Holdout folds

Last updated on August 6th, 2017 at 06:57 am

The SMH’s David Marr last year:

Hicks’s condition appears to be deteriorating. He won’t speak to Australian consular officials who come to check on him. This year he refused to take his father’s Christmas telephone call. He seems still to be talking to his lawyers. A guilty plea would offer the Howard Government a neat exit from this mess in time for the elections. So far, Hicks is holding out.

Not any more he ain’t. Maybe Howard bribed him with a pie or something, since Dave seems to have put on some weight during his time in One Ton or More Bay … despite his lawyers’ repeated claims:

According to his American military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, David Hicks is depressed and losing weight.

Natasha Stott Despoja repeated Mori’s line in Parliament, although it now appears an unnamed consular official may have been more accurate:

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has said that an Australian consular official has recently visited David Hicks and said that he is fit and well, although he has complained about a persistent back problem. I am afraid that this is at odds with evidence from Major Michael Mori, who, as we know, is David’s US military attorney. He says that David is suffering from poor health, depression and weight loss.

Hicks’ Australian lawyer Stephen Kenny also told of a shrinking Dave:

He said Hicks had lost weight, was not eating well and was depressed.

That was in 2003. Terry Hicks met his son in Gitmo the following year, and found him not to be as usually described:

He said his son was finding it hard to cope with his detention, although he had “gained a bit of weight”.

Denied the gift of a skeletal Hicks, the Age laments that their not-so-little-buddy is all heavy and puffy. Add another word: guilty.

UPDATE. Another of Dave’s lawyers, in January:

David McLeod says Mr Hicks was chained to the floor of his interview room and has not seen sunlight for months … “His visage was an extremely sorrowful one,” he said. “His eyes are sunken and his cheeks are sallow. He looks like an old man.”

That was before Dave’s miracle cure:

Hicks’s lawyers had described him as having dark, sunken eyes, but he did not appear like that today.

Rather than being pale from long stints locked inside the maximum security prison, Hicks’s skin looked as tanned as that of his American military lawyer Major Michael Mori, sitting beside him in court …

Prison food had added about 10kg to Hicks’s small, 167cm-tall frame.

Posted by Tim B. on 03/27/2007 at 01:09 AM
    1. He “wants to get back to normal life”.

      Now that’s something that’s open to a little interpretation.

      Posted by Henry boy on 2007 03 27 at 01:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. “His main aim is to come back to Australia, see his kids, and settle down.”

      Oh fer crissakes. I don’t have the skills to write a fish n’ chip menu, but this is begging for an adaptation of Cats in the Cradle.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 03 27 at 01:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. So poor little Tash has lied to the Senate?
      Apology? Nay, resignation.

      Posted by Pickles on 2007 03 27 at 01:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. Oh well, yeah but, how he could not put on weight locked in a cell for 36 hours a day?

      Posted by anthony_r on 2007 03 27 at 01:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. Longer than that rebase. Plus he is probably just bloated from malnutrition.

      Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 03 27 at 01:28 AM • permalink

 

 

    1. More shocking images.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 03 27 at 01:33 AM • permalink

 

    1. Let the flagellation begin.

      David: you are not allowed to enjoy it that much.

      Posted by Jay Santos on 2007 03 27 at 01:33 AM • permalink

 

    1. The image of Hicks as a Butterhog says to me that Channel Ten are missing a prime opportunity for him to be a celebrity dropkick-in guest on Australia’s Biggest Wanker Loser.

      Posted by Jay Santos on 2007 03 27 at 01:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. I want to be free…

      I want to be me

      Posted by Jay Santos on 2007 03 27 at 01:40 AM • permalink

 

    1. “One Ton or More Bay”

      Bwhahaahahahahaha v good!!

      Posted by James Waterton on 2007 03 27 at 01:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. They will be jumping from the roof at “Our” ABC.

      Poor old Dave, he just wanted to kill. A past time the left strongly support.

      Posted by curious george on 2007 03 27 at 01:48 AM • permalink

 

    1. How long until we start hearing that it wasn’t a “real” confession? That he just said it so he could come home to Australia?

      In any case, I sure that if he does serve his sentence out Down Under the boys in Cell Block C will welcome him with open arms.

      Posted by Villeurbanne on 2007 03 27 at 02:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. Phew! Glad I’m not ‘fat’ anymore. I’m just a little bit ‘puffy’.

      Posted by Squiffy on 2007 03 27 at 02:02 AM • permalink

 

    1. I’ve been lurking, but not commenting lately, but I just had to break silence to say HAR HAR HAR HARDY HAR HAR HAR! and give my friends at Tim’s Pub a slap on the back and say congratulations.  Have several on me.

      Big brave jihadi!  I’m sure all of his supporters are so proud.

      HAHAHAHAHA and so on.

      Posted by saltydog on 2007 03 27 at 02:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. During Dawood’s first night in cell block C he will be visited by the “Boss”. The Boss will have his cock in one hand and a large knife in the other and he’ll sure as hell get blood on one of ‘em. This will make poor Dawoody wish he was chained to the floor in Gitmo. On his own.

      Posted by Pickles on 2007 03 27 at 02:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. Why is everybody still calling him “David Hicks”?  Why not call him by his preferred Islamic handle?  Isn’t it being disrespectful to his adopted “religion”?

      Posted by Bruce Lagasse on 2007 03 27 at 02:11 AM • permalink

 

    1. We can’t hang Hicks, but we can say:

      “That’s guilty!  Guilty, guilty, guilty!!”

      (Shamelessly stolen from an old “Doonesbury” strip)

      And just in case “mojoo” still has problems with reading comprehension:

      “That’s guilty!  Guilty, guilty, guilty!!”

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 03 27 at 02:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. Better run a geiger counter over the fat bastard before they palletise him and stuff him in the hold of a C5 for the trip back to Australia- his weight gain may be as a result of his martyrdom ambitions.

      Posted by Habib on 2007 03 27 at 02:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. By all reports his ex-wife won’t let him within cooee – or the ululative version – of his children.

      By other reports, those kids have suffered twice – first by being abandoned by their father and then by being targetted at school for being the children of that father.

      Posted by ilibcc on 2007 03 27 at 02:28 AM • permalink

 

    1. They increased his cholesterol! Impeach Bush!

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2007 03 27 at 02:37 AM • permalink

 

    1. #20, no, no,no,no,no. David was wrenched from the bosom of his kith and kin by the US Government. He simply wants to return to a normal life with them.

      Well that’s the fairy story Fairfax and others are spinning anyway.

      Posted by Nic on 2007 03 27 at 02:38 AM • permalink

 

    1. Poor David, he’s been subjected to Kentucky Fried Torture for too long.  The jam donut madness must end!!!

      Posted by bondo on 2007 03 27 at 02:41 AM • permalink

 

    1. Biggles! Fetch… the soft cushions!

      Posted by dean martin on 2007 03 27 at 02:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. You know, it was a serious mistake when the U.S. did not follow the laws, customs, and usages of war in Afghanistan.

      Because if the United States had, we’d never have heard of David Hicks.  Because he would have been taken to the nearest wall and summarily executed without trial or appeal back in 2002, along with every other armed, out-of-uniform, non-Afghani seized.

      (Armed makes them non-civilian for war zone purposes.  Non-Afghani automatically disqualifies them from all possible out-of-uniform POW statuses available under international law.  No uniform disqualifies them from normal rules POW status.  A non-civilian non-POW is subject to summary execution without trial or appeal under customary international law, and has no countervailing rights under any treaty to which the United States is a party.)

      Posted by Warmongering Lunatic on 2007 03 27 at 02:47 AM • permalink

 

    1. In Paradise he will “wed us with Houris (celestial virgins) pure beautiful ones” (56:54), and unite us with large-eyed beautiful ones while we recline on our thrones set in lines (56:20). There we are promised to eat and drink pleasantly for what we did (56:19)

      Sounds like Dave Dawood Abu Muslim Austraili thought he was already in paradise.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 03 27 at 02:48 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hicks’ first lawyer’s
      response:

      Adelaide lawyer Stephen Kenny, who represented Hicks for three years from 2002, said although he was surprised by the guilty plea, he could understand the circumstances that may have led to the outcome. “My first reaction was, and I was talking about it moments before I heard of it, was that if I was in Guantanamo Bay and I could get out by pleading guilty after five years, I probably personally would have pleaded guilty,” he said.

      Bob Brown weighs in:

      Greens party leader Bob Brown said Hicks’s guilty plea was “simply a plea for release, for exit from the inhumane Guantanamo gulag”. “Hicks’s guilt will always be in doubt, the Howard Government’s guilt in this affair will never be in doubt,” he said.

      Posted by ilibcc on 2007 03 27 at 02:54 AM • permalink

 

    1. They increased his cholesterol!

      Those plastic turkeys are damn unhealthy!

      Posted by Art Vandelay on 2007 03 27 at 02:58 AM • permalink

 

    1. The terrorist training manuals tell them to cry torture as soon as they are caught.  This wanker will arrive home to a heroes welcome by a cheer squad of ignorant and cowardly turds. The Australian taxpayer will then pick up the tab, when he has served his time we should send him back to Afghanistan.  I am sure the SAS would love to get hold of the runt.

      Posted by Howzat on 2007 03 27 at 03:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. If there is any doubt that Dawood’s plea has been entered on the basis of coercion, then the Court must reject it and substitute it with a plea of not guilty and have the matter determined at trial. There seems to be such doubt already. That should take another few years, during which he might like to go on a hunger strike. By the look of him it would take him about 2 years to die.

      Posted by Pickles on 2007 03 27 at 03:08 AM • permalink

 

    1. David Hicks only pleaded guilty to escape the tough prison conditions at Guantanamo Bay, says Australian Greens leader Bob Brown.

      – AAPBrown, who last week believed every word uttered by Hicks, is now calling Hicks a liar for saying “guilty”. To suggest the guilty plea is desperate bid to escape Gitmo bay is an insult to Hicks’ legal team both here and in the US.

      May be talking through my arse here (unlike Brown I won’t meet anyone coming the other way), but surely advising an innocent client to plead guilty would be grounds to bar a lawyer.

      Posted by Contrail on 2007 03 27 at 03:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. Iranian press describes Bob Brown and Barnaby Joyce as ‘Australian lawmakers’ concerned about Dagwood Hick’s trial.

      Bob Brown – “His guilty plea is simply a plea for release for exit from the inhumane Guantanamo Bay gulag. That’s a human response”. HERE.
      Nice one Bob. You’re top of the pops with the mad mullahs. Just be thankful you’re a gay man in a society that doesnt execute homosexuals like Iran does.

      Posted by Squiffy on 2007 03 27 at 03:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hello salty, your absence has been noted.

      Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2007 03 27 at 03:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. Well, if he plead guilty just to get released, then he lied under oath.  That a lawyer would think this is okay is shocking!  Shocking, I say.

      Posted by saltydog on 2007 03 27 at 03:27 AM • permalink

 

    1. Salty’s been hanging out over at Critts and having fun teasing the resident troll there 🙂

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 03:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. #32 Azrael.I doubt that the “Iranian press” are aware of Bob Brown’s sexual predilections.I can’t imagine that they would be interested in quoting him if they did,even if his views on Hicks do coincide with the Iranian line.In fact the journalists guilty of giving his opinions space could find themselves in deep shit if a few facts about their new found friend came to the attention of the authorities.

      Posted by Lew on 2007 03 27 at 03:38 AM • permalink

 

    1. looks like Deadwood ‘s gonna be home in time for the next series of Australia’s biggest loser.
      (why is it there’s never a Paki cricket team around when needed?)

      Posted by larrikin on 2007 03 27 at 03:38 AM • permalink

 

    1. This, from the SMH:

      Rather than being pale from long stints locked inside the maximum security prison, Hicks’s skin looked as tanned as that of his American military lawyer Major Michael Mori, sitting beside him in court.

      Those utter, utter bastards.

      Posted by Nic on 2007 03 27 at 03:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. We are just evil that way, sorry Nic.

      We purposely dont torture our prisoners in order to confuse those who expect to see our prisoners turned into tortured wrecks.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 03:49 AM • permalink

 

    1. Free food and drink, an hour of exercise a day, plenty of time to tan, no one nagging you about “jihad this, jihad that”. Shit! It’s probably been the best 5 years of this drongo’s life.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 03 27 at 03:55 AM • permalink

 

    1. So Karl authorised the use of the Mo Daywoo bot then?

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 03 27 at 04:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. But, but … thats not fair!

      Puffy, tanned, guilty!

      Posted by boxofmatches on 2007 03 27 at 04:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. We might want to release him though. Then we could go into depth and detail into how much intell he’s given up and how many Talib and AQ cells have been rolled up because of his assistance.

      Nothing like a tethered goat to draw lurking tigers into a kill box.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 04:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. Puffy, bloated, long hair –

      Latest Hicks pic

      Posted by boxofmatches on 2007 03 27 at 04:28 AM • permalink

 

    1. Did not Dawood give up Islam? Don’t these freaks get annoyed when of their own quit? Won’t his ‘comrades’ be a bit suspicious of what he may have said while in custody?
      Somehow, he may have been safer at Gitmo.
      Better still, the little shit should have been slugged back when he was caught. Then again, one’s fate is sometimes well and truly sealed I suppose.
      BTW, I always smile to myself, when I hear the likes of Bob Brown and his ilk talk about Gulags. Really, this creep is so slimy, pus would never harden on him.

      Posted by BJM on 2007 03 27 at 04:38 AM • permalink

 

    1. Beaking News: Millions of Africans are handing themselves in at US Embassies, pleading guilty to terrorism and demanding to be sent to GITMO.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 03 27 at 04:40 AM • permalink

 

    1. Bolta currently on ABC Radio National ‘Australia Talks’ about Hicks

      Posted by egg_ on 2007 03 27 at 04:49 AM • permalink

 

    1. There’s talk on the internets that Dagwood Hicks did indeed give up some useful info.
      This apparently lead to Zawahiri being chased out of Chitral in Pakistan recently.

      The Z man’s gonna be pissed off when he finds out Dagwood gave him up for some extra food at Gitmo.

      Posted by Squiffy on 2007 03 27 at 04:54 AM • permalink

 

    1. Grimmy – Ooooh! You are awful. But I like you. (Dick Emery)

      Posted by blogstrop on 2007 03 27 at 04:57 AM • permalink

 

    1. #23 bondo – Kentucky Fried Torture

      ROFLMAO!

      Posted by Villeurbanne on 2007 03 27 at 04:57 AM • permalink

 

    1. blogstrop:

      Why, thank you sir 🙂

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 05:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. As Chubby as Hicksyboy has gotten, it’d be rather difficult to run him up the Catchpole.

      At least he wont be running around in araby playing at Army Games, eh blogstrop?

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 05:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. #43 & #48
      You’re not supposed to tell anyone he’s been operating under deep cover for the government.

      Posted by lotocoti on 2007 03 27 at 05:12 AM • permalink

 

    1. when he’s done his time here can we hand him over to the Indians?

      Posted by eeniemeenie on 2007 03 27 at 05:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. Check out the ABC PM link later tonight or tomorrow, and have a look at the Leigh Sales transcript when she finally says what we’ve always known about Mohammed Dawood al-Australii.

      Now that he’s copped to a guilty plea, the ABC are under no obligation to protect him.

      The media will now turn on this prick like they did to Schapelle Corby after she was found guilty of drug trafficking.

      Posted by Young and Free on 2007 03 27 at 05:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. lotocoti:

      Everything was just fine until you went and verified it, thanks mr leaker verifier!

      Oh, and um… I have no recollection of having discussed Hicksian cooperation with anti-jihadi governments and never mentioned anything about Hicks, goats or tigers. I’ve never even heard of Hicks.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 05:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. #55, I doubt it.  Channel 9 News had the Hicks story as its second item.  The main story in Sydney, of course was the car crashing into a bus queue.  ABC News on the other hand reversed this order giving about 6 mins to the Hicks story.  They sought opinion from idiotarians such as Greens, Democrats, and Get Up. They haven’t given up on Golden Boy yet…

      Posted by anthony_r on 2007 03 27 at 05:27 AM • permalink

 

    1. Get up?

      What an apt name for a supporter group for lard-arse Hicks, who now takes half an hour trying to do just that, get up.

      Posted by Nic on 2007 03 27 at 05:33 AM • permalink

 

    1. #57 second?- ABC ruddio national’s PM devoted 40 of its 55 minute run time to our favourite martyr, plus a special Australia talks back- doesn’t channel 9 realise how much we love our Hicksy?

      Posted by eeniemeenie on 2007 03 27 at 05:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. If I were Hicks, I’d start the anal dilation exercised immediately.

      Posted by flying pigs over mecca on 2007 03 27 at 05:42 AM • permalink

 

    1. #38

      This, from the SMH:

      Rather than being pale from long stints locked inside the maximum security prison, Hicks’s skin looked as tanned as that of his American military lawyer Major Michael Mori, sitting beside him in court.

      Those utter, utter bastards.

      Probably from being pegged out over the ant-nest just before he plead guilty.

      Posted by kae on 2007 03 27 at 05:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. No Kae, making him plead guilty.

      Posted by Nic on 2007 03 27 at 05:51 AM • permalink

 

    1. Oops, sorry Nic, my mistake.

      But that’s gotta be where the poor misunderstood mite got the tan.

      Posted by kae on 2007 03 27 at 05:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. #62 Nic, the guilty plea is only the first step in David’s journey home.  We must remember that.

      Posted by anthony_r on 2007 03 27 at 05:55 AM • permalink

 

    1. We could send him home on the installment plan.

      Send a new piece every two weeks. That way, the Aussies wouldnt be over taxed by a single bulk delivery.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 06:02 AM • permalink

 

    1. Kae and Rebase,
      Even though he says he’s guilty, its only his own words. We know better though. We know how he would say anything to be returned to his home country, a place he adores, to be with those he loves, cares for and would never, never leave.

      Posted by Nic on 2007 03 27 at 06:02 AM • permalink

 

    1. #56
      No no no. It was a reverse-leak leak.  Sheesh! Now wotsisname may as well tattoo a target on his forehead.
      Next thing you know, somebody will blab about the Green Berets giving him a GLTD II when he was with friends in Pakistan prior to the invasion.

      Posted by lotocoti on 2007 03 27 at 06:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. # 53 “You’re not supposed to tell anyone he’s been operating under deep cover for the government.”

      Actually he was working for the US government, when he was a member of the KLA, the group Washington labelled ‘terrorist’ one moment and then were only too happy to see ethnically cleanse Serbs from Kosovo.

      Strange too, that apparently its unheard of to go through weight fluctuations whilst being tortured in captivity.

      That’s a fine set of ‘Western values’ your promoting there.

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 06:12 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hey LuisPosada, a question if you don’t mind?

      How does it feel knowing that you belong to a particular form of dysfunction that has absolutely zero survival potential?

      If the islamists win, you’ll be slaughtered as part of their victory celebration and you’re just as liable to be slaughtered once those of us opposing the jihad decide we’ve had enough of you traitors.

      There’s never, ever in the entire history of humanity that any culture, society or nation has tolerated traitors, enemy sympathizers or any of that sort of filth during a time of war.

      You continue to exist on sufferance alone. Don’t you ever worry about when we’re going to get tired of you?

      Just curious.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 06:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. And that’s your case?!

      His appearance changed over a period of five years, his weight fluctuated, he was depressed one moment, and less depressed the other…and all this means that…he deserved to have his basic democratic rights denied him, it was right to hold him without trial, he was never tortured or mistreated and it was right to put him before a kangaroo court?

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 06:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. LuisPosada

      “Strange too, that apparently its unheard of to go through weight fluctuations whilst being tortured in captivity.”

      That doesnt sound cryptic or sinister as you apparently intended. It justs sounds silly.
      Care to back that up with a link or 2, of actual verified cases of people gaining weight as a result of tourture?

      Pretty low standard of troll we are attracting here tonight, crap statements and unsaid allegations, ho hum…

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 03 27 at 06:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. #69. If the Islamists win..? It never ceases to amaze me the persecution complex of the average neo-con stooge.  How will the Islamists win Grimmy?  And…what amazes me more is how little faith you have in your ‘culture’ and religion…why do you think so many will convert to Islam?  Do you really think Christianity is so weak?

      And thanks for the threat. Which makes me wonder why you support the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan…you clearly don’t agree with the ‘democracy’ figleaf US imperialism cloaks itself in.

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 06:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. #69 Luis

      Strange too, that apparently its unheard of to go through weight fluctuations whilst being tortured in captivity.

      Jeez Luis…MoDo couldn’t keep away from the all-you-can-eat torture smorgasbord. He was hoping to look ‘trim’ for the court appearance but, hey, he likes his food. Cut the guy some slack whydontcha?

      Posted by CO² max on 2007 03 27 at 06:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. #71. “That doesnt sound cryptic or sinister as you apparently intended. It justs sounds silly.
      Care to back that up with a link or 2, of actual verified cases of people gaining weight as a result of tourture?”

      So he was being tortured every day?  Wouldn’t put it past those bullies, cowards and thugs running Guantanamo Bay.

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 06:27 AM • permalink

 

    1. #16. Pickles, do fantasise about gay rape often or is this your first ‘outing’?

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 06:28 AM • permalink

 

    1. #20. Yes its a shame his children were picked on…it wasn’t any of you guys was it?

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 06:32 AM • permalink

 

    1. #71 i wonder if the decline in troll quality is something to do with global warmmongering?

      their minds melting or overheating or something

      Posted by eeniemeenie on 2007 03 27 at 06:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. Luis,

      One thing we can all agree on – this trial is unfair and should be stopped at once.

      BTW – your friend magoo had a question for you at #70 in the next thread. He is still sulking about you brushing him.

      Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 03 27 at 06:38 AM • permalink

 

    1. Looks like there’s a need for a cleanup on aisle three. Someone spilled some ham juice.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 03 27 at 06:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. #75 #76 Luis

      That’s it? You’ve been planning those snappy retorts for over 4 hours…and that’s all you can come up with?

      Posted by CO² max on 2007 03 27 at 06:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. #70 Kangaroo court.  It took 5 years to get this kangaroo court going.  That’s pretty damn inefficient.  If they wanted a kangaroo court they would have gone next door and asked Castro how to do it.

      Posted by anthony_r on 2007 03 27 at 06:41 AM • permalink

 

    1. LuisPosada

      “he deserved to have his basic democratic rights denied him”

      As absolutely as he denied it to the civillians in Afghanistan.

      Eg: 1.
      How the Taliban treat POW’s
      More.
      enough?

      Look at what went on while Hicks was there. Tell me he was an innocent tourist and I can laugh in your face. I worked with a large number of Hazara refugees pre-9/11 and their stories were monotonous. Family members killed, vilages razed, forced conscription. I met a man with his back from neck to buttocks a soilid mass of scar tissue from a public flogging he recieved.
      Nice company you and you mate Hicksie keep eh?

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 03 27 at 06:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. Open the registrations and you get … Posada!

      Posted by blogstrop on 2007 03 27 at 06:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. LuisPosada:

      You are rather hilarious. I did not threaten you, btw. I tend to be most very blunt and direct when I do that sort of thing. I am merely curious.

      As for your blather about democratic freedoms, what you wish to believe are our traditional freedoms are actually a perversion created by adherents to the old Gramsci and School of Frankfurt “neo marxists” as part of the effort to pull us down from the inside out.

      That worm is turning though. Slowly, yes, but turning it is.

      News flash boyo.

      Ancient and modern. All societies have one single and inviolate rule that is common to all humans. Betrayers during a time of war are the lowest, most despised form of criminal to exist.

      There are societies in history that have condoned the slaughter of babies, warfare for the sake of war, the ownership of other humans, pedophilia, etc etc, but no society has ever condoned those that adhere to the enemy during a time of war or national/societal duress.

      That those such as yourself have been tolerated for so long is very much the aberration. That is beginning to change.

      Not a threat bucko, a heads-up. You might want to reconsider some stances.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 06:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. Wouldn’t put it past those bullies, cowards and thugs running Guantanamo Bay.

      Unlike the jihadis held at Gitmo—who believe the proper way to treat a wounded enemy is to slit their throat—the “bullies, cowards, and thugs” tried to keep the jihadis from killing themselves, provided them with medical care even for pre-existing conditions, provided them with food consistent with their religious requirements, and even tried to abide by the silly restrictions on who can touch a mass-produced book.

      For all their efforts, the “bullies, cowards, and thugs” were spat on, had shit thrown on them, were attacked, and have to face the hatred and ignorance of folks like you, who seem only able to find a moral stain when you can find a link between someone and the US government.

      Thankfully, there are plenty of people in the world who can see through your type, Luis.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2007 03 27 at 06:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. “he deserved to have his basic democratic rights denied him”

      Well, no. I, for one, think he should have received all the rights guaranteed to him under the Geneva Conventions.

