SPIKEY: I’ll tell you why I think what happened in Germany was tribal territorial warfare. Because history backs me up.
Tribal Territorial Warfare in recent history-:

1.World War 1- The German leader was assasinated on a trip to the Serbian Section
2.World War 2- (The Germans murdered or expelled 6million Jews, the ordinary German people quitely moved in and took possession of all those 6million homes, cars, bank accounts, jewellery,furniture, whatever(the territorial spoils)
3.Japanese invasion and massacre of 15million Chinese (in the late 1930’s under their Greater Asian Expansionist plan)
4.Somalia
5.The Japanese taking of Singapore,Malaysia, an attempt to take Australia.
6.East Timor
7.The Solomons(the Chinese were attacked by the indigenous population)
8.Rwanda
9.The Arabs and the Jews (present day)
10.The Sunnis and the Shiites
11.The territorial war for control of Ireland waged by the IRA(Irish Catholic Tribe) against The British Protestant Tribe who invaded Ireland in the 16th century.
12.Serbs ethnic cleansing of the muslims in Bosnia
13.Coup in Fiji ( big Indian and Indigenous tribes there standing in elections for government control)
14.Argentina attempts to take Faulklands back from British settlers,(tribal protection provided by the British)
15.Georgia attempts to take Ossetia back from the Russian settlers (tribal protection provided by Russia)
16.The taking of a rich goldmine and the killing of many tribal New Guineans by Indonesian troops along the West border of New Guinea.
17.Turkish history shows that the Turks committed ethnic cleansing of 1million Muslims
18.Suddam Hussein takes Kuwait, ordinary Iraqs in a never ending stream of any old vehicle or truck they could find. drive to Kuwait and loot every thing they can lay there hands on.(territorial spoils). By an eyewitness who was there at the time.

This is why I think the Jews were massacred by the Germans because they provoked territorial hostility by splitting off into a big religous tribe. Mankind has shown over and over again that he will kill over territory and territorial control

sharkfin: << I havent had time to look up the anthropology yet as I am busy packing to go away but will do so, although I suspect what I say above shows that all that talk of ethnicity is irrelevant. >>

Apparently you have enough time to continue to post misinformed rubbish. When you do get time to try and educate yourself, you should also look up the terms "tribe" and "ethnicity".

Meanwhile you're just talking through your arse.

Spikey,
On the contrary. From the links posted by you, shows a drop from about 4000 sea arrivals to 300 from 1999 to 2001, this clearly shows that the previous governments tougher measures worked. It is only since then that unauthorised air arrivals exceeded the sea arrivals. This trend will continue there is a dramatic increase in boat people.

In 2006-7 1388 were refused immigration clearance at our airports and around 95% of these left within 72 hours. Most on the next available flight. These persons are held in transit detention.

The big difference between air and boat arrivals is that most, if not all, boat arrivals apply for refugee status, whereas the majority of air arrivals would not have grounds to apply.

While the figures showing air arrivals is interesting, The point is that our border control measures work and this is why European countries are considering the adoption.

As I said before, it will be interesting to see what happens when the changes are seriously challenged by a large (200 or more) boat load of illegals.

Sharkfin, most of the "examples" you ahve shown have very liitle or nothing to do with Jews.

Also, you should get your facts straight.

The Emperor assassinated in 1914 was Austro-Hungarian, not German (although I believe he was a relative of the German Kaiser, but then so was the King of Britain).

While the Serbs did indeed perpetrate atrocities against the Muslims, as well as Croats, it was a two-way (or rather, three-way) street.

The Turks committed atrocities against Armenians, wiping out an estimated 1.5 million. Armenians are/were Christian.

There are probably gaping holes in your other "examples" but it's too much bother addressing every single one.

Banjo

It seems you want to use the information that suits your case and to assert - as fact - propositions that endorse the Howard Government's 'tougher measures' on 'boat people' and ignore contrary evidence.

You claim, falsely, that: "It is only since then [1999 to 2001] that unauthorised air arrivals exceeded the sea arrivals."

The published data fail to support your thesis. Unauthorised arrivals by air surpassed unauthorised arrivals by sea in 1995-1996 and maintained the lead until 1998-99, lost it to the 'boat people' and then regained the lead in 2001-02 and have held it ever since.

So your simplistic cause/effect relationship doesn't square with the evidence. Mandatory detention began under the ALP in 1992. Howard's 'tougher measures' took effect in 1997. Rudd's policies are just now being implemented in the last quarter of 2008.
(See Figure 5.35 in
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article42004?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2004&num=&view= )

As for detention at airports compared with detention generally, your statistics were a one-off aberration for 2004-05.

If you look at the very latest figures as at 5 September 2008, you'll find that 36 people arrived by air unauthorised compared with just 6 unauthorised boat people. On you argument, we must be turning the 'boat people' back even quicker that the 'air people'.

You say, "The big difference between air and boat arrivals is that most, if not all, boat arrivals apply for refugee status, whereas the majority of air arrivals would not have grounds to apply." Do you have any evidence for this - or is this simply how you would like it to be?

You say (again) , "...it will be interesting to see what happens when the changes are seriously challenged by a large (200 or more) boat load of illegals."

Wishful thinking just to prove your obscure point? Of course, the pejorative word 'illegals' is political. It has no legal definition. Try 'unauthorised'.

Spikey,
Am sure you simply like to argue and also like to nit pick. Illegal means unauthorised or prohibited so i will continue to use the word.

Yes illegal air arrivals did exceed sea arrivals for the few years that you mentioned but only because illegal sea arrivals fell to very low levels. Illegal sea arrivals fell from about 4000 per year to about 300 immediately after our government put a stop to the illegals setting foot on the Australian mainland and have been insignificant ever since. Quote from your own links, when discussing numbers for 2000-1 'This decline may reflect the impact of recent measures by the Australian government to discourage unauthorised arrivals'

That is good enough for me to say that the tougher border control measures worked. Whether you agree on not is totally irrelivant.

Many of the illegal air arrivals come from western democracys and they would find it difficult to convince our immigration officials that they were 'fleeing oppression' and claim refugee status. thus, as I said in the first instance, they are refused entry and sent packing. If this were not the case our detention facilities at our points of air entry would not cope. The few that are held for longer than 72 hours is insignificant, thus your statement of more air arrivals than sea arrivals is very missleading.

Given human nature, i am sure that it is only a matter of time to when a boat load of illegals try to make here.