The Student Room Group

Sydney siege - Siege confirmed to be over

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Pseudocode
Has this happened yet mate? Any chance you can bring me up to speed? Would be appreciated. :redface:


The press conference was pretty standard, he didn't really say much that we didn't already know. Here is a link to his speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyz5knTavHI

Edited and provided a better version with the beginning not cut out.
(edited 9 years ago)
press conference by scipione in 20
Original post by Le Franglais
x


Original post by MrDystopia
x


Thanks both. +rep both.
Original post by Jemner01
As it turns out, disarming an opponent without your own arms to use is a tad difficult.


Australia is a civilised country with an armed police force to be dispatched in such rare situations, who, unlike random citizens, are accountable to the public for their actions, and properly trained in the use of a firearm, the potential pitfalls of same, and also in cool, collected siege strategy rather than the blind panic armed hostages would have exhibited. The police have been eminently capable of containing the situation thus far and nobody has yet had to die.

Don't use a situation where innocent people's lives are in the balance to advance your (admittedly very weak) argument for a society where everyone carries guns. You cheapen their lives by doing so.
I'm in shock. I thought Australia would be one of the last places to be affected - just goes to show you're never safe anywhere these days.

I hope this is resolved ASAP with the culprits arrested, heavily sentenced and hopefully no casualties.

To any Australian reading this post, we in Britain are thinking of you, and express our deep and utter sympathy.
Original post by Le Franglais
The 'rest of society'? Is that including our governments? The people who sent us to war? The people who created these 'terrorists'?

What are you talking about man? I thought you were pretty logical up to now. Terrorists are not 'terrorists', lose the quotes.

And yes, I and my government (the Greek one) and the government of the innocent people in that cafe are not responsible for creating these monsters. There's only so far you can go when you try to trace the cause of things and apportion blame.

In this case, you're implying that terrorism is somehow created by anyone other than the sick minds of the people who perpetrate it. That WOULD be true if terrorists were somehow closely related to the actual victims of the wars aside from their religion, but alas, most terrorists are simply sick bastards.

It's like if I choose to bomb a Muslim place tomorrow cause Christians are persecuted all across the Muslim world. Who would you say created me? Innocent unrelated Muslims, their governments or my sick mind that chose to be offended and to identify with people who have nothing to do with me and also chose to exact my retribution on an entirely different set of people?
Original post by scrotgrot
Why so bloodthirsty? There's a great big window in the cafe, it should be child's play to surround the area with gunmen or get some special forces into the building via the roof and issue a credible warning demanding that the attackers drop their weapons and surrender. Any shootings should be contingent on that; Western states are not barbaric, and operate according to the rule of law. This is not an act of war, it's terrorism, and should be dealt with summarily and justly by law enforcement, as terrorism was before 9/11. It doesn't behove Western states, which are rich and stable enough to act with moral righteousness, to go rampaging in looking for heads to explode like open warfare has been declared.

And indeed this appears to be what we are seeing from Australia so far, with a police siege of the building in progress. One hopes for the situation to be resolved by the morning with the minimum of bloodshed, even as priority is for the hostages rather than the terrorists.

To act as if terrorism is an act of war is to play into the terrorists' hands, and as we have seen across the West since 9/11, it has ultimately resulted in the erosion of civil liberties for Western citizens, which I'm sure the Islamists would be quite pleased about. Terrorism should be dealt with just like any non-political hostage situation, for example a husband holding his wife and children hostage. This approach reflects the same steadfast refusal to allow terrorists to dictate the terms of the argument that is expressed in, say, Abbott not acceding to the terrorists' demand for a televised dialogue.

Bullets and the paperwork to go with it are going to be much cheaper than all the legal proceedings and a life in a cushty prison , and it gets everything over and done with soooo much quicker.
Original post by masterridley
What are you talking about man? I thought you were pretty logical up to now. Terrorists are not 'terrorists', lose the quotes.

Whether somebody is declared a terrorist or not is entirely subjective. Ok, by definition these people are terrorists, but then so were many those protesters in Ukraine we praised; they're only a terrorist if they go against your political position.
Original post by Aj12
Did't the Australians recently break up a couple of terrorist plots? Really troubling that this has happened, hopefully it'll be resolved peacefully.


Not only did they break a few plots up, but they actually had a small-scale terrorist attack. An ISIS sympathiser was invited by Australian Federal Police officers to have a chat with them, and he amsbushed and stabbed the officers who came to meet them.
Gah. My Mum works very close to that building in Martin Place.

So sick of these Islamist *****.
If a country like Australia with a strict border control policy, a country that is an island with no EU as a backdoor into the country like we have, a country that is known for zero tolerance can face problems like this then the problems coming our way in the future are going to be frightening. Even more so if Turkey is allowed to enter the EU, as certain people within the EU want.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Jammy Duel
Whether somebody is declared a terrorist or not is entirely subjective. Ok, by definition these people are terrorists, but then so were many those protesters in Ukraine we praised; they're only a terrorist if they go against your political position.

The definition is very clear and straight-forward. A terrorist is someone who uses terror to further his objectives.

So, these guys = terrorists, Israel when it retaliates disproportionately = terrorist, guys in Ukraine demonstrating = not terrorist

See, it's not that hard! :wink:
(edited 9 years ago)
Only 1 hostage taker? Can't a police sniper just put one between his eyes from 100m away?

Fix up 'Straya.
Original post by masterridley
What are you talking about man? I thought you were pretty logical up to now. Terrorists are not 'terrorists', lose the quotes.

And yes, I and my government (the Greek one) and the government of the innocent people in that cafe are not responsible for creating these monsters. There's only so far you can go when you try to trace the cause of things and apportion blame.

In this case, you're implying that terrorism is somehow created by anyone other than the sick minds of the people who perpetrate it. That WOULD be true if terrorists were somehow closely related to the actual victims of the wars aside from their religion, but alas, most terrorists are simply sick bastards.

It's like if I choose to bomb a Muslim place tomorrow cause Christians are persecuted all across the Muslim world. Who would you say created me? Innocent unrelated Muslims, their governments or my sick mind that chose to be offended and to identify with people who have nothing to do with me and also chose to exact my retribution on an entirely different set of people?


You are SO ignorant ... and you claim I'm being illogical!!

Terrorists are created by WAR, murder, unrest, torture and everything that comes with CONFLICT.

Al-Qaeda is an example amongst hundreds of others: it was created from the Mujahadeen, from the soldiers created by the US to fight the Soviets out of Afghanistan during the Golf War.

Terrorists - especially members of ISIS - believe what they're doing is righteous, and what we're doing to them is wrong; and vice versa.

The IRA was created politically and religiously - they weren't 'sick' people, they were fighting for a cause they believed to be true.

Choosing to bomb Muslims because of Christians being persecuted in the Middle East is EXACTLY what this guy is doing - A (POLITICAL) STATEMENT.
Reply 74
Avatar for fsdfsfds
fsdfsfds
Original post by scrotgrot
Why so bloodthirsty? There's a great big window in the cafe, it should be child's play to surround the area with gunmen or get some special forces into the building via the roof and issue a credible warning demanding that the attackers drop their weapons and surrender. Any shootings should be contingent on that; Western states are not barbaric, and operate according to the rule of law. This is not an act of war, it's terrorism, and should be dealt with summarily and justly by law enforcement, as terrorism was before 9/11. It doesn't behove Western states, which are rich and stable enough to act with moral righteousness, to go rampaging in looking for heads to explode like open warfare has been declared.

And indeed this appears to be what we are seeing from Australia so far, with a police siege of the building in progress. One hopes for the situation to be resolved by the morning with the minimum of bloodshed, even as priority is for the hostages rather than the terrorists.

To act as if terrorism is an act of war is to play into the terrorists' hands, and as we have seen across the West since 9/11, it has ultimately resulted in the erosion of civil liberties for Western citizens, which I'm sure the Islamists would be quite pleased about. Terrorism should be dealt with just like any non-political hostage situation, for example a husband holding his wife and children hostage. This approach reflects the same steadfast refusal to allow terrorists to dictate the terms of the argument that is expressed in, say, Abbott not acceding to the terrorists' demand for a televised dialogue.


Not barbaric? Are you joking? They've only gone and ****ed up the entire world for oil.

Rule of Law my arse.

You'd think that the CIA hadn't just released some information on all the times they've gone and tortured innocent people, with the full knowledge of those in government. The American people have voted those people in, just like the British people have voted their politicians. The USA is the biggest criminal nation in the world, having broken international Law more than any other country.
Original post by bertstare
Only 1 hostage taker? Can't a police sniper just put one between his eyes from 100m away?

News flash for you buddy, real life isn't like Call of Duty.
Reply 76
Avatar for fsdfsfds
fsdfsfds
Original post by masterridley
This is not about Islam in general. But it's definitely about specific versions of Islam that are given unwarranted protection in the Western world. I believe that Salafism and other dangerous movements should be outlawed exactly like nazism is banned in Germany. Even on this board we have 1 or 2 admirers of Al-Awlaki and, for those who don't know, that guy praised terrorist attacks on innocents like this, eg. the hijacking of a plane.


You want Salafism to be outlawed? lmao

Britain has only gone and funded the largest proliferators of that ideology, the Saudi government - billions of pounds of military hardware. How do you communicate any kind of credible counter-extremism programme when we expect Muslim community members to challenge Al-Qaidah, whilst we use them as proxies? We say Wahabbi interpretation has no place in British society and then we go and play a double game. No wonder no ones listening.
Original post by Pseudocode
News flash for you buddy, real life isn't like Call of Duty.


Oh yeah I forgot snipers don't exist in real life
Original post by Pseudocode

Yeah, the thing is, loads of criminals are actually intelligent. Some of the most intelligent people have been sociopathic serial killers. We've also produced our fair share of idiots so its a bit daft to single out Australia for that.


It's also factually incorrect, from a historical perspective.

Between 1788 and the 1850s (the dates between which there was convict transportation in New South Wales), there were about 70,000 convicts transported. Between 1850 and 1860 alone, 2 million free settlers moved to Australia.

In the final years of transportation, there were 200 free settlers for every convict.

Interestingly, my experience has been that the people in this country who tend to crow about Australia's past the most are the ones who tend to have a massive chip on their shoulder about their class background (and typically too poor to actually travel there)
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by masterridley
The definition is very clear and straight-forward. A terrorist is someone who uses terror to further his objectives.

So, these guys = terrorists, Israel when it retaliates disproportionately = terrorist, guys in Ukraine demonstrating = not terrorist

See, it's not that hard! :wink:

They did more than demonstrate
Terrorism: the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Terrorist: a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
Stick them together, they can be defined as terrorists

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you