Hostages being held in Sydney

[aa1986]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
I hope you realize the gas station scene in that episode was staged for theatrical effect, and isn't what actually happens here.


http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/07/richard-hammond-says-i-top-gear-i-crews-scariest-moment-was/

I don't know. Richard Hammond insists it was real. And there's a poster in the link who says that is the type of behavior to expect in that location. His word is as good as yours, so cancelling you out with him, I'll take Richard Hammond at his word.

 

[aa1986]

Originally Posted By: CT8
All terrorists seem to be muslim yet all muslims aren't terrorists. This has to be Bushes fault, It some how Started with Nixon and probably Carter especially. Was the perp breast fed? Then if so how long.


You're mainly incoherent, but yes I agree with you that all muslims aren't terrorists and Bush needs to take a lot of blame here.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Win
Shannow, is there any movement or discussion to repealing your nations's ban on self defense weapons, or are you all just being asked to grin and bear these needless events?


Heard on the radio news this morning that one politician has spoken up that our gun and knife laws, and our (lack of) rights for self protection make us a nation of potential hostages.

 

[Ducman]

Originally Posted By: aa1986
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I don't understand you at all unless you are a Muslim and are just offended at any negative comments about them? YES, I do believe it is up to the Muslims to stop the other Muslims doing this or at least try which I do not see happening. They should want to, if as you say, most of those 1.6 Billion are not terrorists, don't hate the rest of the world, etc... It is their mess to clean up 1st as it reflects very badly on them. These acts are being committed in the name of their religion. It is not the same as Army Vets with PTSD. Good lord.

So, let me get this straight. I am wrong if I expect Muslims to deal with other Muslims committing despicable acts in the name of their religion. That is wrong of me. I am also wrong if I talk about the world that is being targeted by these attacks stopping it because I am blaming/targeting innocent Muslims who had nothing to do with the violence. Seems to me I can't win and you don't think anyone has the right to stop these things from happening. This almost reminds me of some twisted political argument.

You seem to advocate letting it continue because not all Muslims are bad. TO me that is bull. Not all white people were racists and slave owners but a war was fought, in part, to free black people from bondage by whites in this country. White people marched with MLK in the 60's. Good white people spoke up and stood against those of their race who wanted Black people to remain slaves or 2nd class citizens. I don't see many Muslims speaking out against these acts. IF you can't see what I am saying then you don't want to.

Comparing asking Vets with PTSD to stop other Vets with PTSD from committing violent acts, to me wanting Muslims to stop the violence being committed by other Muslims in the name of their religion around the world, is just insane and has no comparable values. However, for the record, there are Vets that try and help other Vets deal with the traumas of war, our government provides resources to help, the private sector helps, and so on. Our country, and those Vets, don't sit by and ignore it or applaud it.

I also want to comment on those who bring up long past history such as the Crusades to somehow justify Muslim acts today. That is also insane. There is no one alive today that took part on either side in the Crusades. Don't use something done centuries ago to justify atrocities being committed today.


Hold on.

I don't think you realize what you're saying comes off as illogical. Perhaps what you mean is different to what you type?

Firstly, you and another poster say that the vast majority of the world's 1.6 billion muslims want to convert or kill everyone else.

So the first problem with you wanting Muslims to stop extremist Muslims is that if you anyhow believe they are not against the extremists, then why would you expect them to be able to stop them?

Secondly, there is a huge problem in simplifying the problem to "Muslims". When there are terrorist attacks in the US, UK and now Australia, committed by disturbed individuals with no meaningful connection to a terrorist organization, you and others jump up and see it as a Muslim problem.

These incidents are no more the responsibility of "Muslims" to stop than anyone else. In Australia for example, the government granted asylum, did not / could not extradite him back to Iran for fraud charges there, released him on bail, did not put him on the watchlist after his conviction for sending letters. What could Muslims have done to stop him? They have no legal authority, no security service, no place to detain him and interrogate him, or do you suggest they do.

Now, where I do agree that Muslims have responsibility is as follows:

1) Within western countries, religious places should not be places for recruitment or any activity that threatens that country or creates conflict in other countries. In those places, the senior muslim leaders should be aware of what is going on and notify the authorities.

Guess what, in the US, not a single incident can be traced back to a mosque. They do keep an eye on what is going on. But watch the Newburgh Sting on HBO and you will see how that is not reciprocated by the FBI.

But other western countries have been too lax about this.

2) In some Muslim countries, notably Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, there is direct responsibility for creating the problem of extremism.

But what influence can the average Muslim in America or Indonesia possibly have on that? And why do you not realize that when you lump all Muslims together for the extremist problem, you are condemning hundreds of millions of innocents? The CIA has been detaining, interrogating and torturing terrorists for over a decade and it turns out that a significant proportion of them were innocent. And they were supposedly acting on and with Intelligence!

Do you not see the bad things that happen when you group people together? Have you not read about the internment of the Japanese during WW2?


Whilst I'm not familiar with the issues surrounding the internment of the Japanese during WW II.

All of what you have posted there seems to be quite reasonable to me.

 

[aa1986]

Thanks Ducman.

The internment of Japanese during WW2. George Takei aka Sulu from Star Trek, was one of them.

Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
The internment of Japanese Americans in the United States was the forced relocation and incarceration during World War II of between 110,000 and 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry who lived on the Pacific coast in camps in the interior of the country. Sixty-two percent of the internees were United States citizens. The U.S. government ordered the removal of Japanese Americans in 1942, shortly after Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

[Ducman]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Win
Shannow, is there any movement or discussion to repealing your nations's ban on self defense weapons, or are you all just being asked to grin and bear these needless events?


Heard on the radio news this morning that one politician has spoken up that our gun and knife laws, and our (lack of) rights for self protection make us a nation of potential hostages.



Good point.

There are two ways of looking at the issue.
If the polies want to tighten firearm laws, then it's incumbent upon them to ensure they are doing "everything" that's required to make all of us safe from these types of acts.
The evidence is clearly stacking against them.
But how do we hold them to account?

On the other side of the equation.
If we had more firearms in the hands of the populace. Would it automatically follow that something like this just wouldn't happen at all?

This character in Sydney, Has been allowed to literally run free and illegally acquire a firearm with which to carry out this despicable act.

So far I see 2 main things which are clearly notable out of all this, and there will be more to come after the coronial inquest. As I sit typing this, Channel Seven news has revealed the police prosecutor didn't put up a strong case for holding the perpetrator on remand.
Why?

I feel, it actually requires a Royal Commission to get the bottom of it, with a view to chopping off a few heads over it all.

The Authorities say the have been strongly opposed to the perpetrator's release on a number of accounts.
The world needs to know, why the "system" has clearly allowed him to go forth totally unchecked, when all common sense dictates he should've been well and truly locked up.

Heads must roll over it, but I fear there will be scapegoats and not the right heads will roll.

More importantly the "system" needs to be seriously modified to close all the gaps this character has fallen through, on the way to Tuesday mornings appalling conclusion.

 

[Ducman]

Originally Posted By: aa1986
Thanks Ducman.

The internment of Japanese during WW2. George Takei aka Sulu from Star Trek, was one of them.

Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
The internment of Japanese Americans in the United States was the forced relocation and incarceration during World War II of between 110,000 and 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry who lived on the Pacific coast in camps in the interior of the country. Sixty-two percent of the internees were United States citizens. The U.S. government ordered the removal of Japanese Americans in 1942, shortly after Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.


Thanks.

I was aware of that.
They did the same thing here to the Germans here in OZ in WW I.
And I think it happened with the Japanese here in WW II.

I just don't draw any relevance to the events in recent times.

Are you saying that these people should be interned for the duration of the war for Islam?
It would certainly help to bring them under some sort of control.

 

[aa1986]

Fear of terrorism is currently almost as high as after 9/11. This is a result of ISIS as well as a recent increase in the number of incidents of mentally unstable people who claim they are muslim.

However, the actual risk to any individual in numerical terms is insignificant and has been so for a long time. You're more likely to be hit by lightning.

But of course, the vast majority of the US public nor the media that feeds them cannot get this into a real perspective. It is even clear that some terrorism cases have been manufactured and their media coverage has been stage managed by the FBI. (For that, read about or watch on HBO "The Newburgh Sting").

Add on top of this a perception, that exists on this board as well, that the majority of muslims support the terrorists or want to convert us.

And then add the fact that multiple people in power are defending a CIA interrogation program that detained and tortured suspects of whom 25% turned out to be innocent, and that a staunch defense is being put forward that the ends justify the means (even though they weren't successful) and that the death of innocents is justified.

So you have to consider the possibility, if people believe civil liberties don't matter if there is even a small chance of a threat, even if it is unverified by intelligence, and they also believe that the threat is serious / or the people who vote for them think the threat is serious, and if they believe the majority of muslims support terrorists, then don't you have some of the ingredients that would make them consider segregating that part of the population?

It's a logical outcome if you are that scared, think that muslims are mainly supportive of terrorism and believe that is is justifiable to detain people without evidence.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Ducman

There are two ways of looking at the issue.
If the polies want to tighten firearm laws, then it's incumbent upon them to ensure they are doing "everything" that's required to make all of us safe from these types of acts.
The evidence is clearly stacking against them.
But how do we hold them to account?

On the other side of the equation.
If we had more firearms in the hands of the populace. Would it automatically follow that something like this just wouldn't happen at all?
.
.
.
I feel, it actually requires a Royal Commission to get the bottom of it, with a view to chopping off a few heads over it all.
.
.
.

Heads must roll over it, but I fear there will be scapegoats and not the right heads will roll.

More importantly the "system" needs to be seriously modified to close all the gaps this character has fallen through, on the way to Tuesday mornings appalling conclusion.


Agreed with all points wholeheartedly. (sections only cut out for brevity, not because I disagreed).

There are two ways for it to work...and they have no desire or effort to make the current way (the way that they say it is but is patently obviously not true) work...and they are too scared that the other way empowers the serfs citizens too much.

 

[Lapham3]

Good points in this thread. Yes, the 'American Indians' were simply the first to migrate into an uninhabibited land.
The British had little to no personal firearms pre WW2 and the NRA headed up a drive and personal firearms of Americans were donated for the brits 'home defense'-they weren't returned but dumped in the ocean at end of the war.
I wasn't sure what happenings/events brought on the Australian weapons program, but not surprised that it was some 'knee-jerk' reaction.
The same with the WW2 Japanese American internments.
It seems that about all religions teach some form of 'we are the true people' and all others are to be hated-converted-killed-pitied, ect.
My dad spent time on Australia in WW2 with the 41st Division. He loved the people and always wanted to go back for the visit-never made it tho.

 

[javacontour]

Perhaps narrow. But then the topic is the Muslim world.

You are right, the west was/is equally adept at killing it's own. WWII put us on the podium if not the top spot.

I still believe that any peace in the Muslim regions in the world will come from the people living their choosing to deal with the radicals in their midst, not from what we from the other side of the world might think or do.

Originally Posted By: aa1986
Originally Posted By: javacontour
It's pretty simple. They have more credibility with other Muslims than any other group.

Over simplified example. If some random stranger tells you to straighten up and fly right, other than a few old guys here, most folks would flip the bird to the random stranger and say mind your own business.

Now if your mother or father, or best friend said the same thing, you probably would respect them or at least hear them out.

It's the same principle. Those joining ISIS are not going to listen to even the wisest of BITOG commenters or any other words of wisdom. We simply don't have the needed credibility to be taken seriously, even if we are 100% correct in the facts presented.

Change has to come from within. Therefore, the solution to this is not from outside the community, but inside the Muslim community.

Besides, if you look at history, long before the West stuck it's nose into their business, they were doing a pretty good job of killing one another.

They are occassionally united to fight against the West, Christianity, Jews or whatever enemy du jour.

So why do any Western nations think they can resolve something that even those on the inside have not seen fit to resolve?


The muslims who have become the most extreme due to being indoctrinated with a literal interpretation of the religious text do not discriminate between muslims who believe differently and traditional infidels. So no they are not going to listen to other muslims and that is why most of the atrocities are and have taken place in the muslim world.

You are right to say we were naive to think we could change this by going to war and spreading democracy. In fact, the recent wars, and our multiple meddling before then, have only succeeded in giving the extremists evidence to help in their recruitment. And our involvement will always be misguided until we understand that problem stems from the way the religion is taught in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and a few other countries.

And what has our part been in those countries? Saudi Arabia a close ally due to oil, and Pakistan a close ally during the cold war. And what are those countries like? Well Saudi Arabia is one of the most brutal countries amongst the Islamic world and Pakistan has often been a military dictatorship that fights with the largest democracy in the world, India. Just as we funded Bin Laden and helped Saddam with chemical weapons, we don't seem to make very good decisions when we meddle do we?

Another thing you mention was how muslims were killing each other before the west got involved with them. That's a very narrow reading of history. The west has meddled in the middle east for a century and during that time the west fought two world wars killing tens of millions of people and used nuclear weapons on civilians. These European wars drew in countries from around the world due to the fact that they were imperial territories.

But somehow you paint a picture that the muslims were anyhow uncivilized before we got involved with them, completely ignoring our own standard of civility.

If you live in a non western country, your history is of being invaded, occupied and run for the economic benefit of western countries, being involved in world wars that were not your making, and then facing continual meddling (on top of your own problems) during the cold war since you were pawns in the fight between the Soviet Union and the West.

Since then, we've supported Saudi Arabia due to their oil, despite them being a literal factory for extremists.

So yeah, everything that's ever happened to them is their own fault.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: aa1986
...
However, the actual risk to any individual in numerical terms is insignificant and has been so for a long time. You're more likely to be hit by lightning. ....


I had a car struck by lightning. I suppose I could have been standing there at the time. Risks are only insignificant until you're the one that comes up on the short end of the odds.

Regardless, it's an extremely poor analogy, imo, to compare terrorism to lightning strikes. I can't defend myself from a lightning strike. I can carry some degree of protection and defense from a potential hostage taker in my pocket, and often do.

All people should have the basic, fundamental, right of effective self defense. Whether they choose to avail themselves of it is a personal decision only the right holder can make.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: aa1986
...
However, the actual risk to any individual in numerical terms is insignificant and has been so for a long time. You're more likely to be hit by lightning. ....


I had a car struck by lightning. I suppose I could have been standing there at the time. Risks are only insignificant until you're the one that comes up on the short end of the odds.

Regardless, it's an extremely poor analogy, imo, to compare terrorism to lightning strikes. I can't defend myself from a lightning strike. I can carry some degree of protection and defense from a potential hostage taker in my pocket, and often do.

All people should have the basic, fundamental, right of effective self defense. Whether they choose to avail themselves of it is a personal decision only the right holder can make.


Here is some uncommon sense. Thanks for posting it.

Despite the intelligentsia lecturing us all on probabilities, the fact is when YOU are involved the stats do not matter. And if ridiculous restrictions do not allow us to defend ourselves, such as liberal policies that protect adversaries as though they are Americans, then we can expect much more fun to come.

Obviously there are sometimes solutions that imperil individual rights. As far as I am concerned, if you are not an American citizen then how can you be afforded all these rights?

I still am extremely thankful we had some folks willing to do whatever it took to defend me and my Family against these terrorists when we needed them. The fact that we have had very little activity in our country is a direct result of what we did after 9-11. More tough calls will need to be made to protect us as the threat is much larger due to inaction and pacification in a ridiculously incoherent foreign policy.

I fear the current crop of rulers does not have the guts to make the tough calls...

 

[Blaze]

 

[cjcride]

Javacontour :Quote
(Change has to come from within. Therefore, the solution to this is not from outside the community, but inside the Muslim community.)

This is the cure. Will they do it?

 

[javacontour]

Change is often slow and bloody. We had a civil war over the issue of slavery and states rights.

It took Americans, dedicated to change to bring about that change.

It will take people in those nations, standing up to the radicals.

Individuals and nations change because they want to, not because someone tells them they should.

Originally Posted By: cjcride
Javacontour :Quote
(Change has to come from within. Therefore, the solution to this is not from outside the community, but inside the Muslim community.)

This is the cure. Will they do it?

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: cjcride

This is the cure. Will they do it?


Probably nothing.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: cjcride

This is the cure. Will they do it?


Probably nothing.


Too late to edit. I wanted to say Probably not........

 

[Smokescreen]

Here is an interesting video on the variants of the Taliban, the views of some Pakistani citizens on terrorism in general and if terrorists can be reasoned with: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/terrorist-mass...-230211180.html

 

[Mystic]

I like posts like SteveSRT8's post that are logical. I get tired of people who try to lecture us about Islam and so forth and yet we find out these people have no understanding of history and put down the USA every chance they get.

I don't like being lectured to by somebody who apparently thinks the Japanese in WWII waterboarded a few prisoners. I don't like being lectured to by somebody who seems to be willing to defend what I think is not defendable-the actions of savages like ISIS and the Taliban. Savages like that cannot and should not be defended.

When somebody tries to compare what the US did, waterboarding and so forth a handful of captured terrorists, with what the Nazis did in WWII or the Japanese did in WWII, that is illogical. And the people who try to do that can take their lectures somewhere else as far as I am concerned.