Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » World Events » Afghanistan » Latte Sippers™ for David Hicks!

Latte Sippers™ for David Hicks!

I’m not sure which is more disturbing, the thought of fawning Latte sippers lining up to get David Hicks to sign his book or the notion that he might profit from it.

click for source

Notice too  how the Age skips over the salient fact that Hicks trained with al Qaeda  and declared allegiance to  Osama Bin laden? Hmm I very much hope that the profits from this book are seized by the Commonwealth, but I am cynical enough to expect that they won’t be because the Labor government and their masters the Greens will ensure that Hicks is able to profit from his crimes, just as they caved in to the spurious law suits from that other terrorist Mandoub Haib.

If Hicks was genuine  about wanting to put those , err,” indiscretions” behind him, then he would just look to the future and not try to profit from a very disgraceful past.

Cheers Comrades


92 Comments

  1. Agreed. Good post.

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Thanks for that Leon 😉

  3. Richard Ryan says:

    Why can’t David Hicks tell his side of a sad and troubling story? If it is good enough for Chopper Read, multiple murder to have written a book, and have a movie made of his life of crime, and numerous appearances on TV to flog his book. Hicks has not been charged with any crime in this country, unlike the war-monger Howard who plunged this country into the Iraq war, to please his buddy George Bush, the worst President in American history.

  4. Clint Barton AKA Zane Trow AKA Eric Sykes* says:

    “trained with al Qaeda and declared allegiance to Osama Bin laden” could you point us to the evidence for this please?

    * edited by siteowner

  5. mumbles says:

    I also agree, good post. Unfortunately, as you say, the likleyhood of prosecution is slim.
    Richard, I think you will find that the proceeds of crime legislation, if I remember correctly, was instituted after Chopper Reads literary successes and partially because of it.
    What is sad about a guy who joins the terrorists, gets caught, gets banged up pleads guilty, gets released after serving his time. Probably the the only troubling aspect is how he didn’t get shot.
    As to the rest of your assertions what a poor way to start the week I would suggest a nice brekkie and a relax or failing that a bex and a good lie down
    Cheers

  6. Sax says:

    God, a Bex and a good lie down ? S*it, hadn’t heard that in years ! Thanks for that ! 😉

    This is a dicey business. They haven’t actually proven that he did anything, other than support Al Qaeda. If that were the prerequisite for this sort of punishment, then may as well lock up one third of the planet’s population ?

    As much as I dislike this man’s politics, and beliefs, it is still his right (ironically, under our law, not his ?), to say his piece. If we don’t agree with his propaganda, then we show our reticence by not buying his propaganda. Pretty simple I would have thought ?

  7. Iain Hall says:

    Zane
    He admits it in the letters sent to his father and please don’t keep inventing new Identities to comment here

  8. Iain Hall says:

    Richard
    Under our law he is more than welcome to tell his side of the story, what he should not be able to do is make money from it.

  9. Sax says:

    Under our law he is more than welcome to tell his side of the story, what he should not be able to do is make money from it.

    Why not Iain ?
    Why shouldn’t he have the same right as anyone else to tell his story, and profit by it, like everyone else does ? The Chamberlains ring a bell ?

    After all, it has still yet to be proven that he actually did anything. You never know, he may put his foot in it with this tell all.

    The biggest problem now, is that we “non believers”, do not understand the way of life, the belief structure, and the basis for such suicidal passion. Wouldn’t this be a perfect opportunity, for us non believers to read, just to see where he, and others are coming from, in an attempt to understand what they’re on about ?

    I am not a believer, never will be. But attempting to understand wtf they are on about, may ease tensions a little ? Besides, who the hell has time to read books anymore, I know I don’t ?

  10. Iain Hall says:

    Well Sax the ideology of the Jihadist is quite well known, likewise their methodology so I see little value in another book on the subject from Davo, that said under the fairly recent “proceeds of crime” act you can’t profit from crimes that you commit, even when it comes to telling the world about it. With the death of Osama Bin Laden there is a chance that his organisation may well fade away without its charismatic centre so I see no value it letting Hicks promote it with this book.

  11. Iain Hall says:

    That is just spin GD, He may not have heard of “al Qaeda” but he admits meeting Bin Laden so that sounds like a rather shallow excuse to me

  12. Angel says:

    I find it hard to believe Hicks had not heard of al-Qaeda before Guantanamo Bay. When he met Bin Laden, someone must of told him “This dude is the leader of such and such”

    I will not be buying the book out of principle, although I would like to read it. If I am so lucky to find a copy on the side of the road then I guess I will. The questions I would like answered in it are;

    Does he still call himself Muhammed Dawood?
    Will he mention the gunfight in which he was part and children were killed?
    Will he mention his jihad diary and its contents on “killing jews”
    Or will it be full of propaganda against the Western society (has he really changed then)

  13. gigdiary says:

    Oh believe me, Iain, it’s more than spin, it’s attempting to whitewash his treasonous behaviour.

  14. gigdiary says:

    Good questions, Angel. No, I don’t reckon he’s changed. I’m also disgusted by the lefts’ treating him as their current cause célèbre. His anti-semitism probably endears him even more in their misguided thinking, and misplaced loyalty.

  15. gigdiary says:

    He received a standing ovation at the Writers Festival. That really is appalling.

  16. Richard Ryan says:

    Maybe David Hicks has been reading Andrew Bolt’s book, “Still Not Sorry”!

  17. gigdiary says:

    Richard 🙂 nice quip, yet Hicks does have something to be sorry for, not capitalise on it as if he’s a persecuted victim. Taking responsibility for his actions would be a good start, rather than treating the whole issue as the ‘David Hicks Reality Show’, and see how many votes and dollars he can get.

    Truly appalling.

  18. Nigel says:

    Hicks has never been tried in a proper court of law, so none of us – NONE – know what really happened. We’re all judging him on what has appeared in the papers and on TV, which is, quite frankly, dreadful.

    Until we know otherwise, Hicks deserves presumption of innocence and to be able to tell his story anyway he pleases.

  19. Iain Hall says:

    Nigel
    I am judging him on the letters that he sent to his father where he boasted about his consorting with Jihadist terrorists, and I dis agree with your claim that the milyary tribunal was not a “proper court”
    In any case how can you support someone who would have gladly seen all homosexuals executed?

  20. Richard Ryan says:

    The” fair go” where David Hicks is concerned is all humbug. The deliberate and complete character assassination by imposters ( blogger’s who blog under screen names) of this political prisoner is “truly appalling”,

  21. Angel says:

    Iain – And Jews, and Americans, and the infidels that aid them.

  22. Iain Hall says:

    Richard
    David Hicks got a reasonably fair go if you ask me he is still alive and well when in previous conflicts he would have been shot. You can’t get fairer than that when you play at soldiers for a truly evil cause..
    Angel
    Spot on!!!

  23. Richard Ryan says:

    A fair go for Hicks! Not where John Howard was concerned, as he danced to the beat of George Bush’s war tom-toms.

  24. Sax says:

    Hang on Richard, Jonny was hardly the first to do that lil dance ?
    Won’t be the last either.

  25. Sax says:

    All the way with LBJ ring a bell anyone ?

  26. Richard Ryan says:

    AH yes! The United States Of Australia.

  27. Iain Hall says:

    I think that both of you are forgetting that John Howard was in Washington on the day of the 9-11 attacks so you can hardly blame him for feeling the immediacy of the threat and the need to respond

  28. Sax says:

    Nor the fantastic PR opportunity, that having a picture taken, next to the President, fresh after the attack ? A “free hit”, that money couldn’t buy ?
    Sorry Iain, but immediacy of the the threat, and the need to respond I feel had absolutely nothing to do with it. Political opportunism at its finest ?

  29. Iain Hall says:

    I’m a cynic Sax but there is a limit to my cynicism.

  30. Ray Dixon says:

    Hicks was a young idiot who got caught out in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was arrested in late 2001 as part of the US reaction to the Sept 11 event but I seriously doubt he had any knowledge of those plans. He has already paid a heavy price for his actions that, if it hadn’t been for Sept 11, may have even gone unnoticed and possibly not even be regarded as criminal. Actually, he has committed no crime against Australia, or even been charged with one. He accepted a plea bargain in the US to get out of the hell hole they were holding him in – who wouldn’t do that? Whether or not he’s entitled to the proceeds of his book is a matter that’s up for legal interpretation but there is no question that he has every right to write it in the first place. Why don’t you just get off his back? He’s small fry.

