Quantcast
Terrorist shooting in Australia

Forums - Politics Discussion - Terrorist shooting in Australia

GreyianStorm said:
Lawlight said:


Only 2 people died in the Sydney Siege. Only 12 people died in the Charlie Hebdo shooting. What's your logic there?


I'd be of the opinion that both of those events got far more airtime than they truly deserved. Particularly the Sydney Siege, as there isn't even certainty regarding links to terrorism.


The Charlie Hebdo shooting also had the element that a member of the press was invoved, and the rest of the media do not take threats to their people and attacks on freedom of press lightly. It might sound cheesy, but if the whole editorial demartment of a media outlet is attacked, with 12 people gunned down, the rest of the media is going to be in outrage all the more because it was one of their own.

 

I study illustration and can testify to this phenomenon first hand. In the time I've been studiyng there have been international news surges about India gangbangs, the arab spring, the factory collapse in bangladesh, the aurora shooting, the Anders Breivik attacks and an international refugee crisis. The only one of which had a real impact on my city being the last.

Yet the only one my illustration professor felt compelled to call for a tribute about, was the Charlie Hebdo shooting. Because he was a fellow illustrator, one of our own.



Around the Network
ganoncrotch said:
GreyianStorm said:


And realistically, why should it? Why should an incident involving 2 deaths be international news? An estimated 150,000 people die every single day. So these 2 deaths represented a little over 1 second of the deaths that occur every day. Someone shot someone, then ended up getting shot. Is it sad? Yes. Would it be better if these things didn't happen? Certainly. Is it in any way relevant to the rest of the world? No.


By that logic 9-11 accounted for just under 30mins worth of dying in a single day. Never forget! I'm not sure I see the logic that you're getting at. It's still a terror related killing even if it is 1/1500th 9-11 it should still surely appear on international news? Just saying that I hadn't heard of this before this thread.

 

edited bad maths - It was 30 mins worth.


9/11 is another incident that I feel gets far too much airtime. It's been over 14 years at this point. Sure, it was tragic, but it was 14 years ago. Far more people died in an illegal war that the US undertook following 9/11, but noone really cares to mention that, because it's just "those people over there" who suffered as a result.

2 people (including the gunman) died in this attack. Why should it be on international news? I live in Ireland. What relevance does it have to Ireland? None. Sure, it's sad that people have died. Just like it is sad when there is a car crash, or when people die as a result of poverty and starvation. But it has no signficance in Ireland, so I see no reason for it to be news here.



Tachikoma said:

cant we just say "extremist" rather than tacking on islamist, by tacking on islamist you are basically peddling some of the blame to islam, when the blame should lay only with the asshole that carried out the actions.

 

And frankly, i neither buy into the religious scaremongering or approve of people using the actions of the few to condemn the many.

Islam is definitely a part of the problem here.

Would you want to live in a country where Islam is the main religion? Besides Turkey, I would not! At least Turkey is a secular, democratic state (not without its own set of problems though). Islam has too much political power in the Islamic world.

With Christianity, there was always a distinction between secular power and religious power, even during the middle ages. With the Islam secular power and religious power was much more intertwined. A caliph has always had secular and religious authority. The Pope's political power was mostly restricted to the Papal States.



Samus Aran said:

Islam is definitely a part of the problem here.

Would you want to live in a country where Islam is the main religion? Besides Turkey, I would not! At least Turkey is a secular, democratic state (not without its own set of problems though). Islam has too much political power in the Islamic world.

With Christianity, there was always a distinction between secular power and religious power, even during the middle ages. With the Islam secular power and religious power was much more intertwined. A caliph has always had secular and religious authority. The Pope's political power was mostly restricted to the Papal States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country
Compare the number of islamic extemists with the number of people who identify as islamic.

I lived in Indonesia for a while, it has a very high islamic population and i found the people to be extremely welcoming, friendly and accomodating.

Islam isn't the problem, extremists are, and every religion has it's extremists.

I personally do not follow any religion, nor do I believe in any god, but that does not mean I am devoid of respect for those that do, nor does it mean I will label an entire religion as "a part of the problem" through the actions of a tiny fraction of such a group. To do so is to demonstrate both prejudice and broad discrimination, one may even argue borderline racism.



Lawlight said:
Aielyn said:
Yes, in a country with 24 million people, of which about half a million are Muslims, there has been a total of ONE shooting reported to have anything to do with Islam since the start of the year. But hey, "not another one", right?

Total people killed in Australia by terrorism in 2015? Two.

Incidentally, it wasn't a police officer. It was a police finance worker. It's a minor distinction, but getting your facts straight should always be a primary concern. And truth be told, we have such a low gun-crime rate in Australia that a single case like this gets major news coverage.

Meanwhile, in America, on any given day, typically more than 30 people will be shot and killed. And as a result, the only time the news about it breaks out of the "local" level is when it's a mass shootings... of which there have been almost one per day this year. And that's why Americans probably won't have heard about a non-mass shooting in Australia.

Lawlight, nobody has "glossed over" this shooting. The PM gave a speech about it, spent long times on the phone with people high in the Muslim community discussing strategies to prevent radicalisation, and sparked a more extensive discussion of the situation. Want to see how much coverage it has gotten? Go to news.google.com.au, and do a search for "Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar", which was the name of the teen perpetrator. You'll immediately get hit with a variety of news source links, from SMH, The Australian, ABC, The Australian Financial Review, and a long list of other major news sites. There's 893 articles (at this moment) in the first batch alone. And that's articles reaching back three days to the day it happened - that's right, it has been talked about for THREE days, pretty much constantly, in the media.

Food for thought, anyway.


We're not talking about America here. And nice of you to downplay the death of an innocent person.

Also, just because there's only been one attack this year doesn't mean it's not an issue that involves more than 1 person. Last year 2 police officers were stabbed, 17 people taken hostages (2 of whom died) and now this 1 person died.

Also, let's not forget this either:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-02/teenager-jailed-for-at-least-five-years-over-anzac-day-plot/6824752

Who knows how many would have died In Melbourne this year if he wasn't stopped. There's also been several arrests since September 2014 in relation to terrorist plots.

This shooting has had coverage in Australia but not much elsewhere.


Innocent is a strong word to use for an Autralian...



Around the Network
GreyianStorm said:
ganoncrotch said:


By that logic 9-11 accounted for just under 30mins worth of dying in a single day. Never forget! I'm not sure I see the logic that you're getting at. It's still a terror related killing even if it is 1/1500th 9-11 it should still surely appear on international news? Just saying that I hadn't heard of this before this thread.

 

edited bad maths - It was 30 mins worth.


9/11 is another incident that I feel gets far too much airtime. It's been over 14 years at this point. Sure, it was tragic, but it was 14 years ago. Far more people died in an illegal war that the US undertook following 9/11, but noone really cares to mention that, because it's just "those people over there" who suffered as a result.

2 people (including the gunman) died in this attack. Why should it be on international news? I live in Ireland. What relevance does it have to Ireland? None. Sure, it's sad that people have died. Just like it is sad when there is a car crash, or when people die as a result of poverty and starvation. But it has no signficance in Ireland, so I see no reason for it to be news here.

In terms of global news that effects you sitting at the PC... well none of it really does unless a plane happens to crash on your house. Bit of an odd stance to take but can't really argue about the stuff that effects you personally since I'm not aware of what's in your fridge :D Since I'm in Ireland too I could wager a bet that you are super siked about our rugby team winning a game on Sunday? Yay us.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

Tachikoma said:
Samus Aran said:

Islam is definitely a part of the problem here.

Would you want to live in a country where Islam is the main religion? Besides Turkey, I would not! At least Turkey is a secular, democratic state (not without its own set of problems though). Islam has too much political power in the Islamic world.

With Christianity, there was always a distinction between secular power and religious power, even during the middle ages. With the Islam secular power and religious power was much more intertwined. A caliph has always had secular and religious authority. The Pope's political power was mostly restricted to the Papal States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country
Compare the number of islamic extemists with the number of people who identify as islamic.

I lived in Indonesia for a while, it has a very high islamic population and i found the people to be extremely welcoming, friendly and accomodating.

Islam isn't the problem, extremists are, and every religion has it's extremists.

I personally do not follow any religion, nor do I believe in any god, but that does not mean I am devoid of respect for those that do, nor does it mean I will label an entire religion as "a part of the problem" through the actions of a tiny fraction of such a group. To do so is to demonstrate both prejudice and broad discrimination, one may even argue borderline racism.

Try living in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia, etc. and tell me Islam is not part of the problem. Tell me then it's a tiny group. You won't like living in those countries as a woman, trust me.

And every religion indeed has extremists, yet there are far more Muslim extremists than Christian extremists. Are you even aware how big IS is?

Islam needs to modernize and be seperated from political power.



Islam is peace lol
Islam is not a religion but an ideology
Its time that this religion gets a ban



REQUIESCAT IN PACE

I Hate REMASTERS

I Hate PLAYSTATION PLUS

ganoncrotch said:
GreyianStorm said:
ganoncrotch said:


By that logic 9-11 accounted for just under 30mins worth of dying in a single day. Never forget! I'm not sure I see the logic that you're getting at. It's still a terror related killing even if it is 1/1500th 9-11 it should still surely appear on international news? Just saying that I hadn't heard of this before this thread.

 

edited bad maths - It was 30 mins worth.


9/11 is another incident that I feel gets far too much airtime. It's been over 14 years at this point. Sure, it was tragic, but it was 14 years ago. Far more people died in an illegal war that the US undertook following 9/11, but noone really cares to mention that, because it's just "those people over there" who suffered as a result.

2 people (including the gunman) died in this attack. Why should it be on international news? I live in Ireland. What relevance does it have to Ireland? None. Sure, it's sad that people have died. Just like it is sad when there is a car crash, or when people die as a result of poverty and starvation. But it has no signficance in Ireland, so I see no reason for it to be news here.

In terms of global news that effects you sitting at the PC... well none of it really does unless a plane happens to crash on your house. Bit of an odd stance to take but can't really argue about the stuff that effects you personally since I'm not aware of what's in your fridge :D Since I'm in Ireland too I could wager a bet that you are super siked about our rugby team winning a game on Sunday? Yay us.

That's my point really. If I go for a walk later today, the fact that someone in Australia has shot someone, and then the shooter has been shot, has absolutely no effect on my life. If anything, the publication of this kind of news, the fascination that the media have for gore and violence, further perpetuates these kinds of acts. If the acts of terrorists weren't such an obsession of the mainstream media, they would spread far less terror (which is, after all, their intention).


As for the rugby, I'm very very nervous. We were shockingly poor against Italy. We're going to need Sexton, Murray, O'Connell, Ross, Henshaw, Payne and Kearney (Rob) playing very well.



Why exactly is this incident called "terrorism" and the boy called a "terrorist"?

I may have a strange definition of "terrorism", but I just can't see why this australian boy is a "terrorist", when the guy from the mass shooting in Oregon a few days ago is usually just being referred to as a "shooter" or "gunman".

So, what's the difference that makes the one incident an act of "terrorism", but not the other incident?