Dear Shadow Minister,

Now that is a little unkind my friend, all I am doing is going off your cues. Might need to whisper in the old-shell like to keep me on message.

I am trying to the best of my ability to get Foxy to step into line with your humanitarian outlook. These seemed to be your eminently valid go to points so correct me if I have them wrong;

1. 'Because Russia and China have voted against it that is it, it should not happen.' Whew, if only they had listened to you there would have been no action in Iraq because both countries did the same then and your fellow humanitarian Saddam could have continued his admirable work.

2. People “are ignorant of what actual comprises a war crime”. Oh I'm most definitely on your side on this one. The Mullivaikal Hospital is just one of the many incidents flagged by these bleeding hearts as a war crime.

“Mullivaikal Hospital was a makeshift hospital located in the Safe Zone in northern Sri Lanka. An alleged series of shellings and aerial attacks began on 23 April 2009 when the Mullivaikal Hospital was hit by three artillery shells. It continued on 28 and 29 April when the Mullivaikkal Primary Health Center was hit multiple times over a two-day period with six killed and many injured including one medical staffer. On the 29th and the 30th the Mullivaikal Hospital was again hit multiple times with nine more killed and fifteen injured. There were two attacks against the Mullivaikal Hospital on 2 May, one at 9 a.m. and a second at 10.30 a.m. resulting in sixty-eight killed and eighty-seven wounded, including medical staffers. On the morning of 12 May 2009 it was hit by an artillery mortar, killing at least forty-nine patients and injuring more than fifty others.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullivaikkal_Hospital_bombings

Cont...

Cont...

You and I both know it was nothing of the kind. This place was treating amongst its patients Tamil fighters. Some of them made fit enough to fight so the bombing of this place saved countless Sri Lankan Army lives and prevented thousands of terrorists boarding boats for Australia. Humanitarian action of the highest order. Anyway as you have said “Firing on an enemy area that contains civilians is not a crime” and especially coming from a now nominated humanitarian like yourself it should be taken as a given.

3. “Similarly the information to the commanders on a battlefield is sketchy at best” and “War is nasty and people get hurt.” - But even given all that the Sri Lankan troops were well equipped to carry out their essentially humanitarian work because according to President Rajapaksa “Our troops carried a gun in one hand and a copy of the human rights charter in the other,”

Believe me Shadow minister I'm your biggest fan here and when you get your well deserved award no one will be more pleased than I.

Dear SPQR,

I was completely oblivious to the fact that Ayatollah Khomeini and the Madrid Bombers were Sri Lankan or that Somalia was a neighbouring country. Thank you for clearing that up my friend.

Yes, I must say that it's fascinating watching the machinations as Morrison, Bishop and Abbott go for their Senior Despot Badges.

....
SteeleRedux,

"Believe me Shadow minister I'm your biggest fan here and when you get your well deserved award no one will be more pleased than I."

Bless SM's cotton socks...same here.

Better not mention the boat that did get through to Melville Island by an "unusual route" as Morrison accidentally did on AM radio, nor the 4 people who drowned on that voyage.

We should also ignore the 3 refugees who drowned crossing a river while looking for a road when their "lifeboat" landed in some inhospitable area in Indonesia.

On Manus Island "Operation Sovereign Murders" seems to be working too.
I wonder if the killers are still on the taxpayer payroll, but that's probably a secret best kept from the public (I mean smugglers).

Humanitarian Award?
I can hear the acceptance speech now - "I'm the best friend refugees ever had".

Dear SteeleRedux,

I'm beginning to understand the points that you're making
to SM. And of course you're right.
The definition of war crimes depends not on what's was
actually committed - but who's our friend or enemy at the
time in which the atrocities were committed or who we want
our friend or enemy to be at the time or in the future.
In other words - what's right or wrong has nothing
to do with it. It's what's in it for
us politically. So of course under that broad definition
what SM claims is feasible - and historically has been proven
correct.

Apparently we can close our eyes and ignore so many things -
when it's in our political interests to do so. That's the
sad reality as we watch the evening news and listen to
Mr Abbott's explanations that "In difficult times,
difficult things happen." I wonder thoug, if the victims would
accept these explanations? But then, who really cares - right?
Obviously not Mr Abbott or SM.