Don’t insult my intelligence

Wikinews_tag_terrorism

terrorism

Terrorist (A)

terrorism

Not a Terrorist (B)

 

Can you tell the difference between the man on the left and the man on the right? Both have committed acts of terror on the population.Both wave black flags when they do so and claim to be doing it for an Islamic terrorist organisation and both have killed the innocent.However one of them the MSM has decided is not a terrorist for the following reasons….

 

 

 

 

 

(B) Was a bit of a loner who was “isolated from the [Muslim] community.

(B) Was mentally ill, damaged goods , unstable .

(B) Was a self-styled Muslim cleric, but had been rejected by both Sunni and Shia members of the Muslim community.

(B) Unhinged but not a jihadist

(B) Was known to police already and facing a number of serious ( non terrorism related ) charges at the time of the siege (so a violent ‘ alleged ‘ criminal rather than a terrorist)

Finally here is the kicker, a quote from (B)s former lawyer Manny Conditsis, are you ready?

“This is a one-off random individual. It’s not a concerted terrorism event or act. It’s a damaged goods individual who’s done something outrageous,”

“His ideology is just so strong and so powerful that it clouds his vision for common sense and objectiveness,”

-Australian Broadcasting Corp

What I want to know is what on earth does a man have to do in order to get to be called a terrorist by the MSM these days? I suspect that they are only comfortable calling them terrorists if they are far far away in non western countries, because it couldn’t possibly happen here now could it? No we are just having a rash of mentally unstable, lone wolves at the moment. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

No-terrorism1

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Damon Mudgway

    Personally I think the term terrorist should be dropped and we call it like it is “he was an Islamist”, because the fact of the matter is the words are pretty much interchangeable and have the same meaning.

    • Albert Lane

      But there are exceptions. Remember the bombing of the administration building in Oklahoma City some years ago? Done by a red-blooded American.

      • John Q Public

        That’s one example. Do you have anymore? No?

        • Albert Lane

          Closer to home there have been mass murders in public places in Tasmania and in New Zealand. I just think we have to keep our eyes open to the danger within from our own, as well as the danger these brain-washed islamists pose to our way of life. During the Cold War with Russia, the Russians had ‘sleepers” in western countries who appeared to be integrated, but they were actually sent there so they could be instantly activated to carry out terrorist activities. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

      • Cowgirl

        There was a very recent example perpetrated right here in Canada where a guy called Justin Bourque shot and killed 3 Mounties. This is technically an act of terrorism on 2 levels because even though technically the Mounties were not the intended target, they were killed because they tried to stop Bourque in his main objective, which was trying to blow up petrol stations in a protest against the government and Canada’s oil industry. However, the Mounties themselves are State officials and symbols of Statehood, which sort of makes this a double-whammy terrorist act, perpetrated by a Canadian.

  • Eddie

    Isn’t a “lone wolf” more frightening as it implies an almost uncontrollable, unpredictable, deranged danger? At least “terrorists” might be under some surveillance and that knowledge be used to foil an attack.

  • Eddie

    But what about all the people with a mental health issue. The backlash could be huge – I suggest we all apologise to them now for any hurt caused #illcleanyourstraightjacket

    • spanishbride

      You win the internet. That statement is so funny! I do love black humour and that is just brilliant. I would wear it on a T.Shirt but like Brian Rudman I would be scared of the backlash LOL

  • “His ideology is just so strong and so powerful that it clouds his vision for common sense and objectiveness,” pretty much sums up your average terrorist.

  • Bryan

    interesting Damon the more that is coming out it seems he was just an old fashioned Bully who liked getting his way, and was so drunk on his line of thinking that he could not see or hear anyone else, and yes he was a terrorist to everyone held in that room for all those hours, he might not have seen it that way, but that is actually what his actions brought to them terror, and we should not try and wrap his actions in nicer terms so we feel more comfortable as the good book says “the heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked ” so we all need to guard our hearts from evil,
    he looked for it, lived for it and then lose it

  • Be interesting to see archived TV footage of the Rainbow Warrior half-sunk on an Auckland Wharf and to hear how the MSM were “positioning” that terrorist attack and the narrative they were pushing at that time…

    • Cowgirl

      According to my learned husband, terrorism is acts taken by one state against another; Greenpeace is not the state (nor state-sanctioned), so if you want see the lefties get their panties in a bunch you can tell them the Rainbow Warrior bombing wasn’t a terrorist act, and then stand back to avoid all the spittle.

      • Kevin

        Another reason it wasn’t a terrorist act is because it wasn’t intended to install terror.

        • Cowgirl

          You’re right because Greenpeace is pretty resolute and really the agents were trying to wreck the boat primarily, but you could argue it was designed to intimidate them and their supporters.

          • Kevin

            If it was designed to intimidate it backfired spectacularly. Greenpeace got a tonne of political mileage out of it.

  • Woody

    One of the definitions of “Terrorist” that I have read is
    “a person who terrorizes or frightens others.”
    ergo – he was a terrorist.

  • Michael

    He may have been unhinged and mentally ill, but he wanted to terrorise civilians – including those who disagreed with the Australian commitment of armed forces to combat the IS.

    He ticks the terrorist box for me.

  • Eiselmann

    He was mentally ill, damaged goods , unstable and therefore not a terrorist.
    Therefore a person who slaughters innocent people , classrooms full of children and looks forward to blowing themselves up has no mental health issues, sounds a bit mad to me

  • Gaynor

    By the msm accepting he was a terrorist they feel, they would be justifying Nationals new anti-terrorist laws and that would never do.

    • Mikex

      I think you have summed up the situation in a nut shell. The reaction of MSM to John Keys comments on the siege (eg Andrea Vance) gave the game away.

  • Ginny

    It would be interesting to know who was following him on Face Book. No doubt the Police will be following that up.

  • digby

    Hi is both an terrorist and mentally ill. I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. When do we revisit the idea of releasing mentally ill people back into society. Surely it is better to confine a few on the border of mental illness than expose society to known mentally ill people. We don’t have to keep them in horrible conditions, just not have them roam freely in society.

    • ex-JAFA

      I personally know two women who “reside” at the Mason Clinic. One attempted to kill her newborn child because “voices” instructed her to do so; the other’s mental development stagnated at the age of 8 and is no danger to anyone, but her family cannot adequately support her at home. There don’t seem to be care facilities in Auckland to adequately and proportionately cater for the range of mentally ill.

  • Wheninrome

    Who made the decision he was unhinged, was this by a panel of medical experts, did I miss this particular piece of valuable information in all the other news releases.
    Or has the public decided he is some kind of nutcase because of what he has done and it suits their perception that only a “nutter” would behave this way.
    Can he not just be a person with an extremely strongly held belief that his way is the right way, and thus the reason for his act of terrorism.

  • Nechtan

    Surely anyone or a group of people who are prepared to use violence to further their beliefs or cause (as opposed for personal gain) are terrorists?

    • Cowgirl

      No, otherwise anything could be considered terrorism – Charles Manson, etc. the pursued cause or belief must be political (which may eventually become so), and the target must be the State. Terrorism needs this definition and criteria because it’s a specialised form of high-stakes crime; otherwise, again, anything could be terrorism – eg swatting, or murder for inheritance. The tough part is proving that a person actually has a political belief that he’s trying to further.

      • Nechtan

        I’m not so sure on the state having to be the target. The prime motive has to be promoting the cause. Many terrorist acts have been taken against non-state targets (eg civilian targets purely to terrorise and gain publicity).

        • Cowgirl

          Civilians are not the targets of these things though – they are just the tools/victims to get to the target, which is the State ie Timothy McVeigh is a terrorist not a mass murderer because his target was not his victims, but rather the federal government. The State drives the change the terrorist is looking for, so they are the target. Monis wanted to use hostages to promote his cause and political motivations. He asked to speak to Tony Abbott ergo the State is the target ergo he is a terrorist by definition.

  • R&BAvenger

    From the Oxford English Dictionary:

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/terrorism

    “The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims”

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/terrorist

    “A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims”

    “late 18th century: from French terroriste, from Latin terror (see terror). The word was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality.”
    People can make up their own minds, but I think this incident falls within the definition. Those who wish to split hairs are simply dancing on the head of a pin in order to further their own political agenda against the sitting government here and in Australia.
    Was violence used? Was their a political aim? In answer to both questions:
    Yes, with the tragic outcome. He wanted to talk to Tony Abbott and had a history of railing against the government in his chosen place of residence.
    It quacks like a duck….

    • R&BAvenger

      In fact, if you look at the origin above a modern definition could read

      “The word is usually applied to supporters of the Islamic State and other Islamic aligned groups and governments, who advocate repression and violence in pursuit of an independent Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East.”

      EDIT : spellling

      • 1951

        terror [oxford dictionary] extreme fear: people fled in terror.
        The faces of those girls that escaped from the café said it all.

  • Davo42

    He was an ISIS wannabe, but that didn’t make him any less a terrorist, he wasn’t there to rob the place, he was there ready to kill innocents in the name of Allah. Interesting to note that the first 3 stories on the 7am news were 3 different killings by Islamic terrorist. The thing I couldn’t understand is why did Hama’s get a free pass? Could it be because Hama’s are foolish enough to take on someone who can and does defend themselves aggressively, and the media like to go with the underdog?

    • Albert Lane

      Do you mean Hamas – the occupiers of Gaza whose publicly stated aim is the destruction of Israel? Strangely enough, the United Nations ignores this fact, and provides them with millions of dollars of aid every year.

  • steve and monique

    And this has played out just as many suspected it would; the MSM try to gain sympathy for the Muslim community by downplaying. Where ever Muslims are, terrorism follows, it is natural and disturbing.

    • Luis Cannon

      Even more disturbing is the passive resignation by Muslim women to terrorists in the name of their religion. Until Muslim women stand up to these cowards it is unlikely lasting progress will ever be achieved.

      • steve and monique

        Especially as they reproduce at a great rate of knots to keep the cult alive

      • Albert Lane

        Muslim women have been subjected to male domination all their lives. They know what happens if they question a male’s decision. There are a good number of recent examples. If this was a feature of New Zealand society, the United Nations would be on us like a tonne of bricks. So how is it that the 50 Muslim nations get away with it without a murmur from the UN or the civil rights activists like John bin Minto ? Can anybody explain this please?

  • Bart67

    I’m quite sure that the ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’ approach the MSM is taking is of little solace to the families of the two killed, or to the people who were forced to undergo this ordeal. I bet they didn’t feel terrorised at all?
    Do you now have to be sane and well adjusted to be a terrorist? If you are sane and well adjusted, how could you even BE a terrorist?
    When did simple logic lose it’s relevance in the MSM?

  • Diddle_De_Dee

    He was a Terrorist, plain and simple. Whether he was acting alone or was associated with a group he was still a terrorist. More importantly, he should never have been let out on bail, given his previous history.

  • jaundiced

    Those who murder school children are surely ‘unhinged’ and mentally ill. By this logic they can’t be terrorists.

  • ozbob68

    So what are we saying? “Accept only ‘Brand-Name’ Terrorists,all others are cheap imitations. For quality terror and suppression of freedoms, you know what you are getting with ‘Brand-Name’ Terrorists”.

  • conwaycaptain

    What the likes of Rudman et al do not understand is that these Islamic Jihadists are suicide troops along the lines of the WW 2 Kamikazes. Unlike the Kamikazes who died in battle these Jihadists can strike anywhere and any time. London, Peshawar, Sydney, NY etc etc. They have made up their minds to die and will go to any length to do this.
    If Rudman et al think they can stand back and not be involved they are blinkered morons. These Jihadists are living hidden amongst the Muslim population and can strike at any time as we have seen.
    If there was a way that a Senior Islamic Cleric could ex communicate them then may be that could help but the silence from the leading Islamic Figures has been deafening.
    ISIS has issued a guide book on raping and enslaving women. Where is Logie when you need her.

    • Bartman

      Head remains firmly in the sand!

  • Bruce S

    Now let’s see…if this same idiot had stormed a newspaper office or TV station and killed a couple of “journalists” in said premises – then of course he would have been branded a terrorist.

    • Cadwallader

      Agree. The only issue is: Could anyone find a ” journalist” in a NZ TV station? It would require a protracted and thorough search which in all likelihood be futile.

      • Albert Lane

        Is a news-reader a journalist? On one of the talk-back radio stations the other morning, the female news reader clearly described the woman who was murdered in the cafe as a “barista”. The victim was actually a very competent barrister. The two words are pronounced quite differently. Who employs these news readers? Do they rehearse their news broadcasts?

  • Elinor_Dashwood

    I don’t really understand why it is so important whether we call him a “terrorist” or not.

    • jaundiced

      I suspect its to downplay its significance so that it doesn’t strengthen the case in New Zealand for strengthening the governments ability to monitor and deal with similar threats. This would ‘undermine our freedom’

      • Elinor_Dashwood

        Yes, because “undermining our freedom” would be such a trivial consideration and “strengthening the government’s ability to monitor and deal with similar threats” would be so simple and straightforward.
        Right. In order to protect the cultural values that we hold so dear and that have been so hard won, we want to abolish freedom of conscience, eviscerate what little remains of free speech, lock people up if we think they might commit a crime and proscribe thought crimes. This will preserve our precious traditions of – er …

  • Annoyed

    What this idiot needs to answer is this:
    If NZ was attacked by another country, would he expect people to come and help us?
    If so, why?

  • Jaffa

    If it looks like a terrorist, acts like a terrorist, it is a terrorist!

  • Second time around

    He seems to me more like an exhibitionist than a terrorist to me, and one who had watched far too much TV. I’m not even sure if he was suicidal, although that was the end result of his big day out.

  • AMA

    There is an undercurrent here. If an act of terror is committed, it is committed by a terrorist, by definition. However, if we acknowledge that, we’ll be lending support to the development of enhanced surveillance. So, if we are paranoid about that, we re-define the terrorist as an unhinged individual and hammer the government for pointlessly encroaching on our personal freedom. The MSM are right into that. I expect the government to pre-empt terrorism, regardless of what flag is waved.

    • Second time around

      Which would make every kidnapping, home invasion or bank hold up a terrorist act. When Stalin held up banks as a boy it was still a robbery because there was no obvious political motive. The British treated the early settlers in Israel as terrorists because they killed British soldiers and blew things up for a political motive. I personally don’t think the term terrorist is very helpful because of its emotional and political overtones.

      • AMA

        You’re running the risk of being pointlessly pedantic about the definition of terrorism. Terrorism in the current context is an act designed to impact a wide audience. That excludes acts like recovering the stash or making an unauthorised withdrawal.

  • BlitzkriegNZ

    Islamist, terrorist, same thing.
    He was actually wanted for extradition by Iran for fraud but Australia said no at the time.

  • Gaynor

    Australian media are calling it a terrorist act.

  • axeman

    Simple facts. He was a Muslim, followed Muslim beliefs, took over a café and held hostage innocent people of which people died. Wanted to identified with the IS or what ever extremist faction would have him.
    An act of terror no doubt about it, the hostages were in terror. Therefore a terrorist act.

  • Drhill

    If the guy followed the teachings of the IRA, did things in the name of the IRA but had no formal contact with the IRA does that make him a terrorist or a dis-illusioned individual?

  • mike

    Simple test.

    Did he commit the act for money/revenge/personal gain? Yes, then he is not a terrorist.

    Did he commit the act in order to further a political or ideological goal (no matter how deranged they may be)? Yes, then he is a terrorist.

    And yes it could be a combination of both, in which case it is still terrorism.

  • pirate vs ninja

    The logical conclusion is that all terrorists are brainwashed and therefore ‘mentally ill’. I suggest we stand down the troops and send in a brigade of mental health professionals to rehabilitate them all. I nominate Dr Norman to lead the team and surely Mr Rudman could accompany them to report on their activities.

  • Johnny Smear

    NZ media may need to (edit) and explain why it’s not a act of terrorism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Australia

    • Cadwallader

      The definition you have helpfully referred to is quite wide. I think it would cater for “Campbell Live” being a terrorist activity?

  • Pete

    Fort Hood was the same, it was framed as workplace violence!! The sooner these politicians and media realise we are in a war, the better.

    • Mike

      They already know this but are too cowardy to admit it. It is more important to them to continue with the lie that all cultures are equally good, and islam is as good as or better than western secular/christian culture, than admit they are wrong.

  • bart jackson

    Lets not get so tunnel visioned that we don’t look at the whole picture. While there is no doubt that elements of the muslim community pose a risk to us in NZ they are not the only ones. What is common is the risk of people from other cultures with different values than ours coming into NZ (on the back of immigration laws that arnt robust enough in my opinion) failing to assimilate & failing to abide by our normal cultural restraints.
    Some examples
    1. The Somali ‘refugee’ community in NZ. (many are muslim) A relatively small population grossly over represented in crime stats. The Hamilton Somali community are responsible for large numbers of burglaries, meth labs and sexually motivated street assaults on women. Then you’ve got the extreme examples like the Somali woman who tried to hijack a domestic flight, and the male who was shot by police in Christchurch after a kidnapping & stabbing.
    2. Asian community in Auckland. They have imported their own bad aspects of their culture. They are heavily involved in organised crime, drugs and extortion. There are many examples of young male students who are sent here to study by their wealthy families because their dodgy background means they cant get into the USA. I know of examples of sexual assault by these students that schools have attempted to cover up or minimise because they like the income this group brings in.
    These crimes occur because these guys come with different cultural values where women have lower social status and are a chattel to be used.
    3. Indian male Students. Ask any young kiwi female who frequents nightclubs & pubs whether they have encountered sleazy & predatory behaviour from groups of Indian males. I don’t deny kiwi males are capable of the same but due to cultural factors it is far more prevalent behaviour within the Indian student community.
    I just don’t understand this PC idea we must be tolerant and accept different cultures & accommodate them blah blah. Show me one example where this has actually benefitted a society in recent times. England is the perfect example of what a cluster that becomes. I believe we should promote the opposite. If you want to come here you come here to be kiwis and act like Kiwis and live our values and bring your talents to contribute to our fair land. If you do so you will be welcomed with open arms. If you don’t like those terms, if you want to set up your own separatist cultural, you own mirror image of the values of your homeland, then rack off back to the deserts or the overcrowded cities or the stinking slums from where you once came.

    • STAG

      The answer is change where we get our immigrants from, yes the country needs them but we don’t need to import the dross of Asia or Africa,.

      Let’s be smart and target like people from Europe and the Americas. Similar religious beliefs and social norms.

    • Mark

      “3. Indian male Students. Ask any young kiwi female who frequents
      nightclubs & pubs whether they have encountered sleazy &
      predatory behaviour from groups of Indian males. I don’t deny kiwi males
      are capable of the same but due to cultural factors it is far more
      prevalent behaviour within the Indian student community.”
      C’mon Bart,you know this is the “Elephant in the Room” we don’t acknowledge or discuss,shame on you for bringing it up. ;)

    • Wallace Westland

      I’ve been going to raise similar points to the ones you just have however anytime I’ve been compelled to write the same thing stops me.
      The simple fact that I’d simply be accused of xenophobia when nothing could in fact be further from the truth.
      The fact is rampant immigration is destryoing our culture and way of life and our Governments ongoing willingness to accept low rent migrants that see NZ as an easy target or a stepping stone to countries that deny them inital access.
      Do we really need more gib stoppers and painters?

    • Bartman

      The challenge of this aspiration is, how do we package it up neatly and with the least collateral damage to our international reputation? Success here would showcase once again our ability to lead global thinking on matters of great import.

    • KiwiKaffir

      The Dutch didn’t cause too much of a problem …!

  • STAG

    Dawn Raids, round up all refugees, political asylum seekers, student visa holders and anyone who has been granted Permanent Residence and identifies as Muslim in the last 5 years and either deport or intern them for a comprehensive review of their suitability to remain in this country.

    I refuse to have to worry about what some terrorist, sorry “mentally unstable, holder of strong Islamic ideology, rouge individual” when with assertive, brave and responsible actions people who poses these risks can be removed from our population.

    When did the rights of non natural citizens and those who seek to actively change our society start to be placed ahead of a countries indigenous people?

  • timemagazine

    It is the political correctness of the MSM that is doing more harm than good by trying to dress up these jihadi terrorists in western countries.

  • ShoreRight

    About an hour ago I saw the Australian Attorney General on Sky News talking about the very same thing – he spoke of the two separate pictures and very clearly linked them and left me in no doubt that this was an act of terror carried out by someone who was a terrorist!

  • It does beg the question though of how you do define terrorism. Is someone holding up a bank at gunpoint committing an act of terrorism? Is every protest against the political system an act of terrorism? Does it required a number of people working together? Does it require religious or political convictions or motives? Before we start calling somebody a terrorist we really need to define what we mean by terrorist. In both these cases i think terrorist is a fair claim for the following reasons
    1. In that area of Sydney if you want to rob a business for money, you don’t rob a cafe, there are much more cash rich businesses in the area. So his motive was solely to cause maximum fear. TORRORIST
    2. in Peshawar the target picked seems to be selected solely for the fear it will put into the public, there can be no other motive behind this attack. TERRORIST

    • James M

      Correct, if you rob a bank the terror caused to bystanders is a byproduct of the robbery and threat posed.

      To take people hostage and install fear and threat of death in order to broadcast your message or beliefs is simply terrorism.

      I can’t see any fuzzy grey area that would make it difficult to distinguish terrorism from other acts of crime.

      • So under that logic, the french peasants that went to Versaille, kidnapped the king and his court and took them back to Paris so that he could appreciate the hardship french citizenry were going through was terrorism. These days this event is considered revolutionary and is celebrated. As is the Boston Tea party and “the Long march”, so in order to properly define terrorism we need to look at such long term aspects as well.

  • Mountie

    Seems like the Aussies have the same problem with MSM.

    http://bernardgaynor.com.au/predictably-getting-the-lindt-cafe-siege-wrong/

  • Eddie

    The debate about labelling the incident as a terrorist act is largely to [de]legitimise any steps to prevent something like this occuring again and our own psychology of fear. Regardless of the label, the question is really “would extra funding/powers/legislation have prevented this”.

    The answer is “probably, yes”. This guy was known to Police and ASIO – he was dropped from a watchlist and released on bail (http://bit.ly/13ddpu2).

    A full investigation is required to understand if any changes need to be made so the next lone-wolf/terrorist/madman might be stopped just like previous raids have likley stopped other serious crimes.

  • R&BAvenger

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/64268026/russell-brand-blasts-media-and-tony-abbott-for-linking-sydney-siege-to-terrorism
    Here’s a massive insult to everyone’s intelligence. This must be where our MSM and opposition parties get there copy/policy from when it comes to incidents of terrorism.

    • Imogen B

      Even Stuff have the sense to categorise R.Brand’s political commentary as ‘entertainment’. Many others belong there also.

