Bushbasher

You ask

1) why does objecting to muehlenberg's article have anything to do with being "left"?
Objecting to the article does not have anything to do with the left. The disguise of making a martyr out of a terroist because you hate the policies of the incumbent Government does however say a lot about a person's political persuasion. Again read some of the comments by the Howard haters above. The silence of the injustice done to the 2 Danny's in Victoria from the left was incredible. I wonder why? Here we see true injustice and the left is silence. Why? They can't blame Howard.

2) can you point to a single "truth" in muehlenberg's article which you believe i find upsetting?

Not knowing you personally this is difficult. The labelling of the ABC/SBS bias often gets many in the left up in arms because they quick to point out others predujices but blind to their own. I would probably guess that the authors statement which I believe will prove to be factual that 'The very West which Hicks has been warring against now seems ready to reward him for his actions. ' would upset many on the left.

I think you are drawing a long bow there Leham;
Lesson 1 is the left have had it in always for Jews; (See Karl Marx) he also hated Slavs and Negro’s, and now Leftoids have soiled in their own pants over that saga, you should correlate your theology and apply some observations to some commentary above;

I can see that your masters did not tell everyone the truth about your Creator (Marx) aided by Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci's strategy for achieving the total state.

The same vial hatred is being preached upon Christians this time around, but still secretly snuck away brooding over the Jewish question; it still lay close to the surface for your brethren. And just on a few special occasions it blurts out.
I can supply volumes if you wish, but some how I realize you would not read it.

It must strike people odd; Jesus preached all the tolerance and love you proletariat do, but that’s the point; He and Christians now are demonized whilst your Idol created only Psychological Guilt by tearing out people’s souls , the persecution- execution. Yes, a long history indeed.

Your whole Idealism is based on a Psychological Trope Theory ; sureal and Twilight zoned Metaphysics of nothingness but perseptions , and very wet pockets.
Nothing is real in that world.
But we the living must continue.ha.

runner

If Nalliah and Scot had been locked up in solitary confinement for 5 years without trial you may have a point. They were not so you do not.

But it brings us back to the point of this this article, it is about how we allow other people to treat Australians and whether our Govt. has a role in ensuring that, no matter what the accused has done, he or she receives a fair trial. A principle I think is hard to deny.

Nalliah and Scot have the benefit of our legal system, their appeal has resulted in a retrial and will probably end up in the High Court. A fair legal system in action.

My personal view is that Bill, Alan, Salt Shakers etc. are dangerous for our society, my view I am entitled to it.

At least I am honest enough to say what my opinions are, and try to back them with some kind of logic.

On another matter, should we shoot the army colonel who has just been arrested for selling stolen rocket launchers in Australia?

I read this article as mostly a humerous exageration of Bill's beliefs. I think he was basically saying Hicks is not a hero, and he shouldn't be considered as such, even if the way he said it may have been a little off-putting for some OLO readers.

Personally I think it was absolutely wrong that Hicks was detained for so long without charge/trial (goes against every legal principle I know ) but now that he has been charged, I look forward to some form of justice finally happening (which could mean the appropriate punishment, if he is in fact a terrorist... and if he is found not guilty... wow... I can't imagine how USA/Australia will try and make it up to him).

runner, i don't fundamentally disagree with what you wrote, but i think it pretty much bolsters what i was saying.

1) the point is to not make unwarranted caricatures. it may be true that some howard-haters are simply using hicks as a way to beat up on howard, but:

a) the sense i get is that people writing here are not using the hicks situation as a political tool, but rather are genuinely disgusted (as i am) by the unjust procedures. of course, since howard by and large supports these procedures it is easily consistent to also hate howard, but that doesn't mean howard-hating is the motivation.

b) hating howard (and bush) leaves plenty of room to hate many others. my disgust for howard doesn't preclude my disgust for many others, on both the left and the right.

i think your two danny's example reinforces the point. some people supported, or failed to support, these guys for straight political reasons, but it was and is silly to automatically characterise such stances in any particular way. on the two dannys, i happen to agree with you (though i think steve is right to question the comparison to hicks): what happened to them was legal thuggery, and bracks is a moralising creep.

2) i think your sbs "fact" is more opinion than solid fact (though i tend to agree with it). your second "fact" is a prediction: it may come true, and the possibility is worth noting and debating, though i can't imagine who it would upset. but i think the examples you've chosen indicate the factual poverty of muehlenberg's article: whatever is upsetting me and others, it's definitely not muehlenberg's facts.

I seriously doubt you actually believe that;
Prisoners of war surrendered or capture- they then try applies a supposed civil law suit against his captors, regardless of nationality; it is ridicules and absurd;

Using your Theory, we would dismiss our armies and parachute battalions of social workers and baeurocrats.

Some seem to be drawing from the Chomsky theory of protecting fellow anarchists by any means. As we well know there are thousands of Terrorists and equally idiotic anarchists who are held for long periods with out charge.
So this is in turn a cheap shot and a typical anti Americanism charge of reduculess proportions.

In some obscure round about way ; I am more suppressed that John Howard has not been accredited to be the most powerful man in the world, as he can even dictate to the President of the U S A and be obeyed, and that is some mighty authority John Howard carries.
Fairdinkum.

How many Americans or Brits are held in prisons in the Middle East without charge; if indeed they are luck enough to escape their captors barbarity or be disembogued or skinned alive ?
Even Pericles will love this link;
http://www.oswaldmosley.com/buf/18b.htm