Hostage situation in Sydney - black flag of Jihad

Discussion in 'World Events' started by GeoffP, Dec 15, 2014.

Page 3 of 3
  1. iceaura

    iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    In the US, they'd have to start with the Christians - like these guys: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/forme...-prison-cross-burning-and-obstruction-justice : not gonna happen.

    One hopes someone will check out the actual change in American attitudes, and the consequences - before allowing their own country to panic and soil itself in that manner.
     
    iceaura, Dec 16, 2014
    #41

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Yazata

    Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,909
    Major Hassan, the US Army psychiatrist (!) who suddenly started shooting his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. The Ottawa parliament shooter. The guy who ran over the Canadian soldiers with his car in Quebec. The two brothers who blew up the Boston marathon. The two men who cut the British Army bandsman's throat in London. The guy in Oklahoma who came to work one day and beheaded a female coworker...

    Unconnected madmen in isolation, but taken together a pattern starts to emerge... There's something about radical jihadist Islam that seems to be attractive and inspiring to angry and socially alienated 'lone wolves'. It gives these people something grand and world-historical to identify with, it gives their suicidal tendencies meaning as martyrdom, and it justifies their most savage behavior towards others as service to God.

    It's the ultimate reversal, the final apocalyptic rebellion - the last become first, and the first last. Evil becomes good and death becomes eternal life.

    Obviously this isn't to say that all Muslims are like this. But there's something about the more radical fringes of contemporary Islam that's like flame to a certain kind of moth.
     
    Yazata, Dec 16, 2014
    #42

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP

    GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I'll live with some kind of legal offensive against them - but there exist enough worse extremists out there that American society would probably never get around to it.

    Precisely: this should be a wake-up call to those cynical chatterers attempting to make the issue of Islamic extremism about all Muslims in order to deflate the seriousness of the former issue. But will it? Or do such individuals exist in a logical kaleidoscope, where - just as an example - the crimes of Catholic priests and interference with reproductive control are synonymous with Catholicism, while Islamic terrorism exists natively distinct from its liturgy? I'm hesitant to place the blame of such excesses on the facts of those religions themselves, but if one is going to play the one card, one cannot help but play the other or be thought utterly hypocritical. Is the one sin societal and the other not, on basis of who makes the war cry? Strange dealings indeed.
     
    GeoffP, Dec 16, 2014
    #43

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    He would have gone through such and evaluation when he first came here as a refugee many years ago.

    The Muslim community in Sydney had been warning police about him and his bizarre behaviour for years but nothing was really done about it. You know it's bad when they ask the Federal Police to investigate someone and he was just seen as a bit of a weirdo and a joke and a serial pest. Until he was involved with the murder of his ex-wife and then the sexual assaults that is, that is when the eyes of police started to open at just how dangerous he was.

    He may have been. The Muslim community in Australia had distanced themselves from him a long time ago. It's a shame the police didn't take their concerns about him seriously sooner. If they had, his ex-wife may still be alive and the women he raped may never have had to suffer what he put them through and the events of the last day may never have occurred.

    One of his demands was that someone give him an ISIS flag because he did not have one. He may very well have radicalised himself online, just as he tried to claim he was a Sheik and an Islamic leader and did so falsely on many occasions. People here just saw him as a crazy person who probably should not have been allowed out in public.

    Yes it was.

    He advertised in local newspapers saying he was a spiritual healer who was an expert in astrology, numerology, black magic, etc. And the women who contacted him in regards to that, were the women he is accused to have sexually assaulted. During his girl friend's bail hearing a few days ago, he apparently stood up and claimed he was guilty of other offenses or something along those lines. I suspect the High Court decision a few days ago, coupled with the girl friend's murder trial and his involvement in it, his own bail hearing.. I suspect it was all connected and he may have snapped, who knows. This is certainly not something people thought he was capable of doing. His former lawyers certainly did not and were very surprised when they were told. Apparently they said they knew he was out there and saw things a certain way, but they were shocked that he had done this. So who knows what his motives were. We are all waiting to know.

    People were very angry that he was given such a light sentence for what he did. He had tried to argue that it was political speech as the Phelps in the US try to argue that harassing the relatives of soldiers at their funerals is free speech which the High Court rejected a few days ago. That could have been what set him off.

    I suspect there will be a lot of fine pouring over the laws here, especially the lax laws that allow such individuals out on bail for dangerous crimes. This isn't the first time that someone has killed or committed vicious crimes while out on bail. This is an ongoing issue here, where many within the legal community and victim groups have asked State Governments to address in the past.

    I don't think he really knew what he wanted. The one thing he always sought was publicity. If he didn't chain himself outside of court rooms and Government buildings complaining that the Government were infringing on his rights, he was doing something else to attract media attention.
     
    Bells, Dec 16, 2014
    #44
  8. cosmictraveler

    cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264

    You never know do you?
     
    cosmictraveler, Dec 16, 2014
    #45
  9. Captain Kremmen

    Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    The Russians might do better if they were listening to Cosmic.
    They made a complete fuck-up on their own account.

    It makes the Waco siege look like a success story.
     
    Captain Kremmen, Dec 16, 2014
    #46
  10. The Marquis

    The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    Too late, I'm afraid. The usual suspects have already swung into damage control mode.
    This appears to have been completely ignored:
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...156623104?nk=f68ceeee23ac8f83fabf2650efe4cb37

    The gunman did not go there alone. He may have finally acted alone, but it certainly does not appear to be the lone wolf attack it's being presented to you as here.
    By those usual suspects. As usual, ignoring those little things which don't really fit with what they're attempting to convey.

    I did particularly enjoy the description of the "calm siege, before the police moved in".
    Think about that. Calm. Such an interesting word to use, particularly when one places himself in the shoes of those inside. Words, words, images.
    Some will mislead you and present comforting images in support of their idealism, others use guns.
    The latter is probably the more immediately dangerous of the two, but the former potentially more insidious.

    Little wonder Bells doesn't want anyone to see the footage. The opportunity to describe a situation is far more powerful than allowing people to see it for themselves, after all.


    There have been efforts made, as well, to point out that the flag hung in the window of the café was not an ISIL flag. I use ISIL rather than ISIS mainly because my fond memories of "Archer" have been permanently tempered by the similarity in name and subsequent reinvention of the Archer ISIS (in the upcoming season 6) in order not to offend too many delicate sensibilities. But I digress.

    I mention this because it seeks to divert attention away from the fact that whatever the flag supposedly represented, it was a Muslim flag, and the attack carried out under the mans understanding of his religious beliefs. That it was not the flag of the current bogey organisation means absolutely nothing (let's ignore for the moment that he asked for one... presumably he'd forgotten to bring his. I can understand that, I locked myself out of my apartment last week forgetting to grab my keys before I went down the shop. If he hadn't burned his last wife, she probably would have reminded him. "It's in the hall cupboard, dear, on the left ... no, not that flag, the other one...*slam*... oh, never mind then.").

    That this attack was carried under a more generalised banner is perhaps of even more concern than if it had been done under the ISIL banner, because it highlights that there is a common ground upon which both militant and moderate Islamists tread. This is related to your observation above, in that there will always be those who seek to distance themselves from something they do not wish to acknowledge, by focussing blame upon something specific, something which can then be excused as being a divergence from the norm.

    So while there was a Islamic flag hanging in the window, and a couple of hostages forced to stand at that window chanting Islamic slogans, this attack was not carried out in the name of Islam because it was not carried out in the name of that version of Islam.
    You can all relax, now. Wrong flag, you see.

    You will also note that once more, the actions of a minority as being chosen to represent the views of "Australians" as a whole. Bells has pointed out a hashtag under which people can offer rides to work, apparently. Because this hashtag exists, and because some have taken it up, this then becomes an "Australian" point of view. Having checked out that link, I noted a few examples of respondents, and less than a couple of hundred re-tweets under those. Yet, this is presented and underlined as "Australians aren't interested".
    Tiassa would no doubt label this the "not all men rape" argument, or some such. Although, obviously, not in this situation.

    One of the things that has annoyed me in recent years is the habit of describing something doesn't like as being "un-Australian", as if there was a definitive morality upon which all Australians operate as a common people. We are educated in no uncertain terms as to that which we should like, and that we should not; what we should tolerate, and what we should not. Again, presumably, for our own benefit - according to the views of those who deem themselves the moral guardians of our time. In the event that we act against those moral codes, then we are labelled and shamed as being Un-Australian.
    Again, the historical parallels are either unknown, or ignored.

    As an aside, a man who managed to find himself four (I think?) wives in succession, had one of them burned (allegedly), had people with him prior to the event, and still managed 14,000-odd "likes" on his facebook page doesn't really suggest an outcast from the Muslim community.
    Some of it, certainly. But certainly not all of it.


    And as for this:
    When faced with the agony of making a decision affecting lives, it is necessary to review all available options.
    You see, the authorities must consider the political backlash, were they to deport or imprison someone with no proof of wrongdoing. The simple fact is, that this fellow might very well have been under investigation, but there may have been absolutely nothing those authorities could do about it without that proof.

    So one is faced with a dilemma.
    Do they simply deport the guy, and thereby rid the community of a potentially dangerous individual, or do they wait until someone gets killed?

    On the one hand, the community is rid of a potentially dangerous individual who might someday take lives, but the authorities then face then inevitable whining about human rights and due process from... well, the usual suspects.
    On the other, he finally kills someone and they face the inevitable whining concerning why someone didn't do something beforehand, from... again, the usual suspects.

    I suppose, in the end, they simply chose the option which resulting in least whining from the usual suspects.

    The lesser of two evils. Until, of course, something actually happened.

    Having arrived in Australia as a political refugee from Iran, no doubt he would have been incarcerated, investigated, it would have been discovered he had no identity papers, and subsequently released into the community at the urging of the usual suspects who argued incessantly that it would be inhumane to follow due legal process.
    It does seem that no one actually knows his real name.
     
    The Marquis, Dec 17, 2014
    #47
  11. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    The Marquis,

    Well, it is the Daily Telegraph, after all.

    Who said the gunman didn't go there alone? The guy in the Telegraph story linked here? We don't know that he said anything of the kind. The story doesn't even quote him on that statement. It could be that the writer inserted that line, for all we know.

    But let's assume that this single witness did say there were 3 men and not 1. How reliable is the report of that single witness? I know what you'll claim. You'll say that everybody knows whether they saw 3 men or only one, and why would the guy lie? I ask you: what do you know about this supposed witness? I think you know what you read in the Telegraph, and that's all you know.

    How would you like to have seen the seige described?

    The police were playing a waiting game. This was a lone gunman. He had to go to sleep at some point. The police only had to wait it out. There was no need to be anything but calm.

    Are you complaining that things weren't calm for the hostages or the gunman, perhaps? Surely they weren't feeling calm. I ask you: could you possibly be reading too much into this description of the situation? What could the word "calm" have referred to, do you think?

    What footage? The footage of the flashes of gunfire coming from inside the cafe? The footage of hostages running out, or being carried out by the paramedics? Because that's the footage that is currently out there. Perhaps the police have their own footage, or the hostages even. But that isn't currently accessible to the general public.

    Yes, he wanted an ISIS/IS/ISIL/whatever flag. They are probably a bit difficult to source in Australia right now. And yes, the flag used was a generic Islamic flag - one that has been co-opted by ISIS.

    Muslims in general and ISIS both claim that "There is one God, and Mohammed is his messenger." ISIS is an extremist Islamist organisation, after all. It's ideology is a particular interpretation of Islam - one which mainstream Australian Muslim organisations have expressly repudiated, as it happens.

    The gunman clearly wanted to see himself as connected to ISIS. Insofar as ISIS represents Islam, and insofar as the gunman represented ISIS, the attack was carried out in the name of Islam. But there are several very tenuous connections in that chain of reasoning. We can argue about whether the gunman had any meaningful connection to ISIS at all (other than elements of a shared ideology). And we can argue, more importantly, about the extent to which ISIS's interpretation of Islam is a "correct" or mainstream one.

    I haven't read the details of your discussion with Bells. If the point was that Australians - particularly Muslim Australians - have distanced themselves from the actions of the gunman, then it's a point that is amply supported by numerous lines of evidence. If the point was that many non-Muslim Australians support their moderate Muslim compatriots, the evidence is there for that, too.

    The use of the term "un-Australian" has been widely critiqued in recent years, particular in the left-wing press. It came to some prominence during the tenure of the Howard (right-wing) government. You are certainly not alone in your annoyance.

    Do you have any information on this? Which community groups was he involved with?

    The gunman was granted permanent residency in Australia, as far as I am aware, though I could be wrong. Are you aware of the conditions (if any) under which a permanent resident could be deported?

    As for the idea of imprisoning somebody with no proof of wrongdoing ... are you actually advocating that? It all sounds a bit like Minority Report to me, except that there are no psychics to predict what a person will do. Or do you think that we should play it safe and just imprison everybody who we fear might, at some point, commit a crime?

    The gunman (correct me if I'm wrong) was actually out on bail and had been charged with various offences. Now, if you want to complain about the inadequacies of the bail system in New South Wales, you won't be alone on that, either. But that's quite a different line of argument from saying that people who seem suspicious should be imprisoned pre-emptively.

    Is this your assumption, or do you have actual information on what actually happened?

    There seems to be a lot of guesswork and supposition in your post, combined with a paucity of facts.

    Does it?
     
    James R, Dec 17, 2014
    #48
  12. The Marquis

    The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    Heh. So finally you begin to understand?
    So where the hell have you been, James? Perhaps assuming a little too much confidence in your compatriots to examine them too closely?

    That's actually the second time in this thread (alone) that I've noticed someone taking the same thing I've said, rewording it, and throwing it straight back as their own argument - presumably in an attempt to discredit me for having said it to begin with.
    Or perhaps trying to holding up a mirror, in order for me to fully understand myself... are you trying to teach a fish to swim, James?

    Does it matter? Was that my point?

    No, I'm not. And yet you seem quite willing to let it go with regard to posters on your side of the fence.
    Let us not examine our allies too closely, hmm?

    Thus, the question begs asking: Why are you addressing me?

    No, I was merely commenting on posts several others made regarding the fact that this guy was a known reprobate, why he was still in Australia, why he wasn't under investigation beforehand, and all that. Why didn't somebody do something before it came to this?
    Yet they themselves would have been the most stridently indignant if the authorities had acted in any way against him without legal certainty.

    I'm not advocating anything at all, James. Just slightly bemused at the catch-22 situations the left often find themselves in as a result of their own ideology... and yet do not appear to see it. Or so they would have us believe. They yell, and harangue, scream and stomp about... yet, when closely examined, the only solutions they offer appear to be of a striking similarity to those offered by some the most authoritarian regimes ever seen.
    In short, in order to prevent humanity from being human, they suggest we prevent them from being human.
    I'm not down with that, you see. Not at all.

    Oh, James. Where is your sense of humour?
    Of course, most humour is humorous because it contains a least a germ of truth.
    Yet, as we all know, only black comedians may make humorous observations about blacks without inviting censure.

    You're not smiling, James.

    Thank you so much for noticing.

    Now if you can bring yourself to notice when your compatriots are busy stomping all over anyone else noticing what they're up to, this place might actually begin to be worth something again.
    Add to that an understanding of what constitutes fact, a fairly neutral outlook and... well, that's enough to begin with.

    And once you've achieved all of that, you must then deal with the fact that you'd be the only moderator on the site who is in any way capable of it.
    Quite the task, I'll admit. I wish you luck.
     
    The Marquis, Dec 18, 2014
    #49
  13. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    The Marquis:

    No, I think I'm more confused now.

    Which compatriots are you referring to? The ones in at the Telegraph, or ones from other media outlets, or some of the hostages who have given statements to the media?

    Or are you talking about compatriots on sciforums? Bells perhaps?

    Please explain what you think I should examine more closely.

    Your previous post sounded like your were claiming that the Sydney seige wasn't a "lone wolf" attack.

    Now you're saying it was, after all? ???

    I'm not sure what your point was, now. At the time, I thought you were criticising the description of the seige as "calm". That's what I commented on. But now you say that wasn't what you were trying to say? Then what were you doing there?

    Who has used the term "un-Australian" here? Pardon me if I missed it.

    And what's "my side of the fence"? Are you referring to the moderator group? Or to left-wing Australians? Or what? Which fence are you talking about?

    I addressed you because you seemed to be claiming that the Australian media reported a false story, and that you somehow know the truth. At least, that's what I gathered you were saying.

    As far as I can see, they did. The gunman was the defendant in a number of court proceedings. He apparently was also on a terrorism watch list for a time.

    Sorry, but you've lost me.

    The paragraph I responded to didn't read like a joke to me. But I'm sure that's my fault and not yours. You're an excellent comedian. So sorry. Haha. Very funny, The Marquis.

    It sounds like you might have a bee in your bonnet about my un-named "compatriots", whoever they are.

    Is this Bells you're talking about? Are you put out because she caught you in a lie recently? Is that what this is about?
     
    James R, Dec 21, 2014
    #50
  14. The Marquis

    The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    Yes, I think you are.
    Such a pity. I once thought you had more to you.


    Oh, hell, I'll go for the gold.
    You, James. Examine yourself.

    Not at all.
    ISIL has made it quite clear that they would applaud anyone who engagers upon a terrorist action without support from the main body. Not only applaud, but encourage. That gives the usual apologists licence to examine motive without considering the religious angle itself. Bells can go on all day about the psychological makeup of a perpetrator without even needing to consider that that same perpetrator was simply doing as he was instructed.
    It's quite clever, really. Have you never seen "Red Dawn"?

    I thought it was quite obvious. While the siege would have appeared calm to those watching their TV screens, it probably wouldn't have felt that way to the hostages themselves.
    But they don't count, do they. It's not as if the perpetrator was throwing bombs around or anything, was it.
    No. They were just hanging flags in windows, and making hostages chant religious slogans.
    That makes it perfectly ok for some commentators to urge us all to relax because we can only guess at another's motives.

    .....

    You're excused.
    I was commenting on Bells use of language. "Australians disagree" or something, I don't remember now.
    One commentator assuming the right as spokesperson for a nation, same shit.
    Who has that right?

    And, I suppose this is where things get confusing. Am I left wing, or right wing?
    Who has that right?
    You assume you know who I am, James, or at least what I am... but you do not. Because you don't read anything other than what you want to.

    Is there any difference?
    You're all moderators, you're all on the same side of the fence, you're all defending each other. What's your point?
    At the very least, you're acknowledging that the Australian representatives here are left wing (other than myself). That's a beginning.

    Your side of the fence, James, is merely self defence.

    Is that what you gathered?
    I rather thought I was commenting on the particular bent of that story. And that, in response to you, your willingness to accept it without question.
    The truth, James, is not in that news story. Nor is it in another posted by... Oh, I don't know, Andrew Bolt or whoever.

    Bells is Andrew Bolt. Just not on the same side.

    Yes, apparently. Another potential beacon gone.
    Are there any left?

    That's a part of the joke, James.

    You know who they are.

    And, finally, she didn't catch me in a lie. She pointed out that my interpretation of events differed from hers, and claimed it a lie. Of course, my point was that my interpretation of events differed from hers, buts that's now lost in the turnaround.

    I've been posting different interpretations of events now for a very long time, but have yet to just give up, and call someone a liar when things don't go my way. Or shut down someone's thread because it's been "done before".
    Perhaps that's the difference you've completely failed to notice.

    So start paying attention. Or be relegated to the ranks of the uninspiringly average.
     
    The Marquis, Dec 26, 2014
    #51
  15. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    When someone interprets something differently, it is just that, a different interpretation of the reasons behind an event, for example. What is not a different interpretation is when someone completely fabricates things surrounding an event, claims they are reading behind the words and seeing things that never happened and trying to pass them off as facts. That, by any stretch of the imagination, is a lie.

    The Marquis, I told you about 2 weeks ago that I never wanted to have anything to do with you after you blatantly tried to make things up about a police shooting in Victoria, you completely made up that the media blamed the police, just as you completely lied that there was a near riot at the person's funeral. None of that happened. Nowhere even near or even a hint of it. Not only have you not respected the fact that I really want nothing more to do with you when your dishonesty became known to one and all, but you keep going on and on about me and you keep making things up. When I asked you to back up the claims you tried to pass off as fact, you complained about how I dared to even ask you to support your claims, made up that you were reading behind the words or something along those lines, lied some more and tried to blame me for your ridiculous and false claims. It has been about 2 weeks since you tried to pull that off and you are still trying to defend it? And you are still going on about me in just about every post you made since then?

    It wasn't a different interpretation. A different interpretation would deal directly with the facts, perhaps a different interpretation as to why the guy stabbed two police officers. That is not what you did. You claimed the media blamed the police, which they never ever did. On the contrary, the media and everyone in between supported those to officers who were attacked and stabbed. When I pointed out that the Muslim community requested that a thorough investigation take place, not so much to investigate the police shooting (which they are meant to do), but to investigate why the assailant went down the path he went down, you tried to use that to further your lies. It just never stopped.

    Now, as for your posts in this thread and elsewhere. Perhaps it is you who should start paying attention. Making things up and trying to pass it off as fact is not you being an intellectual. It is you acting like a dolt. And carrying on as if you are some sort of victim, really dude, that is ridiculous. I caught you out in a lie, when you refused to support all of your false claims and tried to use the "I read behind the words" line to justify your fabrications, I told you that I wanted nothing to do with you. The main reason is because I cannot trust a single thing you say. I think the sheer level of dishonesty you have displayed was abhorrent. Not only that, but your becoming offended because we dared to put the white supremacist in his place with his lies about black people was really the cherry on the top.. Your actions were vile. Not only did you fabricate things and try to pass them off as fact but the reasons for it just makes it worse.. You then went on a bit of a bender because we (just about all non-racists taking part in that thread) dared to have a different opinion to the guy who was claiming that blacks are just naturally violent because of their race, not to mention spurious and racist comments about blacks in general. So I said enough was enough. I was not going to bother with you or waste my time with you any further, not just because of your lies, but because of the extent you went to to defend the white supremacist racist in that thread. Instead of respecting that, you became worse. And here we are. Two weeks later and you still haven't stopped, even though I have virtually ignored you in all of that time.

    Your claims in this thread that he was not acting alone.. Your support of that claim is a guy who saw something and was discounted by the police. There is no proof that he was acting along with others, or that he had acted as he did under any instructions. I think the fact that he did not even have an ISIS flag on him and one of his demands was that he be provided with one kind of tells you just how wrong you are. So please, enough with the lies, enough with making things up and "reading behind the words" and please, for the love of all that is holy or unholy or whatever, stop talking about me. If you have a complaint to make, do so using the appropriate channels. If you do not trust James, Tiassa or myself or any other staff member, then contact the other administrators with your complaint. Provide links and explain properly what exactly your complaint actually is, and support your side of the argument. Waving your hands about you are doing spirit fingers or something with nothing more is not going to get you anywhere.. I requested a review of your complaint with me a while ago. Hopefully someone follows up on it. In the meantime, keep it out of all the threads you participate in, start a thread in the appropriate sub-forum and request someone that you trust to review your complaint.

    I do not quite know how to make this any clearer than that. Short of hiring a plane for sky writing and stamping it on your forehead, I think anyone with an ounce of sense should be able to understand this.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2014
    Bells, Dec 27, 2014
    #52
  16. The Marquis

    The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    I actually wrote a reply to that and discovered I couldn't post it because of this thousand character limit or whatever it is.

    That's how much time I had to spend posting what I'd actually said, as opposed to... whatever Bells is claiming I said. Which, I might add, does come off as rather hysterical.
    As I've noted before, the sheer effort it takes to refute someone else's accusations when it's quite they either did not read, or did not understand, is quite mind numbing.

    All one can do is simply write the same thing over and over... no Bells, I didn't say that, I said this, no Bells, that's not quite what I wrote, No Bells, you're being a damned hypocrite, No Bells, you're being a fucking idiot.... it goes on and on.
    Which I did. And then discovered I'd have to chop it up into three separate sections because that's how much of my time this fucking moron is wasting.
    Another reason this forum isn't what it once was. It is a little hard attempting to exchange ideas on an online forum with people who can't read.

    So, with all due sense of utterly wasted effort, and despair that Bells will now represent Australia and thus further corrupt impressionable American minds in the same way Crocodile Dundee once did, I shall bid thee adieu.

    There you go, Bells. James, and Tiassa.
    You can all breathe a sigh of relief, and carry on with your mutual masturbation as you please.
    You win, I'm done.
     
    The Marquis, Dec 27, 2014
    #53
  17. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I'm being hysterical? You're the one who just admitted to posting a reply so long it didn't fit, and bidding us all adieu as you virtually stomp off in a huff.

    And you, Sir, are still defending your lie and now you double down by saying you never said it?

    I'm reminded of a situation in Australia recently, in which a teenager shot and killed by police was portrayed in the media as the innocent victim of police aggression.
    Never mind that the police didn't open fire until he'd already knifed two of them. The "reality" portrayed in the media was that of a Muslim kid shot by police who was a "good kid" until... erm... something something. Intolerance of Muslim belief blah blah.
    The aftermath was a thousand or so mourners who had nothing good to say about the police at a funeral, and whom almost started a riot. The overriding belief being, of course, that this kid was an innocent victim of manipulation who'd been unfairly been shot by police. With all the requisite religious overtones and hints at intolerance and repression.    ​


    The only true thing in that is that a Muslim kid stabbed two police officers and was shot dead. The rest of it is all made up. None of what you are claiming, actually happened. You "read behind the words". You made it all up. And then made some pretty racist and bigoted comments, misrepresented what I said, made up some more bigoted crap and all of it was you "reading behind the words". You want to stomp off in a cowardly huff because you are still unable to explain your actions, your blatant lies and your open support of the racist white supremacist who blamed the Brown shooting on blacks apparently being blacks - like when he called them stupid and violent simply because they are blacks, your choice.. It's all on you. Then again, you tried the same stunt with Muslims, so perhaps that's simply how you roll. And trying to connect it to the Brown case, by using lies. Really, that was pretty nasty, by any standard.

    You're just pissy because I am not buying your shit and your lies anymore. My two former colleagues were absolutely right about you, when they pointed all this out a few years ago when a big brawl broke out in the back room about you and your behaviour. How right they were and how wrong I was to have not believed them and the time I wasted defending you.

    So stomp away, precious.

    Ta ta..
     
    Bells, Dec 28, 2014
    #54
  18. Trooper

    Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    One who routinely solicits attention through inappropriate tactics and provocation. I forgot what they're called. Dang it! What's my word?
     
    Trooper, Dec 28, 2014
    #55
  19. Anew

    Anew Life isn't a question. Banned

    Messages:
    461
    never do.. hear much about Australia in the news not since I was a kid, pretty much !never. what's wrong is wrong.even if things are mostly peacefull in a country, one likes to know ?!what's up places..it's not like the United Nations ideas frikken disappear or something,,! ?what year was the U.N recognized as a value;;; well well, bit embarrassing that news isn't straight as it could be..for a lot a stuff a long time ago.


    one of my major interests since childhood, has been the play of words and language differential & similarity;; it's so annoying the word 'Hostage: split all it says is so called host..age,, well what for;;; is ?hostage perhaps really a word only having been dedicated to winery's..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    yes yes, we will host this fresh welches grape juice in wine bottles and ha ha ha

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    sell it as wine...
    just kidding I would never do that to Welches their grape juice is ExcellenT
     
    Anew, Dec 30, 2014
    #56
  20. Anew

    Anew Life isn't a question. Banned

    Messages:
    461
    +diversions are wasteful+truth and individuate choice are worth more+really it's just true.
     
    Anew, Dec 30, 2014
    #57
  21. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    The Marquis:

    You'll need to be more specific. Examine myself for what?

    I can't recall ever seeing "Red Dawn".

    Look, it's all very well to suggest that the primary motivation of the Sydney hostage-taker was to act as an independent agent of ISIL. It's possible. However, the guy had other stuff going on in his life, so we shouldn't jump to that conclusion. Agree? More evidence is needed.

    As I suggested above, I think you've read too much into the description of a "calm siege". I think we can take it as read that people who are under siege are never completely calm. Thus, it seem likely that "calm" was supposed to describe the police perspective.

    As to motive, we just don't know yet, and we might never know. It is quite possible that the gunman wanted you to think that he had a particular cause - ISIL and its extreme version of Islam - but that doesn't mean we have a complete explanation of his actual motives.

    You seem keen to criticise others for jumping to conclusions, and yet it seems to me like you're not averse to doing that yourself, based on flimsy evidence.

    I think Bells was fairly clear in summing up the reactions of "Australians" as reflected in the public discourse. As to the private unexpressed opinions - well, there we're into the realm of speculation again, aren't we?

    I don't know who you are. When I want to know more, I ask questions. You're not very good at explaining yourself. You seem to want to obfuscate rather than elucidate, for some reason.

    And you know what? I don't really care that much what your political leanings are. Let's say you're a rabid conservative, for example (and it's just an example - let's not get carried away). Then you're far away from me on the political spectrum, but I can live with you being one among many in this world with some screwy priorities and ideas.

    It sure sounds like you have me filed in a labelled political box, too. Who knows? Maybe you're right on the money and have accurately deduced everything important about me and my opinions and thought processes. Then again, maybe not. Are you sure you're not only seeing what you want to see? Have you turned that mirror back on yourself, as you urge me to do?

    I don't think that's much of a secret, The Marquis.

    I'm still not sure which fence we're talking about. For the sake of argument, let's assume you mean left-wing vs. right-wing. If so, then I'd say that right-wingers tend to be individualists, while those on the Left tend to be communitarians. So, broadly speaking, when it comes to defence, we have on one side defence of the individual (including corporate "persons") and on the other we have defence of communities and collectives. If that's true, and you're on the Right, then it seems to that the self-defence is more likely to be coming from you than from me. Wouldn't you say?

    Bells has addressed this point above. We are all entitled to our interpretations, of course. However, we are not entitled to choose our own facts. Not if we're honest.

    Don't you think that before settling on an interpretation of an event or occurrence one should try to ascertain the facts of the event in question? Failure to do that leads to the kind of journalistic opinion-pieces we regularly get from the likes of Andrew Bolt.

    We can go down the rabbit hole as far as you like, of course. Open a thread in Philosophy if you want a debate about how facts are also interpretations. For now, I'm going to leave that one alone.

    Coming full circle in the current thread, my initial gripe with your post on the Sydney siege was its extrapolation from "facts" of dubious authenticity to a particular "interpretation" of those events that sits out on a far fringe of public opinion. Coming from somebody like yourself who seems to pride himself on thinking outside the box, there was surprisingly little actual thought going on, as far as I could see.

    I wonder whether you're so scared of being "uninspiringly average" that you feel the need to invent new interpretations that just aren't that plausible.
     
    James R, Jan 2, 2015
    #58
  22. The Marquis

    The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    "Commoner".
    In this day and age, also "entitlement".

    If only we were able to give them everything they want... if for no other reason than as punishment.
    There is no reprimand, anymore, for being common. Perhaps, in itself, that is their punishment.
     
    The Marquis, Jan 2, 2015
    #59
Page 3 of 3

Share This Page