Terrorism In Australia

The trial of 11 alleged terrorists in the Supreme Court of Victoria is hearing closing arguments for the defendants. After more than five months worth of evidence the closing arguments are making for interesting listening and reading. The first of the closing arguments is in defence of the alleged head of the group, Abdul Nacer Benbrika. Benbrika also goes by the aliases Abu Bakr and Sheikh.

Benbrika is alleged to have directed the activities of a terrorist organization. However, his counsel, Remy Van de Wiel QC, is painting the picture of a man who was all talk and no action. Van de Wiel is portraying his client as unworldly and inept because of his lack of knowledge of certain things. This lack of knowledge includes such classics as thinking you can drive to Tasmania, not being able to spell "Google", not knowing that the Australian Embassy in Jakarta was bombed in 2004, and that there was a Federal election that same year.

My question is a simple one; just because you do not know geography, cannot spell, and unknowing of certain events, does this mean you cannot be a terrorist? I never realized that there was an IQ requirement to be a terrorist.

This chap may well be a "gunna" man. A man who talks the talk but never quite lives up to that talk with action. Yet, this does not mean he did not lead an organization of budding wanna be terrorists. Abu Bakar Bashir is the spiritual head of Jemaah Islamiyya and it is clear that he does not do the dirty work. He has a whole lot of minions that will do that work for him.

I will post the decision when it is handed down.