Mass shooting on Bondi Beach

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.

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 ?

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.

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 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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.