      Namely, a field trial and a long trip on a short rope.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2007 03 27 at 06:47 AM • permalink

 

    1. #82. Of course he wasn’t an innocent tourist, mole.  But the atrocities you describe could have just as well been carried out by the Northern Alliance warlords who now rule (well, parts of anyway) Afghanistan and who came to power with the aid of the US.

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 06:54 AM • permalink

 

    1. “As for your blather about democratic freedoms, what you wish to believe are our traditional freedoms are actually a perversion created by adherents to the old Gramsci and School of Frankfurt “neo marxists” as part of the effort to pull us down from the inside out.”

      So Grimmy, you don’t believe in the democratic freedoms whose name the War of Terror is waged in?  You see these freedoms as a Marxist conspiracy?  That sounds remarkably like something Adolf Hitler would have said.

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 06:58 AM • permalink

 

    1. LOL yeah, right. What a maroon.

      It’s the Northern Alliance bugaboo that’s going around to villages and grabbing up school teachers and beheading them for daring to allow girls in their classes.

      Your rhetoric is anti-Americanism 101. You cant even be original.

      As a troll, you have no real entertainment value.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 06:59 AM • permalink

 

    1. # 85.  Aw, those kindly Gitmo guards, what with their dropping the Koran into the toilet, smearing detainees with menstrual blood, setting dogs on them, not to mention the less culturally specific constant artificial light, constant loud noise…

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 07:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. Yes its a shame his children were picked on…it wasn’t any of you guys was it?

      No, and we didn’t abandon them to join the Islamic the Ku Klux Klan either.

      Posted by Arty on 2007 03 27 at 07:02 AM • permalink

 

    1. You utter, utter BASTARDS.

      The first troll we get in yonks and you frighten it on its first outing. Sheesh. It was only a baby.

      Show some compassion here. Cruddy third rate trolls like this have to be groomed and developed, their little limp dicks and egos built up with copious amaounts of purest bullshit (they believe it every time): only then do they become even mildly amusing.

      I mean, even compared to Moronda, this troll is kinda pitiful. You have to let a good troll ripen.. y’know, like a pimple, pustule, carbuncle or boil.

      Makes it more fun to squelch in the end.

      MarkL
      canberra

      Posted by MarkL on 2007 03 27 at 07:02 AM • permalink

 

    1. LuisPosada:

      Associate me with Hitler or Nazism again and this can get real personal real fast.

      Our democratic freedoms have never been meant to provide cover for enemy agitpropers, enemy adherents or enemy sympathizers.

      THAT is the change made by neomarxist and oath breaking federal judges in the last decades.

      You are an enemy sympathizer. As such you do not come under any functional concept of democratic freedom or freedom of expression.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 07:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. # 89. Grimmy, the Northern Alliance is chocked full of Islamic fundamentalists and murderous warlords, most of them so bad they had to recently pass a law in Afghanistan to ensure they weren’t prosecuted for their past crimes.  Nice company the US is keeping there, eh?

      Er, thanks Mark L, that was…yeah scary.

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 07:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. Sorry Luis, according to Godwin’s law you lost the argument

      Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 03 27 at 07:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. Grimmy, your ultranationalism and intolerance of opposing views seems a lot more like fascism than democracy.

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 07:08 AM • permalink

 

    1. Louie
      I’m a slavering moron who only just survived a bathing accident at birth, so maybe you could answer this for me.
      …right to hold him without trial
      When Dawood was taken by US forces should they have
      a) Whacked him on the spot for being an illegal combatant.
      b) Decided al qaida was a legitimate national entity and held him as a PoW for the duration.
      c) Realised he was a war tourist thrill killer, wiped his nose and sent him on his way.
      d) Hold him pending the development of some sort of legal mechanism to deal with terrorists captured in a combat zone.

      Posted by lotocoti on 2007 03 27 at 07:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. #95. Ha!  That’s quite funny. Although I’m not sure how else to describe Grimmy’s views.

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 07:12 AM • permalink

 

    1. LuisPosada

      ALWAYS happy to oblige.

      You are, BTW, a truly magnificent intellect of truly towering gargantuanality and should post here.

      LOTS.

      MarkL
      Canberra

      <snigger>

      Posted by MarkL on 2007 03 27 at 07:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. LuisPosada:

      You are greatly mistaken. Fascism was just another degenerate socialist ponzy scheme.

      Your confusion comes from you have no real clue about what is right or wrong prior to the various victories of the marxists in revising our own concept of what we are during the ‘70s and early ‘80s.

      This revisionism is in the process of self correcting and to put it in parlance that leftists will understand, you are on the wrong side of history.

      Refresher:

      If you side with the enemy during a time of war, you are the enemy. Zero degree of separation. This is not about “difference of opinion” it is a matter of fact.

      It does not matter if you give yourself over to the enemy because of intellectual laziness, general uncomprehending stupidity, indoctrination by others or maliciousness. All are the same and are to be treated equally.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 07:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. I wonder what the Afghan people think?

      Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 03 27 at 07:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. #97. Why do you call him Dawood when he has renounced Islam? Is it because if you infer he is Muslim then you infer that he is guilty of something.  That sounds like racism to me.

      As for what the US should have done with him, well, perhaps they should look after their past employees (you know, the whole KLA thing) a bit better.  Its not my fault if they want to go an invent a category of prisoner called ‘illegal combatant’, especially given he was fighting for a national army, i.e. the Taliban.

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 07:18 AM • permalink

 

    1. Not concerned about what Afghans think, Luis?

      Didn’t think so.

      Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 03 27 at 07:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. #102 Luis, if he’s renounced Islam and he’s turned his back on the West, what has he got left?  What sort of dirt worship do you follow?

      Posted by anthony_r on 2007 03 27 at 07:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. #100. “You are greatly mistaken. Fascism was just another degenerate socialist ponzy scheme.”

      Then how can you explain the Italian fascists, Franco and Hitler turning on the left-wing parties in their various countries once they had come to power?  Some of the first in the Nazi camps were communists, socialists and trade unionists…precisely because it was fascism’s historical role to break the power of the organised working class and its political parties and restore profitability to German/Italian/Spanish capitalism.

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 07:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. Luis: Aw, those kindly Gitmo guards, what with their dropping the Koran into the toilet

      Umm…Newsweek retracted that one there, Luis.

      Welcome to 2006.

      Posted by Villeurbanne on 2007 03 27 at 07:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. Instead of just rantochanting there Luis, how about providing some support for your claim that Dawood (his legal name) was an American agent in the KLA?

      And, for your edification, the “illegal combatant” is a definition in international law that describes those who are so outside the bounds of acceptable human behavior that there is no legal protection given to them.

      The Geneva Convention has not only been followed by the US, but the US has even gone above and beyond any and all requirements under that or any other instrument of international law.

      The Geneva Convention allows for the summery execution of those who are in Dawood’s category. Try reading the damn document, rather than mindlessly spouting your illiterate indoctrination.

      Now, backing up just a bit…

      From your more recent posts (number #102 is most current viewable as of atm), it is beginning to seem that you may be a youngster and might actually be wanting to learn some. If that’s the case, I’ll lay off the harsh. If not, I’ll keep pounding 🙂

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 07:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. #105 the Fascist’s idea of a worker’s paradise had industry that actually worked.  That’s the difference.

      Posted by anthony_r on 2007 03 27 at 07:27 AM • permalink

 

    1. Not gonna read all the comments & its probably been said.

      Fuck im,shoot him for all I care.

      Posted by gnasher on 2007 03 27 at 07:29 AM • permalink

 

    1. #105, LuisPosada:

      That one comment answers much. You are an indoctrinated communist.

      Nazism and Fascism were competing socialist utopianisms. Stalinists had them declared as “right wing” in order to discredit them as competition for the minds of the useful idiots.

      All three appealed to the “working man”. The main difference was that marxist/stalinst communism was created from the get go as expansionist and global, rather than localized as were the idiocies of Nazism and Fascism.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 07:31 AM • permalink

 

    1. #101. Sure do Margos, do you?

      “But towards the end of 2006, ABC News in the US and the BBC World Service conducted face-to-face interviews with 1,036 randomly selected Afghan adults across the country. The survey can only be read as a devastating verdict on life in Afghanistan five years since the invasion.

      According to the poll, the number of Afghans who believe the country is heading in the right direction is down from 77 to 55 percent, while those who think security is better now than under the Taliban are down from 75 percent to 58 percent.”

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 07:31 AM • permalink

 

    1. Jeez, Luis, sounds like we better bring the Taliban back. I guess some more public executions will liven up the weekends

      Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 03 27 at 07:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. #102 Luis

      So he was fighting for the Taliban. Therefore his release from Gitmo would seem to be premature, as the conflict is yet to be over. You’re suggesting he’s a POW are you not? Well, okay, we could release him in a prisoner exchange I guess. Anyone know of a Taliban prisoner without a slashed throat we can exchange for Hicks? On the bright side, a prisoner exchange would have him shipped to Afganistan and not defiling our shores here in Oz.

      Posted by Justin on 2007 03 27 at 07:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. luis- nazism is a left wing philosophy- everything about it was left wing, it’s economic policy , the cult of personality , anti semitism, eugenic fantasies,utopian statism etc etc

      you might also note that the first people the soviets went after when they came to power were the mensheviks, the moderate socialists and the trade unionists.

      Posted by eeniemeenie on 2007 03 27 at 07:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. As Luis speeds towards destiny, firing off all the usual salvos accusing us of koran-dunking, fascist loving, islamist bashing, and tending further towards the inevitable conservative-hating mindfarts, he becomes faster than a speeding pronoun – Hey! Look at Me! I’m fending off all these jerks at once!
      It’s sad, really.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2007 03 27 at 07:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. #107.

      “The phrase “unlawful combatant” does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII).”

      “The Bush Administration has decided that those who it determines not to meet this definition should be determined to be “unlawful combatants” and not receive the protection of the Geneva Conventions.”

      “Unlawful combatants who are nationals of an enemy power do retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that they must be “treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial”.

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 07:37 AM • permalink

 

    1. Louie,
      As far as I know Dawood and I share the same anglo-celtic background.  The nature of one’s deity of choice is not a racial determinant.
      While some may allege he’s renounced islam, it’s a bit like the IRA… once in never out, which is why he would expect short shrift under sharia.

      Posted by lotocoti on 2007 03 27 at 07:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. #114.

      “…nazism is a left wing philosophy…anti semitism…”.

      Nice try champ.  I guess I’m also anti-semitic for opposing Zionism. Btw the list of prominent Jewish socialists are; Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Rosa Luxembourg, Karl Liebknecht, Kurt Eisner etc, etc

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 07:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. Jews – and none of them lapsed?

      Posted by blogstrop on 2007 03 27 at 07:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. #114.

      The first POW’s the Bolsheviks released were the Cadets, who went on to form the nucleus of the White Russian armies…should have shot them on the spot really now I come to think about it…

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 07:47 AM • permalink

 

    1. #102.
      1. If Hicks is Taliban, then he should be a PoW until the end of hostilities. The Taliban are still at war so it would follow that Hicks should remain behind razor wire. And there would be no trial and freedom would come at the end of hostilities. The fact that he was not in uniform doesn’t necessarily deny him rights under the Geneva Convention if he was a Taliban fighter.

      2. If he isn’t Taliban, but Al-Qaeda, then he is not protected by the Geneva Convention. In earlier times simply shooting people like Hicks was the accepted practice -spies, for instance, could always expect torture and death. This is a sensible practice because the idea is for armys to stand and fight like armies, therefore keeping non-combatants (civilians)separate.

      3. The US, in a fit of generosity, devised a new category for the previously unprotected people picked up on battlefields – illegal combatant.

      This has certainly been of a benefit to Hicks. If he was a No.1 it is likely he would never be released because the Taliban will never surrender. If was a No.2 he would be dead.  But he is a No.3, which means he is going home soon, probably to a cell, but going home.

      Thank God for America, he must be thinking.

      Posted by Contrail on 2007 03 27 at 07:49 AM • permalink

 

    1. Then how can you explain the Italian fascists, Franco and Hitler turning on the left-wing parties in their various countries once they had come to power?

      The same reason for the Lenin/Trotsky split: they were their closest competitors. Besides, often the nastiest fights are over the smallest divides.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2007 03 27 at 07:49 AM • permalink

 

    1. Just did a quick check to find the study that Louise was talking about at #111.

      Here it is including bits he didn’t want you to see:

      Seven in 10 Afghans in the poll say they are “grateful” rather than “unhappy” with the presence of British, US and Canadian soldiers in the country.

      Vast majorities continue to call the invasion a good thing for their country and prefer the current government to its deeply unpopular Taleban predecessor.

      Eight in 10 support the presence of British, US and other international forces on their soil, compared with five per cent support for Taleban fighters and 11 per cent for jihadi fighters from other countries.

      Hey, Louise, still sure you care what Afghan’s think?

      Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 03 27 at 07:50 AM • permalink

 

    1. should have shot them on the spot really now I come to think about it… 
      Snap!

      Posted by blogstrop on 2007 03 27 at 07:50 AM • permalink

 

    1. #120 Luis

      Defence of the Bolsheviks and their methods is real brave. I suppose you are just thankful that communism is alive and well in it pure and unadulterated form in North Korea.

      Posted by Justin on 2007 03 27 at 07:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. # 124.

      Sorry Stroppie, just trying to fit in!

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 07:56 AM • permalink

 

    1. #102 Luis, we call him Dawood to save his life.
      Apostasy, the crime of renouncing Islam, is punishable by death.

      Posted by Skeeter on 2007 03 27 at 07:58 AM • permalink

 

    1. #125 Justin,

      alive and well in it pure and unadulterated form

      Communism is like… muesli!

      Posted by anthony_r on 2007 03 27 at 07:58 AM • permalink

 

    1. #122.

      Lenin and Trotsky didn’t split.

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 07:58 AM • permalink

 

    1. “The phrase “unlawful combatant” does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII).”

      And who are you quoting this from?

      Because, strictly speaking, that’s correct. But it leaves out a massive part of the story. Namely, that the Geneva Conventions define who is a lawful combatant (and receives protection) and who is a non-combatant (and receives protection). There’s a massive gap in the definitions—the unprotected combatant. That’s someone who does not abide by the laws of war, yet takes part in the hostilities.

      Hicks/Dawood, et. al., are all unlawful combatants. It was their policy to violate the laws of war—attacking civilians, no clear insignia, no chain of command, sheltering among civilians, murdering lawful combatants rendered hors de combat, etc.

      I find it amusing that you quote external sources. Almost as if you think we’ve never heard any of this before. Odd that you didn’t give us a link to your source…

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2007 03 27 at 08:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. Luis: Sorry Stroppie, just trying to fit in!

      Arm yourself with facts, logic, reason and evidence and you will fit in just fine.

      Sadly, this doesn’t seem to be the path you have chosen.

      Posted by Villeurbanne on 2007 03 27 at 08:02 AM • permalink

 

    1. #123.

      Here you go Margo.

      “In general terms, those who were optimistic about their own future had dropped from 67 percent to 54 percent. The results revealed an even larger collapse in optimism about the country’s future in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar. Here, only 4 out of 10 people think things are “heading in the right direction”—barely half the figure of a year ago. Fully 80 percent rate their security as poor.”

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 08:02 AM • permalink

 

    1. Lenin and Trotsky didn’t split.

      OK, then Stalin and Trotsky.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2007 03 27 at 08:02 AM • permalink

 

    1. Luis, you’re still not citing sources. Unlinked quotes are not citations; you could be pulling them from your butt for all we know.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2007 03 27 at 08:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
      Article 4

      A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

      1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

      2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

      (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
      (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
      (c) That of carrying arms openly;
      (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

      3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

      4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

      5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

      6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

      B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

      1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

      2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

      The relevant parts to this discussion are #2, (a), (b), (c) and (d).

      Violate any one of those and he is NOT covered by ANY part of the Geneva Convention.

      The entire purpose of the GC is to prevent barbarism such as the jihadi engage in. No jihadi is covered under the GC in any part due to their inability to comply with the required restrictions.

      The custom and tradition regarding treatment of such persons is summary execution at the place of capture.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 08:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. Re #123 Didn’t think so Louise

      #130 It is already clear that Louise omits sources for a reason

      Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 03 27 at 08:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. “Unlawful combatants who are nationals of an enemy power do retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that they must be “treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial”.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 08:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. Luis, sunshine, stick to your neck of the woods and concentrate on killing ‘ol Fidel. But hurry, he might fall off the perch before you get there.

      It does explain why you have this kinky Gitmo fetish, but unfortunately you’re out of your league elsewhere.

      Posted by Whale Spinor on 2007 03 27 at 08:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. Grimmy, your trippin’…he was posted at an airfield, given some grenades and told to guard a tank.  See #2 (c).

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 08:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. #116
      So the answer to #97 is b.  No trial, Red Cross parcels and postcards from home for the next ten, 20, 30 years in Leavenworth.
      Fair enough.

      Posted by lotocoti on 2007 03 27 at 08:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. Quoting someone’s opinion of the GC from the wiki isnt quoting from the GC.

      You can do better than that.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 08:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. #130.

      “Hicks/Dawood, et. al., are all unlawful combatants. It was their policy to violate the laws of war—attacking civilians, no clear insignia, no chain of command, sheltering among civilians, murdering lawful combatants rendered hors de combat, etc.”

      Hmmm…who does that remind me of…oh yes, George Washington and co., some 18th Century terrorists…

      Posted by LuisPosada on 2007 03 27 at 08:12 AM • permalink

 

    1. a b and d must also be adhered to as well. Adhered to by himself and those he’s with.

      Not just a piece but the whole.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 08:12 AM • permalink

 

    1. Luis you fucking joke, are you still wasting our time? You already got caught out peddling that koran in the toilet bullshit that got retracted a year ago. A fucking year ago. You must not take your head out your arse much, huh?

      Posted by morbo on 2007 03 27 at 08:13 AM • permalink

 

    1. #132 Luis

      Are you sure those aren’t the figures for literacy and standards of education? I know that education was on the Taliban’s to do list. Right after converting the soccer stadium into an execution facility I think. Thos damned Allied forces stopped those enlightened ones on the path of Utopia for Afganistan! Now if only they’d had more men like Dawood.

      Posted by Justin on 2007 03 27 at 08:13 AM • permalink

 

    1. #143, Posada:

      There ya go! Proud of ya! Finally dropped the pretension and openly declared yourself.

      For an aggressively dishonorable piece of shit, you opened up pretty fast.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 08:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. Lenin and Trotsky didn’t split

      I guess the only splitting was Trotsky’s skull by a Stalinist ice pick…

      Posted by Major John on 2007 03 27 at 08:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. #137 Luis

      “Unlawful combatants who are nationals of an enemy power do retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that they must be “treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial”.First you state that Dawood was fighting for the Taliban, now you say he was an unlawful combatant. And you provide a citation that says as a UC is afforded rights if they are national of an enemy power. Heads up, he wasn’t an enemy national. For a troll you’re doing a rotten job. Who’s side are you really on?

      Posted by Justin on 2007 03 27 at 08:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. Grimmy
      Which is why Louie didn’t enjoy Evan Sayet.

      Posted by lotocoti on 2007 03 27 at 08:27 AM • permalink

 

    1. lotocoti:

      That is a very interesting talk that Evan gave.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 08:30 AM • permalink

 

    1. I believe it was Mark Twain who said that if you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.

      I think Louise has exhausted herself trying to remember stuff.

      Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 03 27 at 08:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hmmm…who does that remind me of…oh yes, George Washington and co., some 18th Century terrorists…

      Nope. Washington’s army had uniforms (when possible) and fought under a recognizable standard. Also, the nature of tactics in those days made who was a combatant and who wasn’t pretty damned clear.

      In any case, the Geneva Conventions didn’t exist then, so you can hardly claim they were violated.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2007 03 27 at 08:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. I think I need to update my usual skreed…

      How’s this sound?

      A nazi is a communist is a jihadi is an enemy.

      They are terribly hard to tell apart, after all.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 08:38 AM • permalink

 

    1. So I come back to the computer after a few hours away and find that Louise (nice one Margos) is still going.

      But I guess the mark of a real commie is someone who never knows when to quit…

      “comrades, just a few more million corpses and we’ll have our workers utopia, I promise”

      Posted by Art Vandelay on 2007 03 27 at 08:41 AM • permalink

 

    1. #154: As the saying goes, ArtVandelay, communism has only killed 100 million people – let’s give it another chance.

      Posted by Villeurbanne on 2007 03 27 at 08:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. ArtVandelay:

      Was that MM playin with us?

      I did notice that MM and LP never posted at the same time…

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 08:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. Looks like he won’t get the opportunity to be a Fatty Boom Bah.

      Posted by Habib on 2007 03 27 at 08:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. Guys guys, go easy on Luis, his comment in post #102

      “Why do you call him Dawood when he has renounced Islam? Is it because if you infer he is Muslim then you infer that he is guilty of something.  That sounds like racism to me”

      shows that he thinks Islam is a race.  About sums up his lack of reasoning clear critical thinking.  He must be still learning.

      Posted by The Big Fish on 2007 03 27 at 08:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. #158:

      He wants to educate you on the ‘new racism’ of criticising Islam.

      The ‘new racism’ is cricism of a culture or a religion. This is different to old racism that actually had something to do with, you know, race.

      Posted by Villeurbanne on 2007 03 27 at 08:51 AM • permalink

 

    1. #158
      Still, it’s nice to have some spirited discourse.

      Posted by lotocoti on 2007 03 27 at 08:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. #152

      Nope. Washington’s army had uniforms (when possible) and fought under a recognizable standard. Also, the nature of tactics in those days made who was a combatant and who wasn’t pretty damned clear. In any case, the Geneva Conventions didn’t exist then, so you can hardly claim they were violated.

      Ouch! I almost feel sorry for this loser. Almost…

      Posted by rational_minded on 2007 03 27 at 08:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. #159, Dylan:

      Nice site you linked to. You one of the posters there?

      PS. You think it would offend Fang if I said I liked his style?

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 09:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. Was that MM playin with us?

      Grimmy, MM is damn clever but I doubt even he could dream up a troll as clueless as Louise.

      Posted by Art Vandelay on 2007 03 27 at 09:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. You have to cut David some slack. All that Jew hating works up a big appetite.

      Posted by swassociates on 2007 03 27 at 09:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. #163, ArtVandelay:

      You keep sayin the thing was named Louise… you tryin to make me think I was beating up on a girl?

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 09:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. #142 LuisPoseur

      attacking civilians Interesting.  Got an references?

      no clear insignia You’ve got be kidding me!  They fought on open battle fields in squares and ranks.  It was fucking obvious who was who.

      no chain of command What exactly was General Washington’s role then?

      sheltering among civilians What?  their own families?  They might have mixed with civilians, but not for the purposes of protection or creating civilian casualties for which they could blame the British.

      murdering lawful combatants rendered hors de combat Got any examples?

      You, Luis, are a fuckwit.  Go away.

      Posted by murph on 2007 03 27 at 09:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. #162 – Grimmy:

      It is a good site. Fang is a relatively new blogger but he has managed to get under the skin of a few of the terrorist sympathisers who have dropped by. I coment there from time to time but, no, I don’t post anything on the site.

      Posted by Villeurbanne on 2007 03 27 at 09:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. When Hicks gets out I don’t think he will play the media game.  I think he will scarper to Pakistan, that’s where the Taliban action has moved.

      Posted by Crossie on 2007 03 27 at 09:29 AM • permalink

 

    1. Crossie:

      and when he finally meets up with his former comrades, the GPS guided bombs that fall on him and them will not be, in any way, associated with his recent immunization shots.

      We do not plant micro beacons in our released fish convicts.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 09:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. Damn, I missed the troll fight.  Good to see you kicked him in the balls Grimmy!

      Posted by bondo on 2007 03 27 at 09:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. #170, bondo:

      Yeah, sorry about that. I was actually aiming for his head but I forgot I’m not very limber.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 09:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. #170, bondo:

      And, I think it would be more accurate to give the beat down credit to the others. Margo turned him out as a liar and the others burned him with facts. I just tried to trick him into standing still while it rained down on him.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 27 at 09:49 AM • permalink

 

    1. #168, When Hicks gets out (eventually from a rough Australian prison) he won’t make a cent from his memoirs, as criminals in Australia can’t profit from their crimes. He won’t be going to anystan either, because he will not be entitled to a passport. In Australia, a citizen with a criminal record cannot be issued a passport.

      Posted by mareeS on 2007 03 27 at 10:02 AM • permalink

 

  1. Short, fat and long-haired.  Dear God, we’