Oceans_Blue said Quote:


As I stated previously he had 6 months before the US attacked so he had every opportunity to get out. This alone states that he supported their cause. Supporting terrorism is a terrorist act.

My point is, which is out of Hicks control, is that prison inmates, not all of them of course, will want to get to know him. He is an experienced soldier trained in killing. After all this is what he went over there for. He knows terrorist figures, aka crime figures, that other violent prisoners may want to know about. Terrorism hides itself in the underworld. If an inmate wants guns David will be able to stear them in the right direction. If they want military training David will be able to stear them in the right direction etc.

There are people that will look at him as being some type of martyr. David Hicks brings terrorism to Australia.

Yes he pleaded guilty and yes there are people that say he copped a plea to get out of G-Bay. Whatever your belief is do not be blind to the fact that he returned to Pakistan and had ample opportunity to escape but no, he bee lined for the front knowing what the consequences were.

Guilty or not guilty, he will have a lot of new friends for all the wrong reasons. The Islamic population of whatever prison system he is placed in will learn from him. they will learn information of the Taliban network, they will learn where other like minded people are in Australia and they will hold him in great esteem for what he has gone through in their name.

Violent criminals, sickos etc. will flock to his side. This is not being hysterical, this is an observation of an eventual possibility.

If David Hicks does time here he should not be in a position to influence others. he should be segregated at all times and be banned forever on talking about his experiences. We all have an idea of what goes on in G-Bay let it stay an idea, don't throw a match on the tinder or it might end up burning you and everyone else.

Jack The Ripper didn't come from a low socio economic group and niether did Hyde.

Many people who are extremely wealthy today came from a low socio economic group an example is Crazy John. Studies show that coming from a low socio economic group actually benefits the individual as it makes them street wise and more socialy adaptable for the future.

Awfully sorry for debating with you Ocean_Blue but your post was an attack on my post. Forgive me I'll go twiddle my thumbs somewhere else.

Hang on! Isn't this forum about debating? Gee, maybe you're in the wrong place and not me?

You painted a Hyde and Ripper scenario I just returned with the characters. Please outline the important points in your posting as I can't find them... Oh wait, something about socio economic gee, most terrorist funding come from the wealthy, they didn't grow up poor.

Oceans, we are putting the blame where it belongs

Code:

Dont blame the victims . Put the blame where it belongs.
 

With those that hold weapons to kill others.

Sprint,


and you are a christian?

This is hypocrisy .

Clearly the case against him was weak as piss. He was held for five years, 'coerced' into admitting things, a kangaroo court set up specifically to try 'terrorists' in which legal tenets like habeus corpus did not apply, hearsay and conjecture became truth, evidence extracted through torture suddenly became legitimate coercion and valid truth (despite all logic)... and under all this, 9 months was the BEST they could do? To say that under the last 6 years of Bush hardline policy against terrorists... which still holds... an administration adamant that they will do anything to ensure they are seen as doing the right thing, to suggest that under these circumstances they suddenly went soft on Hicks is idiotic.

Seems pretty obvious to me...? weak....as....piss....  realise this... Hicks did not do anything. He may have meant to do something, but he never did it. That doesn't make him guilty.

Besides the man was fighting for a legitimate government at the time! Not a terrorist organisation the bloody Taliban government. He was a war criminal by definition and they KNEW they had no evidence against him for this charge BECAUSE HE DIDN"T DO ANYTHING!

Hicks did have training for a few terrorist organisations. He wrote home and boasted about it to his Dad.
("Where else in the world can a tourist be given a gun and be allowed to shoot people")
His own dad never even denied that,.
He joined a terrorist group in Pakistan (LET) and also in Afghanistan (AQ).

Straight after 9/11 he flew to afghanistan to report for duty. Who would do that ??
he was given his own muslim name. mohammad dawood.
he was given a weapon, about 50 rounds of ammo and a few hand granades.
He was guarding a tank for a time, got bored and went off to 'find some more action". In his own words .
He did find action, and ran.

Those are the facts.
He provided material support for terrorists against USA.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 31^st, 2007 at 9:48pm:


And personally did nothing. The hardline military tribunal has acknowledged the severity of his crimes and punished him accordingly...

"worst of the worst".... just repeat that to yourself a few times...