Thread: Hostages held in siege in Martin Place, Sydney in lockdown

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Quote:
On May 12, 1996, Albright defended UN sanctions against Iraq on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."[87] Albright later criticized Stahl's segment as "amount[ing] to Iraqi propaganda"; said that her question was a loaded question;[88][89] wrote "I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean";[90] and regretted coming "across as cold-blooded and cruel".[87] Sanctions critics took Albright's failure to reframe the question as confirmation of the statistic.[90][91][92] The segment won an Emmy Award
Madeleine Albright - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Bush and Cheney devout Xtians?
George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' | World news | The Guardian

I love how it is ok for you to quote the media when it suits your own twisted worldview. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

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.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

Well, Bsnub it certainly wasn't for any strategic, tactical, economic or lawful reason that made any sense, although Haliburton etc did make a killing out of it, literally

Oh great we have another crackpot nitwit on board. No strategic or economic reason? Really? When did massive oil deposits loose their strategic and economic value? Iraq was a war for money pure and simple only thick twats would think the US started it for religious reasons..

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

so in the absence of any other cogent reasons one must conclude it was the last faith based Christian invasion in modern times.

You keep telling yourself that genticles. Lay off the sausages..

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by ENT

Bush and Cheney devout Xtians?

George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' | World news | The Guardian

Originally Posted by Koojo

So hundreds of Muslims are getting killed every day by Christian zealots.
You stand by that?
Perhaps you could direct us to some (current, maybe yesterday) news reports that might suggest/support that.

pathetic from you koojo. Absolutely pathetic. They are christian. They have murdered in excess of 1m muslims since the beginning of the neocon experiment. Never had you down as a gobshite bigot racist twat but you are certainly showing yourself to be. pathetic.

Are you changing the arguement to a historical one now.
Because you said 'Every day hundreds of Muslims ARE (present tense) being killed by Christian zealots" All I'm doing is asking you to back that up.
Hundreds a day? Where? The killers are all Christian Zealots killing Muslims in the name of Christianity?
Also I would dispute that in excess of 1m have been 'murdered'.
Do you have reports or stats to back that up? That don't include Muslim on Muslim killings?

You are wasting your time, he will just go on to make one false claim after another and when you ask him to prove one false claim, he will make another false claim that is slightly connected with the first false claim and so on and son on .
His hypocrisy, deceit and irrationality are beyond the levels needed to have a rational discussion .
"Christians kill hundreds of Muslims everyday" and to "prove" this , he posts up a report from "iraqholocaust " site from 1996 where a reporter asked a question......and that is seen as proof .
You are wasting your time engaging with him
He posted up a story originally from this site
(On May 12, 1996, Albright defended UN sanctions against Iraq on a 60 Minutes segment in which )

https://sites.google.com/site/iraqih...genocide/stahl

And gave another link to Alrights Wiki page in an attempt to legitimise it , although the question was asked by Leslie Stahl .

It gets confusing .

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Quote:
On May 12, 1996, Albright defended UN sanctions against Iraq on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."[87] Albright later criticized Stahl's segment as "amount[ing] to Iraqi propaganda"; said that her question was a loaded question;[88][89] wrote "I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean";[90] and regretted coming "across as cold-blooded and cruel".[87] Sanctions critics took Albright's failure to reframe the question as confirmation of the statistic.[90][91][92] The segment won an Emmy Award
Madeleine Albright - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Bush and Cheney devout Xtians?
George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' | World news | The Guardian

I love how it is ok for you to quote the media when it suits your own twisted worldview. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

If you read the Guardian article, it is based on a what a Palestinian clammed after talking to Bush


"George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month."

Bush didnt publicity state it , it was what a Palestinian told a journalist he said.

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.

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.

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.

Bush has more than once displayed his mid American roots.

Good ol' Alabama chapel man, hat in hand, eyes heavenward singing around that ol' rugged cross......then off for a round of golf and bourbon with some of the good ol' boys to discuss the latest business deal.

Originally Posted by Koojo

Melbourne based Shia Muslim leader, Kamal Mousselmani, urged the Australian Federal Police to investigate Sheik Haron, whom Mousselmani claimed was not a genuine religious leader.

Oh dear, taking business away was he?

Originally Posted by Fluke

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by ENT

Bush and Cheney devout Xtians?

