Mass stabbing event in Sydney - **Read OP before posting**

Fair play to the individual with a table(?) who intervened at the escalator.

Saw that. Think it was a barrier stand?

I agree but how do we police it? Cops able to randomly stop and search people who are walking down the street? That won't and shouldn't happen.

Can you not see that random searches would not stop an incident like this, so why are you bleating on about it?

A man grabs a knife and heads to his local shops for a murder spree, do you think he is worried about getting done for possessing a knife?

What exactly are the odds that he even gets stopped for a random search in the 2 minutes between picking up the knife in his kitchen and getting to the shops?

Whatever about knife laws stopping gang incidents involving knives, they would have no effect on spree killers whatsoever.

Another 2 brave men.

Sadly the mother of the baby has died.

https://x.com/ForsigeNews/status/1779087506144706622

That female police officer has balls of granite, fair play.

Has it been confirmed that the attacker was Muslim then?

But on your wider question. It's part of the religion. Just as how Catholicism spread throughout the world (for better or worse - generally worse), this is history repeating itself.

Plus we in the West have made it very easy with noisy left-wing liberal types wailing about our obligations, and supposed privilege and guilt. While the West tears itself apart in culture wars, identity politics and virtue, the rest of the world moves on, and there will always be those who will take advantage of and exploit such foolishness.

The problems arise when the cultures and expectations clash, but we're bringing it on ourselves and it's only going to get worse I believe. We're actually regressing as a society in many respects which would seem contradictory to a lot of progress on issues but is true nonetheless.

We do have legislation regarding knives and offensive weapons, gardai can stop and search anyone, but obviously they must suspect they have a weapon, under section 16.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1990/act/12/enacted/en/print.html

An attack on people in a Jewish neighbourhood by a member of a religion where hatred of Jews is hardwired into the belief system? Obviously we're racists for even thinking it.

I've no idea whether this stabbing was related to Islam, but on a point of information, the question of whether Islam is more inherently violent than Christianity is probably to be found in the lives and teachings of both their founders. Mohammed was a warlord. Jesus was not.

I know Christianity is far from blameless in how it spread in practice, but it is not inherently warlike. Islam is.

Even in in terms of rules for one's personal life, Islam is far more violent: the closest equivalent Hadith to the New Testament story about the woman caught in the act of adultery tells how Muhammed, in his infinite kindness and wisdom, first allowed her to give birth and then breast feed her baby (born as a result of the adultery) and only after the baby was weaned did he order her to be stoned to death. There's no "Let he who is without sin…" in Islam, never mind "Go and sin no more".

And Muhammed is "the perfect man" in Islam - a model for all. So the difference is that there is very little peaceful "counterbalance" available for more peaceful Muslims to call on in opposition to the more violent ones.

(And to be clear, I'm NOT saying that all Muslims are violent. I know most aren't. I'm making a different point.)

Have they given a reason for why it's not terror related?

Just wondering how they can rule out a terrorist attack so quickly?

Most people would consider Parnell Street a main thoroughfare.

Someone said it was. I'm open to correction.

40 years old and known to police.

Targeted the woman and baby first.

Five of the six victims were women, and one was a baby.

If this was a man targeting woman, are we not allowed to call that terror related too? Or does it not matter as much when women are the targets?

(This is not about you, BTW, but about the police being so quick to dismiss it as "not terror". Seems pretty damn terrifying to me if someone hates women that much - and it's not as though it would be the first time.)

Saying now he was in the mall at 3pm, went off and came back at 3.20 with the knife and targeted the woman and baby, so definitely looking into that it might not just have been totally random.

Muslims were first brought up by a poster asking when they would be mentioned.

Everyone else was asking about the victims. Your ire needs to be focused where it rightly belongs.

Burden of proof. If they have no evidence that it's terror related, they're not going to say it is, particularly given the panic that could cause in the local area. If they have sufficient proof to suggest it's terror related, then they'll say it is.

Confirming it isn't terror related is very different than saying it is not known at this time if it's terror related.

Completely ruling it out means they surely know the motive, but then why not say what the motive is?

Considering it seems targeted against women, and particularly one woman with a baby, it's quite possibly "honour" related.

Knife laws are irrelevant, they are already tough. People with a mind to criminality don't care about the law. The person was known to the police, so maybe do more on the enforcement and incarceration side of things. Most of the similar incidents in France that did involve muslims, the perpetrators were known to the Gendarme.

I would rather not be patted down, there is every reason why police should not have this power. Typical knee-jerk response.

The police have said he is known to them and have ruled out isms as a motivating factor. That would suggest this is a case of insufficient mental health resources, AKA secure mental hospitals, and that the perpetrator is a nut job.

All we know for a fact is that this is yet another case of a man murdering women. Again it raises the question if anything can be done to stop the threat posed by men.

Shrug our shoulders? That's your solution? Some men will be violent and there's nothing we can do about it. You made a note about unarmed bystanders. The person who put an end to this attack was an armed woman. Would that not be more of a solution? If violent attacks are carried out by men 99% of the time, should we arm women to police them? All we hear is that women should be careful where they go, when they go there, who they go with, what they wear, what they drink and so on and on and on. So instead of your suggestion of encouraging other men to intervene, we arm women and encourage them to intervene.