Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Posts tagged '9/11'

Tag Archives: 9/11

American Dhimmi

Be afraid Comrades


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.

A 9-11 sunrise at Chez Hall

Sunrise at Chez Hall 9-11-2011

Yesterday I was extremely flippant about murder and death, today I am feeling far more sombre. A glance at the date stamp for this post will tell you why. Yes the tenth anniversary of that day is upon us and frankly I don’t want to just reiterate what I have said before  on this sad anniversary here at the Sandpit, nor am I going to drag out the sack cloth and ashes. To be honest I like funerals because they are all about love and they give us a ceremony that gives shape and form to our grief, a place to be angry, and sad but ultimately they teach us just how precious life is:

click for source

But also because of the women and men I’ve loved who died so young, leaving young kids or bereaved parents behind: three of cancer, one of motor neurone disease, one of a heart attack, two in car accidents, one by suicide.

So how do we cope, what do we do with the grief from all the losses we’ve suffered and the impending losses we know are yet to come?

A new friend said to me: “I’ve been to too many funerals this month. I cope by enjoying every moment that I’m alive. I do it in honour of those who can’t do it any more.” Another told me she no longer does anything or tolerates anyone she doesn’t like. “Time is too short.”

It’s not as if we can ever let go of the pain and fear of loss. But living well and living passionately is our only defence against the nagging truth of mortality. And if our departed loved ones could talk, they would echo the mantra: “Dance as if no one is watching.”

So that is my message for this of all days as well, the best way to remember those dead because of the Jihadists, is not to seek revenge or payback (although justice has some curative value) but by living our lives well and being the best people that we can be. Time is indeed short and as I watch every new sunrise I count the blessings that the new day brings and I am thankful.

With respect Comrades

Guess Who

Click for source

Cheers Comrades

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

Pat nails all of the important questions about Osama Bin Laden

Cheers Comrades

Natural Justice and arrogant latte-sipping lawyers

It is of course understandable that those in the legal profession would think that justice actually requires the performance in their own  theatre, with appropriate posturing  from their own stars of that stage. They truly think that the courts and the legal profession have an absolute monopoly upon the dispensing of justice. Personally I think that the claim for justice being the exclusive business of lawyers and judges is  flawed. Firstly  I shall give you the  example of   Geoffrey Robertson who says this in the Age and was very quick of the mark at the ABC making essentially  the same argument:

I do not minimise the security problems of holding a trial or overlook the danger of it ending up as a squalid circus like that of Saddam Hussein. But the notion that any legal process would have been too hard must be rejected. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – also alleged to be an architect of September 11 – will go on trial shortly. Had bin Laden been captured he should have been in the dock alongside him, so that their shared responsibility could have been properly examined.

Bin Laden could not have been tried for the attacks on the twin towers at the International Criminal Court, since its jurisdiction only came into existence nine months later. But the United Nations Security Council could have set up an ad hoc tribunal in The Hague, with international judges (including Muslim jurists), to provide a fair trial and a reasoned verdict that would have convinced the Arab street of his guilt.

This would have been the best way of demystifying this man, debunking his cause and de-brainwashing his followers. In the dock he would have been reduced in stature – never more to be remembered as the tall, soulful figure on the mountain, but as a hateful and hate-filled old man. Since his videos exult in the killing of innocent civilians, any cross-examination would have emphasised his inhumanity. These benefits that flow from real justice have been forgone.

The obsessive belief of the US in capital punishment – alone among advanced nations – is reflected in its rejoicing at the manner of bin Laden’s demise. Barack Obama has most likely secured re-election by approving the execution. This may be welcome, given the alternatives of Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee (who have both urged that Julian Assange be hunted down in similar fashion) or Donald Trump. But it is a sad reflection on the continuing attraction of summary execution.

There seems to be a great deal of post facto suggestions that Bin laden should/could have been taken alive but this is absolutely unrealistic. So many of Bin Laden’s acolytes have been willing to detonate explosives when they faced capture that the police and military just do not give the the benefit of the doubt a head shot is the best way to ensure that a cornered Jihadist is the only one sent to meet their maker, it is only later when they have been neutralised can anyone be sure if they posed a real threat to those sent to capture or kill them. In that very short time between entering the room and firing the fatal shots with a full on adrenaline rush there would have been no scope for the arrest of Bin laden. firing the fatal shots would have been a split second decision and fully consistent with the reputation of the target and the expectations of those commandos that the target would not “come quietly”.  When one side does not acknowledge any limits to their behaviour (as the Jihadists have proven so many times by deliberately  killing innocents) and they think that dying for their cause buys them a place in paradise it is unreasonable to expect that they should be captured as a first preference rather than the safest option of them being killed
At its heart the notion of justice requires that someone who acts in an unacceptable manner receives a sanction that is an appropriate recompense for their crimes. What we consider to be a crime in the first place is essentially decided by social consensus and we rely upon the same sort  social consensus to decide if someone accused of a crime is guilty by the use of a jury. Thus it is that the courts and Lawyers like Robertson are really just the proxies for  the people. However there are times when we just do not need such proxies. The man was guilty and his death was just, the fact that there was no convoluted legal ritual preceding his well deserved demise is a blessing because we have been spared the same sort of  evil court room grandstanding  we saw when the Bali Bombers were tried and eventually executed. We all think that there is a justice of sorts evident when bad things happen to bad people. There is merit in this belief because we see that sort of happen-stance as a balancing of the books which is after all what we understand justice to be isn’t it?
The arrogance of the legal profession here is breath taking. Is there really any doubt that Bin Laden was guilty of the crimes that he boasted about to the world?  What sentence would Robertson deem appropriate given his oft stated objection to capital punishment? Anyway this raise the question what precisely is Justice and does it require the theatre that made Robertson a star?
So I’ argue that the killing of Bin laden is just, he got what he deserved, and that would have been the judgement of a reasonable court anyway so in terms of natural justice there is no problem here at all.
Cheers Comrades

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

%d bloggers like this: