The Children Overboard issue develops

[^ Pando]

The crew through their officers ultimately report to the Commander. The Commander is in the best position to assess the situation, yes or no?

Hell no. If you knew anything about how the Military works, you'd know that officers don't know shit.

I asked if you agree with Cmdr Banks that no children were thrown overboard. Yes or no?

No I don't.

Ah, well... you're new here. So I'll let that one slide. I withdrew my comment regarding the boat's seaworthiness because I wasn't there.

No you weren't. Nor was I. I'm not the one bitching about something I wasn't there to see.

They were rescued. Cmdr Banks said they were not thrown into the water.
I have already provided the proof.

Rescued from the water or the boat?

Do you agree with Cmdr Banks or not?

No.

 

[Anonymous]

I never said the Naval vessel sat next to it all day and did nothing. Time for you to make a retraction.
LOL. Needless to say, neither of us were there.

I'm guessing the boat wasn't particularly seaworthy and I understand that the Adelaide was there for a day before it started to sink.

I'll get to your other points Willow. Don't paint me as a liar.

Show me where I called you a liar.
You said:

show me that an Australian Naval vessel intercepted this boat and sat next to it for an entire day, and did nothing until it started to sink.

I'm telling you I never suggested they did nothing.

I rely on the CDF report which quite clearly states that the Adelaide arrived on the scene on October 7th and that the boat started to sink on October 8th. This is all in the report (the one you haven't read).

I never said the Adelaide sat next to it all day and "did nothing".

 

[^ Pando]

Show me where I called you a liar.
You said:

show me that an Australian Naval vessel intercepted this boat and sat next to it for an entire day, and did nothing until it started to sink.

I'm telling you I never suggested they did nothing.

I rely on the CDF report which quite clearly states that the Adelaide arrived on the scene on October 7th and that the boat started to sink on October 8th. This is all in the report (the one you haven't read).

I never said the Adelaide sat next to it all day and "did nothing".

When would like to get to my other points? :lol:

The report from the Army bloke who also wasn't there?

What the hell did Adelaide do for a day then?

Did they send a boarding party? Were they too scared? These boats are a dime a dozen. There is no reason for a missile frigate to sit off a "refugee" boat for a day and do nothing.
What, according to your precious report did the Australian tax payer pay for, for one day in the life of the HMAS Adelaide?

 

[ibeme]

The report from the Army bloke who also wasn't there?

As opposed to John Howard? Who do you think would have the more accurate information? I'm tipping the guy on the boat.

 

[Anonymous]

The crew through their officers ultimately report to the Commander. The Commander is in the best position to assess the situation, yes or no?

Hell no. If you knew anything about how the Military works, you'd know that officers don't know sh*t.

I asked if you agree with Cmdr Banks that no children were thrown overboard. Yes or no?

No I don't.

Ok ... this appears to be the crux of your argument.
You seem to be saying that officers can't be trusted and in reality, it's the people on the ground (or this case, in the rafts) who are the best witnesses.

So what do you think of this: :?:

From: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200408/s1179280.htm

In part:

An Australian Navy gunner aboard HMAS Adelaide has broken her silence on what she saw the night asylum seekers allegedly threw children overboard from a boat in Australian waters.

Laura Whittle, 22, helped rescue refugees from the water...

...at no stage during the rescue of about 250 refugees did she see any children being thrown from a sinking vessel, known as SIEV IV.
...
HMAS Adelaide spotted a rickety boat carrying about 250 refugees heading to Christmas Island.

About 3:00am, Ms Whittle says five or six men jumped into the water, where they were picked up by an inflatable Navy boat.
...

"Laura said that she didn't see anybody throw any children overboard," Ms Bingham said.

"All she saw was people trying desperately to save themselves and their families and to get to a point of safety, that's all she saw.

"She saw desperation, terror, sadness, fear, but at no stage was anybody throwing anyone overboard."

 

[^ Pando]

The report from the Army bloke who also wasn't there?

As opposed to John Howard? Who do you think would have the more accurate information? I'm tipping the guy on the boat.

As opposed to Howard? He had the information long before Cosgrove.

Cosgrove was brought in to make a report AFTER the fact.

 

[^ Pando]

Willow.
I have a couple of problems with your last post, but one thing at a time.

Adults were jumping into the water in a panic, but they were also trying to save their children in the same panic.

