Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » World Events » Afghanistan

Category Archives: Afghanistan

Some thoughts about mooted changes to Media ownership law in Australia



People are creatures of habit and it is only that so many people are habituated to buying the news papers that any are still being sold at all. Just take any kind of commute on public transport and consider how many people are reading a paper and how many are staring at a screen instead. Some certainly may be playing games or even watching video but I expect that they will be out numbering those who are still reading dead tree editions of the MSM.

Then there is the things in the paper that people buy them for, most papers are not exclusively about politics and current affairs anyway, so some readers will be buying the paper for its coverage of sport, lifestyle or even just for the crossword puzzles.  My point is that the political classes (in particular those from the left ) just look at the raw sales figured and they think that every reader of the Herald Sun is in the thrall of Rupert Murdoch and that the owners dictate to their readers directing their opinions. The reality is that all media entities write to their audience. If they don’t their audience wither away quite quickly.  With the coming of the internet this is even more how things work Online entities are even more in an endless quest for readers so you have to play to what your readers want rather than thinking that you can manipulate their thinking. I have been writing a blog for nearly a decade now and I have noticed just how quickly particular readers flit in and out its the same now with the way that people read things online from the likes of Murdoch, Fairfax or even the Guardian People don’t just get their news from one source any more no matter what the subject is they will read what several sources say about it and then make up their mind. This behaviour is the same when it comes to broadcast TV people flit form one channel to another seeking different perspectives. My argument is simple, if the media  consumers have changed their habits then perhaps there is something in the notion that media diversity laws from the last century should perhaps reflect those changes as well.

Cheers Comrades


The Fate of Traitors

I suspect that after a substantial part of his bid has been served that Bradley Manning may just wish that he had been convicted of the most serious charge so that he could have had the “green dream” or an appointment with a firing squad rather than spending the rest of his life within the walls of a military prison .

click  for source

click for source

As the US military justice system is not so inclined to make sentences for multiple crimes run concurrently, choosing instead to make them cumulative its very likely that Manning will spend the rest of his life behind bars this is of course going to be a most timely reminder of the fate that awaits all traitors and oath breakers…
Now if only they could send in a Seal teem to liberate Julian  Assange from tat embassy room in London they could have a nice show trial and then…
Cheers Comrades

sadly too true

if you aid the enemy, then you are the enemy

Cue:- Richard Ryan

Waleed Aly and The Game of Drones

Like a lot of minions of the left Waleed Aly has a rather warped view of the morality of war and he is very clearly bemoaning the fact that in the age of the drone the Jihadists really have no where to hide. The sadly amusing part of his argument against drones is that that he whines about the prospect of non combatants being killed when Jihadists are taken out yet he does not say a single word about just why the strikes are both necessary and justified.  Like a lot of people who follow the religion of peace he seems incapable of enunciating any sort of criticism of the Jihadists and their “struggle” with modern secular society.  Without their ever present ideology of death to unbelievers and the establishment of a global caliphate not a single helfire missile would need to be fired from a drone.

Then in his conclusion Waleed gives us the “lack of honour ” argument about the use of drones:

click for source

click for source

Pardon me Waleed but your argument begs the question of the morality of the deliberate  targeting of civilians by the Jihadists that you are implicitly defending here.  They have killed many thousands of civilians in the name of your Prophet and your God  and yet you whine a bout the possibility of a “non combatant” being killed while in the company of a Jihadist? Call me mad if you like but when it comes to the relative virtue of each side in the war against the Jihadists the Americans come out orders of magnitude better. None the less war in all of its guises is a dirty and bloody business where nothing matters if you don’t win.  Its not a game where each side will  respect a set of rules invented by the arm chair moralists its always about that final move that will make your side prevail.

Waleed has obviously been reading too much King Arthur and not enough Game of Thrones if he thinks that you can defeat a dishonourable enemy like the Jihadists by treating war against them like a sporting competition. The currency of the Jihadists is that anything goes against the unbelievers and before the development of the killer drone the only way to destroy them required  many boots on foreign soil, now it doesn’t and I for one fully endorse the use of technology  that makes every big league Jihadist tremble with fear every time he steps out into the open, or drives from one spider hole to the next, The Jihadists started the “war on terror” so its only justice that now they should live in the terror of the unannounced death from above.

Cheers Comrades

sadly too true

Waleed needs to look at the Jihadists before he condemns the use of drones

Is it the love of beer that prevents Damian Doyle from converting to Islam?


Damian Doyle has always struck me as a strange individual, so sanctimonious and so judgemental of yours truly and so full of condescension for anyone who does not hold beliefs concurrent  with his own. He is an avid consumer of what I call “disaster porn” and if there is some natural disaster in the third world he is onto it like a flash tweeting about it or decrying the tardy response of the west to said disasters. Anyway  our Damian has written a rather wordy piece about the way that Islam is perceived in this country and in it he sneers at  any and all criticism of that faith.

During the question and answer session it became clear that many members of the audience were genuinely curious about Islam. Having heard so many terrible things about the religion – not just at the forum but elsewhere too – they wanted to understand its core teachings and central texts. One woman commented she had attempted to read the Qur’an but found it unintelligible and confusing. That’s a pretty normal response as it’s a very different book to, say, the New Testament. “So where can we learn more about Islam?”

The response at that forum, naturally enough under the circumstances, was not all that helpful. The conveners were unanimous in their advice, “There’s an excellent website called Jihad Watch, which is run by an organisation that we’re linked with. Its main author, Robert Spencer, has also written a lot of books that are essential reading”.

Of course, you don’t need to attend a meeting of the Q Society, a fringe group fighting the good fight against the ‘Islamisation of Australia’ and the implementation of sharia law in our school tuckshops, to meet people who see Islam as a baffling unknown. Through conversations in pubs and coffee shops, by reading letters in tabloid newspapers and on blogs, or by listening to commentary on television or radio, it’s easy to see that Islam is a poorly understood religion in Australia.


Notice the way that Doyle frames his barely concealed contempt for anyone who is critical of Islam? The reference to Tuck-shops is clearly an allusion   to the cruelty concerns of the issue of the conversion of institutional food sources to halal even when only a very tiny number of the consumers are Muslim. It seems to me that Doyle is suggesting that only very favourable discussion of Islam should ever be listened to and considered and that anything that is at all critical of Islam is haram.

  Please dear readers go to his piece and you will find a great example of quisling rhetoric in full flight, an essay that even tries to play down the significance of Female Genital Mutilation Note his choice of words to describe the practice:

A sad example of this is the issue of female genital cutting. The attendees at the Q Society forum would have been left with the impression that female genital cutting is an Islamic practice as an example of the religion’s repression and abuse of women. By contrast, the conference attendees heard an account of a pre-Islamic cultural practice being eliminated from a community as a result of a local imam’s leadership during the 1950s.


Yes Damian we have all heard  that line and although it may be true in the most pedantic sense for every Muslim society that abhors and rejects the practice there are many others who are at best indifferent to the vile practice..

It seems to me that for Damian   dreams about is an uncritical acceptance of Islam   and the practice of the faith, both here and elsewhere in the world, and a substantive deference to the sensitivities of those who follow that faith. Thus he wants no criticism of the hot heads who call for the beheading of  unbelievers   and he wants to see nothing but positive  PR for the faith within the Australian community.:

And so I’ve decided to start small. To think about the things I can influence, rather than those I can’t. People will decide for themselves what to believe about Islam and its role in society, both in Australia and globally. Some will continue to reach out to sources of information that, in my view, are toxic and uninformed. I need to remember that a simple thing I can do is to let them know there are other sources, that those sources can be trusted, and that obtaining information from a range of sources is the best way to become informed.


The trouble with this exercise in parsimony, as readers of this blog will know, is that Damian  considers any sort of criticism of Islam at all is an example of “bigotry” and I can’t help thinking that the only thing that is preventing Damian from going the whole hog to making the declaration ” There is no god but Allah and Mohamed is his prophet” must be  Mr Doyle’s love of beer.

Cheers Comrades


click to read Damian’s tweets

Our learned friend makes a noobish error about war and infra red cameras at night.

Our learned friend seems to have a never ending ability to amuse with both his technological naivety and his willingness  to embrace the most jaundiced view of the way that the USA does anything in the modern world. Be it the way they legislate copyright or distribute creative works on film. However he has outdone himself with his latest, err, critique of the piece from yesterdays Sixty Minutes. I actaully saw the piece in question and it was a pretty standard puff piece that tells us nothing that is new, I’ve seen plenty of magazine articles that cover essentially the same ground.

He offers these two images and the following commentary:


The white thing that person is holding is something hot in the desert, like something metal in the sun meaning it must be a gun that’s been fired by a “bad guy” who cannot possibly be captured and must be blown up. (jeremy sear)

Photobucket Pictures, Images and Photos

Oh come on, it’s not as if it’s in colour or you can see a bloody mist. (We’re lobbying the military to upgrade their cameras for the follow-up report.) Then it’s apparently not disturbing at all. Boom! Ha ha, it’s funny ‘cos we apparently don’t have any empathy whatsoever for human beings in foreign countries if we’re looking at them through the camera of a military drone and told that they’re “insurgents”. Who cares if it’s unavoidable or not.(jeremy Sear)

The salient point missed by our learned friend in his mad rush to denounce the USA is that the shots in question are from an infra-red image taken at night. So when a gun-barrel shows up white in the footage it is not because of the effect of the sun upon metal in the desert (because even in Latte land the sun only shines in the daytime) it is because it is substantively hotter than the ambient temperature. The footage from the same report that explained how Infra red imaging can distinguish between a soldiers head and his body whilst he is in a sleeping bag should have made it clear to our man at the Bar that he was sprouting rubbish to suggest that there was any doubt that the man in the first image had been firing a the gun he was carrying.

Watch the vision to see what our learned friend missed:

Of course it would be easy to point out just how intellectually dishonest it is to misrepresent what has been said in a piece of television journalism to further one’s own political agenda or to amuse a particular gallery who will undoubtedly lap up any suggestion of the manifest evil of the United States in particular and western society in general but the Sandpit does not claim such a remit, unlike the site run by our learned friend and Comrade Dave Gaukroger …

Hmm anyone care to call him out  on a charge of hypocrisy?

Cheers Comrades

Jezza raises a dead argument that it still smells bad

As shocking and tragic as the recent sinking of an overloaded boat full of “asylum seekers’ is I just can’t help but think that to be honest it is not our responsibility,there is absolutely NOTHING that any Australian government could have done to prevent the loss of life. The boat sank within 40k of the shores of Indonesia yet we have the open door left suggesting that Australia is in some sense culpable for the loss of life. Fools like our learned friend seem to think that because these people were heading in our direction then we should hang our heads in shame that there has been such a tragic loss of life:

Jezza still being silly, click for link

Lets first go to his rather  stupid contention about them being in “danger” in Indonesia. How precisely would they be in danger? Or more correctly why would they be in any more danger than say a Christian Aussie tourist buying some weed in Bali? Sure they might face arrest but is that a mortal danger? I don’t think so… In fact as Muslims they are probably safer than any Aussie tourist  would be in that country.

The second bit of silliness comes from his repeated contention that  it would be practical to not confiscate the boats and prosecute those who have been operating them. Am I the only one who has noticed that he does not link back to the last time he tried to get that argument to float? Where even his own Latte sipping acolytes were less than convinced?  Jezza Maaate, It was an impractical and stupid  idea then and the passage of a little time has done nothing to rescue it from the depths to which the argument sank last time. The fact that you have managed to find only that Loonie Lynot from WA  to support you this time does not bode well for you either. So a word  from the wise, when you put up an argument that is silly and you learnt that it is silly on the first outing then don’t make your self look a total tool by dragging it out again a few weeks later.

The final thing that I want to say about this tragedy is that no matter how seaworthy a boat is it will surely founder if it is overloaded and it set out onto to a savage sea, there is no doubt that bad weather and 5m waves constitutes a savage sea so and so many people crammed upon a boat not built for such numbers was a disaster waiting to happen and I would dearly love our learned friend to explain just how his “let them keep the boats” scheme would have made the slightest difference in this instance.

Cheers Comrades


I have to say that due to his repeated threats to sue yours truly I can’t allow any comemnts that suggest that our learned friend is anything less that utterly  scrupulous about maintaining his his obligations  to his profession and to the ethics that all barristers are obliged demonstrate.

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.

David Hicks may not be able to keep the money from his “Holiday at Club Gitmo” Book, or its about time!!!!

Ah the never ending saga of our favorite Aussie Jihadist; Yep its another story about Hicks, only this time its one which will undoubtedly upset his fan club (Hi PKD 😉  ) because it seem that the Commonwealth is finally going to seize the profits form his self-serving holiday memoir:

click for source

My only question here is why has it taken them so long to act here?

Cheers Comrades

%d bloggers like this: