Author Topic: david hicks  (Read 8370 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline noss

  • Administrator
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 13882
  • Karma: +278/-50
  • Gender: Male
  • great scott!
    • antrx
david hicks
« on: Mar 28, 2007, 01:22PM »
so i'm probably going to open up a can of worms here, but i wanna know what peoples thoughts on the david hicks thing is? he's pleaded guilty as i'm sure we're all aware by now, apparently he was pressured into the guilty plea by the australian government.. and john howard has then gone and more or less has said 'oh he has said he is guilty, so its good that i didnt make effort to get him returned to australia'

the other thing i dont quite understand, and before i continue, i'm no hippy protesting lets have a march to save the numbats twat, i just sorta sit back and watch things happen, take it in and have my opinion, but there are all these people on news websites and in newspapers, youtube, wherever, full of people saying that he should be forced to revoke islam if he is to be bought back to australia, and that he should be banned from talking to the media, any if he tries to sell his story, and profits should be donated to 9/11 victims.

seriously what the fuck?

i know australia is turning into another america, but thats just a bit over the top! suggesting someone should revoke their chosen religion to enter back into the country, along with obscene censorship to boot..

i would have thought that people wouldnt be so closed minded about it. whats everyone else think?
« Last Edit: Mar 28, 2007, 02:11PM by noss »

http://polyfedelicio.us/imgs/ - free image hosting for whatever you like

Offline eurisko

  • Frankenmotor Builder
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 1520
  • Karma: +66/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Oldschool and Newstyle
Re: david hicks
« Reply #1 on: Mar 28, 2007, 01:59PM »
i would have thought that people wouldnt be so closed minded about it.

Welcome to the new age my friend.

Its a funny thing this david hicks thing. He went to the middle east to defend what he thought was his duty to his religion (islam) against the invaders and quite frankly conquistadors of the modern age. Then australia put its hand up, and got involved, and now he is classified as a terrorist, and a defector.

Alliances change, politics change. The taliban back in the 80's were classified as freedom fighters (Noone seems to remember Bush Senior's famous speech about the taliban standing up for the freedom of all people.... now do they?) now they are historys greatest monsters.

The australian people are quick to pass judgement based upon information spoon fed to them through fox news, A Current Affair and the likes. Tabloids, 20 second segments and anything else thats fast enough so they can enjoy the next round of cricket.

As for revoking his religion? Well, there is a strong anti-Islamic sentiment around now... but its much deeper than that. There is a hidden an deep seeded racisim among the population that noone is willing or caring to talk about. As an immigrant, ive seen it my entire life, and can tesitfy to its existance. It is hard to find, particularly among the younger generations, but the well founded and strongly rooted families have this ingraned. Funnily enough, ive seen it, among my fellow colleages, and even close personal friends. This isnt what i would call a consious knowledge or feeling they have.... its just something they feel, and voice at particular times, without a real idea of the consequences of what they are saying.

So when there are people within the community saying to revoke his religion, its not surprising to me in the least. Particularly when a strong sense of nationalism (if you want to call it that) is, well, fashionable.

Now finally, the censorship? 9/11 has brought a new age to the world. Individual voices are now considered dangerous. Minds that question or speak out against the govenrnment are closed, locked down and pushed into the confides of a rubber room... called either traitors, evil, or plain crazy.

Did you know there is a law in place that prohibits speaking out against the government? Its called subversion. That means if you dont like the governments stance on train timetables, and write a letter to a newspaper, you can be arrested and locked up for terrorism.

In my home country (Nicaragua - Id reccomend looking up its history to find out what real politics and american intervention does.... or look up a little known affair called Iran-Contra) during the revolution, there was a law put in place to prevent uprisings and political overthrows. It basically prevented anyone speaking out about government affairs, military actions or anything to do with the "establishment".

Its neither surprising, nor unexpected. This is the new age. And the way that its going, people are just to stupid, arrogant or ignorant to know what to look for, and how to stop it.





Wow.


/end rant.

The Nissubishda will live....

Offline Smiley Of Terror

  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 1001
  • Karma: +18/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: david hicks
« Reply #2 on: Mar 28, 2007, 03:38PM »
Alliances change, politics change. The taliban back in the 80's were classified as freedom fighters (Noone seems to remember Bush Senior's famous speech about the taliban standing up for the freedom of all people.... now do they?) now they are historys greatest monsters.

no but I remember ramoo 3 where he enlisted the help of the Taliban. and at the end of the movie it says its dedicated to the heroes of the Taliban.



anyway back to Hicks.

It was my understanding that his pleading guilty was so that he could get out of Guantanamo... I'm not sure if you know this but Hicks was never a combatant and was not found with any weapons, but even with this knowledge the US Government and the Military Tribunal were not going to let Hicks go without some sort of punishment for political reasons... and until recently, the military Tribunal had no laws on which to charge Hicks', So they made them up.  So he has been charged for crimes he probably didn't commit, and even if he did, were not crimes at the time of him commiting them.. which seems familiar when you think about the Bali bombers not being allowed to be tried for terrorism crimes as they weren't invented at the time of their offenses.

anyway, that is what i heard from his lawyer when he appeared on Andrew Denton's Enough Rope.

as regarding him pleading guilty, as he was a political hot spot, they Government was not going to allow him to go free, but the US Supreme Court was not going to allow any conviction as David Hicks was not military and they believed the whole Guantanamo court thing was heavily biased and Illegal (which it is and isn't) So Hicks was sort of in a limbo of sorts, he had either the outlet of becoming a British citizen (which he was legally entitled to but was blocked by the Governments of the UK and Australia) or the outlet of pleading guilty and serving a sentence that was already served from him being imprisoned for 5 or so years.


and when he returns to Australia, nobody can make him stop his Faith, and nobody can stop him from appearing on Television shows if he so wishes... as far as sending the proceeds of which to the families and victims of the 9/11 attacks?....  the money should go to dropping an rb26dett into my u12.. I'm entitled to the money as much as they are.

nissan enthusiast who... umm... drives a toyota.

'95 n/a Mr2

Offline Kranzy

  • Administrator
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Karma: +66/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • U12 - SR20DET
Re: david hicks
« Reply #3 on: Mar 28, 2007, 03:51PM »
I havnt read through all of this thread but from listening to a few talk back segments on radio he isnt able to sell his story. This is because he has pleaded guilty and your not able to make a profit from a crime. Corby is going through the same thing at the moment but the government are trying to make it so that none of the Corby family is entitled to the money.

If Hicks wanted to all he needs to do is set up a fund in his dads name and have the money put there, or something similar.
Quote from: noss
learnt something new just then, dont eat baked bean sandwhiches while changing the paper in the copier


"Noss is GOD"

Offline noss

  • Administrator
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 13882
  • Karma: +278/-50
  • Gender: Male
  • great scott!
    • antrx
Re: david hicks
« Reply #4 on: Mar 28, 2007, 03:59PM »
and when he returns to Australia, nobody can make him stop his Faith, and nobody can stop him from appearing on Television shows if he so wishes...

i'm quite aware of this, which is what prompted me to ask people what they thought in the first place.. can people really that screwy in the head to suggest that in the first place?

i also understand why he decided to plead guilty, an offer was made and in return a lighter sentence will supposedly be offered, but reports that i've read from various news sources make mention that a lighter sentence has been provided if he pleads guilty to prove a political point and so the invloved governments dont look like even bigger douchebags than they already are for holding a man without charges for 5 years.

think about it for a second, if david hicks is as dangerous and as guilty as he is being made out by some to be, then shouldnt he be locked away for life?

« Last Edit: Mar 28, 2007, 04:22PM by noss »

http://polyfedelicio.us/imgs/ - free image hosting for whatever you like

Offline Taiwan Corsair

  • antrx.com full member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
  • Karma: +3/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re: david hicks
« Reply #5 on: Mar 28, 2007, 04:00PM »
I'm certainly shocked that there are people saying he sould denounce his religion. Doen't mean I'm surprised, but shocked that they are brave enough to say that sort of thing publically. It absolutely disgusts me and I think the same thing can be said for everyone I know.

Having said that, I've come across racism before. There were racists at my school and I've heared a lot of racism in the drunken rants of homeless people in Footscray, where I live.

Nationalism and racism have been used a lot by the Howard government to gain support for their pro-American policies. Somtimes subtlely and somtimes quite blatently. The neo-liberalist cause is very powerful and very cunning. When their policies are denounced publically, people recieve anonymous death threats and often inexplicably lose their jobs. There was a lot of that going on before the last federal election and already one of the labout party candidates has been threatened as soon as she announced she would run against John Howard.

The distinction between racism and very extreme nationalism is not all that clear. Somtimes its hard to say wheather people are saying 'we're better' or just 'they're worse.' Somtimes its not clear wheather that 'we' refers to we as a nation or we as the 'the west' and somtimes it doesn't really matter. All thats just splitting hairs.

As long as you have people who believe their way of life should be forced on everyone else (in the name of democracy, Christianity, whatever) the world will never be a peacful or happy place. On the whole, we are lucky here in Australia to live in a place where those who discriminate on the basis of race are a minority. We are lucky that most of those who hold racist views are kept in check. However, they now control the government and there's no way to change that (till the next election).

Islam is cornered. It's prodded and taunted by the west and it has no place to run. Of course it lashes out. Of course people like David Hicks (and myself) feel sympathy for it and want to help it. Even if we can't help it, we want to say 'look: we are on your side. Not all of the west is like them!'

The situation is not a good one. All of us want to get out of it. Eventually all Islamic people will be reduced to pleeding guilty, just like David Hicks. Wheather he was or wasn't isn't the point. The crime he was accused of shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Noone's calling the US military illegal for dropping bombs on people. Small groups of unoficial fighters are all the other side have, so why can't they use them? If making war is illegal, then the US military are the biggest criminals around.

There are plenty of good people around. Racist people usually wear their hearts on their shoulders around me because I'm white and have an Aussie accent. I've heared and seen some terrible racism, but I've seen far more people who denounce it, often taking risks to do so. I've also seen how my wife (who is Taiwanese/Chinese) is able to live happily here. She has friends of many races, including westerners. She has got a job without being refused on the basis of race. She has been promoted by a white boss. Its not been easy. She's had to work really hard to learn the language and learn about how to communicate in the right way with people. That gives me a lot of hope.

All that is good about Australia comes from the fact that it is a tolerant society. Diversity is our greatest strength and if Australia has anything to be proud of, its the fact that David Hicks is allowed to be Islamic, I'm allowed to be Buddhist and my wife is allowed to be Christian and I respect both of them and so do the majority of people here.

... If anyone's been patient enough to read all of this rant, then thank you!  :) Its somthing I care about very much.


Offline Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing

  • antrx.com junkie
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
  • Karma: +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Ma-Jik
    • Ma-Jik
Re: david hicks
« Reply #6 on: Mar 28, 2007, 05:27PM »
Agreed with you Noss.

No one should be held for 5 years with no charge. Also I fail to see how America should have any power to prosecute an Australian who never committed a crime on American soil, he should have been prosecuted in Australia by Australians. I think he pleaded guilty because he had no chance in court everyone in the court room was biased including the Judge who was a high ranking officer in one of Americas armed forces divisions.

Its not about if he is guilty or not, Its about the fact that the American government thinks It should have total control of the world, and once again the Australian government bends over and takes whatever the American government says.
Written off HNU13 Atttesa, PM me for part requests.

Offline Ka-Bluey

  • antrx.com's
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 2104
  • Karma: +64/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • The MtData Guy
Re: david hicks
« Reply #7 on: Mar 28, 2007, 06:27PM »
Agreed with you Noss.

No one should be held for 5 years with no charge. Also I fail to see how America should have any power to prosecute an Australian who never committed a crime on American soil, he should have been prosecuted in Australia by Australians. I think he pleaded guilty because he had no chance in court everyone in the court room was biased including the Judge who was a high ranking officer in one of Americas armed forces divisions.

Its not about if he is guilty or not, Its about the fact that the American government thinks It should have total control of the world, and once again the Australian government bends over and takes whatever the American government says.


I would say that sums it up for me. Im not big on word or should i say i dont know too many big words, but what sheep has said i highly agree with.

John is mini-bush, his clone daddy or what ever you want to call him. Australia should have asked for him back just like that tried to get back that drug smuggling Corby.. They put more effort into her then into Hicks, and she hadnt even been locked away for a year from being caught. Hicks has spent 5 years in a SHIT hole having who knows what done to him and Australian government still doesnt want him back. I say fuck that shit!!
 

Offline B4

  • antrx.com full member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
  • Karma: +6/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Nothing a 50round burst won't fix
    • My Site
Re: david hicks
« Reply #8 on: Mar 28, 2007, 07:12PM »
Honestly, i don't care what happens to this dude.  I don't even know where to start, so i won't right now.

Offline Sticky

  • Bad Luck Magnet
  • qld local moderator
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Karma: +111/-14
  • Gender: Male
Re: david hicks
« Reply #9 on: Mar 28, 2007, 08:57PM »
is a catch 22 situation, He was training with Al Qiada, and wuite possibly become involved in some sort of terrorist plot or act, if that were the case, no one would have given a shit. This isnt the case tho, he was found at a training camp, and the americans assumed he was a terrorist, and charged him with such, The bullshit part is, him being held in Guantanamo Bay for 5yrs with out any sort of a charge. Only a country such as america could do that, if it was around the other way and an american was being held in a different country without charge, they would have sent a bloody aircraft  carrier and busted them out.

The only reason why howard gives a shit, cos its now starting to effect his credibility in election polls.

Quote

The best engine in the world is the vagina, it takes any size piston, its self lubricating, starts with 1 finger, and every 4 weeks does its own oil change. It's just a pity the management system is so f**king temperamental.

The Human Torch was denied a bank loan

Offline Ammerty

  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 1448
  • Karma: +16/-21
  • Gender: Male
  • GT - AHHHHH!!
Re: david hicks
« Reply #10 on: Mar 28, 2007, 09:08PM »
wait wait wait, i know i'm prolly gonna get yelled at for this but he was caught guarding a tank with a group of (whatever they are calling those guys now) terrorists.
also the fact that the australian gov. has had little to no contact with him. basically what your getting on the news is alot of speculation, and the media have, this far, left out the info about him guarding the tank, and twisted the story obviously for some ratings, they do it all the time. Another thing is why would the u.s. prosecute some random guy (the fact that he's ozzie is irrelevant) for no reason, especially in such a high profile case, he has done it and they have proof, he's pleaded guilty because he is, and he wants to reduce the sentence. He'll probably be imprisoned here in Australia.
« Last Edit: Mar 28, 2007, 09:14PM by Ammerty »
Quote from: SECLUDED

When are you not drunk Ammerty...lol  ::) ;D

Offline bogan_bob

  • antrx.com junkie
  • *****
  • Posts: 806
  • Karma: +16/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re: david hicks
« Reply #11 on: Mar 28, 2007, 09:46PM »
He s going to get time like it or not. The 5 years he has already done *SHOULD* be taken into consideration and taken off any sentence. I personally dont have much time for the dickhead, if he had any sense he wouldnt have been farting around in afghanistan post 11/9 (we r in Australia here people) and he wouldnt have been in the shit.

As for renouncing his religion, who ever suggested that needs to be shot, Australia prides itself on its multiculturalism and freedom of choice. And on the sale of his story, if he wants to do that, its his choice, he has had to go though all this crap and should get some compensation for it. His parents have mortgaged their home and somehow managed to mount the now fairly well know campaign to try and free their son, they should get some coin from him for that.

On a side note, Howard is a genius. He will have Hicks home, albiet in prison, by the next election which will play on the general majority of the population minds. And saying he is a mini bush is rubbish. We are Aust, not the US, we will of course get some similar policies as we have similar economies and due to globalisation, economies that will therefore need similar management policies. Also, due to the size of our economy compared to the US, it would be stupid not to try and have them on our side.

Its obvious people have formed some pretty firm opinions on the topic going by the length of some posts, sooo much reading :P

http://ozvr4.com - check it out :)

Offline Sticky

  • Bad Luck Magnet
  • qld local moderator
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Karma: +111/-14
  • Gender: Male
Re: david hicks
« Reply #12 on: Mar 28, 2007, 10:41PM »
from what they have been saying on the news and what not, they recon he will only get 10 or 12 years, minus the 5 hes been imprisoned

Quote

The best engine in the world is the vagina, it takes any size piston, its self lubricating, starts with 1 finger, and every 4 weeks does its own oil change. It's just a pity the management system is so f**king temperamental.

The Human Torch was denied a bank loan

Offline B4

  • antrx.com full member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
  • Karma: +6/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Nothing a 50round burst won't fix
    • My Site
Re: david hicks
« Reply #13 on: Mar 28, 2007, 11:01PM »
from what they have been saying on the news and what not, they recon he will only get 10 or 12 years, minus the 5 hes been imprisoned

and if he serves any of that in Australia he will be out in 2.

Offline Febrile

  • Forum Predator
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 1159
  • Karma: +36/-13
  • I like having thumbs
Re: david hicks
« Reply #14 on: Mar 28, 2007, 11:04PM »
I have to admit I am largely apathetic to his plight.  Mostly it's because his situation has little to no real bearing on Australian life - I think the number of Australians who will be caught by the U.S. doing unscrupulous things in Arabia is going to be negligible, so it's not like there's going to be an important precedent set.

Whatever the claims to his crimes may be is something else I'm a bit apathetic about - he was captured in a situation where conflict was a major factor (i.e. it's not like he was in suburbia robbing a bank) - which you can basically interpret as war.  The U.S. is, and has been for some time, fighting potential terrorists on many fronts. 

Now I'm no expert on military procedures, but it's my understanding that when you capture someone who sides with the opposing faction in a war, you don't arse about and charge him with some crime (or even prove he's a member of the faction for that matter), you just capture him, to prevent him from being an active member of the opposing force.  This, essentially, is David Hicks' situation, and does not seem to me to be out of line with the rules of engagement in a war situation.

It's war: if it looks and acts like a baddie, it probably is a baddie.
Doo-woop-shoobie-doo-waah

Offline Colby

  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
  • Karma: +36/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • KA24DE powered TRX
Re: david hicks
« Reply #15 on: Mar 28, 2007, 11:35PM »
wait wait wait, i know i'm prolly gonna get yelled at for this but he was caught guarding a tank with a group of (whatever they are calling those guys now) terrorists.

I heard from the TV interview with his dad or lawyer or someone directly connected that he was found crossing the boarder with no weapons or anything.

Anyway, It almost seems that they are making an example of him... and the yanks are tools for doing so.  What happens when australia finds a potential (and admittant) terrorist inside our own boarders?  why we ship him off to france where he came from and he gets trialed in their own wierd leagal system. (15 years did he get?)

Hicks has performed no crime against humanity, and definately no crime against australia... and it pisses me off that america the big economy of the world wants to put him in prison, but hey, we'll deal the sentence and let some other country's tax payers pay for his imprisonment in his own country.

He, or more importantly his family should beable to sell his story for every dollar its worth.  His father has dedicated the past 5 years of his life to his son, financing it largely with his own money and assets.  Now if this isnt worthy of father of the year, I dont know what is?  And nothing would be better (and more ironic) than seeing Johnny pass over the award to Terry Hicks as father of the year.

Offline Smiley Of Terror

  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 1001
  • Karma: +18/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: david hicks
« Reply #16 on: Mar 29, 2007, 09:45PM »
...you just capture him, to prevent him from being an active member of the opposing force.  This, essentially, is David Hicks' situation, and does not seem to me to be out of line with the rules of engagement in a war situation...

okay lets just assume he was definately an active combatant: he would have been taken as a Prisoner Of War, and as such would be held under the Geneva Conventions.
when the war has ended the Active Combatant would and should be let free. that is stipulated in the Geneva Convention.

David Hicks was never declared an active combatant but is being charged by laws that weren't in existence in ANY country, and the war has been declared over by the US Government. AND the whole existence of Guantanamo Bay detention centre is against the Geneva Convention which the US WROTE.




nissan enthusiast who... umm... drives a toyota.

'95 n/a Mr2

Offline pedro666

  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 2361
  • Karma: +26/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • VET NEO VVL is how I roll...
Re: david hicks
« Reply #17 on: Mar 29, 2007, 10:36PM »
ii haven't read all of the thread, but i find it hard that this man has spent 5 years being tortured until they can come up with something to charge him with in a place where they create their own rules. you would think that if he was that much of an 'EVIL TERRORIST' that could have conjured up some charges a few years earlier and perhaps. odd.
the words "race car" spelled backward still spell "race car"? 




skype_shannan801

Offline Taiwan Corsair

  • antrx.com full member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
  • Karma: +3/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re: david hicks
« Reply #18 on: Mar 30, 2007, 10:40AM »
And saying he is a mini bush is rubbish. We are Aust, not the US, we will of course get some similar policies as we have similar economies and due to globalisation, economies that will therefore need similar management policies. Also, due to the size of our economy compared to the US, it would be stupid not to try and have them on our side.

Umm... do you think we would have even heared of 'globalisation' and 'economic rationalism' if the neolibs hadn't forced those ideologies down everyone's throat? Economic globalisation gets talked about as though it were some kind of natural and inevitable process. It really isn't though. Thats just what Bush and Howard, as proponants of neo-liberalist ideology want everyone to think.

There are plenty of other countries Australia could make friends with that would be of far more benefit than the relationship with the US. They include China (soon to overtake the US as the world's most powerful economy and very much opposed to US cultural empirialism), the EU (also turning into a major world power and also against much of the ideology the US are pushing) and of course lots of smaller countries, most importantly the rest of asia, who are our neighbours and who, once again, are largely opposed to US ideological intrusion. By having so close and so apparently subsurvient a relationship with the US, we make a lot of enemies and gain very little. Though the Bush administration are all about pushing economic rationalism, they still give Australia the shitty end of the deal in our trade relations and will continue to do so until the rest of the world has been bullied into 'going first' and deregulating their markets.

Offline Dano Da Bomb

  • Antrx Steriod Squrell
  • antrx.com junkie
  • *****
  • Posts: 934
  • Karma: +23/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • Your friendly local porn star
    • Pringlesisgay.org
Re: david hicks
« Reply #19 on: Apr 15, 2007, 10:16PM »
Omg ur all too soft on him.

All i am going to see when he gets back to austalia is his face on tv which i dont really care about im more concerned aobut what will happen between " australan bogans" and the islamic community. As if there isnt much tension as it is. I feel the last think we need is more tension between us  and all the other people who call australia home.
Pringles loves men

Offline Taiwan Corsair

  • antrx.com full member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
  • Karma: +3/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re: david hicks
« Reply #20 on: Apr 16, 2007, 01:08PM »
I don't see why David Hicks should create tension: I mean most us Aussies think he was unfairly treated and the Islamic community are probably inclined to agree. The fact that he is somone of western origin who made the effort to understand an ('an' not 'the') islamic point of view should make him a point of common understanding that could help bridge the gap between cultures.

Of course the extreme right wing minorities (including John Howard) will say differently, but at least some of their cover will be blown and people will see them for what they truely are.

Offline Febrile

  • Forum Predator
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 1159
  • Karma: +36/-13
  • I like having thumbs
Re: david hicks
« Reply #21 on: Apr 18, 2007, 10:58PM »
Umm... do you think we would have even heared of 'globalisation' and 'economic rationalism' if the neolibs hadn't forced those ideologies down everyone's throat? Economic globalisation gets talked about as though it were some kind of natural and inevitable process. It really isn't though. Thats just what Bush and Howard, as proponants of neo-liberalist ideology want everyone to think.

I don't think you can say globalisation isn't inevitable.  From wikipedia:

Quote from: wikipedia
Globalization refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, political, and ecological spheres.

Globalisation is, to my mind: increasing international communication, on a societal and individual level; increasing international trade in both goods and ideas; increasing adoption of methods, ideas, technologies etc from other countries/cultures; increasing recognition that we all live on the same planet, and are thus all connected.

Unless you intend to tell everyone that (a) they aren't allowed to communicate and blend with other people from other nations, and (b) aren't allowed to trade with other nations, then you can't say globalisation isn't inevitable.  We, as a species, are becoming increasingly connected, and people who oppose the idea of globalisation are basically saying that this increasing connectivity will not lead to any exchanges in anything (or I guess you could deny we are becoming more connected :P).

Of course the extreme right wing minorities (including John Howard) will say differently, but at least some of their cover will be blown and people will see them for what they truely are.

I didn't reply sooner to your earlier post because you didn't provide explanation for your points, and I cannot stand debating when people don't do this.  This post indicates to me that you do have a point to make, but I cannot determine what it is.  Please, for the sake of sensible political discussion, can we avoid making broad, sweeping statements and not backing them up with reasoning. (Like some members were so fond of doing, say, in this thread.)

What is it that these "extreme right wing minorities" "truley are"?
Doo-woop-shoobie-doo-waah

Offline Taiwan Corsair

  • antrx.com full member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
  • Karma: +3/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re: david hicks
« Reply #22 on: Apr 20, 2007, 06:27PM »
Well I didn't add much explaination because I thought most of us, having attended highschool and university, were already familiar with the right wing conservative cause and aware that John Howard was a supporter of it. Let me attempt to clarify, though I must also add that this will not be a very precise or well researched argument, partly because there are plenty of attempts to mystify the public and cover up evidence and partly because this is a post in a web blog (usually about cars) and not an essay. However, one very sketchy version of the argument runns somthing like this:

The kind of right wing ideology that I am talking about is based on the belief that those who currantly have positions of power and authority are there because they have earned them and that they are therefor worthier citizens. If you don't believe there are people who think like that, try going to an up-market private school like the one I attended: there are. They also believe in a universal set of qualities that can be called 'Australian values, American values, Christian values, ideals of democracy etcetera.' These values include the concept of elections (which is a good thing and which moderate and left wing people generally agree with) but do not exclude the use of subtle media teckniques (such as the use of euphamistic language), scare campeigns (such as the 'war on terror'), appeals to 'the official' used to steer people into a certain way of thinking on the basis that ideas are officially accepted. You have probably noted a lot of the more subtle teckniques used to control people. An obvious yet often unnoticed example is the use of transparent bus shelters with walls that don't extend to the ground to stop homeless people from loitering.

When the subtle teckniques of persuasion don't work, there are plenty or rumers about the old fashioned 'hard power' forms of persuasion being employed. Maxine McHue, for example, recieved anonymous death threats as soon as she decided to run against John Howard. Journalists who have disagreed with the government's accusations of 'being unbalenced' on the basis that 'there wasn't anything pro government that could have been shown that night' or 'we are reporting the truth and the truth is that the liberals are doing somthing wrong and the other party isn't' suddenly losing their jobs. Most of us are aware to some extent of these things.

On a larger scale, this belief in the existing power structures translates to a further belief in the supremicy of the west over the rest of the world. John Howard, for example, refers to 'the prestige' of America. 'Fostering democracy' is referred to as one of the goals of the war in Iraque (now that the previous gole of finding WMD's has been proven ill-founded). The idea that the currant government is not going to get popular support is never talked about. The idea that there may be an alternative way of running a country that could be negotiated by the local people according to their own values and ideas is never considered. Creating countries in the image of America is persued, not becuse its the best way for the people, but because it generally leads to markets that consumer American products in the absence of a government powerful enough to have them banned. There are plenty of countries in the world with much better living conditions than the US. Australia, for example, is much more liveable than the US despite having a much lower GDP per capita. This has been the case for thirty years, at least. Why? Becayse the conservatives are less powerful here. Here there is far more balence because we have a strong alternative government and because we have unions that are taken seriously.

Globalisation is one of the many tools used by corperate America to further its cause. By telling companies they are free to move, the US have created a price war in which countries compete to provide the cheapest labour and the lowest taxes. Companies don't relocate their headquaters to China or South America: only their factories. This allows the conservatives to swell their ranks by reabilitating factory workers into bureaucrats. It adds dramatically to the power of the US cultural empire because it seperates its actions from its leaders, preventing accountability. Of course, conservative leaders in Australia are allowed to share in this as part of 'the west' and reap the same sort of benefits.

Universities are full of sociologists like me who are very concerned, which is why they are among the first victims of the conservative government's agenda: being gradually starved of funds, forced to run only courses that benefit the economy and have all their staff meet 'performance targets' that prevent any real research being done by measuring people's usefullness based on the quantity of papers they have produced, not the quality.

If you want to see bad research, try reading 'quadrant' magazine. It's got no decent scholarship at all (perhaps even less than I put into this post) just right-wing rants.

There are very serious debates going on as to wheather globalisation is inevitable or not. I can't relate all thats been said, but I suggest you read some of the papers written by us sociologists on the matter. Certainly there are aspects of it that have apparently become self sustaining. It is, however, a very human activity, with human actors and ideology behind it. The apparently self sustaining aspects such as the migration of companies are very much overstated in a lot of the literature in terms of scale. Its also worth noteing that during the peak of the British Empire, trade was more international and more movenment of goods and people was taking place relative to the total population than is occurring today. Certainly tecknology hase changed, but ideas have changed a lot more. Any trend that is driven by ideology is a choice, not a fait acompli.

As for the aspect of globalisation you're talking about, which is usually referred to as 'cultural globalisation' (as opposed to economic globalisation), it certainly has the potential to be a very positive trend. Increased contact between cultures can, if it is managed well, lead to better intercultural understanding and genuine communication. Of course there will be conflics along the way as people struggle to reconcile eachother's ideas, but gradually each of us will become more tolerant. There are also dangers such as cultural empirialism, where more powerful (economically or numerically) cultures 'smother' smaller cultures. On the bright side, often new ideas are created as cultures mix. I wouldn't want to stop this process even if I could. I enjoy my part of it as most of my close friends and my wife are from overseas.

Thats the basic gist of what I was getting at with the above comments. Like I said: its not an essay and I haven't left my computer to find referenced during the course of writing it. There are certainly grounds for these concerns and a lot has been written in support of it. Of course, if you believe that the ways of the west truely are supreme and you would have everyone follow them, then you may believe that John Howard is a good mainstream example to us all and that we should all vote for him. I, however, cringe at the thought.
« Last Edit: Apr 20, 2007, 06:35PM by Taiwan Corsair »

Offline Febrile

  • Forum Predator
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 1159
  • Karma: +36/-13
  • I like having thumbs
Re: david hicks
« Reply #23 on: Apr 21, 2007, 06:21PM »
I will filter out your points and tackle them one by one.

Quote
The kind of right wing ideology that I am talking about is based on the belief that those who currantly have positions of power and authority are there because they have earned them and that they are therefor worthier citizens. If you don't believe there are people who think like that, try going to an up-market private school like the one I attended: there are.

I don't dispute this, but it seems to me you are stating the obvious: as far as I'm aware, in societies such as ours, past and present, it tends to be the better educated, more priveliged people who end up in power, because they have the best chances of ending up there.  I see nothing unusual or conspiratory about this - I'd prefer to vote for slightly shifty, well educated and well brought up member A than honest, but uneducated, poverty-stricken member B.

Quote
They also believe in a universal set of qualities that can be called 'Australian values, American values, Christian values, ideals of democracy etcetera.' These values include the concept of elections (which is a good thing and which moderate and left wing people generally agree with) but do not exclude the use of subtle media teckniques (such as the use of euphamistic language), scare campeigns (such as the 'war on terror'), appeals to 'the official' used to steer people into a certain way of thinking on the basis that ideas are officially accepted. You have probably noted a lot of the more subtle teckniques used to control people. An obvious yet often unnoticed example is the use of transparent bus shelters with walls that don't extend to the ground to stop homeless people from loitering.

These universal qualities you mention strike me as nothing more than buzzwords which politicians use because they resonate with the public.  Also, as to the "subtle media techniques", "scare campaigns" and "appeals to official", can I provide this:
Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people.
There's nothing new about propaganda, and again, it is no cause for concern.  You can't sit there and tell me whichever party was in power wouldn't do exactly the same thing (with taxpayer money, no less.  I personally think political parties should be banned from advertising, but should be required to release a detailed document stating their aims and goals, and to which they should be held accountable after the fact.)

And what's with the bus shelters?  Maybe you're right about it being to stop loitering, but I don't consider that a bad thing, plus a glass shelter is nicer than a concrete one.  As far as the walls not extending to the ground, I don't think I've seen one that isn't like this in my entire life, except in rural areas?

Quote
When the subtle teckniques of persuasion don't work, there are plenty or rumers about the old fashioned 'hard power' forms of persuasion being employed. Maxine McHue, for example, recieved anonymous death threats as soon as she decided to run against John Howard. Journalists who have disagreed with the government's accusations of 'being unbalenced' on the basis that 'there wasn't anything pro government that could have been shown that night' or 'we are reporting the truth and the truth is that the liberals are doing somthing wrong and the other party isn't' suddenly losing their jobs. Most of us are aware to some extent of these things.

This is just sensationalist.  Unless you have evidence that these things were explicitly cause of the government, I think you're being too conspiracy-theorist here.

Quote
On a larger scale, this belief in the existing power structures translates to a further belief in the supremicy of the west over the rest of the world. John Howard, for example, refers to 'the prestige' of America.


What works for the individual extends to many - the west has a supremacy over the rest of the world, because the west is in the best position to be in that seat.  First world, industrialised nations with stable, democratic regimes which have suffered no major problems (like a depression etc) in the last half-century are superior to war torn, factionally divided nations which have seen war to the last half century and have no stable government.

Quote
'Fostering democracy' is referred to as one of the goals of the war in Iraque (now that the previous gole of finding WMD's has been proven ill-founded). The idea that the currant government is not going to get popular support is never talked about. The idea that there may be an alternative way of running a country that could be negotiated by the local people according to their own values and ideas is never considered.

Yes, Iraq is a fuckup.  The reason it's not talked about seems fairly obvious to me - if Howard were to admit the reality of the situation (and that we really can't withdraw in the near future without it going to shit), can you imagine how quickly Rudd, and people such as yourselves, would jump on the political bandwagon to condemn Howard?  He's just being sensible, as far as a leader is concerned.

I've been doing a unit at uni on Islam, and I wish I had done it earlier.  Democracy will not work in Iraq.  Muslims vote according to their religious faction - Shiite, Sunni or the Kurdish.  In fact, Iraq as it is will probably not work - it needs to be divided between the three groups, because they cannot live together peacefully on equal grounds.  I don't know what kind of governing system you're thinking the Iraqis could implement, but if you can think of one that would mean all three groups could live on equal footing, then please, forward your suggestion to the relevant people.


Quote
Creating countries in the image of America is persued, not becuse its the best way for the people, but because it generally leads to markets that consumer American products in the absence of a government powerful enough to have them banned.

That's nonsense.  And anyway - are you saying that you would prefer the US traded with countries which would be willing to enact regulations to prevent it's denizens from consuming whatever goods they like?

Quote
There are plenty of countries in the world with much better living conditions than the US. Australia, for example, is much more liveable than the US despite having a much lower GDP per capita. This has been the case for thirty years, at least. Why? Becayse the conservatives are less powerful here. Here there is far more balence because we have a strong alternative government and because we have unions that are taken seriously.

According to the Human Development Index information available on wikipedia, Australia is about 1% better place to live than the US.  I won't totally debase your claim here, but I will say that the HDI is compiled using various data, such as life expectancy, education etc, and though these factors are impacted by the government, they are also influenced by the nature of the society as well.  For example, the constitution and all it's personal rights rulings would make for a different place to live than Australia, which doesn't have the same mechanisms.

Quote
Globalisation is one of the many tools used by corperate America to further its cause. By telling companies they are free to move, the US have created a price war in which countries compete to provide the cheapest labour and the lowest taxes. Companies don't relocate their headquaters to China or South America: only their factories. This allows the conservatives to swell their ranks by reabilitating factory workers into bureaucrats. It adds dramatically to the power of the US cultural empire because it seperates its actions from its leaders, preventing accountability. Of course, conservative leaders in Australia are allowed to share in this as part of 'the west' and reap the same sort of benefits.

This is just more sensationalist hoo-har.  Companies send their factories etc overseas for only one reason - profit.  Wages are lower in countries where there is an abundance of labour compared to capital - places like China and India.  So countries move their factories to these countries and pay cheaper wages, instead of paying people in their home country wages which have been inflated by unions.  It means consumers in the home country can get their goods cheaper, because they are not paying for their countrymen's higher wages.

Quote
Universities are full of sociologists like me who are very concerned, which is why they are among the first victims of the conservative government's agenda: being gradually starved of funds, forced to run only courses that benefit the economy and have all their staff meet 'performance targets' that prevent any real research being done by measuring people's usefullness based on the quantity of papers they have produced, not the quality.

Whether universities are being pushed to do certain courses, or starved of funds, I don't know.  I do know, however, that as a graduate, I would like to be studying things which are going to be relevant in the world I live in - things that are going to hep me get a job later.  Performance targets are there to ensure funds, which could be spent on things life infrastructure, health care etc (i.e. things that taxpeyers who never go to university might want) are not wasted.

Quote
There are very serious debates going on as to wheather globalisation is inevitable or not. I can't relate all thats been said, but I suggest you read some of the papers written by us sociologists on the matter. Certainly there are aspects of it that have apparently become self sustaining. It is, however, a very human activity, with human actors and ideology behind it. The apparently self sustaining aspects such as the migration of companies are very much overstated in a lot of the literature in terms of scale. Its also worth noteing that during the peak of the British Empire, trade was more international and more movenment of goods and people was taking place relative to the total population than is occurring today. Certainly tecknology hase changed, but ideas have changed a lot more. Any trend that is driven by ideology is a choice, not a fait acompli.

As for the aspect of globalisation you're talking about, which is usually referred to as 'cultural globalisation' (as opposed to economic globalisation), it certainly has the potential to be a very positive trend. Increased contact between cultures can, if it is managed well, lead to better intercultural understanding and genuine communication. Of course there will be conflics along the way as people struggle to reconcile eachother's ideas, but gradually each of us will become more tolerant. There are also dangers such as cultural empirialism, where more powerful (economically or numerically) cultures 'smother' smaller cultures. On the bright side, often new ideas are created as cultures mix. I wouldn't want to stop this process even if I could. I enjoy my part of it as most of my close friends and my wife are from overseas.

You've not really made any new points here.  (Though I would say that British international trade was greater at the peak of the empire probably because Britain then had free reign of the nations to whom she could send her goods, because competition was low, and few other nations were as industrious as she was.)  As far as globalisation is concerned, in my opinion, we shouldn't fight it if it's going to happen, but we don't necessarily need to encourage it willy-nilly.  At the end of the day, it's not regimes which cause this, it's the choices made by millions of individuals around the world.

Quote
Thats the basic gist of what I was getting at with the above comments. Like I said: its not an essay and I haven't left my computer to find referenced during the course of writing it. There are certainly grounds for these concerns and a lot has been written in support of it. Of course, if you believe that the ways of the west truely are supreme and you would have everyone follow them, then you may believe that John Howard is a good mainstream example to us all and that we should all vote for him. I, however, cringe at the thought.

I'll be voting for Howard again, because I can't see what Rudd offers that is any better - you certainly didn't make mention of any of the benefits of the labour party, only the negatives of the Liberals - and Howard is a man of integrity: I feel that in his 11 years in office, he has maintained his ideologies, and those things which he considers to be of national importance, such as economic strength.  For me, a well-functioning economy is the most important thing, because once that goes to shit, then all the things that Labour voters complain about only get worse (health care, wages, unemployment), so Labour gets voted in, and they try to fix those problems by strangling the economy more, which just makes the problems worse.

Wow, this was long.  Since we've both had big rants, Taiwan, how's about we both just make smaller posts from now on, so we can keep this debate flowing more smoothly.
Doo-woop-shoobie-doo-waah

Offline r31vhead

  • antrx.com junior member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
  • Karma: +2/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Tuesday's coming, did you bring your coat?
Re: david hicks
« Reply #24 on: Apr 21, 2007, 09:51PM »
While I agree with a lot of your ideology, Taiwan, I too think you're bordering on conspiracy theory on a couple of your points.

There are two main reasons why I vote conservative, despite the fact I agree in principle with a lot of "left-wing" values... The first is as Narxysus pointed out, economic management. From what I read, you don't agree with economic growth. That's a fair statement - I don't agree with all aspects of it, but you can't say it was avoidable. Bush and Howard got into power because enough people agreed with their way of thinking. Hence they are a product, not a cause. The cause is human selfishness. With that in mind, I think growth/globalisation has the potential to be positive (whether cultural OR economic) just the same as it has the ability to further screw this world over. Economics is an undeniably important tool if we want to strive for the former. Accordingly, I vote for them because they have demonstrated a greater ability to manage our economy than have the Labor Party.

My second reason can be summed up in two words. Latte Left. They are everywhere, especially in Universities. They get on their high horse and rant to everyone how selfish and ignorant the world is, yet have a penchant for the finer things in life, like a nice latte at the local cafe strip. It seems that all that complaining is there just to ease their conscience. In this sense, I don't agree with Narxysus, because I think this is a more dishonest way of thinking than a "typical" right wing voter.

There are a few other reasons, but those two are my main ones. The truth is I don't like either party that much, but to me the Coalition is a lesser evil. And I'd rather be seen as an honest selfish individual than an in-denial selfish individual.
R31 Skyline
RB20DET GX Manual

http://www.r31skylineclub.com

Offline Dano Da Bomb

  • Antrx Steriod Squrell
  • antrx.com junkie
  • *****
  • Posts: 934
  • Karma: +23/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • Your friendly local porn star
    • Pringlesisgay.org
Re: david hicks
« Reply #25 on: Apr 24, 2007, 10:37PM »
HAHAHAH i love how these threads get so political its funny as hell. And just to add fuel to the fire
I think johny is a great pm better than the labour tools. But it all comes down to no matter whos in power not everyone will be happy. But instead of targeting your frustration on our leaders get up and do something benefical to the community. Or would that be common sense. Thats the problem these day everyone has an opinon but doenst want to do any thing about it. Thats why i will start my own party and i will become the dictator and i will rule u all like slaves HAHHAHAHAH sorry long long day lol.
Pringles loves men

Offline bogan_bob

  • antrx.com junkie
  • *****
  • Posts: 806
  • Karma: +16/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re: david hicks
« Reply #26 on: Apr 25, 2007, 04:53PM »
Wow. what a read since i was last in this thread.

I didnt notice anyone mention the fact that hicks is going to be out, partying to bring in the new year 2008? That was always going to happen, it really was a bit of a trump card for howard leading into the eletion later this year. Whilst i think 5 yrs or what ever in the military camp is a bit rough, as i said before, he s a convicted terrorist and as such, i have no time for the guy. People say that it is a terrible thing to allow that to happen to an Australian, but how many Australians are getting/have been caught training in Aghanistan, Iraq etc? I think it should serve as a reminder to anyone considering doing such a thing, that while there are significant benefits - which should not be taken for granted - to being an Australian citizen, in this exceptional circumstance, it didnt have any great advantage in helping bring him home (at least til it suited us).

And on the slightly off topic of political parties, I have no problems with how howard et al have/are running the country. The problem is, most people dont understand how most of the policies really impact on us. Rising interest rates are not just done for the fun of it, to fuck everyone up. it seems a lot of people take out large mortgages and can only afford to make repayments at the current interest rates, so when rates rise they have to have a whinge about not being able to afford this and that as they have greater repayments. Interest rates are never going to be static and if a rise in interest rates will significantly affect you lifestyle down the track, you have borrowed too much. But most people dont realise that that is the exact point of an interest rate rise. It aims to reduce peoples disposible income, to reduce spending within the economy, bringing inflation and other economic performance indicators back to manageable levels. But the thing is, many of your average australians dont understand this. They also have too shorter memory spans to remember the extreme interest rate levels under the last labour government, the fact that they left the coalition with a MASSIVE national debt, which they worked very hard to pay off.

To me, Rudd is similar to Rann here in SA. To me they are both slimy worms, that ooze charisma and have that sort of 'i want to be everyones friend' - in a creepy way - attitude to them, which to me is not what a leader should be. At press conferences etc they rattle off smoth sounding statistics, which get edited for the nightly news and they come out sounding like their policy on what ever topic they are covering that day is the best and only option. And the general public is won over becasue of the statistic they rattled off, which was developed for their purpose and more often than not, unrepresentative of the true situation sounds good. They are media machines that push their agenda onto people, making their point of views dominant. I dont like their characters, but i know they appeal to most people and as such, i think labour will be voted in at the end of this year, despite liberals having better credentials to run the country in my opinion.

I could really go on all day about this crap but not right now, i drunk too much last night  :-X

http://ozvr4.com - check it out :)

Offline greenbird

  • antrx.com senior member
  • ****
  • Posts: 414
  • Karma: +11/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: david hicks
« Reply #27 on: Apr 27, 2007, 07:56PM »
Hmm, there's an awful lot of text here.......

It's quite simple.
David Hicks made a decision to abandon his home country of Australia to go the Middle East and train or fight or do whatever else he did with some militant / terrorist organisation or whatever it is....
That part of the world was already deep in conflict, but he still chose to go....
And then he gets caught. I don't care what he was doing. He was in the wrong part of the world at the wrong time, tied up with the wrong people.
Then people go 'Boo Hoo' and get all teary eyed back in Australia and start feeling sorry for him! What the?
As far as i'm concerned, he lost all rights as an Aussie the moment he got himself tied up with whatever mob he was training / fighting with and deserted Australia. He obviously didn't want to be a part of our country, otherwise he would have stayed here and fought for the aussie way of life!
If you want to be a part of a military organisation, we have 3 armed forces here in Australia. Army, Navy, Air Force.
If you are an Australian, you want to do your part and defend YOUR country, your family, your mates and your other fellow Aussies, join our Defence Force.
Although i do think that being imprisoned for 5 years without charge certainly isn't fair, he chose to desert us (and had the potential to end up on the opposing force, shooting at our Aussie troops???), so why do so many people feel sorry for him?
The only reason he probably wanted to get back to Australia is because our judicial system is soft.....

This is my personal opinion only....
93 U13 Bluebird
5 spd
Finer Filter, Hi-Flow cat & 2.25" exhaust
17X7 Concept 5 wheels
2 inch lowered King Springs

Offline Byas

  • antrx.com senior member
  • ****
  • Posts: 307
  • Karma: +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: david hicks
« Reply #28 on: May 14, 2007, 04:38AM »
If you want to be a part of a military organisation, we have 3 armed forces here in Australia. Army, Navy, Air Force.

as much as i agree with this statement. being one of the average working class australians this point seems obvious but his beliefs were based around an islamic society and that was what he was fighting for. not the for defence of australian lifestyle.

and not wanting to "poke the bear" but Austalia isn't the most financially stable country. i'd personally prefer to crawl up america's safe warm arse than risk being all alone down here by ourselves with our obviously large and well funded *sarcasm* armed forces. on the world board our country really is tiny in scheme of things. we still need someone to hide behind and although i don;t agree with how america is dealing with the situation i'm quite happy paying less for petrol as a result.

further more. as for hicks having to donate to the 11/9 victims.. i also could do with some financial assistance getting my pinny back on the road...

thats a start. but it's late... and theres nothing really to be said that hasn't already now
Nissan Pintara Gli
Ford Laser WRC

Offline greenbird

  • antrx.com senior member
  • ****
  • Posts: 414
  • Karma: +11/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: david hicks
« Reply #29 on: May 14, 2007, 09:27AM »
and not wanting to "poke the bear" but Austalia isn't the most financially stable country. i'd personally prefer to crawl up america's safe warm arse than risk being all alone down here by ourselves with our obviously large and well funded *sarcasm* armed forces.

I completely agree Byas. Australia is a huge country, with a massive coastline to defend, and a pissy little defence force to do it. If we don't keep on the good side of the yanks and something does happen over here (let's hope it never does...), we are all rooted.

You can most certainly still be an Australian and have Islamic beliefs, living here in peace and harmony. But if you want to go and fight with an Islamic country for those beliefs, seeya later mate, you are no longer an Australian.....

 ;D
93 U13 Bluebird
5 spd
Finer Filter, Hi-Flow cat & 2.25" exhaust
17X7 Concept 5 wheels
2 inch lowered King Springs

Offline pedro666

  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 2361
  • Karma: +26/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • VET NEO VVL is how I roll...
Re: david hicks
« Reply #30 on: Sep 2, 2007, 12:53AM »
just a bit of a joke on a side note...

why is john Howard nick named ankles????


cause his his head is so far up George bushes ass thats all you can see!!!!
the words "race car" spelled backward still spell "race car"? 




skype_shannan801