Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

Indeed those were very troubling times, for many Vietnam Vets all those years ago. The ostracism, practised by those folk who were against the Vietnam War had a terrible emotional effect on many of those Vets. upon their return home. Still ONTHEBEACH, it's a long time ago, I guess those days should be consigned to the dark recesses of the 'Hurt Locker' as a Vet mate of mine, recently 'chirped up' ? Perhaps he's right, who knows.

Mate, do you ever wonder what would happen to this great country of ours, if we were ever required to go on to a 'war footing' ? With so many of the 'Left' out there, who'll remain to do the fighting ? We all know that our enemy is within. I think even the 'naysayers' will now concede there's sufficient evidence of the existence of Islamic combatants already in Oz, so any question of an invasion is essentially moot I would've thought ? Still I could be wrong ?

Your appraisal of what the poor ol' UK is going through is correct worse, astounding ! The last time I was in London was 1995, even as far back as then, many of the store signs and other similar billboards were emblazoned with Arabic script ?

An old acquaintance of mine from my days attached to SAC PAV, said it was thought, the UK would be totally Islamicized by the year 2035/45. With many of the Midlands cities, Birmingham, Coventry, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield and Chester etc., all are heavily populated by Muslims. Their birth rate was well ahead of other ethnicities, and miles ahead of the anglo saxon population ?

I've always had tremendous regard for the Poms, their Winchester style of government, their justice system, and of course, their modern policing strategies. Still, with all their skill, diplomacy, intelligence services (MI5 & MI6), I really don't know, with the best will in the world, how they're going to halt and curb this growing radical Islamization from taking a much firmer hold ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

I do not see myself as the "font of all information,"
on any given subject.
As I'm sure neither do you see yourself that way.
However, educators and librarians - have a
responsibility not to deny, but to add, enrich,
stimulate, and provide information on a wide variety of
subjects from a wide variety of sources.
It's an occupational habit that I tend to also practice
here on the forum - as appropriate. Your preference is
Mr Alan Jones, et al - and that's your choice - to which
you are of course entitled.

I agree that there is no point in debating
issues when someone is more interested in condemnation
than explanation. Explanations seem tantamount to
sympathising and excusing - and this all too easily
leads onto the questionable practice of stereotyping.
This can encourage "counter-stereotyping" and the
result is usually a complete breakdown in communication.

Hopefully we can continue to debate less controversial and
less emotive issues in the future - without making
judgements about each other.

FOXY...

I'm not sure whether you were aware of two anti-terrorist groups that were, or still are, contained within the Australian Intelligence community ? Previously, designated by the acronym PSCC and SAC-PAV ? Naturally because of the passage of time, and the much higher profile world wide terrorism has now received, not to mention 9/11, many western nations (including us here in OZ) have needed to put in place various strategies in order to keep on top of this evolving terrorist activity.

These two highly specialised groups, formed part of the overall Intelligence and reactionary strategies that had been developed by our government for the purpose of interdicting 'home grown' terrorism before it actually took a hold in our country. Moreover they were also tasked to liaison with other Nations in a watching brief, as known terrorists groups moved around the world ? SAC PAV, was an area that I and several others had some involvement.

It's not necessary for me to go into any detail, only to say these two groups were possessed of some very skilled analysts and specially trained police members from ALL Aussie forces. Including our military (the SASR and special forces), ASIO, ASIS, ONA and anor. Data that came through these centres was closely scrutinized, and any and all players therein, including their activities, are closely monitored.

David HICKS and his activities was on their radar quite early on. I should add, I was not (precisely) privy to any of the analytical 'product' concerning the HICKS matter. But you can be assured he's absolutely no angel.

In conclusion FOXY, you can dismiss the above as you wish, it's entirely up to you, it no longer matters to me ? I'll admit your remarks were disappointing ? Anyway, it's water under the bridge, and I know were I stand.

I repeat I don't believe David HICKS is worthy of one scintilla of public sympathy. The fact many of the 'left', find him such a worthy charismatic figure, absolutely astounds me ?

O Sung Wu,

It's strange how history is remembered. As an anti-War protester from about 1965, I took it for granted that the thrust of any protest was the legitimacy of the war and whether or not - given Eisenhower's remarks about free elections back in about 1958 - foreign troops should be there at all.

It took me many, many years - perhaps until well after 1975 - to realise that for most of the Left, the purpose of protest was to oppose conscription: the rights or wrongs of involvement in Vietnam didn't seem to matter, and the fortunes of Australian conscripts seemed to mean far more than the lives of Vietnamese people. As soon as conscription was abolished by Whitlam, and the massive bombings of Hanoi were over in early 1973, that was the end of pretty much all protest.

With hindsight though, I would have to say, on the one hand, that the Vietnamese people had, and have, the right to choose their own government (people can read into that what they like), but on the other, the treatment of ex-SVA troops and supporters, after the war was well and truly over, was abominable and sadistic: decades of forced labour on chemical-affected land, with deliberately salty rice as the main food. Sheer vindictiveness.

Just some thoughts :)

Joe

G'day LOUDMOUTH...

I understand Joe what you're saying. As an Aussie veteran, (regular Army) the legitimacy of that long war has now been consigned to history. Being young and stupid, as opposed to being old and much more stupid, I didn't and still don't understand why the war was prosecuted at all ?

It was my understanding, communism was inexorably moving down from the then, 'Red China' North Vietnam, and then into South Vietnam. If it were not halted there, it would later move into Thailand ? Then into Malaysia, and finally Australia ? That was what I understood and remember. Communism was considered a very dirty word, and even a whiff that you may be a Communist or even just a sympathiser, you'd have ASIO and others camped on your doorstep forever and a day ?

Some of my mates have gone back, and speak glowingly of the welcome they received by our former enemies ? Myself, I still have a few issues, and until they're dealt with I'll stay home, in any event I'm too old and not particularly ambulatory to undertake such a venture.

I'm nevertheless amazed to hear how forgiving the former NVA's have been, as well as many former cong ! Considering how they'd suffered and sustained so many losses at our hands. Their courage, fortitude, and toughness is legendary I reckon, beside they (in their minds) were only defending their sovereign lands, from us foreign invaders. I guess when you have 'right' on your side, as a moral imperative, they'd became almost insurmountable as an enemy, despite their massive losses and what was thrown at them.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Rhys Jones stated on another discussion -
"Simply labelling an organisation as "terrorist"
does not make it so. The Taliban were the ruling
power in Afghanistan and were facing an invasion by
Western Forces. David Hicks went to fight for them.
That does not make him or them a terrorist."

"Many young men go off to fight in foreign wars.
Whether they join the French Foreign Legion or the
Israeli Defence Force..." - as Rhys states, "they
fight for what they perceive to be the side of right."

Rhys Jones states -
" David Hicks also fought with the Kosovo Liberation Army."
And asks the question - "Was Hicks a terrorist then?"
"Or does the fact that we backed them at that time mean
they are not terrorists?"

It has never been proven that David Hicks undertook
terrorist training. There has never been any evidence
to suggest this. In fact, several independent sources,
including members of the Australian Military, have
confirmed that the training David Hicks received was
basic standard military training, poor in quality to
that received by our Australian troops. There is
nothing to suggest that David Hicks received training
in bomb making, flying planes into buildings, blowing
up school buses or shopping malls. That is terrorism.
David Hicks received training that was centred around
soldier to soldier combat catered to the copnditions
of the terrain in Kasmir.

David Hicks did not fight against Australian or US
troops. There were no Coalition forces on the ground
in Kunduz at the time David Hicks was there. He also
did not fire one shot outside of military training in
Afghanistan - this has been acknowledged by the US.
David Hicks did not at any point engage foreign
soldiers in combat.

On this issue I stand by the facts as stated by
Dan Mori - the American Lawyer who defended David
Hicks in Guantanamo. By Colonel Morris Davis, Chief
Prosecutor for the Military Commissions, Reports
of the Military Commissions, and reputable journalists
like Antony Loewenstein, who researched and reported on
the findings of the David Hicks case.