.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
simple1
-
Posts
17,896 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by simple1
-
-
Should Rudd call the election for august? Or should he wait.
He should call it ASAP. He needs to go to the people as an unelected PM. However, I guess he wants to enjoy being PM as long as possible, so will probably put it off as LONG as possible. If the Oz public can't see through him, they deserve to have Labour for another 3 years, along with many many thousands of illegal immigrants off the boats.
Sorry, but those arriving by boat are processed as asylum seekers or refugees; not illegal immigrants. If they are assessed as economic refugees they are eventually returned to their home country. For facts, as opposed to urban myths, go to following URL:
simple1 ... I like a lot of the stuff you write.
But, anyone who can spend between $5,000 - $10,000 on a spot in a people smugglers boat and then rip up their identification documents before the Australian Navy/Customs pick them up because their boat is sinking ... because they have pulled the bungs out of the holes drilled into the hull ... sorry ... no.
To be honest, to read the document above written by the refugee council holds no weight at all.
They have travelled through a number of countries before reaching Australia who would offer them asylum.
The other countries are transit countries ... Australia is a destination.
But we do digress form the OP ...
.
David, paying thousands of dollars to people smugglers. The money is usually accumulated after selling all or most of their assets or borrowed from loan sharks. If from loan sharks a family member/s stay in the home country as security for eventual repayment.
I know that it commonly happens that people destroy their ID & to you and me appears to be illogical, but the bottom line is that it delays assessment of people’s status & can lead to many years in detention and eventual return to their home country. A few examples of the reasons are:
"ASYLUM-SEEKERS have described how people-smugglers falsely warn them that Australian authorities will send anyone with passports back to their country, prompting them to tear up their own documents on the boat from Indonesia. And Afghan Hazaras said yesterday they usually did not have passports, birth certificates or other identity documents in the first place, so Indonesian people-smugglers gave them fakes to enter on, which they retrieved for the next batch of asylum-seekers"
As I said those arriving by boat or air who are assessed as actually being economic refugees or if you prefer "illegal migrants" are usually returned overseas. The vast majority of "illegal migrants" are actually legally defined as over stayers/illegal workers who arrive by air.
My Thai wife worked as a part time housekeeper for a judge on the Refugee Review Tribunal for a number of years, I can assure you she wasn't a naive sympathiser for asylum seekers/refugees. I suggest to you your dismissal of the analysis by the Tribunal is an error of judgement.
-
1
-
-
Should Rudd call the election for august? Or should he wait.
He should call it ASAP. He needs to go to the people as an unelected PM. However, I guess he wants to enjoy being PM as long as possible, so will probably put it off as LONG as possible. If the Oz public can't see through him, they deserve to have Labour for another 3 years, along with many many thousands of illegal immigrants off the boats.
Sorry, but those arriving by boat are processed as asylum seekers or refugees; not illegal immigrants. If they are assessed as economic refugees they are eventually returned to their home country. For facts, as opposed to urban myths, go to following URL:
-
One consequence of Snowden's actions: Tighter internet controls in Russia:
MOSCOW Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, fled the United States saying he did not want to live in a surveillance state.
But now the Russians are using his very presence here on Friday Mr. Snowden said he intended to remain in Russia for some time while seeking asylum elsewhere to push for tighter controls over the Internet.
Two members of Russias Parliament have cited Mr. Snowdens leaks about N.S.A. spying as arguments to compel global Internet companies like Google and Microsoft to comply more closely with Russian rules on personal data storage.
I wonder what the Russian rules on personal data storage are?!
Anybody know...or want to make a wild guess?
Summary in English at: http://uk.practicallaw.com/2-502-2227
-
1
-
-
G'day. Seems like there is lots of good advice here, stand fast the 'narks'. I don't know anyone who has been busted here, (not farangs anyway). I agree, and without revealing my sources, I do have it on very good authority that the sooner you 'nip it in the bud' (pardon the pun) the better it is for you. Meaning that you should come to an 'understanding' and an 'agreement' as quickly as possible, before the formal paperwork goes up the line,
I was here during the R&R Days too. Things have changed a bit since then.
As for the broader issue - This caused a bit of controversy in Australia just last week.
Good luck, I hope everything turns out for you.
