Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Ethical questions » Jihad? Jury says yes

Jihad? Jury says yes

It is a difficult ask to protect an entire country, any country, from the religious zealots who would commit mass murder in the name of their god. If you jump   too soon to arrest would be jihadists  there is every chance that there will be insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. Just the process of gathering evidence of such plots is difficult and fraught with concerns about violating the civil liberties of individuals who may have nothing to do with such villainy. However a Jury has considered the evidence in the Sydney trial and found all five defendants guilty of conspiring to commit a terrorist act. which carries  the potential of a life sentence .

ON COURSE TO JIHAD: Abdul Rakib Hasan was one of five people found guilty yesterday. Picture: Graham Couch

ON COURSE TO JIHAD: Abdul Rakib Hasan was one of five people found guilty yesterday. Picture: Graham Couch

They said firearms, ammunition, night vision goggles, maps and radios were to be used on hunting trips in western NSW, while the compasses were so the devout Muslims knew the direction of Mecca at prayer time.

Trips to Melbourne to visit a notorious Islamic religious teacher were for marriage guidance and help with an “exorcism”, they explained.

But after a 10-month trial, 300 witnesses, more than 3000 pieces of evidence, and almost five weeks of deliberations, a NSW Supreme Court jury has found five men from Sydney’s southwest guilty of plotting violent jihad on Australian soil.

So-called group leaders Khaled Cheikho, 36, and Mohamed Ali Elomar, 44, together with Moustafa Cheikho, 32, Abdul Rakib Hasan, 40, and 25-year-old Mohammed Omar Jamal were accused of plotting with each other and at least four other men between July 2004 and November 2005.

But lets not forget that along with the five just convicted there were four more conspirators who plead guilty, rather than contest the charges.

The four other men connected to the plot – Mazen Touma, Mirsad Mulahalilovic, Khaled Sharrouf and one man who cannot be named for legal reasons – pleaded guilty to acts in preparation for a terrorist act prior to the trial or earlier this year and have been sentenced.

As satisfying as I find it that our police services and prosecutors have won this case I can’t help wondering is these evil men will actually be given a sentence commensurate with the gravity of their evil plans. My guess is that they will only get between ten and fifteen years  and released in less than that.

There seems to be a terrible moral vacuum within the Latte sipping mindset which  thinks that to plan and prepare to commit an atrocity is a crime of much less magnitude than to actually do it. I think that it is just as evil and deserves a sanction of equal value.

Ah well, we will all have to wait until these men are sentenced in December…

Cheers Comrades.

8)


46 Comments

  1. Pkd says:

    There seems to be a terrible moral vacuum within the Latte sipping mindset which  thinks that to plan and prepare to commit an atrocity is a crime of much less magnitude than to actually do it. I think that it is just as evil and deserves a sanction of equal value.

    and you were doing so well until you reverted to your usual lazy smear on ‘teh left’. You do it so often I wonder if you couldn’t teach our new troll a few lessons…*sigh*

    Oh, agree with the rest of your post btw.

  2. Iain Hall says:

    PKD
    I call it as I see it and when my observations are an accurate description there is no “smear”

  3. Pkd says:

    Really? If it’s an accurate description like you claim perhaps you’d like to name and shame a few of these lefties.
    Care to give us, say 3 or 4 on the left who think those caught merely in the planning stages should be treated more leniently than terrorists who commit atrocities?

  4. Iain Hall says:

    PKD how many times have you heard someone say “well they have not actually killed anyone”?

  5. Ray Dixon says:

    Well, they haven’ actually killed anyone.

  6. Pkd says:

    From the latte left? None.
    Happy to be corrected with same accurate examples iain.

    After all you are making an accurate precise description here…

  7. Ray Dixon says:

    “haven’t”

  8. Iain Hall says:

    Google finds heaps of people making that argument
    here

  9. Ray Dixon says:

    The crime carries a maximum life sentence but I bet that latte sipping judge let’s them off with a slap on the wrist and a good tongue lashing.

  10. Toaf says:

    “There seems to be a terrible moral vacuum within the Latte sipping mindset which thinks that to plan and prepare to commit an atrocity is a crime of much less magnitude than to actually do it.”

    Got a link for that, Iain?

  11. Pkd says:

    Iain – your approach is unscientific and prove nothing.
    This is much better – http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Not+actually+killed+anyone+left+wing&word2=Not+actually+killed+anyone+right+wing

    obviously the alleged view of the left is much more prevalent on the right.
    Your retraction please!

  12. Ray Dixon says:

    I demand the Jihadists be released. They’ve done nothing wrong.

  13. Iain Hall says:

    Really PKD
    That proves nothing because It occurs to me that a right winger could very easily be saying that about the left (just as I do) and then it would register as a hit on that side of the equation and further just what algorithm does that search engine use to decide who is Left and who is Right?

    Damian
    Here is your link

  14. Pkd says:

    Either way iain it shows that Your view of ‘not actually killed anyone’ (which is itself flawed in proving your claim because as a search term it’s way too vague and imprecise) as being purely of the latte left to be complety wrong.
    my slightly better term shows At best it’s been stated bi partisan by both sides.

    And it was a he’ll of a lot better than the ‘evidence’ of your google link, which even on the 1st page held a link to a woman relieved her cooking had not actually killed anyone.

    c’mon Iain – Leave out the vague and maningless google searches and be specific. After all this is meant to be an ‘accurate description’ of purely the leftist mindset. Prove it or recant.

  15. Abu Chowdah says:

    Knee jerk support from the Left for attempted jihadist David Hicks certainly springs to mind. Do your own Google research.

  16. Abu Chowdah says:

    “c’mon Iain – Leave out the vague and maningless google searches and be specific. After all this is meant to be an ‘accurate description’ of purely the leftist mindset. Prove it or recant.”

    You’ve got a point, PKD.

    On the other hand, when are you going to prove your trope that conservatism = Nazism?

  17. Pkd says:

    Let’s try and stay on topic…not that I recall saying the conservatives equate to the Nazis anyway….

  18. Iain Hall says:

    Thanks for the Hicks suggestion Abu I seem to remember PKD saying many times that he has not killed anybody….
    Hoisted on your own petard PKD

  19. Pkd says:

    Really iain – give me a quote where I defended hicks on that basis.
    All I’ve ever said on hicks is he deserved a fair trial.

    I think you’ve just hoisted yourself iain!
    All you’ve done there is to avoid answering a direct question – I wonder why?
    Is it because you know you’re wrong???

  20. Abu Chowdah says:

    Avoiding answering a question, PKD? Sounds like one of your tactics.

  21. Pkd says:

    Trying to go off topic again Abu?
    That sounds like one of your tactics!

    Back OT, where’s this quote on hicks iain?
    I think you’ve rather been found out there given your silence…let alone any acknowledgement that your viewpoint on the left is hopelessly wrong.

  22. Abu Chowdah says:

    “Am not, are too, am not, are too.”

    It’s just an endless intellectual thrill ride with you, PKD.

  23. Iain Hall says:

    PKD
    I have a life mate and little inclination to read through all of the 20,755 comments posted here If it wasn’t you in particular then it was some other lefty apologist for Hicks who did so.

  24. PKD says:

    Do stop trolling Abu and…try and stay on topic.
    If you have nothing to add on topic, don’t bother.

    Iain,
    Then if you have no proof I was an apologist for Hicks then you have to accept that it wasn’t me. Apologise please.

  25. Len says:

    So, let me attempt to digest all of your leftist whines here guys.

    If it walks like a duck,
    looks like a duck,
    quacks like a duck,

    It’s a goose ?

    Planning the crime is the same thing as actually committing the crime as far as the law is concerned. Called ironically, criminal intent. Just a matter of timing, that’s the only difference.

    Like most mobsters, all mouth and powerful when with their mates, (and their weapons and bombs ?), but get them alone, without that bulk protection, and they cry foul and wet themselves. This kid got done cold ! with the goods. Fortunately, without killing innocents first.

    We are a rich, diverse multi-cultured society these days, BUT we have to let everyone know that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable, and will not be tolerated.

    Chuck him in jail for twenty, and look in on him in ten.
    The people that put this b/s in his head in the first place ?
    Give them life, and look in on them in fifty.

  26. Ray Dixon says:

    If I hot my car up and talk to a group of like-minded hoons about doing donuts in town and breaking the speed limits should I lose my license for that?

    Not a great parallel I admit, but you have to make *some* distinction between doing the crime and plotting to do one, surely. I think you’ll find they’ll get about 10 years.

  27. Pkd says:

    Personally Len, I actually agree with iain about sentencing would-be terrorsts caught planning acts of terror with the same severity as those who do carry them out.
    Given that iain, why would I make an exception for hicks hmm?
    If, along with your hicks retraction, you can give an overdue evidence to back your smear on ‘teh left’ up, that would be nice too! C’mon Iain – name and shame the left!

    Because right now it almost looks like your avoiding the question…

  28. Len says:

    Hardly the same Ray, but I see your attempt at a “guilty until proven innocent” analogy though.
    Normally I would agree with you, but in this instance, the article does not specify the specifics. Those specifics would have been put forward in a court of law. That being the case, the defendant was found guilty as charged. We have to believe that the evidence presented was appropriate and the case was in fact, judged on that evidence.

    That, again being the case, the rest is rhetoric isn’t it ? Don’t know about the penalty that will be apportioned. Who knows. Intent is a whole different ball game, to actually doing the crime. Be interesting to see how they spin it, during the penalty phase ?

  29. Abu Chowdah says:

    “Do stop trolling Abu and…try and stay on topic.
    If you have nothing to add on topic, don’t bother.”

    Do pay attention. It was me who pointed out that Hicks was a cause celebre for the Left. Entirely on topic.

    Do your own Google research.

  30. Pkd says:

    And it was you went off topic with your conservative / Nazism nonsense.
    Do pay attention yourself.
    And for the record I do back up my own claims with evidence whether via google or otherwise. It’s a shame others here don’t.

  31. Toaf says:

    Iain, I still don’t grasp who it is that says conspiracy to commit terrorism is a less serious crime than committing terrorism. In comments you provided a couple of links – one to an irrelevant web search and the other to this post – and neither identifies anyone making the argument that you attribute to the left. Spit it out man! Who is saying it?

  32. Ray Dixon says:

    Me. Well, I’m not really saying it’s a “less serious” crime, but that’s it will attract less punishment. The sentence will tell us that – if they had carried out an attack and killed people they’d get life, but I reckon they’ll get less.

  33. Pkd says:

    Toad, I’ve been asking iain the same thing most of this thread – it’s almost as if he’s ducking the questions harder than Turnbull after utegate blew up on him!
    C’mon iain prove your claim or admit your error.
    And I am still waiting for you to retract your hicks claim about me too. Hoisted on your petard indeed.

  34. Ray Dixon says:

    Toad? Cane toad?

  35. PKD says:

    Ha – toaf toad maybe! I put on order in for a shirt by email last week, and got congused when they told me they did shorts in that size!

  36. Ray Dixon says:

    I’m getting very “congused” myself here.

  37. Iain Hall says:

    PKD
    I’m sorry that I could not find an example you being an apologist for Hicks, However that does not negate the point about other minions of the left seeing conspiracy as being a substantially lesser crime that actaully killing people.

  38. Pkd says:

    I’ll take that apology – thanks.

    The point about the left is quite separate as you say.
    The thing is you’ve provided no proof that it is purely a left wing viewpoint.
    The google search as both toaf and I pointed out was meaningless.

    C’mon, this is your chance to name and shame the left – take it or retract your claim.

  39. Abu Chowdah says:

    Now, now, PKD. If digressions were verboten we’d be reading half as many posts from you.

    I’ll turn a blind eye to your stratying if you’ll extend me the same courtesy.

    Have a holy and blessed Sunday my happy little Muslimites, as bright as bright can be.

  40. Iain Hall says:

    PKD
    I found this here and it is a perfect example from that well known lefty “Barry Bones”
    Here also

  41. Abu Chowdah says:

    Interesting that Barry assumes Hicks was sodomised. In reality, that’s what happens with alarming frequency in Afghan jails, rather than the military lockdown of Guantanamo.

    What’s with the Left and homophobia?

  42. Iain Hall says:

    Yeah Abu, the left and Homosexuality seem to have a schizophrenic relationship.

  43. Iain Hall says:

    Thanks Abu
    And PKD denies that lefties make the argument 🙄

  44. Len says:

    Unfortunately Iain, conspiracy is a lesser crime, as far as the law and the courts are concerned. The lesser of two evils I suppose.

    The crime hadn’t been committed, so really, no illegal act had occurred. BUT, if a person is done with all the materials to perpetrate the act, then rather than have to wait until the deed is done so to speak, perhaps costing many lives, the legal system came up with the “conspiracy” charge. A lesser offence, but still drawing prison time. Not as much time, as if the act had occurred, but time none the less.

    The “over 300 pieces of evidence collected”, is pretty much the sealer for me.

    Better than nothing, and puts the loser behind bars,(as well as his co conspirators), out of harms way, where he can’t hurt himself, or more importantly, someone else ?

  45. Abu Chowdah says:

    “The crime hadn’t been committed, so really, no illegal act had occurred.”

    Technically, if conspiracy is proven, a crime has occurred.

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: