| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/22/2007 4:37:27 AM | But unless you want your daughters circumcised; your days at the beach forgotten; your ability to read unbiased news removed; etc etc always remember what he stood for
========================
Long Te
There was an equally diturbing programe on TV last week about MALE circumcision. | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 202 | |
| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/23/2007 3:29:46 AM | Dont watch much TV so didnt see that one
But male circumcision shouldnt affect the ability of the male to enjoy lovemaking
whereas female circumcision is designed to remove any enjoyment from the female
 | |
|
| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/23/2007 6:58:20 AM | Last Friday, the Federal Magistrate's Court in Adelaide has imposed an interim control order on convicted terrorism supporter and former Guantanamo Bay detainee, David Hicks.
Hicks must remain at specified premises that are agreed between him and the Australian Federal Police, between midnight and 6am every night. He's also required to report to the Australian Federal Police on a Monday, Wednesday and Saturday between 8am and midnight.
He's such a dangerous guy.  | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 204 | |
| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/23/2007 7:09:35 AM | It is possibly a Faux Pa to believe he is not dangerous
We know that his beliefs were dangerous
So why couldn't he also be dangerous
{I also completely agree that he should be out]
The restrictions sound like rubbish to me
..
.
| |
|
| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/23/2007 9:12:13 AM | Yeah Longte, I find it difficult to label Hicks as dangerous in any real, terrorist type sense.
It's certainly true that he hooked up with some dangerous dudes on more than one occasion.
The very fact that he did this on more than one occasion tells me he was more interested in the 'danger' than the actual cause.
Yes he converted to Islam . . . as you might expect if you plan on fighting with the Taliban. He also renounced Islam seemingly just as quickly when he figured it might do him some good in Guantanamo. This tells me something of his commitment to Islam.
What if he hadn't been sold by a local war lord (no doubt to pay for the camel rego) and was instead assigned to the front line.
How is Hicksy's story materially different to the young mid-western black American who joined the US Marines to go to Afghanistan to fight on the other side?
Would Hicksy have shot this young American from his position on the front line? Yep, I reckon he would.
Would the young American have shot Hicksy if he could get him in his sights? Yep to that too.
The real difference is that Hicksy was in the wrong place at the wrong time . . and I don't mean just his capture.
Osama bin Laden, as leader of al-Qa’ida, is labelled a terrorist. That's fair enough.
The Taliban even having provided safe haven for bin Laden isn't listed as a terrorist organisation . . . but Hicksy still IS a terrorist!
So the wash up is this?
Some Taliban local makes $500 (or what ever it was) on the handing over Hicksy. The US put him in jail for five years and we (Oz) dutifully follow on by assigning some draconian restrictions for probably the rest of his natural life.
The US and Australia wear some political flack for the very existence of Guantanamo Bay and this plays a small part in chucking out the respective governments.
The incoming governments are likely to look very hard at extracting themselves from Iraq at least.
Is it therefor, too much of a stretch to suggest that Hicksy has contributed to our retreat from Iraq and has lowered the threat of terrorism as a result?
| |
|
| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/23/2007 6:44:26 PM | | Thou speak'st aright faux pa (are you certain you're not a real pa?). A very cogent assessment of the Hicks situation in my opinion. When all of this Iraq - Afghanistan thing blows over the another menace will be returning to our shores by way of some of our own servicemen and women that will have many screws loose from the ghastly stuff they've been party to over there. After Vietnam the Rambo effect certainly took its toll in the US (and Australia in some instances) and let's not forget Timothy McVeigh, decorated gulf war veteran, patriot, terrorist. War breeds terror and the costs of war are felt for decades thereafter. | |
|
| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/23/2007 7:09:40 PM | | I know this is a slight digression but the $64 question that is seldom asked in relation to that war is who is profiting from the annual $124bn h*roin trade that originates there (i.e. 92% of the world's heroin)? That is close to the entire GDP of neighbouring Pakistan! How can this not be factored in to any analysis of the political situation there. If it is the Taliban, who are their clients, which bank(s) do they use (no more Castle Bank, N*gan Hand or BCCI) and what ever happened to the so called war on drugs? Some good background reading can be found in 'The Politics of H*roin in South East Asia' by Alfred McCoy, or even better "The Crimes of Patriots" by Jon Kwitny (a real eye opener on the secret role Australia had to play in that industry back in the '70's). | |
|
| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/23/2007 7:10:34 PM | ^^^^^I spent six weks on Diego Garcia in Gulf War No 1 whilst i was in the RAAF does that mean i have a screw loose to??
Fairdinkum thats the worst analogy to David Hicks i've seen thus far | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 209 | |
| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/23/2007 7:21:17 PM | Hi Faux Pas
The main reason I have anything against David Hicks is because he proposed and advocated, in writing, the use of lethal force, to impose his "religious/sectarian Beliefs" on others
I wouldnt care what 'religion/sectarianism he supports
Force and Religion/Beliefs cannot be a part of our modern society
No doubt someone will bring up all the times in the past when other religious/sectarian idiots have used force
Just because they used it in the past does not now; or then; make it right
Until EVERYBODY fights against this type of monstrous abuse of power; other idiots will try it to see if they can succeed
Yes he was in the wrong place at the wrong time
But that does not excuse what he stated; in writing; he wanted
Militarily I think he was an idiot
But I can only oppose anyone who would use force to promote "religion"
["religion sectarianism' etc is bracketed because no true religion can ever find an excuse for using lethal force to impose its beliefs on others]
All of the major; and most of the minor religions; have "Thou Shalt Not Kill" as one of their major tenets
..
.
| |
|
| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/23/2007 7:31:28 PM | | And if you cared to read closely my post you would have read 'some of our own' referring to those that had indeed been party to, seen the results of, or maybe in some cases, perpetrated, atrocities. My understanding of the role of the airforce, especially ground crew, is that they tend to be somewhat remote from the situation on the ground. Very different I'm sure to the experience of the grunts on the ground. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also look up the history of the relocation of the indigenous Diego Garcian's by the US govt. for that very base. | |
|
| |
| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/24/2007 2:36:32 AM | David Hicks is guilty. Yep, guilty of being a young man with an insatiable appetite for adventure and he would do anything, go anywhere even place himself in harm’s way to satisfy that thirst. He had a very immature outlook on life and that is reflected at the now end of his quest (I say had, as he is probably a very old man now). The fact that a religion played a part in his adventures is not proof beyond doubt that the religion in question is a barbaric one when it is in fact a very peaceful one.
The Bible, Torah and the Koran are merely three different interpretations of the very same scriptures written not by God, Jehovah or Allah but by primitive men well over 2000 years ago. They were written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and some Greek. Languages lost to antiquity, whose true meanings can only be guessed at by modern day linguists and even to this very day scholars argue their meanings. Remember that Christianity is an eastern religion adopted by Europeans from Western Asia and then adapted to fit into western ideals. It is not a Western religion in its own right but is the predominate religion of the West.
I don’t believe that demonising one or the other or any of the three interpretations serves any purpose other than to fog civilised debate.
Hicks got involved with Islam as it dominates the region where all the action was taking place. Much the same as he would have become a Catholic or a Protestant if he had ventured to Ireland seeking adventure during that countries past conflict. In the Balkans he sided with the good guys against the evil Serbs. That the good guys also happened to be Muslims was a trifling matter of little significance to Hicks all that mattered was the fight against the bad guys. When NATO joined the foray on the side of the good guys in the battle, Hicks must have felt some sort of validation in his quest.
When he joined the Taliban, technically the legitimate government of Afghanistan, they had just been victorious against the invading Russian Army. The Taliban were now in an insurgency conflict with the Northern Alliance. A group financed and armed by the Iranians whom hated the Taliban. Hicks was continuing his quest, as the Taliban was a Western Ally. It was the West, more particularly, the UK and the USA that had financed, trained and armed the Taliban in its fight against the Russians.
