Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » God bothering » Yes Viginia, there are terrorist cells in Australia

Yes Viginia, there are terrorist cells in Australia

My friends on the left are a funny bunch so keen to prove that they are accepting and welcoming to Muslims that they seem wilfully blind to the individuals within that faith who are intent upon bringing the atrocities that we so often see in the news to our own shores. Well now a Melbourne jury has after long deliberations returned a guilty verdict for six of the twelve men.

A MELBOURNE Muslim cleric has been found guilty of leading and being a member of a terrorist organisation.

After deliberating for 21 days, jurors today found Abdul Nacer Benbrika, 48, guilty on all three charges against him.

The charges include intentionally being a member of a terrorist organisation, intentionally directing the activities of a terrorist organisation and possessing a compact disk connected with the preparation of a terrorist act.

The Supreme Court jury also found another five men guilty and acquitted four men of terrorism-related charges.

The trial, which started in February, is the longest and most complex terrorism case in Australia.

The prosecution has claimed that the 12 Melbourne Muslim men allegedly plotted to wage violent jihad on Australian soil, including attacking sporting events.

Aimen Joud, 23, Fadl Sayadi, 28, Abdullah Merhi, 22, Ezzit Raad, 26, and Ahmed Raad, 24, were all found guilty of being a member of a terrorist organisation.

Merhi, Bassam Raad, 26, and Shoue Hammound, 28, were found not guilty of intentionally providing resources to a terrorist organisation.

Hany Taha, 33, Hammoud, Bassam Raad and Majed Raad, 23, were found not guilty of intentionally being a member of a terrorist organisation.

Taha was found not guilty of attempting to intentionally make funds available to a terrorist organisation.

The jury are still undecided on three counts.

Of course the real test will be what sort of sentence they get, well we will know soon enough and I am just glad that our courts were able to get a verdict in such an important trial where as a court in England was not and now they have to retry the matter (of the men accused of plotting to blow up airliners over the Atlantic).

and finally I wonder if this matter will get any kind of airing by those bloggers from the left that I mentioned earlier? Some how I doubt it.

Cheers Comrades

😉


25 Comments

  1. Keri says:

    Oh, please. That’s a long bow even for you, Iain,

    As far as i’m concerned a terrorist is a terrorist. Regardless of what religion they may or may not be. I feel the same way about muslim terrorists as I do about Catholic terrorists.

    It’s always amusing to see the right act as if Islam invented terrorism, though, I’ll say that.

  2. raydixon says:

    I wonder if this matter will get any kind of airing by those bloggers from the left that I mentioned earlier?

    Not from me and I’d say the same would go for most bloggers regardless of their political leanings, Iain.

    Why? Well, speaking for myself, I just don’t see any point in blogging about some people who have committed a crime like conspiring to commit terrorist acts. It’d be like blogging about (serious) crime cases in general. It doesn’t make for an interesting read in my opinion, as not much more needs to be said about it.

    Just to spell out what I think about this case though, I’m glad they’ve been found guilty and I hope they cop a very long jail term. Terrorism is the act of cowards and, while I seiously doubt these ‘cowards’ would have had the balls to carry out any of their idiotic plots the fact that they would even conspire to do so is enough to ‘throw the book’ at them.

    But all told, Iain, it’s boring stuff and I have every faith that our authorities ARE on top of this and I don’t see any point in giving these whack-jobs any more publicity (which is what they crave).

  3. Mark L. says:

    Just as well they were convicted Iain or their lives would have been ruined because of the false allegations made against them, etc. And I’m sure you’d have rushed to defend them in this instance 😛

  4. Janet Albrechtsen has an excellent article about how greenies and civil libetarians opposed the laws that Benbrika was charged under: http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/thank_god_greens_are_not_running_country/

    Many in the left would prefer that the prosecution be forced to prove that they had committed to a specific target before they get convicted. If they had it their way, Benbrika and his followers would all be allowed to walk free.

    And I bet they would also oppose a control order as well.

    Talk about not taking security seriously.

  5. keri says:

    Name ten, Leon. Just ten.

  6. How abt 40 Keri?

    “Forty of Australia’s leading artists and journalists have met to discuss their concerns about the Federal Government’s proposed anti-terrorism measures.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1494747.htm

  7. keri says:

    Pity that meeting was discussing specifically the free speech provisions of the terrorism legislation and not the burden of prood aspect, Leon.

    Fail.

  8. Iain Hall says:

    No Keri
    you fail because you did not specify that the leftists had to object to the burden of proof aspect at all. You just said

    Name ten, Leon. Just ten.

    Leon pointed out 40

  9. Jason says:

    I don’t really want to buy into this, but I think Keri may have been responding to this claim, Iain:

    Many in the left would prefer that the prosecution be forced to prove that they had committed to a specific target before they get convicted. If they had it their way, Benbrika and his followers would all be allowed to walk free.

    Keri’s challenge was directly addressed to the issue of burden of proof.

    Also – is there anything to say all of the people at that meeting were “leftists”? Concern for freedom of speech is not confined to the left After all, the new opposition leader has spoken out on issues of freedom of speech on several occasions, including, famously, during the Bill Henson affair.

    PS – Hey Iain – do you realise Brother Number One is closer to you on the Henson issue than Malcolm Turnbull is? You might be needing that ALP how to vote card yet, old son.

  10. Iain Hall says:

    Jason
    I have voted for the ALP more often that you would think but as I think you would understand when you are not enamoured with either leader you end up choosing the lesser of the evils come voting day.

    Maybe her comment was Jason BUT she did not specify and it could have well referred to his

    And I bet they would also oppose a control order as well.

    or any other part of Leon’s comment

  11. keri says:

    She is the cats mother, Iain.

    This is what Leon said:

    “Many in the left would prefer that the prosecution be forced to prove that they had committed to a specific target before they get convicted. If they had it their way, Benbrika and his followers would all be allowed to walk free.

    And I bet they would also oppose a control order as well.

    Talk about not taking security seriously.”

    Where in that is there even a passing reference to the freedom of speech aspect of the regulation that the meeting was about? Absolutely nowhere.

    Why would I ask Leon to name ten people who disagreed with something he wasn’t even talking about?

    Now stop moving the goalposts.

  12. Iain Hall says:

    Keri
    You are always suggesting that I have to be specific and all I am doing is saying you should as well because you certainly were not on this occasion.
    It is not about me moving the goal posts but it is about you being obliged to specify exactly where they are when you challenge someone to “name ten, Just ten”
    As for the cats mother thing 😆

  13. Jason says:

    Again, Iain, without wanting to get sucked too far into this, it was pretty clear to me what Keri was asking Leon to do.

    And voting day is a long way off Iain – maybe Brother Number One will grow on you.

  14. In relation to the burden of proof issue, I don’t have the time to do research for you Keri.

    But if all Senior Members of the Greens were publicly condemning it, you can bet that most members of the Greens were too. I’m pretty sure that;’s more than 10.

  15. keri says:

    Iain, I ask you not to be specific, but to be accurate. There’s a difference.

    Leon – Really? Because I’m a member of the Greens, and I don’t condemn the burden of proof aspect.(Although I don’t particularly like the idea of changing the Crime Act rather than beef up our security agencies, but that’s another story).

  16. Iain Hall says:

    Iain, I ask you not to be specific, but to be accurate. There’s a difference.

    What exactly are you on about Keri? This does not make sense.

  17. keri says:

    Yes, it does. I don’t ask you to be specific as you claim, I ask you to be accurate.

    There is a difference between the two.

  18. Iain Hall says:

    Have you borrowed Mondo’s hair splitting scissors or something Keri? as far as I can tell being specific is synonymous with being accurate. but please explain why I may be wrong.

  19. keri says:

    Because being accurate is being correct.

    Being specific is being precise.

    There’s a big, hulking chasm of a difference between the two, Iain.

  20. Iain Hall says:

    explain what you think the difference is Keri because I still don’t get why you think there is such a difference.

  21. keri says:

    Good lord, Iain. You claim to own an OED and you can’t tell the difference?

    From the Cambridge, because OED is not generally available online:-

    Accurate – correct, exact and without any mistakes:

    Specific – relating to one thing and not others; particular:

    Do you see how they are not in any way synonymous?

    See the difference?

  22. Iain Hall says:

    Still think that you are splitting hairs in the context of our conversations Keri

  23. keri says:

    How in the name of arse can you not see the difference?

    You claimed I ask you to be specific, I said I ask you to be accurate.

    There’s a big difference between those two words. Definition confirms it. Are you that attached to thinking yourself correct that you can’t admit they’re different?

  24. Iain Hall says:

    My point is that you are making “much ado about nothing” You posted a very vague challenge to Leon

    Name ten, Leon. Just ten.

    He easily found 40

    And then you wanted him to qualify his answer with a mind to a specific part of his comment which I thought was moving the goal posts somewhat. so I asked you to specify what you wanted after your gloating “fail” claim. Naturally i carried the term over to my next comment to Jason and your objection just seems like pedantry to me.

    I will however bow to your pedantry on this occasion and accept that perhaps I should have said that “you are always on at me to be more accurate” but I still think that it makes no difference to the gist of what I said .

  25. raydixon says:

    A lot of semantics going on. Quite frankly, Iain, defending Leon’s broadside is “mission impossible”. His statement was just a brainless swipe at “them”. End of story and no further comment from me, thank you.

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: