Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I will give you this last chance, but remind you of the rules. The truth is, sometimes we need to make a stand, and face the consequences. There is obviously much here which I have written which some Muslims will not like. But I must be willing to stand up for what is right, even if it means possible reprisal.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I’m certain, were Chris to see with his own eyes the attrocities committed by these terrorists, he would change his opinion in a matter of seconds.

Chris, imagine that you are an Iraqi or Afghan civilian. You have just driven your family to market to pick up some drinkable water or fresh vegetables, and are returning home. As you near your home, you come across a roadblock manned by armed men. You are stopped, pulled from your vehicle, beaten and shot in front of your wife and children, simply because you are either Shite or Sunni Muslim and your attackers are not. Or imagine being kidnapped, made to call your family, and then have holes drilled into your skull and major joints with a power tool as your family listens to you begging and screaming for your life. These things happen regularly, sometimes many times a day, throughout Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is only one reason this same thing is not happening throughout Australia or The United States, and that is because our governments, through use of military force, have taken the fight elsewhere. If you choose to bring these people to your homeland and treat them as criminals with the same rights as a vandal or petty thief, they will use the legal system to legitimize terrorism and torture as a means to bring about social change. Make no mistake: Their goal is to impose Sharia law and Islam throughout the World. This is not speculation; it is their own words. Their initial goal is to use the legal system to make it a “hate crime” or “discrimination” or “racial profiling” (as if Islam were a race) to even speak out about their nefarious activities. They hope to have it so that the common citizen is afraid to report suspicious activity, or the newspaper is afraid to publish stories pertaining to Islamic terrorists for fear of legal action.

Angry American

I ask commentators to provide their full name, and I tried – but failed – to contact you about this. But this time I have made an exception, as it is good to get some non-Australian feedback on occasion, and it is good to hear from someone who has been in the military and has faced these situations first hand.

Of course Chris or others will reply, “you are willing to sacrifice freedom in the name of freedom”. Well not quite. It is true that in times of war, all the niceties of civilized society may not be possible, and a temporary suspension of some legal procedures may be necessary. But these are the exceptions to the rule.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Actually Chris, when you’re in the middle of a combat zone during time of war, it’s the guy who’s pointing a gun at you who decides your guilt or innocence. As an enemy combatant, out of uniform, without proper Geneva Convention Identification, Hicks could have been shot on the spot. He and his supporters should be greatful that at least one side of this conflict voluntarily chooses to take the moral high-ground, even though it puts our own troops at risk.

Having been in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I can tell you from first-hand experience that the enemy has no rules. They intentionally initiate firefights from inside civilian populated structures, knowing that our response will be delayed and that we will be reluctant to fire back for fear of harming innocent civilians. If civilians are injured or killed, it becomes the fault of the “Americans” or “Allies” for protecting their own lives against attack. The media circus begins, and everyone forgets that the reason we are there to begin with is because these counries harbor a large percentage of savages willing to kill anyone and everyone who they don’t agree with from a religious perspective.

Hell, Muslims have killed more Muslims over petty disagreements in the chain of succession, than have ever been killed by outside forces. Contrary to popular belief, Islam is a violent, repressive political and religious system bent on imposing it’s will on the entire planet. I for one will not allow it, and I’m willing to take away the “rights” of a million “David Hicks” to keep it from happening.

Inter arma silent leges: in time of war the law is silent.

Get over it.

Angry American

The issue is not the media here. The issue is this: we already have enough comments – both spoken and written – made by Hicks that he pretty well has condemned himself.

But I remind folks that Hicks is not the original subject of this post, so we are straying from the topic at hand.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

John said:

“Some points may be valid, but all of us in Australia are too far away from the case, and unqualified in law, and our comments should be cautious, rather than strident, as many of David Hicks’ supporters are.”

You think Bill saying:

“the evidence is pretty clear”

Is a cautious, non strident statement?

In cases like this I am constatly reminded of the story of Jean Charles De Menezes, the person shot by police in London after the terrorist bombings. The media, and many others got the initial story *totally* wrong, yet many people were ready to pass judgement on his stupid behviour, and how he got himself killed.

If you both think relying on the media as our source of evidence in chosing the life changing path of a person’s guilt or innocence, I amd truly scared about the world you want us to inhabit.

Chris Mayer

‘Bill, you have to be kidding. Similar letters were published in that bastion of the right-wing, The Australian, and questions have been asked about this alleged confession by other media around the world. It just seems too good to be true that after 4 years in Guantanamo, this guy claims responsibility for just about every terrorist act in the world for the last 30 years. It also seems that he has a history of exaggerating his role in the terrorist movement.’

Tom, this guy is no 3 in the tree!
So he could be stroking his ego yes, but myths take hold most strongly when there is a kernel of truth at the base. He may well have had “senior command”-level involvement in all those things without being directly “hands-on” at the time, without totally invalidating his grand claims.

It’s the same principle as is used by opponents of the war to ascribe blame and responsibility to George W Bush, even though nobody has seen him personally fire a gun at anyone in Iraq.

So I would say, if this terrorist wants to take the credit, fine – let’s put him on trial for the lot, and accept his confession immediately.

John Angelico