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
I see the NSW authorities are planning to ban the use of certain pro-Palestinian phrases or slogans with the object of limiting the spread of 'hate'.
The Australian state where the Bondi shooting occurred plans to ban the phrase "globalise the intifada" as part of a crackdown on "hateful" slogans.
Australian state to ban intifada chants after Bondi shooting
Supressing protest and freedom of speech will only increase hate.
Yes possibly if the police were just triggered by reports of a group of bearded men travelling in a car towards Bondi but there seems to have been more to it than that.
If they ever bring a case against the cops we may find out.
Sure, I wouldn't blame the police on the ground for it. They were told to stop the vehicle and that's what they did. I'd question the "intelligence" behind the decision though. It reminds me a bit about the panic here over the blonde haired Roma kids, that were taken into care (mistakenly) as a result of curtain twitchers reacting to a similar case in Greece.
Better safe than sorry.
"Officers are understood to have fired non-lethal bean bag rounds at the white Hyundai before detaining the men, who were allegedly known to authorities in Victoria.Sources told the Australian Daily Telegraph that a high-level intelligence involving counter-terror police took place on Thursday afternoon before the raid. "
"Officers are understood to have fired non-lethal bean bag rounds at the white Hyundai before detaining the men, who were allegedly known to authorities in Victoria.
Sources told the Australian Daily Telegraph that a high-level intelligence involving counter-terror police took place on Thursday afternoon before the raid. "
Men ‘travelling to Bondi’ rammed by anti-terror police
Your links said that they were all known to the police, and no, that doesn't mean that a curtain twitching neighbour said something. The chain of events that lead to poor Jean Charles de Menezes losing his live was started by muslim terrorists. And yet you find reasons to give them more kindness. That's why they call it that.
Suicidal empathy? Nice one. I'm sure all the details will come out in due course. Another source says one of them was known to police. My guess is that some curtain twitching neighbour heard them say they were off to Sydney and reported them. At least they are still alive. Unlike poor Jean Charles de Menezes. The officer responsible for that fiasco was promoted to the head of the Met
The men were believed to have arrived from Victoria on Wednesday and all were known to Victorian police, Lanyon said
All known to the police the poor innocent lads.
Suicidal empathy, as they say now.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/dec/19/we-did-nothing-wrong-seven-men-released-from-custody-in-sydney-deny-islamist-links
What crime did they commit? 'Driving to a holiday rental' while looking middle-eastern …
No, the aftermath of the iraq invasion was shocking in its sectarian barbarity. And I'm not sure that the period when ISIS controlled cities with a population of near 2 million was a great deal for those residents either.
I see the Australian authorities are scrambling to reduce the number of guns in circulation with a buy-back scheme. May make a small dent in the numbers but there will still be plenty.
Speaking to media on Friday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said there are now more than 4 million firearms in Australia - more than at the time of the Port Arthur massacre."We know that one of these terrorists held a firearm licence and had six guns, in spite of living in the middle of Sydney's suburbs... There's no reason why someone in that situation needed that many guns."If you're going to reduce the number of guns, then a buyback scheme has to be a piece of that puzzle," Australian Federal Police Commissioner Krissy Barrett added.The new scheme will purchase surplus, newly banned and illegal firearms, and will be funded on a 50-50 basis with the states and territories. Hundreds of thousands of firearms will be collected and destroyed, the government estimates.National cabinet has also agreed to impose limits on the number of firearms held by any one individual, restrict open-ended firearms licensing and the types of guns that are legal and make Australian citizenship a condition of holding a firearm licence.
Speaking to media on Friday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said there are now more than 4 million firearms in Australia - more than at the time of the Port Arthur massacre.
"We know that one of these terrorists held a firearm licence and had six guns, in spite of living in the middle of Sydney's suburbs... There's no reason why someone in that situation needed that many guns.
"If you're going to reduce the number of guns, then a buyback scheme has to be a piece of that puzzle," Australian Federal Police Commissioner Krissy Barrett added.
The new scheme will purchase surplus, newly banned and illegal firearms, and will be funded on a 50-50 basis with the states and territories. Hundreds of thousands of firearms will be collected and destroyed, the government estimates.
National cabinet has also agreed to impose limits on the number of firearms held by any one individual, restrict open-ended firearms licensing and the types of guns that are legal and make Australian citizenship a condition of holding a firearm licence.
Australia announced gun buyback scheme in wake of Bondi attack
Shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.
LOL
What's any of this got to do with a clear factual error made by the previous poster?
BL was found in Pakistan. That’s a different thing to saying he planned and launched the 9/11 attack from there. But maybe that’s what you think?
Are you also confusing Iraq and Afghanistan?
They had a civil war after the US invasion but overall Iraq is now a far better place, with a parliamentary democracy, than it was under Saddam Hussein, when it was united only in the way that Syria was united under Al Assad, ie opposing groups were terrorised into quiescence.
Yeah they literally walked into Kabul in a couple of weeks. It wasn't even a skirmish. Hardly any combat and very few US forces killed. They left all the fighting to the Northern Alliance. Thankfully Afghanistan doesn't have to worry about the Taliban anymore. Oh wait.
Iraq was a proper US ground invasion for no reason and no WMDs found. They also bombed several other countries as part of the vague war on "terror". The Iraqis suffered a massive loss of life.
Bin Laden was in Pakistan.
No they invaded Afghanistan because Bin Laden was considered to be a Saudi dissident who had found a welcome for his violent ideology in Taliban-run Afghanistan.
It had nothing to do with Bin Laden though it was part of the so-called “War on Terror” which had much wider aims than just getting Bin Laden.
The Charlie Hebdo attackers were French-born Algerians but their ideology came from neither of those countries. If they’d found refuge in a third country that refused to give them up, that place would surely have some responsibility for that though wouldn’t it?
Last day of work this year, office Xmas party is in bondi. Definitely shadow over the whole area. But positive attitude has to win out
I quite obviously do recognise the link between the American intervention in Iraq and subsequent sectarian hellscape that emerged from it. That doesn't negate the fact that some adherents of islam follow extreme and violent interpretations of their faith. Such interpretations have existed since the 6th century and these adherents are perfectly able find logic fir their extremism within their 'holy' texts. Both geopolitics and ideology can result in terrorism. Both of these things can be true to varying degrees outside of your cognitivley dissonant mind. When ISIS were at their height, many of their most vile participants did not come from the levant. They were radicalised in peacful prosperous European cities like london and brussels by an abhorrent ideology. To pretend that such ideology doesn't cause terrorism because you might offend some subset of 2 billion out of some noble sense of virtue is blinkered and again, is a mindset you simply won't encounter in actual muslim majority countries where they know full well how dangerous these islamists really are.
The tactical operations squads don't just roam the streets making knee jerk reactions. This was based on some information, or monitoring by ASIO. My guess is that these people were already on a watch list and their movements triggered the action. They were hardly out for a bit of Christmas shopping. Victoria to Sydney is a 10 hour drive
I'm sure plenty here would strongly defend it.
And i'm curious, why wouldn't you defend US foreign policy in this regard? You obviously don't see causation between this and the emergence / rise of ISIS, or else you wouldn't be telling me how wrong I was.
Well, i don't tbink you are going to find too many people defending US foreign policy
15 of the 19 hijackers in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Just saying. Yet the USA invaded Iraq for no reason.
There have been numerous terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Saudi_Arabia
And not forgetting that 15 of the 'magnificent 19' came from SA. Your arguments do not stand scrutiny.
That is not tarring all 2 billion Muslims with the same brush. It is admitting to a genuine threat. One which you will find actual muslim majority countries tend to take very seriously and much more so than western nations. Here, it is more important to appear virtuous seemingly.
But you are saying it is the cause, or else why the hell are you arguing with me and telling us the causes of every other type of terrorism throughout history don't matter when Islam is involved?
That is what "because they're Muslim" means.
If ideology alone caused terrorism, Saudi Arabia would be the epicentre and it isn’t.
The Saudi authorities do a good enough job of terrorizing their own people with public executions, restrictions on peoples lives and other Draconian punishments. They know better than to **** on their own doorstep. That's why they export their hatred, and allow foreigners there a modicum of freedom in their compounds in order to further their own aims. I'm sure there are people there who would like to attack these "infidels" but they are kept under control by and large by those in charge
Saudi Arabia is the "ideal" that they want to impose on the world, and to achieve this they commit acts of terror on others. Why would they need to commit terror attacks in the country that already follows their doctrine? That's the "peace" that they talk about.
And in case it needs clarifying, by "they" I'm not referring to all Muslims but the extremist ones who want a worldwide caliphate etc
Well I'm sorry but if you think that believing islamist idealogy is a cause of terrorism equates to collectively blaming Muslims than there is no point in debating you. That is not only a ridiculous vewpoint, it is one that conveniently allows you to imply that people who disagree with you are either ignorant or bigoted.
Calling terrorists “pawns” does not mean they lack agency. People can sincerely believe they are acting for religion and be manipulated, enabled, or exploited by larger political forces at the same time as comitting awful crimes. These people are often recruited, funded, and directed within political and strategic contexts they don’t control.
Such as SA (who ye bring up), extremist Salafist views are propagated through organised networks you are entirely correct. But salafism didn't spread organically - the content was religious but it was state backed, strategic and geoplolitical.
Even still, those networks only produce sustained terrorism where conflict, repression, or collapse allow them to operate. They don't happen in SA do they? In the west the are limited to lone wolf style attacks (not downplaying it, but these are small scale compared to terror attacks in the ME).
If these warzones weren't there, it's v difficult to argue that ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hamas would exist, and subsequently that we wouldn't have these attacks.
And I'm sorry but telling us Muslims ideology as the cause of terrorism, and completely ignoring political context, is collectively blaming Muslims.
You said in one your posts that people may 'believe' they are acting in the name of religion, and later referenced them as bring 'pawns' which implies a lack of agency and that they are being manipulated in some way.
I also haven't scapegoated anyone. I never implied collective blame for Muslim people. I just acknowledge the reality that extremist salafist views are being propagated worldwide through organised networks. This is a known threat widely acknowledged by intelligence and security agencies.
I agree terrorism is multi-factorial - ideology, funding, and networks matter, but war/conflict/ collapse decide whether those factors turn into mass violence. This is repeated in history
Saudi Arabia exports Salafi ideology, which I agree is dangerous. If ideology alone caused terrorism, Saudi Arabia would be the epicentre and it isn’t. If Islam causes it, there would be millions of terror attacks every years all over Muslim countrues and there isn't. The major jihadist groups emerged in war zones like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Gaza. Ideology spreads widely, terrorism occurs where states fail, where that ideology became the motivator. This is what is shown throughout history.
Salafism is a genuine threat. Recognising that doesn’t mean ignoring political conditions, and certainly doesn't mean these things are done because "Muslims."
And no, being against tarring whole people isn't "virtue signalling". Are those people saying the Jews killed in the beach have nothing to do with Israel crimes virtue signalling aswell?
You decry the other poster for a perceived inability to understand your posts when you yourself can only suscribe to there being one cause for terrorism ie conflict and other causes can merely contribute to motivation only. That is totally disingenuous. Obviously causation can be multi factorial. The most extreme madrassas that promote islamism globally are all funded from within Saudi Arabia. Please tell us what conflict has beseiged SA for the past number of generations prompting the promotion of Islamic terrorism world wide. Your position is naive virtue signalling.
Salafism is a genuine threat.
You say you understand what I said, and then the rest of your posts proves anything but.
Who is justifying any islamic attacks? Show me where I am?
What I am refuting is that this is a Muslim responsibly. Collective blame is a horrible prejudice, and is exactly what these people did against the Jewksh people on the beach.
Saying those people shot Jewish people on the beach because they are Muslim is not rational and isn't true. Saying the IRA blew up civilians because they are Irish/ Catholic / nationalist isn't rational and isn't true. These were motivations for the killers, but completely leaves out the circumstances that lead to the emergence and existence of terrorism.
It doesn't matter where those people are from, how downtrodden they are, or how educated they are. Terrorists come in all shapes as sizes and a wide range of intelligence. These people killed for islamic state yes? Then undoubtedly, extreme Islam was their motivation. However, if there was no Iraq/ Syria war, years of brutal war and civilian killing, there would be no Islamic state. If the situation that existed in NI hadn't been there, there would be no IRA.
If terrorism is to be stopped, the conditions for it need to be stopped. If terrorism exists, the conditions for it need to be addressed. Tackling ideology is a blind alley. If conditions remain the same, it will find a new ideology. And tarring whole people doesn't make anybody safer.
I have no idea what you are insinuating with that little scapegoats remarks but the rest is just a reiterating of everything else you've said already.
I'm not stupid, I understand it. I just think you are naive and overly idealistic for wanting to find a rational justificatin behind a horrible act. The shooters in this case are an Indian Muslim who moved to Australia and his Australian born son. They were not downtrodden refugees beset by injustice. They were extremely wealthy western people who decided to ally themselves with a genocidal, sectarian evil cult who is known for brutal slaying (beheading, burning people alive), kidnapping women and girls and using them as sex slaves, and literally trying to wipe out any cultural remnants of the yazhidi people. There is no justifying what they did or the faction they joined.