9/11 was yet to happen.
Incidentally, Osama bin Laden’s El Quada faction were part of the Taliban in it’s fight against the Russians, had been all along and so also benefited from the training, finance and arms provided by the US and the UK. As far as Hicks was concerned he was once again on the good guys team fighting the evil Northern Alliance.
At the behest of Iran, whom exerted great influence over them, the Northern Alliance joined forces with the invading armies of the US and UK. At some point in this early stage, Hicks was captured by the Northern Alliance, sold for cash to US forces and ended up in the US Guantánamo Bay Navel Base. He had not fired a shot at US or UK forces. He was captured unarmed, whilst in full flight running away from approaching Northern Alliance units. Surely a sad if not comical end to his long quest for excitement in his life.
The Australian Government of the time, could have obtained Hick’s release at anytime during his incarceration and subsequent torture at Guantánamo Bay, as did the British and Canadians and others but PM Howard saw him as an embarrassment and refused to do so. His father was left to battle it out alone and “Bravo” to him for maintaining his bottle.
With the Australian Federal elections approaching, Hicks had become an election issue with the government seen in very poor light. Fearing a backlash, PM Howard made the phone call and shortly after Hicks was allowed to return home. His 5 long years of incarceration and torture had been purely political.
David Hicks will shortly be released from his prison in South Australia under strict provisos. But it is way too late, Hicks is a broken man both physically and mentally. PM Howard bears a certain amount of the responsibility for his intransigence in not making that phone call at a much earlier stage.
Is Hicks a terrorist……No.
Is Hicks a danger to the Australian community………No.
Will Hicks carry out acts of terrorism in Australia…………No.
Will Hicks train others in terrorism……….No.
This culture of “FEAR” that the previous government instilled will or should (I hope), wear out with time.
 | |
|
| |
| |
| |
Naamah
|
Joined: 11/22/2007
Msg: 216 | |
| |
| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/24/2007 4:31:12 AM | | For fear of repeating myself... I know this is a slight digression but the $64 question that is seldom asked in relation to that war is who is profiting from the annual $124bn h*roin trade that originates there (i.e. 92% of the world's h*roin)? That is close to the entire GDP of neighbouring Pakistan! How can this not be factored in to any analysis of the political situation there? | |
|
| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/24/2007 4:42:19 AM | | The cover was blown wide open in the 70's that the CIA was profiting from the golden triangle crop to fund their illegal activities in other countries, in the 80's they got sprung again laundering cocaine money from the contras to do some dirty dealing in Iran. I wonder if the same game is afoot today? | |
|
| |
| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/24/2007 5:28:38 AM | | The genius of the whole game is that congress never has to know about it. 'We couldn't be involved in this or that operation because we haven't funded it'. Throughout the whole of the 70's those operations were largely directed by a cartel that was run from sunny Sydney town. | |
|
| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/25/2007 4:54:44 PM |
Hi Faux Pas
Congratulations Longte,
You're the first person to pick up the deliberate misspelling in over a year. Please pick any prize from the middle shelf. 
Seriously, though . .
The main reason I have anything against David Hicks is because he proposed and advocated, in writing, the use of lethal force, to impose his "religious/sectarian Beliefs" on others
Agreed, of course, though I didn't attach as much significance to those writings as I figured they were all part and parcel of the same gung-ho fervour that led him to take up these causes in the first place. If/when Hicks ever tells his story, I expect that will be one of the questions asked. I'll want to se his face as he answers.
And, yes . . well said Chiny.  | |
|
| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/25/2007 5:29:59 PM | Empires rise and fall. Wars are held and blood is shed. It happens. It has happened before and will happen again.
The only thing that seriously annoys me about hicks is WHATS HE DOING HERE????
He denounced everything to do with this country and what it represents UNTIL he got caught. Then the doogooders used the HE'S AN AUSSIE WE GOTTA LOOK AFTER OUR OWN routine. Well no because his ideas and ideals dont fit with how things are here and so he actually made the right decision swapping to the other side where they do fit.
The only difference is THEY didnt attempt to RESCUE him. I dont see HE has changed at all, but the side who went to bat for him....got him on their home turf.
(shakes head)
I think it would have been better for everyone all round if he was sent back to those he chose to be with an their/his adopted values.
Bravo whoever mentioned the crusades. That time it was the christians running around the world murdering whole bunches of people if they didnt convert to christianity. Same deal IMO. | |
|
| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/25/2007 6:37:11 PM | The stuff that makes the whole Hicks debate such a quagmire is the number of facets that can be brought into play . . and I certainly don't suggest there is a definitive answer
The only thing that seriously annoys me about hicks is WHATS HE DOING HERE????
That's a fair point.
Because the political heat was rising?
The political heat was rising because he was held in Guantanamo Bay . . a deliberate step to maintain folks such as him outside the US under a brand new category of 'prisoner' and a brand new set of laws that didn't even recognise habeas corpus? These new laws (Military Commissions) were ultimately only answerable to the President of the US. There was no appeal mechanism. The ramifications of the Executive conducting itself outside of the laws of the country go far beyond the guilt or innocence of the inconsequential Hicks.
The notion that Australia would play along with such a perversion is what incensed the likes of me, for instance.
Whether he was guilty or innocent of anything is a moot point as we'd never know under that system and, as such, was a secondary consideration to me.
Of course, at the time we (Australia) didn't actually have any law in place that we could charge him under, so I guess our government at the time figured it was easy enough to let the US deal with him. The notion of having appropriate laws doesn't seem to impede their thinking as much.
So, I don't think we 'rescued' him, as such.
I'd personally be happy to see him tried and convicted, if that's the outcome.
I just don't think it's OK to imprison a person for five years without laying a charge or any prospect of having one laid. That makes us no better than those we seek to oppose.
Yep . . it's a quagmire. | |
|
| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/25/2007 7:17:10 PM | | And if he was batting for that team some years earlier he would have been heralded as a freedom fighter. In fact Ronald Reagan dedicated one of the launches of Space Shuttle Collumbia to that same body of fighters (Mujahadeen / Taliban) that fell somewhat out of favour a few years down the track. If we remove our blinkers and attempt to gain an understanding of that conflict in its broadest context we realise how Hicks was a product of our (i.e. US and its allies in the so called 'war on terror') own underhanded ways (using mercenaries and training / arming extremists to achieve geopolitical goals). We are a world player whether we like it or not; it's naive to bury our heads in the sand until something like a September 11 or Bali bombing occurs only to pull it out only then to start looking for the baddies. We pour all our anger and invective into one, quite insignificant player like Hicks when someone like say Trevor Flugge or any of the AWB mob including Downer and Howard should be hauled up before the courts for what amounts to nothing less that war crimes! After all, does it not follow that if Saddam was indeed a 'sponsor of terror' and all the other atrocious things he was accused of (and probably did), and if it is a crime to provide funds for terrorist groups and their associated activities, that we should prosecute these big fish? Hicks is trivial and is in my opinion only worth discussing within the context our our own country's hypocrisy in dealing with him. | |
|
| Re: David Hicks - terrorism or just misunderstood ?
Posted: 12/29/2007 2:27:23 AM | As far as im concerned this man should not have been allowed to set foot back in Australia.If he wants to have these beliefs and follow these actions let him live somewhere else.
========================
Mumm Turkey perhaps.???
They have actually banned the Hijab over there because it was becoming more of a symbol of terrorism than an symbol of Islam.
But it's one of the few impartial governments where he would have had the chance of a truly fair trial. | |
|
Home
login 
