The Forum > Article Comments > Defining David Hicks > Comments
Defining David Hicks : Comments
By Neil James, published 9/6/2006Releasing David Hicks is not as easy and straightforward as it seems.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Page 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- ...
- 22
- 23
- 24
-
- All
Posted by Anth, Thursday, 22 June 2006 6:35:42 PM
| |
Anth
Thank`s good post you expressed your feelings well. Dees post was good. She pointed out a few more details. Hicks has no loyalty to Australia Anth.That’s the end of it as far as I am concerned. Your right about one thing> He got Caught. Tough. I am not anti Muslim Anth but I am certainly anti any Ausie who leaves his or her own country to fight against us. I am sick of the lies from the Australian Government who hide behind the Vaile See Minister of Trade www.livexports.com Alexander Downer and Mark Vaile pretty much treat the public with utter contempt. They push live animal exports and use the tax payer’s funds to do it regardless of the fact that 90 percent want it stopped. Yes I have far more sympathy for animals being sent live to Middle East than Hicks. They didn’t ask to be there! Which brings me to you Senator Fielding. We are still waiting for your good Christian values to stand up against animal cruelty. AFIC The Australian Federation Of Islamic Council have put out several media Releases denouncing Animal cruelty involved with live exports and informing the public that they do not require animals live. So if the Muslims are screaming about the cruelty of live animal exports what’s wrong with you Senator Fielding as a good Christian? John Howard Downer Vaile stops your lies to the Australian Public. Now you have Senator who represents all Christian Churches I hope the Islamic faith of Islam Give you heaps. Who has the kindest laws of faith re animal cruelty? According to my records it’s the Muslim faith who has complained about the Australian Government lying to the public about their so called requirements of live animals for religious purposes. The truth is you have flooded the country with cheap imports and are traitors to the Australian farmers and young job seekers. You have sold our country out and we are in massive foreign debt. Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Thursday, 22 June 2006 9:09:18 PM
| |
Dee this might come as a complete surprise to you but genuine refugees cannot get documents and in our law they don't actually need any to enter Australia. If Afghans are being tortured and killed by the Taliban how can they get papers from the Taliban? What about in Iraq - how could Iraqis have got papers from Saddam Hussein without being shot.
What you don't understand is that 98% of the people you still call illegals, which they are not, are still here and not one of them ever had legal documents - and there has never been a trace of evidence anyone destroyed papers - they didn't have any. Afghans were not registered at birth from 1973 onwards so how could the people have papers? Get a grip Dee, real refugees are allowed to travel without papers and in fact it is almost mandatory. As for Jew hating. Do you know what Australia said in 1938 when asked to accept Jews escaping nazi Germany? They said piss off and 6 million people were slaughtered. I have worked out that it would take about 17,000 years at the current rate for the so-called fanatical islamists to replicate that. David Hicks was not fighting with anyone - he guarded a tank and was trying to catch a taxi. Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Friday, 23 June 2006 3:10:27 AM
| |
Dee yes I hear You. Most Ausies do. M now thinks we are responsible for 6 Million dews being killed by the crouts for god sake. Can you imagine Australia in 1938 taking 6 million. I think the Anti Ausie agenda is what is the so called support for Hick The Dick.
M said he was just catching a taxi. I quite Like M and shes very entertaining but I only post on here for a break from real politics to some humour in life. Anybody that even thinks these posts make the slightest difference are fooling themselves. M It is a fantacy to say people do not destroy papers once they arrive. My friend was incharge of federal police years ago and I assure you that you are totally wrong. I assume you dont think we should turn anybody away, except everybody on their word and put everybody into Ausie jobs or on welfare. Is that Correct? Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Friday, 23 June 2006 9:10:33 AM
| |
Marilyn – “genuine refugees cannot get documents”
So you would have us believe that there is absolutely no way for Afghans, Iraqis etc to prove their identities? Pro-asylum seekers have told us (ad nauseum) that would be refugees sell their houses and property to get the cash to buy their illegal passage – but there is never documentation? I for one would not expect them to provide birth certificates or other government-generated proof but its really stretching it to ask us to believe that they have nothing whatsoever in their possession to help prove their identity. If this is so, how did they enter Indonesia? And why would anyone in his/her right mind expect to arrive on the doorstep of another country (without documentation of any kind) and expect the authorities of that country to believe their stories without question? You blame Australia for the slaughter of 6 million Jews? Why not blame the Nazis? You keep saying that Hick’s only crime was to guard a tank - yeah, unfortunately the tank belonged to the Taliban. So did he disobey Taliban orders and try to catch a taxi? I have often thought that al-qaeda had plans for Hicks – perhaps they needed him for a task that would arouse suspicion if carried out by a Middle Eastern Muslim, but Hicks, as a white Australian, would have been ideal. “ so-called fanatical islamists ..” Why ‘so called’? Has it not been demonstrated to your satisfaction that there are fanatical Islamic Fascists planning and carrying out terrorist attacks against us Posted by dee, Friday, 23 June 2006 12:09:33 PM
| |
I feel like wading in here. Something has struck a nerve.
Here is the story of the St Louis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_St._Louis Note that those refugees were fleeing for their lives. Many had sold everything they had. Many families sold their meagre belongings just to send ONE member to safety (ring any bells yet?). In their haste, they fell prey to bureaucratic red-tape (ring any bells yet?). Yet when they appealed to the "Land of The Free", the President was silent and the US Coastguard put a shot across her bows (ring any bells yet?). "If we let them in, where will it stop?" (ring any bells yet?). "They breed like rabbits, they have different habits and customs" (ring any bells yet?). Neither the USA nor Canada would let them touch land (ring any bells yet?). In the end, Britain and three European countries took them in, but alas, so many were swept back to their deaths when Europe was overrun by the Nazis. * This is not simple sentimentality on my part. Callous indifference, such as we have shown in this country and on this website, has deep historical consequences. Look at the Middle East today. We who profess to be Christians, should practise the humilty that we preach, even when it hurts. It never hurts. Even a lost soul like me is prepared to try that at least. Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Friday, 23 June 2006 12:14:40 PM
|
I still don't know what a "pro-Aussie" or an "anti-Aussie" is in your books, except that your pro-Aussies seem to be racist, intolerant and jingoistic.
I think your Australia and mine are different Wendy.
In the Australia I love, people are generally decent. They have an instinct, almost a gut feeling, about what is right and fair, and what is not. And in the Australia that I love, lots of people have used that instinct to reflect on David Hicks.
When he was arrested, I think lots of people's instinctive reaction was "Well, tough bickies mate. You got caught playing for the wrong team, so face your punishment."
As it became clear that he was being imprisoned in pretty tough conditions, I suspect some people decided fairness would bring him home, while many others thought "Well, it would be better if he were in a proper prison, but he got to Guantanamo by his own efforts."
As time dragged on and it became clear that the Yanks were in no hurry to give him a day in court for a fair trial, I reckon most people's instincts got to even-money. "Yeah, he should face his punishment, but he deserves a proper trial and punishment."
Now, my instincts tell me Hicks is a bloody fool who should never have gone to Afghanistan; that when he was caught fighting for the wrong team, he deserved to be imprisoned, tried and punished; that the trial and punishment should have happened by no; and that regardless of what *Hicks* has done, what the *Yanks* are doing just isn't right.
It's like the situation if you ever saw cops catch a crim then wantonly beat him. I'm glad the crim was caught. I want him tried and punished. But I don't think the cops should act that way.
I'm almost sorry for you, Wendy. Almost. But I'll tell you this. I'm not anti-Aussie, but I'm definitely anti-Wendy. And if you think you're the epitome of "Australian", I reckon you're wrong.
Anth