|
|
Post by sherri on Jun 4, 2017 0:00:25 GMT
Just been reading how London has again had to bear the brunt of 3 attacks. Apparently a car or van ran into pedestrians then men jumped out and started randomly stabbing people. Well, perhaps not so randomly really-stabbing non muslims would be my guess.
Got to give kudos to the police though. They shot dead two attackers.
That would not happen here. I am not sure if you recall, but a couple of years back there was a Lindt café siege in Sydney. One man held about 20 people hostage. In the end, many hours later, police stormed the building once the man killed one of the hostages. They killed the terrorist but one of their bullets killed another hostage in a ricochet.
An inquest into it all has just finished and was quite critical, said the police squad there at the time, with sharp shooters, had a couple of earlier opportunities where the terrorist could have been killed. But they did not take it because the men were unsure if they had permission to shoot.
That would be 100% correct. Had they shot the man dead, you can bet they would have been stood down from duty and there would have been rants against the police for not negotiating, being too hot on the trigger. Why put your career in jeopardy like that? Better to follow orders.
The trouble is at the top. You have an elite squad of sharp shooters, you have a siege with hostages, and the person at the top doesn't give the men clear instructions to shoot to kill. Obviously the instructions to police in London are very different.
Has any politician murmured the word muslim yet, I bet not. Probably saying it has 'nothing to do with Islam'. |
|
|
|
Post by sherri on Jun 7, 2017 6:42:15 GMT
And another one. Not on the same scale as London though.
Lone gunman kills one person, holds another hostage, rings news station to say he is doing it for ISIS, tries to draw in police, fires at them, injuring 3 and is then killed.
Some are saying-not a terrorist, more a lone nutter.
I think he was both.
This is a man who
-faced charges 7 years back for planning an attack on a Sydney army barracks
-trained overseas with one of the terrorist groups I think it was
-was sentenced for 5 years jail for a violent home invasion
-was out on bail ( those giving parole were not told he was on the terror watch list)
A terrorist? yes, I think so.
I'd like to know what he was doing here. If not a citizen, why was he not deported?
If a new citizen, maybe we should make citizenship probationary for 10 years, void for serious offences.
I've no problem with anyone form anywhere living here, as long as they uphold the law & live peacefully. If they won't, then they should be fast tracked out. I'm sure even a lot of migrants would prefer that too. No one wants drug fuelled violent people on the streets.
|
|
|
|
Post by granty on Jun 12, 2017 20:23:48 GMT
After the latest murder of innocents by Muslims in London.
The muslim mayor of London made a speech, saying "not in my name and not in my religion" and all the white apologists applauded him.
Well they were murdered in the name of Islam, thats why they were murdered. Imagine being so thick, that you refuse to accept this? Who's the thickest?
The Muslim murderer, the Muslim mayor, or the white apologists?
Until the next slaughter by Muslims
|
|
|
|
Post by sherri on Jun 12, 2017 21:57:43 GMT
It is in the name of Islam, that's the problem.
I understand the mayor is saying that he wouldn't do it and he doesn't like people to claim they are doing it in defence of the Islamic religion, but that's what is happening and why I think the muslims need to take on more ownership. It's a problem from within their ranks. They need to be preaching against it in their mosques.
After the latest killing here, we had the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) saying that there was a problem for muslim youth, they were feeling under pressure & they needed safe meeting places where they could meet & let off steam. Say things that could even be considered dangerous 'outside' without repercussions. The Islamic council suggested that the taxpayer fund these meeting places out of anti terrorist money.
I don't think it will happen as there has been a backlash against the suggestion but I bet the gov't finds a way to give them even more money somehow.
There was no mention of how the safe places would be monitored or whether there would be a moderate Imam on hand to council youths with extremist views. Otherwise, in my opinion, these places would just be extremist plotting grounds. Great, bring together all the angry ones for a meeting.
What annoyed me was the suggestion taxpayers fund these places. If ICV really thinks they need meeting rooms, what's wrong with the mosques organising youth groups and paying for them themselves? Why do they have to have our taxes? Every other religion I know of has social groups they organise & pay for off their own bat.
|
|
