It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sydney cafe being held up now isis flag in window

page: 57
119
<< 54  55  56    58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TheAnarchist

You would rather it be the beaten to death religious row??

Exactly how can we respect the victims ????




posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: my1percent

Could we just offer them some decent tea, so that they could take that isis rug down?



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: TheAnarchist

You would rather it be the beaten to death religious row??

Exactly how can we respect the victims ????

By not turning it into a NRA style debate about AMERICAN gun laws..

that'd be a start..

And i highly doubt the gun the crazy Iranian had was 100% legally obtained.. and if it was his pending convictions would have excluded him from ownership in the 1st place.
so it's moot point

but we seem to have a group of posters that relish in their agenda, so much so they are blinded to when it's a valid platform to voice their views,, this event isn't a valid platform.

Back in the beginnings of this thread that was CLEARLY stated by the mods, but folks just ignore that and keep pushing all that consumes them.. sad really.

Now back to the event, there are questions that need answered, but everyone's emotionally compromised enough to keep silent. what happened *exactly* at 2am.. who shot who and why. I mainly reefer to victim #2

there seems to be a absence of data on what happened with victim #2... we are bombarded with her life details, but not those of her death. she was shielding another woman from gunfire is about all that's known, or is being told.

we are also being bombarded/programed with praise for the breaching team. I'm not saying they all messed up.. just one guy.. could have been a mistake.. but the silence is deafening and the programing worse than i've ever seen (relentless)

Don't ask, Don't question.. but you can morn and praise.. like a good johnny citizen.

Meanwhile, under the surface.. my state is reaching terminal boiling point.. all cloaked/smokescreened under the hashtag #illridewithyou.. a nice sentiment, but we'll see if it holds merit in the real world as the week progresses.

On the bright side (there is one.. kinda) many saw the utter ugly of Murdoch this morning.. many that were in the dark as to just who tells them what to think (read.. digest), those folks have much to think about now.

we all do.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I find it strange that the police were claiming(or atleast the media) to take as long as needed to resolve it peacefully,next thing you know army personnel were embedded into the breaching squad and they moved in.

Why the sudden change of tactics? Or maybe that was the tactic all along.

Why didn't they utilize the supposed sniper across the street in the channel 7 building apparently,they had clear shots i believe.Im pretty sure they knew the whole time there was only one guy in there,only seen one face through the windows and the hostages were the only other people standing near them.

Why did the squad start chucking flashbangs/stun grenades in after 3-4 units already entered the store?

They said the light were off so they didn't know what was going on,the units that breached had night vision goggles on their helmets,why didn't they use that as a advantage?

With-in 15-20 seconds of livefire,you could hear alot of gunshots over the flashbangs.I believe they used more rounds than they probably needed to.In saying that,the gunman could of been using cover very well.Which also brings up another question,did they breach from multiple points as to explain why there was so much gunfire and bangs for immobilizing just one person?

???



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I have a question that perhaps one of the Aussies here could answer: What are the requirements for supervision of someone out on bail? Are they under any surveillance or supervision at all? When you take a sober look at this guys track record he certainly seems like a dangerous and unstable guy. Hindsight is 20/20, but given his history and his charges and current involvement in the judicial system it seems tragically certain that something like this might happen.

It looks like his religious beliefs are secondary to his "crazy-nutter" beliefs. The phrase "known to police" is a frustrating one when guys like this pull this kind of tragic stunt.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Leonidas

Not 100% sure but I have a feeling that it would be probably pretty lenient...

He should never have been granted bail and instead should've been deported. Unfortunately, our legislation/laws on political asylum need some serious modifications!!

"known to police" is damn frustrating I know...i've seen the results of it close hand with an a-hole neighbour.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: BillyBoBBizWorth




Why the sudden change of tactics? Or maybe that was the tactic all along.


My understanding is that the Cafe Manager, Tori Johnson, noticed that the gunman was dosing off and took the opportunity to try to get the gun away. In the struggle, the gun went off. The police heard the gunshot, the sniper saw the flashes. The decision was made to invade the cafe because they didn't know about the struggle or its outcome and didn't know if the gunman had decided to start killing people.

Tori Johnson is undoubtedly a hero in the affair, but perhaps his move was ill timed and he died for that mistake, but he may well have saved all but one of the other hostages.



Why didn't they utilize the supposed sniper across the street in the channel 7 building apparently,they had clear shots i believe.


The sniper obviously did not have a clear shot; he reported the gunshots and the flash. Even if he had a clear view of what was going on, what was going on was a struggle between the Cafe Manager and the gunman and that does not make for a clear shot.

In the end, the gunman was angling for publicity and suicide by cop. He got his wish.


edit on 16/12/2014 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: HanaDambi

If you folks want to discuss gun control, I'm sure if you use the search function you will find many threads to which you can contribute. This is about the Sydney cafe hostage situation.
Thanks!


edit on 16-12-2014 by diggindirt because: spelling



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Another link from Yahoo! details what we do and don't know: Sydney siege:
What we do and don't know about hostage situation in Martin Place



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 01:53 AM
link   
One would hope that in the future if the police know its a lone gunman that the shot will be taken . The mans history of violence and mental instability was a really really big flag . In my opinion 2 people died because of political correctness .



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: BillyBoBBizWorth



Why didn't they utilize the supposed sniper across the street in the channel 7 building apparently,they had clear shots i believe.


The sniper obviously did not have a clear shot; he reported the gunshots and the flash. Even if he had a clear view of what was going on, what was going on was a struggle between the Cafe Manager and the gunman and that does not make for a clear shot.


The news I was watching said that if there was a window open then that would have been a different matter, however as all windows were closed there was a possibility of a bullet ricocheting as it went through glass of a unknown thickness, had this happened and not killed the gunman then this could have escalated the situation to a far more dangerous level than it was perhaps even making him start shooting hostages.

This made sense to me.

There are a few scenarios that could have played out. The manager has no experience in any situation like this and did what he thought was best after being held captive for a very very long time. Had he waited for the gunman to actually fall asleep it may have all ended peacefully, but it is also possible the gunman may have eventually got concerned that he was tired and thought to speed the process up. We will never know what could have happened had they waited just a little while longer. But the police only moved in once a shot was fired when the manager tried to grab the gun.

How the female hostage died will come out in later reports I am sure, but I heard she was protecting a pregnant woman shielding her from fire, a hero in her own right as well.

I would be very surprised if the gunman managed to get much more than 2 shots off on his gun and the rest of the fire was from the police of which may have caught innocents hostages along the way.

Very sad indeed. This gunman seemed desperate to get a message out and was unable to do so, but did not harm anyone as a result until he was provoked as he was falling asleep which I do find to be an interesting part of the story. Not your typical ISIS style situation you see on various news channels, more along the lines of a desperate person that we have seen many times in past hostage situations.

His past however seems to speak for itself, if true he is by no means a good person.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 02:51 AM
link   


Tori Johnson is undoubtedly a hero in the affair, but perhaps his move was ill timed and he died for that mistake, but he may well have saved all but one of the other hostages.


Hmm,he may have been the savior of most of the hostages,or they may have been able to save them all,i guess we will probably never know.

As other posters have mentioned,i still dont know how this guy got away with as much as he did when he was known by the authorities.Guys that are not known by the authorities get away with less than the guys that are known?!?



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 02:54 AM
link   
a reply to: orangetom1999



I am aware that many can own hunting firearms. How about handguns. Are you able to carry concealed?? Was anyone carrying concealed in that dining establishment/restaurant this morning ???


No. Concealed weapons are not permitted. Furthermore, you must have a "genuine reason" for a gun permit and personal protection is not a genuine reason. Genuine reasons include: hunting, target shooting, collection, pest control, and narrow occupational uses.

Here is the link summarizing the actual law: GunPolicy.org - Australia See the bullet point "Carrying Guns" under the bullet point "Gun Regulations".



I know at one time it got so restrictive the Aussie Olympic shooting team had to practice in another nation to comply with the Aussie gun control laws. It just got so ridiculous. I had to laugh when watching that video...Politicians!! Wow!!


Bull Faeces. It NEVER happened. Once again you are repeating lies fed to you by propagandists. No Australian Shooting Athlete has ever HAD to go overseas for practice. The idea is stupid on its face. They may certainly have gone overseas to train and attend tournaments, but they were NOT FORCED to do so because of firearm restrictions. EVERY Athlete, Australian or American, goes overseas to train and compete at international events. This is true of every athletic discipline; shooting, skating, basketball, track, skiing, swimming, whatever.

Please, for your own sake, take the ATS motto to heart and DENY IGNORANCE. Research these assertions that you 'know' before you shoot your self in the foot.



What is the murder rate in Australia??


HelloBruce gave you the answer. Clearly and unambiguously. You stuck beans in your ears, pulled the scales down over your eyes, and shouted 'lalalalalalalalalalalala'. Why ask the question if you are going to refuse to learn from the answer?



Now it is your country. I do not approve of what the Aussie government has done to their people in taking their firearms from them. Same with the Brits. I have no ambition to visit Australia..nor the UK...and for those reasons among others.


Yes, I live in Australia, but I am a "natural born citizen" of the United States of America and grew up and went to school in Arizona. I know all about the Bill of Rights. I also know about the tradition (or lack thereof) of weapons in the 'Old West'. John Wayne didn't live there. Handguns in good working order were actually quite rare. Most were dirty and crappy. Have you heard about the "Shootout at the OK Corral"? Do you know what that was about? It was about "Gun Control". The City of Tombstone banned guns in the city limits and Wyatt Earp and his brothers were trying to enforce that law. But the Clantons weren't trying to assert their rights to "open carry" on the grounds of 'good citizenship' and 'Constitutional Rights'; they were just trying to get revenge on the Earps and shoot somebody.

You already agreed that the idea that Australian Government had taken their firearms from them was a lie; why do you repeat it here. As for travel, you should understand that you are 15 times more likely to be killed by guns in America than in Australia.



By the way...standard propaganda...among anti gunners is that the 2nd Amendment here is for hunting. It is for no such thing. There is no mention of hunting on this Law. That is standard issue propaganda..and so taught in schools to prevent people from thinking for themselves.


I have never heard that as 'standard propaganda' - perhaps some make that argument, but it is a silly argument on the face of it - hunting does not require a "Well Regulated Militia". Clearly the 2nd Amendment is there to ensure that Government cannot disarm the "well regulated militia" which was seen as "being necessary to the security of a free state". By the way, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to provide for that "Well Regulated Militia"



Article 1 Section 8:

The Congress shall have power...

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Please enlighten us all: in exactly what way is a gang of hoodlems in Harlem, Miami Beach, or Clark County Nevada a "Well Regulated Militia".



It is part of the fear and distraction political propaganda. Sleight of hand..dealing cards off the bottom of the deck.


You are correct that there is distracting political propaganda at work here, but it is the assertion that gun control advocates think the 2nd Amendment is to protect hunting. Certainly hunting was important to the rural citizens of the Patriot Generation, but being able to protect themselves from hostile Indian attack and invasion by hostile nations like Britain and Spain were even more important. The Patriot Generation did not envision a standing Army (let alone one stationed overseas), the "Well Regulated Militia" was indeed vital to the nation's survival. Time moves on, and so does the idea of a "Well Regulated Militia".



(In a response to HelloBruce): See my post to rnaa above this one ..


HelloBruce had asked for facts. You didn't provide any in your post.



(In a response to HelloBruce): Your figures are politically derived...


Your response to HelloBruce's FACTS is political propaganda. Facts are not political - they are facts.

For more ways to compare the Australian gun experience to the American gun experience you can review the facts here: GunPolicy.org - Australia. That is the same link as above; explore the entire site, but especially the bullet points "Gun Numbers" and "Death and Injury".

The data is there. Open your mind. Deny Ignorance.
edit on 16/12/2014 by rnaa because: correct markup



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: gazzerman




How the female hostage died will come out in later reports I am sure, but I heard she was protecting a pregnant woman shielding her from fire, a hero in her own right as well.


I agree absolutely. I hadn't heard that story.



I would be very surprised if the gunman managed to get much more than 2 shots off on his gun and the rest of the fire was from the police of which may have caught innocents hostages along the way.


Again, I agree. The gun would have to have been a manually loaded gun, perhaps a double-barrel. That is two shots. The shooting incident went on for something like 30 to 40 seconds. That is a lot of lead flying around.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: BillyBoBBizWorth



As other posters have mentioned,i still dont know how this guy got away with as much as he did when he was known by the authorities.Guys that are not known by the authorities get away with less than the guys that are known?!?


Yes, that will be agonized over for months I am sure.

One remark I have heard is that he was on probation for his conviction on sexual assault granted under a previous probation law and probably would not have been granted probation under the current law. Again, the facts will come out over time.

Furthermore, he was on bail awaiting trial for helping to murder his ex-wife. In Australia, like in America, accused persons are "innocent until proven guilty". Whether or not he should have been on bail, in light of the fact that he was on probation already, is another question that will be analyzed to death in the coming weeks and months.

Finally, as a probationer, it was illegal for him to own a firearm of any kind. That the shotgun was legal in Australia is irrelevant to this fact. How and where he obtained the weapon is something else that will come out, eventually - it wasn't legally, that much is sure.

What I expect to NOT happen, in my opinion unfortunately, is a re-evaluation of the practice of allowing criminally insane madmen to roam our streets. We used to lock them up in padded cells, but bean counters came in and decided that it was cheaper to let them loose on society than to clean up the asylums and give them humane conditions. So now the nutters populate the internet with their insane ramblings and the madmen (and women) shout their invective from every Faux News broadcast and tabloid page, and occasionally do something really stupid like commit suicide by cop in chocolate shops.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

My point from the beginning was intended to state what I am going to state here ...

That all the gun control of which you folks are so proud did not help the people in that dining establishment. Legal or illegal.

I do not believe this will be the last time for this kind of event. I am thinking this is going to be a siren cry among the radical Islamics.

I don't believe the average Muslim wants this in Australia and to their credit.

In addition to this ..I also do not approve of it becoming open season on Muslims in your country or any other country.

Most people including Muslims do not want to bother anyone or be bothered. I am alright with this.


But the more radical don't care about any of this.

Once again..and when it happens again...your government is going to leave you out in the cold on this.

But they will be proud of their statistics.

And that is my primary point.


And also..I agree with your assessment here..as this is becoming a huge and ongoing problem here stateside as well...and getting worse.


What I expect to NOT happen, in my opinion unfortunately, is a re-evaluation of the practice of allowing criminally insane madmen to roam our streets. We used to lock them up in padded cells, but bean counters came in and decided that it was cheaper to let them loose on society than to clean up the asylums and give them humane conditions. So now the nutters populate the internet with their insane ramblings and the madmen (and women) shout their invective from every Faux News broadcast and tabloid page, and occasionally do something really stupid like commit suicide by cop in chocolate shops.




Orangetom


edit on 16-12-2014 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 03:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: orangetom1999
a reply to: rnaa

My point from the beginning was intended to state what I am going to state here ...

That all the gun control of which you folks are so proud did not help the people in that dining establishment. Legal or illegal.





..and I will counterpoint by saying how did 9/11 go?

where did your right to bear arms get you there?

There will always be a bigger way to deal pain...gun control, in the main, works...



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: orangetom1999



And that is my primary point.


Understood.

But you need to understand 'our' point: the point of additional gun control is not to stop gun violence 100%. That is a nice pipe dream, but a pipe dream none-the-less. The Australian regime was specifically to reduce the incidence of mass murder events - and it has worked spectacularly well so far. Does this mean that Australia will never experience another gun related mass murder event? I hope so, but it is pipe dream to believe that might actually be so - never is a long time.

It has also worked to reduce gun related violence across the board - not eliminated, reduced. The reduction is long term and consistent, not a temporary blip.

Given that 100% is unachievable, does that mean that we should throw up our hands and let it continue? Should we just let the Australian average of 1 mass murder event a year for 30 years accelerate till we match the American's 3 or 4 per year (and rising) average? I happen to think that achieving ZERO mass murders in 20 years is a stupendous achievement and the methodology used to achieve that should be copied by America - " lock, stock, and barrel".

You say the Australian gun control regime didn't prevent the Sydney siege, and you are right. It was never meant to, nor was it ever possible to cure all evils. But maybe, just maybe, it saved a lot of those peoples lives. Had there been a yahoo or two in there with concealed weapons there might just have been a firefight that did a hell of a lot more damage and took a lot more lives. If the gunman had an automatic or a self loader, it could have gotten real ugly real fast. Madmen cannot be stopped, but their opportunity and options to create mayhem can be limited.

If "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" then why has there not been ONE instance of "a good guy with a gun" stopping a "bad guy with a gun" and stopping a mass shooting? Why with all the posturing with guys showing off their giant pen..uh guns in America is the rate of mass shootings increasing?

Gun control works - the right approach to gun control, that is.

And that is my primary point.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 04:15 AM
link   


What I expect to NOT happen, in my opinion unfortunately, is a re-evaluation of the practice of allowing criminally insane madmen to roam our streets.


Well it doesn't help with all this supposed political correctness restricting what we can say and do.Personally i think the cops didn't do a good of job as they could of.The media has gone retarded on this one,all they can keep saying is what a impeccable job they did,they are the best in the world and the negotiators used where the best in the world(Im personally getting sick of hearing the term "BEST IN THE WORLD").

Its almost they are trying to cover something up to some degree.Firstly,two innocent people are dead,id hardly call that impeccable.Secondly apparently they gunman was seen walking down the street with a weapon,a shotgun mind you.Not sure if it was concealed or not but its kind of hard to hide a shotgun,although the robe he was wearing would of helped in that case.The cops were supposedly pursuing him down the street but he locked himself in the chocolate store.Also,from what ive heard,the first shot that was firing because of the manager trying to disarm the gunman,was give or take 5 minutes before the response of the breaching squad?



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 04:23 AM
link   
I think that if we stopped the war on Islam then this would happen a lot less and yeah its your leaders that keep letting them in as an excuse to introudce a police state after first kicking the bees nest.

The Abbot prick seemed very coy about what he was saying on TV over this




top topics



 
119
<< 54  55  56    58  59 >>

log in

join