  31. Richard Ryan says:

    AH yes! Guantanamo Bay has been branded the ” gulag of our times” by Amnesty International. Even heroin dealers have their day in court. Is it not strange, we have no warnings of travel to America, from the powers to be, now that bin Laden was killed——very strange indeed, we even have warnings to Fiji, Bali, etc.etc.etc. but no warnings to visit Uncle Sam——a political decision, to be sure, to be sure.

  32. damage says:

    Hicks was small fry that’s true, but the small fish are the ones sent to do the biting.
    We’ll never know, but the possibility exists that Hicks small contribution to Jihad may have amounted to not much more than carrying a backpack onto a peak hour train or storming the gates of Holdsworthy. Not a lot to worry about. He’s small fry.

  33. Sax says:

    You’re all correct in what you say, but you have forgotten one important fact.
    At the stage they got Hicks, the yanks had absolutely nothing to hang their hats on. No propaganda victories at all. No military victories either. They had been truly a**kicked, and humiliated. By capturing Hicks, which as Ray said, was merely a gopher or small fry, it was focul point for the US to point their anger at, and something that the US government could point to, and say, hey we got one, we will get the rest ? They could parade him around, regardless of civilian rights. They made certain they could circumvent any civil rights, by calling him an enemy combatant, which he technically was.

  34. Angel says:

    Small fry are the children recruited to suicide bomb, under the false belief that they will not be harmed and that Allah will only kill the infidels from the blast. Small fry can still pack a big blast.

  35. Ray Dixon says:

    To suggest Hicks may have gone on a suicide terrorist attack in Australia if he hadn’t been caught is mere projection bordering on fantasy. It’s also irrelevant. The fact is he was captured, held in hell for 5 years (without charge) and eventually released. We don’t know what he might have otherwise been but we sure know that he’s “small fry” now, so why keep up with the Hicks bashing? I guess it’s easier to denigrate people when you’re anonymous.

  36. Angel says:

    Projection, sure.
    Fantasy, no. He is/was (not sure on that) a muslim trained in terrorist warfare and already fighting for their cause.

  37. Ray Dixon says:

    Yes Angel, the operative word being “was”. I.E. he was “a muslim trained in terrorist warfare” but that was before he was captured and punished. I don’t know where you get your information from but it’s certainly not based on any facts – there is no suggestion (anywhere) that Hicks was actually involved in any terrorist plots. He may have expressed a desire to carry them out (although even that is hearsay) but apart from being trained in *some* terrorist pursuits the guy was a mere foot soldier involved in conventional warfare, not a terrorist.

  38. Angel says:

    Are you saying he is no longer a muslim? Sure I don’t know the fact on that, can’t see anywhere that he mentions it.

    We all know this book will tell one side of him, the rest will get little or no mention. Prove me wrong on that.

    So is it David Hicks once again or still Muhammed Dawood? If he is no longer of the faith did the Americans get that out of him or did he decide himself he was on the wrong path, or is he still of the faith?

    Educate me

  39. Angel says:

    You don’t know ? No, neither do I. I cant get any facts on that as I stated above.

    So we can conclude he most definately is one of either;
    A muslim trained in terrorist warfare; or
    An ex-muslim trained in terrorist warfare

  40. Craigy says:

    We pointed out to Iain at the time that ‘Gitmo’ would not bring justice any closer. The reason we still don’t know about Hicks is the way he was treated by the neo-cons in the US at the time. Iain supported ‘Gitmo’ and it has been a complete failure in providing any process that brings the truth of people’s involvement in terrorist activities to light. When you torture people you fail…..We told you Iain, now you can’t be sure he won’t profit from his actions due to the failure at Gitmo….well done.

    So I can’t help you on Hicks ‘Angel’, but this might help you in understanding my argument on the thread about school Chaplains.

    From today’s News limited rag the Hun….

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/god-squads-push-fiction-to-our-kids/story-fn6bn88w-1226061413054

    Note the bigoted (according to damage) headline….

    “God squads push fiction to our kids”

    I couldn’t agree more.

  41. damage says:

    I agree that to suggest Hicks was going to become a suicide bomber is conjecture, but it’s no fantacy. The men that suicided in London were British and a week before their actions, fantacy would have been an apt discription for their eventual attacks too.
    Hicks was held without charge, but he was a prisoner of war in my humble and deserved what he got as far as detention is concerned. As for HELL? That’s how the left would like Gitmo to be viewed, but how was it worse than any other form of detention? He wasn’t released, he was sentenced to time served AFTER pleading guilty to a crime. One there is no doubt he committed.
    Hicks deserves his current “bashing” because he’s engaging in public discourse about his actions and his actions were reprehensible.
    “………..but that was before he was captured and punished.”
    Had he not been captured he’d not have been punished and he may have committed a worse act than his membership of terrorist groups.

    “….. there is no suggestion (anywhere) that Hicks was actually involved in any terrorist plots.”
    YET!!!!

    “……..He may have expressed a desire to carry them out.”
    And was being trained – and therfore groomed – to do exactly that.

  42. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    this piece is not so much knocking Hicks as it is attacking the Latte sippers who would give him a standing ovation, he does not deserve it, and it shames us all that there are those in this country who would offer it.

  43. Iain, such a noxious sentiment cannot go unanswered. I have posted a response to this rubbish on my blog.

  44. Angel says:

    “Wrong time, wrong place” denotes something out of a person’s control, not by choice.
    Training with an overseas terrorist organisation is something chosen to be done and by no way accidental.
    David Hicks does not deserve hero or celeb status.
    Yes he made a stupid decision. He should not be able to profit from this financially. I also fail to understand the emotional sympathy of bleeding hearts. Save that for someone who has contributed to this country and deserves it from the good they have done, not fought against it.
    I just do not believe the book will be unbiased and that it will no doubt hide certain “facts”

  45. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, I agree with that point – he does not deserve a standing ovation. But equally, he has every right to author a book and tell his story,. no matter how tainted it might be. As for the proceeds, that’s a legal question. If he gets any then I say good luck to him. Despite the bashing he’s getting here (and the ridiculous suggestion he might still commit a terrorist act!) the bloke has served his time and is getting on with his life. If that involves also writing a book, I won’t applaud him for it, I’ll just say .. so what?

  46. Iain Hall says:

    Well thank Derek you for the citation (I have added a link to your post into your last comment)
    a couple of points though, If you are against anyone being a rampant capitalism then you are on the wrong side of the argument because my argument is essentially that Hicks should not be able to profit from his crimes.
    Secondly I am in fact not a supporter of rampant capitalism at all. Nor do I endorse any sort of rape of the planet, or any sort of rape for that matter.
    Finally I don’t in anyway endorse the notion that Greed is good

  47. Angel says:

    Ray Dixon on May 24, 2011 at 4:04 pm said:
    “(and the ridiculous suggestion he might still commit a terrorist act!) ”

    Ray, if you are referring to me then you have misunderstood.

    He is terrorist trained, there is no denying that. I think you assume he is no longer trained if he is not in the organisation still. He is, and always be, terrorist trained. Nothing will change that. This does not mean I believe he is still a threat, opposite actually. Would he want to go back to years in Cuba, no he would have learnt his lesson for sure. Likewise was he capable of more before he got caught. Yes indeed, he was part of a terrorist organisation. Their aim is not in selling guide girl cookies door to door. Surely you know enough about jihad.

    My point is does he believe he was right in what he did. He would gain more respect from me, and others, if in his book said he regretted the path he took. I’m not hearing that.

    I think he regrets getting caught, especially when he hears the sympathy from those who say he did nothing wrong.

  48. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    if you check back through my archive you will see that I have been very consistent in my opinion about the man and what he has done, I have said repeatedly that I endorse his right to get on with his life But we should never forget that his actions while very naive and stupid were tantamount to taking up arms against his own country, in short they were treasonous. That he can be forgiven is something that I also endorse but I would ad that the price of his forgiveness should be some visible contrition from the man but sadly that seems to be entirely absent and any desire by him to profit from the book smacks of him having pride it that for which he should feel shame.

  49. Iain, not surprised that you would deny the claims in my post. You are a denialist, after all.

    (But thanks for including the link anyway. The odd reader will click through, in which case they’ll learn something.)

  50. Ray Dixon says:

    No Angel, I wasn’t referring to you. Someone else inferred that. You’re right about him not acknowledging he was wrong and not expressing regret for his own actions. I don’t have much time for him either but, this thing about his book is over-the-top. So what if a bunch of try hards give him a “standing ovation”? They’re in a very small minority. Storm. Teacup.

  51. gigdiary says:

    Well Derek, I’m odd, so I clicked through to your site. But I didn’t learn anything. I thought you were talking about David Hicks, but it seems you started talking about Gordon Gekko. Now I’m just confused.

  52. Iain Hall says:

    Derek its easy deny your claims because they are in fact quite wrong…

  53. damage says:

    If you’re referring to my comments Ray you are equally as misguided and confused. If any of my comments lead t you to this conclusion then point it out to me and I’ll gladly correct it.
    I have no suspision that Hicks is a danger to anyone except the left who he’ll make look pretty desperate and stupid simply by association.

  54. Iain Hall says:

    Actually Ray to be strictly correct you should be calling it a storm in a Latte Mug….

  55. Ray Dixon says:

    Well this … : “….. there is no suggestion (anywhere) that Hicks was actually involved in any terrorist plots.”
    YET!!!!

    … could easily be interpreted to mean you’re saying he still might commit a terrorist act. But I accept your after-the-fact clarification that that was not what you meant. Yet.

  56. damage says:

    Ok I see where you’ve “interpreted” it wrong.

    I’ll make it easier for you.

    Ray Dixon on May 24, 2011 at 4:57 pm said:
    Well this … : “….. there is no suggestion (anywhere) that Hicks was (at the time of his detention) actually involved in any terrorist plots.”
    YET!!!! (at the time of his detention)

    At the time of his detention, had he not been detained, ye may have been involved.
    So the YET!!! is relevent to the time of his detention.

    Sorry you “intrpreted” in that way.

  57. Ray Dixon says:

    Yes, but you were the one who left it open to interpretation. Thanks for clarifying your mistake. Let’s see if you can leave it at that.

  58. damage says:

    Well I suppose it was a mistake to allow you the latitude to deliberately interpret it wrong.
    Sorry – and we’ll leave it at that.

  59. Angel says:

    OMG Are you two agreeing?

  60. Gigdiary, I’m not surprised that you didn’t learn anything from my blog, despite the fact that it is so rich in wisdom. Learning requires an open mind, after all.

    Iain, I see that you are quite fixed in your views, so I will simply not try to change your mind. However, I’m sure you’ll be pleased to know that I have forgiven you for your obstinacy.

  61. Angel says:

    I did check out your site Derek. Classic megalomania. Offfering your forgiveness to Iain ??? Have you fallen head first from one of your trees?

  62. Iain Hall says:

    Thanks for the forgiveness Derek but as someone who is without sin on this issue I don’t need it 😉

  63. Iain Hall says:

    This is worth the time it takes to read , from the Age No Less:

    David Hicks appeared at the Sydney Writers’ Festival to discuss his autobiography Guantanamo: My Journey. And along for the ride was an audience of 900 credulous fools, who gave him a standing ovation and queued at a book signing afterwards.

    During his rare public presentation, Hicks proclaimed the purity of his intentions. The festival program provided no opportunity for challenges that might test the plausibility of his claims. To cap it off, the session was chaired in the finest echo-chamber style by none other than former Iraq War human shield Donna Mulhearn. The organisers couldn’t have put together a more ideologically slanted event if they tried.

    For those who have an interest in the facts rather than a self-serving rewrite of history, a quick reprise of Hicks’s past is in order.
    Advertisement: Story continues below

    His latter day effort to portray himself as some sort of harmless, hapless dilettante is belied by letters written in his own hand. In these missives he talks of undergoing weapons training that included “anti-aircraft and anti-tank rockets, rapid-fire heavy and light machineguns, pistols, AK47s, mines and explosives”. His words, not mine.

    Hicks’s hamfisted dishonesty is on full display when his autobiography presents a bowdlerised version of a foray to the front line between India and Pakistan. Hicks travelled to Kashmir courtesy of the al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba. In his book, he declares: “We did not fire upon Indian soldiers or any other people. We only participated in the symbolic exchange of fire.”

    But in a letter written in August 2000, Hicks described his Kashmiri experience in more robust terms. “I got to fire hundreds of bullets,” he crowed. “Most Muslim countries impose hanging for civilians arming themselves for conflict. There are not many countries in the world where a tourist, according to his visa, can go to stay with the army and shoot across the border at its enemy, legally.”

    During his festival appearance at the weekend, Hicks claimed the first time he ever heard the name al-Qaeda was “from the lips of an interrogator in Guantanamo Bay”. But once again, he is busted by those pesky notes he penned to his family.

    In a May 2001 missive he wrote: ”By the way I have met Osama bin Laden 20 times now, lovely brother, everything for the cause of Islam. The only reason the West calls him the most wanted Muslim is because he’s got the money to take action.”

    And of course, Hicks’s epistolary boastfulness comports with the view held by the Australian intelligence community. During Senate estimates hearings in May 2002, the former ASIO director Dennis Richardson said that “certainly Mr Hicks has received extensive al-Qaeda training”.

    It is easy to establish that David Hicks is a fraud. Far more perplexing is why purportedly intelligent people have become so morally unhinged that they see him as worthy of applause.

    Equally puzzling is why any of the festival’s sponsors would want to be associated with such an event. One would think that the Plain English Foundation would be repulsed by his doublespeak and deceit.

    And then there are the NSW and Australian governments, which misused taxpayer dollars to provide a platform for it.

    This is not about freedom of speech. I will defend Hicks’s right to stand on whatever street corner he chooses to tell whatever lies he wishes, but I don’t want my tax dollars to pay for it.

    Some audience members may take the view that whatever Hicks’s crimes, being held for so long without charge in Guantanamo Bay was unjustifiable. But this is a war, and in wartime it is entirely justifiable to detain enemy combatants until the conclusion of hostilities. We’re not even talking about legitimate POWs, but rather illegal combatants who don’t enjoy the protection of the laws of war because they themselves routinely violate them.

    What the writers’ festival audience seemed to ignore is that al-Qaeda would just as soon cut off their heads as look at them. The novelist Martin Amis put it well on BBC TV’s Q&A when he described the phenomenon of Western lefties making common cause with Muslim radicals: “People of liberal sympathies, stupefied by relativism, have become the apologists for a creedal wave that is racist, misogynist, homophobic, imperialist, and genocidal. To put it another way, they are up the arse of those that want them dead.”

    The eagerness of this naive crowd to excuse the jihadi transgressions of David Hicks is, quite simply, masochism in the service of sadism.

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/audience-on-their-feet-for-a-fraud-who-called-bin-laden-his-brother-20110523-1f0qb.html#ixzz1NIlMIzZB

    My bold BTW

  64. Richard Ryan says:

    David Hicks has no charges to answer for, here in Australia, as for America who cares—I don’t.

  65. Iain Hall says:

    That does not matter Richard because our proceeds of crime legislation does not require that criminal activities have to be committed only in our jurisdiction. Now you may think that his conviction is “unsafe” but until it is successfully overturned in the US it stands and as such entitles the commonwealth to invoke the proceeds of crime legislation. Frankly you can’t suggest that Hicks “has not broken any law here” based on legalistic nit picking because after 9-11 the things that he boasted about in his letters to his father did become indictable offences here and then try to invoke some sort of moral principle to ignore the Military commission conviction to which Hicks plead guilty. Either you say that you will support the letter of the law all of the time or you don’t support it at all. If it is the latter then you have to concede that what Hicks did prior to 9-11 should attract a penalty even though it was not technically criminal behaviour at the time.

  66. Ray Dixon says:

    Yes, that’s a good article, Iain, and, as you point out, The Age is not normally given to attacking “the left”. However, I’d suggest most people on “the left” would also agree with it, particularly this part:

    This is not about freedom of speech. I will defend Hicks’s right to stand on whatever street corner he chooses to tell whatever lies he wishes, but I don’t want my tax dollars to pay for it.

    That’s what I’ve been saying here – he has a right to write the book and tell his story, no matter how tainted & biased it might be.

    Gotta LMAO at the “900 credulous fools” who gave him that standing ovation though. Try hards (and Greens voters) the lot of them.

  67. Angel, you may perceive my strong belief in my quest as “megalomania”. But it is merely the confidence that comes with knowing I am doing Gaia’s work. (And anyway you must have a pretty high opinion of yourself to call yourself “Angel”!)

    And Iain: So you don’t want my forgiveness? Alright then, I withdraw it. You shall remain unforgiven.

  68. Iain Hall says:

    “Unforgiven” is one of Clint Eastwood’s Best films Derek 🙂

  69. damage says:

    I can just see Derek in a coffin out the front of the bar.

  70. Angel says:

    Angel is also a vampire

  71. Angel says:

    Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Charles Manson also believed they were unique and offered their forgiveness to those beneath them too.

  72. Richard Ryan says:

    September 2001 I was in Vietnam, unaware of the drama that happened in America, till the 13th of September, but I do remember Americans there, telling me that they were form Canada. With the deaths of millions of innocent people during the “American War” in Vietnam—–the deaths of 4000 people in the USA, was not a big news scoop in Vietnam. Only when I got back to the United States Of Australia, and having to watch replays of those planes, on TV for days later, crashing into those symbols of American Capitalism—-The Twin Towers,only then, did I realize these Americans would be on the war-path. For the record, Iraq, and Afghanistan, like Vietnam is a no-win game. Terrorism has yet to fine tune itself—–it won’t be defeated, by war. The war on terrorism is a no win game—never ending. David Hicks was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, if he was fighting the Russians, he would be classed as a “freedom fighter” as was bin Laden who learned his craft fighting the might of the Russian Army with the help of the Yanks who supplied the “stingers” missile to air rockets. America we must remember, it’s greatness was built on slavery and arms deals. America does not like getting the arms it supplied used on it’s self. Shalom.

  73. gigdiary says:

    Richard, America doesn’t like its planes being hijacked and flown into buildings containing thousands of its people…

    ‘wrong place, wrong time’ I think Angel has answered that nicely in the preceding comments

  74. Angel says:

    Richard, there is one thing really disturbing about what you said.

    The towers were a symbol of “…American Capitalism.”

    Mmmmmm to me they are a grave site for thousands of people.

    AND once again Hicks was not in the wrong place at the wrong time. He CHOSE to be there.

  75. Angel says:

    Richard, I re-read your little ditty above, just worked you out.
    Assalaamu ‘alaykum

  76. gigdiary says:

    speaking of ‘wrong place, wrong time’, Richard, what were you doing in Vietnam, liaising with the communist Vietnamese government? Perhaps not, but your views are such that beg the question. Where are you currently living? Hypocrite!

  77. Richard Ryan says:

    I shed no tears for the Americans, in the “art of killing” they are specialists,and they like killing, it’s in their genes,

  78. Angel says:

    Ray – This is your answer why we don’t give our real names out.

  79. Angel says:

    Its a sin for me to use your greeting isn’t it.

    Well cast stones on me.

  80. Richard Ryan says:

    I think my anti-American feelings come from my school teacher, when fifty years, he told us the Americans would be cursed for dropping those two weapons of mass destruction on Japan—-he got down on his knees and cursed the Americans for their actions in the class room, he really went off his rocker, —–still it was a great kill—120,000 in the blink of an eye-lid. Shalom.

  81. Angel says:

    Skyhooks to you and all your mates too

  82. gigdiary says:

    what’s going on here, Angel? We were having fun a few minutes ago…

  83. Richard Ryan says:

    Got to go now—–the voices in my head are telling me, tell them no more. Shalom

  84. gigdiary says:

    ..about as funny as a fire in an orphanage….

  85. Angel says:

    I am sitting at the computer naked, eating a bacon sandwich, drinking a wine.

  86. gigdiary says:

    I know, I had to turn my visual off, I was getting distracted….

  87. Angel says:

    No truth is I have uggies on.
    My fangs descended on that one a bit

  88. Angel says:

    “Shalom” Arabic for peace.

    Bin Laden a freedom fighter?

  89. Richard Ryan says:

    bin Laden a freedom fighter? along with Nelson Mandela, Menachem Begin, Yasser Arafat Nobel peace prize winner, and of course our own “freedom fighter”, Aussie David Hicks——–Terrorist is just a word, before you become famous. Shalom.

  90. Iain Hall says:

    Richard I think that you need to research the difference between fame and infamy….

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: