Australia Releases Terrorist Financiers – What If They Were JI Freedom Fighters?
Posted on April 2nd, 2010
Dilrook Kannangara
JI or Jamah Islamia is an Indonesia based freedom fighters. They carried out the Bali bombings in 2002 killing a few hundreds. Compared to the acts of Tamil Tigers, JI violence is next to nothing. Tamil Tigers have carried out more than 100 bomb attacks not just one. Then why did Australia released Tamil Tiger financiers? This is a question that puzzles many terrorism watchers. If this selective application of the law continues against terrorism, there will never be a day when terrorism will be wiped out from the world. What would be the decision had these three people financed JI or Al Qaeda? In that case they would have been subjected to all the provisions of the law may be because they practice the Islamic faith similar to the victims of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So there emerges an unwritten law that sits above the written law in some countries. In these countries, there is a separate unwritten law that specifies different punishment to Islam followers for the same offense. Religion is the fundamental criterion in judging the severity of an offense. This anti-Islamic tendency is going to breed further hatred and violence in already war stricken Middle East.
Australia seems very concerned about Sri Lankan asylum seekers. However, Australian policy makers donƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t see the connection between asylum seekers and terrorists. While refusing to admit this fact, Australia wants Sri Lanka to do something about it. This is another case where each country has different views on the issue. It does not make sense for Sri Lanka to invest a large amount of money to prevent asylum seekers leaving the country although it is very important for Australia. This is another example of how cross border criminals are encouraged when there is no real co-operation between countries. However, cross border criminals donƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t follow discrimination. They team up with anyone to advance their cause. For instance Tamil Tigers had close links with the Taliban. This close relationship helped Tamil Tigers get suicide bomber kits, surface to air missiles and C4 explosives. To match cross border criminalsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ worldwide network of co-operative syndicates, the world community must at least co-operate on matters that affects them all.
e.g. Terrorism, human/drug trafficking
Sri Lanka fought Tamil Tiger terrorists for 26 long years. Australia is fighting the Taliban for 9 years now and Iraqi insurgents for 7 years. ThereƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s a lot of knowledge that can be shared for mutual benefit. But by following one-sided actions that are detrimental to others, Australia has shut the door to meaningful co-operation. It wonƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t be difficult for JI financiers, if ever caught in Australia, to plead innocence and avoid punishment claiming judicial precedence. Judicial precedence requires the verdict to follow the verdict of a similar case previously.
As long as real co-operation is denounced by Australia, Sri Lanka should not ban peaceful indoctrination work and financing work of any Jihad or JI groups to be used in Australia. If a nation adopts the theory that one manƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s terrorist is another manƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s freedom fighter, there is no harm in adopting the same notion towards it.
|
JI or Jamah Islamia is an Indonesia based freedom fighters. They carried out the Bali bombings in 2002 killing a few hundreds. Compared to the acts of Tamil Tigers, JI violence is next to nothing. Tamil Tigers have carried out more than 100 bomb attacks not just one. Then why did Australia released Tamil Tiger financiers? This is a question that puzzles many terrorism watchers. If this selective application of the law continues against terrorism, there will never be a day when terrorism will be wiped out from the world. What would be the decision had these three people financed JI or Al Qaeda? In that case they would have been subjected to all the provisions of the law may be because they practice the Islamic faith similar to the victims of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So there emerges an unwritten law that sits above the written law in some countries. In these countries, there is a separate unwritten law that specifies different punishment to Islam followers for the same offense. Religion is the fundamental criterion in judging the severity of an offense. This anti-Islamic tendency is going to breed further hatred and violence in already war stricken Middle East. Australia seems very concerned about Sri Lankan asylum seekers. However, Australian policy makers donƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t see the connection between asylum seekers and terrorists. While refusing to admit this fact, Australia wants Sri Lanka to do something about it. This is another case where each country has different views on the issue. It does not make sense for Sri Lanka to invest a large amount of money to prevent asylum seekers leaving the country although it is very important for Australia. This is another example of how cross border criminals are encouraged when there is no real co-operation between countries. However, cross border criminals donƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t follow discrimination. They team up with anyone to advance their cause. For instance Tamil Tigers had close links with the Taliban. This close relationship helped Tamil Tigers get suicide bomber kits, surface to air missiles and C4 explosives. To match cross border criminalsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ worldwide network of co-operative syndicates, the world community must at least co-operate on matters that affects them all. e.g. Terrorism, human/drug trafficking Sri Lanka fought Tamil Tiger terrorists for 26 long years. Australia is fighting the Taliban for 9 years now and Iraqi insurgents for 7 years. ThereƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s a lot of knowledge that can be shared for mutual benefit. But by following one-sided actions that are detrimental to others, Australia has shut the door to meaningful co-operation. It wonƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t be difficult for JI financiers, if ever caught in Australia, to plead innocence and avoid punishment claiming judicial precedence. Judicial precedence requires the verdict to follow the verdict of a similar case previously. As long as real co-operation is denounced by Australia, Sri Lanka should not ban peaceful indoctrination work and financing work of any Jihad or JI groups to be used in Australia. If a nation adopts the theory that one manƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s terrorist is another manƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s freedom fighter, there is no harm in adopting the same notion towards it. |
April 2nd, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Australia is the most corrupt country in the (un)developed world. Their judges take drugs.(This is not a secret or a joke – there are lot of drug addicted judges.)
The police have taken money from drug chiefs in Melbourne and Gold Coast. So many politicians got caught with corrupt practice. Queensland ex-Premier was given a lucrative deal in USA for the handover of premiership to current Premier. Recently the federal government supported a convicted corrupt Rio Tinto official in China.
Unless Australians take quick action, that country will be worse than Indonesia.
In this case it could have been anyone who arranged payment or the judge could have been on drugs. Normally, Australians do not let go terrorist. They do not like terrorist. They even jailed a innocent Indian doctor on suspicion. This should be corruption.
April 3rd, 2010 at 3:17 am
Yes, there is corruption in Australia and perhaps some Australian judges (whether it is a ‘lot’ of them that do so is questionable) do take drugs. But the outcome of this case cannot be attributed to official corruption or the judge being on drugs. There are many decisions in the Australian courts that Australians find surprising, where the accused seem to get away lightly or without being found guilty. Often this is due to poor police work, the prosecution case not being properly handled and/or the defence case being presented better by more competent counsel.
It seems to me that this is what has happened in this case as well. But here we also seem to have an incredibly naïve judge. How on earth could he have told the accused, as he is reported to have done, that he believed their aims were “not purposely to assist terrorist activity’? That is absolutely unbelievable! According to the judge’s line of reasoning these three men who were so active in raising funds, over a long period, for a known terrorist outfit were doing so unaware of what that outfit was actually doing!