Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Hicks on Channel Nine

Jump to new
Pat said:
So true. :iagree:

Great idea, think Denton maybe a little intimidated by Hicks?
Click to expand...

Why would Andrew Denton be even remotely intimidated by Mr Hicks?
I've never thought of Hicks as being intimidating in the least, to anyone really.
 
The main motivation behind his behaviour from now on would be rehabilitation and money. Getting on to a tv show with Raaaaaaaaay or Andrew Denton would be a huge bonus for him. Intimidated, probably not. Money from appearances either as a primary consequence or as publicity for future gains , definitely yes.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
The main motivation behind his behaviour from now on would be rehabilitation and money. Getting on to a tv show with Raaaaaaaaay or Andrew Denton would be a huge bonus for him. Intimidated, probably not. Money from appearances either as a primary consequence or as publicity for future gains , definitely yes.

gg
Click to expand...
Only treading a well worn path... as per Chopper Reid (as mentioned above) and various other villains.

That doesn't reflect badly on Hicks. If it reflects badly at all, it is on our celebrity (by hook or by crook) obsessed, glossy magazine/big brother culture.

I would like to hear his story (Denton would definitely be better). The money part is a by-product of how we are.
 
wayneL said:
Only treading a well worn path... as per Chopper Reid (as mentioned above) and various other villains.

That doesn't reflect badly on Hicks. If it reflects badly at all, it is on our celebrity (by hook or by crook) obsessed, glossy magazine/big brother culture.

I would like to hear his story (Denton would definitely be better). The money part is a by-product of how we are.
Click to expand...

He can certainly tell stories, but the truth?

gg
 
Wayne, do they still have caves and blind old Chinese men in Gloucestershire ?? lol.

It sounds like you've been into something last night.

I can hear where you are coming from though. A fair go, sums it up, but how fair should we be?

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Wayne, do they still have caves and blind old Chinese men in Gloucestershire ?? lol.

It sounds like you've been into something last night.

I can hear where you are coming from though. A fair go, sums it up, but how fair should we be?

gg
Click to expand...
I haven't found any caves or blind old Chinese men. I have however, found many quaint and friendly old pubs. :D

Going up to Cleeve Common in the morning, I'll keep an extra sharp eye out.
 
In a world full of remarkable people doing remarkable things almost on a daily basis we again find attention focusing on those least deserving of it.
In the case of David Hicks I suspect the truth left town quite some time ago leaving only speculation and voyeurism, which he will, with the able assistance of our media, undoubtably dine out on for some time.

Fortunately as adults we do have the individual freedom to ignore the likes of Hicks, Chopper Reid, Mick Gatto, etc. along with the exploits of many other entertainment industry "stars" entry and exit from rehab. But what are we teaching our kids.
 
The real pity is that Hicks wasn't given the opportunity to freely speak about his side of the story via an open and transparent legal process, so we have had to rely on spin and hearsay from the US military/US government instead.

There is plenty of hard evidence that US govt spin often provides a misleading representation of the facts.

The whole purpose of an open and transparent legal process is to prevent exactly the sort of situation that we are in now which is that nobody really knows the truth.

"Truth is the first casualty of war".


We've heard plenty from the US military and US govt - but haven't really heard much from Hicks himself - so why not give him the opportunity to speak without duress. An opportunity that the US government, being the defenders of 'freedom and democracy' should have given him.
 
cuttlefish said:
The real pity is that Hicks wasn't given the opportunity to freely speak about his side of the story via an open and transparent legal process, so we have had to rely on spin and hearsay from the US military/US government instead.

There is plenty of hard evidence that US govt spin often provides a misleading representation of the facts.

The whole purpose of an open and transparent legal process is to prevent exactly the sort of situation that we are in now which is that nobody really knows the truth.

"Truth is the first casualty of war".


We've heard plenty from the US military and US govt - but haven't really heard much from Hicks himself - so why not give him the opportunity to speak without duress. An opportunity that the US government, being the defenders of 'freedom and democracy' should have given him.
Click to expand...

Because it will make no positive difference to the whole sorry saga and will only be about how much revenue can be generated from the ensuing speculation. Yes, there was a time when he should have been heard but that has now passed and nothing good can any longer be achieved, just pointless intellectual debate.
 
dalek said:
Because it will make no positive difference to the whole sorry saga and will only be about how much revenue can be generated from the ensuing speculation. Yes, there was a time when he should have been heard but that has now passed and nothing good can any longer be achieved, just pointless intellectual debate.
Click to expand...

Not too sure that you are correct. The actual infringements of rights that have occurred under the banner of the "War on Terror" may well constitute grounds for civil proceedings down the track. With a change of administration in the future there may also be legal grounds for criminal proceedings against elements of the previous administration.

The rule of law under fear and the political interferance in the judicial system will eventualy fail.
 
explod said:
Not too sure that you are correct. The actual infringements of rights that have occurred under the banner of the "War on Terror" may well constitute grounds for civil proceedings down the track. With a change of administration in the future there may also be legal grounds for criminal proceedings against elements of the previous administration.

The rule of law under fear and the political interferance in the judicial system will eventualy fail.
Click to expand...

Similar arguments were put by the hard left and communists during the cold war. They have been replaced by the maudlin and green left who complain about the war on terror. The times they are not a changin. Hicks has done his time. Lets not glorify him with publicity.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Similar arguments were put by the hard left and communists during the cold war. They have been replaced by the maudlin and green left who complain about the war on terror. The times they are not a changin. Hicks has done his time. Lets not glorify him with publicity.

gg
Click to expand...

No one is glorifying Hicks. he was a normal young fool who's frontal brain lobes had not yet matured. And I can assure you I am not a leftie or a communist. This of course is the normal tripe trotted out by those who do not5 have the brainpower to come to terms with real right and wrong.

Hicks sufferred well beyond the supposed crime. You are not well informed GG. I could go on but but "some people you just cant' reach".

And the times they are a-changing, first because the hip pocket is being hit and second the only answer that Governments will have is to become self rightious and point out that it was the previous regime that did this. Think a bit further forward Garpel and you will see some light.

As far as Hicks is concerned, the punishment metered out to him, prior to the (Kangaroo Court) conviction I might add, went well beyond his missdeed.

cheers explod.
 
prawn_86 said:
I think he has a right to profit from it, i would want to.

He was detained illegally for years on end with total disregard for the Geneva convention. I hope he makes a motza out of it.


PS - This is not endorsing whatever he did or did not do, just highlighting the fact that the powers above get away with breaking the law all the time so why shouldnt others...
Click to expand...

Profit for being a terrorist ?!!! what kind of irony is that?

wouldn't that just be encouraging others to do the same to make a mint?

i for one think hicks should have never returned to Australia, especially being the traitor he is

but of course as Australians we are all do gooders and just too nice to even our worst enemies

not to mention his hero status among some people *shakes head* what is this world coming to? make a motza :confused:
 
agro said:
Profit for being a terrorist ?!!! what kind of irony is that?

wouldn't that just be encouraging others to do the same to make a mint?

i for one think hicks should have never returned to Australia, especially being the traitor he is

but of course as Australians we are all do gooders and just too nice to even our worst enemies

not to mention his hero status among some people *shakes head* what is this world coming to? make a motza :confused:
Click to expand...
Terrorist?

What acts of terrorism did Hicks commit?
 
agro said:
none at all - he was just in Afghanistan for a holiday
Click to expand...

You are probably close to the mark. He was certainly after adventure and got more than he bargained for. But to brand him a terrorist without all the facts?

Just because the press and some heads of state say so. Be an individual and not a sheep.
 
agro said:
none at all - he was just in Afghanistan for a holiday
Click to expand...

Adventure tourism ya reckon...:D

I really think people urgently need to get away from the asinine neo-con tactic of describing all military opponents as terrorists, lest our own military be classed as such.

I recall the Rumsfeldian "shock and awe" terminology regarding the bombing of Baghdad. What motive is shock and awe, if not terror?

With all our awareness of propaganda, we are still so susceptible and malleable.

Whatever Hicks is, we can't legitimately use the word "terrorist", without prostituting the term for the US' neo-conservative benefit.

:2twocents
 
explod said:
You are probably close to the mark. He was certainly after adventure and got more than he bargained for. But to brand him a terrorist without all the facts?

Just because the press and some heads of state say so. Be an individual and not a sheep.
Click to expand...

i spose you can tell me the facts?

he was certainly after an adventure? lol
 
how do you view graffiti artists on the train and public property?

are they part of an adventure as well?

or criminals?

this is minor compared with Hicks

when we have soldiers dying - was he on our side? helping us? our fighting against us?

if you are not with us, you are against us! he ought to be shot in my books
 
Top