Some mad videos emerging from Bondi beach in Sydney. Gun man opened fire. Seems to have been arrested from the videos I've seen, looks like multiple casualties.
Threadbanned posters
AugustRain
freebritney
No just IEDs and two home-made ISIS flags according to the NSW Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon.
Mr Lanyon also alleged that IEDs and two home-made Islamic State flags were found in a car registered to Naveed that was parked at the scene of Sunday’s shooting.
Bondi attack: alleged gunmen travelled to Philippines before ‘Isis-inspired’ shooting – The Irish Times
Sorry to disappoint you.
Why is a Sydney beach the best place to find people who have killed tens of thousands of Muslims? I have not heard of a mass slaughter of Muslims in Australia?
Considering that there was nothing to indicate the father had been radicalised, and the son was on a watch list for the past 6 years with a ready made arsenal in the family home and he didn`t take part, or even give any indications that he was going too, in any such attack during that time, then do you not think there is a strong possibility this attack was in relation to those tens of thousands of Muslims killed in Gaza.
The father did take part.
Islamism is not a form of the Muslim faith, and while all Islamists are Muslims, not all Muslims are Islamists.
So in effect banning all Muslims from entry to a country would be no different that banning all Christians because of terrorists on the far-right being Christians would it not ?
Maybe I didn`t make it clear enough. The father never gave any indication of being radicalized up until these killings. The son, even with being on a watch list for 6 years, was not involved in anything it appears to show he had been radicalized either until these shoots.
My question was that do you not think that perhaps both becoming radicalized now strongly suggest that those tens of thousands killed in Gaza that you referred to was a major factor ?
Where did I say anything about "banning all muslims" from a country? I didn't even mention anything about immigration at all in this thread.
And yes, Islamism is a form of the muslim faith, that's why, as you said yourself, all islamists are Muslim. Again, I never said that all Muslims are islamists either, but these attackers clearly were.
But why would anyone angered by what is going on in Gaza choose to kill a bunch of random Australians on a beach celebrating a holiday? They clearly are unlikely to have murdered any Gazans.
It`s difficult to understand what some here are advocating, so thank you for clearing up that you are not one of those in favour of not allowing people to enter this or any other country due to them being Muslims.
The bigotry on display here is very very disturbing.
You're mixing me up with someone else, I didn't mention any 'tens of thousands…'
Well we don't know when either of them became radicalised. The son wasn't AFAIK on a 'watch list' as he had been judged not to be a threat. He could have been on a list of some sort as a person who had previously come to the notice of investigators in another case.
If you want to tie it to the IDF and Gaza you'll need to try a different angle.
The same could be said as to why murder over 70,000 Palestinians in Gaza where the vast majority of them were unlikely to have murdered any Israelis.
It`s how terror works and not something adding more terror will do to stop.
The son had previously come to the notice of the authorities 6 years ago, and no indication of either him or the father being involved in any radicalized acts - even with them being in possession of an arsenal of guns - yet somehow them now becoming radicalized to the extend they were, as far as you are concerned can in no possible way be related to the 70,000 murders in Gaza.
Your entitled to your own ideas, but personally I would find it difficult not to see Gaza as being a strong possibility.
There are a few posters here that I am getting a fair whiff of the far-right off.
"as far as you are concerned can in no possible way be related to the 70,000 murders in Gaza."
Thats not what I posted and you know it.
If you're going to start trolling I will start ignoring you.
What you posted was "If you want to tie it to the IDF and Gaza you`ll have to try a different angle", so I cannot see where the difference is.
If you wish to ignore my posts or not that`s up to you. It will not bother me either way
As I said trying to quibble over a statement of uncertainty and a question is grammatical pedantry. You knew exactly what was said.
Btw asking someone’s opinion involves a question.
Let’s drop the question so you can go back to educating us on Australian firearms law and explaining how you been to more places in Sydney than me. Lmfao
You genuinely seem not the slightest bit disturbed that 15 people were gunned down specifically because they were Jewish. This shouldn't be a right wing or left wing issue. Murdering people is wrong. Terror attacks are wrong. I condemn what Israel is doing, and I condemn this.
"Btw asking someone’s opinion involves a question."
Indeed it does.
FWIW I watched the video when I got home. He was in Israel talking about defending the land for the Arabs. That sounds like support for the bombing of children by Israel. But I think presenting it as such is disingenuous.
The video was from October 2023, just days after Hamas strikes on Isreal killed 1200 civilians. Those people were victims are it’s acceptable to talk about protecting any place from attacks like that. Ignoring that context is again willful ignorance.
That doesn’t mean the personrson supports what Israel have done for the last 2 years. It’s does not mean they were involved in what’s happening in Gaza now. You ignored the question on AI images, so we have our answer.
Should be noted though if that the two of them are radicalised supporters of ISIS, it's somewhat unlikely they were motivated by Gaza or Palestine - ISIS has nothing to do with with Gaza or Hamas. It's unclear why the two killers attacked Jewish people instead of the usual white Christians, but it might have been plain anti-Semitism.
I genuinely do not have the slightest idea where you get that from my posts.
Murder is murder no matter if it is 70,000 in Gaza or 15 in Australia.
Both as far as I am concerned are not just murders, they are acts of terrorism and no matter how some may try to avoid admitting it, by far the majority of terrorist murders presently have their roots in no Palestinian state and the invasion of Iraq.
You are never going to have zero terrorist killing, but sorting out a Palestinian state would go a long way imo.
I would not see ISIS as being that fussy as to what they use to radicalize anyone. Especially as they are no fans of the U.S. and Israel being a major supporter of the U.S.
I have never been a great believer in coincidence, so I would question why this pair only seemingly became radicalized now, where I imagine anyone attempting to radicalize Muslims would be using Gaza as the primary reason for them to become radicalized.
You keep saying “now radicalised”. It’s pretty naïve to assume that because they acted now they must have only recently been converted to this ideology. If this was a vehicle or knife attack you wouldn't say the same thing, despite universal access to knives. Terrorism incubates for years. Look at terrorism in Ireland. People carrying attacks in the 90s, were active members of terrorist organisations since the 60s.
They were Pakistani, not from Gaza or the middle east. ISIS and Hamas have a very different genesis. Even if a recent force from Israel were a catalyst. Despite what people have tried to claim here, that in no way makes the murder of 15 people acceptable in the slightest bit.
This. I've no idea why people think that anything other than both are wrong and should be condemned. For the sake of completeness, the victims were not all Jewish.
I hate it when people call terrorists 'radicalized' as it's to say they are suffering from some sort of mental illness which would somewhat absolve them from their actions.
Personally I think this farther and son duo did it for the glory of it rather than to bring about an outcome which is what terrorisms purpose is supossed to be, and used the gaza war as a bit of cover.
He was in Israel talking about defending the land for the Arabs.
Incorrect. He was talking about claiming Palestinian land saying it is rightfully Israeli owned. And the purpose of the video was fund raising for the IDF. If someone was found to be fund raising for Hamas, you wouldn't accept it was an excuse that they were doing so to protect Palestinians (even though it would be more provably correct than your argument).
What is the fascination with AI images? I didn't post the image, I didn't refer to the image to support my argument, why must I respond to it because you or anyone else demands it?
You're entitled to your opinion, same as anyone, but what evidence is there that they did this for the glory of it? What glory do you think they thought they achieved?
I have never seen anyone use the term radicalized to imply they were taken advantage of and look to lessen the view on the their acts for that reason. If we see someone described as having been groomed/manipulated/pushed towards/encouraged then that may be the case of what is being implied, but not radicalized.
It implies how they crossed the line to considering violence, not that they weren't responsible for doing so.
Where have I said that I found the murder of 15 people in Australia or indeed 70,000 in Gaza acceptable ?
I have clearly said a few posts back that murder is murder.
I have seen no suggestion to back up that this father and son, while having ready access to an arsenal of weapons for years, were involved in any anti semitic activity or contemplating any act of terror let alone a mass shooting until now, which does leave open the question, no matter how much you may want to avoid it, as to why now where there is the strong possibility it was in connection to what has being going on in Gaza.
The area he referenced is in Israel, not Palestine. Whose land it should be in a deep and complex issue. But saying this is Israeli land was a factually correct, and in no way a justification for his murder. Saying it in October 2023 also in no way justifies the actions of Israel in the two years that followed. Those actions are also condemnable.
IDF is the Israeli state military. They do not need a Rabbi to fundraise for them. He said on the video, your donations go "here", and said the money was received for a village on the west bank. Again, this was in the wake of Oct 7th. Comparing that with fundraising for Hamas is disingenuous and idiotic. You now gone past ignorance and are actively lying.
Are you really trying to claim you didn't refer to the images? Really going to keep digging. When I went back to the video I noticed it was post #530. But you definitely said #497, so I rechecked that
And post #497
One of the people killed was reportedly involved with the IDF/Israel and had been pictured with signed artillery which was to be used against Palestine. That was likely a coincident that he was shot here but the manufactured reality in which we live now would suggest that were he rumoured to be involved with Hamas, killing 15 other people in an attack on him would be argued here and elsewhere as being justified.
Pictured with the artillery…the AI images. No reference to a video.
So to be crystal , the fascination with the AI images is the fact you referenced them in the thread, and questioned that they were AI. Then lied multiple times about the fact you did that when you were found out. Disgraceful really.
why must I respond to it because you or anyone else demands it?
You don't have to respond. You are free to ignore.
But circulating a fake story based on AI images, a false narrative about a video, about the victim of a terrorist attack makes anyone you look exceptionally bad. Denying it does not help. It takes a really piece of crap to generate and circulate these fake images/stories, especially during the funerals. If it was all a misunderstanding, a reasonable person would explain, apologise, etc. They wouldn't be forced to, but they'd probably grasp the implication of not doing so. But you do you, and the rest of us will draw our own conclusions.
False. The image of him with artillery is not the one that was being discussed on here as having been false. Try again.
And your last paragraph is a lie. I have not circulated any story relating to false images. Go ahead and draw whatever conclusions you want.
