Refugee kiddies in Nauru make a video "Get us out of here, please, I'm begging you!"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Beanie Girl, 21st Jan, 2016.

Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
  1. Beanie Girl

    Beanie Girl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    292
    Location:
    Melbourne
    children_detention_nauru.png
    I dug around the Internet and found the original unedited video of the refugee kids in Nauru!
    Most of them are littlies and some ankle biters too.

    OPC Voice

    The kids are so super cute! The older ones are bouncing babies on their laps who are clearly not their siblings and who are a complete different ethnic group.
    There are a few kids with disturbing body language in the video, one boy has his head bowed down with his face in his hands most of the time. There is another little boy who is hugging himself tightly. There is a boy who has to wipe his tears away after speaking. The older ones seem to be the ones more obviously tramuatised than the younger ones. The younger ones/littlies seem more hopeful and trusting that Australia will do the right thing by them.
     
    Esel, BigKahuna and Xenia like this.
  2. Bayview

    Bayview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,144
    Location:
    Inside your device
    i would be happy to go there.

    At least then we might get some totally unbiased and truthful reporting of facts and not just vague allegations.

    If all these so called attacks and abuse cases turn out to be true; I'll bloody tell ya.

    More than can be said of that money wasting activist - Gillian Triggs from the moral high ground Left.

    Column - Gillian Triggs was right so should resign - Andrew Bolt
     
  3. sash

    sash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    15,604
    Location:
    Sydney
    Bayview....trouble with people like you ...plenty of people like you in Australia....they talk about things when they clearly don't understand the misery. The misery in Syria was in my view caused to a large extent by the removal of Saddam Hussein...which Australia and its allies played a role.

    History now has proven that this was a real mistake. Saddam kept...to put in perspective in the balance of Power. Now we have a serious crisis due to the spread of the crazies in Isis. This is what is stemming the refugee Crisis. Yes the Syrian govt had issues before but not to the same extent.

     
    Shoryuken, Esel, BigKahuna and 4 others like this.
  4. geoffw

    geoffw Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    15th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    11,654
    Location:
    Newcastle
    So you talk about totally unbiased reporting and then quote a journalist totally biased to the far right in support.

    Then your view of "unbiased" is somebody who supports your viewpoint. Which has been obvious for a long time by your constant whining about the ABC being lefties because they are not a cheer squad for the government. The job of the press should however be to keep the government, whoever it is, to account. When Stephen Conroy was a minister he used to complain about the bias in the ABC as well.
     
    Shoryuken, Esel, BigKahuna and 3 others like this.
  5. geoffw

    geoffw Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    15th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    11,654
    Location:
    Newcastle
    I'm not sure what Saddam Hussein had to do with Syria. Have I missed something?
     
  6. teetotal

    teetotal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    7th Nov, 2015
    Posts:
    736
    Location:
    Sydney
    Exactly my point.
     
  7. Bayview

    Bayview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,144
    Location:
    Inside your device
    Do you know he is biased as a fact?

    Do you ever watch his show? Read any of his articles?

    If you did, you would know that he gives it to both sides if the situation merits it.

    My view is not his view; I don't always agree with all he says, but he always gives the Left the right of reply; not simply shut them out and push his own views.

    Most lefties won't watch him - yet expect us conservatives to watch the ABC and believe only their view.

    It's not even close to a two way street with you lot.

    Not only aren't the ABC a cheer squad for Gubb when it is a Lib Gubb (MB being the current exception because he is more to the Left) they have never been anything else but for Julia and Billy Bob from my observation having listened to their radio station and watched their tv shows for years.

    They spent more than one week rehashing the Tony Abbot winking event, and still bring up to this day, yet I am yet to hear a smear against Billy Bob for talking on his phone while driving for a few blocks while being filmed...just one little eg.

    One more thing; AB will openly admit he is a conservative; no ABC journo or presenter ever admits they are a lefty. He will also get two points of view - one left and one right, while the left will follow a topic and interview only those who support their view of that topic with no balance and right of reply from the other side...QandA are usually a stacked deck of lefties, and the audience is handpicked., etc.

    The reason an ABC reporter or presenter never admits they are a lefty is because they believe their view is always the correct view, and everyone else is to the right of them and therefore wrong.
     
  8. Bayview

    Bayview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,144
    Location:
    Inside your device
    I understand misery; I had to sell my house last year to avoid bankruptcy...first world prob, yeah? :p

    But seriously; can we cut this westerners are at fault crap?

    Saddam was killing his own folks long before the coalition ever went there, and then he invaded Kuwait to put some icing on his cake, and set fire to all their oil wells because he didn't get his own way, and so on.

    I will admit the coalition hasn't improved things much if at all; but the place was a shoit box before hand.

    So; lemmee get this right; WE caused Isis?

