Ostensibly about David Hicks, the song appears to be only loosely based on the life of the Australian terror suspect. Liddiard seems to be questioning what might lead a white, working-class Australian to work for Al-Qaeda, and in this 16-minute opus provides a compelling and powerful argument.
Although the imagery is at times seems a little exaggerated, Liddiard's basic argument lies in the essential truth of causality: genetics aside, we are the products of our experiences, interpersonal relationships and upbringings. Thus, small events from the protagonist's childhood are listed; less a catalogue of cataclysmic events than a visceral portrayal of abuse and societal rejection. However fantastical this opening stanza is, the ensuing events seem more or less plausible. This is not to say that all or even many abused children will end up radicalised; but the well-argued point is that such an outcome could feasibly eventuate, and that is what Liddiard establishes.
The fifth and final major stanza is perhaps the high point of the song. Here, 'D', and indeed the entire country that the song is set in, disappear from the lyrics. Instead, they are replaced by a general comment on the state of Western society in the 21st century; a world of empty advertising, wars of oppression and depression medication.
The chilling finale, a reference to the September 11 terrorist attacks, brings us back not just to 'D', but everybody involved in the strike and, indeed, us. Far from justifying those actions, Liddiard simply tries to find some rational explanation for it all. Do we live in a world where such atrocities can take place? - this is the question Liddiard poses, but it is entirely rhetorical. Our world, of course, is tailor-made for them.
Ostensibly about David Hicks, the song appears to be only loosely based on the life of the Australian terror suspect. Liddiard seems to be questioning what might lead a white, working-class Australian to work for Al-Qaeda, and in this 16-minute opus provides a compelling and powerful argument.
Although the imagery is at times seems a little exaggerated, Liddiard's basic argument lies in the essential truth of causality: genetics aside, we are the products of our experiences, interpersonal relationships and upbringings. Thus, small events from the protagonist's childhood are listed; less a catalogue of cataclysmic events than a visceral portrayal of abuse and societal rejection. However fantastical this opening stanza is, the ensuing events seem more or less plausible. This is not to say that all or even many abused children will end up radicalised; but the well-argued point is that such an outcome could feasibly eventuate, and that is what Liddiard establishes.
The fifth and final major stanza is perhaps the high point of the song. Here, 'D', and indeed the entire country that the song is set in, disappear from the lyrics. Instead, they are replaced by a general comment on the state of Western society in the 21st century; a world of empty advertising, wars of oppression and depression medication.
The chilling finale, a reference to the September 11 terrorist attacks, brings us back not just to 'D', but everybody involved in the strike and, indeed, us. Far from justifying those actions, Liddiard simply tries to find some rational explanation for it all. Do we live in a world where such atrocities can take place? - this is the question Liddiard poses, but it is entirely rhetorical. Our world, of course, is tailor-made for them.