepared for the real Holocaust" "BBC = British Blasphemic Crusaders" Moslems, teaching their children the basics, about ISLAMIC values [London] |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:08pm Gist wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 3:31pm:
Thank you. As stupid as expected. As you were (ie carry on like a looney). |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:22pm Soren wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 9:56pm:
Gosh u r smart Soren. I'm dazzled. :D Not. Who do you speak for? other than your self.? Anyone at all.? No? How do I know? You ask a question - the answer to which, is way too much for this forum. Plus.. I need not attempt ..in any way whatsoever .. to justify, or explain my position, not to you, or any other dwad. Why don't YOU know.? 8-) :o Oh wise sockhead.?? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:33pm Emma wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:35pm:
LOL Exactly so. Got a mirror close by ? Quote:
How can truth be a reality, for a person who chooses to continually reject truth's 'common-sense' ? Q. What do i mean by that ? A. If we see a problem, if we CAUSE a problem, but if we then always refuse to acknowledge our part in the creation of that problem, then we are rejecting truth. And truth is not in us. i.e. "Truth....is not a reality." |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:55pm Soren wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:59pm:
Why so, ISLAMISTS ??? Any person who declares, "I am a moslem.", in so doing, is declaring to be an ISLAMIST. That is what moslems are!! A REAL moslem, is an ISLAMIST. THE TRUTH IS, THAT..... There is no 'nice' ISLAM. And there are no 'moderate', or 'nice' moslems. Duh! HEY, ALL OF YOU THICK HEADS!!!..... A moslem ["Allah is my god, and Mohammed is his prophet."], is a moslem. Period. 'THICK HEAD' = = A 'slow' person. +++ Google; Shahada, confession of a muslim "There is no god except for Allah alone; Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah." "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...." Koran 9.111 |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:57pm Emma wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:22pm:
Emma wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 12:35am:
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 18th, 2012 at 11:04pm Soren wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:57pm:
?were you going to say something DWAD? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 18th, 2012 at 11:07pm Emma wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 11:10pm:
That 'solution' is not practical. We cannot [and we should not] force Indonesia to do anything. The problem is ours, the solution [if WE want a solution] must also be ours. So, what can WE do, to discourage, or stop Duh ? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 18th, 2012 at 11:12pm Emma wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 11:04pm:
I need not attempt ..in any way whatsoever .. to justify, or explain my position, not to you, or any other dwad. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 18th, 2012 at 11:14pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 11:20pm:
Avram, Exactly so. Q. Is Australia a sovereign nation ? Dictionary; sovereignty = = 1 supreme power or authority. the authority of a state to govern itself or another state. 2 a self-governing state. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 18th, 2012 at 11:15pm
jeez that's original sore end
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 18th, 2012 at 11:23pm Yadda wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 11:14pm:
Or, is Australia, has Australia chosen [have the people of Australia chosen], to surrender their sovereignty, and live in 'submission', to another authority ??? WAKE UP, Australia !!! |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 18th, 2012 at 11:28pm Yadda wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 11:07pm:
OK OK OK I have spent too much time at this keyboard explaining, much earlier in the debate,, maybe even on Yahoo,, what my preferred solution is . I was called, in effect a Nazi. No probs there, I know what I mean.. and it is hard for me to re iterate my view, as such a world-wide problem DOES NOT HAVE a one sentence answer.!!! For now...... ' how would i discourage or stop the boats' is a ridiculous preposition. I would not choose to take such retrograde negative actions. Simple. I would .... resettle these people in a place in Australia, purpose-built, with positve intent, so that they have dignity and ultimately self-determinism, and opportunities to work, achieve and become solid citizens, whilst contributing significantly to all our futures. We have a huge country, with massive resources, .. but apparently not enough people to max this. The solution is staring us in the face. I 've had enough of this for now. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 18th, 2012 at 11:36pm Emma wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 11:28pm:
Clearly, you still don't understand the problem, and have not thought this through. But then, you are convinced that truth is not a reality, too, .....right ? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 19th, 2012 at 12:55am Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 2:04pm:
Hmmm! Lets think about this..... So, your solution to illegal immigration [by moslems] into Australia is, to make me [and those like me, who believe that moslems do not deserve to live in a country like Australia] leave Australia. And we [who despise ISLAM] should go and live in a moslem country ??? More erudite logic from SPOT. /sarc off p.s. Hey, SPOT, the genius...... Q #1. And why do [moslem] 'refugees.....actually want to be here' [in Australia] ? A. Could it be [if we accept the explanation of moslem refugees], that moslems don't actually want to live in moslem countries ? Q #2. And why is it, that moslems DO NOT want to live in moslem countries ? A. Could the reason be, .....because, in moslem countries, there are lots, and lots, of, .......moslems ??? Q #3. And what is so unappealing about living in close proximity with lots of fellow moslems ??? A. Is it because moslems [who choose to embrace a form of 'organised' megalomania, and insanity!!!], believe that they, moslems, have the right to murder people, who do not believe, as they believe ??? The Hadith, "...If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260 Dictionary; megalomania = = obsession with the exercise of power. delusion about one’s own power or importance (typically as a symptom of manic or paranoid disorder). +++ The truth is that ISLAM is a deceptive and violent, political philosophy, a cult, which [imo] creates a mental pathology, in those human beings who choose to embrace it. That mental pathology which afflicts all 'good' moslems, is so all encompassing, that all moslems will deny any accountability for the consequences of their own choices. And moslems always place all of the blame, for the consequences of moslem violence against non-moslems, upon the victims [of moslem violence]. [e.g. the Jews, and Israel] Moslems always reject all accountability, for the consequences of THEIR OWN INTENTIONS, AND THEIR OWN ACTIONS IN THE WORLD. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 19th, 2012 at 1:23am
well like I've said already Yadda ::) Do you actually understand.?
You keep raising the truly ugly spectre of religious dominance of the world.... whatever the religion, but obviously not ISLAMIST faith. You choose to do so. That is OLD ...PAST ITS USE BY DATE. comprende?/ All of these human rights - type questions/problems, including refugees..... can only be dealt with properly, on a secular basis. To drag religious dogma in guarantees unbalanced prejudicial behaviour... Guaranteed. You say Moslems run away from Moslems of a different sect, else they'll be killed. Religious dogma.!!! It is creating this problem..!! Are you truly blind??? to commonsense.??? :( To approach these social issues from a religious basis is an approach doomed to failure. Repetitious failure. Let us actually learn from our past.!! |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 19th, 2012 at 1:25am
Oh ?? and did you hear that 'news' bite today? that the Indonesian MILITARY are directly involved in people-smuggling. And wonder of wonders.!!! 5 people in the Indonesian Military have been arrested. So they say. Can you believe it.???? ::) ::) ::)
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 19th, 2012 at 5:49am
OMG Thats hilarious! Even the trolls knew i was joking but not yadda. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Seriously yadda isnt your religion supposed to be of tolerance and being nice to your neighbour and stuff? Yet you dont want to help refugees because they might be a different religion to you? Hmmmmm . . . . sounds a lil familiar . . . . SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by aquascoot on Jul 19th, 2012 at 9:16am
plenty of work in NW western australia.
give them all temporary protection visas and put them to work in one of gina's mines. or they can go chase down the feral camels destroying central australia and start a new export industry . if after a period on work probation they seem like good blokes, no problems, they can stay. if they want to spend their day on a mat facing mecca and dont want to contribute to their new country, bye bye. we can always use more good workers. for each one we keep, we can send a sarah hansen young type back to afghanistan where she can cry crocodile tears and water the desert. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 19th, 2012 at 9:35am Soren wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 10:08pm:
What's the matter Simple Soren? Realised you'd been a bit quick off the mark at going berserker? You haven't answered the question yet... How many would YOU resettle? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 19th, 2012 at 9:39am Gist wrote on Jul 18th, 2012 at 4:35pm:
How are you coming with that link to your post giving your solution there Missed? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Karnal on Jul 19th, 2012 at 10:00am Yadda wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 12:55am:
Marvellous idea, Yadda. You don't have to move to another country, just go to Auburn. There, you could infiltrate the sinister Muslim cells and convert them to your religion. You would be a modern day St Paul (but with your own specific religion). Q. Isn't that a great idea? A. Yes. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 19th, 2012 at 10:17am Gist wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 9:39am:
You'll get your answer after you answer the question I put to you first. This dodging does nothing for your so-called egalitarian stance. If you were really on top of this issue, and if you really cared about 'boat people,' then you'd have the answers ready, in detail, and be only too keen to get your point across. But what's becoming apparent is that this issue for you is no more than a political football, an issue that you play with just to oppose the view of the Conservatives. You give reactionary and flippant responses to give the appearance of 'moral superiority,' when in actual fact it's nothing but a point scoring game. We went through this before. You should remember. That you don't remember the conversations and opposing views to your own is quite telling; that you forget who and what it is you're arguing against is a sure sign of someone who takes instant reactive positions on issues just to oppose the opposition, and has no intention of really solving this problem. I'll ask again, what is your pragmatic solution to the 'boat people' issue? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Karnal on Jul 19th, 2012 at 10:52am Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 5:49am:
No, it's meant to be mean and nasty and separate the wheat from the goats and the sheep and the chaff. Are you asking for a Bible quote? Yadda - ? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Karnal on Jul 19th, 2012 at 10:54am Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 10:17am:
What's it got to do with Conservatives? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 19th, 2012 at 10:58am Yadda wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 12:55am:
You seem a little confused. This thread is about asylum seekers, not illegal immigration. The illegal immigration problem in Australia is caused by people who come by plane. "58,000 illegal immigrants in Australia have arrived by plane" http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/illegal-immigrants-arrive-by-plane/story-e6frea6u-1226200568050 It's not illegal to seek asylum, no matter what the means of transport. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 19th, 2012 at 11:05am
"Oh no the UN has told us we must accept them!!!"
;D Quickly, allow all these boats because the UN says they must be processed.... Let me from memory tell you the instruction rule book for border forward checkpoint - "If civilians attempt to cross through the border without papers, they must be stopped, searched and requested point of access control. If they are citizens and can prove they are citizens of the country which they are currently in and requesting asylum in the state of Israel, they must be escorted to the border and placed into control of the national police directorate and migrational affairs. If they can not prove their identity as a citizen of the country where the checkpoint is so, or for example a third country and they are travelling through a country to get to Israel - then they are to be refused admittance through the forward checkpoint and turn away. If their papers are found to be false they are to be placed under arrest and deported to original point of attempted entry. Discretion of IDF Control Guard is used in this situation." The UN was told that Israel will not follow the UN Convention on the Refugee situation. Yet Australia?? You are like frightened children of the UN!!! |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 19th, 2012 at 11:14am Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 11:05am:
Tell me avram. Do you think we should let them all drown? And the ones that we bring here from the camps? Should we throw them into the water too? SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 19th, 2012 at 1:53pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 10:17am:
Karnal is exactly right - what's it got to do with "conservatives"? If you believe this is some Labor/Liberal face off then you are indeed as stupid as I thought. Their policies are indistinguishable and I support neither. If you'd read anything I've written then you would know this. But of course, reading and comprehension isn't your bag is it? As for your "I'll tell you after you tell me" bullshit, well, I've heard better lines among the grandkids. You have no solution nor do you give a rats arse. Your sole aim - as always - is simply to attack me. In doing that your simple minded strategy is to make no claim, put forward no argument, put forward nothing. Just attack the target. The fact that you claim you provided something and yet can't quote the same when challenged just shows how shallow you really are. So face it, you're just yet another of the dribbling troll knuckle dragger brigade. A lightweight of no account. I suggest you go back to playing with your underpants. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 19th, 2012 at 4:31pm Gist wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 9:35am:
Boaties without ID? None. Zero. I wouldn't even consider asylum applications from anyone coming from Indonesia unless they were Indonesians, Malaysia unless Malaysian, etc. None of that nonsense. Across how many borders are we responsible for them? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Karnal on Jul 19th, 2012 at 4:58pm
Ah yes, old boy, but what if they were Danes?
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 19th, 2012 at 5:09pm Soren wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 4:31pm:
But they cant stop in those countries SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 19th, 2012 at 5:37pm Soren wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 4:31pm:
OK, I can agree with you on the refugees without ID, although I suspect we'd disagree on some of the detail. For instance, you say "boaties without ID" and I say you're transfixed by the party hoo ha. Your statement means you'd be happy to accept walk-ins without ID. I wouldn't. Meh. Can't have everything. However, I think you'd find we DON'T accept refugees without ID. It's why some have sat for so long in detention at times - they're not released until they're identified and determined to be genuine reffos. As for the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree. Frankly, I can't see what difference it makes how they get here or why it's OK for them to fly in (from any country and across continents) but not to come in via boat. As long as they're assessed as genuine I really don't care how they got here. Since when did Danes not like boats anyway? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 19th, 2012 at 7:13pm
My point is these people who say "they are legal because the law says they can come without visa" is a silly argument because you can ignore this.
You can decide who comes in to your country - and what anyone else says is not relevant. Ignore opinion of others and act only in your own country interests. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 19th, 2012 at 7:27pm Karnal wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 4:58pm:
They can go to Sweden. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 19th, 2012 at 7:43pm
Only the Rise Up Australia Party is committed to fighting Nazis, stopping the boats, securing our borders and keeping Australia Australian... :)
Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 19th, 2012 at 8:39pm Gist wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 1:53pm:
More dodging and vitriol. You seem to do everything except answer the question. I am going to keep asking, so you might as well at least try and answer it. Keep your emotions under control and think about the issue at hand. What is the pragmatic solution to "resettling"? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 19th, 2012 at 8:40pm aquascoot wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 9:16am:
you are getting the general idea. [smiley=thumbsup.gif] |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 19th, 2012 at 9:30pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 8:39pm:
Vitriol? My, we are a precious petal aren't we? I think you would know if I wanted to vent. Here's a suggestion - there are some 23 pages in this thread alone. I think you'll find that I've contributed quite a few posts. You on the other hand have contributed "I'll answer after you answer". Well, that may cut it with the other kids in your kinda class but it doesn't cut it here. Feel free to read to read my posts. Criticise them by all means. Put up counter arguments. All of that is known as debate - something you've completely failed to do in all your posts. Maybe get your teacher to explain it to you if you don't understand. Until then I'll treat you as just another dickless twat playing with socks and underpants. Last chance dickslime. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 19th, 2012 at 9:51pm Gist wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 9:30pm:
You have contributed a lot of posts, yes. Unfortunately, they contain little substance and are full of abuse. You've commented on 'boat people' many times, yes, but you've not outlined your specific "resettlement" solution in any depth. I am well within the bounds of a debate board to ask you to clarify your position. I am going to ask again and again until you either answer the question or admit that you have no well thought out plan to this problem. If you find such simple questions offensive, then I suggest you not contribute to discussion forums. What is your pragmatic, well thought out plan to "resettlement"? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 19th, 2012 at 10:03pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 9:51pm:
Well this is so precious I had to 'quote' full-on. ;D Dickslime.! ? You're getting the idea. add disappearing into wasted space. - not worth a reply ... MM is a sock ... of many socks... ::) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 19th, 2012 at 10:09pm
If you think I am a 'sock' then I will ask you then to provide evidence of that.
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 19th, 2012 at 10:10pm
Git, lots of posts, lots of bluster, puffing up and strutting.
'Resettle them before they get to the boats'. What a load of crap on stilts that is. Yet that is your 'considered' solution. Me? Stop the boats. Select refugees who will benefit most from a chance in Australia AND who will benefit Australia most. There is no point of taking in a large number of people who are not at home in this kind of society. Take a number that can be absorbed without causing trouble and undermining the rest of the immigration program. There is no point of importing people who will ultimately cause more social tension than it's worth, just so you can preen about how big and hairy your compassion is. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Karnal on Jul 19th, 2012 at 10:17pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 10:09pm:
Matty, the jig's up. There's no need to pretend anymore. You're among friends, dear. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by corporate_whitey on Jul 19th, 2012 at 10:25pm
Its time to stop the immigration program and the separatist shadow corporate maggot economy... 8-)
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 20th, 2012 at 5:25am Soren wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 10:10pm:
How do you propose to "sort" them? How do you decide which are worthy? SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by 52midnight on Jul 20th, 2012 at 12:51pm
> why would they want to run away from a country that practices their beliefs?
Because Indonesians are "nasty people" - they don't like free-loaders. Australians, by contrast, are LOVELY people. They'll do absolutely anything for anybody (see my thread "Disconnect Australia from criminal banksters"). > why, upon arrival in Australia , are these 'so-called-refugees' not charged with being 'ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS' and thrown on the first available flight out of the country. Because they're just what the TransNational Corporations NEED and WANT - cheap immigrant labour who'll do what ever it takes (including working for zero dollars) just to stay in the country. During the last several decades, Australians have sold the WHOLE DAMN COUNTRY to foreigners. Since the foreigners own it, they insist on running it. Surprized? Only if you're an Australian (see my thread "Disconnect Australia from criminal banksters"). > Why is it, honest hard-working Australians have to pay taxes ... As I said, because those same "honest hard-working Australians" are also stupid, conceited half-wits who think they can still run a country they don't own (see my thread "Disconnect Australia from criminal banksters"). > WAKE UP AUSTRALIA ... Best of luck. I've been trying to do that for more than thirty years, and they're still sound asleep. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 20th, 2012 at 1:08pm 52midnight wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 12:51pm:
Simple: because they are not illegal immigrants, they're asylum seekers. Two completely different things. Under Australian Law and International Law a person is entitled to make an application for refugee asylum in another country when they allege they are escaping persecution. It's perfectly legal. Now, I'm certainly not saying that all of these people are genuinely "escaping persecution". What I am saying is that once they declare that they're claiming asylum they then become legal asylum seekers. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by 52midnight on Jul 20th, 2012 at 1:24pm
> Under Australian Law and International Law
"Australian Law" is, in almost every case, merely a rewrite of UN mandates to accomodate the few remaining local conventions. I recently wrote to all Qld Pollies (Newman's new administration) with a proposal on criminal penalties. The reply? Oh, good heavens no! That would breach our International Obligations. In other words, these incompetent scum-buckets that are elected to represent the best interests of their constituents merely "pass the buck" to the dictates of wealthy, self-indulgent political idealists in New York who have no understanding whatever of reality. What do they have? Money, of course (see my thread "Disconnect Australia from criminal banksters"). > once they declare that they're claiming asylum they then become legal asylum seekers. Yep, and they've already been briefed on this and know EXACTLY what to say - in many cases, the only words of English that they can parrot. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 20th, 2012 at 1:30pm Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 5:25am:
Hmmm... That's a tough one... I know!!! You interview them! You find out what kind of people they are. You give them a dictation test. You can even play free association games with them: you say: Goat he say: Cheese (with crusty bread, spring onions, olives, glass of red, discussing one's lucky stars and the blessings of living in god's own country) we say: Congratulations You're in! you say:Goat he say: Stiffy we say: Ta da! Not difficult to separate the sheep from the goat lovers. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Karnal on Jul 20th, 2012 at 4:46pm
My frien - not that there is anything wrong with this.
We must respect all the peoples, isn't it? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 20th, 2012 at 6:21pm Soren wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 10:10pm:
It is only incidentally about compassion you idiot. It's about doing what you tell the world to do. Nobody in the world gives a toss about Indonesia not taking in refugees because they never said they would take them. They never made the commitment. Australia did. NOBODY put a gun to our heads and forced us to sign up for the refugee convention. We chose to do it. Then having chosen to say yeah, we'll take refugees what do we do? Try to find every weaselly excuse and act of bastardry under the sun to make sure they DON'T COME. What a bunch of pricks that makes us! Well you righties may be comfortable acting like pricks - after all, you're used to it even live for it. But some of us choose not to behave that way. If you want ZERO asylum seekers to be accepted into Australia then fine, go talk to your local member and persuade them to get this country to opt out of the refugee convention. Until then I demand that we do exactly what we said we would do - accept refugees in a humane manner. As for your proposal of choosing who to let in... I hope that's due to brain fade or something because it's laughable. Depending on when your family came to this country, I hope you realise that your Danish forbears would probably have been excluded by that test. After all, the Brits wouldn't want drunken Danish louts like you coming in would they? They'd never fit in! :D |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by red baron on Jul 20th, 2012 at 7:02pm
As Barnum of Barnum and Bailey's Circus once said,"there's a sucker born every minute."
Take a bow Australia; sucker to every flea bitten rogue with $15,000 in their pockets and a chance to feed off Australia's largesse for the rest of their lives. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 20th, 2012 at 7:09pm red baron wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 7:02pm:
You paid $15,000?? Man... you got ripped off something rotten... :D :D :D |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 20th, 2012 at 8:08pm Gist wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 6:21pm:
Pettyfogging nonsense. We signed the convention to help refugees. And we do. SO your demands are being met. We did NOT sign any convention to help anyone who can work the loopholes of the convention. A Pakistani pretending to be an Afghan Hazara is not a refugee even if declares himself to be one. Iranians are not refugees unless they are politically persecuted - in which case they would not have passports to fly to Indonesia as tourists. Claiming to be a refugee is not the same as being a refugee. The rest of your post, like most of your other ones, is just puffery and preening. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 20th, 2012 at 8:15pm Gist wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 6:21pm:
You enter the country on a 6 moths visitor's visa and claim asylum immediately - and you will never be detained, even for a minute. See? People we allow into the county are treated supremely humanely. It's the undocumented queue jumpers, shady, shifty types that are detained. And that only because we do not know who the bugger they are. Capisce, Gino? Slowly, sound it out - enter Australia legally and you will not be detained. Howzat?? You must be astonished. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by red baron on Jul 20th, 2012 at 8:16pm
That supposed to be funny Gist? If you were writing for tv it would tank ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Gist on Jul 20th, 2012 at 9:22pm Soren wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 8:08pm:
Blah blah, the usual right wing nut job BS. Next you'll be telling us there are streams of Pakistanis pretending to be a Hazaras invading the beaches in their high speed Zodiac inflatables and wearing black tights and balaclavas. After all, if you're going to do the nutjob routine you may as well go the whole way. Back to reality - show me examples of this happening. I've no doubt there may be some who attempt it. There may even be the occasional one who squeak through. But they are vetted and only the genuine ones get to stay. Your nice, friendly visa fly-in refugee is FAR more likely to be a bullshit artist than the ones that come in on boats. You know all this. But of course you choose to ignore it because... well... you'd prefer to be an ignorant nutjob... and anyway righties like you thrive on bullsh!t... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 20th, 2012 at 9:25pm Soren wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 8:15pm:
Gentlemen gentlemen... ::) please-- you need to remember that there is no way to stop /turn back the boats...look at the last few weeks... this is but a trickle compared to what is to come. You seem awfully ignorant of human drives , adaptability and determination. This puny crap about off-shore processing is a joke. Isn't it? wherever it was How could the numbers just arriving lately be managed.??? Not viable... unworkable...time to look at the real thing. Forget the red herrings.... 'cos we got a plague of increasing proportions to deal with. All ideas espoused by populist media and the pollies are doomed to failure. Overseas processing... what a pathetic offering to the fearful Oz public. Its an unworkable scam, and time LABOR faced these facts. :( |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 20th, 2012 at 9:27pm Emma wrote on Jul 17th, 2012 at 2:32am:
If you continue to allow in these boat unwanteds then your Christian country will be no more quickly I can assure you. You are fools to let this sort in. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 20th, 2012 at 9:41pm
Av dear.. I don't think the solutions you claim work for Israel are applicable here.
We are the largest populated continent with a single governing principle. Further we are an immense island. How can you even suggest such an impossibility. I don't see huge partitioning concrete walls and gun emplacements aimed at small entry points as having a useful purpose in Australia. Unless you really want to push the 'camp' solution. :(. AND it still wouldn't work.! |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 20th, 2012 at 10:06pm Emma wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 9:25pm:
Ah, the insane demographic. I was wondering when we'll hear from you - and here you are! Your post? Complete bollocks from beginning to end. If a country can't secure its frontiers, it's not a country. And you, predictably, give up Australian sovereignty (control of frontiers) at the first opportunity. You and your ilk keep the Australian cultural smacking cringe alive and well, even as it wants to die. You can't wait to surrender to your inferiors because your guilt about your forebears who dared to say that the Abos were primitive. SO now you will let in all other primitives by way of atonement. That's cultural smacking cringe on stilts, with cherry on top. That's Cultural smacking Cringe Royale. Mate.ii |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 20th, 2012 at 10:14pm
Jalane - Australia can take some action along what I say.
Yes you do not have luxury of building wall and forward checkpoints but also you do not have to live next to Arabs so there is good and bad! But what about non processing. Israel refuses to process ALL refugees who have not proved they have not passed through third country. This is against UN rules on Convention but state of Israel informed UN it had no intention of following this rule. So Why does Australia not say to UN it will ignore the Convention and it will refuse to process any boat people at all. You can either send them back or you lock them up indefinitely? Then you watch the boats stop. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Karnal on Jul 20th, 2012 at 10:22pm Soren wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 10:06pm:
Yeah, we let you lot in because we were up for some culture. How did we get conned into that? Lucky we woke up to ourselves. Now you're on the same par as any chow or boong. I hope you feel comforted. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 20th, 2012 at 10:24pm
thanks fellas.
both interesting replies. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 20th, 2012 at 10:31pm Karnal wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 10:22pm:
No. I am not contemptuous of Australia like you are. Anyway, the jig is up (has been for ages): being a Paki Bvgger, you parade your contempt for everything else as a matter of covering up policy. There IS something wrong wiv it, yeah? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 20th, 2012 at 10:55pm
long live Australia ...in all her multi-cultural glory.
Gotta give it our best ..people.!!! |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 20th, 2012 at 10:58pm Emma wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 10:55pm:
You are crazy. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 20th, 2012 at 11:25pm
you think?
who isn't? you I suppose.!! ::) Tell me how would you NOT process these arrivals.?? Hmmm? Hold them off with machine-gun fire and small anti-personnel weapons until they're dead or out of range?? Or else what??? You'd ??????? what??? sink them outside Oz waters.??? Send drones.???? You tell me Avram the Wise........ how would you refuse to 'process' (a filthy word) these people.?? Ideas ? at all? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 20th, 2012 at 11:35pm Emma wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 11:25pm:
I would instruct our defense force to do their job and defend the Australian people and our territory....that is all.... :) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 20th, 2012 at 11:47pm
I've just thought of one 'solution'...which should go down real well with lots of you.
Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, and any other interested nation seeking to solve their refugee problem ... get together and buy up all large vessels about to be de-commisioned...be they ore or oil carriers, bulk cargo ships, old Cruise liners, general cargo or fishing vessels. These vessels are welded together with steel bracing and trusses so that the mass conglomerate is stable and seaworthy. This massive steel contstruction is then moved to the biggest man-made island in the world,... that huge mass of garbage that has formed an island, the largest man-made island in the world, ... in the middle of the Pacific. Its sitting there growing daily, and so all unwanted arrivals, by whatever means,,, but particularly for those who thing they are especially deserving of denial, boat arrivals, ... are deposited onto this massive steel construct in the middle of the island of garbage and left to fend for themselves. Home and hosed.!!! :( |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 12:03am
Using our defense forces for any purpose other than protecting the Australian people and defending our territorial and economic interests is dangerously wrong headed thinking.... 8-)
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 12:07am
Its not the role of our defense forces to be a shuttle service for people illegally migrating to our lands, its not the role of our defense forces to interfere in internal disputes in sovereign nations, its not their role to mentor other countries defense forces...it is our defense forces role to protect and defend Australia and its people...that is all - no ifs, no buts.... ::)
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 21st, 2012 at 12:27am
well I didn't mention our defense forces as having a role in this. You did.
Using military might against refugees in small boats isn't my idea of proper use either. Its up to us to manage this,,, can't fob it off on somewhere else. THATS crazy. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 12:32am
Its up to our defense force to protect the Australian people and our economic and territorial integrity from illegal migration. What part of that don't you understand? We have a defense force to run off foreign invaders....that is all, also stopping the boats and turning them away saves lives....why do you want people to die by encouraging them to come here in ever greater numbers - this is wrong headed thinking.... 8-)
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 21st, 2012 at 12:45am Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 12:32am:
Good grief you're a mug... Ask our Defense Force leaders if they agree. I'd suggest... the answer would be NEGATIVE. That is NOT the role of our armed forces. What a wally, sock, wrymy thing you are :D 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 12:51am
You don't process them. That is what I am telling you. You refuse to process all boat arrivals without visas.
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 21st, 2012 at 1:03am
You don't process them. That is what I am telling you. You refuse to process all boat arrivals without visas. AVRAM
OK - I'll ask you again. HOW do you do this Avram? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 1:07am Emma wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 12:45am:
If personnel in the military dont understand that their only responsibility is to the Australian people and our territorial and economic integrity they should be kicked out - idiot. Yours is the kind of thinking that drops tariffs on imports to give other nations a competitive advantage over us or impose economic sanctions on our own industries in the form of a ETS - absolute nutters driven by greed and malice to betray fellow citizens security. Traitors even - plain criminals, if we do not stop you you will sell our country lock stock and barrel to China and the Saudis as their food bowl. You are a savage - crazy and a psycho savage.:P ::) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 1:09am
The boats should stopped and sent away. 8-)
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 21st, 2012 at 1:33am Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 1:09am:
HOW ?? How Prev/Avram.??? HOW?? anybody else with a clue?? You give us your wishes Avram..... how to do this?????? HOW??????? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 3:14am Emma wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 1:33am:
Let the Navy do its job to defend the sovereign legal territorial waters of Australian citizens...this is a little complicated for you to understand.... :) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 21st, 2012 at 3:49am Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 3:14am:
No - you are the one who doesn't comprehend.....the job of our armed services. Turning back a multitude of small boats filled with civilians is not part of their job. Why is THIS so hard for YOU to understand.? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) :P :P |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 21st, 2012 at 4:49am Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 9:27pm:
well 1) they arent unwanted - we want apparently 13k of them 2) this isnt an xtian country - no theocracy here SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 21st, 2012 at 4:51am Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 10:14pm:
You are a terrorist racist dropkick. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 21st, 2012 at 4:54am Emma wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 1:33am:
Wow. You shut the lot of them up. They cant answer without saying what they really want to do is gun down the boats. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by 52midnight on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:13am
In the longer term, it's really just a question of which armed camp you want to end up in once the gun's come out, and where they get food and other supplies from. The Outlaw Bikie Gangs are already well-organized, well-armed, have multiple weapon caches, nation-wide coverage and sound international relations. Forty percent of their members are of Middle Eastern origin, so they're definitely multicultural. But I don't have even a single tattoo ...
The Ozzie camps will shoot anyone who doesn't automatically use a profanity in every sentence, so that's no good. You'll need a prayer mat to get into the Muslim camps, and I can't find a shop that sells them. The Irish camps will demand a ladder for changing light-globes, but ... pass. For the Paki ones you'll need an RPG, or at least a launcher; and they'll probably kill you anyway if your beard's not thick enough. You'll need to stink of curry to get into the Indian ones even if you want to. Which only leaves ... ah! but no; I'm not giving that one away. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:54am Emma wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 1:03am:
You have two options. You refuse them any entry and return them to point of departure. Or you can imprison them for attempting to enter the country illegally and then deport them. You refuse to consider them for asylum. If they are Sri Lankan you report them to Sri Lanka. As soon as you set the examples then the message becomes clear. It is like in 2008 when Hamas were thinking they could fire rockets at us and all we would respond is occasional attack. They said we would never send in ground forces. Well when we sent in thousands of soldiers into Gaza and started to shoot them - all of a sudden the rockets stopped. :) It's the same thing you set your early example you are serious then they will see. If they know in Australia all they get is imprisonment and then deportation and refuse to process like we do in Israel they will go somewhere else! |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:59am Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:54am:
We are a compassionate country unlike israel and we take refugees. We dont want to turn them away - we want them to stop drowning. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Dnarever on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:01am Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 12:32am:
Its up to our defense force to protect the Australian people and our economic and territorial integrity from illegal migration. And it's up to the imigration department to fight wars and protect us from invasion. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:08am Quote:
Actually why isnt anything being done about all the illegal immigrants - the actual illegal immigrants who are here in bigger numbers than the asylum seekers? Nothing? Never hear anything about it . . . SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:08am Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:54am:
Deport them to where? if they have no id, and refuse to co-operate, you cannot deport them ... no other country will accept them ... and how long before you fill up the jails? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:24am John Smith wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:08am:
The numbers you have of people in the boats would not be too much of a problem for jails - and you should bring back the policy you have before of cutting the islands out of the Australian migration zone. You put the jails outside of the main land Australia. Like in Israel we can process and handle better in West Bank zones (where is the forward checkpoints) because it is not technically Israel and is governed by the army not the civil police and judges. You can make better decisions this way. Dont matter what the UN say - you all seem so afraid of the UN and the Convention. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:26am
You do know that a lot of the asylum people you have come from Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka is already on record saying to Canada, USA, Australia that they believe they are terrorists and Sri Lanka wishes so speak to these people. You would have no problem at all with Sri Lanka accepting them back for deportation. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:29am Quote:
Then what right have you got to occupy it and have "jails" there? SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:30am
I would add that the position I take is the same as I was instructed to do for border control point in national service.
Exact this. Do not allow in or past anyone who is not carrying documents and if they try to claim asylum refuse because it is not Israel, it is a forward check point. This was criticized in the UN yes but if you check the Resolutions, it was put in one to condemn on practices of human rights violations and it failed at security council vote where the permanent members could not agree. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:31am Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:29am:
we dont have jails in the west bank. I am giving you a example of where it has a different structure of process - where the army is the overall jurisdictions and not civil areas - which is the situation in Israel itself. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:36am Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:24am:
so you propose to lock up thousands of people indefinitely ... as far as Sri Lanka goes, do you know what Sri Lanka does to the Tamil people? sort of why they are seeking asylum in the first place .... if every country adopted Israel's policy, the world would be a hell hole ... not the sort of place I want my kids to grow up in .... your suggestion does nothing except breed hatred and prejudices ...you keep it. you ever wonder why everyone wants to blow your country up? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:40am
Sri Lanka is a ally of Australia I must remind you.
You can not be ally and then accuse them of human rights violations and take their people for asylum! |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:41am John Smith wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:36am:
Because we are not soft and will respond to aggression and they do not like it. However may i also remind you that our policy on refugees works. We take a quote of non-Jews each year which is flew in by plane. No processing at the border and no asylum claims. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:45am Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:40am:
why not? I have friends and acquaintances, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything each of those people do .... If you kill thousands of innocent woman and children just because they were Tamil ... I don't care who you are, I'll accuse you of human rights violations |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:49am Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:41am:
they are soft? and you're tough? .... I'd like to see how tough you were without the US backing you .. must be nice being so tough when the US gives you the latest and greatest toys, knowing they can never match the weaponry you are given..... I'd bet if it was reversed you wouldn't be so tough ... and you'd probably be pleading for asylum yourselfd .... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:41am John Smith wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:49am:
You have no idea or understanding of the regional situation so you are better staying with subjects you may understand. Australia can take much stronger action that it does. Tell me - why did your Government put Christmas Island back in the migration zone? That makes more boats come. It is much easier to get there than Australia itself. You know you must make it as hard as possible to come - then you make less come. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:48am
If aliens come to Australia illegally, mandatory detention indefinitely till they decide to go home is the best option...