    Just in case everyone has forgotten; Isis persecute other Muslims as well, they persecute other minority religions and various groups as well - all in the name of their fruit cake religion and it's boss.

    It wouldn't matter whether it was Hitler, or the Queen; those fruitloops would still be killing and driving folks out of the area, and have been doing it since - what's his name they bow to every few minutes - was a toddler war-lord.
     
    Last edited: 23rd Jan, 2016
    Handyandy likes this.
  9. Bayview

    Bayview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,144
    Location:
    Inside your device
    I thought your point was that the rich folks of Vaucluse should open up their door and help that family because they have less, and we should help those with less.

    My post was a bit of satire - a dig at those wangers who are actually upside down financially, but like to toss off and pose to the world..

    But seriously; most rich folks I've ever met are very generous....
     
  10. sash

    sash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    15,604
    Location:
    Sydney
    Saddam Hussein was a really bad guy...but kept the other extreme elements in check. ISIS would have not grown if he was not ousted. He did not particularly care for fanatics.

    Even AL-Qaeda think ISIS was to extreme.....

    The threat to the Syrian govt grew when ISIS numbers grew. But the resistance to the Syrian govt also comes from a non-ISIS aligned resistance.
     
  11. 2FAST4U

    2FAST4U Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    3rd Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    2,304
    Location:
    Democratic People's Republic of Australia
    It's a difficult situation. On the one hand everyone feels sorry for refugees, and wants to let them stay in Australia. On the other hand if you let everybody stay than you're going to be inundated with arrivals.

    In an ideal world each country would be peaceful and prosperous so we wouldn't have refugees. However, obviously the worlds not ideal. I feel sympathy for boat people. However, I also feel sympathy for the tens of millions of people living in Africa who are starving to death and living in unimaginable conditions. Could you imagine these people getting on a boat and coming to Australia? It simply doesn't happen because they don't have the means.

    Personally I've got German, English, Slovakian, and Aboriginal heritage, but none of them were refugees. My English grandfather came out to Australia as a 10 pound pom migrant and had 5 kids with my grandmother who is Aboriginal and has self-explanatory heritage. My German grandfather and his Slovakian wife (my grandmother) came out on boats as skilled migrants after WWII as my grandfather had recognised trade qualifications and was allowed to bring my grandmother over with him (he settled in Australia first and than she came over on a separate boat after the Government approved her visa).

    Australia has around 200-300k migrants come here every year, of which only about 15,000 are refugees. Personally I think Australia should have a re-look at their intake. Say we get 215k migrants. Instead of taking 200,000 skilled migrants and 15,000 refugees maybe we should take 160,000 skilled migrants and 55,000 refugees. Letting people just come by boat to Australia whenever they feel like it, is not a viable long-term solution.
     
  12. Ozzie in Texas

    Ozzie in Texas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    3rd Nov, 2015
    Posts:
    494
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Given Australia's slowing population growth, coupled with its ageing society, I'd suggest that Australia has the capacity to do more than it does.

    Does Australia take the most refugees? > Check the facts

    The UNHCR Global Trends Report 2010 shows that Australia took one refugee per 1, 000 population and ranked 69th in the world for per capita refugee intake. 2012 UNHCR figures for absolute refugee intake show that Australia took nearly 30,000 refugees and ranked 49th in the world.
     
    BigKahuna, Perp and Beanie Girl like this.
  13. 2FAST4U

    2FAST4U Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    3rd Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    2,304
    Location:
    Democratic People's Republic of Australia
    That's why I said Australia should increase it's humanitarian intake...why should boat people get preference over Africans in refugee camps!?
     
    Perp likes this.
  14. Ozzie in Texas

    Ozzie in Texas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    3rd Nov, 2015
    Posts:
    494
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Did I say the Africans were less deserving?

    However, given that Australia has essentially imprisoned a group of people on Nauru, perhaps they deserve first priority.

    Australia has an obligation to undo its mistakes and then do it's fair share per capita to prove it is a worthy global citizen.
     
    Esel, BigKahuna, RM1827 and 1 other person like this.
  15. 2FAST4U

    2FAST4U Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    3rd Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    2,304
    Location:
    Democratic People's Republic of Australia
    Those people chose to come to Australia and they didn't follow the correct channels. As a result they are in their current predicament. It's sad, but Australia can't just let everyone board a boat and welcome them to our shores because it's unsustainable. Plus it's not fair to all the other refugees in camps throughout the world who have been following the procedures waiting for a spot to become available.

    I agree with you in the fact that Australia should increase its humanitarian intake though. The current immigration system is essentially based upon who has the most money.
     
    Bayview likes this.
  16. Ozzie in Texas

    Ozzie in Texas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    3rd Nov, 2015
    Posts:
    494
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Australia's Govt activity decided, funded and placed refugees in offshore camps in Nauru. Surely, they should be its first priority.

    It didn't force Africans into refugee camps - but, that isn't to say they are less worthy. If Australia matched its quota to other developed countries, it could/should do both.
     
    Esel, BigKahuna and Beanie Girl like this.
  17. Bayview

    Bayview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,144
    Location:
    Inside your device
    We take more refugees for resettling per capita than a lot of other Countries.

    Um; Saudia Arabia for one example - and they live practically right next door to all that stuff over there..

    Don't start getting stuck into Aus Gubb for how many folks we take, how much aid we give and so on; we have a given aid forever, we have accepted folks forever, we still are.

    Wr have one of the most diverse range of cultures, religions and races in our Country than many, many others....China and Japan for example?

    We stopped the boats for a few reasons;
    1. PEOPLE WERE DROWING ON THE WAY HERE IN THEIR THOUSANDS....THAT'S THOUSANDS.
    2. It costs an enormous amount of money to manage the constant flow of boats people landing on our shores, and there has to be some sort of limit as to how many...I asked Geoff some months ago what he thought might be a fair and reasonable amount - I got no answer on it.
    4. There was no discouragement to the people smugglers; while boats were allowed to land, the volume was increasing (under Labor). HENCE THE DROWNINGS.
    What is a fair and reasonable amount; given the cost to house, to process, to settle in, to then have to feed them and house them from welfare payments (apparently a decent number are still on welfare some 5 years after resettling).

    It is simply not economically viable to continue roll out the welcome mat in any Country if their economy cannot absorb it at the expense of everyone else; we already have our public whining and moaning about how tough life is, can't get a job, youth unemployment too high, no mining jobs, 457 Visa workers taking what's left, 5 PM's in 5 years because they are hopeless and can't balance the books, cuts to education and health, and all this.

    But no worries; just allow everyone.

    Sorry; but the world is a tough place and we are trying to help, but there are limits.

    The handwringer response to this is always "Oh; but now they just go elsewhere to drown; you've kicked the problem up the road"

    Really? Have we got the proof?

    Where are they travelling to - from Indonesia - that will accept them when they land?

    I put it to all of you that once the refugees who were going to jump on the boats found out they would not get accepted on our shores; they stopped getting on those dangerous boats - these boats deaths are still happening around the world in other Countries nearer to the action where refugees are trying to leave from.

    That crazy Sarah Hanson Young was filmed a few months ago, clapping as yet another boat load left the shores of some Country for another safer Country...it later capsized and/or sunk and many drowned. Good one Sarah...this is yer handwringer lefty mentality.

    Don't worry about the possibility that they have a terrific chance of not making it to the other side...keep 'em comin'.

    So; are the boat people now in limbo somewhere? I heard right here only a day or so ago that they are.

    What does "in limbo" mean? Where are they in limbo at? What are the conditions where they are?

    Their lives were in limbo long before they ever got to here - I put it to you that it started when they decided they were now going to leave and seek refugee status elsewhere.
     
    Last edited: 24th Jan, 2016
  18. teetotal

    teetotal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    7th Nov, 2015
    Posts:
    736
    Location:
    Sydney
    I was comparing vaucluse to Australia and merrylands to a war torn country.
    And i was seeking answer from everyone except you. I was wondering how many of them would choose option-1 in reality as they have been arguing here.
    But to my surprise none of them have replied.
     
    Handyandy likes this.
  19. Bayview

    Bayview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,144
    Location:
    Inside your device
    Surely you weren't expecting anyone to answer that question seriously; it's a mythical hypothetical that won't happen.

    But I'll tell ya what does happen; folks from Vaucluse and other upper- level income etc areas give a shoitload of their time and money to help the less fortunate - they mostly don't advertise it.

    That crowd from Merrylands - they can move to another area whenever they like.

    My SIL lived in "The Pines" for about 8 years - do some research on that area.

    Lived by herself, paying her mortgage.. did it a bit tough in a very sjkanky neighborhood...eventually; subdivided the block, sold the house up front and moved to Bali, and has built 4 more places there since. We are now in partnership with her and her husband in the 5th one - a holiday apartment complex of 5 units...opening about May this year.

    So; we can all leave a dodgy area and go somewhere better eventually.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: 24th Jan, 2016
  20. teetotal

    teetotal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    7th Nov, 2015
    Posts:
    736
    Location:
    Sydney
    It was a serious question comparing an individual's life with the country's situation.
    I wanted to understand if they would do the same in their current personal life what they expect this country to do.
    Lets rephrase the question and make it simple - Would someone let a homeless live in their house ? Feed them, dont expect any rent for 5 years. Let them do whatever they want to do to your home ?
    Has anyone done this already ? ?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: 24th Jan, 2016

Price Accounting provide tax services and advice to developers on issues incl GST, Tax + Structure. Our free developer toolkit covers many of the key elements and is critical to a new development tax plan. Email for your copy and our new client pack.