Hostage Situation - Martin Place, Sydney

Remove this Banner Ad

Russell Brand actually raises some very interesting ideas and discusses them in a well thought out manner

More people who do this the better

i was with him until he took abbotts speech out of context and potted him for a few short words within it.
anyone whos seen me post either in GD knows i pot abbott at every opportunity, abbott went to extreme to paint the guy as a lone nutter and an extremist he never said he was a member of ISIS he said and he was TRYING TO ASSOCIATE himself with ISIS, which he was. people in a free country have the right to know what happened (this is why we also need to strongly urge the government to have this inquiry open to public scrutiny) and this includes the man's motives.

after that i simply stopped watching, you have no point if you're it entails trying to misrepresent the PM to the point where i a unapologetic abbott knocker literally do a double take.
 
Why should we listen to Russell Brand about politics, when he is merely a stand-up comedian.
Because other politicians are just sit-down comedians?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Exactly, he had absolutely no connection with IS in any way. His previous reports signify a violent, hateful person. This siege was an extension on his violence – none of them served any divine purpose but intrinsic hate.

And he's right on about big Tony and his jingoism (which is probably the thing Mid Australia love about the guy). He has hijacked a totally irrelevant mental case's actions as justification for a preservation of 'Australia:' war, immigration, surveillance being the tools he'll use to say are protecting us. Of course every single able government will do these things anyway and that's an adult truth.

What I find amazing, though, is people will neglect to accept media hyperbole and agenda if it comes from this forum (because the posters who express it are dislikable – or they're easy to gang up on when some MOR, indifferent, baselessly-smug poster will belittle them to boost their own lives [lol on a forum] via likes). But as soon as a guy like Rusty Brand says it, the ideas are somehow verified?

Look I disagree with what Abbott has done in 99% of cases but in this instance Brand could not be more wrong. People aren't stupid, they saw the flag in the window and straight away drew their own conclusions. Add to that airspace and buildings evacuated do you really think anyone would by the just a hostage situation line? Abbott used the political line to try and water the thing down and let the police do their job. He could've said the blatantly bloody obvious that it was an attack by an Islamic Terroist (however stupid he was) but chose to make a quick statement, bring confidence to the professionals and let them handle it.

Immigration (given this guy was an immigrant) is very relevant to the debate. Especially when you consider Monday's events in the context of both recent and historical events around the world.

True the media have used their emotive language and manipulative techniques and attempted to milk it for all it's worth. Rather than drilling into key facts of what happened. No argument from me there. But in terms of the seriousness if anything they have low balled it. Even to the point it is referred to as a siege or Hostage Incident.

Rusty Brand can have his opinions (hell a lot are dead on) but he can be argued with just like anyone. In terms of putting it in context Andrew Bolt while having a few imo glaring errors generally had the best take. And that is saying something, believe me. Others, especially on the left have been completely deluded frankly.
 
That's fine, and fwiw, I agree that Abbott, the armed forces and the media absolutely did the right thing by not giving into the gunman's demands (something that Brand was critical of), but his comments re the overall media coverage were spot on imo, which is why I don't think merely dismissing his opinion because he's a 'comedian' is necessary (like some people have insinuated).

The armed forces weren't involved till the end. Initially it was a NSW Police matter. While all the Police on the scene did an amazingly courageous, brave and competent job (in keeping most of the hostages alive for the period they did) I do question some of the tactical decisions/orders given. All hostages escaped of their own accord, two are deceased and the siege was allowed to drag on till the next morning. I would actually consider the approach not a successful outcome in any way.

The army should've been called in at 4 when the first hostages started escaping and it was clear it was a lone assailant imo.

No I'm not a military expert, but given what happened and the increased legasaltive power, resources, weaponary and money our security forces have been given it is prudent to question the decisions made. These are government agencies ultimately overseen by a government and legislative body who are accountable to the people who elected them. A number of which are highly annoyed that legitimate concerns that keep been raised are ignored and/or shut down.
 
Look I disagree with what Abbott has done in 99% of cases but in this instance Brand could not be more wrong. People aren't stupid, they saw the flag in the window and straight away drew their own conclusions. Add to that airspace and buildings evacuated do you really think anyone would by the just a hostage situation line? Abbott used the political line to try and water the thing down and let the police do their job.
But it wasn't an ISIS attack at all, the media baselessly speculated that it was. The TV stations did limited research, which is what journalism was once about, and the "it's not ISIS" angle was then pretty hard to widely establish.

And why can't people buy that? Are Australians really that dumb that the notion of a Muslim doing something not related to a terror group is bizarre? It was a lone attack done by a single individual with no clear links to any organised group that professes or attempts to establish political influence. His list of previous offences paint him as someone off-kilter and this was his boldest, final act.

I don't get how you can excuse Tony Abbott for pumping up an irrelevant tangent. He monopolised one attack to spread an agenda.

I hate, actively and passionately hate Tony Abbott. He handled this okay. If he did something, it was the non-hyperbolic early presser and the tact any leader would (and always should) have taken by not talking to him.
 
One of the bastards requests was for the government to release a statement saying "This is a terrorist attack on Australia from Islamic State"....................
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...on-Monis-no-kin-comes-forward-claim-body.html

So no Muslim funeral directors are accepting Monis's body and they would rather his body dumped at sea.

If no one comes forward to claim his body TAXPAYERS could fund his burial arrangements. Lost for words at the inhumanity of it if we as taxpayers have to pay for this scum human being to be buried

Would anyone with a big BBQ and having a spit roast on Xmas Day mind chucking Mr Nutjob on the BBQ afterwards and do a free cremation ?
Just flush the ashes down the dunny where s**t belongs.
 
How? I get 17.
First escapees (3)- John, Stefan, Paulo (Lindt employee you mentioned)
Second Escape (2) - Elly, Bae
Third Escape (6) - Jarrod, Harriette, Viswakanth, Puspendu, Joel, Julie (the one that Katrina was said to have protected while dying. This would mean that Katrina was shot by this stage but there are no mentions of shots being fired)
Fourth escape (1) - Fiona
Still inside (5) - Tori, Katrina, Marcia, Selina, unnamed woman (the 4th hostage youtube video one)

There was 6 still inside - for some reason (which I find incredibly curious) media aren't naming the women in the 4th hostage video that you mentioned. She could be seen leaving on a stretcher however (she was the bigger lady). Her mum was also in there and could be seen leaving the building after the raid. A few papers have reported the names of both women.
 
There was 6 still inside - for some reason (which I find incredibly curious) media aren't naming the women in the 4th hostage video that you mentioned. She could be seen leaving on a stretcher however (she was the bigger lady). Her mum was also in there and could be seen leaving the building after the raid. A few papers have reported the names of both women.

Is that one who talks in the video about "our Isis brother" being "very fair to us"?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

At risk of being shot for posting anything from Bolt, here's his take on why the terrorist's demands weren't met:

"Negotiators would be concerned that if they put Tony Abbott on the line, Monis could ratchet up his notoriety even further by using the moment to execute a hostage, an unacceptable risk for all.

Police knew this had happened in domestic sieges. “They say, I just wanted to speak to mum and dad, and then they can make very dramatic statements such as killing themselves or killing someone,” said Mr Van Grinsven."

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...why_police_wouldnt_let_monis_speak_to_abbott/
 
At risk of being shot for posting anything from Bolt, here's his take on why the terrorist's demands weren't met:

"Negotiators would be concerned that if they put Tony Abbott on the line, Monis could ratchet up his notoriety even further by using the moment to execute a hostage, an unacceptable risk for all.

Police knew this had happened in domestic sieges. “They say, I just wanted to speak to mum and dad, and then they can make very dramatic statements such as killing themselves or killing someone,” said Mr Van Grinsven."

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...why_police_wouldnt_let_monis_speak_to_abbott/

That's not a Bolt article; he's just reposted an excerpt.
 
I might be thinking unrealistically..

But assuming the cafe would have some sort of security cameras inside, would it have been possible for the police to have 'hacked' the cameras so they could have been viewed through a laptop or the sorts?
 
At risk of being shot for posting anything from Bolt, here's his take on why the terrorist's demands weren't met:

"Negotiators would be concerned that if they put Tony Abbott on the line, Monis could ratchet up his notoriety even further by using the moment to execute a hostage, an unacceptable risk for all.

Police knew this had happened in domestic sieges. “They say, I just wanted to speak to mum and dad, and then they can make very dramatic statements such as killing themselves or killing someone,” said Mr Van Grinsven."

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...why_police_wouldnt_let_monis_speak_to_abbott/

How about the simple fact that being criminal scum doesn't give you permission to start making demands to speak to the leader of the country?

As soon you as you give into demands of terrorists other wanna-be terrorists think they have the power to get what they want too
 
they claim this vid is censored, is it true, why, if so?



what do you mean censored?

that's from the free news Australia feed most of us in this thread were watching live.
they weren't filming for any of the big news outlets, in fact they argued with channel 10 and the guys that gave the ABC/RT feed about their spot and that their mic was on.
 
they claim this vid is censored, is it true, why, if so?


First time I've seen full video of it. How many shots are required to stop one man? And the last round of firing a good 2 mins after the first bunch?

From watching that (and yes I'm an armchair expert) the friendly fire chances are highly probable. Unfortunately for the victims its too late, but they'll learn a lot from that.
 
First time I've seen full video of it. How many shots are required to stop one man? And the last round of firing a good 2 mins after the first bunch?

From watching that (and yes I'm an armchair expert) the friendly fire chances are highly probable. Unfortunately for the victims its too late, but they'll learn a lot from that.

that's not the full video, this is the full video:

still on the original channels page uncensored the raid starts about 40 seconds in.

some are saying that one of the grenades they tossed in didn't detonate at first, later it went off cops started shooting again when it went off.

either way its why we should have an open inquiry.
 
First time I've seen full video of it. How many shots are required to stop one man? And the last round of firing a good 2 mins after the first bunch?

.
There's three gunfights, the first one when the entered, then another one half a minute later, then another one 3 minutes after entry.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top