By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Terrorist shooting in Australia

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.



Around the Network
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?



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"?



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.



Around the Network
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. 



TheObserver said:
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. 

And their motives are politically or religiously inspired most of the time. There are many different Islamic factions. In a religion that proclaims there's only one true way that's a major problem.

If the Oregon shooter was inspired by his atheism to kill people he would have gone to a church and not his school.



Samus Aran said:
ArnoldRimmer said:

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.

Please give me a link to all these testimonials.

Because I've read multiple articles on this in various newspapers, and the story was pretty much always the same:

In one classroom, he asked who is a christian. To those who stated to be christians, he said something along the lines of "You're going to see God in just about one second", and then he shot them in the head, while he fired non-lethal shots at most of the others, usually in the leg.