David Hicks protests

greggy · 11 December 2006

MalteseBull said:
why is everyone treating him like a hero

this guy was against us in the fight on terrorism

i dont understand society, is that or the do-gooders around

Everyone is not treating him like a hero. To me the CFA volunteers are heroes. What many people are saying is that he has the right to natural justice, he shouldn't be presumed to be guilty just because he's been incarcerated. Five years without a hearing is far too long.

chops_a_must · 11 December 2006

gupper said:
I simply expressed surprise that David Hicks' treatment by the U.S. (which - as I said - I too believe to be unjust) has brought crowds onto the streets when the suffering of so many under the Taliban regime that he aligned himself with seemed not to snag the WIDER public conscience in the same way.

I well realise that one should not compound one injustice (Taliban oppression) with another (Hicks' imprisonment without trial) but I cannot feel outrage on behalf of someone who was willing to support such a misogynistic and intolerant regime.

Then you can answer the question I posed; that if we take this attitude, how are we any better than the Taliban?

2020hindsight · 11 December 2006

gupper said:
1. Bring him back for a fair trial by all means but
2. I'm a bit tired of the lionizing of this 'poor, wronged boy' by some sections within society.

Gupper I agree with you 100% on the first point
but not on the second
I think it's up to you to make the case that pushing for justice on point 1 - after 5 years of inaction incidentally - suddenly qualifies as lionizing etc.
PS had to look it up lol
"to treat (a person) as a celebrity" (??)

gupper · 11 December 2006

chops_a_must said:
Then you can answer the question I posed; that if we take this attitude, how are we any better than the Taliban?

Simple: we let women vote, walk the streets, view the sky and grass unimpeded. We don't hang our opponents from lamp-posts. Where would you like me to stop? Hicks clearly thought women had no right to such things.

I deplore the fact that he has been held in detention at Guantanamo Bay for five years without trial but this does not blind me to the fact that he supported a regime that legislated this fate for women for LIFE. Under the Taliban, women were forbidden from leaving the house without being accompanied by a male relative, causing some widows to starve to death rather than risk the brutal, summary punishments meted out by the mullahs.

If you think Hicks' treatment by the U.S. equates with the crimes perpetrated by the Taliban then there is no point in further discussion. Such moral equivalence is beyond the reach of reason.

Gupper

chops_a_must · 11 December 2006

gupper said:
If you think Hicks' treatment by the U.S. equates with the crimes perpetrated by the Taliban then there is no point in further discussion. Such moral equivalence is beyond the reach of reason.

Gupper

On a level, it is.

greggy · 11 December 2006

gupper said:
Simple: we let women vote, walk the streets, view the sky and grass unimpeded. We don't hang our opponents from lamp-posts. Where would you like me to stop? Hicks clearly thought women had no right to such things.

I deplore the fact that he has been held in detention at Guantanamo Bay for five years without trial but this does not blind me to the fact that he supported a regime that legislated this fate for women for LIFE. Under the Taliban, women were forbidden from leaving the house without being accompanied by a male relative, causing some widows to starve to death rather than risk the brutal, summary punishments meted out by the mullahs.

If you think Hicks' treatment by the U.S. equates with the crimes perpetrated by the Taliban then there is no point in further discussion. Such moral equivalence is beyond the reach of reason.

Gupper

I'm surprised at the number of people in this forum who seemingly take offence at the idea of natural justice. Granted Mr Hicks was very silly to get involved with the Taliban in the first place, but he should still be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, not that any charges have been laid as yet. What happened to the fair go for all Australians?

nioka · 11 December 2006

greggy said:
I'm surprised at the number of people in this forum who seemingly take offence at the idea of natural justice. Granted Mr Hicks was very silly to get involved with the Taliban in the first place, but he should still be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, not that any charges have been laid as yet. What happened to the fair go for all Australians?

Exactly. No more need be said on this issue. Let's get on to some other topic please.

Sean K · 11 December 2006

greggy said:
Mr Hicks was very silly to get involved with the Taliban in the first place

LOL.

Understatement of the year on two counts.

1. He joined an organisation whose mission is to destroy, through war and terrorism, the US and its western Christian allies, including Australia, in the name of Islam.

2. He obviously thought he could get away with it and there be no consequences for his traitorous and dispicable actions.

Silly? Right.

The guy would sooner chop the head off an Australia than be happy to share a beer at the cricket with a chick in a bikini top. He would certainly have been on the front lines in Cronulla burning our flag and telling Aussie chicks they were uncovered meat.

OK, OK, innocent until proven guilty. Sorry.

2020hindsight · 11 December 2006

kennas said:
LOL.

Understatement of the year on two counts.

1. He joined an organisation (taliban) whose mission is to destroy, through war and terrorism, the US and its western Christian allies, including Australia, in the name of Islam.
2. He obviously thought he could get away with it and there be no consequences for his traitorous and dispicable actions.
Silly? Right.
The guy would sooner chop the head off an Australia than be happy to share a beer at the cricket with a chick in a bikini top. He would certainly have been on the front lines in Cronulla burning our flag and telling Aussie chicks they were uncovered meat.
OK, OK, innocent until proven guilty. Sorry.

Taliban !!? mission to destroy?? m8 check your facts lol.

they are the tertiary version of the Mujahideen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen Mujahideen (Arabic: مجاهدين‎, muǧāhidīn, "strugglers") is an Islamic-Arabic term for Muslims fighting in a war, or involved in any other struggle. [1] Mujahid, and its plural, mujahideen, come from the same Arabic linguistic root as jihad ("struggle"). The word is the plural form of مجاهد, muǧāhid, which, literally translated from Arabic means "struggler". In Islamic scripture, the status of mujahid is inequal to qaid””one who does not join the jihad.

Soon after the battle of Badr, Muhammad is believed by muslims to have received a revelation from Allah raising the status of the mujahideen over the qaideen (Arabic plural of "qaid"). [1]

Like chops I too met some of these blokes - including a 16 year old Afghan who had made it out through the mountains to Pakistan - despite the fact that he had a Russian bullet still embedded so close to his spine that it was inoperable - he will no doubt die from it.

but... lol (sic) he was our HERO in those days !!! (PS just as Osama was trained by the CIA for chysake)

I met these kids - make an effort albeit pathetic to help em get settled in Aust - they were humans believe it or not !!

PS and my first choice for someone to have a beer with is that bloody hero that deserves the Order of Aust medal - Major Michael Mori

PS Kennas, if you're good at words then maybe you can help them come up with a CHARGE agsint him (David Hicks that is ) they still don't seem to be able to work out what he's done wrong.

Sean K · 11 December 2006

2020hindsight said:
Taliban !!? mission to destroy?? m8 check your facts lol.

Yeah sorry, I had a brain snap there, I was thinking El Qaeda.

2020, I do realise the Taliban are a very peaceful, humanitarian organisation in Afganistan, spreading good will and supporting all the orphans.

Hang on, are we over there at the moment fighting against these people? Best I research that a little more, because I'm not sure. I suppose that Australian guy that drove over a mine a little while ago and died would like them. Good blokes those Taliban. Cheers.

2020hindsight · 11 December 2006

kennas said:
Yeah sorry, I had a brain snap there, I was thinking El Qaeda.

apology accepted

read these words carefully friend - see if you can find "the villain" in this picture... You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes btw...

("because they resisted the invasion of their country " ??? - a crime ???) - Don't forget we invaded Afghanistan purely because the baddies were hiding in the hills there

MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: The charges that they'd come up with before was a charge of conspiracy and attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent, that they made up, and aiding the enemy.
ANDREW DENTON: "An unprivileged belligerent"? Meaning what?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: I don't know what they mean. They made it up.

ANDREW DENTON: So you're his defence counsel...
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: Yes.
ANDREW DENTON: ...And you can't even define what the term 'unprivileged belligerent' means. How do you defend that?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: Well, their view was, everybody on the Taliban side. Anybody on the Taliban side was a war criminal because they resisted the invasion of their country. I didn't quite understand that. Then it was, as you heard the administration, their position was, "Well they didn't wear proper uniforms." So I started thinking about that. I said, "What about the Northern Alliance? What about the CIA they were fighting in Afghanistan? They weren't wearing proper uniforms." So it really can't be a crime and it's not a crime, but they had to try to fabricate something.
.........

While you're at it try to find some consistency here :-

ANDREW DENTON: He's spent a considerable period of time not just in isolation, but in isolation without sunlight. Is that correct?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: Yes.
ANDREW DENTON: What does that do to a person?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: It's not very healthy, psychologically, for them. Just that whole, sort of, depriving someone of the basic stimuli. When I saw him, that really was all he could focus on, was trying to get out. We worked, and the Australian Consular was very helpful, in Washington DC, in getting that change and in getting him out of isolation. That's why I don't understand, now that the US has put him back in isolation, why they're accepting it now, when it was not tolerable a year or so ago.

PS you'll find my opinion of Taliban if you go back through "hansard" - they were extremists , but shouting "extremists should be shot" aint gonna help

2020hindsight · 11 December 2006

and if its of any relevance, I was an officer in the military - and have listened in to courts martials. They are (usually) quite fair btw,
three essential ingredients .." prosecution + defence + judge".
whereas what they want to do to Hicks has
"prosecution + defence + prosecution acting as judge."

I just love it when Attorney General Ruddock says.. "we hope to charge him with something sometime next year " sheesh
(defence lol not defense, you fool -
DNA = national dyslexic assocn )
PS thanks chise I'm not being asked to spell potatoese lol.

PS there were many aussies went to spain to fight fascism in the days leading into WW2 - lynch them as well?

2020hindsight · 11 December 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen wikipedia
Afghan Mujahideen
The best-known mujahideen were the various loosely-aligned opposition groups that fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the 1980s and then fought against each other in the subsequent Afghan Civil War.

The mujahideen were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States (during the Carter and Reagan administrations) and by Pakistan (during the Zia-ul-Haq military regime), the People's Republic of China, and Saudi Arabia. The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was the interagent used in the majority of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance.

Ronald Reagan praised them as freedom fighters, and the 1988 Rambo III portrayed them as heroic. This connection is ironic, in light of the future turn of events in which many of the same men would end up as enemies of the United States.

Following the Soviet retreat, many of the larger mujahideen groups began to fight each other. After several years of this fighting, a village mullah organized religious students into an armed movement, with the backing of Pakistan, who was being funded by the United States, which found the existing government to be too Russian-influenced, even following the collapse of the Soviet Union. This movement became known as the Taliban, meaning "students", and referring to the Saudi-backed religious schools which produced Islamic fundamentalism along the pacific coast of Asia. With each success the Taliban had, their popularity and numbers grew.

By 2001, the Taliban, with backing from the Pakistani ISI, had defeated most of the militias and controlled most of Afghanistan. The remaining militias were in the north-east of the country. The opposition allied themselves together and became known as the National Islamic United Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan ”” the United Front, or Northern Alliance.

A wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden was a prominent mujahideen organizer and financier; his Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Services) funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the Saudi government. In 1988, bin Laden broke away from the MAK.
.... etc etc (goes on for a page or so)

1988 Rambo III portrayed them as heroic. .. 20 years is a long time in politics yes?

chops_a_must · 11 December 2006

2020hindsight said:
PS there were many aussies went to spain to fight fascism in the days leading into WW2 - lynch them as well?

Or Hemingway and Orwell for that matter...

Freeballinginawetsuit · 11 December 2006

kennas said:
Yeah sorry, I had a brain snap there, I was thinking El Qaeda.

2020, I do realise the Taliban are a very peaceful, humanitarian organisation in Afganistan, spreading good will and supporting all the orphans.

Hang on, are we over there at the moment fighting against these people? Best I research that a little more, because I'm not sure. I suppose that Australian guy that drove over a mine a little while ago and died would like them. Good blokes those Taliban. Cheers.

I'm all for the armed forces and feel sorry for the soldier that died and his family!, but is that not a risk soldiers take...
The reason I probably would not be a suitable soldier is I would not have jumped over the trenches in Gallipoli to be a sitting duck, or heeded Bush's call "to Afghanitandiar we must go and root out the evildoers", and Johnny you must send your troopies too!.

Too be a soldier you would have to surrender the decision making process to another person (bummer if their not too bright), that must be a hard freedom to give up, especially if it cost youre life

I still have problems with that recent occasion when Bush patted Johnny on the head and said " He's not the best looking guy, but he always comes when I call him", sound like a dogowner referring to his pet!.

The aforementioned analogy is relevant to our Governments handling of David, weak as piss IMO.

2020hindsight · 12 December 2006

That Wikipedia reference back there ends with the following paragraphs, not that they have anything to do with David Hicks, just that the term "Mujahideen" seems to be a "global" phenomenon, and "difficult to pin its definition down" these days - including a peaceful version ( could it be that Wikipedia found this particular reference in some reference promoting Islamic moderation, peace etc?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen wikipedia
The term mujahideen is sometimes applied by sympathizers and regional experts to the Iraqi insurgency against the US-lead allies whose invasion destroyed Saddam Husain's baathist republic, and against the subsequent Iraqi regimes in need of allied military support, while the insurgents comprise a wide, incoherent spectrum of forces, with or without crucial Islamic ideology.

Since a mujahideen is someone who strives to spread the religion of Islam according to fundamentalist doctrine, and since one cannot bomb people into believing in Islam, but rather through improving one's deeds to spread the validity of Islam. Therefore there is the mujahideen of peace who establishes Islam through spreading it by making peace across the world, everywhere and anywhere, whether they are Muslims or not. There are suggestions of camps which train mujahideen of peace in peace making strategies and techniques in various parts of the world.

new girl · 12 December 2006

2020hindsight said:
"difficult to pin its definition down" these days - including a peaceful version. Since a mujahideen is someone who strives to spread the religion of Islam according to fundamentalist doctrine, and since one cannot bomb people into believing in Islam, but rather through improving one's deeds to spread the validity of Islam. Therefore there is the mujahideen of peace who establishes Islam through spreading it by making peace across the world, everywhere and anywhere, whether they are Muslims or not. There are suggestions of camps which train mujahideen of peace in peace making strategies and techniques in various parts of the world.

2020

as much as I like to agree with everything you say, this is the biggest load of bullsh@#t I have ever heard.

There is no such thing as peace mujahideen! In Arabic it means fighting, and that’s exactly how the Islamic Empire was established. They were and still are asked to concur and spread the religion by force, oh they say don't hurt the children, women and trees but its O.K. kill all the males out there. And don’t force the religion but anyone who chooses not to convert must pay a tax, if your poor then stuff you, you must convert.

Analysing the crap out of a meaning of a word dosn't matter anyway. It doesn't change the actual meaning of the word and how it was/is used by the people.

Freeballinginawetsuit · 12 December 2006

new girl said:
2020

as much as I like to agree with everything you say, this is the biggest load of bullsh@#t I have ever heard.

There is no such thing as peace mujahideen! In Arabic it means fighting, and that’s exactly how the Islamic Empire was established.

Analysing the crap out of a meaning of a word dosn't matter anyway.

Name an empire/country that wasn't established by fighting and persicution of the native inhabitants. Its not all Peace Love and Mongbeans when conqering an inhabited country, unless youre Italy

Mankind has always liked to bully and conquer the week ( the Catholic Church was quite proficient also) and that is exactly how the US treats our government over the Hicks affair.

wayneL · 12 December 2006

new girl said:
2020

as much as I like to agree with everything you say, this is the biggest load of bullsh@#t I have ever heard.

There is no such thing as peace mujahideen! In Arabic it means fighting, and that’s exactly how the Islamic Empire was established. They were and still are asked to concur and spread the religion by force, oh they say don't hurt the children, women and trees but its O.K. kill all the males out there. And don’t force the religion but anyone who chooses not to convert must pay a tax, if your poor then stuff you, you must convert.

Analysing the crap out of a meaning of a word dosn't matter anyway.

That's not a Muslim thing. That's a HUMAN thing.

Believe what I believe or there will be trouble. This extends to politics and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Christians have had a good go of proselytization by the sword as well.

barney · 12 December 2006

wayneL said:
That's not a Muslim thing. That's a HUMAN thing.

Believe what I believe or there will be trouble. This extends to politics and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Christians have had a good go of proselytization by the sword as well.

Great thing about this site is you can always learn something new. I'm guessing I'm not the only one who had to look it up Wayne ............. And now that I know what it means ....... I agree with you ........

Proselytism is the practice of attempting to convert people to another opinion, usually another religion. The word proselytism is derived ultimately from the Greek language prefix 'pros' (towards) and the verb 'erchomai' (to come). Historically in the New Testament, the word proselyte denoted a person who had converted to the Jewish religion. Though the word proselytism was originally tied to Christianity, it is also used to refer to other religions' attempts to convert people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not. Today, the connotations of the word proselytism are often negative but this article will use the word neutrally to refer to any attempts to convert a person or people to another faith.

David Hicks protests

greggy

chops_a_must

Printing My Own Money

2020hindsight

gupper

chops_a_must

Printing My Own Money

greggy

nioka

Sean K

Moderator

2020hindsight

Sean K

Moderator

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

chops_a_must

Printing My Own Money

Freeballinginawetsuit

2020hindsight

new girl

Freeballinginawetsuit

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

barney

Similar threads

David Hicks protests

Printing My Own Money

Printing My Own Money

Moderator

Moderator

Printing My Own Money

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency