Pictures on Australian television showed people with their hands up against a window, and a black flag with Arabic writing.
The cafe in Sydney's central business district has been surrounded by armed police.
just in
New South Wales police have asked people to avoid the area.
An Australian Broadcasting Corporation reporter said that heavily armoured police vehicles had now arrived at the scene.
A number of hostages have been taken in a siege in Sydney's CBD.
At least three people can be seen with their hands raised through the windows of a cafe in Martin Place.
A black flag with Arabic text has also been seen hanging in the window of the Lindt Chocolat Cafe.
Dozens of heavily-armed police officers have flooded the area.
Witnesses have reported hearing loud bangs that sounded like gun shots.
One block of Martin Place has been cordoned off between Elizabeth Street and Phillip Street.
Police have urged members of the public to avoid the area.
The Channel Seven newsroom opposite the cafe has been evacuated.
Seven producer Patrick Byrne said staff at the network watched the situation unfold.
"We raced to the window and saw the shocking and chilling sight of people putting their hands up against the panes of glass at the cafe," he said.
"This was just extraordinary.
"Then, as we were looking wondering what was going on, it seemed to be like an armed hold-up, more police arrived at Martin Place.
"The area was cleared. People were kept back.
"It was then that gasps went through the newsroom as an ISIS flag was put up against one of the window panes."
Elleanor Gillard, who works in the same building as the cafe, said police have told them to stay inside and away from the doors.
"We've just been notifying everyone on the floors above - I'm on the ground - not to come down in the lift because the lifts open up right in the foyer between us and Lindt [Chocolat Cafe]," she said.
She said she saw a look of terror on the faces of two hostages who appeared to have been forced up against the glass.
"I'm just thinking about the guys in Lindt - the people we see everyday, go in and buy our coffee from them - and I'm sure they're terrified. It must be horrible for them."
Heavily armed police have taken position around the Lindt cafe in
central Sydney
Hostages seen with hands in the air inside the cafe
Black flag with white Arabic writing reading "There is no God but
Allah" and "Mohammed is the messenger of God" waved behind the
hostages
Martin Place and Sydney Opera House have been
evacuated
Studio 10
@Studio10au
Sydney Opera House has been completely evacuated and Sydney airspace closed. #siege
Avatar 720 wrote: A café opposite a newsroom? Hostage-taking instead of the usual mass-shooting or suicide bombing? Screams ISIS publicity stunt to me.
Hopefully they're not just waiting until everyone is watching to start killing people, and the police can stop them before they hurt anyone.
Not jumping to anything, simply stating my opinion based on the current information.
EDIT: If it was just the 'ISIS' part, then fair enough, I'll revise that. What I read in the other, locked thread (I read that first and was directed here) said 'ISIS'.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Just confirmed that my office building and the street its in are now in lock down. What a day to be sick, ey?
Your lucky day
We wouldn't want anything to happen to you.
What he means is that he has taken 1 day of sick leave, however had he gone to work he would be back home and wouldn't have had taken 1 day sick leave.
[hypocrite] Maybe H.B.M.C. can get to paint some of his horde of unpainted tanks. [/hypocrite]
The media had better keep their fething traps shut about what the Police are doing. Don't want the fethers inside to have a running commentary on a Police assault.
Perhaps a question for after this siege. Hopefully no innocents have to die today.
It's just very bizarre that they are waiting so long. Normally they'd just want to kill people. Perhaps they are going to demand the release of those guys arrested in September(?).
H.B.M.C. wrote: Way to (intentionally) misinterpret what he said Loki.
He's obviously saying that we shouldn't let these sorts of things hamper our way of life.
Yes, I know. But the cynicism in me is strong.
I think you've got your cynicism wired up backwards. I'm much more worried about the government seeing an opportunity to write up some new and draconian laws than about Abbott telling people not to panic.
Although it's neither a fair nor useful question, thousands of peaceful western Muslims point to yes. You'll never be able to stop all of the extremists, of any stripe.
Although it's neither a fair nor useful question, thousands of peaceful western Muslims point to yes. You'll never be able to stop all of the extremists, of any stripe.
Here is how I see it. They are like any other people, there are just as many sheep in their "society" and just as many wolves as we would have in our own western civilization.
I think you asked the wrong question whether Islam is compatible with the west. You should be asking is Sharia law compatible with the west. The answer is certainly not. The good Muslims will mind their business and obey the law of the land. The bad mooselimbs will try and do as they please by enforcing their archaic laws upon those who want nothing to do with it.
When that day comes, and call it paranoia if you will, I'll be ready to litter the streets with their corpses.
It's not easily integrable. That''s why we are seeing a lot of young people from our countries going over to fight.
That's not true at all. There are plenty of well-integrated Muslims. In any immigrant population you will have some people who don't integrate well. It's not like Muslims are some giant unified culture either. A Muslim from Saudi Arabia, a Muslim from Turkey, and a Muslim from eastern Europe are all likely to have some significant cultural differences.
I need to meet an Australian woman... that accent is so sexy.... *drool*
err... I mean.... I'm really sorry to hear about this guys, but I suppose y'all put a target on yourselves the moment you decided to help us out in the 'stan. So thank you, and here's hoping they move in on the gunmen and take em out without any friendly loss of life.
It's not easily integrable. That''s why we are seeing a lot of young people from our countries going over to fight.
That's not true at all. There are plenty of well-integrated Muslims. In any immigrant population you will have some people who don't integrate well. It's not like Muslims are some giant unified culture either. A Muslim from Saudi Arabia, a Muslim from Turkey, and a Muslim from eastern Europe are all likely to have some significant cultural differences.
Their culture says nothing about their religion, they are two separate things. One may influence the other, but they are still different.
There are lots of different sects and sub-sects within the Islam faith. Same thing as Christianity.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Police chief says motivation of gunman "still not determined"
Have they had contact yet?
The police say they haven't been able to deal directly, but I'm not sure I believe that. They might be saying it for security reasons though.
2GB claims to have been in contact with a hostage at the request of the gunmen. The idea of Alan Jones in contact with them isn't particularly comforting.
Fireraven wrote: I thought Australia was Gun free. So now terrorists can get guns but law abiding citizens cannot?
You say that likes it's confusing. It shouldn't be a surprise that people with no concern for the law have illegal things, while those who follow the law do not.
-Loki- wrote: 2GB claims to have been in contact with a hostage at the request of the gunmen. The idea of Alan Jones in contact with them isn't particularly comforting.
Australia has always been a mixing pot of cultures. However different they are, integration comes (eventually) with familiarity and trust, which is something that happens over time. Muslims are just the latesy example of this, not the first.
It's not easily integrable. That''s why we are seeing a lot of young people from our countries going over to fight.
That's not true at all. There are plenty of well-integrated Muslims. In any immigrant population you will have some people who don't integrate well. It's not like Muslims are some giant unified culture either. A Muslim from Saudi Arabia, a Muslim from Turkey, and a Muslim from eastern Europe are all likely to have some significant cultural differences.
Their culture says nothing about their religion, they are two separate things. One may influence the other, but they are still different.
There are lots of different sects and sub-sects within the Islam faith. Same thing as Christianity.
Fireraven wrote: I thought Australia was Gun free. So now terrorists can get guns but law abiding citizens cannot?
You say that likes it's confusing. It shouldn't be a surprise that people with no concern for the law have illegal things, while those who follow the law do not.
Wait, you mean they have guns in a gun-free zone!? Inconceivable!
I always find it sad that people keeping going to the "guns in a gun free zone?!" line. There are people being held hostage, it isn't the time for jabs at gun laws.
Medium of Death wrote: I'm not sure why non Muslims feel so compelled to defend them so frequently.
For the same reason that they would have felt compelled at one time to 'defend' the Japanese, or the Chinese, or the Greeks, or the Lebanese, or boat people, or Budhists, or any number of other groups who faced discrimination not because of anything that they did but due to public perception.
It's not just about defending Muslims. It's about giving people a fair go, regardless of their ethnicity, or religion, or any other thing that you want to draw attention to on the grounds that it's not like we have at home, oh no.
Medium of Death wrote: It's an ideology debate that needs to happen, not one of race. The racism thing always drags into into a quagmire that is ultimately of no use.
Islam is granted far more protected rights, certainly in the UK, than other religions. This is troubling to me.
Probably a discussion best left for a different thread, however.
Medium of Death wrote: It's an ideology debate that needs to happen, not one of race. The racism thing always drags into into a quagmire that is ultimately of no use.
It's not a race thing, it's a discrimination thing. There are a couple million muslims in the US, a couple million in the UK, there are plenty who manage to not turn into terrorists all over the place. Are the guys holding people hostage not very good people? Probably. Does that mean now we need to have have a debate on whether or not we should begin persecuting all Muslims? No. But that kinda sounds like what you're advocating.
Medium of Death wrote: It's an ideology debate that needs to happen, not one of race. The racism thing always drags into into a quagmire that is ultimately of no use.
It's not a race thing, it's a discrimination thing. There are a couple million muslims in the US, a couple million in the UK, there are plenty who manage to not turn into terrorists all over the place. Are the guys holding people hostage not very good people? Probably. Does that mean now we need to have have a debate on whether or not we should begin persecuting all Muslims? No. But that kinda sounds like what you're advocating.
No, it's not.
You're equating individuals with the religion itself.
It's perfectly reasonable to say you oppose, indeed even despise, certain aspects of Islamic ideology and doctrine, such as the death penalties for apostasy and homosexuality, or the 2nd class status of women and non Muslims in a Muslim majority theocracy, but that doesn't in any way mean you hate Muslims.
Just like how it's reasonable to say you despise the practice of taking a knife and cutting up a new born baby's genitals, but that doesn't mean you despise Jews.
The fact that millions of normal law abiding Muslims live peacefully and integrate successfully in liberal western secular democracies owes a great deal to the fact that they are living in liberal western secular democracies that have laws and cultures that directly curb and criminalise the very worst excesses of Islamic ideology and doctrine. The same cannot,be said of many millions of Muslims living in Islamic theocracies where Islam is unrestrained.
I also expect that,a great deal of Muslims who emigrate to the west do so in part because western countries are safer, more tolerant and SECULAR. Your not going to get your hand chopped off for theft in London.
I deeply dislike many aspects of Islam, but that doesn't mean when I meet a Muslim I'll take it out on them by being rude/hostile and discriminating against them, I treat them like I treat all,strangers, with respect and good manners - they'd have to do something to earn my ire, such as expressing direct support for the aspects of Islam that I dislike and think are wrong.
As an Australian I don't like hearing about my fair city being under siege. I am actually worried for my fellow countrymen.
After seeing this. ITs times like these when I wish I had a numerous amount of power. And press a button and solve the issue but sadly I don't. Just a game designer.
I do hope everyone gets out alive including the terrorists and the organization is dismantled and its leadership liquefied. Anyone that harms my fair city will have hell to pay.
(As you can see I am quite protective of my home country)
Nuwisha wrote: I always find it sad that people keeping going to the "guns in a gun free zone?!" line. There are people being held hostage, it isn't the time for jabs at gun laws.
Ok, so, three hostages are out. Dunno how they got out. Two came through the front, the other via a fire-escape.
insaniak wrote: You say that likes it's confusing. It shouldn't be a surprise that people with no concern for the law have illegal things, while those who follow the law do not.
Terror suspects may be part of a cell. They might have visited training camps, met with members of terrorist organisations, have knowledge of other stacks or cells. They may provide valuable Intel.
-Loki- wrote: Three people released. Reports are still saying it's a single gunman.
Thats good news.
I hope they are able to take the gunmen alive.
Why do you hope they take him alive?
Information,
With them taken alive they can delve down a much easier path and find out if they work for an organization or find motivations. It is much easier to figure out than having them dead.
It would be easier also for the victims of the hostage situation to know why there were taken captive and have to go through years of pyschological training to get over the events of seeing someone die.
What if he doesn't cooperate?
Then he dies. Or he is wounded and taken in.
The Police need a good way to get information and give it to the counter terrorist organizations to deal with it. The police will otherwise handle it poorly.
Hordini wrote: They don't necessarily have to take him alive to be able to find that out.
That's true, but it's often easier to find out someone's motivations when you can just ask them.
I see what you mean. I just figured that since he was taking hostages, he'd probably tell them what he wants at some point before the situation ended.
Though rare. Some hostage situations end pretty well with the gunmen turning themselves in immedately with no gunfire and no one dying.
Though these are incredibly rare, it would be funny to see it happen and the Australian police show off how good they are at responding to these events.
An uncooperative terrorist is still generally more talkative than a dead one.
My thoughts exactly. Sorry Americans but going gun ho is the problem with dealing with these situations. As some of your swat teams have yet to learn sometimes..... This situation needs to be handled in such a way that no bloodshed will occur. Once someone fires a round all those hostages are dead. And so is the source of information.
Hordini wrote: Unless the round that gets fired is straight into the gunman's head.
And the police don't necessarily get to decide whether or not bloodshed will occur. The gunman gets a vote too.
Two words. Deadmans Switch.
We have no idea. That would be stupid.
We have no idea about the situation. The situation could escalate tremendously
If this is handled poorly it is an international incident.
If it is handled correctly it would be reported for years.
Like I said, the gunman gets a vote. If he has a deadman's switch, everybody is fethed. If he is truly an Islamic extremist trying to do some kind of terror attack, do you really think the police are going to just talk him out of it?
And I'm not saying shooting the guy should be their first course of action. I'm just saying that your statement that as soon as someone fires a round, all of the hostages are dead, isn't necessarily true.
Reports that another 2 people have fled the cafe. Still no word if they were released or escaped. Video footage looked like they escaped and ran for it, but I don't think anyone would be exactly calm even if they were just released.
Hordini wrote: Unless the round that gets fired is straight into the gunman's head.
And the police don't necessarily get to decide whether or not bloodshed will occur. The gunman gets a vote too.
Two words. Deadmans Switch.
We have no idea. That would be stupid.
We have no idea about the situation. The situation could escalate tremendously
If this is handled poorly it is an international incident.
If it is handled correctly it would be reported for years.
Like I said, the gunman gets a vote. If he has a deadman's switch, everybody is fethed. If he is truly an Islamic extremist trying to do some kind of terror attack, do you really think the police are going to just talk him out of it?
Hence why I don't think it is smart to kill him. If we lose the gunmen we lose all information on the issue. And the situation escalates even further. And the brass will be chasing ghosts for years to come.
I rather save the money and logistical time and just take him alive than shooting him and losing all potential information we can gather on the issue.
If it was a robbery situation you can kill them, but a terrorist that is information and information is the only way to win in this world and gather any intelligence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: And I'm not saying shooting the guy should be their first course of action. I'm just saying that your statement that as soon as someone fires a round, all of the hostages are dead, isn't necessarily true.
Well all it takes is him to turn his gun on the hostages. And they are basically dead.
Or he escapes. And the situation esclates a firefight is something that we should avoid in Sydney, Australia.
Hordini wrote: If he is truly an Islamic extremist trying to do some kind of terror attack, do you really think the police are going to just talk him out of it?
Probably not.
Although the chances of that happening decrease significantly if they just shoot him.
Hordini wrote: If he is truly an Islamic extremist trying to do some kind of terror attack, do you really think the police are going to just talk him out of it?
Probably not.
Although the chances of that happening decrease significantly if they just shoot him.
Well, yeah. I'm not saying that shooting him should be their first course of action. Although to be honest as long as they can save the hostages, I don't really care if they shoot him or not.
So somewhere between 3 and 7 hostages have made it out... if they all escaped, then my guess is - if he were truly an extremist - hed prolly have killed the remaining hostages at this point and put a bullet in his own head. Its pretty clear he doesnt have positive control on the situation or the hostages and whatever his plan is is rather quickly unravelling.
n0t_u wrote: My gf's mum was locked in one of the nearby buildings, not sure if she still is.
My wife was also in lock down nearby. She's pretty freaked out by the whole thing. My building was also locked down, but we are not closer, it was just precautionary.
chaos0xomega wrote: So somewhere between 3 and 7 hostages have made it out... if they all escaped, then my guess is - if he were truly an extremist - hed prolly have killed the remaining hostages at this point and put a bullet in his own head. Its pretty clear he doesnt have positive control on the situation or the hostages and whatever his plan is is rather quickly unravelling.
Except if he is an "extremist", shooting themselves isn't their MO. If he is an extremist, he'll either go out in a blaze of glory, trying to take as many infidels with him, or he'll set off a suicide vest if he has one. He has some kind of connection, depending on the artillery he brought with him, which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere.
If he is a real "extremist" they don't need to take him alive to get intel. Intelligence agencies will pull plenty of crap off of his computer. If he is a real extremist, there will be some indicating intelligence at his residence. My guess is he is a wanna-be, trying to hold out as long as he can either hoping to rally some other mooselimbs to his aid, or he is a batgak insane moron. Again falling back on this semi-legit theory he is an "extremist", if he is connected to that type of movement we'll know pretty easily.
ETA: Anyone else having issues with the boards loading?
Well, he picked a pretty good spot- coffee shop food should keep him going for ages. Though what if he needs the loo? lol. Can't keep an eye on hostages while you're on the john..
angelofvengeance wrote: Well, he picked a pretty good spot- coffee shop food should keep him going for ages. Though what if he needs the loo? lol. Can't keep an eye on hostages while you're on the john..
Considering 5 escaped I don't think he was keeping an eye on them anyway.
That guy supposedly makes four explosive devices, then manages to plants two of them in high security areas of the city, without altering anyone.
Then he proceeds to plant two more in a coffee shop of all places, lets multiple hostages escape, asks for an IS flag and a call to the Prime Minister?
Not to diminish the gravity of the situation for all those still in immediate damage, but he sounds like a random wackjob more than an actual extremist with any actual backing.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I hope the hostages are rescued safe and sound, but a wider question remains that perhaps Australian posters can answer:
Why did Australia get involved in the war on terror in the first place?
A Prime Minister who was rather keen to get on George W's good side.
And more recently, a Prime Minister who calls himself a Humanitarian, but dreams of being a Crusader, and who wants to prove to the world that our little island is important .
There's been plenty of news recently by major terrorist organisations calling for their Muslim brothers to initiate lone wolf style attacks because they're much harder for Governments to get wind of.
Just because he's on his own doesn't mean he's an isolated element. He's acting indirectly under those orders.
Hordini wrote: They don't necessarily have to take him alive to be able to find that out.
That's true, but it's often easier to find out someone's motivations when you can just ask them.
Prison is a deterrent to terrorists, martyrdom is not. This was why different scum like Bobby Sands went on hunger strike. They didn't mind dying for the cause, they didn't like being treated like criminal scum.
With religious fanatics this is magnified somewhat, if the scum die they become martyrs, and icons if they get life tariffs in supermax, they do not inspire and you can play them also.
Most serial killers are not taken alive either, those that are becomes subject cases for mental health and useful to the profession, with politicasl cases you can always spin up what happens to them inside. The biggest bonus is if they convert to another religion, or go to seed. You can play that to the press and demystify them.
there is one solution. hold the gunmans family hostage until he lets the hostages go.
hey, I said it was a solution, not a good one. honestly this is a bit of a joke, considering five (seven?) people have escaped and if this guy's a terrorist he should quit his day job.
also, I think this is the first time something has happened in australia and been put in the OT forum.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I hope the hostages are rescued safe and sound, but a wider question remains that perhaps Australian posters can answer:
Why did Australia get involved in the war on terror in the first place?
A Prime Minister who was rather keen to get on George W's good side.
And more recently, a Prime Minister who calls himself a Humanitarian, but dreams of being a Crusader, and who wants to prove to the world that our little island is important .
A fair assessment. Britain has long been the 51st state, so it was no surprise to see us getting involved, but Australia?
I'm scratching my head as to where the strategic threat to Australia was coming from.
The irony is, events like these will be used to justify further Australian action in the Middle East, and yet, you could argue that getting involved in the first place was the catalyst. A chicken and egg scenario.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the shrouded lord wrote: there is one solution. hold the gunmans family hostage until he lets the hostages go.
hey, I said it was a solution, not a good one. honestly this is a bit of a joke, considering five (seven?) people have escaped and if this guy's a terrorist he should quit his day job.
also, I think this is the first time something has happened in australia and been put in the OT forum.
What if he doesn't have a family? Agree with your other point that he seems to be an amateur, which implies this is his first attempt, which probably makes him more dangerous.
Hordini wrote: They don't necessarily have to take him alive to be able to find that out.
That's true, but it's often easier to find out someone's motivations when you can just ask them.
Prison is a deterrent to terrorists, martyrdom is not. This was why different scum like Bobby Sands went on hunger strike. They didn't mind dying for the cause, they didn't like being treated like criminal scum.
With religious fanatics this is magnified somewhat, if the scum die they become martyrs, and icons if they get life tariffs in supermax, they do not inspire and you can play them also.
Most serial killers are not taken alive either, those that are becomes subject cases for mental health and useful to the profession, with politicasl cases you can always spin up what happens to them inside. The biggest bonus is if they convert to another religion, or go to seed. You can play that to the press and demystify them.
I'm no fan of the IRA, but Bobby Sands was a completely different kettle of fish. Irish Republicanism has been a long and documented struggle, and to give them their due, the IRA could be negotiated with, because they had a clear goal. ISIL on the other hand, seems to be nihilism - terrorism for its own sake. I doubt if they know what they want.
To be fair, the UK and the USA have enjoyed a long history of co-operation dating back to the Napoleonic war. Hardly a 51st state.
Also, I don't think Abbott joined in on the war against terrorism just to be part of the club. "Islamic" (let's be honest, they're hiding behind someone else's interpretation of Islam) extremism is a worldwide threat which needs to be stamped out. Enough blood has been spilled in the name of religion.
feth your question. Seriously, feth it. Not because of the reasons that were already mentioned, though, but because worse stuff happens pretty much every day in non-Western countries, and yet that never prompted you to ask yourself “Is Islam compatible with peace/humanity/whatever”. feth your question because it frames the world as the Western victims and the evil foreign all-Muslims aggressors, when really the first one to suffer from Islam live in countries with a Muslim majority. I have no problem with you criticizing Islam, hell I would likely be the first to agree, but building a narrative where the victims of Islam are poor westerners, or where what happens in non-Western countries is some non-relevant issue that we should not care about because they are strangers? I am going to get all angry on you.
Jihadin wrote: Anyone in "Down Under" figure out how radicalize is the guy their dealing with? Is he Home Grown? Recent arrival?
The media apparently know who he is but are not publicizing information from the public while the incident is still underway. His demands were also not meant to be publicized yet but it seems a couple American news channels have started.
feth your question. Seriously, feth it. Not because of the reasons that were already mentioned, though, but because worse stuff happens pretty much every day in non-Western countries, and yet that never prompted you to ask yourself “Is Islam compatible with peace/humanity/whatever”. feth your question because it frames the world as the Western victims and the evil foreign all-Muslims aggressors, when really the first one to suffer from Islam live in countries with a Muslim majority. I have no problem with you criticizing Islam, hell I would likely be the first to agree, but building a narrative where the victims of Islam are poor westerners, or where what happens in non-Western countries is some non-relevant issue that we should not care about because they are strangers? I am going to get all angry on you.
Never ask that question again.
Should have not responded to the post for now it becomes a debatable but stupid distraction from the actual discussion itself
Jihadin wrote: Anyone in "Down Under" figure out how radicalize is the guy their dealing with? Is he Home Grown? Recent arrival?
The media apparently know who he is but are not publicizing information from the public while the incident is still underway. His demands were also not meant to be publicized yet but it seems a couple American news channels have started.
He seems to be a white Caucasian convert home grown which hopefully he is not that freaking "fanatical fighter" in a mental state of "Jihad". Those types will go out in a blaze of glory. Is he still exposing himself at the window Dropbear?
Jihadin wrote: Anyone in "Down Under" figure out how radicalize is the guy their dealing with? Is he Home Grown? Recent arrival?
The media apparently know who he is but are not publicizing information from the public while the incident is still underway. His demands were also not meant to be publicized yet but it seems a couple American news channels have started.
He seems to be a white Caucasian convert home grown which hopefully he is not that freaking "fanatical fighter" in a mental state of "Jihad". Those types will go out in a blaze of glory. Is he still exposing himself at the window Dropbear?
No idea. The lights were out last I heard and they would have been in the dark a couple hours now.
Jihadin wrote: Anyone in "Down Under" figure out how radicalize is the guy their dealing with? Is he Home Grown? Recent arrival?
The media apparently know who he is but are not publicizing information from the public while the incident is still underway. His demands were also not meant to be publicized yet but it seems a couple American news channels have started.
He seems to be a white Caucasian convert home grown which hopefully he is not that freaking "fanatical fighter" in a mental state of "Jihad". Those types will go out in a blaze of glory. Is he still exposing himself at the window Dropbear?
No idea. The lights were out last I heard and they would have been in the dark a couple hours now.
Just heard there was a possible four IED's involve. Two in the cafe and two somewhere else was the count mention. He does not look to be wearing a suicide vest. No Warlocks/Dukes ECM in play just incase he decides to cell call a detonation or prevent the back up trigger detonation caller being they're using social media devices and posting on Twitter/whatnot
Identity is being revealed now as Man Maron Moris, a radical Iranian cleric. Apparently he's been recently giving death threats to the families of deceased soldiers and has a history of violence and sex crimes. Also apparently complicit in his wife's murder.
#illridewithyou:
Aussies call for support, tolerance to Muslims amid hostage crisis
Australian Twitter users have shown their support for their Muslim neighbors with a spontaneous campaign, offering to ride with them on buses and trains, or give them a lift to work to ensure their safety as the Sydney hostage situation continues.
Dropbear Victim wrote: Identity is being revealed now as Man Maron Moris, a radical Iranian cleric. Apparently he's been recently giving death threats to the families of deceased soldiers and has a history of violence and sex crimes. Also apparently complicit in his wife's murder.
Sounds like a nice chap.
He's open minded to accept Martyrdom. This is not going to end well
loki old fart wrote: #illridewithyou:
Aussies call for support, tolerance to Muslims amid hostage crisis
Australian Twitter users have shown their support for their Muslim neighbors with a spontaneous campaign, offering to ride with them on buses and trains, or give them a lift to work to ensure their safety as the Sydney hostage situation continues.
I believe another moderator has already warned users within this very thread about turning this into a religious discussion--or more specifically the merits of Islam within the western world. And while yes, some discussion of extremist religious views is inseparable from the situation, given what appears to be the motivations of the hostage taker, we are not going to go down an atheist/religious/geopolitical discussion about the ramifications of Islam. And this is from a moderator that has typically posted rather harsh criticisms of Islam (and religion in general). This is simply not the thread nor time for it, so please (please) avoid that. We are an international forum with many Australians and rather than lecture them on how their country has decided to view Muslim immigration, religious practices, etc.---why don't we just offer support for anyone directly or indirectly effected by this madman?
Mod Hat Off:
Seriously, to any of our Australian forum members, hope you and yours are safe and not caught up in this. Sorry to see you guys going through this, hopefully it resolves peacefully.
Dropbear Victim wrote: Identity is being revealed now as Man Maron Moris, a radical Iranian cleric. Apparently he's been recently giving death threats to the families of deceased soldiers and has a history of violence and sex crimes. Also apparently complicit in his wife's murder.
Sounds like a nice chap.
He's open minded to accept Martyrdom. This is not going to end well
Orlanth wrote: Local internet and cell phone links would/should be shut down by now.
If they're still linking into WiFi then no. Duke shuts down all ECM transmission. A Warlock allows only certain freq's that is not common to civilian population.
Dropbear Victim wrote: Identity is being revealed now as Man Maron Moris, a radical Iranian cleric. Apparently he's been recently giving death threats to the families of deceased soldiers and has a history of violence and sex crimes. Also apparently complicit in his wife's murder.
Sounds like a nice chap.
He's open minded to accept Martyrdom. This is not going to end well
First available shot?
They need to confirm if he has IED's or not. He might have a pipe bomb in there and cell call trigger IED somewhere in Sydney. They seriously more likely fine combing his place, suspected places and places far fetch he might have been at to confirm if he built IED's
He is not wearing a bomb vest though
Bigger question though is he a "Lone Wolf" or part of some movement. Thinking "Lone Wolf"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
loki old fart wrote: He claims to have been tortured in prison, for sending political letters.
He's building up the "justification" to end his life
loki old fart wrote: A little man seeking attention, may have been involved in his wife's death. current partner sent letters to families of dead Aussie soldiers.
Bitch of the problem that no one caught yet is he is a self proclaim "Cleric" or "Imam". This guy gets opted out the Muslim world is going to focus on the word and fact the West killed a Imam/Cleric of the Islamic Faith
Jihadin wrote: Bitch of the problem that no one caught yet is he is a self proclaim "Cleric" or "Imam". This guy gets opted out the Muslim world is going to focus on the word and fact the West killed a Imam/Cleric of the Islamic Faith
If this guy is actually Iranian and self-proclaimed, this seems very unlikely. He would certainly be Shia, meaning many of the Sunni extremists would not really care for him, and in Iran, one does not self-proclaim to be an Imam, just like one does not self-proclaim to be a catholic cardinal. The only people that would care about it are those that are desperate to feed their narrative. But those will fill it no matter what.
And I find the idea he may be an appointed Imam that is actually part of the Iranian clergy a bit implausible. Why would he want to go to Australia then? And why take hostages there? I expect a looser that self-proclaimed himself only after emigrating to Australia, as an excuse to indulge in whatever terrible things he fancied. I hope he get arrested without making any victim. Maybe he can still be fixed…[edit]Oh, too late for any kind of fixing him, apparently. Hope nobody else was injured.[/edit]
2 confirmed dead, 3 in critical--one news thread said one of the officers was critically injured.
It's good to reflect on that, given all of the police issues we've had lately (Perhaps justified in some circumstances, perhaps not others)---regardless there are some very brave guys out there that rush into buildings trying to save others, not knowing if there was an IED in there or not. Kudos to your officers Aussies, from what I've heard so far--he started letting go on hostages and they had to go in.
AgeOfEgos wrote: 2 confirmed dead, 3 in critical--one news thread said one of the officers was critically injured.
It's good to reflect on that, given all of the police issues we've had lately (Perhaps justified in some circumstances, perhaps not others)---regardless there are some very brave guys out there that rush into buildings trying to save others, not knowing if there was an IED in there or not. Kudos to your officers Aussies, from what I've heard so far--he started letting go on hostages and they had to go in.
Terrible for the families involved.
Agreed. But considering the number of hostages, could have been a lot worse.
AgeOfEgos wrote: 2 confirmed dead, 3 in critical--one news thread said one of the officers was critically injured.
It's good to reflect on that, given all of the police issues we've had lately (Perhaps justified in some circumstances, perhaps not others)---regardless there are some very brave guys out there that rush into buildings trying to save others, not knowing if there was an IED in there or not. Kudos to your officers Aussies, from what I've heard so far--he started letting go on hostages and they had to go in.
Terrible for the families involved.
Agreed. But considering the number of hostages, could have been a lot worse.
I agree.
The situation could of been a lot worse. Thank god the guy inside wasn't a pro and didn't have backup
Sydney gunman identified as Iranian-born Man Haron Monis, on bail for violent crimes Sheik Man Haron Monis, an Islamic ‘spiritual healer’ who is facing charges of sexual assault and being an accessory to murder, has been identified as the man who has taken civilians hostage in a Sydney café, according to local media citing police sources.
The Iranian-born 50-year-old fled to Australia in 1996, but came to prominence after 2007, when he began sending “hate mail” to families of soldiers, who died while fighting in Iraq.
Despite claiming to be a peace advocate, and even chaining himself to a courthouse, Monis was sentenced to 300 hours of community service last year.
Since then, his charge sheet has included much graver offences.
In December last year, Monis was accused of helping his current partner, Amirah Droudis, to murder his ex-wife, Noleen Hayson Pal. The woman had been stabbed several times and set alight in a Sydney apartment in April 2013.
Monis had been locked in a custody battle with Pal, and prosecutors say he staged a heart attack, car accident and a robbery to create an alibi on the day of the murder. In April this year, Monis, who was on bail, was re-arrested after multiple reports of sexual abuse emerged.
Between 2000 and 2002, Monis styled himself as an “expert in astrology, numerology, meditation and black magic.” More than 40 women have alleged that he used this as an opportunity to sexually assault vulnerable clients, who came to him for help.
Despite police concerns that Monis could attempt to extract revenge against his accusers, the preacher was once again released prior to his hearing.
Monis, who accumulated more than 14,000 followers on his Facebook page before it was shut down on Monday, accused the government of systematic persecution.
Monis was due to face trial for both sets of charges next year.
On Monday he walked into Lindt cafe in central Sydney, reportedly brandishing a gun. More than a dozen hostages were thought to remain inside, before police began a storm as night fell.
I think it's too early to judge any action taken by police until the details of exactly what happened come out. From early reports, it appears they heard a gunshot inside and that prompted the forced entry--which I assume is not unusual in hostage situations (as obviously, the negotiation window has passed when that occurs).
The video of them throwing flashbangs when other members were inside seemed strange to me too but I am not a SWAT member so have no idea if that's a standard of practice when your buddies have light diminishing helmets, how it was laid out inside, where they were inside, etc. We'll have to wait and see.
Looks like the hostage taker was a Class A scumbag with multiple sexual offensives, citations for writing nasty letters to widows of deceased soldiers (Freaking really?!) and probable murder charge pending. It appears the world is a better place without him, it's unfortunate he was able to pull this off before Australia was rid of him.
Looks like the hostage taker was a Class A scumbag with multiple sexual offensives, citations for writing nasty letters to widows of deceased soldiers (Freaking really?!) and probable murder charge pending. It appears the world is a better place without him, it's unfortunate he was able to pull this off before Australia was rid of him.
Ya know, it really does seem that the quality of "terrorist" has really declined since John McClane took out Hans and "Simon" Gruber, and COL. Stuart.
In all seriousness I'm glad this guy was taken down. I haven't read all the comments on this thread (only the last couple pages), so was it ever clarified whether this guy was accepted or aligned with ISIS/ISIL?
Sir Arun wrote: Am I the only guy who thinks most of the injured was due to the derpy rambo approach of the security forces?
I think they handled it reasonably well. Derpy, no, they got the perp and freed the hostages. Nobody can truly guarantee he won't get a pop off though.
Nevertheless I am surprised the police handled it, I thought they would have left a job like this to SASR.
The SASR deals with threats on the West coast (TAG-West). TAG-East is made up of 4RAR Commandoes, and I'd guess they made an informed assessment based on the situation to let the NSW Police deal with it.
You can legally obtain shotguns, rifles and pistols within certain parameters. Gun laws also vary from state to state, and illegal guns aren't incredibly hard to come by if you have any kind of criminal connections.
We have pretty tight gun control, but it's not a blanket "all guns are illegal" as the US media seems to like to report. It's just a far cry from being able to walk into a shop randomly off the street one day and buy one like you would a fishing rod or a hat.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Police Commissioner has said that they heard shots inside which prompted their immediate action.
Azazelx wrote: You can legally obtain shotguns, rifles and pistols within certain parameters. Gun laws also vary from state to state, and illegal guns aren't incredibly hard to come by if you have any kind of criminal connections.
We have pretty tight gun control, but it's not a blanket "all guns are illegal" as the US media seems to like to report. It's just a far cry from being able to walk into a shop randomly off the street one day and buy one like you would a fishing rod or a hat.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Police Commissioner has said that they heard shots inside which prompted their immediate action.
Thanks Az for the clarification
Going to go out on the limb and say the he executed two which sounds right with the time frame on the first shot follow b the second shot and recieving the "go" command. Third shot nail the first stacker though the door (pellet) in the face. Follow by the hail of automatic fire.
No intel to be gained being he "Lone Wolf" it. I saw that mention somewhere on here to take him alive for intel.
Da Boss wrote: Glad they got the guy, but sad that he was able to take two innocents with him.
Could we not turn this into a gun control debate btw? It's not that tasteful.
I'm in no way going there and not interested in that debate gaking up the thread. The question appeared reasonable in this case and I thought it worth clarifying the way things work here for non-locals.
Oh, I wasn't aiming that at you at all Azazelx. There's been a few posts tending that way before yours that I was thinking of.
Sorry for the confusion.
Azazelx wrote: You can legally obtain shotguns, rifles and pistols within certain parameters. Gun laws also vary from state to state, and illegal guns aren't incredibly hard to come by if you have any kind of criminal connections.
We have pretty tight gun control, but it's not a blanket "all guns are illegal" as the US media seems to like to report. It's just a far cry from being able to walk into a shop randomly off the street one day and buy one like you would a fishing rod or a hat.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Police Commissioner has said that they heard shots inside which prompted their immediate action.
Its not hard to find any weapon in the states, or anywhere. You just need to know where to look. I.E. Black Market is far reaching and you could find it in special places....
I knew a Detective who said he wasted his life trying to deal with it, but everytime he shut one down, another popped up.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Police Commissioner has said that they heard shots inside which prompted their immediate action.
Going to go out on the limb and say the he executed two which sounds right with the time frame on the first shot follow b the second shot and recieving the "go" command. Third shot nail the first stacker though the door (pellet) in the face. Follow by the hail of automatic fire.
Honestly too early to do anything more than speculate. There were (unconfirmed) reports of a heart attack with one of the hostages earlier, so that could be a cause of death, or it could be one of the people taken to hospital. Also 1 woman in hospital with gunshot wound to the shoulder. Not sure what kind at this stage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: Oh, I wasn't aiming that at you at all Azazelx. There's been a few posts tending that way before yours that I was thinking of.
Sorry for the confusion.
Azazelx wrote: You can legally obtain shotguns, rifles and pistols within certain parameters. Gun laws also vary from state to state, and illegal guns aren't incredibly hard to come by if you have any kind of criminal connections.
We have pretty tight gun control, but it's not a blanket "all guns are illegal" as the US media seems to like to report. It's just a far cry from being able to walk into a shop randomly off the street one day and buy one like you would a fishing rod or a hat.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Police Commissioner has said that they heard shots inside which prompted their immediate action.
Thanks Az for the clarification
Going to go out on the limb and say the he executed two which sounds right with the time frame on the first shot follow b the second shot and recieving the "go" command. Third shot nail the first stacker though the door (pellet) in the face. Follow by the hail of automatic fire.
No intel to be gained being he "Lone Wolf" it. I saw that mention somewhere on here to take him alive for intel.
Regarding the intel thing, it was in response to someone asking what possible reason could the Police have for taking him alive. At the time, I don't think it had yet been established that he was a Lone Wolf.
Regarding the intel thing, it was in response to someone asking what possible reason could the Police have for taking him alive. At the time, I don't think it had yet been established that he was a Lone Wolf.
Taking him alive would of been preferable as justice might of been served, but now he has two dead people on his hands and will rot in hell or the Muslim equalivent of it, for taking two people with him.
Sir Arun wrote: Am I the only guy who thinks most of the injured was due to the derpy rambo approach of the security forces?
I think they handled it reasonably well. Derpy, no, they got the perp and freed the hostages. Nobody can truly guarantee he won't get a pop off though.
Nevertheless I am surprised the police handled it, I thought they would have left a job like this to SASR.
I meant friendly fire.
I saw the video footage where they started spraying gunfire from OUTSIDE the cafe, through the windows into the area for almost 30 seonds straight by multiple guys. At that moment I think it would have been a very bad idea to be a hostage inside the cafe. So I wondered whether the multiple injured was from bullets ricocheting off walls and hitting the hostages etc.
But yeah, I have no idea how the situation could have been done better just wondering.
Regarding the intel thing, it was in response to someone asking what possible reason could the Police have for taking him alive. At the time, I don't think it had yet been established that he was a Lone Wolf.
Taking him alive would of been preferable as justice might of been served, but now he has two dead people on his hands and will rot in hell or the Muslim equalivent of it, for taking two people with him.
Heaven or not, weapons are quite easy to get even if it's not the USA. You steal them from someone who has them. Or you buy them from some shady guy who knows you deal in drugs. And he probably stole them too - the more legal guns there are the more of them will get stolen and end up in the hands of criminals.
Not to mention the huge amount of unlicensed "spoils of war" guns you'll find in the homes of WW2 veterans...
Azazelx wrote: You can legally obtain shotguns, rifles and pistols within certain parameters. Gun laws also vary from state to state, and illegal guns aren't incredibly hard to come by if you have any kind of criminal connections.
We have pretty tight gun control, but it's not a blanket "all guns are illegal" as the US media seems to like to report. It's just a far cry from being able to walk into a shop randomly off the street one day and buy one like you would a fishing rod or a hat.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Police Commissioner has said that they heard shots inside which prompted their immediate action.
Perhaps
It does seem odd however, given the strict gun laws in the AU, that a man with multiple felony charges and harrassment charges was able to get ahold of a shotgun.
Also....this guy was obviously a scumbag, why was he never deported back to hajistan
Regarding the intel thing, it was in response to someone asking what possible reason could the Police have for taking him alive. At the time, I don't think it had yet been established that he was a Lone Wolf.
Taking him alive would of been preferable as justice might of been served, but now he has two dead people on his hands and will rot in hell or the Muslim equalivent of it, for taking two people with him.
That depends one's perspective of the Koran...
I'm sure he thought he'd go to paradise.
true, but I am pretty sure in my book and many others he bought ticket for the dark below.
Sir Arun wrote: Am I the only guy who thinks most of the injured was due to the derpy rambo approach of the security forces?
I think they handled it reasonably well. Derpy, no, they got the perp and freed the hostages. Nobody can truly guarantee he won't get a pop off though. Nevertheless I am surprised the police handled it, I thought they would have left a job like this to SASR.
I meant friendly fire.
I saw the video footage where they started spraying gunfire from OUTSIDE the cafe, through the windows into the area for almost 30 seonds straight by multiple guys. At that moment I think it would have been a very bad idea to be a hostage inside the cafe. So I wondered whether the multiple injured was from bullets ricocheting off walls and hitting the hostages etc.
But yeah, I have no idea how the situation could have been done better just wondering.
You also have no idea what was going on inside the cafe. It's easy to say, from someone watching a limited external view video, that they weren't smart about it. Intel on the ground, in the cafe, might have told them otherwise.
As said, the TAG-East teams are 4RAR commandos, not police. They do know what they're doing.
I'm glad they go the fether, and my support goes out to all affected by the crisis. Your friends across the Tasman stand by all Australians.
Storming a building with hostages is a messy business at the best of times, and it sounds like the guy started shooting before the Police moved in. I'm glad they took the guy down before anyone else got killed.
You also have no idea what was going on inside the cafe. It's easy to say, from someone watching a limited external view video, that they weren't smart about it. Intel on the ground, in the cafe, might have told them otherwise.
As said, the TAG-East teams are 4RAR commandos, not police. They do know what they're doing.
Yeah when I saw that. I knew that this was going to be handled well.
These aren't regular police forces. They are actual pros.
Well there was the matter of a possible (up to) four IED's around Sydney with possible two of them in there with him from what I heard. Someone also mention a Suicide Bomb Vest but from the video I did see of him. Also it dawned on me just now he was clean shaven and well groomed so he was prepared to go.
One concern is that a suicide vest can be remote triggered even if the guy wearing it is dead. Police kill the terrorist then as they move in, a second guy triggers the bomb. Really serious stuff for them to have to deal with.
Breotan wrote: One concern is that a suicide vest can be remote triggered even if the guy wearing it is dead. Police kill the terrorist then as they move in, a second guy triggers the bomb. Really serious stuff for them to have to deal with.
Mention earlier that there were no Dukes or Warlocks around the cafe being hostages were still linked in with WiFi.
Jihadin wrote: Also it dawned on me just now he was clean shaven and well groomed so he was prepared to go.
Hard to tell, but also in the videos shown by the media through the window of the cafe, it looks like he was wearing those little black headbands with the white writing, indicating that he was ready to die. Hard to tell, but that is what it looked like.
Jihadin wrote: Also it dawned on me just now he was clean shaven and well groomed so he was prepared to go.
Hard to tell, but also in the videos shown by the media through the window of the cafe, it looks like he was wearing those little black headbands with the white writing, indicating that he was ready to die. Hard to tell, but that is what it looked like.
Takes about three days to prepare oneself to meet Allah. Perfumed, oiled, cleaned, and well groomed. Wonder if the hostages will sa how perfumed he was. Strong indicator of something out the ordinary
Jihadin wrote: Also it dawned on me just now he was clean shaven and well groomed so he was prepared to go.
Hard to tell, but also in the videos shown by the media through the window of the cafe, it looks like he was wearing those little black headbands with the white writing, indicating that he was ready to die. Hard to tell, but that is what it looked like.
Takes about three days to prepare oneself to meet Allah. Perfumed, oiled, cleaned, and well groomed. Wonder if the hostages will sa how perfumed he was. Strong indicator of something out the ordinary
I'm sure it'll take some time for the hostages to be debriefed before they let any of them talk to the media or anything. Good points as well.
On the topic of ECM:I really doubt the use of a chicken switch, considering what the media has released about the individual. I really wish we had gotten a view of the scene. AUS won't have DUKE, that is specific to us. They'll either have Warlock or MMBJ, which are approved to be released to NATO allies. I didn't see any vics, so it is all hearsay. Also, Live feed probably wouldn't have worked. I won't go too into detail, OPSEC and gak.
In general, I agree - in any hostage situation, if able to do so without risking the life of any hostages, I am highly in favor of immediately shooting the target and ask questions later. If you're taking hostages, you forfeit your rights and are free to be killed. It most often is a very risky thing to do, however, and the shot itself is difficult as well.
feth your question. Seriously, feth it. Not because of the reasons that were already mentioned, though, but because worse stuff happens pretty much every day in non-Western countries, and yet that never prompted you to ask yourself “Is Islam compatible with peace/humanity/whatever”. feth your question because it frames the world as the Western victims and the evil foreign all-Muslims aggressors, when really the first one to suffer from Islam live in countries with a Muslim majority. I have no problem with you criticizing Islam, hell I would likely be the first to agree, but building a narrative where the victims of Islam are poor westerners, or where what happens in non-Western countries is some non-relevant issue that we should not care about because they are strangers? I am going to get all angry on you.
Never ask that question again.
Not the world police.
I frame it as the "West" because that's from my experience of having grown up in a Western country. I could have framed it as, is Islam good for Britain and its commonwealth countries as I'd imagine a greater level of connection but I didn't.
Islam is an ideology that is firmly at odds with the west. It can never integrate, it only seeks to dominate. I'm not in the business of telling Muslims not to be Muslims, I just don't want it here. Britain has many other religious communities that have integrated and aren't free from criticism. Why is Islam given some kind of special pass?
Sir Arun wrote: Question should be: is Islam compatible with modernity?
135 dead pakistani school children by taliban hands say no.
Oddly, Afghanistan in the 1930s was more progressive than even the US. And if you look carefully, you can see this strain of being "ahead of the times" in many Islamic nations that are now viewed as being "backwards".
So, what happened? Well, among other things, you had the greatest military powers in the world dividing land up on a whim where and when it suited them, paying no regard to tribal/cultural ties or their rivalries. You had the rise of the Cold War, where the US and USSR waged proxy war on each other, creating and fueling groups that are now extremist in nature, etc.
I would honestly go so far as to say that Christianity, like Islam is not compatible with modernity, simply due to the "rivalry" between the religious beliefs, as well as the number of people who are completely OK with discrimination, hatred and other negative things toward any group that doesn't align with their belief.
Not the West police either. Are you even part of the Britain police?
There is no need to be part of the police to actually care for others. You can talk about them without putting yourself above them. You do not have to separate people based on their nationality.
I will say more on that thread you will create if I can before it is closed .
Sir Arun wrote: Question should be: is Islam compatible with modernity?
135 dead pakistani school children by taliban hands say no.
Others have already pointed it out, but that suggests that the problem is with the Taliban, not Islam. Especially considering the students that were killed were most likely Muslims themselves.
Sir Arun wrote: Question should be: is Islam compatible with modernity?
135 dead pakistani school children by taliban hands say no.
Others have already pointed it out, but that suggests that the problem is with the Pakistan Taliban (Afghanistan Taliban it seems are not the same), not Islam. Especially considering the students that were killed were most likely Muslims themselves.
Fixed
The distinction I mention earlier that's being said by some News Outlets
Sir Arun wrote: Question should be: is Islam compatible with modernity?
135 dead pakistani school children by taliban hands say no.
Others have already pointed it out, but that suggests that the problem is with the Pakistan Taliban (Afghanistan Taliban it seems are not the same), not Islam. Especially considering the students that were killed were most likely Muslims themselves.
Fixed
The distinction I mention earlier that's being said by some News Outlets
My guess is that this probably comes from Afghanistan/US/whoever still trying to work out some sort of treaty with the Afghanistan Taliban folks?
Sir Arun wrote: Question should be: is Islam compatible with modernity?
135 dead pakistani school children by taliban hands say no.
Others have already pointed it out, but that suggests that the problem is with the Pakistan Taliban (Afghanistan Taliban it seems are not the same), not Islam. Especially considering the students that were killed were most likely Muslims themselves.
Fixed
The distinction I mention earlier that's being said by some News Outlets
My guess is that this probably comes from Afghanistan/US/whoever still trying to work out some sort of treaty with the Afghanistan Taliban folks?
Pakistan trying to play both sides. Not as a whole just certain power bases within the Government and general population. I will admit though this is like the first time I heard mention today that there is a Pakistan version of the Taliban. The Taliban as a whole, back in 08-10, basically had the civilian population turn against them when they started "targeting" school age kids in Afghanistan. Also the backlash of smuggling in the children that were to be used as Suicide bombers. I would not want to be a Taliban member regardless of membership distinction in Pakistan in a few weeks. Since the new President (incoming in Afghanistan) seriously has major HATE towards Taliban that there will be no new or attempt of a deal regarding anyone in a leadership position in the Taliban
Sir Arun wrote: Question should be: is Islam compatible with modernity?
135 dead pakistani school children by taliban hands say no.
Oddly, Afghanistan in the 1930s was more progressive than even the US. And if you look carefully, you can see this strain of being "ahead of the times" in many Islamic nations that are now viewed as being "backwards".
So, what happened? Well, among other things, you had the greatest military powers in the world dividing land up on a whim where and when it suited them, paying no regard to tribal/cultural ties or their rivalries. You had the rise of the Cold War, where the US and USSR waged proxy war on each other, creating and fueling groups that are now extremist in nature, etc.
I would honestly go so far as to say that Christianity, like Islam is not compatible with modernity, simply due to the "rivalry" between the religious beliefs, as well as the number of people who are completely OK with discrimination, hatred and other negative things toward any group that doesn't align with their belief.
Well said, history and perspective is a wonderful thing, pity that more people don't pay attention to it. Iran was also quite progressive before the revolution ended their democratic potential. (for a while at least)
PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) — In the deadliest slaughter of innocents in Pakistan in years, Taliban gunmen attacked a military-run school Tuesday and killed 141 people — almost all of them students — before government troops ended the siege.
Related Stories
Top Asian News at 12:30 a.m. GMT Associated Press
Pakistan kills senior Al-Qaeda leader, says military AFP
US relationship with Pakistan wary but improving Associated Press
US, Pakistan remain wary but relations improve Associated Press
Horror in Peshawar The Wall Street Journal
The massacre of innocent children horrified a country already weary of unending terrorist attacks. Pakistan's teenage Nobel Peace laureate Malala Yousafzai — herself a survivor of a Taliban shooting — said she was "heartbroken" by the bloodshed.
Even Taliban militants in neighboring Afghanistan decried the killing spree, calling it "un-Islamic."
If the Pakistani Taliban extremists had hoped the attack would cause the government to ease off its military offensive that began in June in the country's tribal region, it appeared to have the opposite effect. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif pledged to step up the campaign that — along with U.S. drone strikes — has targeted the militants.
"The fight will continue. No one should have any doubt about it," Sharif said. "We will take account of each and every drop of our children's blood."
Taliban fighters have struggled to maintain their potency in the face of the military operation. They vowed a wave of violence in response to the operation, but until Tuesday, there has only been one major attack by a splinter group near the Pakistan-India border in November. Analysts said the school siege showed that even diminished, the militant group still could inflict horrific carnage.
Taliban Attack On Pakistan School Leaves 141 DeadPlay videoTaliban Attack On Pakistan School Leaves 141 Dead
The rampage at the Army Public School and College began in the morning when seven militants scaled a back wall using a ladder, said Maj. Gen. Asim Bajwa, a military spokesman. When they reached an auditorium where students had gathered for an event, they opened fire.
A 14-year-old, Mehran Khan, said about 400 students were in the hall when the gunmen broke through the doors and started shooting. They shot one of the teachers in the head and then set her on fire and shouted "God is great!" as she screamed, added Khan, who survived by playing dead.
From there, they went to classrooms and other parts of the school.
"Their sole purpose, it seems, was to kill those innocent kids. That's what they did," Bajwa said. Of the 141 people slain before government troops ended the assault eight hours later, 132 were children and nine were staff members. Another 121 students and three staff members were wounded.
The seven attackers, wearing vests of explosives, all died in the eight-hour assault. It was not immediately clear if they were all killed by the soldiers or whether they blew themselves up, he said.
View galleryTaliban attack school in Peshawar, Pakistan
Pakistani civil society members take part in a candle light vigil for the victims of a school attack …
The wounded — some still wearing their green school blazers — flooded into hospitals as terrified parents searched for their children. By evening, funeral services were already being held for many of the victims as clerics announced the deaths over mosque loudspeakers.
The government declared three days of mourning for what appeared to be Pakistan's deadliest since a 2007 suicide bombing in the port city of Karachi killed 150 people.
"My son was in uniform in the morning. He is in a casket now," wailed one parent, Tahir Ali, as he came to the hospital to collect the body of his 14-year-old son, Abdullah. "My son was my dream. My dream has been killed."
One of the wounded students, Abdullah Jamal, said he was with a group of eighth, ninth and 10th graders who were getting first-aid instructions and training with a team of army medics when the violence became real. Panic broke out when the shooting began.
"I saw children falling down who were crying and screaming. I also fell down. I learned later that I have got a bullet," he said, speaking from his hospital bed.
White House Calls Taliban Attack In Pakistan ' …Play videoWhite House Calls Taliban Attack In Pakistan 'Cold …
Another student, Amir Mateen, said they locked the door from the inside when they heard the shooting, but gunmen blasted through anyway and opened fire.
Responding to the attack, armored personnel carriers were deployed around the school, and a military helicopter circled overhead.
A little more than 1,000 students and staff were registered at the school, which is part of a network run by the military, although the surrounding area is not heavily fortified. The student body is made up of both children of military personnel as well as civilians.
Most of the students appeared to be civilians rather than children of army staff, said Javed Khan, a government official. Analysts said the militants likely targeted the school because of its military connections.
"It's a kind of a message that 'we can also kill your children,'" said Pakistani analyst Zahid Hussain.
Malala Yousafzai on deadly Pakistan school attack: …Play videoMalala Yousafzai on deadly Pakistan school attack: …
In a statement to reporters, Taliban spokesman Mohammed Khurasani claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it was retribution for the military's operation in nearby North Waziristan, the northwestern tribal region where the group's fighters largely have been based.
"We targeted their kids so that they could know how it feels when they hit our kids," Khurasani said. He said the attackers were advised not to target "underage" children but did not elaborate on what that meant.
In its offensive, the military said it would go after all militant groups operating in the region. Security officials and civilians feared retribution by militants, but Pakistan has been relatively calm.
The attack raised the issue of whether this was the last gasp of a militant group crippled by a government offensive or whether the militants could regroup.
Hussain, the Pakistani analyst, called the attack an "act of desperation."
At least 132 dead after Taliban storm Pakistan sch …Play videoAt least 132 dead after Taliban storm Pakistan sch …
The violence will throw public support behind the campaign in North Waziristan, he said. It also shows that the Pakistani Taliban still maintains a strong intelligence network and remains a threat.
The attack drew swift condemnation from around the world. U.S. President Barack Obama said the "terrorists have once again showed their depravity."
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry added: "The images are absolutely gut-wrenching: young children carried away in ambulances, a teacher burned alive in front of the students, a house of learning turned into a house of unspeakable horror."
Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, Pakistan's longtime regional rival, called it "a senseless act of unspeakable brutality."
"My heart goes out to everyone who lost their loved ones today. We share their pain & offer our deepest condolences," Modi said in a series of tweeted statements.
Kerry says "devastating" Pakistan school …Play videoKerry says "devastating" Pakistan school …
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said it was a "an act of horror and rank cowardice to attack defenseless children while they learn."
The violence recalled the attack on Malala Yousafzai, who was shot in the head by a Taliban gunman outside her school in the Swat Valley for daring to speak up about girls' rights. She survived to become a global advocate for girls' education and received her Nobel Peace Prize last week, but has not returned to Pakistan in the two years since the shooting out of security concerns.
"Innocent children in their school have no place in horror such as this," the 17-year-old said. "I condemn these atrocious and cowardly acts."
___
Santana reported from Islamabad. Associated Press writers Asif Shahzad in Islamabad, Munir Ahmed in Peshawar, Ishtiaq Mahsud in Dera Ismail Khan and Danica Kirka in London contributed to this report.
Heres some stuff that you might find interesting
Apparently Afghan Taliban apparently said to the Pakistani Taliban went too far. And was unislamic
Breotan wrote: One concern is that a suicide vest can be remote triggered even if the guy wearing it is dead. Police kill the terrorist then as they move in, a second guy triggers the bomb. Really serious stuff for them to have to deal with.
Mention earlier that there were no Dukes or Warlocks around the cafe being hostages were still linked in with WiFi.
They would have allowed spectrum use to get intel from the hostages, and from any sensors they covertly inserted, but I would bet somewhere between 2 minutes and 30 seconds before GO that the jammers were powered up.
I saw the video footage where they started spraying gunfire from OUTSIDE the cafe,
Most of the flashing was actually from multiple flash-bangs, NOT gunfire.
The perp started to nod off - the hostages, seeing an opening, started to move for the exits - he woke up and got off a few shots - THEN the po-po moved in, flashbangs first.
Shotguns aren't actually hard to come-by (compared to handguns or long-arms over a specified capacity). Much as the various religious groups like to close ranks and deny that he had any friends, someone like that ALWAYS has at least one friend who will help them out.
I saw the video footage where they started spraying gunfire from OUTSIDE the cafe,
Most of the flashing was actually from multiple flash-bangs, NOT gunfire.
The perp started to nod off - the hostages, seeing an opening, started to move for the exits - he woke up and got off a few shots - THEN the po-po moved in, flashbangs first.
From what's been released recently, basically he nodded off, and 5 people ran for it. He fired a shot through the door as a warning. The TAG snipers didn't see a hostage get hit, so they didn't move in. 9 minutes later, he shot the first hostage, and they reported that, and they moved in, but not fast enough to stop the second. They flashed the room several times then entered and opened fire.
We have that one Islamic guy in Oklahoma that was paraded around as a religious terrorist (even here on Dakka) who killed two women for being white (instead of it being a religious thing). We managed to do that whole ignoring the other 70+ murders in the county so there is that.
d-usa wrote: We have that one Islamic guy in Oklahoma that was paraded around as a religious terrorist (even here on Dakka) who killed two women for being white (instead of it being a religious thing). We managed to do that whole ignoring the other 70+ murders in the county so there is that.
Hey, you've gotta ignore all the other murders when your charging after your one pet cause. This holds true for all situations.
Christians don't slaughter schools full of children. They don't behead chidlren for refusing to convert from Islam. *continue with the untold number of atrocities done in the name of Islam in the last year alone*
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Suicide bomber? No. Drones, on the other hand? Pretty sure those kill quite a bunch of pepole yearly too, but that doesn't count because...?
Because its pants on head stupid to call America's foreign policy a Christian Crusade or Holy War. Its not remotely comparable to the Jihad being waged by Islamic groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda. The USA is motivated by security concerns, economics and maintain their Geo-political influence. Not religion. *
*Well, except for Bush J.r. perhaps. (good fething riddance).
Now, that being said, Islam itself is not solely culpable. There is a vast majority of peace loving, moderate Islamics in this world. Even in the Middle East/Central Asia.
But, there are certainly tenants within the religion that makes it easier to convert people to these horrible beliefs.
Well, seeing as I'm British and don't read or watch American news, perhaps you'll excuse me?
I can guarantee you, that if this happened in the UK, it would push ISIS off the front headlines and dominate the news for at least a week.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Now, that being said, Islam itself is not solely culpable. There is a vast majority of peace loving, moderate Islamics in this world. Even in the Middle East/Central Asia.
But, there are certainly tenants within the religion that makes it easier to convert people to these horrible beliefs.
Yes. The problem is, they're not in control.
And even if they're peace loving, they're not necessarily what I would consider moderate. Even "moderate", mainstream Islam has some quite intolerant outlooks on certain things like homosexuality, apostasy and women's rights... And Jews...
When the guys from the Southern Poverty Law Center say:
Its members identify themseves as Christians, however, “they are really not Christians in any sense that a christian would accept,” Potok added. Most mainstream American Christians, he said, would find a Phineas Priest’s reading of scripture to be “heretical.”
It would be hard to really attribute the attacks to Christianity.
Add in, it would be difficult to find prominent christian leaders advocating those types of actions and financially supporting them via a Zakat type mechanism. It would also be difficult to find new testament teachings of Christ which justify his actions.
But hey, if that looney did indeed commit the attacks in the name of Christ, so be it. That is one. A few abortion clinic bombers will help pad out the numbers a bit. But you're gonna have to gather up a bunch more to make a real comparison.
On a somewhat related note, what is it with some of the left leaning elements of our society that has them purposefully ignoring that the vast, vast majority of terrorist actions is done in the name of Islam?
Are you guys afraid to be considered less pluralist if you acknowledge this?!
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Muslims in the Western world are not the main problem, because they are by and large moderate.
Islamist Muslims in the Muslim world are.
See:
Iraq.
Syria.
Afghanistan.
Pakistan.
Yemen.
Saudi Arabia.
Somalia.
Palestine.
Libya.
One cannot buy help note that a number of those countries were once fairly secular ( if still unpleasant in a myriad of other ways of course) prior to Western invasion, bombing and/or intervention.
With the most hardcore adherents being, apparently, our allies.
Why did nobody call on prominent Christian leaders to condemn the religiously motivated actions of our Texas terrorist?
Why are people quick to jump and point out that "that isn't really what Christianity" teaches when something happens that makes them look bad?
Fringe elements of religions are going to to stupid things. Many people all over the world are doing stupid things for many reasons, and most killings are done for non-religious reasons of any kind. But taking the idiots on the fringe and holding them up as some kind of example of "this is what their religion is all about" is stupid and in complete ignorance of reality.
d-usa wrote: Why did nobody call on prominent Christian leaders to condemn the religiously motivated actions of our Texas terrorist?
Why are people quick to jump and point out that "that isn't really what Christianity" teaches when something happens that makes them look bad?
Fringe elements of religions are going to to stupid things. Many people all over the world are doing stupid things for many reasons, and most killings are done for non-religious reasons of any kind. But taking the idiots on the fringe and holding them up as some kind of example of "this is what their religion is all about" is stupid and in complete ignorance of reality.
When there are dozens to hundreds of such Jesus Motivated attacks each year resulting in hundreds to thousands of dead, I suspect Christian leaders would be condemning it and folks would be calling on them to do so.
But again, when even the Southern Poverty Law Centers says 'not real christian' it is difficult to think other wise.
d-usa wrote: Why did nobody call on prominent Christian leaders to condemn the religiously motivated actions of our Texas terrorist?
Why are people quick to jump and point out that "that isn't really what Christianity" teaches when something happens that makes them look bad?
Fringe elements of religions are going to to stupid things. Many people all over the world are doing stupid things for many reasons, and most killings are done for non-religious reasons of any kind. But taking the idiots on the fringe and holding them up as some kind of example of "this is what their religion is all about" is stupid and in complete ignorance of reality.
Don't you think you're engaging in the realm of moral equivalence fallacy here?
No one is really saying that Christians (or other religions) don't have their fair share of idiots. (Branch Davidians, Westboro nutters, etc...).
I think that "push back" is largely because people are rejecting the almost taboo efforts to criticize Islam.
d-usa wrote: Why did nobody call on prominent Christian leaders to condemn the religiously motivated actions of our Texas terrorist?
Why are people quick to jump and point out that "that isn't really what Christianity" teaches when something happens that makes them look bad?
Fringe elements of religions are going to to stupid things. Many people all over the world are doing stupid things for many reasons, and most killings are done for non-religious reasons of any kind. But taking the idiots on the fringe and holding them up as some kind of example of "this is what their religion is all about" is stupid and in complete ignorance of reality.
When there are dozens to hundreds of such Jesus Motivated attacks each year resulting in hundreds to thousands of dead, I suspect Christian leaders would be condemning it and folks would be calling on them to do so.
But again, when even the Southern Poverty Law Centers says 'not real christian' it is difficult to think other wise.
And when thousands of Islamic religious leaders (aka: the vast majority) tell you over and over again that this is not real Islam it's pretty easy for folks to think otherwise.
@wembly: it's not moral equivalence (is that the buzzword of the week on your blogs?) to point out that it doesn't take a lot of brain cells to have the ability to separate a religion from the idiots that claim to do stuff based on that religion. This is evidenced by the fact that people have the brainpower to realize that Christian extremism is not reflective of Christianity.
It's not saying "well, if Islam is bad then Christianity is bad too", it's asking "why does your brain manage to separate the idiots from the herd of Christians while refusing to separate the idiots from the herd of Muslims"?
It's not saying "well, if Islam is bad then Christianity is bad too", it's asking "why does your brain manage to separate the idiots from the herd of Christians while refusing to separate the idiots from the herd of Muslims"?
Because there seems to be allot more Muslim idiots than idiots from other religions?
@wembly: it's not moral equivalence (is that the buzzword of the week on your blogs?) to point out that it doesn't take a lot of brain cells to have the ability to separate a religion from the idiots that claim to do stuff based on that religion. This is evidenced by the fact that people have the brainpower to realize that Christian extremism is not reflective of Christianity.
It's not saying "well, if Islam is bad then Christianity is bad too", it's asking "why does your brain manage to separate the idiots from the herd of Christians while refusing to separate the idiots from the herd of Muslims"?
Why? Because we're really talking about Islamic extremism here...
Or, if you really want to get down to it, extremism in general.
Why do some people's brain "reflectively get defensive" whenever anyone criticize Islamic extremism?
I don't think that people have a long history of getting defensive when people criticize "Islamic extremism".
People get defensive when stupid statements get thrown around like "Islam is not compatible with the west" because at this point the criticism is no longer about the extremists but against an entire religion that is mostly peaceful.
d-usa wrote: Why did nobody call on prominent Christian leaders to condemn the religiously motivated actions of our Texas terrorist?
Why are people quick to jump and point out that "that isn't really what Christianity" teaches when something happens that makes them look bad?
Fringe elements of religions are going to to stupid things. Many people all over the world are doing stupid things for many reasons, and most killings are done for non-religious reasons of any kind. But taking the idiots on the fringe and holding them up as some kind of example of "this is what their religion is all about" is stupid and in complete ignorance of reality.
Why are certain people so quick to point to a small handful of Christian nutters that occasionally make the news and kill or harm only a small number of people, and pretend that they somehow balance out the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Muslim nutters who kill and harm hundres of thousands (if not millions) of people and make the news DAILY?
Fringe elements of religions are always going to do stupid things. The difference is, Islams fringe element is terrifyingly HUGE.
d-usa wrote: I don't think that people have a long history of getting defensive when people criticize "Islamic extremism".
People get defensive when stupid statements get thrown around like "Islam is not compatible with the west" because at this point the criticism is no longer about the extremists but against an entire religion that is mostly peaceful.
Except that that is not a stupid statement. Islamic values are not compatible with western liberal values, you just need to read the Koran to realize that.
Segregation of women is not compatible with western liberal values.
Abolition of freedom of religion is not compatible with western liberal values.
Abolition of freedom of expression is not compatible with western liberal values.
The death penalty and or / mutilation for minor crimes are not compatible with western liberal values.
The joining of church and state is not compatible with western liberal values.
To be fair, most of those issues can also be found on the Bible, but Christianity during the dark ages also wasn't compatible with western liberal values, but Christianity has developed away from those times while Islam hasn't, yet.
That modern Muslims, mostly those living in western democracies, choose to ignore those aspects of their holy book and live peacefully in their communities is no indicator if the religion itself is peaceful or not and least of all, the fact that Islam seems to breed much more violent extremists than any other religion should be discussed and analysed, especially when people start sprouting this "religion of peace" nonsense.
d-usa wrote: I don't think that people have a long history of getting defensive when people criticize "Islamic extremism".
People get defensive when stupid statements get thrown around like "Islam is not compatible with the west" because at this point the criticism is no longer about the extremists but against an entire religion that is mostly peaceful.
Again, you're making the fallacy of equating a Religion, with its adherents. Criticizing aspects of Islam that are intolerant and indeed quite bigoted, and coming to the conclusion that a religion which advocates such things is incompatible with a country (e.g. the UK) with values that directly contradict Islamic tenets (tolerance and equal rights for homosexuals for instance); does not equate to saying "All Muslims are incompatible with the West and therefore are not welcome".
I don't think that at all. But I do expect Muslims who come to the UK to obey the law, and be tolerant of things and people (homosexuals, women, apostates, blasphemers, Jews etc) that Islam expressly and vitriolically condemns. This means abandoning the tenets of Islam that are incompatible. (hell, this applies to Christianity too).
Islam, in its purest form is NOT compatible with the west. Do you think a religion that advocates death penalties for apostasy, homosexuality and blasphemy is compatible with Western liberal values? A religion that advocates subjugation and a 2nd class status for women and non-Muslims? The only way Islam can ever be "compatible" with the West, is for large parts of its religious laws and tenets to be outright criminalized. Islam is only "mostly peaceful" when its worst excesses are restrained and criminalized by western liberal values and secular laws. If you ask a Londoner if he thinks Islam is "largely peaceful", then ask the same question of an Eqyptian Coptic Christian, or a Yazidi christian, or any minority living in an Islamic theocracy, I expect you'll get very different answers.
d-usa wrote: I don't think that people have a long history of getting defensive when people criticize "Islamic extremism".
People get defensive when stupid statements get thrown around like "Islam is not compatible with the west" because at this point the criticism is no longer about the extremists but against an entire religion that is mostly peaceful.
d... let's try a different tact.
Which religion has adherents that are using their holy text to destabilize and entire region, murder innocent civilians, take hostages, take sex slaves, rape and pillage, and are attempting to set up a religiously exclusive state?
What the death toll is from Islamic terrorists versus Christian terrorists?
One team is clearly the junior varsity squad. The other is in the pros.
d-usa wrote: I don't think that people have a long history of getting defensive when people criticize "Islamic extremism".
People get defensive when stupid statements get thrown around like "Islam is not compatible with the west" because at this point the criticism is no longer about the extremists but against an entire religion that is mostly peaceful.
Except that that is not a stupid statement. Islamic values are not compatible with western liberal values, you just need to read the Koran to realize that.
Segregation of women is not compatible with western liberal values.
Like Christian churches that continue to segregate women in their congregation and refuse women any leadership roles?
Abolition of freedom of religion is not compatible with western liberal values.
Like Christian communities that banish all members that don't follow their religion?
Abolition of freedom of expression is not compatible with western liberal values.
Like Christian communities that banish freedom of expression and physically hurt anyone that is critical of their ideology?
The death penalty and or / mutilation for minor crimes are not compatible with western liberal values.
The death penalty isn't compatible with western liberal values period, yet Christians in the US still advocate in its favor, often quoting the Old Testament in their support.
The joining of church and state is not compatible with western liberal values.
Like the US passing law after law that because "the Bible says this thing is bad"?
To be fair, most of those issues can also be found on the Bible, but Christianity during the dark ages also wasn't compatible with western liberal values, but Christianity has developed away from those times while Islam hasn't, yet.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, and saying "their religion is bad because their holy book says all that but this other religion is not bad even though their holy book says the same thing" just makes you look silly.
Islam and Christianity have developed away from these times, radical Islam and radical Christianity haven't.
That modern Muslims, mostly those living in western democracies, choose to ignore those aspects of their holy book and live peacefully in their communities is no indicator if the religion itself is peaceful or not and least of all, the fact that Islam seems to breed much more violent extremists than any other religion should be discussed and analysed, especially when people start sprouting this "religion of peace" nonsense.
The stupid approach is to go "many extremists are Muslim, so therefore Islam must be extreme". It's intellectually lazy and factually inaccurate.
The intelligent approach would be to recognize the very fact that you already shared in your post and try to find out the cause of it: Muslims in the western world don't become violent extremist in a much larger number than Christians in the western world. So what is the difference between Muslims in this part of the world and Muslims in that part of the world that drives members of one group to extreme violence even though both groups follow the same teachings? Then we might look and see that Muslims in the middle east face a large amount of sectarian violence, ethnic and tribal conflicts, poverty, lack of education, and other contributing elements that can turn people to violence.
If millions of Muslims manage to be peaceful and modern members of society while following Islam, then Islam is by definition not the problem.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If you ask a Londoner if he thinks Islam is "largely peaceful", then ask the same question of an Eqyptian Coptic Christian, or a Yazidi christian, or any minority living in an Islamic theocracy, I expect you'll get very different answers.
And Egyptian Coptic Christians know that there is a difference between Muslims and Muslim Extremists, that's how we ended up with things like this:
Maybe Egyptian Coptic Christians are smarter than some Westerners.
Didn't your country have bombs planted and shootings between different Christian sects not too long ago?
The death penalty and or / mutilation for minor crimes are not compatible with western liberal values.
The death penalty isn't compatible with western liberal values period, yet Christians in the US still advocate in its favor, often quoting the Old Testament in their support.
Which simply puts the USA on a par with Islamic theocracies. The factIt doesn't disprove our point.
I know Americans sometimes like to think they're the centre of the Universe, but "The West" includes more countries than just the USA. A lot of your counter points are unique to the USA, and simply wouldn't fly in Europe.
The stupid approach is to go "many extremists are Muslim, so therefore Islam must be extreme". It's intellectually lazy and factually inaccurate.
Good thing we're not saying that then. We're saying that Islam in its purest form IS extreme.
Because really, what could be more extreme than child marriage; executions for apostasy, blasphemy and homosexuality; amputations for Theft, caning and whipping/lashing for adultery?
And when thousands of Islamic religious leaders (aka: the vast majority) tell you over and over again that this is not real Islam it's pretty easy for folks to think otherwise.
Ehh... I think it;s more like dozens to hundreds (if we're pushing it) of Islamic leaders. The various US news media outlets do seem to rotate through the batting order of "leaders" they have on the air. I also seem to recall they keep having to change up leaders, because after being "good" on the news, they will turn hypocritical and do or say something less than peaceful
d-usa wrote: I don't think that people have a long history of getting defensive when people criticize "Islamic extremism".
People get defensive when stupid statements get thrown around like "Islam is not compatible with the west" because at this point the criticism is no longer about the extremists but against an entire religion that is mostly peaceful.
d... let's try a different tact.
Which religion has adherents that are using their holy text to destabilize and entire region, murder innocent civilians, take hostages, take sex slaves, rape and pillage, and are attempting to set up a religiously exclusive state?
All of them?
Let's try a different tact.
How many Muslims are terrorists and how many people are Muslims?
ISIS has ~32,000 members. Al-Qaeda has 10,000 if we give them a very generous estimate. Let's be extra generous and throw in another 8,000 from various tiny splinter groups around the world to make it an even 50,000.
There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. That means 3% of them are extremists, and if we go down the "they are only terrorists because they are Muslims and not because of any other regional factors" route than 3% of them turn out extremists because of their religion.
It's a pretty gakky violent religion if it only manages to convert 3% of adherents to actually follow the violent teachings it apparently promotes.
Hell, the British National Party has 4,200+ members, which means that 6% of people in the UK are members of an extremist group. It appears that the UK is twice as likely to turn people extreme than Islam!
On the US front 3% of the US population belongs to the KKK (and the percentage of Christians that belong to the KKK would be even higher),
If you include the various other extremist groups in the US that include "christian teachings" in their violent bs then you will find out that a larger percentage of Christians do violent crap than Muslims.
And that just includes actual groups and ignores the idiot that beats his wife because she is his property and her church that tell her that she has to stay with him because she promised God that she would.
That number seems awfully low to me, where did you come up with it?
Went with Wikipedia, other sources are always welcome but I'm pretty confident that in the wake of 1,500,000,000 worldwide Muslims it isn't going to shift the percentages much.
Good thing we're not saying that then. We're saying that Islam in its purest form IS extreme.
You are saying that Islam in the narrow-minded bigoted and inaccurate form that exists in my head is extreme.
No, I'm not. I'm saying the Islam that exists in the fething Koran is extreme.
but don't let that stop you. Do continue putting words in people's mouths, beating up straw men and using ad hominem, it only makes you look even more of a prat.
Good thing we're not saying that then. We're saying that Islam in its purest form IS extreme.
You are saying that Islam in the narrow-minded bigoted and inaccurate form that exists in my head is extreme.
No, I'm not. I'm saying the Islam that exists in the fething Koran is extreme.
You also admit that everything that you listed in the Koran is also listed in the Bible.
But of course then you turn around and go "just because it's in the book doesn't mean it's part of the religion anymore"
but don't let that stop you. Do continue putting words in people's mouths, beating up straw men and using ad hominem, it only makes you look even more of a prat.
The UK must be getting to you, if you are not careful the radical teachings of the United Kingdomism will drive you to join the 6% of your fellow folks. No wonder the UK is twice as likely to breed extremists than Islam.
Good thing we're not saying that then. We're saying that Islam in its purest form IS extreme.
You are saying that Islam in the narrow-minded bigoted and inaccurate form that exists in my head is extreme.
No, I'm not. I'm saying the Islam that exists in the fething Koran is extreme.
You also admit that everything that you listed in the Koran is also listed in the Bible.
But of course then you turn around and go "just because it's in the book doesn't mean it's part of the religion anymore"
Dude...I'm a fething atheist. If you think you're gonna goad me into defending Christianity so you can cry "Gotcha!", think again.
Next straw man?
but don't let that stop you. Do continue putting words in people's mouths, beating up straw men and using ad hominem, it only makes you look even more of a prat.
The U must be getting to you, if you are not careful the radical teachings of the United Kingdomism will drive you to join the 6% of your fellow folks. No wonder the UK is twice as likely to breed extremists than Islam.
Criticizing aspects of Islam that are intolerant and indeed quite bigoted, and coming to the conclusion that a religion which advocates such things is incompatible with... [The West] does not equate to saying "All Muslims are incompatible with the West and therefore are not welcome".
Criticizing aspects of Islam that are intolerant and indeed quite bigoted, and coming to the conclusion that a religion which advocates such things is incompatible with... [The West] does not equate to saying "All Muslims are incompatible with the West and therefore are not welcome".
But saying "Islam is not compatible with the west" is different than saying "certain passages of the Koran are not compatible with the west" and acknowledging that for the vast majority of Muslims these teachings are not part of "Islam".
It's like saying that "The UK is not compatible with the west" instead of "6% of UK citizens follow an ideology that is incompatible with western standards" while acknowledging that for the vast majority of folks in the UK the BNP is not representative of their ideology.
If you want to focus on the extremists, who by all accounts should be eliminated and prosecuted with all the power available, then focus on them. But we don't need to use language that throws the 90%+ of normal peaceful and "west-compatible" Muslims out with the bathwater.
d-usa wrote: If you want to focus on the extremists, who by all accounts should be eliminated and prosecuted with all the power available, then focus on them. But we don't need to use language that throws the 90%+ of normal peaceful and "west-compatible" Muslims out with the bathwater.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And you're clearly not bothering to read what I say, so at this point I'm just going to quote myself ad nauseam
Criticizing aspects of Islam that are intolerant and indeed quite bigoted, and coming to the conclusion that a religion which advocates such things is incompatible with... [The West] does not equate to saying "All Muslims are incompatible with the West and therefore are not welcome".
I'm criticizing Islamic theology, not Muslims.
If 90% of Muslims do not subscribe to those tenets and doctrines that I dislike, wonderful. I'm not talking about them, only you are. They're irrelevant to this conversation, which is about ISLAM, not MUSLIMS.
Automatically Appended Next Post: When I say "Islam is incompatible with the West", I'm talking about Islamic doctrine as a whole. Not individual Muslims. If Muslims want to come to this country (UK), and they obey the law and are tolerant of things and other social groups whole violate Islamic tenets (e.g. homosexuality) then thats wonderful. They're welcome to come here and be productive members of society like anyone else.
But that means abandoning/ignoring certain tenets, and doctrines, and commandments, and outlooks within Koran that are incompatible with Western secular laws and values. At which point they're not really practicing Islam, they're practicing a narrow, selective interpretation of Islam. (And as an atheist I applaud them, the more Islamic tenets they ignore the better).
So when you say "What about Christianity? Its not compatible with the West either!". You're absolutely fething right. Christianity too, in its purest form, is not compatible with Western values. But Christianity in the West is not the issue here. Christianity has been largely neutered in the West (well, except for the USA perhaps, which is a special case) through decades and centuries of secularism and liberalization. It has been forced to reform and adapt to changing social attitudes. Islam on the other hand has not.
d-usa wrote: If you want to focus on the extremists, who by all accounts should be eliminated and prosecuted with all the power available, then focus on them. But we don't need to use language that throws the 90%+ of normal peaceful and "west-compatible" Muslims out with the bathwater.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And you're clearly not bothering to read what I say, so at this point I'm just going to quote myself ad nauseam
Criticizing aspects of Islam that are intolerant and indeed quite bigoted, and coming to the conclusion that a religion which advocates such things is incompatible with... [The West] does not equate to saying "All Muslims are incompatible with the West and therefore are not welcome".
I'm criticizing Islamic theology, not Muslims.
You keep on criticizing radical Islamic theology which is different from mainstream Islamic theology. It's like using some sermon from a Southern Baptist preacher to criticize Catholic Ideology.
Islam is fractured, just like Christianity, and there are many different sects. The majority of which don't follow your idea of Islamic theology.
If 90% of Muslims do not subscribe to those tenets and doctrines that I dislike, wonderful. I'm not talking about them, only you are. They're irrelevant to this conversation, which is about ISLAM, not MUSLIMS.
When you talk about "Islamic theology" then you are also talking about these 90% of Muslims. When you are criticizing Islamic theology (wrongfully so) then you are criticizing all members of the Muslim faith.
If you want to talk about the radical idiots then talk about their radical ideology.
It's not rocket science.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: . At which point they're not really practicing Islam, they're practicing a narrow, selective interpretation of Islam..
There is really only one person right now with a narrow selective interpretation of Islam...
You keep on criticizing radical Islamic theology which is different from mainstream Islamic theology. It's like using some sermon from a Southern Baptist preacher to criticize Catholic Ideology.
Islam is fractured, just like Christianity, and there are many different sects. The majority of which don't follow your idea of Islamic theology.
When you talk about "Islamic theology" then you are also talking about these 90% of Muslims. When you are criticizing Islamic theology (wrongfully so) then you are criticizing all members of the Muslim faith.
Now you're contradicting yourself. First you say "Radical Islamic theology is different to mainstream Islamic theology" and then you're saying "if you criticize Islamic theology then you're criticizing all members of Islam".
Which is it?
If you want to talk about the radical idiots then talk about their radical ideology.
It's not rocket science.
Do radical Muslims have their own special Koran, distinct from that used by mainstream Muslims?
It's not a condradiction, it's a basic crasp of the English language.
If you use the words "Islamic theology" then by using that language you are including all followers of any branch of the Islamic faith. When you keep on using "Islamic theology" to criticize a narrow sect of Muslims then you are wrongfully including every Muslim in your criticism of the minor branch.
Here is your argument:
I'm not Muslim, but I know how to Muslim and Musliming isn't compatible with the west. Anybody that Muslims differently from how I think people should Muslim if they are Muslims is not really Musliming and is only following a narrow selective version of Musliming.
I don't know if that helps you realize how stupid your argument sounds, but I'm not holding my breath. It appears that I fell into a "some atheists know more about all religion than the actual followers of those religions" cycle.
Do radical Muslims have their own special Koran, distinct from that used by mainstream Muslims?
They have their own interpretation and teachings, yes.
The West has adopted a belief in the equality of the sexes and strives to bring about laws that promote equality for all.
Islam is inherently misogynist and intolerant towards other faiths and beliefs. The more people talk about tolerant muslims and tolerant muslim states, the more they are, in fact, referring to people and nations who do not adhere to the letter and commandment of their own religious scripture.
The same could be leveled against Christianity, if it weren't for the whole New Testament Jesus vs Muhammad bit, wherein Jesus was a Holy hippie socialist and Muhammad was a military leader and conqueror.
The foundations of Islam are aggressive, assimilating and intolerant, they really are not compatible with the Western democratic beliefs in tolerance, acceptance and inclusion.
Criticizing aspects of Islam that are intolerant and indeed quite bigoted, and coming to the conclusion that a religion which advocates such things is incompatible with... [The West] does not equate to saying "All Muslims are incompatible with the West and therefore are not welcome".
Let's try this then: people who follow UK values are racist homophobic bigots.
Is there a problem with my statement? Is it going to get a mod-alert? If it does get a mod-alert it is clearly the fault of everybody else who assumes that my statement about "UK values" includes everyone that isn't actually a bigoted racist homophobe.
I refuse to believe that you are actually unable to understand the difference between using your words in a way that makes a blanket statement about all adherents of a religion and using your words in an intelligent manner to actually narrow your criticism to the people that criticism actually applies to.
d-usa wrote: Let's try this then: people who follow UK values are racist homophobic bigots.
Lets not. I'm tiring of your hyperbole and straw men.
Is there a problem with my statement?
Yes. Its factually incorrect.
1. define "UK values". 2. prove that these values are racist and homophobic.
Is it going to get a mod-alert? If it does get a mod-alert it is clearly the fault of everybody else who assumes that my statement about "UK values" includes everyone that isn't actually a bigoted racist homophobe.
Not from me. I'm not in the habit of trying to shut down opposing opinions by grassing people up to the mods.
I refuse to believe that you are actually unable to understand the difference between using your words in a way that makes a blanket statement about all adherents of a religion and using your words in an intelligent manner to actually narrow your criticism to the people that criticism actually applies to.
<Sigh>
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And you're clearly not bothering to read what I say, so at this point I'm just going to quote myself ad nauseam
Criticizing aspects of Islam that are intolerant and indeed quite bigoted, and coming to the conclusion that a religion which advocates such things is incompatible with... [The West] does not equate to saying "All Muslims are incompatible with the West and therefore are not welcome".
d-usa wrote: It's almost like you try to pretend that you don't say "Islamic theology" when those are the words you used...
Its almost like you're still deliberately misconstruing what I say.
I'm talking about Islamic religious doctrine, not Muslims. There are certain aspects of it that I dislike and regard as bigoted and intolerant, and therefore incompatible as a whole, with "The West". Its entirely possible for individual Muslims to ignore those bad parts of Islam in order to live peacefully in a Western nation. In which case, wonderful, as an atheist I'd applaud them. But that doesn't change the fact that they're practicing a watered down version of Islam that would probably be described as heresy or even apostasy in Saudi Arabia, the birth place of Islam.
You think that any criticism of certain aspects of Islamic doctrine is a criticism of any and all Muslims. Its not. Its only a criticism of the ones who actually practice those doctrines.
d-usa wrote: Wow, big text. How could anyone argue with that...
No, I'm highlighting the parts that I want you to specifically acknowledge instead of ignoring them and arguing against some imaginary comment made by an imaginary person that isn't me.
I'm highlighting them because I want you to argue against them.
Mind if I print out the post with the big letters to take to the local mosque to help them realize that they are not really following Islam because some random bloke on DakkaDakka said so?
d-usa wrote: Mind if I print out the post with the big letters to take to the local mosque to help them realize that they are not really following Islam because some random bloke on DakkaDakka said so?
Only if you then visit Saudi Arabia, or any other Islamic theocracy, and contrast Islam there with Islam in the West.
Oh, and I can't help but notice how you're still not addressing what I actually say, and are instead just deflecting my points with mockery.
d-usa wrote: Mind if I print out the post with the big letters to take to the local mosque to help them realize that they are not really following Islam because some random bloke on DakkaDakka said so?
Only if you then visit Saudi Arabia, or any other Islamic theocracy, and contrast Islam there with Islam in the West.
Oh, and I can't help but notice how you're still not addressing what I actually say, and are instead just deflecting my points with mockery.
d-usa wrote: Mind if I print out the post with the big letters to take to the local mosque to help them realize that they are not really following Islam because some random bloke on DakkaDakka said so?
Only if you then visit Saudi Arabia, or any other Islamic theocracy, and contrast Islam there with Islam in the West.
Oh, and I can't help but notice how you're still not addressing what I actually say, and are instead just deflecting my points with mockery.
I've addressed what you said over and over again:
No, you've addressed points over and over again that I did not make.
Then go to Saudia Arabia, just outside Mecca and slander their Prophet.
Are you joining the bandwagon of pretending that the actions of individual groups are representative of the 1,500,000,000 people that follow the same religion?
Since some folks like big words and others like fancy colors let's try this:
If you want to criticize extremist members of a Islam then criticize extremist Islamic theology.
If you want to criticize every single Muslim then criticize Islamic thelogy .
If you don't want to look like you are making bigoted statements about every single Muslim then don't make statements criticizing Islamic theology .
d-usa wrote: Mind if I print out the post with the big letters to take to the local mosque to help them realize that they are not really following Islam because some random bloke on DakkaDakka said so?
Only if you then visit Saudi Arabia, or any other Islamic theocracy, and contrast Islam there with Islam in the West.
Oh, and I can't help but notice how you're still not addressing what I actually say, and are instead just deflecting my points with mockery.
Let's not open that can of worms. Some have been to multiple Islamic countries and western nations. Some have not taking or been given the opportunities to visit or work in both worlds.
Terminally OT, circular argument, rude, misrepresentation of other users points, etc etc take your pick. Don't go starting a new thread about Islam's compatability with the west either, we've covered that here now