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:12am Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:48am:
You seem to have wandered into the wrong thread. This thread is about asylum seekers. Seeking asylum is perfectly legal. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:15am Dnarever wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:01am:
Oh dear, a lot of very confused people in here. 1. asylum seekers are not migrants 2. seeking asylum is not illegal ::) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:17am Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:12am:
The Government and defense force have a legal obligation to protect the Australian people and their territorial and economic security from foreign invaders. People like you who incite human movement for your own self serving reasons should be locked up with them. :) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:18am Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:41am:
The idea is to not have them dying in boats from drowning. You understand this dont you? SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:22am Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:18am:
Don't get into a boat and you wont drown. The domestic problems of foreign countries and people are not the fault of Australians - stop blaming us for everything and telling us we are responsible for every civil war, every foreign problem because we are not. just keep us out of it. 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Elvis Wesley on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:22am Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:18am:
People don't drown in boats, they drown in water. :) But anyway, the "idea" for most people is for them to not come in the first place. Funnily enough, if they didn't try to force their way into the country univited, they don't run the risk of drowning. But why am I telling you this? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:27am Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:17am:
You seem confused. I have no self serving reason. I'm merely explaining to you that seeking asylum, in a boat, is perfectly legal. What is it about obeying the law that you object to? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:29am Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:27am:
Nope. only Australian Law exists and only Australian citizens are Legal - what happens in foreign countries and international waters is not our legal responsibility - so stop trying to force us to get involved and take on the worlds problems. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:31am
Australia is not responsible for every criminal who wants to migrate here to get on our welfare system.
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:34am Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:29am:
Oh dear, you're more confused than I thought. Australia has obligations to protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia, regardless of how or where they arrive and whether they arrive with or without a visa. As a party to the Refugee Convention, Australia has agreed to ensure that people who meet the United Nations definition of refugee are not sent back to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened. This is known as the principle of non-refoulement. Australia also has obligations not to return people who face a real risk of violation of certain human rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These obligations also apply to people who have not been found to be refugees. In addition, while asylum seekers and refugees are in Australian territory (or otherwise subject to Australian law), the Australian Government has obligations under various international treaties to ensure that their human rights are respected and protected. These treaties include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention Against Torture and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These rights include the right not to be arbitrarily detained. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:38am
No you are talking about international law, but Australia is a free sovereign nation with its own law and that law makes it clear that our Government and defense force may not act in any other way or capacity than the interests and security of its own citizens. Try again fool, burt its just not our problem what happens in foreign countries and international waters, its not our fault and its not our responsibility to get involved period warmonger....You want to make external affairs our responsibility because you are a warmonger and a war criminal.
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:52am Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:38am:
So, you don't obey the law, you don't like facts, and all you can come up with is personal insults. What a strange little man you are. However, I'm curious to hear your supporting argument for calling me a "war criminal". Please proceed ... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:02am Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:52am:
The facts are you are trying to undermine Australian sovereignty and law for self serving economic and ideological reason. You are a white apartheid bigot who does not believe in the right of all Australian citizens to security - you have destroyed this country, our economy and our lives because you are a vicious Nazi who wants to rob us of our borders so you can raise up your own corporate racial economic borders and rule. You are transparent in your malevolent motives and paranoid of all opposition to your insanity. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:06am Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:02am:
You don't seem to understand (hardly surprising). What you've just posted is merely a baseless accusation. What I'm asking from you is some supporting evidence. Over to you ... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:09am Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:06am:
Not baseless true - your motives and malice are self evident, you have no interests in the rights of Australian citizens and daily you fight against them - its all you do... 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:10am Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:02am:
SOB  voices_001.jpg (35 KB | 31
) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:13am
The UN Convention is a stupid argument it means nothing and has no legal basis!
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:13am
You are a malicious white corporate apartheid racial activist which is why you wage war against the sovereign rights of all Australian citizens - so you can raise up your own corporate racial economic borders. You are transparent in your motives on asylum seekers.
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:13am Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:09am:
OK, white flag accepted. I gave you a couple of chances, but you came up with nothing. At least we all know where you're coming from now. White flag accepted, and good day to you. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:15am
I accept your surrender white boy...we see right through your apartheid agenda in the suburbs....
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:16am
Israel is a signatory to the Convention but does not allow asylum applications at the checkpoints.
The UN know this and there is no issue. Australia could stay signatory and still refuse to process asylum applications by boat Sri Lanka will accept Sri lankan deportations, they have already told Canada and Australia and UK. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:18am Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:15am:
"white" ? LOL |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:20am Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:16am:
You're forgetting one very important fact though. Australia is a civilised country, Israel is not. Carry on. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:21am Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:20am:
Israel is a signatory to the same Convention you keep saying as a argument to let everyone come? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:24am Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:21am:
It's an argument for civilised countries. Israel is obviously not included. Sorry for the confusion. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:25am Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:18am:
You have been caught out, we know the corporate world wants to establish enclaves of minority "bioethically sound" white apartheid aristocracies around the world and that is why you are forcing globalization and interfering in other peoples affairs...you have been sprung and your motives for inciting movements and displacement of humanity from their native lands are clear to us. Your unconditional surrender accepted. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:28am
"The Australian Government and the Australian people are proud to regard themselves as one of Israel's strongest and oldest allies"
S Smith, Australian Minister. We are signatory of same convention with a more sensible policy on asylum for gentile people than you have. Stop using the convention argument! |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:34am Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:28am:
Israel is not a civilised country, so it is irrelevant. This thread is about a civilised country - Australia. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:36am Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:25am:
I quite honestly think you have a serious problem. Please seek help, if only for the safety of your family. Please. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:37am
Aussies are strong friends and supporters of Israel I remind you
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 21st, 2012 at 5:07pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:41am:
yes ... you don't like the topic so you change it ... like I've said before you're a coward. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Morning Mist on Jul 21st, 2012 at 5:20pm Quote:
Hi Git. Back to business. How would you achieve this? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 21st, 2012 at 5:57pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 9:27pm:
Avram, God is clever. Men are dumb. God allows us, all of us, to choose. We are all free to make 'good' choices, or, 'poor' choices. In our choices in this life, we are sorting ourselves [i.e. determining our own fate] . And therefore, there will be no excuses. Because, we chose the evil. And, the atheists spit in God's face, because they 'know', that God does not exist!! ;D Hey Avram, Atheists cannot see God, so God clearly, does not exist! That, is just 'common sense'. ;D ;D ;D God is clever. Men are dumb. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:02pm John Smith wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 5:07pm:
How many years have you served in the armed forces? You call me a coward? Where I was posted you would wet your underpants after one day. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:03pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 9:27pm:
Australia is a secular state. You're in no position to be calling anyone a fool. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:11pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:02pm:
"armed forces" Coward. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:14pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:03pm:
Nope, Australia is a sovereign constitutional nation with borders, law and government and citizens entitled to freedom and protection much as you wish it were not so. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:16pm Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:14pm:
LOL Buy a dictionary bud. Australia is a secular state. LOL I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you don't even know what that means. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:22pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:16pm:
Nope, last time I read the word secular is not written anywhere in our constitution - we are a constitutional nation with borders, laws and sovereign inviolable rights you can never deny. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:23pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:11pm:
You think cowards serve in the west bank and cast lead? You have no idea. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:25pm
I am a secular Jew.
I live in a secular Jewish state. Australia is Christian like Israel is Jewish. We are a country in middle east populated by Jewish people. You are a country in Asia pacific populatedby Christian European people mostly. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:29pm Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:22pm:
LOL ;D There have been some morons in this forum, but nobody even comes close to you. You are in a league all of your own. The word "secular" does not have to be in a nation's constitution in order for it to be a secular state. Try this genius: look for the term "Prime Minister" in the constitution and let me know how you go. Have a look at section 116 while you're looking for "Prime Minister" : "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." s116 |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:31pm
.
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:31pm
The sovereign right of Australian citizens come from our constitution and law, not our race - Our law means our Government and defense forces cannot act in a manner contrary to citizens best interests - we shall never be slaves or be dispossessed by criminal racial apartheid usurpers like uncle meat because our constitution is sovereign, our laws are immutable and our borders inviolable. 8-) Our land, our resources, our wealth, our right - not theirs. :P
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:32pm
I can happily change my words to Australia is a country of Christian people and traditions if you feel better.
Australia is Israel's friend and ally. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:34pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:29pm:
As I said - no word about secular anywhere - this is interpreted clearly - that you may not pass laws restricting peoples religious freedoms - ergo forcing priests to divulge the confessional or to recognize same sex marriage. :P |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:34pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:23pm:
I think cowards arm themselves and fight in packs. "armed forces" = cowards. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:37pm Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:34pm:
You are clearly insane, but I'll ignore that for now. There is no mention of the "office of Prime Minister" in the Australian Constitution. How does this make you feel? Do you recognise the office of PM or not? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:40pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:34pm:
You have no idea. There is just 4 of us in a checkpoint unit surrounded by armed aggressors. You don't know anything because you sit the other side of the world and you defend all type of scum who turn up pretending to be refugees. And idiots like you feel bad and let them in to build their ghettos. You will regret your foolish ways. Years in future when I am happy back in Haifa, you will have problems with these cushi that you said should come in! |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:43pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:40pm:
Oh FFS, grow up. "They started it" is a pathetic argument. You fight in packs and you arm yourself with guns. Coward, pure and simple. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:45pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:43pm:
My country is attacked every day by aggressors. We are not a soft people. You have no idea how it is to be Israeli. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:47pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:02pm:
Nobody cares avram. So you had a gun. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:48pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:23pm:
You are very brave with your guns shooting unarmed families and bombing with a plane. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:48pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:45pm:
Fighting in packs, armed with guns = coward. Doesn't matter what country, it's still cowardly. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:49pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:37pm:
As I said - no word about secular anywhere - this is interpreted clearly - that you may not pass laws restricting peoples religious freedoms - ergo forcing priests to divulge the confessional or to recognize same sex marriage. :P Now I can tell you are ideologically driven and constitutionally illiterate - you are also a moron, stop making a fool of yourself with your racist corporate apartheid crap and shut up... :P 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:51pm Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:49pm:
Was the question too hard for you? The PM is not mentioned in the Constitution - how does this make you feel? And how does it make you feel that you didn't even know that fact before I mentioned it? Embarrassed? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:55pm Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:47pm:
SPOT, Not so. Lots of people do care - that Mohammedans attack Israel, and attack the Jewish people, daily. It is just you SPOT, and people like you who do not care. People who do not have a care. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Karnal on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:58pm
Exactly, Yadda. We care. We don't appreciate people blowing other people up.
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:58pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:51pm:
You are constitutionally illiterate on the foundations of our law, constitution and Government and I cant help you with that. Rest assured our constitution is water tight and you are an idiot. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:00pm Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:58pm:
Embarrassed it is. I thought so. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:01pm Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:48pm:
ANOTHER LIE, FROM A LIAR. The Pals are not unarmed, they have assault rifles, RPG's, and rockets [...and probably a lot more]. So less with the poor, defenceless, 'victimised' Pals. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:02pm
You are calling your own army cowards!
Aussie units are usually larger than ours. By the way I have met Aussie soldiers before and they are good people. It is fools like you who would never fight for your country who is the coward. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Karnal on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:02pm
Yes, but we still care, Yadda.
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:04pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:02pm:
The person who arms them self with guns and fights in packs, that's who. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:04pm Yadda wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:01pm:
This is correct. In 2 days they fired 350 unguided rockets into Israel. I myself have been fired on in Gaza by AK weaponry. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:05pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:04pm:
Australian army? Australian air force? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:06pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:05pm:
Yes. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:08pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:06pm:
You are a fool. It is no wonder you are such a soft easy win for refugees. You are no patriot. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:10pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:08pm:
Correct. Patriots are fools. And, armed people who fight in packs are cowards. Anything else that needs clearing up? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:12pm
We can constitutionally turn the boats away - we are on secure legal grounds to have our sovereign territorial borders and security protected - its the Apartheid corporations and their shadow system that have no legal basis to exist. :)
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:13pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:10pm:
Just to state I am very very happy you are not from Israel. We don't need people like you. I must add so many Australians I have met and have as friends are good people who share my views and speak well of my country, not like you. By the way your soldiers are brave men. I have met some personally. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:15pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:13pm:
They fight in packs, with guns - they're cowards. Do you feel like a big man when you carry your gun? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:16pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:13pm:
You and me both buddy! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:17pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:15pm:
I feel like I can protect our women and children and my comrades when we are stood lonely at a checkpoint kms from the Israel border surrounded by aggressors. That is the purpose of my Tavor. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Karnal on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:19pm Prevailing wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:12pm:
Not exactly, Prevalling. Corporate Whitey knows the laws around this. He's a bit of an expert in this area. The laws about boats come under maritime and treaty law. The constitution is a separate set of laws. The High Court has ruled on the UNHCR treaty and found offshore processing to be against the law - treaty law, I believe. I'm sure Whitey will correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:20pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:04pm:
And you for some reason dont understand that you were fired on because you shouldn't have been there with your guns and your uniforms and your air-strikes. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:22pm
Unless the UNHCR Treaty has been put into your local law it is not illegal to ignore it.
The UN Convention is overruled by Israeli law at home where asylum at borders are not processed if third country. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:23pm Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:20pm:
You need to read more. Cast Lead was a defensive operation in responding to rocket attacks on our cities. No rocket attacks = no Cast Lead. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Karnal on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:24pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:22pm:
Avram, you know something about recent Australian High Court rulings, do you? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Avram Horowitz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:27pm
I studied some law cases at university in Tel Aviv.
The Treaty has to be in local law if it is not then local law is the governs. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Karnal on Jul 21st, 2012 at 8:06pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:27pm:
Maybe you should advise the federal government. They're having a few issues with this at the moment. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Dnarever on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:18pm Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:27pm:
I think you may find that Australian Law is a bit different. When you sign a treaty it is because you agree to abide by the terms of the agreement. Doing anything else is just dishonest, there is no point having a treaty if it means nothing. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:26pm
No treaty has the force of our immutable law or can supplant it so give it up and get a life. Australian citizenship and its privilege are underwritten. :)
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:03pm Dnarever wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 9:18pm:
If that is so, then why would moslems sign treaties then ??? All about oaths, and keeping ones word..... Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295407319/0#0 |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:04pm Karnal wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:24pm:
Yeah. The High Court ruled that Gillard is an unbelievable prat for making a deal with Malaysia before getting the law through Parliament. And she is a lawyer. See? Even the High Court thinks she is a smacking liability. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Karnal on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:10pm Soren wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:04pm:
I wasn't asking you, I was asking Avram. He's from Israel, you know, not some blow-in from God knows where. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:37pm Karnal wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:10pm:
There are too many Paki hostiles here. So I'm his counsel. Pro bono. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Karnal on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:40pm
What would you know? You're not Australian or Israeli. You could be an enemy combatant for all we know.
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:41pm Soren wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:37pm:
Poor Bastard. ;D Yadda said... "If that is so, then why would moslems sign treaties then ???" Thats hilarious Yadda. Go away. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:45pm
SOoo
any closer to an idea then ?? anyone... one with some hope of being logistically able to be carried out.?? Not more pipe-dreams please. I understand what are you are saying Avram.... but wishing doesn't make it so. Your solution is no solution here. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:49pm Emma wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:41pm:
You 1st. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Soren on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:50pm Karnal wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:40pm:
I know the law. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Karnal on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:56pm Soren wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:50pm:
Big deal. Any fresh-off-the-boat reffo spiv knows the law these days. Avram is Israeli. If I want to know about Australian treaty law, I'm going to him. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:13pm Emma wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 10:45pm:
Scenario; I am a homeless person. Can i [lawfully] come into your home ? Can i walk though the unlocked front door [or the unlocked back door] and set up my bed, in your lounge room, ....because i am homeless? Its the exact same logic relating to those claiming to be 'asylum seekers'. Many of whom, patently are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and are not legitimate asylum seekers. They travel through 2nd and 3rd countries, they have enough personal resources to travel half way around the planet!, to come to countries like Australia. Conclusion? Many 'asylum seekers' seeking 'sanctuary' in Australia, are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, or economic refugees, at best. And at worst? Many of these ppl, clearly embrace societal values which are antithetical/incompatible with our own value system(s). e.g. ISLAM gives moslems the legal right to murder their children. So jalane, If a homeless person off the street, came into YOUR home and said; "I live here now. This is my home too!" So, what is the solution ??? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:20pm Yadda wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:13pm:
This one statement shows you up for the idiot you are. They aren't immigrants (let alone illegal). Asylum seeking and migration are two completely different things. They can't be illegal immigrants until they are processed (and found to not be refugees). You have failed to the maximum degree. Thank you for playing though. You've just shown shown how incredibly ignorant the retarded right are. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Yadda on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:28pm Yadda wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:13pm:
So jalane, If 10 homeless persons off the street, came into YOUR home and said; "I live here now. This is my home too!" So, what is the solution ??? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:31pm Yadda wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:28pm:
A nation state and a private house are two completely different things. Moreover, asylum seekers don't say "I live here now". Are you retarded, or a troll? Which is it? |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 21st, 2012 at 11:34pm
Australia will decide who is legal and who is not according to our own law and there is nothing you can do about that big nose.... :P
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 12:02am
who you calling Big Nose.?? eh eh ?
Prev ur transparent... Meat eats you dearie.. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, atn argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 12:34am
Yet according to our own Law, Australian citizens have a right to exist securely within their own borders unmolested and have a right to defend themselves so you will just have to live with that big nose.... :D
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 12:46am
Australian citizens have a right to defend themselves so you will just have to live with that big nose.... Prev?? Premmie?
Thats a joke ...right?? Australians have NO right to self-defense..... try it some time and see how the Law treats you.YOU ARE NOT allowed to take steps to protect yourself.... god forbid ...pro active steps. ::) You obviously don't have a big nose... ;D ;D ;D Want an example?? You cannot carry anything that the Police could possibly construe as a weapon. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:02am Emma wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 12:46am:
Hey big nose, unlike you I am literate in the law and under the Crimes act I am empowered not only to defend myself with lethal force if its reasonable and necessary, I am empowered to make a lawful arrest. Yes I am empowered to arrest people who have illegally entered this countries territorial boundaries under the crimes act and hand them over to the authorities. I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself and read the crimes Act.... CRIMES ACT 1958 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/ ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:09am Prevailing wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:02am:
No. When it comes to law, you are probably the most ignorant person in the entire forum. You think you know something about it, but your posts continually prove otherwise. At best, you have severe learning disabilities. At worst, you're probably a drooling retard. I do feel sorry for you though. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:14am Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:09am:
Ooooh as usual, losing the argument and devoid of substance you slide into your usual ugly filthy retorts that speak volumes for your worth as a human being... 8-) :) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:17am
hmm have to agree again Unc ...
Prev is one of the big mouths... but small brains, that happily show their ignorance on this forum, why ..almost daily.!! ::) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:18am
I have the legal right as an Australian citizen to arrest illegal aliens using reasonable force to effect it and there is nothing you can do about that big nose - any Australian citizen has this right.... :)
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:19am Prevailing wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:14am:
I've won every single argument with you. Your failure rate is 100%. Impressive. Moreover, you are the person who claims that the word "secular" must be in the Constitution in order for a country to be a secular state. This is probably the most bizarre comment I've seen on this forum. You sir, are nothing more than a dribbling retard. Furthermore, your next post will prove my point beyond all doubt. Over to you ... |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:26am Quote:
I have owned you big nose and handed your ass to you handily and not even raised a sweat - you are a constitutional and legal illiterate... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:27am
lets not get off - tangent here Prev.
You're talking all Aussies can defend themselves, as long as the force used is reasonable , in Law. Not just against what you perceive as a threat.. which appears to be sodden hungry homeless refugees, but against all sorts of other threats as well. Well, this IS so... as long as the current interpretation of the Act, allows your actions to be reasonable, in face of ..what?..life threatening scenarios.??? That you think this gives you some power or excuse for your rascist and hate-filled diatribes is pure ignorance ... like Meat says. You don't have to quote the Crimes Act at me...dwad... I 've been through that whole scenario. 8-) 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:30am Prevailing wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:26am:
"Furthermore, your next post will prove my point beyond all doubt." And there we have it. Too easy. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:30am Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:32am
and good grief Wikipedia??????
Your legal reference.??????? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D.. You aren't even quoting Australian law..... ::) In fact you wouldn't know how to write a proper, legal reference if your life depended on it. |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:34am Emma wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:32am:
LOL I wanted to comment on that, but I was too busy laughing. ;D He's a legal genius ;) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:35am Emma wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:32am:
I gave you the link to the Crimes act, knowing you will never read it, I provided sourced material more to your limited ability to understand... Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:37am Prevailing wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:35am:
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:38am Uncle Meat wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:37am:
Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Uncle Meat on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:40am |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:50am
Tell your corporate mates not to mess with me uncle meat 'cause I will have their ass in the High Court and feed it to my dog. This is my country, my law, my right. :)
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 1:58am
heeheeheheheeeeeeeeeee
Prevailing sounds pre-pubescent.! ;D My dogs are bigger than your dogs,, guaranteed.!! 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Prevailing on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 2:06am
Keyboard Warrior... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by jalane on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 2:26am
so bite me... woof woof ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 6:42am Yadda wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:01pm:
From avrams description there was 1 sniper in one of the apartment buildings. The israelis were there to kill ppl so of course the "pals" tried to defend themselves. Looks like they didnt have a lot to do it with though. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by Spot of Borg on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 6:46am Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 7:13pm:
Well not ALL i expect same as any group. I have never had any problems with any jews I have known either until I met you. Of course you are the only one I have met (that i know of) that was in the military so should i judge the entire military by you? Well in answer to my own question I judge them on their deeds and I expect they are brainwashed with the attitude you have in order to do the "job" without remorse. Of course there must be some that see what is being done and reject it. SOB |
|
Title: Re: Asylum seekers, an argument too good not to post. Post by John Smith on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 10:18am Avram Horowitz wrote on Jul 21st, 2012 at 6:02pm:
you served because you were drafted .... I'm doubtful you volunteered .... if you are such a hero why aren't you still serving? why are you hiding 10 000km away? ... I'd also bet you did wet your pants. |
|
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved. |
