Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » World Events » Afghanistan » Islamic enough and really much more than the mastermind behind the deaths of so many innocent lives deserved.

Islamic enough and really much more than the mastermind behind the deaths of so many innocent lives deserved.

In the wake of the execution of the Bali Bombers I was advocating that they should have been denied the rituals and comfort of an Islamic funeral, playing as it were to the religious dogma of the faith that these vile creatures claimed to kill for. I still think that there is merit in playing to the superstitions of those who kill for Allah, by making them believe that we will do everything possible to undermine a glorious reward in the afterlife.
Thus I find it very interesting that the USA have found something of a middle path between undue deference to Islamic dogma and the political necessity that there be no focal point for Jihadist pilgrimage to the tomb of thsi truly evil man:

click for source

I fully expect that the footage and still images of a dead Bin Laden will shortly be released and there is no doubt that some people will not believe it until they see it for themselves. While the apologists for the Jihadists will undoubtedly try to insist that the disposal of this vile man’s corpse is “un-Islamic” the more sensible will realise that it is just Islamic enough and really much more than the mastermind behind the deaths of so many innocent lives deserved.

Cheers Comrades


  1. damage says:

    I have to admit that I’m a little disturbed by the celebrations. It’s not the celebrations so much as the nature of them that’s the issue. I think that the Americans have shown unbelievable restraint in their approach to the issue of retaliating to 9/11. I expected them to start nuking people. (Not melbourne Barristers though – LOL).
    The one area where they have failed to show much restraint is the reaction to this news. I can’t say I blame them really – especially as most of the reaction was in NYC and DC where the actual attacks too place, but it had the look of a victory celebration about it and it’s simply not a victory. It’s not edifying to celebrate the death of anyone in my opinion. I see the whole thing as a massive tragedy – including the need to kill Bin Laden.
    I do however feel that the way that the authorities have handled the body has shown a bit of forethought and class.
    One needs to respect one’s enemy. Even when he does not deserve one’s respect. The temptation to treat his body as a trophy like they used to parade the dead in the old west or the bodies of gangsters in the 30s would have been massive. Imagine the body draped on a beam at Ground Zero? Like Mussolini where the crowd were encouraged to file past and spit. Then they could have fed the body to pigs and then fed the pigs to dogs and then dropped the dog’s shit out of plane’s onto the Taliban.
    But they showed some class and just buried it at sea as they would one of their own warriors.
    Let’s not let triumphalism rule us at this time. There’s a lot to do to rid the world of the illness that Bin Laden fed on.

  2. Ray Dixon says:

    They might have caught him a lot earlier if Bush hadn’t shown his total lack of restraint by invading Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11. That’s where America lost the plot (as well as a lot more lives).

  3. Sax says:

    What all the bleeding hearts have forgotten, as well as the religious fanatics, is that killing and maiming thousands of people, as well as participating/leading a war against the rest of the planet is also not the Islamic way.

    His modus operandi over the years, and lack of general humanity, has commanded, at least in my mind (and probably all the survivors of 9/11 ?), that no allowance be given, nor reverence to his method of burial. After all, he showed no reverence to Islam, or humanity, when he was on his personal jihad ? Don’t make a shrine out of his burial site, and don’t elevate or viatify him to martyr status.

    Feed it to the bloody sharks !

  4. Luzu says:

    Could you please tell me how Muhammed (the model of Islamic behaviour) treated the Jews of Medina, the Banu Qurayza? That’s right. He cut off the heads of all the men once they had surrendered. He didn’t just give them a little telling off for not supporting him in a previous battle.How can it not then be the Islamic way?
    How did the north of Africa become Islamic if, as you say, “participating/leading a war against the rest of the planet is also not the Islamic way”?
    I think Bin Laden was a very nasty man who found a religious text that gave a holy veneer to the desires that he already had in his heart. Nobody will ever do anything with as much enthusiaism as when they think their god loves it and will reward them.
    Quran-8:17—It is not ye who Slew them; it is God; when thou threwest a handful of dust, it was not Thy act, but God’s…..” (Allah said, the killing of surrendered soldiers were done by the wish of Allah).

  5. Sax says:

    How did the north of Africa become Islamic ?
    Tell you how. The middle east is very much a bipolar society. The ‘haves’ and of course the ‘have-nots’. Been that way for thousands of years. The radical power hungry local imams, honing in on this apparent dispair, using their religion to further their own aims and power bases, promising what they know they can’t deliver, and in the process inciting their flock to do their bidding, that’s how. That is how fools like Bin Laden got to where he was in the first place. That is where the power base is ? Hell, not the first time. This method is scattered throughout history. Richard’s crusades ? Hitler’s erradication of the Jews ? Islam is merely the latest in a very very long list, to feed and fester, on people’s abject poverty and misery.

    I can see, from your quote of the Quran, exactly how religious texts get twisted to achieve whatever. You’ve done it as well ! How ?

    Quran-8:17—It is not ye who Slew them; it is God; when thou threwest a handful of dust, it was not Thy act, but God’s…..” (Allah said, the killing of surrendered soldiers were done by the wish of Allah).

    Wrong !
    The quote is saying that if anyone is to be slain, it is God who does the slaying, not man ! That is exactly what the problem is. BTW, for nothing, Christianity is just as guilty in this misinterpretation as well ? The old expression of “an eye for an eye” rings a bell somewhere ? They then come forth after the fact, and say “God made me do it !”
    Not buying it, not for a bloody second !

    No religion on this planet, portays violence of any description. That is done by the power hungry exponents of the religion. Islam is merely the latest in a very long list ?

  6. damage says:

    Iraq was unfinished business. It had to be done before there could be any real posibility of winning the war in terror. You know that the Germans didn’t bomb Pearl Harbour, but the yanks still invaded Europe.

  7. Sax says:

    Iraq was run by an absolute nutter. An ego feeding frenzy, that thank God, has also been placed in the garbage bin of history.

    Speaking of history, another one who needs a refresher course. The yanks didn’t invade Eu, they were asked by the Brits, to help in the repelling the Germans, who were in France, and ready to cross the channel.

    Your “war on terror” as you put it, will never be won. Whilst ever there is one tosser, incited by some local religious nutter, willing to strap c4 to his chest, and blow up a plaza of people, it will never end. This sort of action can never be defended against. A war has rules, and a certain procedure to it, this ain’t no war, it is straight out carnage, for maximum collateral damage. That’s why they call it terroism ? In that regard, it has been extremely successful, and indefensible, and why they do it !

    That is why the hell bent efforts for the leaders of these fringe sects. (which is exactly what they are).

  8. damage says:

    Sorry Sax.
    The Germans were “ready to cross the channel” in 1941 when they started the blitz which lead to the Battle of Britain. By 1944 their taste for was quite diminished and the French coast was the frontier. Why would the Germans have had such extensive defences if they were about to invade England?
    No by 1944 the Yanks had invaded Italy (who didn’t bomb Pearl either) and were well involved in Africa and their Air Force was bombing the shit out of Germany.
    But Italy and Germany never bombed Pearl.

  9. Sax says:

    Hang on. It is difficult to see what point of mine you are disputing here ?

    The yanks entered the war in Eu right after Pearl Harbour, after the alliance of Japan and Germany, formerly declared war on the US.

    But, what is not known, is that forces/units, that included both US, and even Australian forces, had been seconded to Britain as far back as 39, even though that involvement was not formal.

    The Germans wanted the english channel port, as well as France, to begin to build its offensive of Churchhill’s UK.
    Thanks to the coalition between the Brits and Yanks, as well as nearly all the commonwealth countries, that didn’t succeed. Their “taste” as you put it, was due to the airpower of Britain and the US combined, (Battle of Britain 1940 ?), which put pay to any German advance. Germany’s problem, was also accentuated by its now split fronts, but foolishly taking on Russia, especially when, so delayed, they found themselves smack in the Russian winter ?

  10. damage says:

    As I said. They were not “ready to cross the channel” in 1944.

    We agree.

  11. Iain Hall says:

    conventional wisdom has it that having lost the Battle of Britain the German commanders got cold feet at the prospect of trying to invade Britain without air superiority, that combined with the logistical problem of mounting a sea borne invasion is what stalled Hitler’s push to invade the UK

  12. damage says:

    Agreed. Which is why they were not “ready to cross the channel” when the Americans invaded Europe in 1944.

    We’re actually arguing about things we agree on here. My point is that Japan and not Germany or Italy attacked Pearl Harbour (the previous worst attack on the US prior ti 9/11). Yet it is commonly accepted as reasonable for the Americans to have then taken up arms against Japan’s allies. YET – it appears to many to have been an error (at best) or a criminal act to have taken up arms against the allies of Iraq. Now I agree that there were only links and not formal alliances between Iraq and Al Queda, but at the time there was a very real prospect that the two would share resources and that the US and its coalitions might be facing multiple enemies in a very unconventional war.
    As I said the US had seriously unfinished business with Iraq and I for one am glad they got to work and swept that stain from the landscape.

  13. Sax says:

    The supposed air superiority over GB was all the Germans had Iain. I agree. They had no real navy as such. When they got their ar*es kicked in the air, they had nothing else but gound troops. With the allies patrolling the channel with everything they had, right up to scandinavia, the Germans were stuffed.
    When you add that to the arrogant notion of Hitler’s, that he could also take on Russia as well, in the east, that was pretty much all she wrote.
    Interesting by subject none the less. Good discussion. Sure beats the drama of the middle east for a minute. With a bit of luck, with Mis Behavin now dead, things may settle down over there ?

  14. Sax says:

    I think it was the other way around damage.
    I think the case was, especially after getting their butts kicked in the air, in the Battle of Britain, they weren’t ALLOWED to cross the channel ?
    Maybe semantics in the grand scheme of things, but worthy of note perhaps ?

  15. angel says:

    Bin Laden’s body got more respect than was due. What burial did those in the Towers get? What burial did those whom had their heads sawn off with a blunt machette get? I think it is a bit rich that Bin Laden followers think he even had any rights left. This guy was a monster.If I had my way with his corpse it would have been buried at a nudist colony.

  16. Iain Hall says:

    my brother was suggesting dismemberment at a piggery…

  17. Sax says:

    That is the best result that could happen. Cremate the SOB, as I said, so his tomb or whatever, doesn’t become a shrine to this guy’s treacherous theology ?

  18. mumbles says:

    Not bad Sax, but I think a William Wallis ending would have been more and like all outlaws from Ned Kelly on he should not have been accorded religous rites that confer respect. It would have suited my sensibilities for him to have been drawn and quartered and the remains scattered to the four points of the compass with the head mounted on a pike in the Rose Garden. With an empty one alongside for the next SOB.
    I also like the piggery idea as a second option but head on a stick has panache.

  19. Sax says:

    Then you would find a bunch of w*ankers kneeling, and praying to the stick ?

  20. Luzu says:

    You didn’t disprove my point, just said “Yeah, well, Christians do it too”. Some refutation. I took my quote from an Islamic source which specifically shows Allah’s approval of the slaughter of men who had surrendered.
    About Osama’s burial, I think the way it was handled was very smart. To have desecrated the corpse (smeared in pig’s blood, cremated, whatever) would have been unnecessarily insulting to Muslims who dislike Osama and his actions but hold dearly to Islamic custom. Burial at sea means no shrine, no pilgrimages, no material dipped in his blood and handled fervently by would-be shahids or pseudo-miracles credited to a visit to Osama’s burial place.
    Besides, we know that Osama shares something in common with Nemo, the little clownfish: They have both earned the nickname “Sharkbait”.

  21. Sax says:

    All religions do it.
    They take a portion of their text, don’t interpret it properly, or worse still, (and more prevalent ?), twist it to suit their own aims and purposes. That is why the confusion. Islam isn’t the only religion to do it either. As I said, for centuries Christianity was a culprit as well. That is why we have so many variations of the bible out there.

    I still think, personally, you are misreading that portion of text. That is the problem. You say tomarto, and I say tomayto ? I reckon it is saying that Allah is the only one who shall take a life. Even after reading it several times, that is what I see in it. You see the opposite. That’s fine, but it just goes to highlighting one of the major reasons, as to why religious zealotry, has caused and continues to cause so much strife on this planet.

  22. Craigy says:

    I’ve got an idea, what about you get your kids school to run a competition Iain.

    The kids need to do a big colour drawing of what they think should have happened to OBL’s body.

    Nice sane pictures of the kids pissing on him, then cutting him up and feeding his body parts to pigs, while pidssing on him, or something like that!

    1st prize could be…. 6 big Macs, with extra ‘good ol’ USA’ sugar and fat along with a bucket of double choc ‘non-halals’ shake.

  23. damage says:

    Sax I agree. But that wasn’t in 1944.

  24. damage says:

    We didn’t send children in to get him so why should we expect them to have anything to do with his disposal?

    I have to say that at the time of 9/11 I thought that the feeding of Jihadi bodies to pigs was an apt method of humiliating their families and them. You know it’s hard to deflower 72 virgins from the belly of a sow. I have to say now though that I have tempered that view. I guess 10 years have allowed the anger levels to diminish somewhat.
    I don’t have any issue with Osama’s remains being afforded the respect of burial in accordance with his faith. If I expect people to respect my faith I should respect theirs too.
    Getting kids involved in any of this is sick though.

  25. Craigy says:

    Thanks Damage, I agree with you…..I am asking those, like Iain, who think it great when people who have done bad things get shot in the head, chopped up and fed to pigs, if they would involve their kids in such action or tell the kids how good it is to mutilate those who have done wrong.

    I am trying to understand Iain’s view that there is good violence and bad violence and if it is good violence, would he involve the kids (because, you know, it’s good to kill and mutilate bad people).

  26. Huskie_Jim says:

    As far as I can read Iain isn’t suggesting that children do any of that.

    Are you questioning the legitimacy of activity because it wouldn’t be appropriate for kids to be involved in it? Gee you’re trading a dangerous road there.

    If you can’t understand the anger that others feel about Osama then you lack even the most basic empathy. The expression of such feelings isn’t the performance of them. We all realise that the left has had a soft spot for Bin Laden die to his attack on the capitalist dog, but really. Thousands of innocent people, most of them Muslim, have been murdered by this thug and his minions. Expressions of vilent anger toward him are completely understandable.
    In the light of day those emotions seem over the top, but if you don’t understand the anger then you really are sentimental for the jihadi cause.

  27. damage says:

    Why ask about the kids though.
    Are you suggesting that all activity that is reasonable should involve children?
    Surely just because I am in favour of something doesn’t mean I need to involve children in it?
    One assumes you like sex?
    Would you involve children in it?
    Would you condemn it because it isn’t appropriate for children?
    What a simply stunningly foolish argument.

    But of course the darling of the left has died at the hand of the captilist beast. The mourning must be excruciating.

  28. Luzu says:

    I bought myself a book today (Muhammed and Jesus” by Mark Gabriel). I found a lovely quote from one of the professors at Islam’s most famous university in Egypt. I’ll quote:”Jihad and killing are the head of Islam. If you take them out, you take off the head of Islam”. (pg 8 ) The professor who made the statement? None other than Omar Abdel Rahman.
    But, of course, Sax, they are misinterpreting their texts, right?
    I stand by my comment that Osama was an evil man who found a religious text that gave him the big thumbs up from Allah to go right ahead and plan and incite the murder of thousands of Muslims and non-Muslims. Where was the fatwa issued to condemn his non-Islamic conduct?

  29. Luzu says:

    What’s with the emoticon? The quote is from pg 8.

  30. Iain Hall says:

    Fixed your comment Luzu you have to ensure that there is a space between the “8” and the “)” or you get the “cool” emoticon 8)

  31. Sax says:

    Hey you got no argument from me Luzu. Mis Behavin got at least five more years of life, than I ever thought he would, or should have ?

    As to the above discussion, and you are all spruking from various texts. That’s fine, but the religion is not the problem. The problem is the w*nkers in, and run the religion, that use it to further their own agendas. That is where the problems fester ?

    That is the fault of religion. It is open to such a wide interpretation, that these thugs of the planet, use these texts to feed on people’s desperation and suffering.

  32. Sax says:

    BTW, Christianity is no different.
    If you are so inclined, and get a chance, get the movie, from the 80’s called ‘The Cardinal”.
    What an eye opener that was !

  33. angel says:

    I don’t believe that Bin Laden misinterpreted any book. Only the true author knows the truth in their writings. A sick perverted monster will read the Koran or the bible for that matter, and will get just that out of it, sickness and perversion. The problem was the man not the book. We have extremist Muslims and extremist Christians. Luckily we also have ‘normal’ people in society.

  34. Sax says:

    I agree.
    As I said. Like most religions, he took the parts that he could use, and rejected the rest.
    That’s what I was on about.
    He wasn’t the first, and no doubt, won’t be the last. This has been going on since Richard and Crusades ffs ?

  35. Iain Hall says:

    Good point Angel, when I was at Uni we studied one book by Stephen Donaldson called ‘A canticle for Liebowitz” which imagined an entire religion based on the misreading of what was actually a technical manual. That novel was making the same point that you are , namely that as readers we all find the meaning that we are looking for from a book, John Berger’s “Ways of seeing” notable on the issue as well.

  36. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy @ at 10:31 am

    where on earth did that come from? I have been very measured in what I have said to my daughter about this event and I would never do as you suggest and frankly you do your self no favours with such a comment.
    what I am essentially saying with this post is that I think that Obama has got the balance correct here, he has shown just enough respect for the Muslim faith and dogma with the way that he has treated the remains of Bin Laden to not offend or inflame moderate Muslims, the nutters are going to be outraged no matter what.

  37. Angel says:

    I dont get the lefties. They want our borders freely open for the refugees of such countries in turmoil, but when a tyrant such as Bin Laden is decommissioned they say we should not be glad of the fact, and yank bash. I am happy he is gone and have no problem saying so. The reason refugees exist is from such mongrels as Bin Laden was. My 10 year old daughter had studied the towers in a school lesson and came home to tell us about it. She cried for all the people who lost their lives that day. She understands that this bad person has now been stopped by the Army men. No tears were shed for him. Should I tell her she should be upset for him? Should I tell her that it is not a good thing that he is gone?Not a chance. I am sure that many children around the world are now feeling just that little bit safer without someone like him around.

  38. Craigy says:

    Iain, sorry if I misunderstood, but I thought you supported the idea that it would be good if he was cut up and fed to pigs, with this comment to damage:

    “my brother was suggesting dismemberment at a piggery…”

    My question was, if this is a reasonable form of justice in relation to this mans behaviour in your view, do you think it fine to tell that to your kids. Would you tell the kids it is good or bad if they suggested some such violence is justifiable – given what he did?

    It is a legitimate question.

    Of course I don’t think violence or murder is the way to bring someone to justice. I am one of those people who appose all forms of violence, except in clear-cut self defence and especially not for revenge.

    So damage making the comments that he has, makes no sense as usual, as I was not suggesting that it is good to include kids in acts of violence or incitement to violence.

    I often think that the wingnuts that so like violence as a response to violent acts or violent people, have never experienced violence in their lives or they wouldn’t be so gung-ho.

    I, like everyone, feel no sadness at OBL’s death. But I would not like to think he was executed on the spot if it was possible to take him alive. I am not a supporter of capital punishment, even for people who commit evil deeds like 9/11, Bali and the rest.

  39. damage says:

    Oh anyone who was at S11 in Melbourne in 2000 realises that the Left just hate violence.
    LMAO at this lefty bullshit.

  40. Craigy says:

    I’m talking about me damage, not ‘teh left’ so again you make no sense in your hurry to attack me….Ray is right, you really are a stal*ker…. I’ll leave it at that.

  41. angel says:

    Craigy – Iain made the comment to me in response to wanting him buried at a nudist colony. Why are you stal*king Damage?

  42. Craigy says:

    Angel – please explain??

  43. damage says:

    No no Craig you branded the right as violent.
    Or more correctly all violent people as right wing.
    “I often think that the wingnuts that so like violence as a response to violent acts or violent people, have never experienced violence in their lives or they wouldn’t be so gung-ho.”

    You also suggested that you were a lefty.
    Do you now suggest that the S11 thing was “wingnuts”?
    Or do you agree that the left very often resort to violence?

  44. Luzu says:

    I told my own children (12 and 10) that although I thought Osama got what he deserved, he was still a human, somebody’s father, son and brother. I’m not sad he’s dead. Live by the sword, die by the sword. I just won’t celebrate.
    And I’m probably the most right wing person I know.
    Craigy, I agree that the people who advocate violence most vociferously often do not have instances of violence in their personal lives. It’s easy to be gungho when you don’t know what you’re talking about or are unfamiliar with the effects of violence.
    I don’t believe such people are confined to one end of the political spectrum, however.

  45. Craigy says:

    damage, read it again, I was not saying that only wingnuts are violent.

    Do I need to spell it out to you again like a 12 year old? I guess I do.

    I said this: “the wingnuts that so like violence as a response to violent acts or violent people”

    Does that say ONLY wingnuts or ALL wingnuts, no it doesn’t. I am referring to the wingnuts, even (strangely) Christian ones, that always advocate for, and try and legitimise violence, by claiming it is the only way to combat the violence of others.

    This is not a trait that is associated with the ‘tree hugging’ or ‘bleeding heart’ left.

    The violence at the S11 protests I am happy to condemn, seeing as you want to include this irrelevance. As I understand it, it was anarchists and the police who got violent, I don’t support them or many of their views and I’m not a copper.

    Get it this time….sheesh (again).

  46. Craigy says:

    Luzu, I was not confining this to one end of politics, as I have explained to damage, but thanks for your response.

  47. damage says:

    Violence IS a trait that is associated with the ‘tree hugging’ and ‘bleeding heart’ left.

    You’re pretending it isn’t won’t change that.

    By seeking to condemn the violence or acceptance of violence you see on the right you’re ignoring the violence perpetrated by the left.
    That’s just dishonest.

    Your understanding of the S11 confrentations is sadly limited. Or you wish to give that impression at least.
    The police defended themselves and saught to uphold order in the face of violence from the left. There were no “wingnuts” in those crowds Craig.
    It appears that you consider the police as wingnuts too since their response to violence was violence.

  48. Craigy says:

    I’ll try one more time, I work with young students who have better comprehension than you do damage, please try and read more carefully next time.

    I have not said that some people who have extreme views on the left won’t be violent. Clearly some people on the left with extreme views do think violence is one way to combat the wrongs of others….I do not and I have never supported this view. Nor was I claiming that violence is only committed by wingnuts.

    Support for violence as the best and only way to deal with terrorists does seem to be a wingnut trait, if the comments about OLB’s death and the justifications being given for war are any example.

    I am not sure how you associate ‘tree hugging greenies’ with extreme violence though. Care to explain or just do your normal trick and ignore my question because it’s a bit hard for you.

    Really damage, you need to read back your posts, they are an embarrassment, and if they are an example of your comprehension skills then you need some help.

  49. angel says:

    Craigy on May 5, 2011 at 12:08 pm said:
    ,…” with this comment to damage:

    “my brother was suggesting dismemberment at a piggery…”

  50. Angel says:

    Anyone who feels sorrow for Bin Laden is a supporter of violence. That man stood for nothing but violence.

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: