Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » World Events » Afghanistan » Terrorists on September 11 were not “petty criminals”

Terrorists on September 11 were not “petty criminals”

Jeremy's confused thoughts about Islamic terrorism are plainly wrong.

A rather extraordinary article by Jeremy Sear today where he actually argues that the US decision to fight the War on Terror is exactly what the terrorists behind the attacks on September 11 2001 wanted.

The War on Terror was basically a policy of combating terrorism by weakening terrorist organisations, toppling regimes which harboured those organisations and ramping up national security in order to prevent further terrorist attacks.

It follows that Jeremy is suggesting that al-Qaeda wanted to be destroyed, wanted the Taliban to be overthrown in Afghanistan and wanted US security to be tighter so they could not carry out similar attacks.

Naturally, Jeremy provides no evidence whatsoever for his absurd proposition. No quotes from Al-Qaeda where they praise the ousting of the Taliban. No broadcasts from Osama bin Laden where he expresses delight at the fact that Al-Qaeda has been progressively weakened. No quotes from terrorists who are glad that security in Western countries is now stronger in order to prevent more terrorism. No experts on the subject in support of such propositions.

As Andrew Bolt noted yesterday, the reality is that we are slowly winning the War on Terror. Islamic terrorists are weaker than they were in September 2001. There have been no successful attacks on US or Australian soil since then, although some nasty attempts have been thwarted.

As a result of our success, it’s easy to underestimate the terrorist threat and become rather complacent about it all, as Sear does. However, were it not for the good work of our authorities, terrorist attacks would have certainly occurred here, as the convictions under the Howard Government’s anti-terrorism legislation in the last few years demonstrate.

In his post, Jeremy also makes the following laughable claims:

– That the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were “petty murderous criminals”. What an oxymoron. If someone is a murderer, then they cannot possibly be a petty criminal. Moreover, the terrorists on that day were responsible for around 3,000 deaths. That’s certainly not petty either by any measure. It’s massive. 9/11 was an atrocity, not a minor criminal offence.

– That the terrorists are “not super villains”. Again, how can people who have deliberately killed thousands not be super villains? A villain is defined as “a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel.” So presumably, killing around 3,000 is not particularly great, and doesn’t make you extremely cruel, malicious or criminal. What sort of atrocity does one have to commit in order to become a villain of the greatest magnitude? If they are not “super villains”, who are?

– That the terrorists “wanted the West to abandon the civil liberties its citizens enjoyed and become more like the tyrannical regimes they wished they had the support to establish.” What nonsense. Firstly we have not become tyrannical. Apart from our soldiers and terrorism suspects, we have only suffered minor inconveniences as a  result of the War on Terror. Secondly, Al-Qaeda wants to commit terrorist attacks in order to advance its ultimate political objective – a fascist Islamic state. Their goal is not to make us more vigilant and determined to fight them, that is only a consequence of 9/11.

Since September 11, 2001, the left have often tried to rationalise the events of that day in ways which avoid acknowledging the obvious. At least Jeremy hasn’t excused what happened that day the way some leftists have.

This article has pointed out that many on the left have engaged in sophistry on the issue of September 11 and Islamic terrorism more generally. And in that respect, Jeremy is no different.

The War on Terrorism was clearly necessary, because there were and still are Islamic fascists who were and are prepared to kill civilians in order to promote their political objectives. It is obvious that more terrorist attacks would have occurred if we hadn’t fought terrorists in other countries and authorities had not been more vigilant at home.

Unfortunately, that point is not obvious to Jeremy Sear. How disappointing that someone who purports to stand for intellectual honesty cannot be so on the issue of Islamic terrorism.


21 Comments

  1. Sax says:

    Nice take Leon, but mate, I think you went soft on not only your mate, but also the whole issue of 9/11.
    I was out of the system by a couple of years when it happened, and David was just out. But, he was actively involved in the preliminaries, just before it all hit the fan.
    However, with our contacts, we knew exactly what was going on, and watched in horror, with everyone else, as the vision of the towers being attacked, was being broadcast on the telly.

    My take ?

    Our ‘learned friend’, has as usual, missed the point.
    These guys were not just unhinged petty criminals, they were the soldiers of a new blindly fanatic leadership, of the new fundamentalist Islam, that were attempting to cripple the west.
    We are not just talking about 20 or 30 thugs here, hijacking planes for collateral damage, as our learned friend suggests. We are talking about the leadership, of the entire religion, that planned, and ordered these actions ! This just wasn’t an ad hoc or random action, it was a well planned, and full on attack ! This wasn’t about terrorism, it was about control ! Religious control, and blind obedience.

    Wankers like Hussein, Mis Behavin et al, were only the soldiers carrying out the orders of the powerful leaders of the radical Islamic fundamentalist religious revolution at the time. These are the tossers, that the respective world intelligence agencies should be tracking down. They are the ones, that immediately after the attacks, scurried back underground, into their holes, to hide from those searching from them, once the inevitable retaliations began. Ironically, exactly what that idiot in Sydney was attempting to do, before he was quickly silenced.

    These guys, i.e. the Taliband, wanted to control the entire world’s religion business. That is still their ultimate aim. They demanded their women be hidden from view, as if they were vermin. Wanted to control how people worked, played, ate, dressed etc. That is what this whole thing was about, bloody control and manipulation. They watched the western media for years, and seethed, as they saw the west, especially our women run around in mini skirts, bikinis, and also hold top jobs, such as even Presidents and Prime Ministers, control countries. They watched as industries made products abhorrent to their view of life. Isn’t it ironic, however, how they used western decadence, to pay for their campaigns, and tooled their retalliatary vengence ?
    Talk about the ultimate in bloody hypocrisy ?

    These religious zealots, under the guise of Islam, (ironically a peaceful religion ?), were too gutless to do the dirty deeds themselves, so sucked in their vulnerable youth to do their bidding instead ! These are the tossers that the west should be still going after.

    These are the guys, that are still in hiding, to frightened now to raise their ugly mugs above the horizon ? They are still there. Attempting quietly to raise a new army, also attempting to suck in a vulnerable, desperately poor new generation of youth, to inevitably try again, and this is why we should remain ever vigilant. A bit of a paranoid view ? Perhaps, but as many have said, including George Marshall,

    The price of peace is eternal vigilence ?

  2. Iain Hall says:

    You raise some pretty good points here Sax but I think that the one thing that the likes of our learned friend ignores is that failing to stop these plots at an early stage would attract even more political heat to those charged with keeping the public safe, you can’t just say, as he does that they are just ordinary criminals and that the normal laws will ever be adequate to deal with people who are willing to kill in the name of their god and die in the process. He seems to think that if confront a chap with a backpack in a train and you think that he might have have a bomb that you should make sure before you neutralise him. Its a on the spot judgement call and not one that I would want to make, you shoot him and he’s only got his sarnies in the bag and you have killed an innocent man, If you don’t shoot him and it C4 in the bag and there could be mass causalities…

    Likewise he keeps insisting that detaining captured Jihadists is wrong because they should be treated like normal crims and if you can’t charge them and bring them to trial then you should just let them go…

  3. Sax says:

    I whole heartedly agree Iain.
    People, like our ‘learned friend’, are, unbeknown to themselves, ignorant to their own apathy and perhaps even arrogance ? That was the US’s downfall, and 9/11 was the end result of that apathy and arrogance ?

    Unfortuately, this is not just a defence of peoples’ rights anymore. It has become more complicated than that.

    The argument thusly becomes, at what point, does a person’s individual rights, outweigh the rights of a country to defend itself ? That is what the ‘feel good lefty brigade’, can’t seem to get their heads around. Certainly, in this decision process, it is open to abuse, and that is the fine line to walk. When does the importance of “national security” cross the line, becoming a fear of an impending “totalitarian state” ?

    That is what the perpertrators of this sort of violence pray on, as well as the uneducated sprays, by such people as our learned friend for example. That is exactly the attitude that helps breed and spread their message.

  4. busby777 says:

    In the course of my teaching career, I have sat face-to-face with some of the guys who shared the same ideology as the terrorists — and for all I know, they might have been terrorists. They hate any people who have personal liberty.

  5. GD says:

    Jeremy’s absurd article is another of those leftist diatribes attempting to downplay the role of militant Islam in the 9/11 attacks and in subsequent Islamic terrorist attacks. To give him credit, he has attempted to find a different angle, but what an obscure angle. On the anniversary of 9/11 other Islamic apologists, such as Waleed Ali wasted no time in getting in on the front foot.

    In an interview a few days ago with Mia Freedman, Sky presenter, he spoke for half an hour about terrorists without once mentioning ‘Islam’. He focused on the IRA, terrorism in South America and the Oslo tragedy. On the 9/11 anniversary, his almost mirror article was published in the Fairfax press, once again with no mention of Islamic terrorism. He did focus on the London bombings, but described them as ‘home-grown’, as if that precludes any Islamic connection.

    This is the aim of the Left, to downplay the role of Islam in terrorist attacks, attempt to assign blame to America. Failing that, blame governments such as the UK for not taking enough care of immigrants, rather than admitting that too many immigrants are what has caused the problem.

    Waleed Ali’s obfuscating and myopic piece is here…

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/sifting-through-the-debris-for-real-legacy-of-attacks-20110910-1k2md.html

  6. Richard Ryan says:

    A letter to The Guardian 1977 ” All terrorists at the invitation of the Government end up with drinks at the Dorchester.” Examples. Taliban, already in talks with the invaders,———-IRA—–talks with the British invaders. Talks and support for the Libyan rebels or terrorists.

  7. Richard Ryan says:

    American Terrorists! Good-Good? Muslim Terrorists——bad-bad- bad- very bad, extreme bad, etc.etc.etc. Now repeat this 2977 times———–the figure of 2977 is the lives lost on the Tower Demolition.

  8. Richard Ryan says:

    The September11 attack will go down in American Mythology——– I liken it to——say like the Trojan Horse and the Greeks finally getting into the city of Troy.

  9. Angel says:

    Explain this then Richard

  10. Richard Ryan says:

    Iain, did not get an invite to Jeremy’s wedding? I see, wonder why?

  11. Iain Hall says:

    That is scary stuff Angel

  12. Richard Ryan says:

    Angel! ABORTION always proves fatal to the unborn child. Over 100,000 abortions in Australia every year——–just imagine these “human resources” could be used for other sources, such as capitalism—war soldiers, etc-etc.——what a “human waste” I blame it on climate change, or the carbon tax.

  13. Angel says:

    Huh ???
    Children are not resources Richard,are you suggesting we breed stupidly here in Aus and strap bombs to our kids. OMG

  14. Richard Ryan says:

    Angel! IT’S the old story, “populate or perish” so start working for Australia——-start breeding!

  15. Iain Hall says:

    Well Richard perhaps the next chapter should be all about deciding who we allow/encourage to immigrate into this country then, because there is more than one way to get to the desired result of a decent future for our children.

  16. Angel says:

    Another old story – quality over quantity

  17. Richard Ryan says:

    Just watching ” I am an American” Williams playing tennis—what a tosser she is!

  18. Richard Ryan says:

    Memo to Williams: ” I am an American”——–that’s no recommendation.

  19. Sax says:

    She is indeed Richard, and guess what ?

    She was just given a massive reality jolt, by, wait for it…….. an aussie !

    Woohoo, c’mon aussie c’mon !
    😉

  20. Richard Ryan says:

    YEAH-YEAH! And all on September 11——Shalom.

  21. […] almost as silly as Jeremy Sear winning an award for intellectual honesty after his many posts that have revealed he does not live up to his own […]

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: