Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » World Events » Afghanistan » David Hicks memoir ‘deceptive’

David Hicks memoir ‘deceptive’

David Hicks' book is a misleading and self-serving account of his time overseas

Surprise, Surprise. It turns out that David Hick’s tell-all book doesn’t quite tell the whole story, particularly when it comes to the training he undertook with al-Qaeda or the anti-Semitic views he adopted at the time:

While questions remain over whether Hicks stands to profit from the book, journalist and author Sally Neighbour calls his account “deceptive and disappointing”.

“The problem with Hicks’s book is that out of the 456 pages he spends less than one page talking about his training with Al Qaeda,” she said.

“The significant thing about David Hicks, among other things, is that he was probably the most highly trained of all of the Australian Al Qaeda graduates.

“He did very extensive training over a number of weeks or months which is why he was of such interest to the authorities.

“And the fact that he skates over this and provides virtually no detail of it and claims he never did any terrorist training, never went to a terrorist training camp, wasn’t aware of any terrorist activity, is just beyond belief because there are now enough reliable sources so that we know that this is simply not true.”

 

This account by Hicks seems to be extremely self-serving. Rather than discuss why and how he joined the terrorist organisation which supported the Taliban and committed the murderous attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, Hicks instead seems keen to present himself as some adventure-loving backpacker who ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The truth is of course very different to what Hicks and his progressive supporters would have us believe. Hicks was for all intents and purposes a member of al-Qaeda, who was willing to fight for them and accepted their most vile anti-Semitic views.  That’s why in 2007 he pleaded guilty to one charge of materially supporting terrorism. His own confessions shortly after his capture provide all the evidence one needs to be satisfied of his guilt.

All this is not to say that Hicks shouldn’t be a free man allowed to start over. He has paid for his crime with several years incarceration. Like all convicted criminals who are not likely to re-offend, Hicks deserves a second chance. But when he tells his story, he should be held to account for a self-serving account which fails to be honest and candid about his journey into Islamism and his support for terrorists.  

I’d personally have more respect for Hicks if he admitted that he made a huge mistake and apologised for it. This account would indicate that like his left-wing supporters, he thinks he shouldn’t have to own up to his misdeeds.


18 Comments

  1. Ray Dixon says:

    Name one ex-con who writes a book and “owns up” to all his sins? He’s no different to, say, Chopper Read, who glorifies his own murderous past, and then some. Why not have a go at him too? Look, I reckon Hicks was a dick and probably got what he deserved – 5 years of incarcerated hell. Let him have his day and make a few bucks. I think you’re suggesting he deserves a second chance so who really cares (now) if he gilds the lily a bit?

  2. Tessa Dick says:

    one of the greatest tragedies is that evil people so often don’t believe that they are evil

  3. […] IAIN HALL's Sandpit Bringing light into the darkness… Skip to content HomeIAIN HALL’s SandpitSockPuppet’s pageAbout Leon BertrandComments policyEmail ← David Hicks memoir ‘deceptive’ […]

  4. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    The one thing that hicks should not be allowed to do is make ANY money from his book just as any other criminal should not be able to profit from his notoriety. But lean is spot on in his point about Hicks down playing his evil past.

  5. Leon Bertrand says:

    On reflection, this book, with its conspicuous ommssions is definately pitched to Hick’s left-wing supporters who want to view him as a hero and/ or a victim.

    Talking about the racist, anti-gay, terrorism-supporting Islamist ideology he fell for would not be appreciated by his progressive apologists.

  6. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, as he was not convicted in Australia, would that restriction apply? I doubt it.

    Leon, I do not regard Hicks as a “hero”. I regard him as a fool who thought it’d be a big adventure to become a mercenary in far flung lands. The problem was, he picked the wrong organisation to join. Do you seriously believe he had any knowledge that Al Queda were about to play a part in the September 11 attacks and that he would have joined them if he knew that? Honestly, hasn’t your whipping boy suffered enough for his ‘crimes’, which were what exactly?

  7. JM says:

    “The significant thing about David Hicks, among other things, is that he was probably the most highly trained of all of the Australian Al Qaeda graduates.

    How many are there? Oh, that’s right – two, maybe three. Not much competition there.


    “He did very extensive training over a number of weeks or months which is why he was of such interest to the authorities.”

    Weeks, months, weeks, months? You know what? In all the excitement I forgot.

    C’mon. This is a really tendentious article. And the sub’ies headline “Not facing reality” or somesuch is really disgusting. The guy spent five years in a very harsh jail, I’m quite sure he’s well acquainted with reality.

  8. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    “The significant thing about David Hicks, among other things, is that he was probably the most highly trained of all of the Australian Al Qaeda graduates.

    How many are there? Oh, that’s right – two, maybe three. Not much competition there.

    The number of other “graduates” is entirely irrelevant, the fact is that Hicks made certain admissions in his letters sent home to his father but I am unsurprised that You are jumping to his defence here

    “He did very extensive training over a number of weeks or months which is why he was of such interest to the authorities.”

    Weeks, months, weeks, months? You know what? In all the excitement I forgot.

    Well you lapse in memory is hardly surprising because I suspect that you think that hicks is a “good guy” because he was trying to “stick it” to the Yanks

    C’mon. This is a really tendentious article. And the sub’ies headline “Not facing reality” or somesuch is really disgusting. The guy spent five years in a very harsh jail, I’m quite sure he’s well acquainted with reality.

    As you well know the reality that he is not facing up to is the nature of the deeds he was training for and the fact that he was not some waylaid tourist You are strangely sanguine abut his clear anti-Semitism and his devotion to an innately misogynistic faith, typical Latte sipper thinking 🙄

  9. And this is only the beginning of Hick’s lies and deceptions. Trained by al Qaeda to disrupt incarceration operations should he be captured, David Hicks did just that, abusing and threatening U.S. Military Police guards at Gitmo while I served there. My question to him and his apologists is: What would he be doing now if he were not captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan in December of 2001? Would he be in Austrailia, working at an honest job and raising joey’s? Or, would he be a terrorist leader at the right hand of Osama bin Laden? I think he must’ve read Gregory David Roberts’ “Shantaram” too many times. Get the Real Story of detention and medical duty at Gitmo @ http://onecent.us/Gitmo

  10. Sax says:

    Ah Gitmo…..
    Contact Counseling still as prolific as it once was ?
    A small fish, given way too much publicity for not only himself, but also his supposed cause.
    The guards there still taught how to torture without leaving a mark ?

  11. Kate says:

    Iain,
    (1) re: your apparent description of JM as a “typical latte sipper” – you describe yourself as loving a good argument. A ‘good’ argument is not one in which you demean the arguer as a basis for discrediting his/her comments.

    (2) re: weeks or months – my reading of JM’s comment is that he/she is suggesting if you unaware of what exactly Hick’s training was, eg whether it was for either weeks or months, then are you really able to describe it as ‘extensive’? From my perspective he has a valid point. Again, you respond by denigrating JM rather than examining his actual comment.

    But then, perhaps reasoned/logical argument is expecting too much of a person who labels other people as “leftards”.

    Tessa,
    I would suggest that one of the greatest tragedies of our human existance is that we tend to label people as either ‘good’ or ‘evil’. It’s the ultimate act in ego boosting to put yourself on a pedestal above others. “They were evil” we cry, “we would never do such things!” And yet history repeats, again and again. At some point we have to stop taking the easy way out of using the labels of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, of ‘us’ and ‘them’, and instead ask ourselves this: how did a newborn baby, not yet influenced by this screwed up world, get to the point where as an adult he gasses people in concentration camps? We have to acknowledge that potential exists in all of us and take personal responsibility for ensuring that it does not re-occur. Until that point is reached history will keep repeating.

    Finally, Iain, before you start denigrating me – I don’t have any particular sympathy for Hicks as an individual, but I do have a problem with the processes used to incarcerate him. Also, I don’t drink coffee, but I do love a hot cup of chocolate if that helps.

  12. Iain Hall says:

    Kate
    Firstly welcome to my blog

    Iain,
    (1) re: your apparent description of JM as a “typical latte sipper” – you describe yourself as loving a good argument. A ‘good’ argument is not one in which you demean the arguer as a basis for discrediting his/her comments.

    I certainly do love a good argument but sadly that is not a part of JM’s agenda so I respond to her in the same spirit as she comments.

    (2) re: weeks or months – my reading of JM’s comment is that he/she is suggesting if you unaware of what exactly Hick’s training was, eg whether it was for either weeks or months, then are you really able to describe it as ‘extensive’? From my perspective he has a valid point. Again, you respond by denigrating JM rather than examining his actual comment.

    Well I have read the admissions that Hicks made about his training in the letters he sent to his father so I don’t think that it can be argues that he was “just a naughty boy” so I see JM’s comment as a typical attempt to down play what Hicks did and to suggest that what he was training for was nothing more sinister than a teddy’s picnic. that is why I was derisive.

    But then, perhaps reasoned/logical argument is expecting too much of a person who labels other people as “leftards”.

    Well You may be thinking that this post was written by me because this is my blog but if you check out the byline you will see that it was in fact written by Leon Bertrand, my favourite epithet for lefties is “latte sippers” quite simply because it has a more affectionate tone
    Finally there is nothing wrong with a bit of hot chocolate but I’m rather more partial to a nice cup of Earl Grey tea myself 🙂 as for the processes that Hicks has endured well check out my earlier posts on the subject and then feel free to get back to me

  13. Sax says:

    Touche Jean-Luc ?

  14. Iain Hall says:

    well I do like to “make it so” Sax 😉

  15. […] Hicks (who has recently published his own book) made a surprise appearance to ask Howard about whether his incarceration without charge and […]

  16. Ben says:

    I have read David’s account carefully and can not understand the critisisms he has recieved. Could he have been anymore honest? He is the only former detainee so far who has gone public addmitting his involvement in military training. The media in the past and until now have focused on three words, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Afghanistan. What i understood from his accounts is that the main focus of his story is kashmir, and that Afghanistan was only a side issue, where he was to train and then return to Kashmir where even until recently tens of thousands of local Kashmiris have taken to the streets protesting Indian rule and brutalities. As he mentions he had not even heard of Al-Qaeda until arriving in GTMO. He has made the media look to have been untruthful in their sexed up accounts over the years, including some pollies, it is not surprising they have to defend thier integrity and attack him. It is quite obvious he was only trained as an infrantry foot soldier, how much more detail do we need from him. I’m sure a page by page account of what basic training is would make boring reading. Why not just read the Australian Defence Force manuals. It is all the same stuff, I should know, I have served my time in the Australian grunts. Well done to David for an honest account, there was lots of information he didn’t even need to add, but did any way, I also found some of it educational. If we are to defeat the terrorists we need to address this problem realistically, and not act on policies that sound sexy, cause fearmongering, or what may create votes. I doubt there is a terrorist organisation out there in the image of a doctor evil scenario. What ever the case, may we soon destroy the terrorist and bring peace to that part of the world that has suffered long enough.

  17. Leon Bertrand says:

    Ben,

    The fact is that David Hicks was knowingly a member of a terrorist organisation which held anti-semitic views, provided him with training in terrorism and wanted global Islamiccdomination. From what I understand, Hicks paints himself as some sort of adventurer who just ended up with Al-Qaeda without even knowing he was with a bunch of extremists who supported terrorism, when the fact is that Hicks aquired those same views concerning the West, Jews, Islam etc.

    Your comment indicates Hick’s deception, when you say that Hicks writes as though Kashmir was his main concern and that Afghanistan was just some sort of side issue. The reality is that Hicks spent numerous months there, and even came back after leaving for a while.

    For all intents and purposes, he was a knowing member of a terrorist organisation.

  18. Sax says:

    He is a self professed terrorist, no argument there. But today’s terrorist, is tomorrow’s freedom fighter, so the expression goes ?

    I am not giving Hicks any quarter here, nor sympathy, but a big BUT ?

    We all forget, that Hicks was pretty much the only person the yanks actually ‘caught’, in their relentless search for the real killers, such as Osama Mis Behavin ? He is a token of that relentless, and so far failed, search ? (apart from lucky fluke shots ?)

    That is the reason why he is still there, and will remain there. He is the only sort of victory the yanks have had, and their saviour in the undying media war ? That is why, unfortunately, he will remain their “poster boy”, under which they will continue that relentless search ?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: