Quantcast
Terrorist shooting in Australia

Forums - Politics Discussion - Terrorist shooting in Australia

RG3Hunna said:
I never understand why some people have this internal fear of "muslim terrorist". Statistics show you have a higher chance of being murdered by someone of your own race/religion than being murdered by a "muslim terrorist". In fact I saw this chart that showed you had a higher chance of being struck by lightning or winning the lottery than being murdered by a "muslim terrorist". lol


Odds of winning first division in Australia: 1 in 8,145,060

Odds of being killed from Islamic terrorist based on stats in the past year: 1 in 7,971,733. Thankfully, there's been lots of raids and arrests which are effective deterrents.



Around the Network

Well apparently he wasn't a 'lone wolf' after all a 15 year old getting a gun in Australia is pretty hard. I'm 30 and I've never seen a gun, other than a cops in real life.
Interestingly his sister left Australia the day before the attack, so obviously she knew what was gonna happen.
Feel sorry for the cop and his family. He was leaving work for the day only to bump into this scum.



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?

What's the total number of people killed by Jains in Australia in 2015? Or better still, the last century?



NightDragon83 said:
Good thing Australia has all those super tough gun laws to stop this guy from getting his hands on a gun...

No one ever claimed that gun control stops everyone from ever getting their hands on a gun.
Gun control makes it harder for someone to get a gun. A gun that costs $1000 in America and gets delivered to your door costs $34,000 on the black market in Australia. Up until 1996 there had been 11 massacres in Australia. The government banned guns. And there hasn't been a massacre since. Sure beats having a massacre every month like in the US, because of a law that was written so that civilians could form a militia and fight back against a tyrannical government, which is no longer possible today.



Lawlight said:
ArnoldRimmer said:

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?


I think the definition of terrorism is pretty clear - it's for ideological/political reasons.

There is still no universally accepted definition of "terrorism", everyone defines "terrorism" slightly different. In the US for example, even different national institutions habe different definitions of "terrorism".

But anyway, let's just use your definition for this. So, why exactly do you believe the australian boy clearly did it "for ideological/political reasons", and what makes you sure the Oregon shooter did not do it "for ideological/political reasons"?



Around the Network
ArnoldRimmer said:
Lawlight said:
ArnoldRimmer said:

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?


I think the definition of terrorism is pretty clear - it's for ideological/political reasons.

There is still no universally accepted definition of "terrorism", everyone defines "terrorism" slightly different. In the US for example, even different national institutions habe different definitions of "terrorism".

But anyway, let's just use your definition for this. So, why exactly do you believe the australian boy clearly did it "for ideological/political reasons", and what makes you sure the Oregon shooter did not do it "for ideological/political reasons"?


He was shouting religious slogans?



Lawlight said:

He was shouting religious slogans?

"Allegedly".

Even says it right in your linked article.



Lawlight said:
ArnoldRimmer said:

But anyway, let's just use your definition for this. So, why exactly do you believe the australian boy clearly did it "for ideological/political reasons", and what makes you sure the Oregon shooter did not do it "for ideological/political reasons"?

He was shouting religious slogans?

From what I've heard, the "Oregon shooter" asked his victims for their religion, and usually only killed them if they said they were christians.

So, where's the huge difference?

BTW, if you consider "for ideological/political reasons" to be the clear definition of terrorism, you must obviously consider soldiers claiming to "defend their country" to be terrorists, right? Because that's clearly for ideological/political reasons, too.



ArnoldRimmer said:
Lawlight said:
ArnoldRimmer said:

But anyway, let's just use your definition for this. So, why exactly do you believe the australian boy clearly did it "for ideological/political reasons", and what makes you sure the Oregon shooter did not do it "for ideological/political reasons"?

He was shouting religious slogans?

From what I've heard, the "Oregon shooter" asked his victims for their religion, and usually only killed them if they said they were christians.

So, where's the huge difference?

BTW, if you consider "for ideological/political reasons" to be the clear definition of terrorism, you must obviously consider soldiers claiming to "defend their country" to be terrorists, right? Because that's clearly for ideological/political reasons, too.

That's not true, testimonies of survivors said he killed people regardless of their religion. He just said "you'll meet your God soon enough" to Christians.



Samus Aran said:
ArnoldRimmer said:
Lawlight said:
ArnoldRimmer said:

But anyway, let's just use your definition for this. So, why exactly do you believe the australian boy clearly did it "for ideological/political reasons", and what makes you sure the Oregon shooter did not do it "for ideological/political reasons"?

He was shouting religious slogans?

From what I've heard, the "Oregon shooter" asked his victims for their religion, and usually only killed them if they said they were christians.

So, where's the huge difference?

BTW, if you consider "for ideological/political reasons" to be the clear definition of terrorism, you must obviously consider soldiers claiming to "defend their country" to be terrorists, right? Because that's clearly for ideological/political reasons, too.

That's not true, testimonies of survivors said he killed people regardless of their religion. He just said "you'll meet your God soon enough" to Christians.


And these "Islamic Terrorists" kill muslims and non-muslims alike.