Hostages held in siege in Martin Place, Sydney in lockdown

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayZee

To begin with, it was unknown if the gunman had an accomplice who may have already been in the cafe;
Shooting through glass carries the risk of deflecting and deforming the round, thus triggering an unwanted response from the hostage taker.

---

Negligible at that distance. A Barrett 50 cal with metal caps would deviate an inch or less. Maybe hurt a few hostages with glass splinters, but that's better than dying, and I doubt Health and Safety would have objected.

Quote:

---

The hostages who escaped were under the impression that there were bombs planted in the cafe - dead man's trigger mechanism?;
It now appears that one of the hostages attempted to disarm the gunman, and the consequence of that is now known.

---

There is a big failing in the Australian policing system where it comes to giving the order to shoot. Police will have been told by the minister, don't shoot unless he does

They had excellent views of him at all times, including with NV, so that's hardly likely.

They should have topped him at first sight, and now the media in Australia are rightly asking the same question.

---

There is a big failing in the police system in Australia in these situations. The police minister would have had to give the order to shoot.
Michael Bryant was in sniper sights multiple times, but the order to shoot was never given and he killed 35 people.

This failing to act encase you make the wrong call is entrenched in all states and the Federal government.

Look at the Vic bush fire that killed 170 odd people, fat police commissioner, went to lunch and have her hair done. She was in-charge of the states emergency services, but didn't want to take charge, encase she was held responsible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bsnub

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayZee

To begin with, it was unknown if the gunman had an accomplice who may have already been in the cafe;
Shooting through glass carries the risk of deflecting and deforming the round, thus triggering an unwanted response from the hostage taker.

---

Negligible at that distance. A Barrett 50 cal with metal caps would deviate an inch or less. Maybe hurt a few hostages with glass splinters, but that's better than dying, and I doubt Health and Safety would have objected.

---

Really? I've fired a fair few guns in my time, but wouldn't have a clue what a round like that would do through a plate glass window...

---

Harry playing armchair Rambo here. No modern SWAT team would ever use a Barrett .50 in an urban hostage rescue situation. That round is so powerful that it would kill the terrorist and anything behind them as well. Complete unreasonable overkill. Sort of like blaming 1 billion people for the actions of 1 nutter who should have been already locked up in jail because he was clearly a psycho. After all the aussies have no problem at all stuffing women and children asylum seekers in jail so why not a murdering rapist?. :)

---

Fixed that for you. :yerman:

A clear shot of the target through plate glass windows?

I thought that was dispensed with, unless of course one wanted to use a howitzer propelling a .50 calibre round into a confined space packed with 30 hostages which Bsnub has correctly identified as perhaps the daftest suggestion to appear on the board for quite a while.

Anyway, who is to say that the authorities had not planned an assault for, say 0400 hrs, when he was approaching exhaustion but this was thwarted with the intervention of the cafe manager?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zygote1

Looks like the SOP of a practitioner of the "Religion of Peace";
- Self proclaimed expert on the interpretation and application of the Koran;
- Supporter of a violent group;

---

Which violent group did he support? (I haven't seen any evidence of that.)

Bloody Nora, there must be some weird dialog going on for theSeekingasylum to come across as the gentle voice of reason...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taxexile

Quote:

---

Anyway, back on theme, it seems Abbot the prime minister has endorsed my analysis and described the Iranian variously as unstable, riven with infatuation and a criminal who sought to cloak his actions in ideology.

---

anything, absolutely anything so long as no offence is given or a smidgin of suspicion placed on a primitive ideology that has for years preached violent action against western culture.

---

In this case, Abbot is right; the guy was a nutter/a loser, just using religion as an excuse. You get nutters at the local football match causing chaos, being racist, fighting, etc, but that doesn't mean that I, the old fella who has been following the team for 60 years, the club, the game itself is to blame...

But, having said that, I wonder how many other nutters/complete losers are attracted to religion? I also wonder what a culture of believing in these 'Books of God' does to the masses who follow them - nothing good, that's for sure because only the weak willed/insane/stupid and/or ignorant/blinkered/brainwashed would follow these 'Books of Nonsense'. Religion is a massive problem. Intercultural religious clashes are a massive problem.

Ultimately, the folks who gain power and money from religion are the problem not the individuals (they are just stupid and easily fooled, as per the average Sun reader...), whether that be Blair and Bush or an Ayotollah and House of Saud...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

Because the twat Bush says he's a Xtian don't mean diddly squat!

Haven't you read, "Not all who say,'Lord, Lord!' may enter the kingdom, but he who doth all that cometh from the mouth of god." ;- reputedly said Jesus to his disciples.

Doing the talk ain't doing the walk.

---

You could use exactly the same argument about Man Haron Monis.

Bliar and Bush both sought comfort from their religious beliefs that they were right. But then, I don't think the Iranian was a religious person as such. Allah to him was just a means to get pussy.

Imagine "escorting" muslims to work etc etc

This policy could be administered across the western world and hey presto no more bombings and everyone becoming friends apart from the extremists who don't wish to be "escorted" hence making them instantly recognisable as a potential threat.

You rock Australia:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

Because the twat Bush says he's a Xtian don't mean diddly squat!

Haven't you read, "Not all who say,'Lord, Lord!' may enter the kingdom, but he who doth all that cometh from the mouth of god." ;- reputedly said Jesus to his disciples.

Doing the talk ain't doing the walk.

---

You could use exactly the same argument about Man Haron Monis.

---

Of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chittychangchang

Imagine "escorting" muslims to work etc etc

This policy could be administered across the western world and hey presto no more bombings and everyone becoming friends apart from the extremists who don't wish to be "escorted" hence making them instantly recognisable as a potential threat.

You rock Australia:)

---

Yup

Oz could do with a "Tell Mama" website and phone in number for nervous Muzzies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabang

Australians Reveal Themselves To Be A Class Act, Even In The Face Of Tragedy. #illridewithyou

---

A progressive western society should be leading the way with discouraging the wearing of overtly religious clothing in public. This is encouraging muslims to flaunt their religion as a matter of public pride. Religion should be encouraged to be seen as an increasingly private matter as we move towards a time when religion can be treated like smoking and generally discouraged as bad for your mental health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

Bliar and Bush both sought comfort from their religious beliefs that they were right. But then, I don't think the Iranian was a religious person as such. Allah to him was just a means to get pussy.

---

Come off it!

Blair became a Xtian after sanctioning the murder of Kelly, just one big guilt trip which he'll never get over.

Bush, just like Paisley of NI tried to whip up religious fervour to get the troops out, the phoney bastard.

The Iranian in this hostage deal was no more nor less "religious" than the other two.

All three are mouthers of obsequious bullshit masquerading as idealistic god fearing religious principle when in fact they were simply amateur puppet masters of a bunch of lost sheep.

None of their objectives worked out, long and short term, all three turned out to be frauds and failures.

Read about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Looper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabang

Australians Reveal Themselves To Be A Class Act, Even In The Face Of Tragedy. #illridewithyou

---

A progressive western society should be leading the way with discouraging the wearing of overtly religious clothing in public. This is encouraging muslims to flaunt their religion as a matter of public pride. Religion should be encouraged to be seen as an increasingly private matter as we move towards a time when religion can be treated like smoking and generally discouraged as bad for your mental health.

---

Who the hell wears "overtly religious clothing" in public other than clerics and of course,.....wait for it............ragheads........... and a few Hare Krsna freaks et al.

It's up to the ragheads to pull their necks in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Ultimately, the folks who gain power and money from religion are the problem.

---

Yer onto it!

What beats me is why a sniper wasn't ordered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bsnub

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayZee

To begin with, it was unknown if the gunman had an accomplice who may have already been in the cafe;
Shooting through glass carries the risk of deflecting and deforming the round, thus triggering an unwanted response from the hostage taker.

---

Negligible at that distance. A Barrett 50 cal with metal caps would deviate an inch or less. Maybe hurt a few hostages with glass splinters, but that's better than dying, and I doubt Health and Safety would have objected.

---

Really? I've fired a fair few guns in my time, but wouldn't have a clue what a round like that would do through a plate glass window...

---

Harry playing armchair Rambo here. No modern SWAT team would ever use a Barrett .50 in an urban hostage rescue situation. That round is so powerful that it would kill the terrorist and anything behind them as well. Sort of like using a chainsaw to cut butter. :)

---

They had complete control of the premises and the surrounding area, so that doesn't matter a jot. One shot would have been messy but done the job.

They bottled it, and one hopes it's a lesson learned.

What nonsense you spout Harry. The hostages were not restrained, the premises were controlled by the Iranian and no one but a total idiot would fire off a .50 cal. round through a plate glass window in the vague hope it won't also hit one of the hostages.
It ain't mandatory to be thick to post here but some could be excused for thinking otherwise.
Armchair warriors rule, eh?

They could have taken the guy out earlier, they would have had eyes and ears inside.
At the opportune time, flash bangs through the window, a sniper with a shot takes the guy out, or they breach the building.
But that's a political call, someone has to give the order, bet the cop were ready to go, but the minister wouldn't give the go ahead.

^And how exactly would "they have had eyes and ears inside"?

You watch a lot of TV cop shows, Jim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamescollister

They could have taken the guy out earlier,.......
But that's a political call, someone has to give the order, bet the cop were ready to go, but the minister wouldn't give the go ahead.

---

More than likely.

Now which minister was in charge of that?

Forget his religious motivation. The pertinent question is why was this psyhco criminal on bail.

The folks who allowed this to happen should have their asses kicked and thrown in the slammer for aiding and abetting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norton

Forget his religious motivation. The pertinent question is why was this psyhco criminal on bail.

---

A-fricking-men.

Couldn't agree more.

Reading this fucking lunatic's Islamic headbangers previous record ,I just cannot comprehend as to just why he was free to walk the streets , of course some of the usual left wing handwringers such a PSUEUDODO may say he had "rights" and blame it all on the Israeli's or the US which is just "par the course", and true to form others will complain to the MODS that this thread is in the wrong section of this forum to try and silence me ,does it make me angry ? ,nah not one bit , just a feeling of extreme pity on them that thanks to these kunts who try and stifle free speech that eventually the ragheads will win the war, ya know the war(Jihad) they have declared on us the infidelMartin Place gunman deranged, deluded and dangerous

no room to lock up every chav/bogan who posts a photo on facebook

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

^And how exactly would "they have had eyes and ears inside"?

You watch a lot of TV cop shows, Jim?

---

I can go buy a directional mic from my local electronics shop, point it at a widow and hear what's being said. Fiber optic cameras are nothing new.
Flash bangs are used often in drugs busts in the US, do you think Australia is that backward.
There are magic things like night vision scopes, plus some people may have used star trek tech. called mobile phones [cell phones] to you.
Few places now don't have CCTV and most are on line, this stops robbers from deleting the video.
If my net was faster I could watch my little rubber factory [4 cameras] in real time from any where in the world.
Jim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamescollister

They could have taken the guy out earlier, they would have had eyes and ears inside.
At the opportune time, flash bangs through the window, a sniper with a shot takes the guy out, or they breach the building.
But that's a political call, someone has to give the order, bet the cop were ready to go, but the minister wouldn't give the go ahead.

---

Quite extraordinary how you can draw on a breadth of experience derived from the prison service and a few years as a plod.

But, shall we just analyse what you have just said for a moment.

Eyes and ears inside: You mean a person who could relay information to another? How did they provide the means to communicate their information? Or are you saying they equipped a hostage beforehand with remarkable foresight? Or, are you saying they have ultra powerful parabolic listening devices that can detect a sparrow's fart through concrete walls and plate glass windows? Or, you mean those infra red, ultra violet light, heat detecting, x- Ray detectors that can literally see through concrete and around corners?

At the opportune time, lob a flash bang through the window: ah, would this be the open window that is not fitted to the premises. Or do you mean take two men wish a sledgehammer to smash through the plate glass windows or plate glass doors and while they are doing that one hopes he does't shoot a) one of the policemen or b) 5 hostages. But, hang on, the whole point of the flash bangs is to take the guy by surprise and stun him before he can kill anyone. Umm, I see bit of a problem here in that the police smashing the plate glass windows might alert him and, well, give him time to kill a few while he can.

Breach the building: what, drive an armoured personnel carrier through the plate glass windows and by the time it comes to rest hope the guy hasn't noticed as you faff about in the dust and debris and eventually locate him by which time he has killed 5 hostages?

Look, if the guy wasn't so useless and had been better equipped the death toll would have been considerably higher. Accept it and leave the SAS fantasy alone.

not to mention that he claimed he had placed explosives in the cafe, which he might have even been wearing on a bomb belt, with his finger on the detonator.

shooting him from outside the building was never an option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamescollister

They could have taken the guy out earlier, they would have had eyes and ears inside.
At the opportune time, flash bangs through the window, a sniper with a shot takes the guy out, or they breach the building.
But that's a political call, someone has to give the order, bet the cop were ready to go, but the minister wouldn't give the go ahead.

---

Quite extraordinary how you can draw on a breadth of experience derived from the prison service and a few years as a plod.

But, shall we just analyse what you have just said for a moment.

Eyes and ears inside: You mean a person who could relay information to another? How did they provide the means to communicate their information? Or are you saying they equipped a hostage beforehand with remarkable foresight? Or, are you saying they have ultra powerful parabolic listening devices that can detect a sparrow's fart through concrete walls and plate glass windows? Or, you mean those infra red, ultra violet light, heat detecting, x- Ray detectors that can literally see through concrete and around corners?

At the opportune time, lob a flash bang through the window: ah, would this be the open window that is not fitted to the premises. Or do you mean take two men wish a sledgehammer to smash through the plate glass windows or plate glass doors and while they are doing that one hopes he does't shoot a) one of the policemen or b) 5 hostages. But, hang on, the whole point of the flash bangs is to take the guy by surprise and stun him before he can kill anyone. Umm, I see bit of a problem here in that the police smashing the plate glass windows might alert him and, well, give him time to kill a few while he can.

Breach the building: what, drive an armoured personnel carrier through the plate glass windows and by the time it comes to rest hope the guy hasn't noticed as you faff about in the dust and debris and eventually locate him by which time he has killed 5 hostages?

Look, if the guy wasn't so useless and had been better equipped the death toll would have been considerably higher. Accept it and leave the SAS fantasy alone.

---

What are you on about, open window concrete wall.
Put a glass to a concrete wall, you can hear what's being said on the other side.
Flash bangs can/are fired from launchers.

Grenade, Launcher: Non-Lethal, Distraction, XM98 &
Grenade, Launcher: Non-Lethal, Blunt Trauma, XM99
The XM98 Distraction Grenade uses a pyrotechnic charge for crowd control through audio and visual stimuli. The XM99 Blunt Trauma Grenade uses a pyrotechnic charge to discharge 32 cal rubber balls and achieve crowd control through audio, visual, and physical stimuli. The XM98 and XM99 use a common design. In the XM98 grenade, an inert ballast is substituted for the rubber balls.

These rounds are designed to be fired from 80 to 100 meters. They deliver a flash bang diversionary warning (M98), a payload of rubber nonpenetrating projectiles (M99) (affecting a 10- to 20-meter circular area), or CS/cinnamic acid (CA) practice below the point of burst (L96A1/L97A1). These munitions lack the ability to be precision-delivered and are meant to affect a large number of people at long standoff ranges. This provides convoys and crowd control formations a long range support weapon to affect crowds beyond the range of shoulder-fired nonlethal weapons. Use the rounds to provide supporting nonlethal fires to crowd control formations.

The XM98/XM99 program is a joint Army/Marine development program. The U.S. Army Military Police is the lead user.

Catch up with the times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taxexile

not to mention that he claimed he had placed explosives in the cafe, which he might have even been wearing on a bomb belt, with his finger on the detonator.

shooting him from outside the building was never an option.

---

That's probably the same shit they gave the families of the two dead hostages.

Don't fuck about with these people. You might get the odd de Menezes, but under the circumstances, that's acceptable collateral as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taxexile

not to mention that he claimed he had placed explosives in the cafe, which he might have even been wearing on a bomb belt, with his finger on the detonator.

shooting him from outside the building was never an option.

---

Guy had a shotgun, not an assault rife, yet he got his hands on Semtex.
Now if he had been packing a pressure cooker, different story.

I feel you throttlers do not really know how the system works in Australia.

Our criminal laws are so piss weak and the lawyers get payed so much money Hitler would be considered innocent hence why violent and mad people tend to wander the street.

This radical Mo Fo was no different then the numerous nut cases roaming free in our society. Pathetic insipid legal system with puss sucking high payed lawyers setting free the scum of society who inflict further damage on our society.

Fuk this shit, just bang the fukers up.

This nutter was able to do this because of Australia's legal system, easy as that .

Had fuk all to do with terrorism or fundamentalism but merely the rantings of a fukin nut case who was free to continue on with his ranting.

No wonder the country is fuked EH.

A little trip out the back and one bullet would of prevented this.

"Non - penetrating payload" was the key there, Mr Collister.

Slight hiccup in the thesis I would have thought.

" Well, me old cobber, digger, matey, we fired off the MXq 989103738593 Fuck 'em up blind and piss them orf Anti - Nasty personal discombobulating Crowd Pleaser, but blow me, the fucker bounced off the bladdy window and now the ambulance boys are all wandering around like they're auditioning for the Night of the Living Dead. Whaddya reckon next?"

Blow me, ain't this a bladdy barbie short of a prawn night, innit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

Look, if the guy wasn't so useless and had been better equipped the death toll would have been considerably higher. Accept it and leave the SAS fantasy alone.

---

I mean, one cannot argue with this EH.

If the nutter was serious he would of just blown every hostage to kingdom come and then had a nice cup of Tea before being topped by the pigs.

This guy was simply delusional and not a serious threat to the broad society.

In saying that, I mean he was known as a serious threat to society but was not able to be contained under our pathetic laws.

Really does shit me no end our pathetic system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamescollister

yet he got his hands on Semtex.

---

Semtex???? What Semtex????? There were NO explosives found. You have totally lost the plot, Jim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

"Non - penetrating payload" was the key there, Mr Collister.

Slight hiccup in the thesis I would have thought.

" Well, me old cobber, digger, matey, we fired off the MXq 989103738593 Fuck 'em up blind and piss them orf Anti - Nasty personal discombobulating Crowd Pleaser, but blow me, the fucker bounced off the bladdy window and now the ambulance boys are all wandering around like they're auditioning for the Night of the Living Dead. Whaddya reckon next?"

Blow me, ain't this a bladdy barbie short of a prawn night, innit?

---

It's a glass window, what are you on about, could smash it with a brick, never mine a grenade launcher.

Oh dear Jim, you are out of touch. Australian building codes prescribe safety levels for all glass installations particularly those which represent risk to the public, eg.shop windows which are required to be re- inforced, tempered, laminated or otherwise fitted with film so that the risk of sharding and splintering is minimised greatly.

Good luck with trying to break a shop window these days. Starring and cracks usually record the drunken oaf who tried it whilst on the piss.

Your Discombobulating flash bang would bounce off.

Back to that old drawing board, eh?

Oh, by the way, I omitted to remind you that your grenade is designed to be non- penetrating, for very obvious reasons, so it really would be quite useless for the purpose you have suggested.

Talk to the vast majority of Australians and they will consider this no more serious than that fukin nutter Martin Bryant who offed a heap of people down in Tasmania.

Sick fuks everywhere in today's world.

Jesus,

Two innocent people killed is not a bad result in this this fuked up world of ours .

Never mind Terry, you can take consolation from the fact that death here in Thailand is stalking a damn sight more folk than any where else in the world, bar the usual suspects.

^

Na,

Here in Thailand siege situations do not happen except for the odd fuk up who has over dosed on Ya-Ba.

I like it here as they do not fuk around, they off bad people.

I like that. :)

Australia is piss poor mate, way too many human rights shit being bandied around.

Get the gun going EH. :spam2:

Actually, Terry, I was referring to the 35,000 or so folk who will die this year, and every year in Thailand, either on the roads or at the hands of a murderer.

Australia is really a nice place in comparison and your disaffection is probably more symptomatic of your own jaundiced view rather than justified by any external factor. Well, apart from the cellulite ridden, fat-arsed Sheilas that is, Australian soaps too and that dreadful accent made worse by ending every sentence as a question.