SA Footy

He's just cleaning his RPG ... nothing remarkable about that.

He won't be suing the Australian Government, will he??? They didn't hold him for 7 years.

woodublieve12 wrote:It's irrelevant who backed who (America backed them when the soviets were in that patch of the planet) regarding Hicks! you still have to pick sides and he picked the side which ended up shooting at and killing our own. You can say he never shot australians, that's irrelevant too. He would hve if he wasn't caught!!
Got off on a technicality!
I know he will but I wish he never gets a cent to tell his story...

Yep normal

Him picking the 'wrong side' still doesn't justify what was done to him.

Also, I wouldn't have thought that behaviour of the 'right side' would involve detention without charge and torture.

Q. wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:It's irrelevant who backed who (America backed them when the soviets were in that patch of the planet) regarding Hicks! you still have to pick sides and he picked the side which ended up shooting at and killing our own. You can say he never shot australians, that's irrelevant too. He would hve if he wasn't caught!!
Got off on a technicality!
I know he will but I wish he never gets a cent to tell his story...

Yep normal

Him picking the 'wrong side' still doesn't justify what was done to him.

Also, I wouldn't have thought that behaviour of the 'right side' would involve detention without charge and torture.

Is the US the "right side"? It seems as though everything is cool, as long as they are doing it.
Wasn't the war on Iraq to find the hidden underground bases and weapons of mass destruction shunned by the UN only for the US to say "stuff you guys, we're going in anyway".

I'm very anti-war, I don't think David is a saint, I do think that he should not have been held captive for as long as he did without reason, it's inhumane and doesn't portray the US as "the good guys" like they think they are.

The majority of us think he was in the wrong place and should not have been where he was.
The majority of us think he should have been charged and jailed.

But this is where, for me, the debate centres:

If he was so guilty (which is what the majority of us think), why the hell did the Americans have to create a trumped-up charge that had no basis in law? It's pretty obvious he was guilty of something and should have been jailed, why and how did the Americans screw it up so badly that they couldn't charge him with an existing law that would not see his conviction overturned?


David Hick is Australia's new Ned Kelly - he's become a folk hero to the disaffected because, while he may have been guilty, he was persecuted by the law and treated unfairly. He has become a pariah and as time progresses and the basis of his story becomes shrouded in the mists of time, his myth will grow. All because the Americans went above the rule of law and were supported by the Australian government.

I think you're on the money DW.

Quite ironic when you consider the public support for 2 Australians who are incarcerated in Indonesia because they have committed crimes but have significant public sympathy because of the sentence handed down to them.

woodublieve12 wrote:It's irrelevant who backed who (America backed them when the soviets were in that patch of the planet) regarding Hicks! you still have to pick sides and he picked the side which ended up shooting at and killing our own. You can say he never shot australians, that's irrelevant too. He would hve if he wasn't caught!!
Got off on a technicality!
I know he will but I wish he never gets a cent to tell his story...

Yep normal

to be fair, that photo on its own doesnt mean much to me. there are several countries that you can travel to, and "play" with a variety of guns that arent even close to being legal here in this country. others have been photographed/filmed holding/using them and it hasnt meant they were terrorists. hell, id love to have a go with something like that (in the appropriate circumstances of course, ie, a firing range), making stuff go boom is actually quite fun

not commenting on anything else that is alleged to have happened, im not sure where i sit on the whole story myself. but just that the photo, in isolation, means very little

Should we have locked up these fells as well?



Although I wouldn't complain if we locked up this one ...

are you seriously comparing some lads on a trip in vegas and some crazy politician to guy who willinging went to fight for a terrorist group???

Just using examples to highlight that one photo on it's own doesn't prove much

no, i believe Dedj is comparing a picture of a guy with a gun, with other photos of guys with guns. you used the photo of hicks to suggest he isnt normal.

personally im not getting into the rest of the argument, as im not sure what my opinion is to be honest. im just commenting that the photo alone isnt enough to show he did anything wrong.

edit, lol, dedj just beat me to it

Pretty damning evidence ...

that's pretty funny...

i do see your point. i personally have zero time for the individual...

Here's a candidate.

hmmm, brb, hiding my nerf gun collection....

wait, i mean the kids nerf gun collection....

Better take this guy off the telly too then:

Hasta La Vista - Abey!

Any one that thinks this dog still deserves to breath or even be allowed back into this country should read his letters he was sending home. He was a terrorist, he is a terrorist he will always be a terrorist. He trained with terrorist groups and had meet his "lovely brother" osama bin laden multiple times. He was fighting the war against the western world after the 9/11 attacks and knew exactly what he was doing. The US should treated him like they treated his brother when he was caught.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 1115167069

Still doesn't justify detainment without charge for seven years and torture.

kickinit wrote: He was fighting the war against the western world after the 9/11 attacks and knew exactly what he was doing

If you'd bother to do five minutes of reading you'd realise that after fighting with the Kosovo Liberation Army he went to the middle east to fight for the Kashmiri insurgency on the India Pakistan border.

America invaded Afghanistan at the time he was in the region. Doesn't equate to him 'fighting the war against the western world' and the above facts have been acknowledged by the US.

Q. wrote:

kickinit wrote: He was fighting the war against the western world after the 9/11 attacks and knew exactly what he was doing

If you'd bother to do five minutes of reading you'd realise that after fighting with the Kosovo Liberation Army he went to the middle east to fight for the Kashmiri insurgency on the India Pakistan border.

America invaded Afghanistan at the time he was in the region. Doesn't equate to him 'fighting the war against the western world' and the above facts have been acknowledged by the US.

Maybe if you had bothered to do 5mins of reading you would of known about his hate towards the western world and how Allah will rule the western world. And how they are prepared to go to war with the western world. You do realise that hicks pleaded guilty to the charge and has also admitted to training with terrorist. Anyone that wants to call osama bin laden his brother deserves nothing but a bullet in his head.

As much as you want to fight it Q Hicks is a terrorist and given the chance he would of been shooting at our soldiers. Shooting at the men and women that protect this country.