The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Australia v Hicks > Comments

Australia v Hicks : Comments

By Bruce Haigh and Kellie Tranter, published 1/6/2011

At the Sydney Writer's festival the audience found Hicks' account so compelling they gave him a standing ovation, all 900 of them.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. 11
  10. All
An article by two well informed writers.

Recently I stated that if Mladic is taken before the The Hague as he should be, then Bush be also a charged with crimes. His contribution to the deaths of not only Americans, no more important than Iraqis, but the differences in numbers of almost five thousand compared to perhaps hundreds of thousands, making Mladicís crimes pale by comparison. Let us not even count the permanently wounded, permanently scarred and unfit for life as they once were. What a record for a President, but then no worse than Kennedy for Laos and Cambodia, Johnson for Vietnam. Proud records indeed. Now they are the terrorists, by any description you can muster.
Bush lied to the world and people died, lots of people. A crime, surely.

On a lesser scale, Howard knew he had lied but still committed our troops to an illegal war which has now expanded into a war where 26 Australians have died so far in Afghanistan, a war about drugs, oil and US military hegemony. Donít doubt it for one second. As I have been saying for over a year, Pakistan is next and recent events confirm that.

There will always be those who try to capitalise on misfortune, like Leigh Sales writing anything but a definitive document.

An ovation for David Hicks was the least he deserved. An apology from Howard may be welcomed and some form of retribution warranted as well. Mamdouh Habib was well able to make the Government see reason in his case and David Hicks deserves no less than an apology from those who turned their back on an Australian in a foreign place just to satisfy the ego of a weak, sycophantic Prime Minister and his fawning relationship with a stupid, lying US President.

Presidents all seem to be tarred with the same brush including the current master of lying rhetoric, Obama, as It is not talent that decides these things, but graft and corruption. It is the US, after all.

Hang on to your hats in 2012.

Decent Australians have always supported David Hicks.
Posted by rexw, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 10:19:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article says more, [& none of it good], about our writers than it does about Hicks, or anyone else. I don't know what world they live in, but it sure isn't the one most of us know.

I have friends in Afghanistan right now, & if keeping them safe meant I had to shoot a dozen Hicks, I'd ask for a second clip of ammunition.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 11:38:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Bruce and Kellie, Iím sure you will always find some receptive audience on such as OLO and we do seem to warm to diverse perspectives and opinions. Activism for almost anything today seems to require the suspension of reality to make room for ideology.

I think this is where your article falls down badly. I donít understand why you feel no embarrassment or shame at your headline:

ďAt the Sydney Writer's festival the audience found Hicks' account so compelling they gave him a standing ovation, all 900 of them.Ē

Letís just think about this for a moment. So at a writerís festival, 900 attendees (all of them) gave a standing ovation to David Hicks for his compelling ďstoryĒ. Wow!

I have to wonder how many Australians take the view that David Hicks was captured as a battlefield combatant, cowering in a bunker, having trained with the enemy and fought for the enemy, whilst many Australian soldiers have sacrificed their lives to defeat that enemy. Some might also take the view that he might have been very lucky he was not shot on the spot by the Northern Alliance and even luckier that as an enemy combatant, he might have access to valuable intelligence. In the good old days of uniformed military he would have also been tried as a traitor and then shot.

But those sharing such a sentiment are of course, out of step with you two and 900 writers. I am eternally grateful to count myself as one of those very, very distant from these writers. I donít know how you sleep at night but Iím equally sure you have an explanation and a copious supply of hallucinogenic substances.

Those in our ADF who have sacrifced their lives will never have the opportunity to enjoy their families or write a book. But don't let that bother either of you. We all need our hero's don't we?
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 11:40:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it's impossible not to mock the lefty intelligentsia when it comes to David Hicks.

All up there applauding, proud of their little terrorist!

I like him... well not him, I just relate to the whole underdog thing, the rule of law, the anti-Uncle Sam, Howard hating, there are heaps of appealing angles, I can see the appeal and all, but I just think it's funny.

There's something adoringly cute about it all. Maybe something to do with the same said people probably needing a dirty neo-con to protect them the hint of the sight of a real terrorist. I dunno, it just strikes me as cute and funny.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 11:44:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
900 writers gave Hicks a standing ovation.

How sad
Posted by Chris Lewis, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 11:58:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article contained: "Simplistic and inaccurate characterisation is a habit that dies hard for some Australian journalists, shock-jocks and opinion writers who were only too willing to point out that "Hicks ain't no Che Guevara" when hearing of his standing ovation at the Sydney Writers' Festival."

I get from the above that the author considers Che Guevara a good guy. He isn't. He headed some of Castro's firing squads. Dictators (left, right or middle) have the nasty habit of murdering those they see as their enemies with either show or no trials. Those who willingly serve those criminals are also criminals. If "Hicks ain't no Che Guevara" that's something in Hicks' favour.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 12:05:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. 11
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy