Great post Horus! Methinks that rstuart is just playing silly
buggers now, fully aware that his point is ridiculous, so is digging
himself a deeper and deeper hole, rather then admit defeat.

Rstuart, this from your very own SBS URL:

*The group of Sri Lankans is refusing to leave the Oceanic Viking, which is moored off Bintan Island.
They are also refusing health and identity checks.*

The question of Rudd using force would hardly have arisen, if the
78 had not refused to get off the boat. Even a slow learner like
yourself would have to concede that.

*And it was so simple - just sail to another port. Why didn't anybody else think of that.*

It was openly discussed, but then people were aware that the real
problem was the 78 refusing to leave the ship, not what the underling
was saying. So not my idea at all.

*despite your illusions of how nice life must be in the middle or a war zone many people who find themselves in one end up becoming refugees*

I never claimed it was nice, I claimed that people deal with it,
they move out of the war zone. People in Gaza, Lebanon, Israel,
Iraq, Afghanistan etc, don't all leave and travel halfway around
the world.

As I have shown, there are plenty of safe places right there
in Sri Lanka. But in your view, a life without Centrelink is
seemingly unlivable! Perhaps you should get out more, go spend
some time in the third world.

Fact is that it gave rich Tamils a great excuse for a life in
the first world. Poor Tamils went to India or stayed in Sri Lanka.

So much for a so called humanitarian programme, actually helping
the most deserving. It certainly helps the most opportunistic!

Yabby: "The question of Rudd using force would hardly have arisen, if the 78 had not refused to get off the boat."

But since they hadn't refused to get off the boat, it was phrased as purely a hypothetical question - or didn't you notice?

Yabby: "I never claimed it was nice, I claimed that people deal with it, they move out of the war zone."

Which you are happy to see them do. I know that because you said above the current Sri Lankan refugees arriving here should have joined their 80,00 mates in Tamil Nadu. You are happy to see them go anywhere really, so long as it isn't here. That is the bottom line, isn't it Yabby?

I gather you have conceded:

- The Oceanic Viking could not have just gone to another port.
- The opposition didn't believe they had refused to get off.
- Philip Ruddock didn't actually change the 90% figure, he set it.
- Indonesia did in fact ban the refugees from getting off.
- You don't have an authoritative link saying they actually refused to get off the ship when it was legally possible, or indeed even when in transit to Indonesia.

native,

Given you have caught me in the middle lovers tiff, I hope you forgive me for giving most of my attention to Yabby. I swear without OLO word and post limits, I would have responded to you sooner.

"Those entering territorial waters will be promptly removed to a UN refugee facility and will automatically be ineligible for future entry."

There are no UN controlled refugee facilities. Refugee facilities are ultimately controlled by a country that can accept or refuse entry. Australia's Christmas Island refugee facility is a typical example. How likely are we to accept other countries shipping their refugees to Christmas Island? Well, spin that around and you will get an idea of how likely other countries are to accept Australia's unwanted refugees. I think you will find the reaction from Ismeth Abdullah above fairly typical. It is, after all, the reaction Yabby is promoting here.

*But since they hadn't refused to get off the boat,*

Yes they did refuse to get off the boat. Many press sources have
confirmed that.

*You are happy to see them go anywhere really, so long as it isn't here. That is the bottom line, isn't it Yabby?*

Not so rstuart, read it slowly, so you understand what I believe.

A humanitarian programme should be for the most needy and deserving,
not the richer and more opportunistic. Young healthy males with
lots of money, are not the most needy. Our system is being misused
by economic migrants able to push their way in, through loopholes
in the system. I have no objection to Australia taking the same
number from refugee camps, where we know they are genuine.

*I gather you have conceded:*

I haven't conceded anything, you just dream this stuff up as you
go along.

Sure the boat could have gone to another port. The opposition never
said that they never believed that the 78 had refused to get off.
Phillip Ruddick started with 90%, so he set about to change it
and improve it, which he eventually did. It took some years.
Indonesia never banned them getting off, some underling tried to
stop them getting off in his port.
I haven't bothered to search for your "authoratative link" as you
call it, for it was confirmed in press story after story, with
journalists at the scene. Nobody in the press even dreamt of
questioning that one, as they knew it was correct. Only an rsuart
on OLO, desperate not to lose an argument, is dreaming that up.

Yabby: "I haven't conceded anything, you just dream this stuff up as you go along."

There is some truth in that. But I have to guess what you are thinking, as rather than peruse a point to a logical conclusion you just go silent and move off in some other direction. What am I supposed to think? You keep forgetting the thread, perhaps?

Yabby: "Sure the boat could have gone to another port."

Then explain why Rudd endured all the bad publicity, rather than just going to another port.

Yabby: "Phillip Ruddick started with 90%, so he set about to change it and improve it, which he eventually did"

So you claim. But you can't or won't support the claim with links. For me such claims may as well be fantasies, and I don't enjoy discussing your fantasies, Yabby.

Yabby: "Indonesia never banned them getting off, some underling tried to stop them getting off in his port."

Tried to stop them? He did more than try - he did stop them for a month. In the link I gave that "underling" said: "Unless there's an order from the President, the ship cannot come ashore". Well the order did come, but evidently it was along the lines of "you must accept the refugees if they come ashore voluntarily". They actually insisted boarding the ship and verifying it is really was voluntarily: "we need to ensure they disembark voluntarily" http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2742794.htm

Yabby: "was confirmed in press story after story, with journalists at the scene"

So provide a link to the press story.

Yabby: "as they knew it was correct."

Oh, so they are just like you? They don't have to ask, they don't need evidence, as they already "know" the truth.

rstuart: "You are happy to see them go anywhere really"
Yabby: "Not so rstuart"
Yabby: "Those from the war zone, would have hopped across to India, which is just a very few miles away. 130'000 did exactly that."

You go to such lengths to daemonise the refugees coming here, but it seemed it was perfectly fine for 130,000 to flee to India.

RStuart,
Here is the ---primary document--- the “message” sent from the Dept of immigration to the “passengers” of the Oceanic Viking: http://www.theage.com.au/ed_docs/letter_2035.pdf

Have a geeza –there are six references to their need to leave the ship, & special enticements attached to each mention.
Line 3--“after you leave the ship”
Line 8--“ from the time you disembark the vessel”
Line 12--“from the time you disembark the vessel”
Line 15 ---“from the time you disembark the vessel”
Line 16-- “When you are safely onshore”
Line 35--“Once you have disembarked the vessel”

But there is NOT A SINGLE reference to them being afraid or prevented from disembarking.

It addresses issues like English classes & family contacts, but NEVER ONCE raises the issue that they were afraid to disembark.

And another thing of pertinence to the claim that "passengers" might be too fearful to disembark, or banned. You might recall that a Tamil by the name of Alex is – currently-- running an Oceanic-Viking.2 standoff in another Indonesian port.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/end-tamil-boat-sit-in-pleads-mother-of-alex/story-e6frg6nf-1225805928615

Repeat: He is the ringleader and it is STILL ON-GOING .If anyone is likely to be banned or fearful it is likely to be him.

But have a geeza at yesterdays Australian newspaper (the link doesn’t show the picture –but the hardcopy/paper does) .There Alex is bold-as-brass kneeling on the Indonesian shore next to his mum whose is visiting from Canada ( his sit-in "passenger" who he is orchestrating are still on the ship)They apparently are free to come and go as they wish. As could the "passengers" of the Oceanic Viking,if they so wished.

*What am I supposed to think? You keep forgetting the thread, perhaps?*

Not so rstuart. I am limited to two posts a day at 350 words and
frankly many of your points are so ridiculous, its hardly worth
the bother responding.

*So provide a link to the press story.*

I provided you two of your very own links which clearly stated, that
they refused to get off the boat, just in the last couple of days or
so. But I'll tell you something rstuart, I've been on the net since
1995, so I know the games that are played. Sending people on
constant link searches for frivolous reasons, is an old ploy and
a huge time waster. I don't play that game, I have a basic
request that a poster at least show a little bit of intelligence and
common sense. If after reading all those press reports, you are
still not aware that the 78 refused to get off the boat, then nobody
can help you lol, or you are playing games. So I play on my terms,
not your terms.

*Then explain why Rudd endured all the bad publicity, rather than just going to another port.*

Because the port was ultimately not the problem, the 78 getting off
the boat was. Only bribery changed that in the end.

*So you claim. But you can't or won't support the claim with links.*

Ruddock was Immigration Minister from 96-2003. The Pacific solution
was introduced in 2001. Boat people figures for 2001 were 5516,
for 2002 they were 1. Rudd is still using many policies that
Ruddock introduced.

*You go to such lengths to daemonise the refugees coming here, but it seemed it was perfectly fine for 130,000 to flee to India.*

So if you can go 30 miles or so to be safe from war, why would
you go thousands of miles, spending tens of thousands of $, unless
you wanted more then refuge from war?