I have blogged many posts documenting the perverse use of the media of "militants" to describe terrorists.
Melbourne jury convicts militants
Militants?
And what did they do, or try to do these militants?
A Muslim cleric and five of his followers have been convicted of belonging to a terrorist group which allegedly planned attacks in Australia...The group was accused of planning to stage "violent jihad", targeting the prime minister and major sports events...prosecutors had argued that the group planned to attack an Australian rules football final that attracts nearly 100,000 people every year in Melbourne.
The men were also accused of plotting to assassinate former Prime Minister John Howard, who had authorised the deployment of Australian troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
No attacks took place...The cleric allegedly told his supporters that it was permissible to kill women, children and the elderly.
...the case against them relied heavily on telephone conversations that were intercepted by the authorities.
But thank God for defence lawyers for they said
it was the suspects' bravado that led them to discuss violent attacks in Melbourne but insisted they had no ability to carry them out.
One of the men's lawyers, Remy Ven de Wiel, told the court that Muslims in Australia had a sense of "powerlessness and political impotence" and resorted to empty talk. He reportedly said Benbrika "couldn't organise a booze-up in a brewery".
Maybe there are "militant" lawyers?
P.S. Actually, that lawyer is stupid. What would a Muslim prohibited from drinking alcohol be doing in a brewery?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment