Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pow-wow at The Pink Palace

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pow-wow at The Pink Palace

    The Commission examining the crimes committed by the inmates at Gitmo is about to sit.

    This will be a litmus test for PM John Howard into how effective australia's War on Terror has been - if Hicks and the other fella are found guilty, the reaction of the Aust. public is going to determine the nations reaction to an extension of the War on Terror (say into NK)

    personally, I think the average aussie is peeved at the US detaining one of citizens for so long without trial, but other than that, the current "I'm not sick...vomit" Latham vs "I'm not a Liar" Howard tussle is of more interest.

    to be honest, I think Hicks is as guilty as hell, and should get what's coming to him.
    Now listening too;
    - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Ivan Rapkinov
    The Commission examining the crimes committed by the inmates at Gitmo is about to sit.

    This will be a litmus test for PM John Howard into how effective australia's War on Terror has been - if Hicks and the other fella are found guilty, the reaction of the Aust. public is going to determine the nations reaction to an extension of the War on Terror (say into NK)

    personally, I think the average aussie is peeved at the US detaining one of citizens for so long without trial, but other than that, the current "I'm not sick...vomit" Latham vs "I'm not a Liar" Howard tussle is of more interest.

    to be honest, I think Hicks is as guilty as hell, and should get what's coming to him.

    Latham v Howard

    Anyway, how can you be so sure of his guilt, theres been no trial yet and we can't be sure the one he gets is going to be fair. I still can't understand what law he could be tried for breaking.
    Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't think he's guilty of a crime per se, but I think he was opposing US forces in Afghanistan; hence he's guilty of treason. a similar situation would be me going to Chechnya and fighting the Russians -> I'm not Chechen, the aust. government is friendly with Russia, hence treason. (very simplified explanation, but it will suffice )

      my take on Hicks was he was a wannabe, and when someone offered him a chance to carry a big gun and be a "big man", he jumped in all the way. I think the religious thing is a smokescreen, and basically he wanted a war, and he didn;t care whom he was fighting for - he's a sociopath and aust. isn;t equipped to properly deal with him,.

      unlawful combatant. terrorist. patriot. Depending on you veiwpoint, he could be all of those.
      Now listening too;
      - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

      Comment


      • #4
        Well you would have to prove he fought against the US, he may have fought against the NA, but you could say he was there first. As for sociopaths the country is full of them anyway, as far as i know Hicks had already fought in the Balkans on the Muslim side. He went to Afganistan to (in his mind) practice a more pure religion while persuing a career as a freelance guerrilla fighter. Of course how true this is i don't know, as much as anyone else doesn't know what happenned.

        Besides serving your country of citizenship, is there really any great difference between Hicks and others who join the military to experience something that is unexperiencable in everyday society?

        I don't think there is.
        Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

        Comment


        • #5
          there's a difference in joining the military to serve your country, and joining a militia to shoot non-believers.

          in the Australian Army at least, psych testing weeds out the sociopaths before they join - which is why Hicks got continually rejected. Those joining to "experience the unexperiencable" don't get too far in the recruitment process.

          ofc, that's a whole other debate
          Now listening too;
          - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Ivan Rapkinov
            there's a difference in joining the military to serve your country, and joining a militia to shoot non-believers.

            in the Australian Army at least, psych testing weeds out the sociopaths before they join - which is why Hicks got continually rejected. Those joining to "experience the unexperiencable" don't get too far in the recruitment process.

            ofc, that's a whole other debate

            Probably why they rejected me , 'didn't play team sports' what a friggin jip.

            I'm sure many other armed forces are not so stringent.

            As for shooting non beleivers, it goes back to the 'one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter', or whatever it is, argument..
            Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Temujin

              As for shooting non beleivers, it goes back to the 'one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter', or whatever it is, argument..
              Yes. And in this modern world where we are citizens of nations we are supposed to let our governments decide for us which one is which.
              ...a man that can stand up for a principle and sit down on his own stool.
              -the Firesign Theatre

              Comment


              • #8
                They are both guilty of at the very least being foreign mercenaries. Did they or would they attack Coalition forces? I think they certainly would have if given the chance and perhaps they did. What to do with them? No idea. Maybe lock them up in Afganistan until the world is a little calmer. Do we want them back? I don't think so because they have forfeited their privileges as citizens by taking up arms in support of our enemies.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Tiberius
                  Yes. And in this modern world where we are citizens of nations we are supposed to let our governments decide for us which one is which.
                  Maybe they didnt hear Australia had declared war on the Taliban.
                  Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Temujin
                    Maybe they didnt hear Australia had declared war on the Taliban.
                    Did this happen? Australia had the guts and wherewithal to do something we did not? (not being sarcastic here: admiration)
                    One of the things that really disapointed me about our conduct of the 'war on terrorism' is that there have been no formal declarations and there easily could have been especially in the case of Afghanistan and the Taliban.
                    ...a man that can stand up for a principle and sit down on his own stool.
                    -the Firesign Theatre

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Tiberius
                      Did this happen? Australia had the guts and wherewithal to do something we did not? (not being sarcastic here: admiration)
                      One of the things that really disapointed me about our conduct of the 'war on terrorism' is that there have been no formal declarations and there easily could have been especially in the case of Afghanistan and the Taliban.
                      My point exactly

                      Sorry i was reffering to PJ's comment 'I don't think so because they have forfeited their privileges as citizens by taking up arms in support of our enemies.' when i wrote that, got mixed up.

                      In that comment, how can one say he supported our enimies when we havn't declared war on them? Maybe a bill in was passed in parliament saying the Taliban were this or that, but is that enough to class them as an enemy?

                      With your comment, was the Taliban considered a terrorist organisation?

                      If so in both these cases the question of what these people new about the US and Australian involvement should be looked at.

                      I'm not defending/supporting them, although i am pissed of with the US and Australian governments for detaining these people in such a way for so long. I have just always been confused with their legal status and reasons why it is justifyable, both legally and humanely, to treat them like that.
                      Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        As an Aussie who has been stunned by Australian Internal and External Governmental policy for a LONG time i find this Hicks and Habib situation both disturbing and disgusting. To hold an Aussie citizen without charge or trial, without legal support or even contact from home and family is beyond the pale.

                        If and i mean IF there is able to be any charges, real charges, not trumped up ones, against these guys then they should have been dealt with immediately and severely. The very lack of action from the US and lack of guts from Howard to try and bring them back home makes this whole affair so fishy i wonder if we shall ever forget the stench.

                        The other thing that galls me so much is that these guys were captured in combat operations in a war-zone and might therefore have been classified as soldiers... Since when has it been illegal to fight as a soldier?

                        To start proclaiming that soldiers attacked in the country they are fighting for are terrrorists makes the average GI in Iraq a War Criminal of the highest order! No one thinks this is the case (even those of us who do not support the political/economic insanity that started this war in the first place) the US might just be starting a precident here that will come back to haunt them next time they go off to 'liberate' somewhere. And as for the Aussia position on this, i just wonder why Howard decides that HE can ignore Aussie citizens, or close OUR parliment to Australians just because he wants to court China and the US.

                        Anything but Howard
                        Legion's ASL AARs

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          And another thing!!

                          We have had dual citizenship available to new citizens for a few years now, what happens if a dual citizen is fighting against an obscure Australian ally (the NA in this case)? Do we call that treason?
                          Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Legion

                            The other thing that galls me so much is that these guys were captured in combat operations in a war-zone and might therefore have been classified as soldiers... Since when has it been illegal to fight as a soldier?
                            If this is the case, then they have forfeited their privileges as citizens because they are now soldiers for somebody else. Therefore they are no longer anything to do with us. Cut them loose and send them back to Afganistan for the new regime over there to deal with them as ex-soldiers of the Taliban, but never let them grace these shores again.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Prester John
                              If this is the case, then they have forfeited their privileges as citizens because they are now soldiers for somebody else. Therefore they are no longer anything to do with us. Cut them loose and send them back to Afganistan for the new regime over there to deal with them as ex-soldiers of the Taliban, but never let them grace these shores again.
                              Australian citizens are allowed to fight for other states they are citizens of.
                              Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X