Let’s be honest: Man Haron Monis was an IS terrorist

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/lets-be-honest-man-haron-monis-was-an-is-terrorist/story-fni0cwl5-1227158489614

AUSTRALIA has watched anxiously as its citizens travelled to Syria and Iraq to take up arms for IS but Man Haron Monis did the opposite — he brought IS to Australia.

As much as some commentators may not want to admit it, Monis followed the IS playbook to the letter.

Capture worldwide media attention by taking “disbelievers” hostage. Tick.

Raise a jihadist flag. Tick.

Film the terrorised hostages in front of said flag. Tick.

Kill an American, European, Australian or Canadian. Sadly, tick.

But as the first Islamic terror attack against Australian civilians on home soil reached a bloody end, many observers have been at pains to distance Monis from terrorism.

Seven’s Sunrise host David Koch assured viewers over and over that there was no link between Monis and IS.

Monis’ former lawyer Manny Conditsis claimed the Lindt cafe attack was “not a concerted terrorism event or act”. “This was a one-off random individual,” he told the ABC.

Sydney barrister Larissa Andelman tweeted that the notion of “Islamic terror” was “not supported by the facts”. “More like Martin Byrant in Tasmania. Lone crazy guy,” she wrote.

Monis was certainly crazy — but show me a terrorist that isn’t.

That Monis — a long-time purveyor of hate who boasted almost 15,000 Facebook followers — acted as a “lone wolf” is hardly relevant when assessing whether he saw himself acting on behalf of IS.

It is IS’ ability to attract disenfranchised individuals through its horrific social media campaigns that makes it a global menace. If Osama bin Laden ran al-Qaeda for company men, IS is open to freelancers.

There is no need to fill in a membership form to join IS’ bloodthirsty quest; no need to declare if you are single or part of a group; no need to wait for an instruction to attack.

“If you can kill a disbelieving American or European ... or an Australian or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely on Allah, and kill him in any manner or way, however it may be,’’ IS spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani declared in September.

Monis’ attack came after other so-called “lone wolves” acted in Ottawa, Jerusalem and New York in the wake of IS’ September edict.

While veteran Australian security expert Neil Fergus said IS would “try to claim” the cafe attack as one of its own, Monis himself was desperate to declare it so.

The three videos uploaded to YouTube showed three of Monis’ poor hostage victims calling on the media to report that “this is an attack on Australia by IS”.

Monis also promised, through the hostages’ videos, to release one of his victims if an IS flag was delivered to the cafe.

Attempts to write off Monis as a self-styled cleric are also wide of the mark. Conditsis pointed out his former client was a Muslim cleric in Iran before he received political asylum in Australia in about 2001.

There can be also no doubt that his attack was a terrorist act, as defined under Australia’s Criminal Code Act 1995.

The code says: “A ‘terrorist act’ is an act, or a threat to commit an act, that is done with the intention to coerce or influence the public or any government by intimidation to advance a political, religious or ideological cause, and the act causes: death, serious harm or endangers a person.”

Put simply, Monis acted to advance a political, religious or ideological cause and endangered people.

He was a terrorist, clearly influenced by IS. Let’s be honest. His victims deserve at least that.

He was a shia muslim, IS are fighting the shia, he wasnt a IS and he wasnt holding a IS flag.

In my opinion, he isnt a terrorist ... he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 9:22am:

In my opinion, he isnt a terrorist ... he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion

He wasn't a terrorist??? :D :D :D :D

wally1 wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 9:00am:

He was a shia muslim, IS are fighting the shia, he wasnt a IS and he wasnt holding a IS flag.

He was a shia who became a sunni/salafi.

His wife wears a niqab, I saw her when he was convicted of sending letters to soldiers families.

So what did his flag say- there is no god but god and Muhammad was his messenger.

Is that the exact verse people say when they convert/revert to Islam?

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 9:22am:

In my opinion, he isnt a terrorist ... he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion

Exactly right.  I believe all so-called "Terrorists" are like that ultimately.

All the Islamophobes are doing is giving them the publicity they crave.    :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 9:27am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:22am: In my opinion, he isnt a terrorist ... he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion He wasn't a terrorist??? :D :D :D :D

have the optometrist check your prescription if you are having trouble reading

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 10:14am:

wally1 wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:00am: He was a shia muslim, IS are fighting the shia, he wasnt a IS and he wasnt holding a IS flag. He was a shia who became a sunni/salafi. His wife wears a niqab, I saw her when he was convicted of sending letters to soldiers families. So what did his flag say- there is no god but god and Muhammad was his messenger. Is that the exact verse people say when they convert/revert to Islam?

he was a muslim, that is bad enough.

|dev|null wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 10:27am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:22am: In my opinion, he isnt a terrorist ... he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion Exactly right.  I believe all so-called "Terrorists" are like that ultimately. All the Islamophobes are doing is giving them the publicity they crave.    :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D

How unlucky is the religion of peace? All these mentally insane people killing and blowing shlt up in the name of Islam, but it ain't got nothing to do with being Muslim.

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 10:30am:

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:27am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:22am: In my opinion, he isnt a terrorist ... he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion He wasn't a terrorist??? :D :D :D :D have the optometrist check your prescription if you are having trouble reading

Monis wasn't a terrorist, he was just a very naughty boy!!! :D :D :D :D :D

Good riddance wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 10:44am:

|dev|null wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 10:27am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:22am: In my opinion, he isnt a terrorist ... he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion Exactly right.  I believe all so-called "Terrorists" are like that ultimately. All the Islamophobes are doing is giving them the publicity they crave.    :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D How unlucky is the religion of peace? All these mentally insane people killing and blowing shlt up in the name of Islam, but it ain't got nothing to do with being Muslim.

The terrorist had hostages post videos online saying it was an attack by the Islamic state.

The leftist apologists claim it had nothing to do with Islam despite the offenders saying it did, if it was a Christian/jew/hindu/Buddhist doing terror I am sure they would take them on their word,Islam gets a free pass from morally bankrupt leftists.

How many times have we been told by Matty/Moses/Yadda/etc. that Christians committing atrocities cannot be taken on their word that they are Christians?    ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

You're still so afraid to let the actual doctrine be the adjudicator?

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

The terrorist had hostages post videos online saying it was an attack by the Islamic state

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 9:22am:

he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion

|dev|null wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:04am:

How many times have we been told by Matty/Moses/Yadda/etc. that Christians committing atrocities cannot be taken on their word that they are Christians?    ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

Well done, you are in exact agreement then with Matty/Moses/Yadda/etc you just disagree on the name of the religion. 

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:08am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 10:47am: The terrorist had hostages post videos online saying it was an attack by the Islamic state John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:22am: he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion

;D ;D ;D What rubbish!

moses wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:08am:

You're still so afraid to let the actual doctrine be the adjudicator?

Why are you so doctrinaire?

Surely a religion is what it's believers believe it is?

The overwhelming majority of Muslims believe Islam is the religion of peace and seek only to live quiet, normal lives with their fellows.  Just like Christians yet when one Muslim goes crazy, suddenly all Muslims are responsible and their religion is at fault.  What happens when one Christian goes crazy?  Or one Hindu or one Jew?   You lot make excuses, hide your faces and refuse to be consistent.   You make every excuse under the book for everybody except Muslims!  Hypocrites!   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:11am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:08am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 10:47am: The terrorist had hostages post videos online saying it was an attack by the Islamic state John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:22am: he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion ;D ;D ;D What rubbish!

really? what terrorist groupp was he a member off?

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:15am:

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:11am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:08am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 10:47am: The terrorist had hostages post videos online saying it was an attack by the Islamic state John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:22am: he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion ;D ;D ;D What rubbish! really? what terrorist groupp was he a member off?

If you listen to the videos the hostages were forced to make they say this was an attack by the Islamic state, for some reason the apologists deny what the hostages said to go with their own lunatic theories.

For some reason the braindead leftist apologists claim this had nothing to do with Islam.

If it quacks like a duck........
www.liveleak.com/view?i=91e_1418646394

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:15am:

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:11am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:08am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 10:47am: The terrorist had hostages post videos online saying it was an attack by the Islamic state John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:22am: he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion ;D ;D ;D What rubbish! really? what terrorist groupp was he a member off?

Who knows? Anyway you don't have to be a member of a group to be a terrorist. There was too much logic in this instance for it to be the work of a person to be out of control suffering psychosis. These are the reasons- It happened near Christmas.
He pick Martin Place which is a high profile area in the middle of Sydney.
He pick high ups.
Isn't Lindt owned by jews?

All the same things Islamic terrorists do the world over. Wake up to yourself.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:22am:

If you listen to the videos the hostages were forced to make they say this was an attack by the Islamic state,

is that a terrorist group?

If I said this is an attack by the Western world, does that mean I represent the USA? Or UK? Or the Institute of Public Affairs? or any other group you care to name?

Man Monis was a mentally unstable  fraudster. The Iranians warned the Australian Government of this back in 2000.

Monis defrauded Iranian citizens of $200,000 and stole passports while posing as a travel agent in the early 1990's.

When he was close to being exposed he travelled on a pseudonym to Australia in 1996.

Monis gained an Australian asylum visa in 2001 by fraudulently claiming to be persecuted for his religious beliefs by the Iranian Government.


After gaining his visa, Monis began posing as an expert in black magic advertising his talents in newspapers classified ads, and began molesting troubled women who sought help from him.



During his stay in Australia, Monis also pretended to be a Shi-ite ayatollah. The Sydney Shia community warned the AFP of his fakery back in 2009. Saying that nobody in Iran had ever heard of him as a religious figure. The Shi-ite community said that his writings did not resemble Shia religious writings.



In 2014, Monis claimed to be a sunni backer of IS.

Was this true? Was he continuing with his long pattern of fraud?

Was he even a Muslim?

Was he just insane?

Who knows?

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:29am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:15am: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:11am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:08am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 10:47am: The terrorist had hostages post videos online saying it was an attack by the Islamic state John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:22am: he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion ;D ;D ;D What rubbish! really? what terrorist groupp was he a member off? Who knows? Anyway you don't have to be a member of a group to be a terrorist. There was too much logic in this instance for it to be the work of a person to be out of control suffering psychosis. These are the reasons- It happened near Christmas. He pick Martin Place which is a high profile area in the middle of Sydney. He pick high ups. Isn't Lindt owned by jews? All the same things Islamic terrorists do the world over. Wake up to yourself.

It's a bit coincidental that the guy executed was gay also.  We all know what mussos think of gay people.

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:29am:

Who knows?

apparently not you


Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:29am:

Anyway you don't have to be a member of a group to be a terrorist.

no, apparently you only have to be Islamic  :D :D :D :D


Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:29am:

There was too much logic in this instance for it to be the work of a person to be out of control suffering psychosis

there was logic in how martin Bryant went about shooting people, there was logic in how Milat went about it


Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:29am:

It happened near Christmas.

a highly stressful time for everybody


Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:29am:

He pick Martin Place which is a high profile area in the middle of Sydney

he lives in Sydney


Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:29am:

He pick high ups.

not even sure what that's supposed to mean ...


Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:29am:

Isn't Lindt owned by jews?

Are we guessing or asking?

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:33am:

It's a bit coincidental that the guy executed was gay also.

the guy tried to snatch the gun from him


Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:33am:

We all know what mussos think of gay people.

about the same thing you do don't they?

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:36am:

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:29am: Who knows? apparently not you Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:29am: Anyway you don't have to be a member of a group to be a terrorist. no, apparently you only have to be Islamic  :D :D :D :D Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:29am: There was too much logic in this instance for it to be the work of a person to be out of control suffering psychosis there was logic in how martin Bryant went about shooting people, there was logic in how Milat went about it Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:29am: It happened near Christmas. a highly stressful time for everybody Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:29am: He pick Martin Place which is a high profile area in the middle of Sydney he lives in Sydney Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:29am: He pick high ups. not even sure what that's supposed to mean ... Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:29am: Isn't Lindt owned by jews? Are we guessing or asking?

You know why I don't respond to you often, it's because it's an exercise in frustration. You just don't listen or think. Hot Load is just as bad.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:22am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:15am: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:11am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:08am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 10:47am: The terrorist had hostages post videos online saying it was an attack by the Islamic state John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:22am: he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion ;D ;D ;D What rubbish! really? what terrorist groupp was he a member off? If you listen to the videos the hostages were forced to make they say this was an attack by the Islamic state ...

The last I heard, no terrorist group had claimed him as one of theirs.

Has that changed?

Julius Abbott wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:32am:

Man Monis was a mentally unstable  fraudster. The Iranians warned the Australian Government of this back in 2000. Monis defrauded Iranian citizens of $200,000 and stole passports while posing as a travel agent in the early 1990's. When he was close to being exposed he travelled on a pseudonym to Australia in 1996. Monis gained an Australian asylum visa in 2001 by fraudulently claiming to be persecuted for his religious beliefs by the Iranian Government. After gaining his visa, Monis began posing as an expert in black magic advertising his talents in newspapers classified ads, and began molesting troubled women who sought help from him. During his stay in Australia, Monis also pretended to be a Shi-ite ayatollah. The Sydney Shia community warned the AFP of his fakery back in 2009. Saying that nobody in Iran had ever heard of him as a religious figure. The Shi-ite community said that his writings did not resemble Shia religious writings. In 2014, Monis claimed to be a sunni backer of IS. Was this true? Was he continuing with his long pattern of fraud? Was he even a Muslim? Was he just insane? Who knows?

He certainly perpetuated a terrorist act which makes him a terrorist. Add in the fact that he's muslim and incorporated Islamic beliefs in this act such as a jihad flag and other things , makes him an Islamic terrorist.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:40am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:22am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:15am: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:11am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:08am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 10:47am: The terrorist had hostages post videos online saying it was an attack by the Islamic state John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:22am: he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion ;D ;D ;D What rubbish! really? what terrorist groupp was he a member off? If you listen to the videos the hostages were forced to make they say this was an attack by the Islamic state ... The last I heard, no terrorist group had claimed him as one of theirs. Has that changed?

Doesn't matter. You don't have to be in a group to be a terrorist.

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:48am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:40am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:22am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:15am: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:11am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:08am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 10:47am: The terrorist had hostages post videos online saying it was an attack by the Islamic state John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:22am: he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion ;D ;D ;D What rubbish! really? what terrorist groupp was he a member off? If you listen to the videos the hostages were forced to make they say this was an attack by the Islamic state ... The last I heard, no terrorist group had claimed him as one of theirs. Has that changed? Doesn't matter. You don't have to be in a group to be a terrorist.

So you admit that was not affiliated with any organised terrorist group (or any disorganised one, for that matter)?

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:40am:

You know why I don't respond to you often, it's because it's an exercise in frustration. You just don't listen or think. Hot Load is just as bad

I listen to what you say, I just don't swallow it  .... you keep repeating the same thing thinking that supposed to convince someone ... it doesn't, no matter how often you say it.

Every terrorism expert I've seen commenting on this is saying this is not a terrorist attack, but rather the work of a lone psycho who is only using Islam to try and present some sort of credibility   ... I'm supposed to disregard the experts advice over yours? Why? Because you think you are right?   :D :D :D :D

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:44am:

He certainly perpetuated a terrorist act which makes him a terrorist.

all violent criminal acts have some level of terrorism ... punch a bloke in the face and he'll feel terrorised ... does that make you a terrorist?

I see a fair bit of grey in this one, I am not sure either way but tend to see it as more a lone attack not associated with IS although he was probably influenced by them.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:53am:

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:48am: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:40am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:22am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:15am: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:11am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:08am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 10:47am: The terrorist had hostages post videos online saying it was an attack by the Islamic state John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:22am: he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion ;D ;D ;D What rubbish! really? what terrorist groupp was he a member off? If you listen to the videos the hostages were forced to make they say this was an attack by the Islamic state ... The last I heard, no terrorist group had claimed him as one of theirs. Has that changed? Doesn't matter. You don't have to be in a group to be a terrorist. So you admit that was not affiliated with any organised terrorist group (or any disorganised one, for that matter)?

Don't know and it doesn't matter. You don't know either. Anyway Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist he did it alone.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:07pm:

I see a fair bit of grey in this one, I am not sure either way but tend to see it as more a lone attack not associated with IS although he was probably influenced by them.

The Islamic state have been calling for lone wolf attacks, perhaps you should read their glossy magazine called Dabiq.

Try google for Dabiq, download the IS magazine and read it for yourself.

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:04pm:

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:40am: You know why I don't respond to you often, it's because it's an exercise in frustration. You just don't listen or think. Hot Load is just as bad I listen to what you say, I just don't swallow it  .... you keep repeating the same thing thinking that supposed to convince someone ... it doesn't, no matter how often you say it. Every terrorism expert I've seen commenting on this is saying this is not a terrorist attack, but rather the work of a lone psycho who is only using Islam to try and present some sort of credibility   ... I'm supposed to disregard the experts advice over yours? Why? Because you think you are right?   :D :D :D :D

Put it  to a poll- Did Monis commit an act of terrorism? Yes or No. Put your money where your mouth is.

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:53am: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:48am: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:40am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:22am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:15am: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:11am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:08am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 10:47am: The terrorist had hostages post videos online saying it was an attack by the Islamic state John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:22am: he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion ;D ;D ;D What rubbish! really? what terrorist groupp was he a member off? If you listen to the videos the hostages were forced to make they say this was an attack by the Islamic state ... The last I heard, no terrorist group had claimed him as one of theirs. Has that changed? Doesn't matter. You don't have to be in a group to be a terrorist. So you admit that was not affiliated with any organised terrorist group (or any disorganised one, for that matter)? Don't know and it doesn't matter. You don't know either. Anyway Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist he did it alone.

So what makes this dead criminal a terrorist?

Dnarever wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:07pm:

I see a fair bit of grey in this one, I am not sure either way but tend to see it as more a lone attack not associated with IS although he was probably influenced by them.

Sounds fair and reasonable.  I hope me agreeing with you does not discomfort you too much.

Poll added for Max.

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:44am:

He certainly perpetuated a terrorist act which makes him a terrorist. Add in the fact that he's muslim and incorporated Islamic beliefs in this act such as a jihad flag and other things , makes him an Islamic terrorist.

He certainly perpetuated a terrorist act which makes him a terrorist

Yes in the same manner as Martin Bryant was a terrorist ?

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:15pm:

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:53am: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:48am: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:40am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:22am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:15am: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:11am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:08am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 10:47am: The terrorist had hostages post videos online saying it was an attack by the Islamic state John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:22am: he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion ;D ;D ;D What rubbish! really? what terrorist groupp was he a member off? If you listen to the videos the hostages were forced to make they say this was an attack by the Islamic state ... The last I heard, no terrorist group had claimed him as one of theirs. Has that changed? Doesn't matter. You don't have to be in a group to be a terrorist. So you admit that was not affiliated with any organised terrorist group (or any disorganised one, for that matter)? Don't know and it doesn't matter. You don't know either. Anyway Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist he did it alone. So what makes this dead criminal a terrorist?

:( :( :( :(

Datalife wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:16pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:07pm: I see a fair bit of grey in this one, I am not sure either way but tend to see it as more a lone attack not associated with IS although he was probably influenced by them. Sounds fair and reasonable.  I hope me agreeing with you does not discomfort you too much.

Not at all, I often agree with your views.

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:18pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:15pm: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:53am: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:48am: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:40am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:22am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:15am: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:11am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:08am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 10:47am: The terrorist had hostages post videos online saying it was an attack by the Islamic state John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:22am: he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion ;D ;D ;D What rubbish! really? what terrorist groupp was he a member off? If you listen to the videos the hostages were forced to make they say this was an attack by the Islamic state ... The last I heard, no terrorist group had claimed him as one of theirs. Has that changed? Doesn't matter. You don't have to be in a group to be a terrorist. So you admit that was not affiliated with any organised terrorist group (or any disorganised one, for that matter)? Don't know and it doesn't matter. You don't know either. Anyway Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist he did it alone. So what makes this dead criminal a terrorist? :( :( :( :(

Well?

He was a crazy criminal: nobody is denying that.

Surely though, you don't think all criminals are terrorists.

So, what is it that makes you believe he was a terrorist, as opposed to an attention seeking, violent, lunatic criminal?

There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

When a girl guide goes out and kills a Black man in the name of the girl guides, then it is very obvious she is nuts. But when a bloke from the KKK goes out and kills a Black man in the name of the KKK, then it is very obvious what the root cause is.

There is a reason why all these "lone psychos" keep killing in the name of Islam. Saying it has nothing to do with Islam is like saying the Nazi officer who killed a Jew had nothing to do with being a Nazi. Choosing to follow the ideas of Islam is no different then choosing to follow the ideas of the KKK or the Nazis. All result in the killing of others for their own advancement. For the KKK it is the blacks. For the nazis it is the Jews. For the Muslim it is the infidels.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:17pm:

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:44am: He certainly perpetuated a terrorist act which makes him a terrorist. Add in the fact that he's muslim and incorporated Islamic beliefs in this act such as a jihad flag and other things , makes him an Islamic terrorist. He certainly perpetuated a terrorist act which makes him a terrorist Yes in the same manner as Martin Bryant was a terrorist ?

There was no rhyme or reason to Martin Bryant. He just blew away anybody. Monis is different.

Datalife wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:23pm:

There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

It certainly had a political objective.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:21pm:

So, what is it that makes you believe he was a terrorist, as opposed to an attention seeking, violent, lunatic criminal?

Terrorist and criminal are not mutually exclusive. 

Datalife wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:23pm:

There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

This incident happened in Australia.

Let's use an Australian definition, for argument's sake.

"an action or threat of action where the action causes certain defined forms of harm or interference and the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause".

Commonwealth of Australia (15 July 2004). "Transnational Terrorism: The Threat to Australia" (PDF). 1.0. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. ISBN 1-920959-04-1. Retrieved 12 April 2008.

What was his political, religious or ideological cause?

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:26pm:

Datalife wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:23pm: There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005 It certainly had a political objective.

Which was ... ?

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:21pm:

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:18pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:15pm: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:53am: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:48am: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:40am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:22am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:15am: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:11am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:08am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 10:47am: The terrorist had hostages post videos online saying it was an attack by the Islamic state John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:22am: he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion ;D ;D ;D What rubbish! really? what terrorist groupp was he a member off? If you listen to the videos the hostages were forced to make they say this was an attack by the Islamic state ... The last I heard, no terrorist group had claimed him as one of theirs. Has that changed? Doesn't matter. You don't have to be in a group to be a terrorist. So you admit that was not affiliated with any organised terrorist group (or any disorganised one, for that matter)? Don't know and it doesn't matter. You don't know either. Anyway Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist he did it alone. So what makes this dead criminal a terrorist? :( :( :( :( Well? He was a crazy criminal: nobody is denying that. Surely though, you don't think all criminals are terrorists. So, what is it that makes you believe he was a terrorist, as opposed to an attention seeking, violent, lunatic criminal?

ISIS have been calling for muslims around the world to do terrorist acts for propaganda purposes. It happened recently in Canada. That's why he flew the jihad flag and requested an ISIS one. Monis had nothing to lose because he was going in the slammer so he thought what the hell I'll do ISIS a favour. The picture of the jihad flag on the window in that café will be up on an ISIS website any day.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:29pm:

Datalife wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:23pm: There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005 This incident happened in Australia. Let's use an Australian definition, for argument's sake. "an action or threat of action where the action causes certain defined forms of harm or interference and the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause". Commonwealth of Australia (15 July 2004). "Transnational Terrorism: The Threat to Australia" (PDF). 1.0. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. ISBN 1-920959-04-1. Retrieved 12 April 2008. What was his political, religious or ideological cause?

The religious perspective of this terrorist act  would have become more clearer if he was allowed to speak to the PM , the media and  granted his ISIS flag.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:30pm:

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:26pm: Datalife wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:23pm: There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005 It certainly had a political objective. Which was ... ?

Obviously to promote ISIS. He requested one of their flags.

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:34pm:

ISIS have been calling for muslims around the world to do terrorist acts for propaganda purposes. It happened recently in Canada. That's why he flew the jihad flag and requested an ISIS one. Monis had nothing to lose because he was going in the slammer so he thought what the hell I'll do ISIS a favour. The picture of the jihad flag on the window in that café will be up on an ISIS website any day.

I'll admit, it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck.  However, it's probably a goose in this instance.

Hot Breath wrote:
Quote:

Why are you so doctrinaire? Surely a religion is what it's believers believe it is? The overwhelming majority of Muslims believe Islam is the religion of peace and seek only to live quiet, normal lives with their fellows.  Just like Christians yet when one Muslim goes crazy, suddenly all Muslims are responsible and their religion is at fault.  What happens when one Christian goes crazy?  Or one Hindu or one Jew?   You lot make excuses, hide your faces and refuse to be consistent.   You make every excuse under the book for everybody except Muslims!  Hypocrites!

 


There are rules,regulations, constitutions, guidelines, values, in almost all civilizations, societies, organizations, clubs, orders etc.

These doctrines, rules, regulations, whatever you like to call them, have the final power of resolution in determining who or what represents the conduct of the membership.

A member of parliament who breaks the law may call himself a politician, however the political judiciary will refuse his personal claims.

A policeman may conduct himself contrary to the values, guidelines, regulations of the police force, he may call himself a policeman, however the police regulatory body will refuse his claims.

This principle remains the one true value which holds society together, your eligibility for belonging to an entity is vindicated solely by the rules, regulations, constitutions, guidelines of whatever society, organization, religion you claim to belong to.

A personal opinion is secondary.

I believe it is fair to let the doctrine of Christianity be the judge of who or what a Christian is. Personal opinions are just that personal opinions, they are not the rules and regulations set down by Christian doctrine.

I also believe it is fair to let the doctrine of islam decide who or what is a true muslim, what atrocities are advocated  by islamic doctrine. ( you on the other hand are always trying to hide from islamic doctrine).   

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/16/sydney-siege-dont-call-man-haron-monis-a-terrorist-it-only-helps-isis

Sydney siege: don't call Man Haron Monis a 'terrorist' - it only helps Isis

Worth a read.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:50pm:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/16/sydney-siege-dont-call-man-haron-monis-a-terrorist-it-only-helps-isis Sydney siege: don't call Man Haron Monis a 'terrorist' - it only helps Isis Worth a read.

Indeed.

Moreover, I wish they'd remove his picture from all news sites.

Stop promoting this criminal.

Focus on the victims, if you really must drag out the story, but don't mention this criminal's name and don't show his picture.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:29pm:

Datalife wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:23pm: There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005 This incident happened in Australia. Let's use an Australian definition, for argument's sake. "an action or threat of action where the action causes certain defined forms of harm or interference and the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause". Commonwealth of Australia (15 July 2004). "Transnational Terrorism: The Threat to Australia" (PDF). 1.0. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. ISBN 1-920959-04-1. Retrieved 12 April 2008. What was his political, religious or ideological cause?

What was his political, religious or ideological cause?

islam

moses wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:47pm:

Hot Breath wrote: Quote: Why are you so doctrinaire? Surely a religion is what it's believers believe it is? The overwhelming majority of Muslims believe Islam is the religion of peace and seek only to live quiet, normal lives with their fellows.  Just like Christians yet when one Muslim goes crazy, suddenly all Muslims are responsible and their religion is at fault.  What happens when one Christian goes crazy?  Or one Hindu or one Jew?   You lot make excuses, hide your faces and refuse to be consistent.   You make every excuse under the book for everybody except Muslims!  Hypocrites!   There are rules,regulations, constitutions, guidelines, values, in almost all civilizations, societies, organizations, clubs, orders etc. These doctrines, rules, regulations, whatever you like to call them, have the final power of resolution in determining who or what represents the conduct of the membership. A member of parliament who breaks the law may call himself a politician, however the political judiciary will refuse his personal claims. A policeman may conduct himself contrary to the values, guidelines, regulations of the police force, he may call himself a policeman, however the police regulatory body will refuse his claims. This principle remains the one true value which holds society together, your eligibility for belonging to an entity is vindicated solely by the rules, regulations, constitutions, guidelines of whatever society, organization, religion you claim to belong to. A personal opinion is secondary. I believe it is fair to let the doctrine of Christianity be the judge of who or what a Christian is. Personal opinions are just that personal opinions, they are not the rules and regulations set down by Christian doctrine. I also believe it is fair to let the doctrine of islam decide who or what is a true muslim, what atrocities are advocated  by islamic doctrine. ( you on the other hand are always trying to hide from islamic doctrine).