Did these adults attempt to save their children by jumping off a sinking boat, and leaving the children on board?

The other problem I have with your paste is that as far as I know, women still aren't allowed in combat jobs in the Australian Military.

It's a dead set fact as far as the Army and Airforce goes. I'll see what I can find out about female "Australian Navy Gunners".

 

[ibeme]

The report from the Army bloke who also wasn't there?

As opposed to John Howard? Who do you think would have the more accurate information? I'm tipping the guy on the boat.

As opposed to Howard? He had the information long before Cosgrove.

Cosgrove was brought in to make a report AFTER the fact.

And Howard conceded he was wrong.

 

[ibeme]

Did these adults attempt to save their children by jumping off a sinking boat, or did they leave them on board?

You're assuming that all adults on board had children?

 

[^ Pando]

And Howard conceded he was wrong.

Yes he did. Problem?

 

[^ Pando]

You're assuming that all adults on board had children?

Not assuming a damn thing.

Sorry, not completely true. I have strong suspicions that the boat was scuttled in front of a Navy frigate so that it wouldn't be sent back.

Who was captaining this boat? Gilligan? People smugglers. So easily forgotten by you people.

 

[ibeme]

I'm lost.

A gunner has said no children were thrown overboard

The commander said no children were thrown overboard

Cosgrove has said no children were thrown overboard

Howard has said no children were thrown overboard

The only ones who seem to be disputing it are Howard supporters

The bone of contention that started this thread was whether or not Howard knew prior to the last federal election.

Two ministry advisors have claimed that he did. One of thwm claims to have informed him himself and has taken a lie detector test and passed incidently. An enquiry has been called, because these two advisors are now ex-advisors, and can therefore give evidence at the enquiry. There are also calls to take the gag off all ministry advisors so they too can speak at the enquiry. So far, these requests have gone unanswered.

 

[Anonymous]

Willow.
I have a couple of problems with your last post, but one thing at a time.

Pando,
I'm not surprised that you have problems with my last post.

Adults were jumping into the water in a panic, but they were also trying to save their children in the same panic.

I accept that it's quite possible there was panic situation happening. I also believe that most parents would try to save their own children first. It's natural.

Did these adults attempt to save their children by jumping off a sinking boat, or did they leave them on board?

I don't know. I would suggest that not everyone on the boat were parents.

The other problem I have with your paste is that as far as I know, women still aren't allowed in combat jobs in the Australian Military.

It's a dead set fact as far as the Army and Airforce goes. I'll see what I can find out about female "Australian Navy Gunners".

I don't believe this was a 'combat situation'.

Women have been involved in the navy for a long time and have a proud tradition and...
since 1984 when women were fully integrated into the Royal Australian Navy. Women are now serving in almost every area of day to day naval operations at sea on front-line warships and also ashore. source

 

[^ Pando]

Big difference between a combat situation and a combat job, Willow. I put it to you that the Navy doesn't have any female gunners. Prove me wrong and I'll gladly concede.
Things have most certainly changed since I was in.

 

[Anonymous]

For some reason, I knew you'd pick up on the difference between 'situation' and 'job'. While at the same time ignoring all other points. :lol:

Are saying that the Laurel Whittle story is a fabrication?

 

[^ Pando]

I'm saying that I'm unaware of women in dedicated combat roles.
The Navy may have changed, but as far as I know there is no such thing as a female Navy gunner.

 

[^ Pando]

As for ignoring your other points, that's for you to say.

I didn't see anything new from you that hasn't already been addressed.

If you have something in particular that bothers you, feel free to repost it.

 

[Jimbo]

Any links to comments from sailors who actually went out to the "stricken" boat?

The Miranda Devine article provides that, quoting sailors which saw attempted sabotage on the boat in question before it 'mysteriously' sank.

The lefties won't accept that as a credible source though, because it's devastating for their argument...

 

[Anonymous]

Big difference between a combat situation and a combat job, Willow. I put it to you that the Navy doesn't have any female gunners. Prove me wrong and I'll gladly concede.

I'm saying that I'm unaware of women in dedicated combat roles.
The Navy may have changed, but as far as I know there is no such thing as a female Navy gunner.

Women have served at sea in the RAN since 1981. In 1990 their role expanded to include service in ships assigned for combat related duty.
http://www.navy.gov.au/general/womensubs.htm

 

[^ Pando]

Not surprising...