Personally, I'd go further than 2bob and suggest that it isn't the job of the Australian embassy in any country to "get people out" in situations like this.

The tourists/visitors/returning dual-nationalists went there of their own free will, knowing that the region is occasionally politically unstable. Why should we, the taxpayers of Australia, pay for them to be ferried out of the danger zone that they entered willingly?

It is akin to the ransom concept. Once you say yes to one situation, it becomes difficult to say no to the next. Natural disasters should fall into the same basket - it is sad, it is unfortunate, but it is not our collective responsibility to rush off every time someone twists their ankle and has to be rescued.

And before anyone cries "oh, the humanity", remember the outpouring of public opinion when Isabelle Autissier had to be rescued from the ocean? We resented every dollar spent to save her life, didn't we? The talkback jocks, to a man, took the line "she got herself into strife, let her get herself out of it."

But of course, she was a foreigner, wasn't she.

Unfortunately it is yet another aspect of how we have come to rely on the nanny state to protect us from harm every time we step out of doors.

Thanks 2Bob and Pericles for reminding me of the nobility and humanity of the punters in this forum.

I do wonder why Ted Lapkin, as spokesmodel for the AIJAC isn't putting his efforts into lobbying Israel for passage of Australian citizens, rather than moralising to us in Rupert's paper. It seems the AIJAC is much more interested in I(srael) than A(ustralia). One would hate to think that the AIJAC was just a mouthpiece for Israeli PR...

For variety here's a perspective yesterday from Larry Johnson, formerly of the CIA and specialising in counterterrorism:

"Israel and its most stalwart US allies are still spouting the bullsh-t that they can get things under control with simple use of airplanes, drones, and bombs.

Oh yeah. Let's make a list of wars that have been one exclusively through the use of airpower. (CRICKETS CHIRPING) That's right. NONE. ZERO. ZIP.

Israel has every right to insist that it not serve as the drop zone for Hezbollah missiles. But, they will not be able to bomb their way out of this problem. That can only be done with troops on the ground. I'm betting they won't be able to resist the temptation. [its happening]

If Israel takes Iran's bait, then Israel will find itself battling an Iraq-style insurgency and Tehran can sit back and enjoy the spectacle of watching the United States try to salvage a democracy in Lebanon while supporting Israel, who is destroying its democratic neighbor to the north, and rally a distracted international community to punish Iran who is busy consolidating its control over the militia, police, and intelligence service in Iraq. Got it?"

from "No Quarter" http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/here_we_go_agai.html#more

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

c

Tell me where, oh where have all the Christians gone?
WHERE ARE THE CHRISTIANS?

“When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert unleashed his navy and air force on Lebanon, accusing that tiny nation of an "act of war," the last pillar of Bush's Middle East policy collapsed.” Quote from
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/forum/read.html?id=4534

I have read the post and comments and found none.

I assume the opinions above about not helping citizens travelling overseas would include those Aussies who recklessly got themselves involved in the Bali or London bombings and those others who were caught in the Tsunami.

Maybe they should have chosen to relax at Bondi or Cronulla beach instead of spending their money on overseas trips to exotic and potentially dangerous locations.

Maybe we shouldn't waste our tax dollars on travel warnings either because hey, it's their own fault for being there.

Or maybe their choice of who is entitled to assistance is more "selective".

Go Ted!
A few weeks ago Iranian Thug-in-Chief Ahmadinejad called on the Islamic world to mobilize and wipe out Israel. Less than a week later we see the results of this conference.
Ahmadinejad may see this as his big chance to unite Muslims behind Iran, positioning the Shi'ite mullahocracy as the best candidate to lead the jihad against Infidels. Did he set Hezbollah loose on Israel in recent weeks in order to provoke Israeli attacks against civilian targets -- which jihadists have always done -- launching attacks from heavily populated areas (the great heroes of Islam always hide amongst women and children)? Perhaps he was hoping to unleash the full force of the world's dhimmi/leftist media against Israel, and to shame Europe, if not America, into refusing to lift a finger in Israel's defense -- and/or to provoke Europe's Muslims into full-bore jihad against the dhimmi non-Muslim Europeans.
This is all part of a larger war. The war has gone on since the beginning of Islam. It is the war of Believers against Infidels. It can, but need not, proceed through qital (combat). Other weapons -- the money weapon and pen, speech, propaganda and now the demographic weapon, are all available.
The war continues within lands controlled by Muslims whenever and wherever possible. Muslims control Bangladesh, but they still persecute, still drive out, still murder Hindus. Muslims control Indonesia, but they make war on Christians in the Moluccas, in Sulawesi. They make war, when they can, on Hindus, having driven Hinduism back to its sole redoubt of Bali. They make war in Egypt on the sole remaining Egyptians who have remained true to their pre-Islamic heritage (Copts). They make war on Buddhists, Animists, Atheists, you name it, if they're not Muslims, they attack 'em, everywhere where Muslims are prevalent. CONTINUED