There isn't much info on the siege going on in a Sydney caf? at the moment, it seems there could be up to two terrorist gunmen holding hostages in Sydney's business district. The Opera House and surrounding areas have been evacuated.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-30473983 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-30473983) and http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2014/12/15/hostage-situation-sydneys-martin-place/ (http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2014/12/15/hostage-situation-sydneys-martin-place/)
I do hope that this episode with be dealt with harshly by the Aussies. This is a sad commentary which will cause much grief to the peaceful Muslim community.......if indeed, they are capable of being peaceful.
I hope so too, if the perpetrator(s?) doesn't kill himself in the process. The pursuit of martyrdom might cause that to happen.
I think that the Muslim community at large is mostly peaceful. There are a few bad apples just as there are in every community, even if they're more prone to do bad things out of religious motivations.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 15, 2014, 02:53:55 AM
I think that the Muslim community at large is mostly peaceful.
Sure, when they are in the minority. When they are in the majority you have Niya's situation in Pakistan. When they are in the minority they practice taqiyya and are deceptive about the nature of Islam. When you see a Muslim majority country truly maintain a free liberal democracy then I will believe that Islam is compatible with liberty. Otherwise, I remain a skeptic.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 15, 2014, 03:07:45 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 15, 2014, 02:53:55 AM
I think that the Muslim community at large is mostly peaceful.
Sure, when they are in the minority. When they are in the majority you have Niya's situation in Pakistan. When they are in the minority they practice taqiyya and are deceptive about the nature of Islam. When you see a Muslim majority country truly maintain a free liberal democracy then I will believe that Islam is compatible with liberty. Otherwise, I remain a skeptic.
Hopefully it will come to that and something will happen to bring them out of their Middle Age views but with the surge of radical islamists all over the place it's more like they're going two steps backwards rather than taking steps forward. The fact that their religion is maniacally expansionist doesn't help either...
The primary victims of Islam in those countries are the natives themselves, whether islamic or not.
I'll admit that I'm not that well versed in politics but isn't Turkey somewhat a secular democracy? It seems that those that get offered some real political and economic benefits might evolve faster.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 15, 2014, 02:53:55 AM
There are a few bad apples just as there are in every community
Bad apples? The whole damned tree is rotten. Now, there may be a few good apples on it, like on any other rotten tree out there, but hidden in the foliage and overshadowed by their putrid peers, they are useless in regard to judging the health of the whole.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 15, 2014, 03:42:57 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 15, 2014, 02:53:55 AM
There are a few bad apples just as there are in every community
Bad apples? The whole damned tree is rotten. Now, there may be a few good apples on it, like on any other rotten tree out there, but hidden in the foliage and overshadowed by their putrid peers, they are useless in regard to judging the health of the whole.
I'll have to agree with that...
Moderate and liberal Muslims who just want to live their lives in peace (yes, I believe that variety does exist) are seeing how a few rotten radical extremists are influencing perceptions on their religion and don't do much to stop it.
Oh, not just muslims, although they do seem to have dominated the wrong headlines in the news for this past decade or so. I was going for an umbrella metaphor.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 15, 2014, 03:07:45 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 15, 2014, 02:53:55 AM
I think that the Muslim community at large is mostly peaceful.
Sure, when they are in the minority. When they are in the majority you have Niya's situation in Pakistan. When they are in the minority they practice taqiyya and are deceptive about the nature of Islam. When you see a Muslim majority country truly maintain a free liberal democracy then I will believe that Islam is compatible with liberty. Otherwise, I remain a skeptic.
At one point, there was hope for Turkey to be that country, but sadly that's becoming the Islamic version of Russia. But it's not just Islam. Any country that relies on religious ideology as part of governance is going to have issues.
Following this on Twitter. Apparently some people are taking selfies in front the of the cafe. So clearly western civilization has some serious issues to deal with too.
Latest on the BBC. 1 gunman. Up to 40 hostages. 5 hostages have escaped.
I'm with Icarus, and almost agree with The Gray One.
As for Turkey ... Secular Democracy? Erdogan's going more Islamist every day, and yesterday he locked up a bunch of opposition journalists.
Apparently no one has been harmed yet and the lone gunman is demanding both an ISIS flag and to talk to the Australian Prime Minister.
So Turkey's going to shit, then...it's a pity.
Turkey has always had issues, but yes it is. When you re-elect someone after he's recorded stealing millions of dollars and locks up journalists and police investigating it, you know your country is in trouble.
14 hours and still no resolution in Sydney. Can't even imagine what that must be like.
The gunman must be getting tired and twitchy now. Not good.
Quote from: OldGit on December 15, 2014, 09:34:39 AM
I'm with Icarus, and almost agree with The Gray One.
As for Turkey ... Secular Democracy? Erdogan's going more Islamist every day, and yesterday he locked up a bunch of opposition journalists.
To be fair to ol' E-man, Turkey has a
long history of locking up opposition journalists. Normally they were affiliated with Kurdish organizations, but still....
True, but then it wasn't an Islamist locking them up!
More people have escaped, some have been injured, shots have been fired and police finally stormed the building.
Updates (http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-australia-30475711)
Edited to add: siege is over
They're now saying two hostages and the gunman dead.
Quote from: OldGit on December 15, 2014, 07:44:28 PM
They're now saying two hostages and the gunman dead.
Glad it's over, but sad to hear about the two hostages. He sounded like a lone wolf nutcase.
Also bizarre that he was Iranian but demanded an ISIS flag.
Sad to hear about the 2 dead, glad it wasn't more though.
The gunman (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-30484419) was some piece of work.
The gunman appears to have been mentally disturbed. He was a self styled islamic cleric (apparently known in Sydney as "The Fake Sheik"). He had a series of convictions for various violent crimes and was out on bail on a charge of accessory to murder of his wife. Apparently the bail was granted because of weaknesses in the prosecution case. Apparently the end of the seige came about when the gunman was drifting off to sleep and the remaining hostages made a mass break for freedom and the manager of the cafe tried to wrestle the shotgun from the gunman who woke up and started shooting, killing the manager. It is not clear how the other hostages who were shot (one fatally, one in the sholder, one in the thigh and one in the foot as well as a policemane who was hit in the cheek "by a few pellets".) In my opinion, the police were doing the right thing, attempting to resolve the issue without anyone getting hurt, but at the ready incase something happened, which of course we now know it did.
I don't think it is useful to comment on the man's religion as a causative factor in this except as perhaps by him being predisposed to listen to the extremist venom from the IS idiots providing a tipping point force for someone who was mantally on the edge anyway. I don't see it as being any different than any mentally disturbed person fixating on some thing or another and then launching some action that hurts others. Is it any the worse because he was a muslim than when some xtian zealot kills a doctor outside an abortion clinic? I am not apologising for this person, it just disturbs me when I hear bigots using the actions of some possibly psychotic person to justify vitriol against a whole class of people.
Beyond everything else, though, I feel a deep sadness for the hostages and their family and friends, especially of the two who lost their lives. Nothing anyone can say will ease the hurt they must be feeling.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 15, 2014, 09:57:43 AM
Apparently no one has been harmed yet and the lone gunman is demanding both an ISIS flag and to talk to the Australian Prime Minister.
and a hostage would be released.
Of course that was denied.
Our prime minister is brain damaged.
Have you seen him, listened to him for a little bit?
We should have arranged for a person in control of their whits to impersonate our PM in times of crisis.
Quote from: Eric V Arachnid on December 16, 2014, 01:56:32 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 15, 2014, 09:57:43 AM
Apparently no one has been harmed yet and the lone gunman is demanding both an ISIS flag and to talk to the Australian Prime Minister.
and a hostage would be released.
Of course that was denied.
Our prime minister is brain damaged.
Have you seen him, listened to him for a little bit?
No, I haven't had the pleasure. Does Australia also openly take the stance that there will be absolutely no negotiating with terrorists?
QuoteWe should have arranged for a person in control of their whits to impersonate our PM in times of crisis.
I agree. Same thing could be said for all politicians...
I admire and respect Bluenose. He has taken the high road in his post above. Unfortunately it is becoming ever more difficult for civilized people to take that high road. Too much has happened and is currently happening for us to remain conciliatory toward the legions of people who are bent on destroying us.
Today the news is that seven men invaded a school in Pakistan. They slaughtered 130 school children. The same apparent mindset destroyed 3000 innocents on the infamous date of Sept. 11. Boco Harram kidnaps 200 girls, Al Shabab is killing east Africans in wholesale lots, a group organized the bombing of the Cole in Yemen, The train bombings in Spain, and too many other deadly incidents to list. All the perpetrators have a common denominator. They all worship Allah and Allah and his contemporary disciples are disposed toward destroying Kafirs.
All Muslims are not stupid or murderous. The peaceful ones hopefully outnumber the terrorist ones. The civilized world has become more than weary of the senseless killings of innocent children and their families and associates. I blame the peaceful ones for failing to take up a cause against these travesties. It would be in their best interests to discourage, even eliminate, the madrassas who teach such divisiveness with the rest of the world. The peaceful ones could make a serious difference if only they had the will to do so. World opinion is being poisoned against Islam. Can they not see that hand writing on the wall?
Blue has likened the Australian crazy terrorist to the American whacko Xtians who kill abortion doctors. Maybe so but those attacks are rare. One murder every five years or so. The Islamic whackos are doing their thing every day, they cut off the heads of innocent victims and make boastful films about their barbarity.. The rare homicidal abortion protester merely shoots the doctor and almost never has a camera crew to film his heroic act.
I've posted this before, but I think it's worth saying again.
It all depends on who twists the religion in which way, doesn't it?
Does anyone honestly think that if Christianity had been the predominant religion to spread through the Arab or Persian worlds that things would be much better? That their governments wouldn't have been corrupt, that the Western world wouldn't have tried to exploit them for their natural resources and riches and set off the conflicts that we see today? Christianity and Judaism is no less batshit crazy than Islam when it comes to the original teachings. Heck, covering women with the hijab is not even something mentioned in Islam. It's someone's twisted interpretation of the Koran which could easily have been applied to the Bible and its subjugation of women.
We in the west are lucky to have had a strong government that people feel represent them, despite its flaws. Those same governments have also screwed up the Middle East while trying to get to its oil, propped up corrupt governments, divided countries with no discernible logic, and basically made the people less confident in government. So they turn to religion as a way to feel they belong to something important and holy, and Islam was the most predominant one in that area. Not only that, but Arab and sub-saharan Africa have tended to be more clan-based in structure, placing its importance over that of any local government, which further weakens any loyalty they have to government and country, and makes them vulnerable to extremism.
Islam by itself is only one part of the reason why some societies in the middle east and Africa are so screwed up and hotbeds of extremism. Uganda is 85% Christian and still passed laws saying homosexuals should die. Malaysia is a dominant Islam country too, yet you do not see much jihadism there. India has more Muslims than any other country, and while relations with them and the rest of the country are tense, you don't see suicide bombings from Indian Muslims. Why is that?
All this is to say that the local culture and history matters more than which book the population happens to follow at this time. Islam deserves some blame, but not it's all about Islam and nothing else.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 16, 2014, 02:29:09 PM
No, I haven't had the pleasure. Does Australia also openly take the stance that there will be absolutely no negotiating with terrorists?
Ye that's the line, but I'm not sure if never really means never.
http://ada.asn.au/commentary/formal-comment/2004/negotiating-with-terrorists.html
Our gunman was granted asylum as a sheer mulslim, I assume because he was endangered by sunnis.
Then he converts to become a sunni and supports those that drove him to seek asylum, and kills a few of the people that gave him sanctuary.
Funny ha?
Quote from: Eric V Arachnid on December 17, 2014, 09:58:51 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 16, 2014, 02:29:09 PM
No, I haven't had the pleasure. Does Australia also openly take the stance that there will be absolutely no negotiating with terrorists?
Ye that's the line, but I'm not sure if never really means never.
http://ada.asn.au/commentary/formal-comment/2004/negotiating-with-terrorists.html
Luckily for the hostages he was incompetent, apparently he dozed off and a few took the opportunity to escape. If he had known what he was doing the death toll could have been higher. The government certainly risked lives by refusing to negotiate, I think. He could have easily killed a few to get his point across. Most of these jihadists have a death wish anyways...
On the other hand, if the government is seen to negotiate with terrorism, it could encourage more acts.
I don't know.
QuoteOur gunman was granted asylum as a sheer mulslim, I assume because he was endangered by sunnis.
Then he converts to become a sunni and supports those that drove him to seek asylum, and kills a few of the people that gave him sanctuary.
Funny ha?
The guy was clearly insane.
I agree that in this case, blaming the man's religion doesn't do very much. But it adds to a fast growing list of bad things done in the name of Islam, and the much larger list of bad things done in the name of religion.
The religious don't want him, god is love blah blah, he's not one of ours, he's mentally ill. People working in the field of mental health aren't too happy about him being tossed their way though. He seemed pretty religious to me, maybe crazy too but it's so hard distinguish between the two, there's so much overlap.
Quote from: Bluenose on December 16, 2014, 04:43:34 AM
The gunman appears to have been mentally disturbed. He was a self styled islamic cleric (apparently known in Sydney as "The Fake Sheik"). He had a series of convictions for various violent crimes and was out on bail on a charge of accessory to murder of his wife. Apparently the bail was granted because of weaknesses in the prosecution case. Apparently the end of the seige came about when the gunman was drifting off to sleep and the remaining hostages made a mass break for freedom and the manager of the cafe tried to wrestle the shotgun from the gunman who woke up and started shooting, killing the manager. It is not clear how the other hostages who were shot (one fatally, one in the sholder, one in the thigh and one in the foot as well as a policemane who was hit in the cheek "by a few pellets".) In my opinion, the police were doing the right thing, attempting to resolve the issue without anyone getting hurt, but at the ready incase something happened, which of course we now know it did.
I don't think it is useful to comment on the man's religion as a causative factor in this except as perhaps by him being predisposed to listen to the extremist venom from the IS idiots providing a tipping point force for someone who was mantally on the edge anyway. I don't see it as being any different than any mentally disturbed person fixating on some thing or another and then launching some action that hurts others. Is it any the worse because he was a muslim than when some xtian zealot kills a doctor outside an abortion clinic? I am not apologising for this person, it just disturbs me when I hear bigots using the actions of some possibly psychotic person to justify vitriol against a whole class of people.
Beyond everything else, though, I feel a deep sadness for the hostages and their family and friends, especially of the two who lost their lives. Nothing anyone can say will ease the hurt they must be feeling.
What i want to know is, why was he ever allowed out of prison if he already murdered his wife? I do not understand this. He already has various convictions! This could of been prevented, so why wasn't it?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on December 19, 2014, 03:56:13 AM
Quote from: Bluenose on December 16, 2014, 04:43:34 AM
The gunman appears to have been mentally disturbed. He was a self styled islamic cleric (apparently known in Sydney as "The Fake Sheik"). He had a series of convictions for various violent crimes and was out on bail on a charge of accessory to murder of his wife. Apparently the bail was granted because of weaknesses in the prosecution case. Apparently the end of the seige came about when the gunman was drifting off to sleep and the remaining hostages made a mass break for freedom and the manager of the cafe tried to wrestle the shotgun from the gunman who woke up and started shooting, killing the manager. It is not clear how the other hostages who were shot (one fatally, one in the sholder, one in the thigh and one in the foot as well as a policemane who was hit in the cheek "by a few pellets".) In my opinion, the police were doing the right thing, attempting to resolve the issue without anyone getting hurt, but at the ready incase something happened, which of course we now know it did.
I don't think it is useful to comment on the man's religion as a causative factor in this except as perhaps by him being predisposed to listen to the extremist venom from the IS idiots providing a tipping point force for someone who was mantally on the edge anyway. I don't see it as being any different than any mentally disturbed person fixating on some thing or another and then launching some action that hurts others. Is it any the worse because he was a muslim than when some xtian zealot kills a doctor outside an abortion clinic? I am not apologising for this person, it just disturbs me when I hear bigots using the actions of some possibly psychotic person to justify vitriol against a whole class of people.
Beyond everything else, though, I feel a deep sadness for the hostages and their family and friends, especially of the two who lost their lives. Nothing anyone can say will ease the hurt they must be feeling.
What i want to know is, why was he ever allowed out of prison if he already murdered his wife? I do not understand this. He already has various convictions! This could of been prevented, so why wasn't it?
OK, he was not convicted of murdering his wife, he was
charged with being an accessory to her murder before and after the fact, as well as some 40 sexual assault charges. The magistrate who released him on bail did so because of weaknesses in the prosecution case. It is easy to have 20/20 hindsight, but I don't think we can expect our judical system to lock up every person charged, just in case. I was not present at the bail hearing and I think it unreasonable for others who were also not there to comment on the decision made. Magistrates have a very difficult job and sometimes, acting on the best information available at the time, the results are that the charged person goes on to do something awful. We get to hear all about the alleged rapist/murderers/thugs who go on to commit further heinous crimes when out on bail, but the vast majority do not. This bloke was a horrible person, he had been convicted of writing highly offensive letters to the families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan, the Prime Minister and others. Hwever, I do not agree what we can expect a magistrate to crystal ball gaze and predict what every mentally disturbed person will do, they are constrained to act within the law and I would suggest that when the magistrate made her decision she did so soberly and on the basis of the facts before her and on the basis of her previous experience. I do not wish to live in a country that dispenses summary justice. I prefer that proper processes are followed that the presumption of innocence is protected and that prosecuters do their job properly and thoroughly.
Quote from: Bluenose on December 19, 2014, 06:25:26 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on December 19, 2014, 03:56:13 AM
Quote from: Bluenose on December 16, 2014, 04:43:34 AM
The gunman appears to have been mentally disturbed. He was a self styled islamic cleric (apparently known in Sydney as "The Fake Sheik"). He had a series of convictions for various violent crimes and was out on bail on a charge of accessory to murder of his wife. Apparently the bail was granted because of weaknesses in the prosecution case. Apparently the end of the seige came about when the gunman was drifting off to sleep and the remaining hostages made a mass break for freedom and the manager of the cafe tried to wrestle the shotgun from the gunman who woke up and started shooting, killing the manager. It is not clear how the other hostages who were shot (one fatally, one in the sholder, one in the thigh and one in the foot as well as a policemane who was hit in the cheek "by a few pellets".) In my opinion, the police were doing the right thing, attempting to resolve the issue without anyone getting hurt, but at the ready incase something happened, which of course we now know it did.
I don't think it is useful to comment on the man's religion as a causative factor in this except as perhaps by him being predisposed to listen to the extremist venom from the IS idiots providing a tipping point force for someone who was mantally on the edge anyway. I don't see it as being any different than any mentally disturbed person fixating on some thing or another and then launching some action that hurts others. Is it any the worse because he was a muslim than when some xtian zealot kills a doctor outside an abortion clinic? I am not apologising for this person, it just disturbs me when I hear bigots using the actions of some possibly psychotic person to justify vitriol against a whole class of people.
Beyond everything else, though, I feel a deep sadness for the hostages and their family and friends, especially of the two who lost their lives. Nothing anyone can say will ease the hurt they must be feeling.
What i want to know is, why was he ever allowed out of prison if he already murdered his wife? I do not understand this. He already has various convictions! This could of been prevented, so why wasn't it?
OK, he was not convicted of murdering his wife, he was charged with being an accessory to her murder before and after the fact, as well as some 40 sexual assault charges. The magistrate who released him on bail did so because of weaknesses in the prosecution case. It is easy to have 20/20 hindsight, but I don't think we can expect our judical system to lock up every person charged, just in case. I was not present at the bail hearing and I think it unreasonable for others who were also not there to comment on the decision made. Magistrates have a very difficult job and sometimes, acting on the best information available at the time, the results are that the charged person goes on to do something awful. We get to hear all about the alleged rapist/murderers/thugs who go on to commit further heinous crimes when out on bail, but the vast majority do not. This bloke was a horrible person, he had been convicted of writing highly offensive letters to the families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan, the Prime Minister and others. Hwever, I do not agree what we can expect a magistrate to crystal ball gaze and predict what every mentally disturbed person will do, they are constrained to act within the law and I would suggest that when the magistrate made her decision she did so soberly and on the basis of the facts before her and on the basis of her previous experience. I do not wish to live in a country that dispenses summary justice. I prefer that proper processes are followed that the presumption of innocence is protected and that prosecuters do their job properly and thoroughly.
Spot on Bluenose.
I second the "spot on"
Quote from: Icarus on December 20, 2014, 05:34:36 AM
I second the "spot on"
I can't add a spot on myself, I'd need more details of the 40 disregarded sexual assault charges.