Is is Muslim terrorist cafe seige Sydney...hundreds of hostages! looks bad.

by Witness 007 98 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  skeeter1

  There are Christians who terrorize abortion clinics and gun down abortion doctors. They may be lone wolves, but they are doing it under the "flag" of Christian beliefs. Likewise, this Sydney man flew an Islamic terrorist flag. He didn't fly Dunkin Donuts' flag, or Hitler's flag. So, if he flies an Islamic terrorist flag while holding up a cafe, I'd say he's an Islamic terrorist (singular). The fact that he's likely a a nutjob adds to the fact. There are nutjob Christians, nutjob Jehovah's Witnesses, nutjob Democrats, nutjob Republicans, nutjob squirrels...... The most "sane" people don't always join the sweetest religions. The crazier and more strict the religion, the more people in need are attracted to it. And, some of those with the biggest needs are the nutjobs.

  Fulltime Student - Did the person do this crime while holding up a Christian symbol, a bible, Jesus Loves Me, writing a Christian manefesto, screaming Armeghedoon & Hell Fire, etc? I hoenstely don't know, so I ask. If he did this while holding up these symbols or shouting Christian fear-type mongering, then he should be labelled a Christian Terrorist.

  "About one year ago, only about 100 metres from here, and outside the Parliament building in Macquarie Street, a lone Christian, started a similar action. He claimed to have filled his car with enough explosive to destroy the building, and he threatened that he would do just that, if the government did not reverse a failed legal action he had been involved in. Much as I dislike Christianity, (nearly as much as I dislike Islam) I do not think that what this mentally disturbed 'Christain' did would justify a headline of "Christian Terrorism."
• 

  Giordano

  The difference, the way I see it, is that apart from the right to life extremists, Christians at least in the modern world are not encouraged to take a life in God's name.

  A radical Muslim by their interpretation is encouraged to take innocent lives.

  This particular terrorist ( a real bad guy if his history is true) may certainly have had other issues but he justified his actions because he was a radical Muslim.
• 

  fulltimestudent

  Cofty: A lone gunman should be shot without a second thought. Two innocent people are dead, that is a failure.

  Cofty, please read the post by DJS again:

  Cofty,

  Ditto unless they were'nt certain that he was acting alone, which, if not, would have potentially led to the deaths of all of the hostages even if they shot him right between the eyes. If they did know he was alone, the only other thing would be whether the snipers were given the "Go" to shoot when they had a clear shot. A sniper with a clear shot without the authorization to pull the trigger, IMHO, is the likely scenario. This happens a lot, as the decision makers weigh the options and potential consequences, opportunities are sometimes missed. Stuff happens. Success has many fathers; failure is an orphan. We shall see what the officials state.

  NSW/Sydney is fortunate in having a reasonably sane and seemingly honest police commissioner. I listened to his press conference this morning. Since no-one knew, at the moment that the chance shot could have been made, how many gunmen were in the Cafe, the police would have made a risk assessment. If they took him out, and that precipitated a mass slaughter of hostages by another gunman, then the police would have been called rash.

  I do not know how long it took before the police became aware of who they were dealing with, but as the 'hostage-taker' expert (whose video I posted earlier) commented, everything about this seige said "amateur," and not professional terrorist.

  I suggest that the police were justified in waiting it out.

  I am not defending Islam, (anymore, than I defend Christian terrorism), I am attempting to use reason to view this situation.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  It was NOT a muslim terrorism action - I see, and the flag this lunatic chose to have displayed in a window just, by chance, was black with the shahada written in white?

  BTW muslim terrorism and mental illness aren't mutually exclusive - maybe it's safe at this stage to say that this was a case of muslim terrorism that featured a mentally-ill man?
• 

  cofty

  FTS - At least 4 hostages left the cafe many hours before the army were given authority to end it. Therefore it was known for a certainty that it was a lone guman during daylight hours.

  Pictures of the gunman in front of the window were shown on Channel 7. If snipers had been given the green light a lot earlier there would only have been one death.
• 

  Simon

  The man is clearly Muslim, but the assessment of the authorities is that he was a mentally disturbed person who became a 'hostage-taker.' And, as the lecturer from Wollongong University pointed out, there are thousands of those situations around the world, every day.

  Anyone who commits terrorism is by definition "mad". I don't think that is an excuse for anything. If the question "is islam a dangerous ideology?" can't be asked then instead it becomes "why does islam in particular seem to attract mentally unstable people who interpret it's message in a dangerous way and are willing to kill for it?". I think semantically they are the same.

  As for him being a "lone" actor - at what point does someone acting on a shared message constitute coopration? The absence of a direct command and control system doesn't mean that someone thought up what to do all on their own - they may have listened to someone elses call for this sort of action so the link can't be dismissed so easily.

  Apparently the guy wrote insulting letters to families of dead servicemen and was thought to have killed / burnt his ex-wife.

  Obviously, "islam isn't the problem" can be repeated all day long as can the other old chestnut "it's a religion of peace". He just coincidentally held up an ISIS flag as part of his decision to take hostages at gunpoint, possibly shooting some - certainly causing their deaths.

  While I would be all for a police sniper taking him out if they had a clear shot I can understand them not doing that as it appeared he had a thick jacket and you don't know if people are wearing or have planted bombs. Normally it's safer to wait but once they start shooting that obviously isn't an option anymore.
• 

  Simon

  He claimed to have filled his car with enough explosive to destroy the building, and he threatened that he would do just that, if the government did not reverse a failed legal action he had been involved in. Much as I dislike Christianity, (nearly as much as I dislike Islam) I do not think that what this mentally disturbed 'Christain' did would justify a headline of "Christian Terrorism."

  Do you?

  But did he actually have explosives and did he actually kill anyone? Was the legal action anything to do with the religion or was it coincidential to the issue?

  If he made threats and his christianity was part of his justification for it then yes, I think "christian terrorist" would be perfectly appropriate (the fact that it comes up so infrequently suggests that it isn't a problem of the same magnitude).

  Of course just 'being' either christian or muslim is not the issue. If someone has some complaint with the government over land for instance and just happens to be religious then their religion shouldn't be brought up (unless it's teachings can be shown to incite certain behaviors).

  When people make the claim themselves that the acts they are doing are because of some religion then I think it's fair to examine closely how much of a factor that religion and it's teachings could have played.
• 

  cofty

  FTS - 800 years ago thousands of Christians were behaving like genocidal lunatics.

  In the 21st century thousands of Muslims are behaving like genocidal lunatics. What's your point?
• 

  Simon

  FTS: posting videos of military footage set to hymn music is nowhere near equivalent. Your videos were removed because it would be far easier to find damning footage showing islam in a very bad light and there is no value in trying to "prove" any viewpoint by how much can be posted.
• 

  fulltimestudent

  Simon: FTS: posting videos of military footage set to hymn music is nowhere near equivalent. Your videos were removed because it would be far easier to find damning footage showing islam in a very bad light and there is no value in trying to "prove" any viewpoint by how much can be posted.

  My post of two youtube videos, which were private person compilations set to the music of Battle Hymn of the Republic and Onward Christian Soldiers, were a response to Skeeter1's post in which he said to me:

  Fulltime Student - Did the person do this crime while holding up a Christian symbol, a bible, Jesus Loves Me, writing a Christian manefesto, screaming Armeghedoon & Hell Fire, etc? I hoenstely don't know, so I ask. If he did this while holding up these symbols or shouting Christian fear-type mongering, then he should be labelled a Christian Terrorist.

  I wanted to demonstrate that (as usual) there are two sides to the argument.

  As I've said before, you're the boss. It's your site - I accept that you have the right of censorship. However, I think you are wrong in this case. It is not just Muslim's that have dragged religion into this dispute.

  But I will leave the matter stand.