The Children Overboard issue develops

[_Johnsy]

Afterall he can only win more support if he is in fact telling the truth. I may even suggest he'd be handed the election on a platter.

 

[JK]

Do you have evidence that children were thrown overboard?
Do have evidence that the Siev 4 was scuttled?

Consistency is obviously not your strong point if you cant appreciate a link between SIEV 4 and the other SIEVs

Yet you cannot link this apparent lie with other apparent lies and make a connection? Or this evidence and other supporting evidence? Or the fact that time after time the required info seems to fall just short of Howards door?

I though willow was overharsh in writing off your logical thought processes but maybe he was onto something!

 

[Jimbo]

Again, for the left...

SIEV 4 sank after it was sabotaged. 76 children ended up in the middle of the ocean as a result.

'Do you deny this?'

No, and it's in another thread because it's another topic. This thread is about whether John Howard lied. That quote has nothing to do with whether he lied.

Bullsh*t. That thread proves what Prime Minister Howard said is true.

SIEV 4 sank after it was sabotaged, and 76 children ended up in the middle of the ocean as a result. Do you deny this?

 

[JK]

They showed tremendous devotion to get them to a better place.

Bravo

Yeah, Indonesia
What they did after that is the despicable part.

They left a country with no support and where children make a living searching for bit of plastic in a garbage dump.

That is despicable???

They have a right to be here and claim assylum.

If you don't like it take it up with the ghost of Menzies - the PM who had the treaty signed!

 

[JK]

these photos were of children in the sea

sort of a moot point really

Not when the entire question is if the PM misled the public on whether they were thrown overboard.

Sort of a given since he admitted, after the election, that they were not.

 

[Jimbo]

Another question for the left:

Do you think that scuttling a boat with 76 children aboard is the same as throwing them overboard? If not, why?

 

[JK]

oh yeah

life was so much better under the taliban

who will forget those public stonings and amputations

Exactly my point Miller.

Staying under taliban or during an invasion is equally bad. I am glad you care to support my argument as I was getting tired trying to get some facts into SS and others.

 

[_Johnsy]

Start another thread jimbo, this one is about wether he lied and the answers are before you eyes. Re-read the thread.

 

[JK]

Again, for the left...

SIEV 4 sank after it was sabotaged. 76 children ended up in the middle of the ocean as a result.

'Do you deny this?'

No, and it's in another thread because it's another topic. This thread is about whether John Howard lied. That quote has nothing to do with whether he lied.

Bullsh*t. That thread proves what Prime Minister Howard said is true.

SIEV 4 sank after it was sabotaged, and 76 children ended up in the middle of the ocean as a result. Do you deny this?

I deny what the PM said was true because even the PM denies this now!

But we are all comforted that he 'did not set out to mislead the australian public'

 

[JK]

I love this forum

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[_Johnsy]

He knows he has mislead/lied to the public he has stated this, and yet you still deny it.

 

[Jimbo]

But we are all comforted that he 'did not set out to mislead the australian public'

The preceeding 19 pages would suggest otherwise...

 

[Jimbo]

He knows he has mislead/lied to the public he has stated this, and yet you still deny it.

No. We deny the intent, which you have still been unable to prove.

 

[King of the Hill]

Do you think that scuttling a boat with 76 children aboard is the same as throwing them overboard? If not, why?

Personally I'd prefer to be thrown overboard than go down on a sinking boat, but I await the left's answer on this jimbo

 

[Anonymous]

There was proof. Read the other thread...

Proof about what?
Where?

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/viewtopic.php?t=35870&highlight=

A great read, that...

You believe a tabloid opinion piece by Miranda Devine with an appendix from Liberal Senator Brandis ahead of the report from the Chief of Defence Force?

Even Miranda Devine treads carefully here:
Brandis's information should be treated with caution, as it is based on reports given to the inquiry of what navy personnel thought they saw in the heat of the moment.

At best, Miranda herself is ambiguous:
The distinction between whether children were thrown overboard or dumped in the water after their boat was sabotaged has never resonated with the heartland.

I find it astounding that people will ignore or attempt to discredit the Commander of the HMAS Adelaide's version of events but swallow up what Miranda Devine writes in the Daily Telegraph.

The CDF report was the most official document you can get and it says nothing about the SIEV 4 being sabotaged.

The report also found that incorrect advice had been given that children had been thrown overboard from the SIEV 4 on October 7 and that there was no evidence for the claim.


It concludes that no children were thrown overboard

 

[JK]

But we are all comforted that he 'did not set out to mislead the australian public'

The preceeding 19 pages would suggest otherwise...

Please dowload the latest copy of 'sarcasm detector 2004' at www.iamtoothicktoread.com

 

[King of the Hill]

Side note
Miranda Devine now works for the SMH

YEAH 20TH PAGE BABYYY

 

[andrew flap]

she's IMO the worst Journo about with the exception of that vacuous Regidore woman in the tele

 

[Anonymous]

Again, for the left...

SIEV 4 sank after it was sabotaged. 76 children ended up in the middle of the ocean as a result.

'Do you deny this?'

Read this:
http://www.defence.gov.au/cdf/statement2.cfm

Yeah I know, it's not Miranda Devine's column but give it a go....

Tell where it says the SIEV 4 was sabotaged.

Tell me it's conclusions regarding children being thrown overboard.

I think you'll be disappointed.

 

[_Johnsy]

now its shifted to intent. It was a 1 month period between when he was told and he chose to run with the "misleading" statements. There is your intent.

If I am in court, I may just say I did not set out to mislead you your honour. I should be sweet, afterall I'll just get Johnnie to represent me as a defence lawyer. He is the master of misleading without any apparent intent. pffft :roll: