WTF! Is going on in Sydney?

[Black Devil Dog]

I'm not sure anyone is saying that it was an orchestrated attack, by any group.

Why, if it's carried out by an organised terrorist network, it's called terrorism, but if it's a single person, acting in much the same way as IS have called on followers around the world to act, it's not?

 

[superstock]

And we let this wacko into the country as a refugee !!

 

[manticle]

I'm not sure anyone is saying that it was an orchestrated attack, by any group.

Why, if it's carried out by an organised terrorist network, it's called terrorism, but if it's a single person, acting in much the same way as IS have called on followers around the world to act, it's not?

Links have been made in the media (consistently) between this and events like 9/11, London bombings, Bali bombings, etc since the cafe was first held to ransom yesterday. There is no similarity between this and those orchestrated attacks yet the implication has been made and no doubt will continue to be.

Call it what you like. I agree with Airgead that it is unhelpful to be using such terms, using it as justification for military involvement in Syria, etc, but if you feel it's really important to distinguish this from a house siege or Julian Knight massacring passers by in Hoddle Street because of some foreign writing, then by all means do so.

 

[S.E]

I don't know about botched police operation, they can only do what they can, but I can't help but wonder if the outcome would have been different if the SAS were allowed to take over. They are the best of the best. By comparison the police groups look like the Keystone Cops.
Why do we not use the best resources we have available?

Well I don’t know, I don’t know the facts but would think the police had the capability of handling it themselves.

The botched bit was leaving it so late and not bringing the situation under control earlier. As he was alone it was never going to be a long siege.

Perhaps they had reason to believe he would start thinking rationally and give up as he became more tired and frustrated and realised his demands were being ignored and his hostages kept escaping.

He was well known to police. He was known to hold extremist views and had a history of violent crime.

He could be clearly seen during the siege and was filmed several times through the window presenting a full body target, so assuming there were snipers in place could have been stopped much earlier.

Just seems to me to be an odd decision to wait till there was gun fire before acting against a lone gunman. I hope I’m wrong and there was a bomb involved or other good reason.

It must be very reassuring to terrorists or anyone else planning something similar to know that they can parade about in front of a window and the police will hold back and hope to take them alive.

 

[Black Devil Dog]

Held to ransom.........really? Seriously mate.

 

[Weizguy]

Its apparent from the press conference held by the NSW premier and the NSW police chief that there is battle waging between the Commonwealth and the state of NSW for ownership of the incident and the spin being put on it.

NSW premier reiterated over and over again that NSW police had the matter in hand, and the police chief said there was no need for offered federal resources.

The take out, is that NSW govt doesn't want to fall prey to the Fed Govt's political agenda.

I'd bloody hope the NSW cops had a handle on it. Probably threw everyone in Sydney at it and probably called in a lot of surrounding command areas, and dragged people in for $$$ Overtime. Overkill is the right amount of kill.

Seems that this is the over-reaction they were hoping for, to distract the public from the upcoming NSW election and the disaster that is the Federal budget.
Both want to take credit for the win, but neither are admitting it was a massive beat-up. Why attract comments from other government leaders, and publicise them?

 

[Eagleburger]

re police action, damned if they did damned if they didnt. commiserations for all involved, even the lawyer.

 

[droid]

remember I.S. calling people to do whatever they could? they were telling people to kill the infidels, with their bare hands, a knife anything. I remember when that came out thinking "here we bloody go"

my point about things not being the same after 911 was in reference to how the police/defences react, how the media reacts and how the public react. we will never be the same again - the game has changed

if people wave a certain flag around make particular comments and usually after such waving/commenting we see people die, well then what? we will never be privy to what the police and defence forces know and from a hysteria point of view that's prolly a good thing, unfortunately we have the sensationalist media to carry that flag

as for taking him out in front of the window - maybe he had told them that he had a bomb in his backpack who knows, I am sure their reasons aren't just thought up on the spot for such things, there would be protocol

god speed and my heart goes out to the families left behind

 

[Feldon]

A lot of people here seem to read too many comics and watch too much TV.

Whenever military or para-military teams (eg NSW police tactical response) are sent into a siege situation there is a high risk of innocent people being killed or injured. That's why they stayed back while the trained negotiators worked to have the hostage-taker surrender. The effort of the police action was to bring the incident to a peaceful conclusion with safety for the hostages.

The police para-military team only went in after shots were fired inside. Information is sketchy on what actually happened, but there are reports that after the hostage-taker started nodding off to sleep one of the hostages tried to disarm him. He awoke and fired his gun. There are standing orders for the para-military outside to go in if the hostages are in immediate peril, and gun fire from within is more than enough to trigger such a response.

It is probable, as it always is in these situations, that hostages have been killed or injured by the para-military that went in to save them. Its impossible to discharge a weapon amongst a crowd of people inside a concrete box without the potential for innocent people to be hurt. There is simply no time to pause and think. That's exactly why armed intervention is and should always be your very, very last response, not your first.

As for those saying the SAS or other army unit be deployed, you need to understand they are the least capable force in this situation.

The police in all states have para-military units that, in big cities like Melbourne and Sydney, are frequently called out to potential siege/hostage situations. They happen all the time (but get less publicity than when Islam is involved, however loosely). As a result police para-military forces are the most experienced and best trained for this sort of situation. They know the lie of the land and are just part of a bigger (unseen) team of negotiators, electronic experts (eavesdropping on the building) and a command and control structure. They all train together and work together in real life situations on a regular basis. Their aim is to minimise bloodshed and arrest the offender and bring the person to justice. Not so the army.

The fed govt military units are, quite simply, very highly trained killers. Negotiation is not their strong point (witness the killing of bin Laden by US Seals - they did not go in to negotiate surrender). Army units have almost no experience in real, live fire urban sieges within Australia. They have experience overseas, buts its a lot different here than shooting up a village in Afghanistan where the media aren't filming.

For those who think maybe the police botched the raid, well, if hurting the innocent is a botch so be it. But innocents will always get hurt when police or army go in with guns. I fully endorse the main intent of the police to bring about a negotiated settlement.

Some people might also be disillusioned by the obviously nervy and jumpy behaviour of the police as they went in. But this real life, not Die Hard the movie. This is how real people, even highly trained police or army, act in real, life-threatening situations.

Reality is stranger than fiction.

 

[manticle]

Held to ransom.........really? Seriously mate.

That's your response to that entire paragraph? Good effort.

 

[tavas]

Well I don’t know, I don’t know the facts .

Probably best to leave it there then champ.

 

[S.E]

remember I.S. calling people to do whatever they could? they were telling people to kill the infidels, with their bare hands, a knife anything. I remember when that came out thinking "here we bloody go"

my point about things not being the same after 911 was in reference to how the police/defences react, how the media reacts and how the public react. we will never be the same again - the game has changed

if people wave a certain flag around make particular comments and usually after such waving/commenting we see people die, well then what? we will never be privy to what the police and defence forces know and from a hysteria point of view that's prolly a good thing, unfortunately we have the sensationalist media to carry that flag

as for taking him out in front of the window - maybe he had told them that he had a bomb in his backpack who knows, I am sure their reasons aren't just thought up on the spot for such things, there would be protocol

god speed and my heart goes out to the families left behind

As you said the game has changed. The days of negotiating a happy ending in a situation like this are gone. More often than not the perpetrators intend to die and take as many as they can with them.

I guess they must have had some reason to hold back, the fact he hadn’t shot or blown anyone up gave them hope.

On the face of it this was a relatively easy siege to end quickly. Not only was he parading in front of the window but hostages could escape through two separate exits so should be easy enough for marksmen to enter.

I’m sure he had told them he had a bomb in the backpack, why else would he wear it I doubt he was planning a hike after the siege but a bomb threat would be all the more reason to end it quickly.

 

[Black Devil Dog]

That's your response to that entire paragraph? Good effort.

Had to leave for an urgent meeting. Hope that's ok. But most of what you wrote was rubbish.

Yesterday, the media kept saying they had minimal information, including that they didn't know if he was acting alone or not. They also mentioned that the authorities had requested that they not divulge details regarding the incident.You might watch/listen to different media, because other than one occassion when there was a run through of the various global terrorist attacks since 9/11, I saw nothing that closely resembled linking this with other attacks.

Well I do feel that it's important to distinguish it from other massacres etc, given the current global situation.

You can have the last word, I know what it means to you.

 

[manticle]

Held to ransom.........really? Seriously mate.

4. hold to ransom
a. to keep (prisoners, property, etc) in confinement until payment for their release is made or received

b. to attempt to force (a person or persons) to comply with one's demands

 

[Byran]

I think if the situation warranted it the army would have had a battallion of well trained commandos In the city with shoot to kill orders like they train for on every other weekend. From the beginning it seems that it was just a raving lunatic with some guns being a glory hound and I think the police handled the situation very well. Its been a sad day......

 

[Liam_snorkel]

good week to be a florist in sydney city.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

The perpetrator came here as a refugee in 2001, has got himself involved in so much illegal activity accessory to murder, sex offences and poison pen letters, but still did not outstay his welcome, I would have thought there would be a one strike and you're out rule.
I also wonder how many other solo jihadists are out there who have now been given some incentive to take part in a similar outrage.

 

[2much2spend]

The fact is that he had a mental illness!
Mental illness can happen to any of us. So we kneed services to help people not a reaction with a gun. ( not in any way justifying this incident)
We are one of the richest nations in the world and people that need help struggle to find it.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

The fact is that he had a mental illness!
Mental illness can happen to any of us. So we kneed services to help people not a reaction with a gun. ( not in any way justifying this incident)
We are one of the richest nations in the world and people that need help struggle to find it.

So, has it been confirmed that Man Haron Monis was mentally disturbed then, or is that just conjecture. I haven't seen any proof of a psychiatric report, though it would suit the powers that be to call it the work of a madman.

 

[2much2spend]

So, has it been confirmed that Man Haron Monis was mentally disturbed then, or is that just conjecture. I haven't seen any proof of a psychiatric report, though it would suit the powers that be to call it the work of a madman.

50 Sexual assaults, murder and Violence's .
sounds like my neighbor!!!!!

 

[2much2spend]

ALLEGEDLY!

 

[4KingAle]

Good riddance to that oxygen thief..may he burn in the fires of hell

 

[Kumamoto_Ken]

Since there is no one actual accepted definition of terrorism, I guess we could argue that till kingdom come. If it's just instilling terror in people through violence, then I guess Ivan Milat is a terrorist. If it's instilling terror for political or religious motivations then I guess most governments could fit the bill(the word originally referred to the actions of the French state but somehow the state is now immune to such ephitets as everything it does is legitimate).

There might not be one accepted definition of terrorism, but FWIW (not much) the Aus Gov does have a definition of a terrorist act (and presumably that act is perpetrated by a terrorist).
Good old Section 100.1 of the Criminal Code Act (1995). http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00793/Html/Volume_1#_Toc405451758

Personally I reckon most of the relevant boxes have been ticked. I s'pose my main question would be about whether he was really trying to advance a cause or just being a nutbag.


terrorist act means an action or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2) and does not fall within subsection (3); and
(b) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and
(c) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of:
(i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or
(ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) causes serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or
(b) causes serious damage to property; or
(c) causes a person’s death; or
(d) endangers a person’s life, other than the life of the person taking the action; or
(e) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; or
(f) seriously interferes with, seriously disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system including, but not limited to:
(i) an information system; or
(ii) a telecommunications system; or
(iii) a financial system; or
(iv) a system used for the delivery of essential government services; or
(v) a system used for, or by, an essential public utility; or
(vi) a system used for, or by, a transport system.
(3) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) is advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action; and
(b) is not intended:
(i) to cause serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or
(ii) to cause a person’s death; or
(iii) to endanger the life of a person, other than the person taking the action; or
(iv) to create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.

 

[spog]

A horrible event and outcome.
That PIG was walking free in this country because of the law,this countries law,our law. Don't forget it !
The law is the law and that's that,sometimes, as in what has now come to light because of the focus on this heinous event ,you,I,we get pissed off.
A prime case IMO is the case of one Eugene McGee ( a South Australian case that got people very pissed off ,Google it), but the law made a decision and ruling during a long running court case.
Who can change it ?
Who has the power to make the authorities sit up and take notice ?
I believe it has well and truly started with the "I will ride with you" message started on Twitter.
Two people have started a ground swell campaign standing up to narrow minded knuckle dragging pigs the same as the pig in the Lindt shop in Sydney.
I hope for this countries sake that the laws are put under the microscope.....but I won't be holding my breath waiting for a hard as nails reform.
Not so cheery..spog....

 

[Liam_snorkel]

Which laws in particular?

 

[Eagleburger]

Which laws in particular?

we should ask the lawyer of the turd. He has a rich history of enabling guilty people to walk free. Gloats about it on his website.

http://www.conditsis.com/landmark-cases/

 

[Airgead]

Allegedly guilty... you know... innocent until proven and all that.

Or don't we believe in that sort of stuff any more.

If you ever get into trouble, you'll be glad of a top flight defense lawyer.

Yes, our system means that a (very) occasional person who should have been locked up isn't and even more occasionally it ends tragically. That isn't a reason to give away vital parts of our legal system like the presumption of innocence and the right of everyone, no matter how vile and unhinged to legal representation.

Legitimate questions to be answered about bail and suchlike, and why the guy wasn't on some sort of alert list, but not a reason to throw away our legal system.

 

[Liam_snorkel]

look man, lawyers act under instruction from the client, and everyone is given the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, that's the whole ******* basis of criminal law. If his client says "I want to apply for bail" he is obliged to do so. Maybe you should ask magistrate Darryl Pearce why he granted the bail application? He'll tell you that the prosecution's case against him was weak. The real failing here is the prosecution.

EDIT: to eagleburger

 

[mwd]

News coverage way OTT. All day long same old stories trotted out every 10 minutes. Just give us a break. Quick mention of Pakistan where 140 odd killed at a school.

Thoughts and sorrows for families of the two unfortunate victims in Sydney.

 

[madpierre06]

A nation mourning as I heard quoted? Seriously!!!

A terrible day for the families and victims, the start in a shift in culture in how we must be aware of what is going on around us for sure. The coverage reminds me of when Jill Meagher was murdered, At the same time up in Brissie down Woodridge way (a pretty rough area) a young pregnant Phillipino lass was walking to work in the early hours of the evening and was brutally raped and murdered. Apart from the local news......****ing nada nationally in the vein of the Meagher incident!!! You can bet nationality of the victim had much to do with level of coverage.

Media will do as much as it takes to get the BS flowing, I saw early on a live feed to a war correspondent in Brissie who apparently has been previously held hostage in the region and they asked him for his thoughts. Seriously, you would have thought he himself was at the scene given the amount of hyperbole. No calm considered thoughts or information, just bloody hype BS.