Chris Shaw - " .. nothing in the history of Islam to explain this great terrorism .. "

I dont know whether to laugh or cry. Chris, you have obviously not studied the history of Islam and its 1400 years of aggression against non-Muslims. The 350 word limit prevents me from posting the hundreds of quotes disproving your misconception - here are two:

Ibn Hudayl was a 14th century Granadan author who wrote an important treatise on jihad:

“It is permissible to set fire to the lands of the enemy, his stores of grain, his beasts of burden – if it is not possible for the Muslims to take possession of them – as well as to cut down his trees, to raze his cities, in a word, to do everything that might ruin and discourage him, provided that the imam (i.e. the religious “guide” of the community of believers) deems these measures appropriate, suited to hastening the Islamization of that enemy or to weakening him. Indeed, all this contributes to a military triumph over him or to forcing him to capitulate.”

Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) - a jurist, renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, he summarized these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior Sunni Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad:

"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations."

Sound familiar?

Wendy, I sincerley apologise for my misguided personal comment. I would not have made that remark if I knew all the facts.

Nevertheless, the facts you seem to overlook in the Hicks case include that

His involvement in fighting aganst the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan was also NOT illegal and took place before 911 events
There is NO evidence that he was involved in any plot to attack Australia or any other Western country
There is NO evidence to say he was a member of Al Quaeda let alone fighting for Al Quaeda
Furthermore he says that he was disillusioned and leaving after he heard about the WTC attack but returned to retrieve his personal papers. He was then trapped and conscripted by the Taliban to guard a tank at Kandahar Airport. He was eventually sold to the US by for $1000 and picked up at a taxi station while trying to leave the country.


There are only two lawyers in Australia who argue that the military commissions are fair.

They are Howard and Ruddock - the same men who insisted that refugees threw their children overboard and who are now sucking-up to Indonesia by changing our own immigration laws.

Just as Hicks was sold to the US by the Northern Alliance for money, our own Government is selling him as a kind of token "War Trophy" to help justify two illegal acts of international aggression and to help stitch up the Free-Trade Agreement that followed shortly after.

If Hicks is proven guilty of any real offence during a fair and open trial I will be among the first to condemn him.
Until then he is entitled to the same diplomatic protection as any other Australian citizen.
If he was being held and tortured by any other country without charge all diplomatic hell would break loose.
In this matter, the USA and Australia are morally no better than those insurgents who kidnap and torture contractors in Iraq for their own political ends.

Dee,

It DOES sound familiar. Who would have thought it possible? A violent Holy book.

The Bible is actually more violent toward unbelievers than the Koran
(Deteronomy 13:6-15 vs Koran 9:29)

The Bible promotes greater cruelty in warfare
Deuternomy 21:13-16 vs Koran 47:4

but both religions demand that enemies should be killed without pity
Ezekiel 9:5-7 vs Koran 8:61

I can quote many more but I think you many can see that neither book has a monopoly on kindness toward unbelievers.

What somebody said in the 14th Century is not really relevant to what people do or believe today, despite prejudices on all sides.

For example, the Bible (and even Jesus) does not condemn slavery but we don't condone it today.

I don't think obscure religious references will do anything for David Hicks but they do illustrate how uninformed predudices control what we say.

Dee your correct I typed the wrong persons name.

Sache Thanks for the apology however to be honest your not entiley wrong about Hick the dick[ Sorry couldnt resist]

I could not care less about him.

At least I am honest.

In every war there are prisoners and I just dont get it in this new age of war that we are supposed to make them a cuppa and cookies provide tV and slipers.

No I dont hate all Muslims but i hate the extream ones and I dont care what happens to prisoners to be honest.

Maybe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and maybe he was in the right place at the right time.

Ever thought of that.?

I say this knowing the lies that Howard tells better than most .

However he is pretty on the mark about getting in first and fighting them on their own turf.

So i am saying i think torture and isolation is a part of wars.

Its used on both sides.

Also I do NOT beleive all these people going on even think about this Hicks guy. I bet you a shilling on the side i would care more than anyone of them about the person.

Many Muslims are good people its just a shame about the odd few million that want to blow up the west.

Yep give hicks a trial but dont loose too much sleep over him because if u are not Muslim he would not loose any over you[beleive me] .

Cheers my friend.

"our familys international School of English and Langage." (sic)

I know I wasn't going to post again but that is just about the funniest thing I have ever read!

If they sine up and pas do yu gif dem a diplomma?

ROFL!

Anth

Horus
You have left out the stand we took on Vietnam, was there a reason for this ommission?

dee
Check the FBI most wanted terrorist list, Osama is not wanted for the twin towers job.