<< RUDD FLANDERS ~ MAIN ~ KING TILTER >>
DAVE SAVES DAVE
Hicksie pixie David Marr defends his man following criticism from George Newhouse:
Pointing to a number of anti-Semitic remarks in Hicks’s letters home, Newhouse said: “I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask Mr Hicks to renounce terrorism and anti-Semitism.” But he acknowledged they contained no threats of violence to Jews in Australia.
Well, that’s OK then. Meanwhile ... releasing David Hicks is racist! Shame on Marr and his whitey friends.
“no intention of never releasing”
So, does that mean they’ve been released?
Journalism iz harrd.
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2007 12 31 at 11:49 AM • permalinkWell, this is good news: Warning to Hicks on story for profit
Hey, Oz!
According to the comments at Wonkette, your food and illicit drugs are too expensive!
And your wild animals are ugly. Are you aware of this?
Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2007 12 31 at 12:10 PM • permalinkSays Pelagius at Wonkette:
This guy has the IQ of a wombat’s arsehole. If he comes out with a book, it will be the kind where you get a gold star for staying inside the lines.
I plead guilty to über laughter and without apology. Not strong enough yet.
The wild animals of Oz are either poisonous, comical or have big teeth, lots of them.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 12 31 at 03:34 PM • permalinkInteresting piece on other Australian traitors in today’s The Australian under the title ‘David Hicks is best forgotten’—
...David Hicks is an ugly embarrassment to this country and his story is best forgotten. And there’s a precedent for this.
In one of the more bizarre historical curiosities of World War II three Australian soldiers and an Australian merchant seaman served in the Third Reich’s SS.
Recruited from British subjects living in occupied Europe and from Allied prisoners of war, the British Free Corps was formed on January 1, 1944 and detached to the Waffen SS. Four Australians enlisted: Albert Stokes, John Wood, Roland Barker and Robert Chipchase.
Posted by walterplinge on 2007 12 31 at 05:17 PM • permalinkI know that Little Davy once expressed his enthusiasm for women with “big tits” but I imagine he wasn’t referring to the sagging variety which have to be supported by a belt around the waist.So who is the old boiler seen in all the pictures showing Little Davy walking out of Yatala.She’s certainly sticking to him like glue.Is it a token “tit offering” supplied by some of Stott-Despoja’s followers or just some old groupie who somehow managed to get first dibs on the boy?
If David Marr
Got rid of an “R”
It’d more reflect
What he does with his text.Posted by carpefraise on 2007 12 31 at 10:04 PM • permalinkThere are more than 300 inmates remaining at Guantanamo, 150 of whom we pretty much have no intention of never releasing. I’m guessing none of them are white.
What does she even mean? Not sure who all of the Guantanamo Bay inmates are, but I’m pretty sure that some of them will be of middle eastern descent, many Afghani or Iraqi allies of the Taliban, the Ba’ath party, or Al Qaeda. That hardly makes them non-white.
Maybe she means that Hicks is of Anglo-Saxon or Western European descent, but why doesn’t she say so?
‘White’ is, all things considered, a stupid and sloppy definition, the sort of thing an extremist KKK member might use. Definitely an example of bad ‘lefty grammar’, as RebeccaH suggests.
But he acknowledged they contained no threats of violence to Jews in Australia.
Yeah, sure Daaaveee Maarrree.
“Hicks allegedly told fellow recruits at his training camp he wanted to “go back to Australia and rob and kill Jews”, “crash a plane into a building”, and “go out with that last big adrenalin rush”, that “if he were to go into a building of Jews with an automatic weapon or as a suicide bomber he would have to say something like ‘there is no god but Allah’ ect [sic] just so he could see the look of fear on their faces, before he takes them out,” writes former Camp X-ray inmate Abbasi, who had a rivalry with Hicks
Rory Callinan (2007-02-22). David Hicks Under Fire. TIME.
Of course there is also the threat posed by the regime of Pervez Musharraf, and the fact that al-Qaeda has now denied responsibility for the killing.
David Marr thinks Musharraf is a threat and that al-Qaeda are maligned - if they say they didn’t do it, who are we to argue? He and that King Tilter guy (in the thread above) have a similar quality of logic and perception.
This tendency of the left, being able to decry anyone like Musharraf while doubting that democracy can work in such countries such as Pakistan and Iraq, is quite fatuous.#18 blogstrop
With the way various Pakistani groups, not to mention cortical rejects like Marr, are falling over themselves in their rush to blame Musharraf for the Bhutto assassination, Al Qaeda would be fools to claim responsibility. Anyway, it was Bush.
As for Hicks, I can understand - if not agree with - those whose bone of contention was his imprisonment without trial. But those blinkered, anti-Western treasonous worms who have opposed any sort of guilty verdict and punishment for the guy could do with their own stint in Guantanamo. Starting with Australia’s public loser number one, his father. Good job, Terry. Got one word for you, mate: VASECTOMY.
another prediction (complete no brainer - no skill involved)- big mo will soon start calling for compensation for little mo’s pain & suffering while the hoWARd government left him in gitmo
aaaawwwwwww poor ickle bubbeeeee#19 & 21
Were you absent lovely brother thread day Dminor?Quote:
The operational status of organizations like Amnesty International and others should be made dependent upon them immediately declaring shari’a law a massive violation of human rights. Any refusal to do so should result in the withdrawal of all government funding, a legal bar upon any fundraising within American borders and revocation of their non-profit status.
The farce of these so-called humaintarian organizations whingeing about our treatment of Gitmo prisoners while remaining totally mute regarding Islam’s ongoing crimes against humanity has worn paper thin.
Okay, so threatening to kill Jooooos is fine, so long as nobody specifically identifies them as being in Oz?
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I am notoriously ignorant of the fine points of international anti-Smeitism. I mean, I’m so dumb that I kinda think it’s wrong whichever nation you identify as the one hosting Joooos you intend to slaughter. Even if that nation is Israel.
But hey, if Hicks never said he wanted to kill Australian Jews, then that changes everything. When does the homecoming parade for the newest Australian of the Year begin?
Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2008 01 01 at 05:43 AM • permalinkBy the way, I’d like to state for the record that I have never expressed a desire to massacre Australian Jews. So how many big titted lefties can you guys round up to give me a tongue bath?
Let me be explicit here - I mean big titted women. Okay, you comedians?
Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2008 01 01 at 05:46 AM • permalinkOh, and by tongue bath, I mean it literally. I believe some of you people are using it in a figurative manner. Now, that’s just sloppy.
Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2008 01 01 at 05:48 AM • permalinkHicks, who withdrew formal allegations that he had been tortured as part of his plea agreement with the US military, spent almost half of his 5½ years at Guantanamo Bay in solitary confinement and will receive counselling to deal with its effects.
Inquiring minds want to know who’s paying.
(From KK’s link at #20)
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2008 01 01 at 06:23 AM • permalinkWhat I find amazing is in the very same paragraph written to defend Hicks, Marr acknowledges Newhouse is right that Hicks has not renounced terrorism or anti semitism. Couldn’t one be excused for thinking that makes Hicks an unpractised anti semitic terrorist who just hasn’t made specific threats against Aussie Jews.
Help me here people I’m not real good at Marr logic is Marr on Hicks side or not?
Posted by the nailgun on 2008 01 01 at 07:25 AM • permalinkDoes anyone know if Aust has an extradition treaty with India for terrorism related activities?
Posted by the nailgun on 2008 01 01 at 06:50 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
There are more than 300 inmates remaining at Guantanamo, 150 of whom we pretty much have no intention of never releasing. I’m guessing none of them are white.
So… eventually they’ll be released, even though they’re not white? Or is this another example of lefty grammar?