-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
David Hicks [Split from Saddam thread]
- Thread starter Liverpool
- Start date
jb03 said:
Funny you should mention that, jb. Just made me realise that Liverpool has effectively replaced Andrew Bolt for me too. Haven't read a Bolt article in yonks.
Keep up the
Panthera tigris FC said:
I did in the same post, where people such as yourself (or in this specific case, Anduril as well) gave very blasé answers, to a Taliban child beheading a hostage.
Yet, we have had 11 pages now, about someone in an orange jumpsuit for 5 years, being fed 3 times a day, still has limbs intact, and is now in Adelaide for 'rehabilitation', and down the track, hopes to gain a university degree.
If these terrorists were treated the same, then why isn't there 11 pages about the lack of human rights towards this hostage, or the many other hostages around the world, that have been tortured and beheaded, by the same group David Hicks was aiding and abetting?
I'll give you a further example.
Why are there protesters in Swanston Street, wanting people to "Stop the War"....why aren't they protesting "Stop the Terrorism. Stop the bombings. Stop the beheadings".
Why aren't they protesting as strongly and with as much conviction against terrorism, as they are against our own armed forces?
Because the beheadings and bombings are caused by terrorists....the protected species of the left.
But heaven forbid if an American shoots a civilian in a gun battle,or a bomb goes off-course and lands on a car....what animals we all are then.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Panthera,
In a post yesterday, I mentioned the atomic bombs on Japan that ended World War 2 in the Pacific.
It's quite ironic, that the protesters in Swanston Street, the civili-libertarians/human-rights/lefties,etc, and the posters on here having a crack at myself and my views, may only have this freedom to say what they think, because of the Americans, and in the end, the two atomic bombs that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Again, just imagine the years of bloodshed...the loss of civilian life...the thousands upon thousands of troops (from both sides, including Australians) that would have been killed, as the Allied forces island-hopped from one Japanese island to the next, from one Japanese street to the next, and one Japanese house to the next.....IF yourself and others like you, decided to protest and take this "high moral stance" against using the atomic bomb?
You say you are thankful that you don't live in a society that espouses such ideals, but you live here now, in relative peace, because of governments (including our own) who did espouse such ideals 62 years ago.
I'm sure you are thankful they did now.
Panthera tigris FC said:
I have had two problems with the whole saga:
1. They should have had a trial sooner. I've said that all along. I've also said that, in hindsight, they should have let the Afghanis have him, and he would been just another terrorist 'killed in action'. But that's just me being cold-hearted and callous again....you know...wanting a trained terrorist dead, how dare I? :
2. The trial should have been held in Afghanistan, where the crimes were committed...and therefore, any sentence handed down, could have been served there...not here.
As for the fair trial....he had his trial and was found guilty of a crime......so why are you complaining about a fair trial and "if David Hicks was guilty of a crime."
He was.
Do you honestly think he is innocent, after spending time in Kosovo fighting with the Muslims?
Do you honestly think he is innocent, and that the poor bloke was just in Afghanistan, enjoying the scenery, buying a few "I LUV KABUL" t-shirts for the family back home, when he got kidnapped by the evil Yanks off the street, as he was taking a happy snap at the local museum?
C'mon....apart from the length of time from when he was captured, and when he had his trial....he is as guilty as sin, unless you have some evidence otherwise?
Panthera tigris FC said:
Yep....its a sad reflection on the state of the world 12 year olds beheading people....but hey, "whatever"...hows that poor Hicksy, eh?
Bloody Yanks put too much Vegemite on his toast when he was there, and now in Adelaide, they won't get him FoxSports3 to watch the footy live.....oh the humanity!!!! :hihi
To answer your question...yes....kill the animals.
They did it at Nuremburg after WW2, and they also did it to the Japanese guilty of atrocities also.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.
When they capture these terrorists, they should be killed.
Violence is the way they brought up (12 year old beheading people, Hamas televising Mickey Mouse talking to kids about killing themselves for the cause, etc)....and therefore, they have no chance of rehabilitation.
They do not deserve to live on this planet after the lives they have taken, many in barbaric and cruel ways.
Panthera tigris FC said:
It won't be a friend of mine, a family member of mine, or myself, for that matter.
Why?
Because none of us put ourselves in a position to be targeted.
The Government aren't kidnapping people off the street....the Yanks didn't grab a poor innocent Hicks as he was walking on a Sunday stroll in Kabul.
I'm not worried in the slightest about my personal liberties and freedoms, because I live in this society, as a standard, upstanding citizen, who goes to work, goes to the footy, goes out for a beer or three...and people like me aren't targeted.
Only people who feel they are doing something illegal or unjust, would ne nervous about their liberties and freedoms being abused by the Government, and by what has happened to David Hicks.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Maybe you should have a word to your family member and tell them to act and respect being an Australian citizen to begin with, before aiding a terrorist group, hell bent on killing Australian citizens like you and I.
It seems that the only person who isn't expected to respect the basic rights of Australian citizens, is David Hicks himself.
RemoteTiger said:
Depends who has the bigger eye.... :hihi
How much violence was there, and how long did the war drag on for, after Nagasaki?
Not saying George W should push the red button....but I'm telling you all here now...that if Islamic militants (or Iran) get their nuclear weaponry capable, they will not be as hesitant to use it, as we are.
As for capital-punishment.....this topic deserves a thread on its own (maybe on the "Justice" thread?)....but yes, I wholeheartedly think capital punishment, for extreme crimes, where there is no doubt as to who the killer is, should be mandatory in this country.
Bryant, Milat, Knight...there's 3 for starters.
RemoteTiger said:
Of course that's true.
Oil is a basic commodity for the global economy. Own the oil, own the world...as they say.
This is the main reason why I want the troops to stay in Iraq....and why these nuff-nuffs protesting the war in Swanston Street, need to open their eyes and look at the big picture.
What do you think will happen in Iraq, if Coalition forces pulled out tomorrow?
Does anyone remember the Arafat funeral?
There we had 10,000 of the most militant Terrorists from Hamas and other splinter groups all gathered together in an area smaller than the MCG.
Now imagine what a very big bomb could have achieved for world peace if dropped on their noggens.
In the long run, think decades; less people would have died. Especially innocent people.
There we had 10,000 of the most militant Terrorists from Hamas and other splinter groups all gathered together in an area smaller than the MCG.
Now imagine what a very big bomb could have achieved for world peace if dropped on their noggens.
In the long run, think decades; less people would have died. Especially innocent people.
My point about Canada was entirely lost.
I was referring to the Canadian citizen, whose name escapes me, who was intercepted by the US on his way home from a trip to the Middle East and "remaindered" to Syria where he was tortured and incarcerated without trial for some time. All because he was in the vicinity at one time of an Al-Q suspect.
Habib was also "remaindered".
It was never about Hicks or Habib or what they did or didn't do.
And Liver, you can waffle on as much as you have time, extracting all sorts of opinion, articles whatever you like. It was, for me, about justice and the rule of law pure and simple. A cornerstone of democracy. I expect my government to treat all it's citizens equally, no matter what. When we, as a nation, cease doing that we are on a very rocky road.
"You can't hold a man down without staying down with him." Booker T Washington.
I was referring to the Canadian citizen, whose name escapes me, who was intercepted by the US on his way home from a trip to the Middle East and "remaindered" to Syria where he was tortured and incarcerated without trial for some time. All because he was in the vicinity at one time of an Al-Q suspect.
Habib was also "remaindered".
It was never about Hicks or Habib or what they did or didn't do.
And Liver, you can waffle on as much as you have time, extracting all sorts of opinion, articles whatever you like. It was, for me, about justice and the rule of law pure and simple. A cornerstone of democracy. I expect my government to treat all it's citizens equally, no matter what. When we, as a nation, cease doing that we are on a very rocky road.
"You can't hold a man down without staying down with him." Booker T Washington.
poppa x said:
How cold-hearted and nasty are you PoppaX?
Shame on you, killing innocent until proven guilty terrorists like that! :scold
They deserve their day in court, no matter how many kids they strap bombs to, how many airliners they fly into buildings, or how many people they decapitate, all in the name of Allah.
And what about the poor innocent terrorists' kids watching their Mickey Mouse on TV preaching to them about martyrdom and killing Jews and Islam taking over the world...how could they learn about all this, if their fathers are all bombed by the evil Yanks?
Who will buy poor little Abdul his AK-47 on his 10th birthday, if his father is so inhumanely killed, and his human rights stripped away from him?
Oh the humanity!
Think of the children Poppa...the children...why won't you think of the children?
:rofl
(Sorry mate, I couldn't help myself!
)But you're spot on...short term pain of civil-libertarians complaining about such an act, but would save so many lives in the long run.
Same as what the Yanks were thinking at the end of WW2 with the atom bombs....and look at Japan now.
Anduril said:
But it should be EXACTLY about what Habib and Hicks did.
That is my whole point.
Why are the actions of these Australian citizens, where they were aiding a terrorist group against Australian citizens, being ignored?
Why aren't you demanding the same respect of being an Australian citizen from the likes of Hicks?
You want the Government and people like myself, to respect the Australian citizenship of David Hicks....yet what respect has David Hicks shown Australian citizens like you or I, by fighting alongside the enemy?
Anduril,
As I have said before on this thread....if Hicks was NOT captured, but made it back to Australia, and blew-up a train that contained members of your family, using explosive techniques learnt in Afghanistan...would you be so eager to defend David Hicks, whatever the crime and no matter what, then....and would you expect (and want) the Government to treat Hicks equally like other Australian citizens?
I'm sure Hicks' human rights would not be at the forefront of your mind, and instead, it would be turned to the human rights of your family that was taken away by Hicks.
Liverpool said:
You truly are the king of the strawman argument. Where have any of the 'lefties' condoned the actions of the terrorists? Where have any of the 'lefties' condoned the actions of David Hicks? In a democracy it is our responsibilty to lobby our elected officials. I am as appalled as you at the behaviour of some of the terrorist groups, but by that same token (and unlike yourself) I would never condone that behaviour for our own government (or the armed forces they command). Where would that lead? What sort of world do you want to live in? Perhaps the protests are about the aims of the war, not condoning the actions of the terrorists, nor those of the soldiers risking their lives for their countries under orders from their government? Your simplistic strawman arguments and caricatures of 'lefties' are both offensive and ridiculous.
I would also like you to point out where I gave you a blase response to the article on the 12 year old beheading of a hostage.
Your points on Japan are both indicative of your mindset and debateable in their accuracy.
The fact that you can condone the use of nuclear weapons is in itself inherently worrisome and the sort of attitude that can lead to arms races and cold wars. If it was the Japanese or the Germans that had dropped atomic bombs and then gone on to lose the war you would be screaming about the barbarity of their actions, yet you condone that course of action because it was 'our side'. Again, it is that simplistic black and white, childish view of the world that causes the problems in the first place.
Your claim that the atomic bombs ended the war in the Pacific is also debatable. At the time of the bombs being dropped many of the US top military brass felt it was unncessary including such individuals as Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy and Nimitz. They felt that Japan was already defeated. This is all beside the point though and I will cease debunking your strawman.
I have had two problems with the whole saga:
1. They should have had a trial sooner. I've said that all along. I've also said that, in hindsight, they should have let the Afghanis have him, and he would been just another terrorist 'killed in action'. But that's just me being cold-hearted and callous again....you know...wanting a trained terrorist dead, how dare I? :
It is difficult to hold a trial before you have the laws (that are considered legal by the highest court in the land) to enforce. Ignoring the fact that retrospective laws are inherently unjust.
Were his actions illegal under Afghani law? I find it hard to believe considering he was accused of training with the Taliban who controlled much of Afghanistan. Perhaps you mean he should be tried under new laws in Afghanistan, again retrospectively. He was captured by US forces or members of the Western alliance fighting with US forces, making him technically a POW (not an enemy combatant). He should thus have been afforded the rights of a POW under the Geneva convention. Or are you going to argue that we should ignore those and cry foul when the enemy decides to ignore them as well?
Like I said, I don't have a clue what David Hicks was doing in Afghanistan. I also stated clearly that I would be happy for him to be incarcerated if he was guilty of a crime. My statement still holds that without a fair and transparent system of justice and considering the length of time it took for his trial and the allegations of mistreatment his guilty plea is forever tainted. What I do agree with is that a fair and speedy trial would have avoided this problem to begin with. Can you not see this?
What I do know is that he is an Australian citizen and entitled to the same rights as you and me under Australian law. The federal government has the responsibility to lobby foreign governments if its citizens are being treated in an unjust manner, not condone such behaviour.
Just to remind you that it is a cornerstone of our judicial system that the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Hicks (nor I) need prove his innocence. It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove his guilt. Why do you think it took so long for them to attempt to do so?
You claim knowledge of conditions that you have no knowledge of. As was asked before, if it is so easy and so nice, why don't you get yourself incarcerated (especially at Gitmo). As for your flip 'whatever' comment, you cannot ascribe that to me and if you look at in context it is very tempting to dismiss your strawmen arguments with a 'whatever' comment, which has nothing to do with my actual feelings on such arguments.
That is a whole other debate. However, if that is the type of world you wish to live in, so be it. Perhaps we can take that debate up on another thread.
Yes it is unlikely that you will be targeted for romping around Afghanistan. By the tone of your posts I would be surprised if you have immersed yourself in many cultures outside of the West. Your 'us and them' caricatures would suggest not. The point is that if you were unjustly detained by a foreign government you would expect the same protection as any other citizen. If David Hicks is guilty of a crime he should be locked up. That guilt must first be established in a lawful and just manner. That is the crux of the problem and one that you seem to be blind to.
David Hicks IS expected to respect the basic rights of Australian citizens. Where has anyone said otherwise?
If I did have a family member undertaking illegal activities overseas and they were caught doing so, I would support a fair trial and sentence if they were convicted. This was not afforded to David Hicks.
panthera.. in my and most aussies eyes hicks ,the pinup boy of the left ,gave up his right to be classed as an australian citizen the moment he picked up a gun in the defense of al quida .tuff *smile* titties that this maggot spent 5 years incarcerated awaiting trial.apart from bleeding heart lefty *smile* no one gives a *smile*.should have shot the prick when they picked him up.now that would have been justice.ive asked before but no one can answer ? what basic rights did the neanderthal ,archaic despots that this oxygen thief aligned and fought with ,show to the countless kidnapped victims and bombing victims ?? *smile* NONE .
Panthera tigris FC said:
You may not come out and bluntly condone terrorists and their actions, however the dismissive and nonchalant responses about their actions shows that a child beheading an adult, is greeted with a two or three word response....yet a terrorist, held without trial for 5 years, gains an 11 page response....demonstrating that people like yourself are not putting things into any perspective whatsoever.
Ignoring why David Hicks was in Afghanistan and not reading any posts from yourself or others, displaying disgust at how David Hicks himself devalued his Australian citizenship, by not only fighting with the enemy, but also being willing to kill or maim other Australian citizens, is a disgrace, and hypocritical.
People like you Panthera bleat about Australian citizens being treated the same, and how Australian citizens should be treated with respect, no matter what they do....yet, here we have an Australian citizen training with the enemy, and willing to kill people like you or I, and we should treat him with respect?
As i said to Anduril....if David Hicks wasn't caught and made it back, and in a terrorist blast, he killed members of your family, you'd be still willing to respect him?
Panthera tigris FC said:
If the Government/Yanks/Aussies treated Hicks like terrorists treat their hostages, David Hicks' body might be here, and his head out in the Afghani desert somewhere.
If waiting 5 years for a trial and then spending a few months at the Adelaide "hilton" is the worst he has had to endure, then he has gotten off very lightly compared to Nick Berg, wouldn't you agree?
Panthera tigris FC said:
If the Japanese/Germans had dropped the bombs first, they would NOT have lost the war, so thats a ridiculous statement.
You can debate this one all you like...the FACTS are that Japan did NOT surrender until after the second blast at Nagasaki.
Yes, eventually we would have defeated Japan, without the use of the atomic bombs, however, it was decided that it was quicker, and would save thousands upon thousands of lives, to use 'the bomb', instead of island-hopping through Japan with an invasion force.
That you cannot debate.
So what would you do....kill 200,000+ people from two bomb blasts....or continue with an invasion of Japan, where many more civilians (as well as countless soldiers from both sides) would have been killed?
Panthera tigris FC said:
He was training with a terrorist organisation, and therefore, they are NOT protected under the Geneva Convention.
You can read the official line here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-18.html
From the Convention itself:
The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property. Neither the civilian population as whole nor individual civilians may be attacked. Attacks may be made solely against military objectives.
So if anyone abused the Geneva Convention, it was David Hicks and his terrorist buddies!
Looking forward to your post regarding this...
Panthera tigris FC said:
Of course I can see this, and have admitted, ad nauseum, that a trial should have been conducted years ago.
Not only would we not be going through this *smile* now, but we could have given him 25 years in prison, instead of the meagre 5+ years he has served (or is serving)....and he would be long forgotten, as the traitor he is.
Panthera tigris FC said:
You don't know where I have been mate, so stop trying to guess and assume.
But I openly admit that Afghanistan is not on the top of my "must visit" places, and it certainly wasn't circa 2002 after the 9/11 attacks.
Poor Hicksy was in the wrong place at the wrong time it seems.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Yes, but he DIDN'T....he was caught aiding a terrorist organisation, which had just flown airliners into building in the centre of New York.
Where were the fair trial for these victims?
They were sentenced to death, for catching the wrong plane at the wrong time.
Hicks has gotten off VERY lightly in comparison.
Liverpool said:
I would expect him to feel the full force of the law according to our laws.
Which is what I have been saying all along.
I give up. :
And I love the way you blokes assert "in most Aussie eyes" like it was some benediction.
ssstone said:
If you hate Australian law and freedoms so much, why stay here? There are plenty of nations that display the neanderthal, archaic values you hold dear that would welcome another footsoldier.
Edit: I guess defending someone's right to a fair trial in a free society is difficult because the social conservatives can resort to the lazy strawman attack of accusations of supporting terrorists. The person who hates a terrorist but supports his right to a fair trial is of much more value to maintaining a free society than the person who waits for any excuse to remove those freedoms in the name of reciprocal hatred.
and where did i say i hate australian law ?? oh yeh thats right i didnt.but dont let atruth get in the way of defending a self confessed terroristmld said:
your pinup boy wasnt fighting for free society was he ?.so tell me o enlightened one what gives him and you and your fellow apologist's the right to expect he got a fair trial under western law ?oh thats right lets play the australian citizen card.poor poor hicksy he was only picking his clothes up.bad bad aus/us goverment how dare you incarcerate this upstanding citizen.what *smile* hypocrisy .tell me mld what was dear davey doin to uphold your ideal of freedom? :headscratchAnduril said:Liverpool said:
I would expect him to feel the full force of the law according to our laws.
Which is what I have been saying all along.
I give up. :
And I love the way you blokes assert "in most Aussie eyes" like it was some benediction.
[/quo cause it was our laws he was fighting for wasnt it undrull :duh and as for my quote in most aussie eyes ,its just the truth you wont hear