  • Annoyed

    The left have no concept of using hard work and sacrifice to achieve what they want. They believe those actions should be taken by others on their behalf at no cost to themselves. This is true economically and apparently it is also true when it comes with dealing with the evil in the world.

    • Mark Schmid

      Very generalised statement – you are welcome to come into my shop to watch a few moderate lefties work bloody hard and contribute to society.

  • Huia

    You are right SB, this is a massive insult to our intelligence.
    Deranged or not he was two things, firstly he was using terror for his own ends in the name of Islam, whether he belonged to a specific group or not is not the issue. He used terror and displayed an Isamic slogan end of story.
    Secondly this individual was considered sane and safe enough to be let out on bail, I believe if anyone was deranged it was the legal individual who allowed him to go free to carry on writing and preaching his anti government and anti western hate filled ravings, again in the name of Islam. Therefore in my book inciting and urging racial hatred and anti western action is an act of terrorism.
    For the idiot press to now down play this as a lone disturbed individual is ludicrous. They made the most of Timothy McVeigh and his white supremacist beliefs and contacts which shocked and horrified the world after the bombing in Oklahoma a few years ago, people were made very aware of the damage that organization can do to a disturbed mind.
    Anybody with any intelligence can see and recognize we have a world wide Moslem movement going on to force the western world to accept their beliefs with complete disregard and respect to our own beliefs and way of life. We DO NOT matter. The sooner people realize this the better equipped we will be when it becomes our turn for Islamic action.(I’m not talking MSM here because they do not automatically equate to having intelligence).
    Why are Moslems being allowed to have guns in NZ when they don’t hunt? for what reason could they be applying for gun licence’s when we only have deer and pigs to hunt and they do not eat pigs?
    There is only one reason they want to be armed and it scares the living hell out of me for what our grandchildren and children will be inheriting because we rolled over and allowed these people to continue with their segregation and separatism, we are going to pay very dearly for welcoming them into our country and giving them an opportunity for a better way of life for their families in a new country. We have to stop rolling over to their demands, and they need to respect our way of life and dress and make the effort to conform if they truly want the freedom we have.

  • BruceM

    The Sydney Islamist terrorist is the new face of terrorism. The MSM just don’t recognize it yet. Unfortunately for all of us ISIS is way ahead of the traditional and plodding Fourth Estate. A terrorist used to be someone trained up by an organization and sent out armed to spread or enforce an ideology through acts of terror. That was before. Now the ideology can be spread like a virus through the internet. We’ve always had biological viruses, more recently we’ve had cyber viruses and now we are seeing the birth of psychosocial terror viruses. No longer do the minions of a terrorist ideology have to be trained up and armed, now, through the power of the internet and social media, weak individuals can be targeted and infected from a distance. So how do we fight a virus such as this?

    • Mark Schmid

      His actions are not new at all – only the rethoric we use is.

  • Mark Schmid

    If there is no proven link between the attacker and Isis any connection made is wrong – I assume like everyone else on here (thats right all we can is guess) that the main reason for the Australian government to present their evidence of the man being a lone wolf without any backing or aviliation with isis could ge to not provoke isis wih lies and get a flood of problems on heir soil – I believe that the system failed and if this known criminal (Iran attempted over the years to get this criminal extradited). Its further proof that even if we surrender more of our civil rights and allow our agencies to spy on all citizens they are too stupid to recognise and eliminate even obvious threats (in this case they even got evidence from Iran) – with blind pencil pushers like that in charge its only going to be a matter of time where innocent citizens get thrown under the Bus in the name of Terrorism.

    Great example is the Cartoon in the Herald today – it implies a connection with Isis.
    Propaganda at its most ignorant form.

    • Andy Brown

      If it wants your government can find out about you. It doesn’t need you to surrender your rights.

      • Mark Schmid

        And thats fine as long as the agency involved is accountable and transparent in their doings.

  • KiwiKaffir

    “His ideology is just so strong and so powerful that it clouds his vision for common sense and objectiveness,” … Sounds like an Islamist to me!

25%