Grayling

That would be difficult as this 'freedom loving' right wing government, who by definition believe in freedom of speech and information, has tried to suppress all information on this matter.

You just have to take their word for it

paulry

Since when have successful governments and/or military commanders divulged tactical and operational details about active military operations?

The coalition is delivering on its election promise to stop the boats. This time your democratic vote came to nowt - your views did not prevail,

Beoz

Wait ...... You need to prove the statement us wrong in the first place before you start with school yard rhetoric.

Grayling

Prove it

.

Grayling

You prove it is right

knockoff nige

My point is why suggest something without fact. You have no proof that what you said is true as you were never delivered any facts to believe it.

If you want to naively swallow what this government tell you without question, then you show yourself to be stupid.

Beoz

Well we have a stale mate then. You are complaining that we don't know the finer details. Yep that kind of thing goes on when you don't want the enemy finding out your tactics.

I couldn't really care how it is done. The point I care about is that someone had the balls to stand up and say it will be done, and completed on their actions. Not something politicians commonly do.

.... and then we have this

"Boats wouldn't have got to Australia under the last policy change under the Rudd government as they would have been intercepted and not processed in Australia."

Really???? I'm sure and I like it

knockoff nige

Stale mate? If you want to say something without fact ten you should be held to prove it. You haven't. My comment on the last policy was to show the similarity between the two. You neglected to quote the other part of my point. I really find it incredible that anyone could try and defend this selfish ignorant government.

Beoz

You do realise you asked Paulry to "Prove it"? Not me.

Perhaps, and just perhaps, you are both making statements without proof.

Just a thought

Perhaps you should ask the landslide that voted them in. Majority rules you know.

old.sparkles

That might be a bit of a stretch - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral...ult_commentary

paulry

Sorry mate, you're knockoff nige's moving target now!


Why let that get in the way of yet another moral indignation thread?

Grayling

I think that is pretty self evident

knockoff nige

And you realise I was replying to your reply to me.

And there was a significant difference between the two points. I was perhaps guessing about what the results of Rudds policy would have achieved. But claiming no deaths at sea because of the Abbott government is just gullible. Nobody is being told of any boats being turned back, yet they are happening.

The landslide victory got them in, sure. Were all Coalition voters in favour of everything is government campaigned with or introduced since elected? It would be just as naive to say they were.

Beoz

Words such as naive and gullible are proving what? Knowing that the finer details are not being exposed are far more credible than governments who hide things unintentionally - swept under the carpet style. They have openly said, this is not going to be advertised. More to the point I'm happy to know that the advertisements branded across south east Asia that Australia is an easy illegal entry target are no longer there. Good process, good style, well done in my opinion.

knockoff nige

How can a government be properly appraised if we don't know enough about what they are doing? Telling us 'We've fixed it, trust us' is surely not enough. The words naive and gullible are quite relevant.