Home » Posts tagged 'London 7/7'
Tag Archives: London 7/7
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.
I have often argued here that there are some crimes for which there is only one adequate penalty . Well what could be a better case in point than the cold-blooded murder of more than 3000 people on 9-11?
Mohammed and his four co-accused will be brought from the controversial prison at Guantanamo Bay to face multiple charges, including murder, relating to the suicide hijackings that destroyed the Twin Towers, large parts of the Pentagon and brought a plane down in a Pennsylvania field, claiming almost 3,000 lives.
Attempting to reassure Americans that the suspected perpetrators of the worst terrorist attack in history would not walk free, President Barack Obama said: “I am absolutely convinced Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice.”
Eric Holder, the US attorney general, said that after reviewing the evidence he was “confident of a successful outcome”.
He added: “If I had concerns we would perhaps be in a different place.”
Stressing the emotional significance of staging the trial near the scene of the crime, he said: “After eight years of delay those allegedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks will finally face justice.”
He underlined his confidence “in the ability of our courts to provide these defendants a fair trial, just as they have for 200 years”, adding that he fully expected to direct prosecutors to seek the death penalty for these “heinous acts”.
Ok lets just go through the”anti death penalty ” check list shall we?
- Doubt about the guilt of the accused? No problem when they boast about their crimes
- The crime does not warrant a capital sanction. Hmm we are talking about 9/11 here, who would believe that one?
- The fairness of the trial process. Hmm, Well a trial in New York has to be “fairer” that a military commission in the minds of even the most froth encrusted Latte sipper… So that one is attended to.
- Any method of execution is a “cruel and unusual’ punishment. No that won’t wash. There are some crimes that actually justify the most cruel and painful end that can be imagined. By any measure 9/11 is one of them.
Well that is sorted then, bring on the trials and then bring on the executions.
Well this looks like a win for the good guys and I can only hope that the sentence is commensurate with the crime, but the cynic in me expects that these scum bags will enjoy a rather comfortable sojourn Her Majesty’s hotel with all of their needs and desires met with obsequious sincerity that is essential to the mantra of “multiculturalism”.
After a retrial at Woolwich Crown Court, jurors found the ringleader, Abdulla Ahmed, and two other men, Assad Sarwar and Tanvir Hussain, guilty of plotting to use liquid bombs to blow up airliners en route from Heathrow to the United States.
Another defendant, Umar Islam, was found guilty of a more general charge of conspiracy to murder because jurors could not decide whether he knew of the specific targets in the plot three years ago.
Three other men, Arafat Khan, Ibrahim Savant and Waheed Zaman, were found not guilty of conspiracy to blow up aircraft but could face a retrial on the more general conspiracy to murder charge because jurors could not reach a verdict.
The eighth defendant, Muslim convert Donald Stewart-Whyte, was found not guilty on the terrorism charges but had pleaded guilty to a firearms offence.
Ali, 28, was the leader of an East London terror cell inspired from Pakistan, the court heard. He had planned to detonate home-made liquid bombs in suicide attacks on transatlantic aircraft bound for major north American cities.
It was the most complex and daring British-based terrorist conspiracy in modern times and, according to the Crown Prosecution Service, could have killed “hundreds of innocent people”
My question is simply does their punishment actaully fit the crime? I tend to think that there is only one entirely valid sentence for the crime committed by this sort of scrote and it entails the use of this .
Oh and what is the common denominator between all of the convicted felons here?
I have been watching, with some interest, the way that the latest terrorist cell arrests have been unfolding and especially the reactions to those arrests from the usual suspects. Many on the left seem to be in total denial that there is even a problem or that the problem has its genesis in the faith for which Mohamed is the Prophet. This report below from The Courier mail gives us a snapshot of just how some Aussie Muslims see the world and just how much their faith is central to their world view.
HATE-filled messages on a prominent Muslim website claim the alleged plot to attack Australian soldiers would have been justified.
“This is the hate the western world has on us. They want to lock us up with no freedom,” Mohammed said on the Aussie Muslims website.
“Why is it called terrorist attack when the Aussie troops have been raping, killing innocent Muslims for years? We are intitle (sic) to defend ourselfs (sic).
“In this country we can’t trust nobody. The Australian Government is corrupted.”
One posting this week suggested having Australian soldiers as the claimed targets of the alleged Melbourne terrorist cell was appropriate.
“More than a million innocent civilians have died as an outcome of the war on terror that our soldiers are involved in,” Australian Muslim Tazza said.
The site carries a photograph of Australian soldiers in uniform with the caption: “Real Australian Terrorists”.
It also features a photograph of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd addressing Australian troops overseas with the caption: “Terrorist Mastermind Delivers Sermon to Impressionable Followers”.
Another recent posting claimed convicted Melbourne terrorist cell leader and Muslim cleric Abdul Benbrika was wrongly found guilty by Christians.
“Will Australian Jews who committed war crimes in Gaza be charged? Or do terrorism laws only apply to Muslims and dark-skinned people?
“When will Kevin Rudd be charged with organising terror attacks in Afghanistan? These attacks were planned on Australian soil.”
The site, which claims to the home of Australian Muslims. has also urged Muslims to email complaints to the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court to protest about comments made about those charged refusing to stand in court. It has provided the court’s email address to make it easy for them to do so.
Site contributor Abdraheim said: “Kaafirs oppress Muslims everywhere all the while accusing them of criminal activity. Australia is no different.”
When Andrew bolt pointed out the rather obvious omission in the reporting of this latest conspiracy was pussyfooting around the “Islamic connection” some Lefties like our “Old Pal” Jeremy Sear was very keen to play the race card.
“Racist? What has race got to do with Islam?”
Before charging in with that, SB, did you read Bolt’s piece?
“Take the Muslim Lebanese we took in during the Lebanese civil war. Many did fit in well, but too many others ended up on welfare . . . or worse. In fact, the Lebanese-born are twice as likely as the rest of us to be in jail, and Lebanese dominate several Sydney crime gangs.
It’s not just a Muslim thing, of course. The Vietnamese are three times more likely to be imprisoned – and the rate for Tongans and Samoans is still worse.
CRIME figures for Somali immigrants…”
(quoting from Andrew Bolt)
Yeah, not racist at all.
This just in:
Calling for us to reduce our intake of people of certain racial backgrounds is racist.
Personally I think the issue that Lefties like Jeremy refuses to acknowledge is that when we choose migrants to come to this country that we should be choosing people who can leave their old animosities behind them and dedicate themselves to the well being and prosperity of this country and when we see the sort of opinions expressed on that Muslim website and there are clearly some people who have been allowed to come here who are still engaged in the arguments and polemics that blighted their homelands.
According to Latte sippers like Jeremy we should never dare to say the obvious, nor should we take note of the roiling hatreds that imbue the mindsets of the prospective immigrants into account when accessing their application for entry and residency here. I suppose we should be more forgiving to someone like Jeremy because I think that he just does not understand the mind of anyone for whom religion is the centre of their lives. As far as I can tell from the things that he writes about religion I think that he sees Islam as being rather like Christian religion in that it is a once a week observance thing and as easily ignored as the practice Christianity so often is in this country. He is of course wrong about that. When you have a faith that demands adherence to strict dietary rules, the observance of ritual prayer five times every day, adherence to particular ways of dressing and a distinct separation of the genders there is no way that the faith will be as easily discarded as many lefties have discarded their Christian upbringing.
The thing that we have to strive for when discussing the issue of Islamists and Jihadis is to rightly hold them and their ideology up to scrutiny and the disdain that they deserve without unduly distressing those followers of the faith who just want to get on with their lives and be part of our countries rich tapestry. So we have to avoid the mindless hatred of immigrants of the sort that we see in the extreme right but at the same time we have to avoid the wilful blindness to the threat demonstrated by extreme lefties like Sear.
Lets call a spade a spade and admit that there are elements within Islam that are antithetical to our liberal secular democracy and honestly address them without fear or the undue deference expressed by the politically correct quislings like our learned friend. Because when it comes down to it the ones who will be first up against the wall under the Caliphate that The Islamists dream about will not be the devout Christians, that the Latte sippers so often disparage, but the atheists who support our free-wheeling attitude to sex and gender equality just like Jeremy does.
Enlightened self interest should dictate a more balanced view from the Latte-sippers. Sadly they are as blind to that as they are to the threat posed by the ghettoisation of our society by the current version of Multiculturalism.
Just remember ,especially today, that the enemy that we face is willing to kill innocent civilians in their thousands in the name of their god. I personally believe that when you can’t negotiate a peaceful settlement in a war then you have to kill all who would bring death to our people. It is as simple as that. While it may be possible to reach an accommodation with the many Muslims who have fled the oppressive regimes of their homelands there is no doubt that the religion itself has the some rather pernicious aspects that actually encourage both dishonesty and the propagation of death and destruction upon those who have the audacity not to accept their understanding of both the deity and the purpose of life.
The crux of the issue is this; is our life and existence here on earth the warm up or the show?
Now the Jihadists’ belief that it is the warm up would not matter if they only wanted to rush to get to there on their own, like the nutters from the heaven’s gate cult, instead they insist on taking as many innocents with them as they can. So I see no problem in sending as many of them to their paradise as we can find tickets* for. I do hope that it is possible to distinguish the Jihadists from the civilians that they hide amongst. But there is nothing to be gained from appeasement and an awful lot to loose. So on this sixth anniversary of 9/11 I say we must stand strong and gird our collective loins because this fight is far from over.
I have been following the drama surrounding the doctor accused of aiding terrorists by recklessly supplying them with his Sim card, by doing so giving them virtual use of his identity for the commission of their crimes. Now there has been a little bit of derision from the left end of the blogosphere about how trivial this charge is but I think that it is rightly something that cannot be so blithely dismissed. The man faces the possibility of going to prison for up to fifteen years so it is clearly not such a trivial matter to the law.
Legal Eagle has a look at the case in a balanced manner but in these days of identity theft and deliberately created “phantoms” I don’t think that we can take to lightly the importance of something like a sim card just because it is a piece of plastic smaller than a postage stamp. It is what can be done with it that is significant and that is where the criminal responsibility from its misuse derives. This would of course not be so prominent amongst the chattering classes had the doctor in question not been the first person detained with out charge under Australia’s necessarily tough anti terror legislation.
Statements by our PM to the effect that the laws under which Dr Haneef was being held will be beefed up if that proves necessary brings to mind the inevitable question of how far should a society be prepared to suspend or amend the civil liberties that we all enjoy in the fight against Jihadist terror. In the UK it has seriously been suggested that terror suspects should be subject to internment.
Jones, a former chair of Acpo’s counter-terrorism committee, said: ‘We are now arguing for judicially supervised detention for as long as it takes. We are up against the buffers on the 28-day limit. We understand people will be concerned and nervous, but we need to create a system with sufficient judicial checks and balances which holds people, but no longer than a day [more than] necessary.
‘We need to go there [unlimited detention] and I think that politicians of all parties and the public have great faith in the judiciary to make sure that’s used in the most proportionate way possible.’
The proposal has provoked anger among civil rights groups. ‘It is coming to the point when we have to ask serious questions about the role of Acpo in a constitutional democracy,’ said Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty. ‘We elect politicians to determine legislation and we expect chief constables to uphold the rule of law, not campaign for internment.’ Internment was last used in Britain during the Gulf war against Iraqis suspected of links to Saddam Hussein’s army. It has also been used against terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland and Germans during the Second World War.
Of course the UK has a much more pressing problem than we do (having had actual fatal attacks on it’s soil) but we are still on the Jihadist hit list none the less. So we have to ask the question is there a place for the internment of Terror suspects (with Judicial oversight as has been suggested in the UK)? It certainly seems to me that the stakes are too high just to take the line that our normal criminal law procedures are not entirely up to the task, but then again our civil liberties are an aspect of our societies that we should not blithely wish away…
A tough question for which I do not have an easy answer.
FOUR men convicted of a conspiracy to bomb London’s public transport system in July 2005 were jailed for life last night, with the judge setting them a minimum term of 40 years.
The four – Muktar Said Ibrahim, 29; Yassin Omar, 26; Ramzi Mohammed, 25; and Hussain Osman, 28 – were found guilty on Monday over a failed bid to set off four bombs in London on July 21, 2005, two weeks after the suicide bombings on the city’s underground rail network and a bus, which killed 56.
The judge at Woolwich Crown Court, in southeast London, said that both the July 7 bombings and the July 21 failed attacks were carried out by terrorist “cells” under the control of the al-Qa’ida network.
Justice Adrian Fulford said that if the bombs had gone off, “at least 50 people would have died, hundreds of people would have been wounded, thousands would have had their lives permanently damaged, disfigured or otherwise, whether they were Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, agnostic or atheist”.
He said the events of July 7 meant the July 21 plotters knew how deadly their bombs were likely to be. “The family and friends of the dead and the injured, the hundreds, indeed thousands, captured underground in terrifying circumstances, the smoke, the screams of the wounded and the dying – this each defendant knew,” Justice Fulford said.
“They planned this, they prepared for it.
“They had spent many hours making viable bombs.
“After 7/7, each defendant knew exactly what the result would be.”
Well the verdict is in and a forty-year minimum is a pretty good result in the absence of a capital sanction, as long as some future appeal court does not reduce their sentence…
My bold 😉