Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 -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.

Good god

 Medium of Death wrote:
I don't know. Culturally it is very different..

To what?

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.

 Firehead158 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
I don't know. Culturally it is very different.

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.

Yeah, exactly.

 insaniak wrote:

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!

 insaniak wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
I don't know. Culturally it is very different..

To what?

Your own?

Western?

Taqiyya is a fine reason not to take anything said at face value.

I'm not sure why non Muslims feel so compelled to defend them so frequently.

We see things like the Cop "killing" protests yet we don't see anything like that for Islam. Not all cops are the same, what's the difference?

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.

Hope for the safe return of the hostages.

Stay strong Australia!

 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.

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.

 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.

Still not a discussion really relevant to what's happening in Martin Place.

 DarkLink wrote:

 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)

Three people released. Reports are still saying it's a single gunman.

 -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.

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.

Well spoken.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 -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?

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.

This. A thousand times this.

 Hordini wrote:
Why do you hope they take him alive?

So we can find out who he is and what he wanted.

They don't necessarily have to take him alive to be able to find that out.

And to cock block.

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.

 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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Why do you hope they take him alive?

So we can find out who he is and what he wanted.

What if he doesn't cooperate?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

 Hordini wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 -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.

 Breotan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Why do you hope they take him alive?

So we can find out who he is and what he wanted.

What if he doesn't cooperate?

An uncooperative terrorist is still generally more talkative than a dead one.

 Hordini wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

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.

 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.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 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?