George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' | World news | The Guardian

Originally Posted by Koojo

So hundreds of Muslims are getting killed every day by Christian zealots.
You stand by that?
Perhaps you could direct us to some (current, maybe yesterday) news reports that might suggest/support that.

pathetic from you koojo. Absolutely pathetic. They are christian. They have murdered in excess of 1m muslims since the beginning of the neocon experiment. Never had you down as a gobshite bigot racist twat but you are certainly showing yourself to be. pathetic.

Are you changing the arguement to a historical one now.
Because you said 'Every day hundreds of Muslims ARE (present tense) being killed by Christian zealots" All I'm doing is asking you to back that up.
Hundreds a day? Where? The killers are all Christian Zealots killing Muslims in the name of Christianity?
Also I would dispute that in excess of 1m have been 'murdered'.
Do you have reports or stats to back that up? That don't include Muslim on Muslim killings?

You are wasting your time, he will just go on to make one false claim after another and when you ask him to prove one false claim, he will make another false claim that is slightly connected with the first false claim and so on and son on .
His hypocrisy, deceit and irrationality are beyond the levels needed to have a rational discussion .
"Christians kill hundreds of Muslims everyday" and to "prove" this , he posts up a report from "iraqholocaust " site from 1996 where a reporter asked a question......and that is seen as proof .
You are wasting your time engaging with him
He posted up a story originally from this site
(On May 12, 1996, Albright defended UN sanctions against Iraq on a 60 Minutes segment in which )

https://sites.google.com/site/iraqih...genocide/stahl

And gave another link to Alrights Wiki page in an attempt to legitimise it , although the question was asked by Leslie Stahl .

It gets confusing .

Also, the question from Stahl to Altright about the "half a million Iraqi children who have died" was in reference to the sanctions on Iraq , sanctions put in place by the U.N. for the Iraq invasion of Kuwait and those were sanctions adhered to by all the World .
So, a question asked by a reporter in 1996 about sanctions imposed on Iraq by the whole World, a question that may or may not have any factual content somehow shows that Christians are killing hundreds of Muslims every day twenty years later.

Originally Posted by taxexile

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.

Well, apart from a few Paki preachers spouting their drivel from the safety of their British pulpits, a fatwa or two from Iran and medieval drivel proposed by a bunch of old men in some ghastly third world shithole, most orthodox Muslims the world over the past 30 years or so just proselytise from the Quran and are content to tend to their flock.

They as a religion do not pester unbelievers and certainly don't knock on one's door when one is sleeping after a night shift to talk about your fucking soul and how it will be saved if you hand over a tenth of your salary.

Certainly, when I have been gadding about in Muslim countries I have never experienced anything other than respect, courtesy and hospitality. Taxi drivers are fuckers but then that profession does transcend all known ethical boundaries most places.
I think you are just quibbling about fundamentalism and its associated influence upon the political landscape that may prevail. Well, that concerns many Muslims too and they have to deal with it. To cast them all in the same light as the more extreme sects is just intellectual laziness.

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



It's not every day that Twitter gives me faith in humanity. Today is that day.


Sometimes, you feel like hiding who you are.

As the news of the Dec. 14, 2014, hostage situation in Sydney was breaking, along with the possibility that the suspect was a Muslim extremist, a woman saw another woman on the train remove her head scarf.

These women had nothing to do with the hostage situation, but anti-Muslim sentiment can be so strong that any time something like this happens, it can be dangerous to wear a hijab in public for fear of harassment.
This story was retweeted and suddenly became the fastest-growing hashtag on Twitter.
People started posting details about their commutes and inviting any Muslims who felt unsafe traveling in the area to get in touch.

There's safety in numbers.

People expressed solidarity for their Muslim neighbors, racking up a thousand tweets per minute with the #illridewithyou hashtag.

In the midst of a crisis, it gave people hope.

It also moved them from clicktivism to activism.


Sometimes, when a tragedy strikes, you don't know what to say. #illridewithyou gave Aussies a response. They could stand up for people who might be scared to go out on their own.

It made a difference to at least some Muslims in the community.

I hope Australians are proud of themselves for responding to terrible events in a productive and compassionate way.

It's not a new idea. I loved this post with an image from the 1940s, another era of religiously motivated division.

Make sure your neighbors know #illridewithyou.

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

Now that's a Xtian act.

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

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.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

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.

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.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

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.

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?

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.)

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

Originally Posted by Neverna

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.

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.