rstuart

If it was said of me, which it was on one of these threads recently, that I had the patience of a saint, you my boy have the patience of ten. :)

I at least had some others arguing the case with me too, whereas here you appear to be doing it on your own. But, I hasten to add, outgunning your opposition with total ease nonetheless.

I haven't followed the thread closely, but a quick skim reveals the same old Yabby swimming around in the same tired old circles clinging doggedly to the same old simplistic and misguided 'solutions'. :)

Yabby

<< 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? >>

Because, if you attempt to cross to India now, the Sri Lankan naval crackdown will see you shot at, arrested and your boat sunk, that's why.

Bronwyn,
Far from struggling on heroically as you seem to imply RStaurts posts are getting more and more obtuse. He is coming more and more to sound like Sergeant Schultz from the 60’s series Hogans Heroes
"I know nothing–NOTHING! .....
I see nothing !
I comprehend nothing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ag4nkSh7Q

And Bronwyn, your point : “ Because, if [ the Tamils] attempt to cross to India now, the Sri Lankan naval crackdown will see you shot at, arrested and your boat sunk, that's why.”
doesn’t make sense .
Over 130,000 have done just that ,crossed to India.

And anyone how knows a little bit about geography –and we know from past instances geography is not one of your strong points–will know that however big the detour, going to India is much, much easier and quicker and safer than diverting across the Pacific to OZ.

So, sorry, your little –justification- just doesn’t hold up as a credible reason for choosing to sail east to OZ

Bronwyn,

Ta. I was feeling lonely here.

Yabby: "I am limited to two posts a day at 350 words"

Words in last 5 posts:
you: 326, 274, 299, 274, 194.
me: 350, 348, 344, 350, 337.

The evidence makes a mockery of your excuse.

Yabby: "I provided you two of your very own links which clearly stated, that they refused to get off the boat"

For all I know their statements could just be opinion. I no more trust them to get it right than I trust you. Find one with attribution or evidence to support the statement.

Yabby: "I've been on the net since 1995 ... I know the games that are played"

If challenged on a fact I provide a link, or cease to rely on it. I am only asking you adhere to the same standard. I don't see how informed debate can be held without keeping to that standard. If you have been on the net for 14 years, you shouldn't have trouble backing up your claims. If after 14 years you can't it's not unreasonable to assume they are rubbish.

Yabby: "Because the port was ultimately not the problem, the 78 getting off the boat was."

You have been reduced to blathering Yabby. The port would not allow them off until conditions were met, and they insisted on verifying they were met by speaking individually to each of the 78. So either the 78 lied, or they had to be given a good enough deal to make them want to be processed in Indonesia. If the port hadn't taken that attitude they could have been marched off immediately.

Yabby: "Boat people figures for 2001 were 5516, for 2002 they were 1."

The figure in 2003 was 86, and 157 in 1997. But this is irrelevant. You introduced Ruddock's 90% figure to contrast it so Indonesia's 10%. You are now claiming it was not 90%, despite we having links to Ruddock's saying it was. Prove it.

Yabby: "unless you wanted more then refuge from war"

Only you could claim someone would want to be a refugee.

Horus

<< And Bronwyn, your point : “ Because, if [ the Tamils] attempt to cross to India now, the Sri Lankan naval crackdown will see you shot at, arrested and your boat sunk, that's why.” doesn’t make sense. Over 130,000 have done just that ,crossed to India. >>

Many have made their way through in the past, but it's virtually impossible to do so now, as both the Indian and the Sri Lankan naval crackdowns intensify. Besides which the camps in Tamil Nadu are already overflowing and conditions in them described as squalid. Additionally, many Tamils have family connections in Australia which for them makes Australia an understandable and sensible choice of refuge.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sri-lankan-navy-forcing-refugees-further-afield/story-e6frg6nf-1225797145692

<< ... and we know from past instances geography is not one of your strong points ... >>

This is just another in a long line of unsupported and defamatory claims from you. I and I'm sure most other readers will treat it with the contempt it deserves.

Hell,Bron,what are u doing? It's a leaky boat full of megalomaniacs. Get off before it goes down in over-inflated egos

socratease

* you my boy *

Ho-ho-ho, along comes mother hen Bronnie, to rescue one of her
chickens in distress :)

I remind you that right now the war is over and yes, right now
the navy is cleaning up the last of the LTTE terrorists. So those
fleeing are unlikely to be refugees and highly likely to be
fugatives who used to bomb and maim. Meantime, as Horus points
out, given that 130'000 crossed to India, its clearly been the easy
and sensible option.

*The evidence makes a mockery of your excuse*

Rstuart, as your arguments become more and more like Schultz, I bother
less and less.

* For all I know their statements could just be opinion.*

Yet they are writing the information about refusal, as fact. Nobody
is disputing that, its not even an issue in the press, just something
that rstuart dreamed up when he was desperate. Sorry, but I won't
waste time on that kind of crap. Go chasing your own tail, if you
are bored lol.

*If challenged on a fact I provide a link*

Well good on you. I respond to serious, intelligent questions,
not game playing. Go and find a link which disputes what other
journalists are claiming as fact.

*If the port hadn't taken that attitude they could have been marched off immediately.*

Not so, for the initial agreement was made with one of the Indonesian
Govt Ministers, no force, but patience would be used. Highly likely
that in the negotiations, our Mr Smith made in plain that our Govt
did not want force used, for its the common Indonesian method.
Both Govts were aware that the press was everywhere.

*You are now claiming it was not 90%, despite we having links to Ruddock's saying it was*

What I am claiming rstuart, is that when Ruddock took on the job,
figures were 90% as he claimed. One reason being the endless
appeals that were taking place. By bringing in the Pacific solution,
Ruddock got rid of the endless appeals, so improving the figures.