Expert calls for marijuana to be legalised to reduce harm of binge drinking in teens
Aleks Devic
Herald Sun - Melbourne Australia
July 10, 2013 12:01AM
THE head of Australia's leading alcohol research body has called for marijuana to be legalised to reduce the harm of drinking.
Robin Room, director of the Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, says marijuana should be legalised under strict controls because the social harm associated with it was significantly less than from drinking.
"It makes sense to legalise marijuana in a controlled market," he told the Herald Sun yesterday. "We are in a situation where we need to look ahead. I think we need to have the discussion and it makes a lot of sense in terms of, among others, cutting down government costs to have a fairly highly controlled legal (cannabis) market and, while we are at it, tighten up the legal market of alcohol in the same way we tightened up the market of tobacco."
Prof Room, a leading academic at Melbourne University, is funded by the Department of Human Services.
In an ideal world, Prof Room said teens would not smoke marijuana or drink alcohol to excess.
But if an 18-year-old was going to use substances, he said they would likely land themselves in less trouble after using cannabis rather than bingeing on alcohol.
Teens were "better off" on a mixture of booze and marijuana rather than just pure alcohol in social settings, he added. Alcohol was more dangerous than cannabis because it had a closer association with aggression and violence, loss of co-ordination and impacts on work and family life, he said.
"Cannabis is not without harm but it's substantially less than alcohol and tobacco in terms of social harm," he said.
"If you are adding the cannabis to an equal amount of alcohol, then in some ways you'd be probably less likely to be aggressive but it's a bad idea to add it on if you want to drive a car."
Prof Room said if marijuana were legalised, among the measures to control the use should be "state sellers" and "state stores" where sales were regulated. It should not be sold in supermarkets nor advertised on TV or at sporting matches.
While Prof Room acknowledged many people would be "surprised" and even "bothered" by his stance, the statistics backed him up.
The controversial proposal comes as Melbourne continues to battle booze-fuelled violence, and alcohol-related hospital admissions soar for men and women.
The professor is a fool, why propose something that be severely resisted by the politicians. A more viable and reasonable approach for him would have been to call for de-criminalisation (very diffferent to legalising) in all states and territories.
-
Yep, per week. Mine is $4,400 per month.
Putting aside middleclass welfare payments, that would be more than the average net income for most Australians
-
Why is it good not to provide for a trial in a criminal court? If convicted they can receive up to life in prison or a death sentence. As they are holding them surely the US military and other agencies must have sufficient evidence other than just suspicion. Any evidence that could compromise US national security procedures can be held in closed court. I don't understand this aspect of US policy, appears to be spiteful and contary to the ideals which the USA proclaims it is so proud.
You expect the US to extend to terrorists the rights of their own citizens? Would it not be fairer to give them the rights terrorists give to their captives?
I understand your sentiments, but as already said I concur with the statement made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights , "severely undermines the United States’ stance [as] an upholder of human rights, and weakens its position when addressing human rights violations elsewhere".
Interestingly I recently noticed the UK has similar view and implementation to the US regards indefinite detention (alleged foreign nationality terrorists only), the legal position "a state of emergency threatening the life of the nation"
-
Things just got a little more complicated.
Pakistan Taliban set up camps in Syria, join anti-Assad war
This cannot end well.
I've said many times that the extremists groups being sheltered in Pakistan are a major threat that has not been addressed.
From a Reuters report
"Ahmed Rashid, a prominent Pakistani author and expert on the Taliban, said sending Taliban fighters to Syria was likely to be appreciated as an act of loyalty towards their al Qaeda allies. “The Pakistani Taliban have remained a sort surrogate of al Qaeda. We’ve got all these foreigners up there in FATA who are being looked after or trained by the Pakistani Taliban,” said Rashid, who is based in Lahore."
Be interesting to know if this has been going on for a long time or in response to Iran and Hezbollah sending combatants to support the Shiite dictatorship in Syria.
And, as you know, the greater danger is that such groups are sheltered in Pakistan - by that I mean not only the groups themselves are a danger but (as I've been saying for about 15 years - in part because I've been listening to Rashid and others) the fact that the situation is such that they can find shelter there is equally worrying if not more so.
Agree. Off topic, but many analysts have the view that the extremists groups in Pakistan are being supported as an extension of the conflict between Pakistan & India in Kashmir and to counteract Indian influence with the Karzai government. Some have gone further to state that Pakistani security agencies are supporting the Taliban in case there is another war between Pakistan & India.
