-
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.
Justice?
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Liverpool said:
If I am not mistaken, he has served the penalty for his acts according to the laws of the land. If you don't like it then you can continue to spout your vitriolic rubbish, but who really cares. He is entitled to all of the rights of any other citizen of this country...why don't you hound some bad parents at your local mall?
Panthera tigris FC said:
And if I am not mistaken...he is STILL serving the penalty for his acts according to sthe entence handed down to him.
And what part of my previous post was "vitriolic rubbish"? :don't know
The part that stated David Hicks was in Afghanistan of his own accord?
The part that stated he was aiding and abetting with a terrorist organisation that has killed Australians, of his own accord?
The part that he was found GUILTY of the above acts?
or maybe the part that any vilification he receives was due to actions brought upon by HIMSELF?
Sorry for making you face up to some hard facts but I hardly see that as "vitriolic rubbish"...but maybe if you put your hands over your ears and go "na na na na na" it might all go away... :hihi
Six Pack said:
Hicks can respond all he likes....I hope like hell he reads this forum and if he wants to meet me so I can say the above to his face, then even better.
Stating facts isn't taking a "cheap shot"....what is cheap about it?
He was in Afghanistan.
He was with Bin Laden
He was fighting with a group that has killed Australians
He was found guilty
Nothing cheap about all that, SixPack.
Six Pack said:
Again..what cheap shot at Hicks? :don't know
You only class me as a "bully" Sixpack because you have no answers to facts and a pragmatic approach when faced with it.
You, like a few others on here, love burying your head in the sand and ignoring things that are staring you in the face.
Hicks is a traitor who was fighting with a terrorist group against our own soldiers in a foreign country and was found guilty of such acts.
No amount of lefty fluff and claims of me being a "bully" will diminish these FACTS.
Time to face up to it mate...
we've argued the Hicks thing to death, Livers. But u continue to have a flog over it cos u are running out of villians. Why dont u vilify the nurses for wanting a payrise or soemthing.
and spare me the 'lefty' rhetoric. i doubt u know what that means.
simplistic and as sociopathic as usual, livers.
and spare me the 'lefty' rhetoric. i doubt u know what that means.
simplistic and as sociopathic as usual, livers.
Six Pack said:
Yes....Hicks was brought up again (not by me) and as per usual, people like yourself 'defend' a person like Hicks.
Antman moans about the poor "vilification" he is receiving....you moan about the so-called "cheap shot"....and Panthera classes a post pointing out the facts of why Hicks is receiving such animosity as "vitriolic rubbish".
While there are people like this who defend someone like Hicks....then you will have to put up with my posts flogging the facts instead of the soft fluff you like to portray.
You did more then list a of 'facts'.
You closed with the blatantly vitriolic statement:
So now, he has to put up with it and take responsibility for his actions....and if he doesn't like the reception he receives from people, then stiff sh!t!
This in light of the fact that Hicks has cooperated fully with authorities since his return to Australia. Are people not allowed to make stupid choices in life? Hicks clearly did and he has payed a hefty price for it. I am taken aback by your constant need to spew hate and vitriol about someone who is now complying with the laws of this land and has paid his penalty for breaking those laws. When you can't attack him for his 'terrorist ways' it now comes to attacking him for his personal life....hence my equating it with berating someone at your local mall.
I just struggle to understand your position and sometime wonder whether you just frame your responses from the 'handbook of the ultra conservative neo-con'.
You closed with the blatantly vitriolic statement:
So now, he has to put up with it and take responsibility for his actions....and if he doesn't like the reception he receives from people, then stiff sh!t!
This in light of the fact that Hicks has cooperated fully with authorities since his return to Australia. Are people not allowed to make stupid choices in life? Hicks clearly did and he has payed a hefty price for it. I am taken aback by your constant need to spew hate and vitriol about someone who is now complying with the laws of this land and has paid his penalty for breaking those laws. When you can't attack him for his 'terrorist ways' it now comes to attacking him for his personal life....hence my equating it with berating someone at your local mall.
I just struggle to understand your position and sometime wonder whether you just frame your responses from the 'handbook of the ultra conservative neo-con'.
Panthera tigris FC said:
He committed treason, not jaywalking.
Is murder a stupid choice? What about pedophilia, rape, and maiming people? Okay, you may point out he has not been proven to hurt anyone, but the point remains. Did Bondy make "stupid choices" when he ripped shareholders off, or was Skase running away with his millions a stupid choice too?
Hicks is no Hitler, but at the same time he is no rainbow hugging anti-war love child which some people are desperate to make him. He made some absolutely shocking decisions, and he should and will pay for these for the rest of his life.
Tiger74 said:
I haven't said, nor implied, that he deserves to get away with his stupid choice, nor should individuals who commit the crimes that you list (although David Hicks did not commit such crimes). My point is that he did the crime and has/is serving his penalty. Do we need vigilantes to enforce a harsher penalty?
I think you are projecting some lefty caricature on my post when all I said was that he has been cooperative with authorities since his return to Australia and, like every other citizen of this country, is entitled to his rights. My main point is that it now seems as though people can't vilify him for his 'terrorist' associations they have now switched to his private life, with no knowledge of the details of that part of his life. Seems like vilification to me. Move on....as you said he has consequences that he has to, and will, deal with for the rest of his life...as long as he complies then it is no business of mine.
mb64 said:
If you consider "summing up" to be a misrepresentation of the posts that he is referring to. No one has defended the actions of Hicks. Some have said that people posting about his private life represent vilification of Hicks, but no one has defended his actions in Afghanistan, Gitmo or his move to Sydney.
Panthera tigris FC said:
What I don't like is people downplaying what he did as a "stupid choice", which makes it sound trivial and minor, like holding your mates stash and getting busted for it. This guy committed some serious crimes, which he did after consideration and determination. This is not a stupid choice. Its a clear fundamental decision to make a decision which most in this country loathe.
Calling this "a stupid choice" is almost as bad as that other waterdown effort of labelling him a typical Aussie adventurer who just ended up in the wrong place.
I don't consider it trivial or minor. The 'stupid choice' refers to the fact that I think he did it as a young man when many people make 'stupid choices' - granted his was a far more serious decision. I think he deserves punishment for his actions, but eternal vilification serves no purpose now that he has facing up to the consequences of his actions.
Again you raise the objections of David Hicks apologists when there is none of that going on here. My objections are to the recent vilification over his move to Sydney, not over his trial and punishment upon return to Australia.
Again you raise the objections of David Hicks apologists when there is none of that going on here. My objections are to the recent vilification over his move to Sydney, not over his trial and punishment upon return to Australia.
Panthera tigris FC said:
I actually don't give a continental if he travels to Sydney, but I believe I have an idea of why some do.
While he was in jail we kept hearing the following:
1) Hicks is a misguided adventurer
2) Hicks never did anything bad, and just wants to come home and be with his friends and family
3) This is all a big USA conspiracy, and the stories of him being with Osama are lies
4) IF IF IF he did fight, he was fighting for Afghan freedom, and was unaware of the Australian involvement in the war
Since he came back, we have had:
1) no acknowledgement of any wrong doing (I appreciate this has to be via supporters with the gag in place)
2) word of a book deal which his lawyers will fight for him to keep the proceeds of (against "proceedings of crime" legislations)
3) letters from home released which basically showed the guy was not that against the Taliban position, and was rather fond of it, Osama, and the whole caper
So far we have a guy who seems more intent on making money from his situation than actually showing any contrition or actually trying to rebuild a honorable life with his family and loved ones.
Many made him out to be a mighty political prisoner, impounded by the twin evils of Howard and Bush. Instead what we have is no-one walking on palm leaves out the front of Adelaide Airport, but a guy negotiating book deals and trying to get the restrictions on his movement (which he agreed to) loosened.
There were some vocal apologists for David Hicks...and although I had a debates, mainly with Livers, on this issue, I never once said that there were doubts over Hicks' motives for being in Afghanistan. My contention was that he was not afforded justice by the U.S. and our government did nothing about it. This has no bearing on the guilt (or innocence) of Hicks, but just that the perversion of justice had made it impossible for Hicks to ever have a fair trial.
Lets wait until Hicks actually does something that is debate-worthy (ie profit from a crime) before we go off the handle about what type of father he is.
Lets wait until Hicks actually does something that is debate-worthy (ie profit from a crime) before we go off the handle about what type of father he is.
