Mass shooting on Bondi Beach

Nowhere in any of those quotes do I ask a question as you've claimed.

"You replied, with 

connected 

in quotes for some reason."

In single inverted commas to highlight the word 'connected' as it could mean almost anything, same as having his name on a 'list' is pretty meaningless in terms of law enforcement.

Meaningless in that it didn't stop his father obtaining a gun licence.

"Mr Lanyon corrected reporting that the older man first gained a gun licence a decade ago, saying he was not issued one until 2023. He said an initial application, lodged in 2015, had lapsed as no photograph was supplied for the licence. A second application was lodged in 2020 for a category AB licence, which was issued in 2023."

Lanyon being the NSW Police Commissioner.

"Mr Albanese has said Asio had examined Naveed for six months because of his alleged associations with others, with the ABC reporting claims that the counterterror investigation involved an Islamic State cell.

“The assessment was made that there was no indication of any ongoing threat or threat of him engaging in violence,” Mr Albanese said on Monday."

Bondi attack: alleged gunmen travelled to Philippines before ‘Isis-inspired’ shooting – The Irish Times

"Australia permits civilian ownership of specific firearm categories (A, B, C, D) with strict licensing requirements. Category A includes rimfire rifles, shotguns, and air rifles. Category B covers centerfire rifles and lever-action shotguns. Category C restricts semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns to occupational use. All firearms require licensing, background checks, and a legitimate purpose—self-defense is not accepted."

What Guns Are Legal In Australia? Complete Guide To Firearms Regulations And Licensing Requirements

The 'background' checks apparently didn't prove any barrier to the father (effectively the son also) getting access to the guns that were used in the Bondi Beach attack that killed 15 and injured many more.

That's basically a long winded get out clause were you ultimately blame systems and events for terrorist actions rather than acknowledging that they had the agency to decide to commit these acts themselves.

You say that we should have stable inclusive societies in the Middle East, which sounds great. In practice however how can that be achieved when a large portion of the Middle East don't want that. You think ISIS, Boko Haram, the Houthis, the Taliban would welcome an inclusive Middle East? How do you square that circle?

Western Europe and Australia are largely safe inclusive countries, yet in the past few years people have been slain at concerts (the Bataclan, Manchester Arena), teachers have been attacked, priests and synagogues attacked, festivals attacked.

At a certain point you have to take the blinkers off and realise there are horrible illiberal people in the world with abhorrent views diametrically opposed to that of most people. Excusing their beliefs as due to systems and environment is naive in the extreme, and I don't think you would jump through such hoops to excuse the likes of Elliot Rodgers or the Christchurch shooters.

I never once excused anything Israel is doing in Gaza nor have I ever supported western involvement in the Middle East/North Africa. Show me a single post on this website were I have ever done this.

But I'm not, so that argument doesn't apply to me, and it was me you were replyjng to.

I also think that Islamist idealogy is extremely important when examining root causes for Islamic terrorism and geopolitics alone doesn't explain it.

As for strengthening International law, opposing violence, apartheid and repression. That sounds great.

Which national or international armies are going to do this. Who is going to pay for it. Who decides what areas to intervene in? Should Afghanistan be reinvaded and occupied to prevent the brutal suppression of women there? Do we invade Israel and Gaza and enforce a peaceful two State solution? Do we invade Sudan or Somalia?

I presume from your comments that you're against Western Intervention in the Middle East, yet you also seem to be advocating for unnamed International armies/forces to intercede to promote peace and crush repressive ideologies. It all seems quite contradictory.

We're discussing a terrorist attack on an Australian beach. At least one of the perpetrators had known links to ISIS, and they are investigating whether a trip to the Philippines was part of their links to ISIS.

ISIS are an extremist organisation who have attempted genocide in the Middle East yet you think acknowledging that they were likely motivated by more than the invasion of Gaza is an extremist and nonsense view.

I don't scrub anything. I marched against the Iraq war and believe it was wrong. I just don't think it excuses anything ISIS have done and I think anyone who would willingly join an organisation that literally has burned people alive in cages is an abhorrent human being, who deserves condemnation not excuses.