-
Things just got a little more complicated.
Pakistan Taliban set up camps in Syria, join anti-Assad warThis cannot end well.
I've said many times that the extremists groups being sheltered in Pakistan are a major threat that has not been addressed.
From a Reuters report
"Ahmed Rashid, a prominent Pakistani author and expert on the Taliban, said sending Taliban fighters to Syria was likely to be appreciated as an act of loyalty towards their al Qaeda allies. “The Pakistani Taliban have remained a sort surrogate of al Qaeda. We’ve got all these foreigners up there in FATA who are being looked after or trained by the Pakistani Taliban,” said Rashid, who is based in Lahore."
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/14/us-pakistan-syria-taliban-idUSBRE96D02V20130714
Be interesting to know if this has been going on for a long time or in response to Iran and Hezbollah sending combatants to support the Shiite dictatorship in Syria.
-
1
-
-
Agreed, Australia is an extremely overrated, boring, cultureless, and excessively expensive wasteland that is overflowing with brainwashed materialistic consumers and dole bludging wastes of space, that feel they are entitled to live off the tax dollars of others and do nothing for it. The government is a lacky to the U.S and Australia is turning into another Neo Liberal wonderland sponsored by the 'survival of the fittest' mentality and good ole 'trickle down effect' brought to you by consecutive U.S governments no matter where they sit on the political spectrum.
After living in Thailand for near to a decade I returned to Oz with my family to study for 3 years. Every day, every single day thought about coming back here. Its given me real perspective, something that I really needed, as do some others. Inspite of its many flaws I would rather live here any day. Here are a couple of 'Nanny State' beauties for you:
1)My friend was approached by the council because he and his workmates had organized a weekly 'friendly' football match between his workplace and another. Apparently it had been deemed necessary for them to look into getting some kind of licence as...god forbid someone may get hurt!!!!! A nice little fee would need to be paid of course.
2) My son was attending daycare and it seemed to me they weren't realy doing too much in the way of learning. Ok, I know that daycare isn't school but a little basic teaching cant hurt. I approached the owner of the daycare centre and asked her why I hadn't seen ANY abcs getting taught. Her answer......."we aren't teachers, we're no qualified to teach like that"...I mean..come on....what? are they going to somehow get it wrong?
3) I remember when I was a kid living in England in the late seventies, early eighties that there would often be street parties. One I remember vividly is the queens coronation thingy. Now, one thing that struck me when I arrived back again was the complete absence of streetlife in any way shape or form. I later learnt that you are basically NOT ALLOWED to have a street party any more, even if you live on a quiet street with no traffic...again, some kind of licence has to be bought, an OH & S investigation must be done...rah rah bloody rah.
People have had the life kicked out of them in that country. It felt like a prison to me living there. Its got some really nice beaches etc and for a holiday its probably ok but living there? Sorry I cant afford to pay 800 + dollars a week rent just so I can live in a city that actually has a little culture and life. I would be forced to live in the endless banal suburbs that are spreading like a cancer all over that country....Dave and the kids, barbies with the footy on Shatdee noit, a trip down to the local RSL for happy hour, talking to others about climbing the property ladder, negative gearing.....AAARRGHHH...
NEVER AGAIN!
You know why insurance requirements are in-place for public amenities? Some of those tough Aussies sue Councils for compensation. e.g. from an injury on a public playing field.
In the case of street parties, police presence is sometimes required due to alcohol fuelled violence. therefore review of arrangements etc
Sounds like the day care person was advising you that they did not have certified staff for teaching kindergarden aged children. If they provided education services by unqualified staff, guarantee they would be exposed to claims by some parents.
Many so called Nanny State rules have been generated by the lack of responsibility/behaviour/blame culture by some Australians..
-
OP: Suggest you first research Visa/Work permit requirements for Singaporean nationals to establish a small buiness in Thailand and legal ownership of a house. Could be wrong, but I understand AEC planned for 2015, does not include small business ownership for ASEAN nationals.
-
The Military is subject to both Military and Civil law, and are certainly not above the law of the land.
Thats a nice general statement.
My question was more on jurisdiction.
Guantanamo is a US military base on foreign land, and we are holding foreign captives.
Guantanamo was chosen for that reason.
So how much jurisdiction does any US judge over a military base on foreign land with non US citizens?
I guess this link provides enough proof about their jurisdiction
You gave me an article from "the voice of russia" as proof?
Whether you like it or not this topic is based on the Voice of Russia article and is a media source for TV news content upon which many TV OP's are based. Voice of Russia is the Russian government's international broadcasting service via the internet & radio. An article on the creditability of Voice of Russia from the Uni of Southern California at:
EDIT: Ooops looks like I was wrong in this specific instance and was based upon a Reuters report as the source
-
another way to look at it... has anyone in Thailand ever been arrested for trying to bribe an officer of the law (or the court) ?
I dont think so. Therefore, I think this is the best first move. And best done with a Thai friend or lawyer to act as intermediary.
You would be wrong, many have been arrested and convicted
wow. I had no idea.
-
I wonder how, if true, he manages to "live" in the US?
And yes, the US has long had an extradition treaty with Thailand. Link
Probably with a US R1 religious visa, he has visited the US on a number of occasions. Allegedly has US bank accounts and a house. Even though Thai authorities have frozen some of his accounts, it's been alleged he also has 9,000 kilos of gold, donated by his followers. Some Thai monks receive enormous amounts of cash and "gifts" in donations. Not allowed to provide BKK Post URL, so have a look at
http://news.dbv.vn/life-sumptuous-thai-monk-accused-of-embezzling-9-tons-of-gold-142837.html
-
Guantanamo is under military jurisdiction I thought.
So does a US judge have any jurisdiction over Guantanamo?
The Military is subject to both Military and Civil law, and are certainly not above the law of the land.
A quote from the original article; “A Pentagon spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel Todd Breasseale, said the military is reviewing the decision, we will of course continue to follow the law” My interpretation is it looks like it is not compulsory for the military to immediately comply with the ruling and may appeal the decision.
-
@neversure: Of the remaining 166 detainees, only nine have been charged with or convicted of crimes. Many of the remaining prisoners have been defined as "indefinite detainees", in other words potentially life in prison without charge. Indefinite detention without charge is a breach of international laws.
I believe Congress has refused to fund trials on US soil and the building of a prison on US soil for the remaining Gitmo detainees. In practice would US elections would change anything?
First, I try to leave links when I make claims. I don't accept your statement about breach of international laws until you prove it. This has been litigated and has been before international scrutiny and nowhere have I seen that retaining illegal enemy combatants without trial is illegal. "Without charge" is incorrect. They are charged with being illegal enemy combatants, which they are.
Obama ran for president on a platform that included a promise to close Gitmo. He was one of its biggest critics. But when he became the boss and had to figure out what to do with them himself, he backpedaled. It's still open.
There have been suggestions that the prisoners be moved to US soil, always shot down. They gain rights on US soil. Besides, under states rights, the US government couldn't force any state to take them and believe me, no one wants them.
So no, elections shouldn't change anything. The Obama election would have if it could be done.
Also please take note that most of the prisoners brought to Gitmo have been released. Link
On Friday 5 April, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, declared “we must be clear about this: the United States is in clear breach not just of its own commitments but also of international laws and standards that it is obliged to uphold." Pillay further remarked that the Guantanamo regime “severely undermines the United States’ stance [as] an upholder of human rights, and weakens its position when addressing human rights violations elsewhere.”
http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/1050/
For me the unlawful combatant ruling was a legal construct used by the US for domestic political purposes. Not a 100% sure, but do not believe any other nation has used this tool as a means for indefinite detention. Do agree with the last sentence in the above.
We can debate this endlessly without reaching an agreeable conclusion, so let's end it
Oh yes, That woman from South Africa who is also doing battle with Canada over its treatment of students. That same woman who was nominated by Nelson Mandela.
NOW please quote me the law she is referring to????
Great that you dismiss the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights who would have many legal experts on international law to guide UN policy statements.
To answer your question I understand indefinite detention, without trial, is in contravention of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights., which the US ratified in 1992. Reviewed in depth at:
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_857_zayas.pdf
-
@neversure: Of the remaining 166 detainees, only nine have been charged with or convicted of crimes. Many of the remaining prisoners have been defined as "indefinite detainees", in other words potentially life in prison without charge. Indefinite detention without charge is a breach of international laws.
I believe Congress has refused to fund trials on US soil and the building of a prison on US soil for the remaining Gitmo detainees. In practice would US elections would change anything?
First, I try to leave links when I make claims. I don't accept your statement about breach of international laws until you prove it. This has been litigated and has been before international scrutiny and nowhere have I seen that retaining illegal enemy combatants without trial is illegal. "Without charge" is incorrect. They are charged with being illegal enemy combatants, which they are.
Obama ran for president on a platform that included a promise to close Gitmo. He was one of its biggest critics. But when he became the boss and had to figure out what to do with them himself, he backpedaled. It's still open.
There have been suggestions that the prisoners be moved to US soil, always shot down. They gain rights on US soil. Besides, under states rights, the US government couldn't force any state to take them and believe me, no one wants them.
So no, elections shouldn't change anything. The Obama election would have if it could be done.
Also please take note that most of the prisoners brought to Gitmo have been released. Link
On Friday 5 April, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, declared “we must be clear about this: the United States is in clear breach not just of its own commitments but also of international laws and standards that it is obliged to uphold." Pillay further remarked that the Guantanamo regime “severely undermines the United States’ stance [as] an upholder of human rights, and weakens its position when addressing human rights violations elsewhere.”
http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/1050/
For me the unlawful combatant ruling was a legal construct used by the US for domestic political purposes. Not a 100% sure, but do not believe any other nation has used this tool as a means for indefinite detention. Do agree with the last sentence in the above.
We can debate this endlessly without reaching an agreeable conclusion, so let's end it
-
2
-
-
Article in The Economist reviewing Rudd and asylum seeker policy. Julia Bishop is of the opinion that “Australia is within its rights to turn the boats back in our waters, in international waters, where it’s safe to do so.”
http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/07/australia-and-asylum-seekers
-
@neversure: Of the remaining 166 detainees, only nine have been charged with or convicted of crimes. Many of the remaining prisoners have been defined as "indefinite detainees", in other words potentially life in prison without charge. Indefinite detention without charge is a breach of international laws.
I believe Congress has refused to fund trials on US soil and the building of a prison on US soil for the remaining Gitmo detainees. In practice would US elections would change anything?
-
1
-
-
Did they piss test you as well? if positive then youll do 45 days in a thai jail called rehab here .If you havent then count your self lucky and get the hell out of there.I had a friend under the same circumstance as yourself .He went to court if you plead innocent then youll get a full term as judges dont like time wasters for possesion .plead guilty pay ur fine or do ur time which he did it klong prem remand jail ,he got the mandatory 45days for drug addicts even if its weed .If you do go in then pay ur bail which you cannot post yourself and then proceed to be tested for the next 6 months at probation office near where your located .Hope this helps.
Testing positive does not equate to compulsory 45 days in rehab. Al least not if you are Thai and know the "system". Thais will negotiate a fee with RTB to write up a report for the police prosecutor, who will then recommend a fine only to the judge. Seen it happen, including those for whom it's a second office, the fee and fine is more onerous as is the lawyers fee.
-
What i dont undersand is, how comes the USA have sanctions against Cuba and then put a millitery base in there country? thats like a giant stap in face with a rotton sea bass.
First, the US has had a naval (military) base in Cuba for more than 100 years via a lease of the land for which the US pays Cuba. The lease was renewed in the 1930's. It is in Guantanamo Bay. So this detention center is actually on a US military base called Guantanamo Bay.
Second, the prisoners held there are prisoners of war who don't get the rights of a US citizen on US soil.
In fact it's important that they not be brought onto US soil where they would gain rights they don't have now. As long as they are prisoners of war on foreign soil, they are under military command and rules and no country owes a prisoner of war a speedy trial or any trial.
Why is it good not to provide for a trial in a criminal court? If convicted they can receive up to life in prison or a death sentence. As they are holding them surely the US military and other agencies must have sufficient evidence other than just suspicion. Any evidence that comprises US national security procedures can be held in closed court. I don't understand this aspect of US policy, appears to be spiteful and contary to the ideals which the USA proclaims it is so proud.
Criminal courts are on US soil. Military courts for prisoners of war are on military bases on foreign soil. If you're going to have a trial, you want it on foreign soil.
If you brought one of those people to US soil and tried him in criminal court, the Muslims would riot all around the courthouse. There might be acts of terrorism or deaths at the hands of the police protecting people. It would be a mess and a circus. It would get completely out of control.
Those bastards are prisoners of war and don't deserve the rights or the attention, or the opportunity to disrupt life any further in the US. Under international law, they are getting exactly what they deserve.
When have Muslims in the US rioted when alledged terrorists have attended trial in US courts? As you say the regulators have come up with the term "unlawful combatants". This is covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention that states such prisoners must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial"
-
What i dont undersand is, how comes the USA have sanctions against Cuba and then put a millitery base in there country? thats like a giant stap in face with a rotton sea bass.
If a USA citizen was put in jail without trial for 12 years the yanks would be all over it.
First, the US has had a naval (military) base in Cuba for more than 100 years via a lease of the land for which the US pays Cuba. The lease was renewed in the 1930's. It is in Guantanamo Bay. So this detention center is actually on a US military base called Guantanamo Bay.
Second, the prisoners held there are prisoners of war who don't get the rights of a US citizen on US soil.
In fact it's important that they not be brought onto US soil where they would gain rights they don't have now. As long as they are prisoners of war on foreign soil, they are under military command and rules and no country owes a prisoner of war a speedy trial or any trial.
Why is it good not to provide for a trial in a criminal court? If convicted they can receive up to life in prison or a death sentence. As they are holding them surely the US military and other agencies must have sufficient evidence other than just suspicion. Any evidence that could compromise US national security procedures can be held in closed court. I don't understand this aspect of US policy, appears to be spiteful and contary to the ideals which the USA proclaims it is so proud.
-
2
-
-
I'm just waiting for my statute of limitations to expire back home.
Some people are buggered, as their home country does not have statute of limitations. Maybe why so many UK & Oz citizens here
-
"I don't wanna defend Islam or any other religion or government. I just wanna say that the situation is not as bad as you think in religious countries and with religious people! Fundamentalism, extremism and terrorism are totally different things, almost a standalone religion by itself! "
Well I'd have to see for myself, but I have friends in Malaysia who aren't Muslim but tell everyone they're Muslim just to avoid the problems that would come from being seen as a non-believer. I myself had a large collection of Buddha amulets and so forth stolen by a fanatical Muslim there. That of course comes straight out of the Qur'an. I do have a hard time believing you don't face any sort of persecution in Iran, but I do realize that the people there are relatively liberal. In an Arab country such as Egypt it would be a different story. Also there are plenty of examples of people fleeing from persecution from the Arab countries/Iran/Pakistan/ Bangladesh, for the simple "crime" of being atheist or skeptic. The whole religion is a stain on humanity.
simple1: "From memory nearly 6 million refugees and around 1.5 million are still refugees, but no, no that isn't why Afghani society was radicalised, get real..."
Note that the Taliban and their related scum are supported by some mountain tribes such as Pashtun, but the Afghan people are terrorized by them and do not support them. Hence why they are in fear of what's going to come to the country after the US/NATO leaves next year. Pakistan is also full of radicals and terrorist supporters but didn't face the same sort of "victimization" as you claim caused Afghanistan to sink into radicalism. The whole idea that Islamic radicalism is the result of oppression from outside forces is overly simplistic and therefore inaccurate, and also gives the idea that these sorts of scum deserve sympathy rather than death.
Taliban are mainly Pashtun and comprised of various tribes and second largest ethnic group in Pakistan e.g. Pakistani Taliban. Agree with your comment that many in Afghanistan are fearful of the ISAF departure, especially non Pastun ethnic groups who were previously terrorised by the Taliban, including ethnic cleansing.
Never said Islamic radicalism is the result of oppression from outside forces, but would be a contributory factor
-
I already paid 20000 baht and they told me I need to go and see the court every 12day for nearly 2 months and then they will deport me.... Is thru ,,, am I going to have to pay more in fine. And if I get deported, how long will that be. And who decide that?
On top of the 15,000 for bail?, what was the extra 20k for?
Australia - New PM?
in World News
Posted
Sure accept people have different opinions, thankfully in this topic we are not subjected to abuse from those who disagree.
BTW if you are interested click through on the URL below that talks to actual decisions on cases that were subject to formal review. Lot more informative than some rubbish that is posted on TV regards migrants & refugees
http://www.mrt-rrt.gov.au/Decisions.aspx