Quote:

...........when one Muslim goes crazy, suddenly all Muslims are responsible and their religion is at fault.....

hb - he was the most recent in a long lime of murderous muslims.
the have armies who murder children.
moh was a murderer
the koran says to murder.

I fail to see how you refuse these facts

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:29pm: Datalife wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:23pm: There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005 This incident happened in Australia. Let's use an Australian definition, for argument's sake. "an action or threat of action where the action causes certain defined forms of harm or interference and the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause". Commonwealth of Australia (15 July 2004). "Transnational Terrorism: The Threat to Australia" (PDF). 1.0. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. ISBN 1-920959-04-1. Retrieved 12 April 2008. What was his political, religious or ideological cause? What was his political, religious or ideological cause? islam

And how was he advancing that cause?

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 1:00pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:29pm: Datalife wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:23pm: There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005 This incident happened in Australia. Let's use an Australian definition, for argument's sake. "an action or threat of action where the action causes certain defined forms of harm or interference and the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause". Commonwealth of Australia (15 July 2004). "Transnational Terrorism: The Threat to Australia" (PDF). 1.0. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. ISBN 1-920959-04-1. Retrieved 12 April 2008. What was his political, religious or ideological cause? What was his political, religious or ideological cause? islam And how was he advancing that cause?

The intention of...

So when has it been a persons rap sheet or  past which determines if they commit a terrorist act or not? I'm sure the 9/11 monsters were nutbags too but they committed a terrorist act. Apparently they all visited a brothel before 9/11 and that isn't very muslim like. Muslims doing many things that aren't muslim like. 9/11 and the Sydney café both have motives- to tell the world that muslims can kill you anywhere.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:55pm:

islam

And how did he intend to advance that cause?

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 1:00pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:29pm: Datalife wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:23pm: There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). This incident happened in Australia. Let's use an Australian definition, for argument's sake. "an action or threat of action where the action causes certain defined forms of harm or interference and the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause". What was his political, religious or ideological cause? What was his political, religious or ideological cause? islam And how was he advancing that cause?

So 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack? Because that didn't exactly do Islam any favours...

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:50pm: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/16/sydney-siege-dont-call-man-haron-monis-a-terrorist-it-only-helps-isis Sydney siege: don't call Man Haron Monis a 'terrorist' - it only helps Isis Worth a read. Indeed. Moreover, I wish they'd remove his picture from all news sites. Stop promoting this criminal. Focus on the victims, if you really must drag out the story, but don't mention this criminal's name and don't show his picture.

How does it help the Islamic state to call this guy a terrorist?

If you want to stop repulsive behaviour the best way is to shine a spotlight on it and expose it,sweeping it under the carpet to hide the truth and pretend it has nothing to do with Isis is what helps Isis.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 1:15pm:

How does it help the Islamic state to call this guy a terrorist?

It helps to perpetuate the mistaken belief that terrorists are the biggest threat to our safety.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 1:20pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 1:15pm: How does it help the Islamic state to call this guy a terrorist? It helps to perpetuate the mistaken belief that terrorists are the biggest threat to our safety.

So sweeping it under the carpet and pretending it is not Islamic terror is preferred by the ignorant leftists, in other words telling lies and not the truth is the so called solution?

By saying it has nothing to do with Islam does that absolve muslims from any responsibility in fighting these terrorists?

Did your link say we spend over $13 million a year to deradicalise these fundamental muslims?

The Jihadi from Centerlink

I am hopeful that the perfect storm unleashed by Monis’ barbarity will now envelop the too-long rorted immigration, welfare, and criminal justice systems and those responsible their debasement. It was no accident that this barbarian and others skated freely through the gates of our Australian community to live like leeches upon it.

If we can stop the boats and the drownings, we can stop the undeserved free lunches, as well as the lawfare waged on civil society and our safety. More than that, we can stop heeding the excuses and rationalisations on behalf of those who would harm innocents and coarsen our civil soul. If we have the will, if the collective outrage of right now declines to flag, we can say loudly that we refuse to live any longer in the rotten edifice of a social-experiment freak-out ginned up at a bong party in the sociology department common room.

We must first overcome the absurd protests that Monis’ villainy was a one-off, an isolated case, which had nothing to do with his sinister religious beliefs. Likewise, we must recognise the dysfunctional welfare-industrial complex for what it is — a support scheme available to help manifest and advance social pathologies. Have we not recognised that Monis was a walking Venn diagram of victim handouts, subsidised weirdness and extremist hatred? To be the quintessential welfare queen and a psychopathic, parasitic criminal are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, in this case they were symbiotic.

Islamist terrorists can be nutters, too, and typically are. It matters little what Monis’ state of mental health happened to be when he walked into the Lindt coffee shop. Remember, Sydney jihadist Khaled Sharrouf was an officially diagnosed, welfare-qualified schizophrenic. When Monis and other Islamist extremists carrying out their ‘lone wolf’ terrorist acts, — the 7/7 London bombings, the Boston Marathon massacre,  the recent Ottawa assault and Fort Hood rampage — they are doing exactly what Islamist terror groups like al Qaeda and ISIL urge them to do. Mad as a cut snake or not, Monis did as ISIL requested, ergo it was a terrorist act.

It is simply not credible to assert this atrocity was not a terrorist act because Monis also happened to be a criminal — to wit, a megalomaniacal misogynist accused of multiple rapes and assisting in a particularly brutal murder.  Since when have those qualifications been unsuitable for a terror gig and coveted free pass to the heavenly garden of virgins. Most Australians, including Muslims, who are the usual targets of Islamist terror in the Middle East and Asia, understand that, even if Ultimo sages don’t.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2014/12/jihadi-centerlink/

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 1:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 1:20pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 1:15pm: How does it help the Islamic state to call this guy a terrorist? It helps to perpetuate the mistaken belief that terrorists are the biggest threat to our safety. So sweeping it under the carpet and pretending it is not Islamic terror is preferred by the ignorant leftists, in other words telling lies and not the truth is the so called solution?

The truth is, it was an horrific siege, carried out by an insane criminal.

I don't want that swept under the carpet at all.

Put it on the front page of every newspaper for the next 12 months for all I care.

However, don't turn this guy into some sort of hero to others by putting his photo on the front page and mentioning his name all the time.

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:17pm: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:44am: He certainly perpetuated a terrorist act which makes him a terrorist. Add in the fact that he's muslim and incorporated Islamic beliefs in this act such as a jihad flag and other things , makes him an Islamic terrorist. He certainly perpetuated a terrorist act which makes him a terrorist Yes in the same manner as Martin Bryant was a terrorist ? There was no rhyme or reason to Martin Bryant. He just blew away anybody. Monis is different.

rubbish ... it was just as logical as this one (not that I think either were logical) .. he chose his location, chose his weapons, chose his victims , all pre- planned and carried out.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 1:35pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 1:30pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 1:20pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 1:15pm: How does it help the Islamic state to call this guy a terrorist? It helps to perpetuate the mistaken belief that terrorists are the biggest threat to our safety. So sweeping it under the carpet and pretending it is not Islamic terror is preferred by the ignorant leftists, in other words telling lies and not the truth is the so called solution? The truth is, it was an horrific siege, carried out by an insane criminal. I don't want that swept under the carpet at all. Put it on the front page of every newspaper for the next 12 months for all I care. However, don't turn this guy into some sort of hero to others by putting his photo on the front page and mentioning his name all the time.

So it's ok to tell the truth about Christian pedos but not ok to tell the truth about muslims, is that a double standard?

Does telling lies instead of the truth ever help in solving problems?

Being suicidal and homicidal is the worst case scenario for mental health,Islam does produce a lot of extreme mental health cases, perhaps we should put warning labels on the Quran like we do with ciggies.

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:34pm:

The picture of the jihad flag on the window in that café will be up on an ISIS website any day.

What Jihad flag? You just make sheat up as you go? It's already been proven several times that the flag has nothing to do with any terrorist organisation ..  next you'll be telling me that anyone with a picture of The Madonna is also a terorist.  :D :D :D :D :D

Good riddance wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 1:14pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 1:00pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:29pm: Datalife wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:23pm: There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). This incident happened in Australia. Let's use an Australian definition, for argument's sake. "an action or threat of action where the action causes certain defined forms of harm or interference and the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause". What was his political, religious or ideological cause? What was his political, religious or ideological cause? islam And how was he advancing that cause? So 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack? Because that didn't exactly do Islam any favours...

No it didn't, but Islam didn't commit any terrorist act, in the case of 9/11 the Taliban did ... and it certainly helped their cause, however misguided it was, before then you'd never heard of the Taliban

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 1:57pm:

Good riddance wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 1:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 1:00pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:29pm: Datalife wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:23pm: There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). This incident happened in Australia. Let's use an Australian definition, for argument's sake. "an action or threat of action where the action causes certain defined forms of harm or interference and the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause". What was his political, religious or ideological cause? What was his political, religious or ideological cause? islam And how was he advancing that cause? So 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack? Because that didn't exactly do Islam any favours... No it didn't, but Islam didn't commit any terrorist act, in the case of 9/11 the Taliban did ... and it certainly helped their cause, however misguided it was, before then you'd never heard of the Taliban

So 9/11 wasn't Islamic terrorism? :o

Al Qaeda is Islamic. Al Qaeda did 9/11. It was part of their holy war.

I thought trying to pretend Islam had noting to do with Martin place was bad enough. Now Islam has nothing to do with 9/11 either...

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 1:57pm:

in the case of 9/11 the Taliban did ... and it certainly helped their cause

Al Qaeda carried out 9/11 not the taliban. The taliban are not a global jihad movement - their militancy is restricted to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 2:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 1:57pm: in the case of 9/11 the Taliban did ... and it certainly helped their cause Al Qaeda carried out 9/11 not the taliban. The taliban are not a global jihad movement - their militancy is restricted to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Isn't Pakistan's Taliban separate to Afghanistan's Taliban?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 2:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 1:57pm: in the case of 9/11 the Taliban did ... and it certainly helped their cause Al Qaeda carried out 9/11 not the taliban. The taliban are not a global jihad movement - their militancy is restricted to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I stand corrected ... you are right.

Good riddance wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 2:04pm:

So 9/11 wasn't Islamic terrorism?

no, it was Al qaeda terrorism.

Did the US declare war on Islam or Al qaeda? :D :D

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 2:30pm:

Good riddance wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 2:04pm: So 9/11 wasn't Islamic terrorism? no, it was Al qaeda terrorism. Did the US declare war on Islam or Al qaeda? :D :D

Just declare that Islamic terrorism doesn't exist so everyone knows not to waste time replying to you.

Is Islam a monolithic religion?   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

Good riddance wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 2:33pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 2:30pm: Good riddance wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 2:04pm: So 9/11 wasn't Islamic terrorism? no, it was Al qaeda terrorism. Did the US declare war on Islam or Al qaeda? :D :D Just declare that Islamic terrorism doesn't exist so everyone knows not to waste time replying to you.

was the question to difficult for you?

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 2:39pm:

Good riddance wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 2:33pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 2:30pm: Good riddance wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 2:04pm: So 9/11 wasn't Islamic terrorism? no, it was Al qaeda terrorism. Did the US declare war on Islam or Al qaeda? :D :D Just declare that Islamic terrorism doesn't exist so everyone knows not to waste time replying to you. was the question to difficult for you?

Reality is too difficult for you. You now want to excuse Islam for everything.

9/11 has nothing to do with Islam, it was Taliba... I mean Al Qaeda


It seems as if you wanted to argue devil's advocate but have got so sucked into your own arguments you now believe it and don't know when to stop.

9/11... Nuffen to do with Islam.

No such thing as Islamic terrorist... Just one off nuts...

Move on people, Islamic terrorism doesn't exist. Nothing to see here. 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:29pm: Datalife wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:23pm: There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005 This incident happened in Australia. Let's use an Australian definition, for argument's sake. "an action or threat of action where the action causes certain defined forms of harm or interference and the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause". Commonwealth of Australia (15 July 2004). "Transnational Terrorism: The Threat to Australia" (PDF). 1.0. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. ISBN 1-920959-04-1. Retrieved 12 April 2008. What was his political, religious or ideological cause? What was his political, religious or ideological cause? islam

So what was his cause?

Asked to see the prime minister and wanted a IS flag.

Hard to see how those two requests are the definition of terrorism you say.

Good riddance wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 2:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 2:39pm: Good riddance wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 2:33pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 2:30pm: Good riddance wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 2:04pm: So 9/11 wasn't Islamic terrorism? no, it was Al qaeda terrorism. Did the US declare war on Islam or Al qaeda? :D :D Just declare that Islamic terrorism doesn't exist so everyone knows not to waste time replying to you. was the question to difficult for you? Reality is too difficult for you. You now want to excuse Islam for everything. 9/11 has nothing to do with Islam, it was Taliba... I mean Al Qaeda It seems as if you wanted to argue devil's advocate but have got so sucked into your own arguments you now believe it and don't know when to stop. 9/11... Nuffen to do with Islam. No such thing as Islamic terrorist... Just one off nuts...

please don't try to ad lib what I say, especially when it is so obvious you don't even understand it  ...

I didn't say it had nothing to do with Islam. Obviously it does, Islam is the excuse these nutters use to justify their actions.

What's that you say? What was his cause? wink wink, nod nod, say no more say no more, a wink's as good as a nod.

(it's got nothing to do with islam or the fact that he forced his victims to hold up the shahadah * there is no god but allah, muhammad is his prophet** then killed his victims according to the following cause of allah)

qur'an 4.95:Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] - other than the disabled - and the mujahideen, [who strive and fight] in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the mujahideen through their wealth and their lives over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised the best [reward]. But Allah has preferred the mujahideen over those who remain [behind] with a great reward -

qur'an 2.244: Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things

qur'an 3.142: Or do you think that you will enter Paradise while Allah has not yet made evident those of you who fight in His causeand made evident those who are steadfast?

qur'an 3.157: And if you are killed in the cause of Allah or die - then forgiveness from Allah and mercy are better than whatever they accumulate [in this world].

qur'an 4.74: Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the cause of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.

qur'an 4.76: Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.

qur'an 4.95: Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward

qur'an 5.35: O you who have believed, fear Allah and seek the means [of nearness] to Him and strive in His cause that you may succeed.

qur'an 5.54: O you who have believed, whoever of you should revert from his religion - Allah will bring forth [in place of them] a people He will love and who will love Him [who are] humble toward the believers, powerful against the disbelievers; they strive in the cause of Allah and do not fear the blame of a critic. That is the favor of Allah ; He bestows it upon whom He wills. And Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.

qur'an 9.20: Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's cause are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant.

qur'an 9.41: Go ye forth, (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive and struggle, with your goods and your persons, in the cause of Allah. That is best for you, if ye (but) knew.

qur'an 9.111: Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

qur'an 47.4: So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds.

qur'an 49.15:The believers are only the ones who have believed in Allah and His Messenger and then doubt not but strive with their properties and their lives in the cause of Allah . It is those who are the truthful

qur'an 61.4: Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.

qur'an 61.11: Ye should believe in Allah and His messenger, and should strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives. That is better for you, if ye did but know.

plenty of cause there for a true muslim to murder his victims.

The  meaning  of  islam  is  submission  to  the  will  of
allah.

islam divides the world into dar al-Islam literally the house or region of submission – those lands under  muslim  government  – 

and  dar  al-Harb  the house or region of war – those lands where muslims are  in  the  minority. 

For  muslims  peace  will  only be achieved when the whole world is dar al-Islam.

Until that time there will be conflict in dar al-Harb. muslims must fight in the cause of allah to achieve world wide dominance or dar al-islam

but of course we all know it's got nothing to do with islam or muslims right, it's those damn infidels in dar al-Harb

anyone can cherry pick controversial quotes Moses ... how many controversial ones do you think are in the bible?

Don't like the fact that the highest grade of muslim is one who slays and is slain in the cause of allah?

we all know it's got nothing to do with islam and muslims

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 5:24pm:

anyone can cherry pick controversial quotes Moses ... how many controversial ones do you think are in the bible?

Well . . . if we must indulge in relativism, cherry picking Mein Kampf would not change the fact that it was Hitler's Story.

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 4:28pm:

Good riddance wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 2:52pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 2:39pm: Good riddance wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 2:33pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 2:30pm: Good riddance wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 2:04pm: So 9/11 wasn't Islamic terrorism? no, it was Al qaeda terrorism. Did the US declare war on Islam or Al qaeda? :D :D Just declare that Islamic terrorism doesn't exist so everyone knows not to waste time replying to you. was the question to difficult for you? Reality is too difficult for you. You now want to excuse Islam for everything. 9/11 has nothing to do with Islam, it was Taliba... I mean Al Qaeda It seems as if you wanted to argue devil's advocate but have got so sucked into your own arguments you now believe it and don't know when to stop. 9/11... Nuffen to do with Islam. No such thing as Islamic terrorist... Just one off nuts... please don't try to ad lib what I say, especially when it is so obvious you don't even understand it  ... I didn't say it had nothing to do with Islam. Obviously it does, Islam is the excuse these nutters use to justify their actions.

Just like last Monday.

But if Islam didn't say to kill the infidel; If it didn't promise rewards in the afterlife for killing in this one; If these people didn't have their minds twisted by Islamic doctrine and the commands of the Quran; the WTC would still be standing, and martin place wouldn't look like a flower garden.

You obviously have the order of things messed up. These people don't do horrible things then justify it by pointing to Islam. Islam drives these people to do horrible things. Like the KKK, like the nazis, like many other groups that have done horrible things, the ideas and hopes of these groups is what drives people to do such awful acts.

issuevoter wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 5:41pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 5:24pm: anyone can cherry pick controversial quotes Moses ... how many controversial ones do you think are in the bible? Well . . . if we must indulge in relativism, cherry picking Mein Kampf would not change the fact that it was Hitler's Story.

I didn't realise Monis wrote the quran ..  :D :D

Good riddance wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 6:34pm:

Just like last Monday. But if Islam didn't say to kill the infidel; If it didn't promise rewards in the afterlife for killing in this one; If these people didn't have their minds twisted by Islamic doctrine and the commands of the Quran; the WTC would still be standing, and martin place wouldn't look like a flower garden. You obviously have the order of things messed up. These people don't do horrible things then justify it by pointing to Islam. Islam drives these people to do horrible things. Like the KKK, like the nazis, like many other groups that have done horrible things, the ideas and hopes of these groups is what drives people to do such awful acts.

Islam doesn't drive these nutters, the nutters use Islam as their excuse. The bible also has many versus that call for death and murder, yet you don't blame Christianity when people kill in gods name. Whats the difference?

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 6:47pm:

Good riddance wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 6:34pm: Just like last Monday. But if Islam didn't say to kill the infidel; If it didn't promise rewards in the afterlife for killing in this one; If these people didn't have their minds twisted by Islamic doctrine and the commands of the Quran; the WTC would still be standing, and martin place wouldn't look like a flower garden. You obviously have the order of things messed up. These people don't do horrible things then justify it by pointing to Islam. Islam drives these people to do horrible things. Like the KKK, like the nazis, like many other groups that have done horrible things, the ideas and hopes of these groups is what drives people to do such awful acts. Islam doesn't drive these nutters, the nutters use Islam as their excuse. The bible also has many versus that call for death and murder, yet you don't blame Christianity when people kill in gods name. Whats the difference?

You just proved my point. The bible does have verses calling to kill others. So why do all these one of nuts looking for an excuse always use Islam? Islam must be the unluckiest philosophy in the world to have all these one off nutter always using it to justify their behaviour when there are other options.

Obviously they not looking for justification for their actions. Their actions are being driven by what they believe. Christians who take their faith seriously do what their faith tells them to do; Don't fight with the sword and turn the other cheek. Muslims who take their faith seriously do what their faith tells them; Kill infidels to get virgins in the afterlife. People don't decide to blow themselves up and then look for justification for doing so. Instead, their minds are so twisted by a perverse worldview that they are convinced that blowing themselves up is the right thing to do. Islamic beliefs are what twists the minds of people to do that.

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 2:30pm:

Good riddance wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 2:04pm: So 9/11 wasn't Islamic terrorism? no, it was Al qaeda terrorism. Did the US declare war on Islam or Al qaeda? :D :D

You tell us the difference between Islam and Al Qaida. You seem to know.

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 6:47pm:

Good riddance wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 6:34pm: Just like last Monday. But if Islam didn't say to kill the infidel; If it didn't promise rewards in the afterlife for killing in this one; If these people didn't have their minds twisted by Islamic doctrine and the commands of the Quran; the WTC would still be standing, and martin place wouldn't look like a flower garden. You obviously have the order of things messed up. These people don't do horrible things then justify it by pointing to Islam. Islam drives these people to do horrible things. Like the KKK, like the nazis, like many other groups that have done horrible things, the ideas and hopes of these groups is what drives people to do such awful acts. Islam doesn't drive these nutters, the nutters use Islam as their excuse. The bible also has many versus that call for death and murder, yet you don't blame Christianity when people kill in gods name. Whats the difference?

Islam tells them to do it. And they do it EXACTLY as Islam tells them to do it.

Islam wants submission. That suits a nutter who wants to impose himself on others and wants them to submit. If you are a Muslims and want to terrorise others into submiussion, you are not mad, you are impeccably Islamic.
You can't terrorise people into love. Trying to is by definition is madness. Terrorising into submission is cold sober sanity.

That's the difference.

|dev|null wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 2:35pm:

Is Islam a monolithic religion?   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

Er... yes.

They will kill you if you want to leave it. Happens every day.

They will also kill you  for all sorts of other mild transgressions. For example, you can't draw pictures of Mohammed. They get really stroppy about that. Or write a book about Mohammed that is not completely fawning.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2011-02-11.png

|dev|null wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:04am:

How many times have we been told by Matty/Moses/Yadda/etc. that Christians committing atrocities cannot be taken on their word that they are Christians?    ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

Just read the doctrine thick head.

:-*
Good riddance wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 7:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 6:47pm: Good riddance wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 6:34pm: Just like last Monday. But if Islam didn't say to kill the infidel; If it didn't promise rewards in the afterlife for killing in this one; If these people didn't have their minds twisted by Islamic doctrine and the commands of the Quran; the WTC would still be standing, and martin place wouldn't look like a flower garden. You obviously have the order of things messed up. These people don't do horrible things then justify it by pointing to Islam. Islam drives these people to do horrible things. Like the KKK, like the nazis, like many other groups that have done horrible things, the ideas and hopes of these groups is what drives people to do such awful acts. Islam doesn't drive these nutters, the nutters use Islam as their excuse. The bible also has many versus that call for death and murder, yet you don't blame Christianity when people kill in gods name. Whats the difference? You just proved my point. The bible does have verses calling to kill others. So why do all these one of nuts looking for an excuse always use Islam? Islam must be the unluckiest philosophy in the world to have all these one off nutter always using it to justify their behaviour when there are other options.

Other options, eh? You mean like the Coalition of the Willing? The USSR? Mother England?

How about unlucky philosophies like Communism, Maoism, Nazism, Fascism, Bushidoism, or British Imperialism?

Why have all of the past century’s nuts always used the above and had nothing to.do with Islam? Why is Islam only used today and not yesterday or the day before or the day before that?

I mean this as a serious question. Why do you think?

Soren wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 8:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 6:47pm: Good riddance wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 6:34pm: Just like last Monday. But if Islam didn't say to kill the infidel; If it didn't promise rewards in the afterlife for killing in this one; If these people didn't have their minds twisted by Islamic doctrine and the commands of the Quran; the WTC would still be standing, and martin place wouldn't look like a flower garden. You obviously have the order of things messed up. These people don't do horrible things then justify it by pointing to Islam. Islam drives these people to do horrible things. Like the KKK, like the nazis, like many other groups that have done horrible things, the ideas and hopes of these groups is what drives people to do such awful acts. Islam doesn't drive these nutters, the nutters use Islam as their excuse. The bible also has many versus that call for death and murder, yet you don't blame Christianity when people kill in gods name. Whats the difference? Islam tells them to do it. And they do it EXACTLY as Islam tells them to do it. Islam wants submission. That suits a nutter who wants to impose himself on others and wants them to submit. If you are a Muslims and want to terrorise others into submiussion, you are not mad, you are impeccably Islamic. You can't terrorise people into love. Trying to is by definition is madness. Terrorising into submission is cold sober sanity. That's the difference.

Ah yes, old boy, but what did Jesus tell you to do?

jackmountain wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 10:25pm:

|dev|null wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:04am: How many times have we been told by Matty/Moses/Yadda/etc. that Christians committing atrocities cannot be taken on their word that they are Christians?    ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D Just read the doctrine thick head.

Is there a doctrine?

Its hug a muslim week people.

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 11:15am:

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:11am: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 11:08am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 10:47am: The terrorist had hostages post videos online saying it was an attack by the Islamic state John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 9:22am: he was a psycho who tried to gain some sort of credibility/ acceptability by using his religion ;D ;D ;D What rubbish! really? what terrorist groupp was he a member off?

ISLAM.




Yadda said....

Quote:

Every moslem in Australia [and indeed, every moslem on the planet], by self declaring as a moslem, is self declaring a criminal intent [by our laws] against local non-moslems. ISLAM is a criminal compact among moslems, to wage a violent 'religious' war against non-moslems ['unbelievers']. TRUTH. All cognisant moslems themselves, know this to be true, and deny and hide this criminal intent from their non-moslem host communities.

i

The devout moslem has the mindset of RIGHTEOUS HATRED, towards all infidels [.....i.e. BECAUSE THEY ARE INFIDELS!!]

We can see this mindset here, in another report.....
e.g.


Quote:

Islamists: "Destruction is a Matter of Time" by Mitchell Bard  •  November 25, 2014 at 5:00 am "If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. The Jews are infidels not because I say so but because Allah does... They aren't our enemies because they occupy Palestine; they would be our enemies even if they had not occupied anything." — Muhammad Hussein Ya'qub, Egyptian cleric.........

Googlei+++

ISLAMIC LAW teaches - EVERY MOSLEM - that murdering those who are not moslems [i.e. those who reject ISLAM], is a lawful act.



"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11


"...And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of [i.e. for] those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?...Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan:.."
Koran 4.74-76


"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111


"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him;...."
Koran 3.85


"And fight with them until.....religion should be only for Allah,..."
Koran 2.193

Good riddance wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:23pm:

When a girl guide goes out and kills a Black man in the name of the girl guides, then it is very obvious she is nuts. But when a bloke from the KKK goes out and kills a Black man in the name of the KKK, then it is very obvious what the root cause is. There is a reason why all these "lone psychos" keep killing in the name of Islam. Saying it has nothing to do with Islam is like saying the Nazi officer who killed a Jew had nothing to do with being a Nazi. Choosing to follow the ideas of Islam is no different then choosing to follow the ideas of the KKK or the Nazis. All result in the killing of others for their own advancement. For the KKK it is the blacks. For the nazis it is the Jews. For the Muslim it is the infidels.

Well said, Anti-Anthrax.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:50pm: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/16/sydney-siege-dont-call-man-haron-monis-a-terrorist-it-only-helps-isis Sydney siege: don't call Man Haron Monis a 'terrorist' - it only helps Isis Worth a read. Indeed. Moreover, I wish they'd remove his picture from all news sites. Stop promoting this criminal. Focus on the victims, if you really must drag out the story, but don't mention this criminal's name and don't show his picture.

Suppress the examination and scrutiny of information, which may portray an IDEA, a PERCEPTION, which you do not agree with [....which you do not want to be examined!].

Do not allow the idea the suggestion that Haron Monis WAS A MOSLEM to be widely scrutinised.



greggerypeccary,

Where did you learn such 'crimestop' ???

Were you an emigre from Stalinist Russia ???              :o





Quote:

crimestop: to rid oneself of unwanted thoughts, i.e., thoughts that interfere with the ideology of the Party. This way, a person avoids committing thoughtcrime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_wordsi
Dictionary;
bigot = =
a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.



n.b.
Bigots, are those people who are,
".....intolerant of the opinions of others."

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 1:15pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:53pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:50pm: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/16/sydney-siege-dont-call-man-haron-monis-a-terrorist-it-only-helps-isis Sydney siege: don't call Man Haron Monis a 'terrorist' - it only helps Isis Worth a read. Indeed. Moreover, I wish they'd remove his picture from all news sites. Stop promoting this criminal. Focus on the victims, if you really must drag out the story, but don't mention this criminal's name and don't show his picture. How does it help the Islamic state to call this guy a terrorist? If you want to stop repulsive behaviour the best way is to shine a spotlight on it and expose it, sweeping it under the carpet to hide the truth and pretend it has nothing to do with Isis is what helps Isis.

Baronvonrort,

Exactly so.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 1:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 1:20pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 1:15pm: How does it help the Islamic state to call this guy a terrorist? It helps to perpetuate the mistaken belief that terrorists are the biggest threat to our safety. So sweeping it under the carpet and pretending it is not Islamic terror is preferred by the ignorant leftists, in other words telling lies and not the truth is the so called solution? By saying it has nothing to do with Islam does that absolve muslims from any responsibility in fighting these terrorists? Did your link say we spend over $13 million a year to deradicalise these fundamental muslims?

Continuing to insist that murders committed in the name of ISLAM, have nothing to do with ISLAM,
does absolve moslems from any responsibility for the behaviour of these terrorists of these moslems !!

bump

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:50pm: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/16/sydney-siege-dont-call-man-haron-monis-a-terrorist-it-only-helps-isis Sydney siege: don't call Man Haron Monis a 'terrorist' - it only helps Isis Worth a read. Indeed. Moreover, I wish they'd remove his picture from all news sites. Stop promoting this criminal. Focus on the victims, if you really must drag out the story, but don't mention this criminal's name and don't show his picture.

Aaaaaawwwww!

What a matta den ?




Persons like this - Haron Monis - .......

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2014/12/16/1227157/400913-624365d8-8461-11e4-a702-553dc58650c9.jpg

.....are moslems.

IMAGE....
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/08/27/1227038/812722-d0870956-2cc7-11e4-a978-2255e0b773c2.jpg

.....they are inspired by what their religion teaches them to believe.







Please watch this YT...
A UK moslem community leader, speaking of the London 7/7 bombing;

YT
KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE
"...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems."
"....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God."
"...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God."
"...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM."
"...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does."
"...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]"
"...no, i could never condemn a moslem brother, i would never condemn a moslem brother. I will always stand with my moslem brother....whether he is an oppresser or the oppressed."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4







Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.


Google;
Shahada, confession of faith, of a muslim

"There is no god except for Allah alone; and Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah."





"The Koran is our constitution"
"The Prophet Muhammad is our leader"
"Jihad is our path"
"AND DEATH FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH IS OUR MOST LOFTY ASPIRATION!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8NtiUMOFFg

John Smith wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 1:53pm:

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:34pm:   The picture of the jihad flag on the window in that café will be up on an ISIS website any day. What Jihad flag? You just make sheat up as you go? It's already been proven several times that the flag has nothing to do with any terrorist organisation ..

The black flag is the flag of jihad.

"During the 2000s, it became popular in mujahid terminology to refer to the black flag as al-raya and the white flag as al-liwa', after the terms of the black and white flags flown by Muhammad according to the hadith. The white flag is sometimes identified as the "flag of the Caliphate" while the black one is dubbed the "flag of Jihad"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Standard

Soren wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 12:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 1:53pm: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:34pm:   The picture of the jihad flag on the window in that café will be up on an ISIS website any day. What Jihad flag? You just make sheat up as you go? It's already been proven several times that the flag has nothing to do with any terrorist organisation ..  The black flag is the flag of jihad. "During the 2000s, it became popular in mujahid terminology to refer to the black flag as al-raya and the white flag as al-liwa', after the terms of the black and white flags flown by Muhammad according to the hadith. The white flag is sometimes identified as the "flag of the Caliphate" while the black one is dubbed the "flag of Jihad" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Standard

the flag (or banner) Monis had wasn't the black flag in your link ..

if anyone does anything on a black background are you going to call it a flag of Jihad?

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 12:47pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 12:26pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 1:53pm: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:34pm:   The picture of the jihad flag on the window in that café will be up on an ISIS website any day. What Jihad flag? You just make sheat up as you go? It's already been proven several times that the flag has nothing to do with any terrorist organisation ..  The black flag is the flag of jihad. "During the 2000s, it became popular in mujahid terminology to refer to the black flag as al-raya and the white flag as al-liwa', after the terms of the black and white flags flown by Muhammad according to the hadith. The white flag is sometimes identified as the "flag of the Caliphate" while the black one is dubbed the "flag of Jihad" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Standard the flag (or banner) Monis had wasn't the black flag in your link .. if anyone does anything on a black background are you going to call it a flag of Jihad?

Yes it was dickhead.

Secondly any flag promoting the non existent allah as a god is jihad bullshit, as pretend allah in his book promotes jihad just like you run around on here pretending you know anything about islam. You are just silly little leftard looking for a cause.

NEXT!

jackmountain wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 1:23pm:

Yes it was dickhead.

what are you? blind as well as stupid? the flag in the link was a plain black flag ... the one Monis used was not. Two different flags.

Next you'll be telling me the flags of Isreal and Greece are the same because they're blue and white 


jackmountain wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 1:23pm:

Secondly any flag promoting the non existent allah as a god is jihad bullshit

it may be bullshit, but it's not jihad  ... no matter how many times you repeat it


jackmountain wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 1:23pm:

just like you run around on here pretending you know anything about islam.

I've done nothing of the sort ... my comments have been about the lunatic in Sydney and whether of not its a terrorist incident ... something you may have nothiced if you had ever bothered learning to read whats in front of you instead of reading what you want it to say. They usually teach you that in 2nd class ... I guess you haven't got to that yet


jackmountain wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 1:23pm:

You are just silly little leftard looking for a cause.

I'd say it's you looking for a cause ... you're worried that if people accept it as an lunatic rather than a terrorist incident, you won't be able to use the incident to preach your bigoted hatred.



NEXT!

The flag contained the shahada

The creed printed on the flag is known as the Shahada and it translates as: "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is the messenger of God."

Is it associated with extremism?

Shahada is a central tenet of Islam; the text of the creed itself is not directly linked to extremism or jihad.

It is commonly found on numerous Islamic flags, including that of countries such as Saudi Arabia.

However, variations of the black flag with the Shahada printed on them in white text have in recent decades become commonly used by extremist Islamic groups].

Jabhat al-Nusra, commonly known as Al Qaeda in Iraq, uses a flag with the Shahada written on it, followed by the group's name written on an additional line.

A black flag with the Shahada written on it is used by the organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir, which campaigns for a worldwide caliphate, ruled by Islamic law.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is not currently banned in Australia but has been accused of having links to terrorist organisations.

extracts above from here

The shahada is fundamental to islamic doctrine of: jihad, hijrah, taqiyya and kitman, self alienation from normal society, hate speech, torture and murder of hypocrites / disbelievers / corrupters, a prophet of islam has to be a mass murderer.

Therefore just as islam and muslims constitute islamic terrorism, so does the shahada.

Without the shahada there is no islam,

islam terrorism is derived from islamic teachings.

The shahada is inextricably linked to islamic terrorism

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 1:37pm:

jackmountain wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:23pm: You are just silly little leftard looking for a cause. I'd say it's you looking for a cause ... you're worried that if people accept it as an lunatic rather than a terrorist incident, you won't be able to use the incident to preach your bigoted hatred. NEXT!

And you're worried that if people accept it as a terrorist attack rather than a lunatic all your accusations of those opposing Islam being bigoted fall apart.

For years we have heard that there is nothing wrong with Islam. That there has never been a Islamic terrorist attack in Australia. That anyone who doesn't like Islam is a bigoted, racist, xenophobic and islamophobic cowardly dinosaur. Now that there has been a terror attack all those same apologetics are having to pretend this has nothing to do with Islam. It is too hard to admit that all those so call bigots were right and that Islam is indeed a danger to Australia. Much easier to just rewrite history by claiming Islam has nothing to do with it and keep chucking bigot accusations around than face reality.

moses wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 1:55pm:

Is it associated with extremism?

it is associated with muslims ... from what I heard, just about every muslim house has that somewhere in the house ... much the same as most christian houses will have a cross or a photo of the Madonna somewhere . 

Good riddance wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 1:56pm:

And you're worried that if people accept it as a terrorist attack rather than a lunatic all your accusations of those opposing Islam being bigoted fall apart

not at all .. I'm not worried about anything you do . I do worry about people misrepresenting the truth though.


Good riddance wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 1:56pm:

For years we have heard that there is nothing wrong with Islam. That there has never been a Islamic terrorist attack in Australia. That anyone who doesn't like Islam is a bigoted, racist, xenophobic and islamophobic cowardly dinosaur. Now that there has been a terror attack all those same apologetics are having to pretend this has nothing to do with Islam. It is too hard to admit that all those so call bigots were right and that Islam is indeed a danger to Australia. Much easier to just rewrite history by claiming Islam has nothing to do with it and keep chucking bigot accusations around than face reality

and I'm guessing that for many more years to come, people will try to use Islam to further their own agendas ...  that still doesn't make Islam the problem.

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 1:58pm:

moses wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:55pm: Is it associated with extremism? it is associated with muslims ... from what I heard, just about every muslim house has that somewhere in the house ... much the same as most christian houses will have a cross or a photo of the Madonna somewhere .

Still trying the Catholics and Protestants are all the same routine...

The vast majority of Protestants do not have a photo of the madonna or a cross in their house.

Good riddance wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 2:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:58pm: moses wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:55pm: Is it associated with extremism? it is associated with muslims ... from what I heard, just about every muslim house has that somewhere in the house ... much the same as most christian houses will have a cross or a photo of the Madonna somewhere .  Still trying the Catholics and Protestants are all the same routine... Catholics and protestants? Who mentioned protestants ... The vast majority of Protestants do not have a photo of the madonna or a cross in their house.

I'm speaking from my experience, mainly catholic and orthodox .... To my knowledge, I've never been in a protestants house ... at least not one who was religious enough to have any any icons or images around.

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 2:09pm:

Good riddance wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 2:03pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:58pm: moses wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:55pm: Is it associated with extremism? it is associated with muslims ... from what I heard, just about every muslim house has that somewhere in the house ... much the same as most christian houses will have a cross or a photo of the Madonna somewhere .  Still trying the Catholics and Protestants are all the same routine... Catholics and protestants? Who mentioned protestants ... The vast majority of Protestants do not have a photo of the madonna or a cross in their house. I'm speaking from my experience, mainly catholic and orthodox .... To my knowledge, I've never been in a protestants house ... at least not one who was religious enough to have any any icons or images around.

Cool Story Bro

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 1:58pm:

moses wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:55pm: Is it associated with extremism? it is associated with muslims ... from what I heard, just about every muslim house has that somewhere in the house ... much the same as most christian houses will have a cross or a photo of the Madonna somewhere .

Yeah, and a warlord and a mother are the same sorta thing to have before you as an example to emulate.

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 2:09pm:

Good riddance wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 2:03pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:58pm: moses wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:55pm: Is it associated with extremism? it is associated with muslims ... from what I heard, just about every muslim house has that somewhere in the house ... much the same as most christian houses will have a cross or a photo of the Madonna somewhere .  Still trying the Catholics and Protestants are all the same routine... Catholics and protestants? Who mentioned protestants ... You. See the highlighted part. "Most Christian houses". That includes Protestant Christians. Quote: [quote]The vast majority of Protestants do not have a photo of the madonna or a cross in their house. I'm speaking from my experience, mainly catholic and orthodox .... To my knowledge, I've never been in a protestants house ... at least not one who was religious enough to have any any icons or images around.

Of course you will not find icons and images in a Protestant's house. The bible says not to have them.

Maybe a bit more research, and a bit less speaking from limited personal experience as if it was unquestionable fact, may help.

Soren wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 2:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:58pm: moses wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:55pm: Is it associated with extremism? it is associated with muslims ... from what I heard, just about every muslim house has that somewhere in the house ... much the same as most christian houses will have a cross or a photo of the Madonna somewhere .  Yeah, and a warlord and a mother are the same sorta thing to have before you as an example to emulate.

listen, in my opinion they're both just as nuts as each other ... you believe a real virgin gave birth? yeah right .... lets see how you act when your daughter tells you that....

however, despite whatever I believe, people have a right to believe what they like ... if they want to believe in Mohammed, thats their right, who are you to tell someone they are evil for doing so?

Good riddance wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 2:20pm:

You. See the highlighted part. "Most Christian houses". That includes Protestant Christians.

Ok, lets change that to catholics ... does that make you feel better? the point still stands.


Good riddance wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 2:20pm:

Of course you will not find icons and images in a Protestant's house. The bible says not to have them.Maybe a bit more research, and a bit less speaking from limited personal experience as if it was unquestionable fact, may help.

and you've just proven you missed the point altogether.  :D :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 2:23pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 2:19pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:58pm: moses wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:55pm: Is it associated with extremism? it is associated with muslims ... from what I heard, just about every muslim house has that somewhere in the house ... much the same as most christian houses will have a cross or a photo of the Madonna somewhere .  Yeah, and a warlord and a mother are the same sorta thing to have before you as an example to emulate. listen, in my opinion they're both just as nuts as each other ... you believe a real virgin gave birth? yeah right .... lets see how you act when your daughter tells you that.... however, despite whatever I believe, people have a right to believe what they like ... if they want to believe in Mohammed, thats their right, who are you to tell someone they are evil for doing so?

Yep people believe pedophilia is normal and killing, raping and abusing women is ok just like you.

No Biggy

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 2:25pm:

Good riddance wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 2:20pm: You. See the highlighted part. "Most Christian houses". That includes Protestant Christians. Ok, lets change that to catholics ... does that make you feel better? the point still stands. Good riddance wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 2:20pm: Of course you will not find icons and images in a Protestant's house. The bible says not to have them.Maybe a bit more research, and a bit less speaking from limited personal experience as if it was unquestionable fact, may help. and you've just proven you missed the point altogether.  :D :D :D :D

Then why don't you just spell out what your point was then. This should be interesting.

jackmountain wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 2:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 2:23pm: Soren wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 2:19pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:58pm: moses wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:55pm: Is it associated with extremism? it is associated with muslims ... from what I heard, just about every muslim house has that somewhere in the house ... much the same as most christian houses will have a cross or a photo of the Madonna somewhere .  Yeah, and a warlord and a mother are the same sorta thing to have before you as an example to emulate. listen, in my opinion they're both just as nuts as each other ... you believe a real virgin gave birth? yeah right .... lets see how you act when your daughter tells you that.... however, despite whatever I believe, people have a right to believe what they like ... if they want to believe in Mohammed, thats their right, who are you to tell someone they are evil for doing so? Yep people believe pedophilia is normal and killing, raping and abusing women is ok just like you. No Biggy

like I said, you can believe what you like .... that doesn't mean you are free to break our laws. You can get your rocks off dreaming about kids all you want jack, I don't care ... as long as you don't act on it.

Good riddance wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 2:29pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 2:25pm: Good riddance wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 2:20pm: You. See the highlighted part. "Most Christian houses". That includes Protestant Christians. Ok, lets change that to catholics ... does that make you feel better? the point still stands. Good riddance wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 2:20pm: Of course you will not find icons and images in a Protestant's house. The bible says not to have them.Maybe a bit more research, and a bit less speaking from limited personal experience as if it was unquestionable fact, may help. and you've just proven you missed the point altogether.  :D :D :D :D Then why don't you just spell out what your point was then. This should be interesting.

the point is having a commonly accepted religious symbol does not make you a terrorist .. . try to keep up

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 2:23pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 2:19pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:58pm: moses wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:55pm: Is it associated with extremism? it is associated with muslims ... from what I heard, just about every muslim house has that somewhere in the house ... much the same as most christian houses will have a cross or a photo of the Madonna somewhere .  Yeah, and a warlord and a mother are the same sorta thing to have before you as an example to emulate. listen, in my opinion they're both just as nuts as each other ... you believe a real virgin gave birth? yeah right .... lets see how you act when your daughter tells you that.... however, despite whatever I believe, people have a right to believe what they like ... if they want to believe in Mohammed, thats their right, who are you to tell someone they are evil for doing so?

The point is this: belief in an idealised motherhood is not the same as the belief in an idealised bloody warlord.

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 2:35pm:

Good riddance wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 2:29pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 2:25pm: Good riddance wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 2:20pm: You. See the highlighted part. "Most Christian houses". That includes Protestant Christians. Ok, lets change that to catholics ... does that make you feel better? the point still stands. Good riddance wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 2:20pm: Of course you will not find icons and images in a Protestant's house. The bible says not to have them.Maybe a bit more research, and a bit less speaking from limited personal experience as if it was unquestionable fact, may help. and you've just proven you missed the point altogether.  :D :D :D :D Then why don't you just spell out what your point was then. This should be interesting. the point is having a commonly accepted religious symbol does not make you a terrorist .. . try to keep up

Then it is you who has missed the point of what was happening on Monday.

Having a swastika in your house doesn't make you a nazi. On that point you are right. Killing a few Jews under a swastika is entirely different. Now it has taken on a totally new meaning. What that swastika now symbolises is hatred and death, not just a symbol in someone's house.

Having a common Islamic flag in your house... No big deal. Get hostages to hold up that flag before you kill them in the name of Islam... Totally different.

How you seem to be missing the actual symbolism and message here -as well as all the other terrorist incidents using this same flag- is quite amazing.

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 2:23pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 2:19pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:58pm: moses wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 1:55pm: Is it associated with extremism? it is associated with muslims ... from what I heard, just about every muslim house has that somewhere in the house ... much the same as most christian houses will have a cross or a photo of the Madonna somewhere .  Yeah, and a warlord and a mother are the same sorta thing to have before you as an example to emulate. listen, in my opinion they're both just as nuts as each other .

Well, then you are a no-brain numpty who refuses to perceive even the most glaring differences so as to be able to persist in your stupid no-thinking equivalence.

You have plucked out your own eyes some years ago, pal.

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 12:47pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 12:26pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 1:53pm: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 19th, 2014 at 12:34pm:   The picture of the jihad flag on the window in that café will be up on an ISIS website any day. What Jihad flag? You just make sheat up as you go? It's already been proven several times that the flag has nothing to do with any terrorist organisation ..  The black flag is the flag of jihad. "During the 2000s, it became popular in mujahid terminology to refer to the black flag as al-raya and the white flag as al-liwa', after the terms of the black and white flags flown by Muhammad according to the hadith. The white flag is sometimes identified as the "flag of the Caliphate" while the black one is dubbed the "flag of Jihad" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Standard the flag (or banner) Monis had wasn't the black flag in your link .. if anyone does anything on a black background are you going to call it a flag of Jihad?

Yes.  Black flag with the shahada = jihadi flag.

White flag with the shahada = jihadi flag.

Any colour flag with the shahada = jihadi flag.

But black is the most obvious jihadi flag.

Green shahada - caliphate, in control, home and hosed.

"If we accept that it was an ISIS attack which it wasn't we give them the opportunity to claim responsibility and to use it in their advertising."

I suppose the fact he said it was totally escapes you muppet ?

You silly little lefty muppets don't realize how stupid you look when you post dribble like that. You can't even think for yourselves.