So let me get this straight.. This guy went to the police station and stabbed two police officers, which lead to one of the police officers to shoot him dead. They say this 18 year old guy was suspected to be a threat and had his passport cancelled etc. How come TWO POLICE OFFICERS who were prepared for the situation couldn’t disarm and arrest an 18 YEAR OLD??? They had to shoot him? Not just shoot him but shoot him dead? Wheres the surveillance footage on this incident??? I don’t believe it for a second. Then you have these pricks on TV with the audacity to urge citizens to be vigilant.
Well even if they should have been able to disarm him, clearly the case is that they were unable to - one of the officers was stabbed and sent to hospital in ‘life threatening condition’, and the other officer got stabbed in the arm(s).
I don’t think it’s likely that the plan was ‘let’s allow him to stab us, so that we can shoot him’.
Are you going to claim they’ve feigned the stab wounds?
Numan Haider ‘planned to behead Victoria Police officers, drape bodies in IS flag’
Numan Haider used a small knife to attack an Australian Federal Police officer and a Victorian policeman before he was shot dead with a single shot.
When Mr Haider was searched he was found to be carrying a larger knife and an Islamic State flag.
Police believe the plan was to follow instructions from the international terror group Islamic State and behead the officers, cover the bodies in the flag and then take photos to post via the internet.
The diversity of men is revealed not only in the diversity of their tables of what they find good, that is to say in the fact that they regard diverse goods worth striving for and also differ as to what is more or less valuable, as to the order of rank of the goods they all recognize—it is revealed even more in what they regard as actually having and possessing what they find good.
In regard to a woman, for example, the more modest man counts the simple disposal of her body and sexual gratification as a sufficient and satisfactory sign of having, of possession.
Another, with a more jealous and demanding thirst for possession, sees the “question mark,” the merely apparent quality of such a having and requires subtler tests, above all in order to know whether the woman not only gives herself to him but also gives up for his sake what she has or would like to have—: only thus does she count to him as “possessed.”
A third, however, is not done with jealousy and desire for having even then; he asks himself whether, when the woman gives up everything for him, she does not perhaps do so for a phantom of him: he demands that she know him to the very heart before she is able to love him at all, he dares to let himself be unraveled—. He feels that his beloved is fully in his possession only when she no longer deceives herself about him but loves him as much for his devilry and hidden insatiability as she does for his goodness, patience and spirituality.
Another, with a more refined thirst for possession, says to himself—”one may not deceive where one wants to possess”—he is irritated and dissatisfied at the idea that it is a mask of him which rules the hearts of the people: “so I must let myself be known and, first of all, know myself!”
Among helpful and charitable people one almost always finds that clumsy deceitfulness which first adjusts and adapts him who is to be helped: as if, for example, he “deserved” help, desired precisely their help, and would prove profoundly grateful, faithful and submissive to them in return for all the help he had received with these imaginings they dispose of those in need as if they were possessions, and are charitable and helpful at all only from a desire for possessions. They are jealous if one frustrates or anticipates them when they want to help.
- Beyond Good and Evil, §194
It’s not often that I have occasion to criticize Milne, or the Greens for that matter, but I was disappointed with her comments today. She asserts that the reason why Australia should not send troops to assist the fight against ISIS is because by doing so we are inciting Muslims at home to violence and thus we are essentially, if I may put it this way, ‘asking for it’.
There are many reasons to oppose involvement in a war, but this must be one of the most tawdry. How does that statement of hers reflect upon Australian muslims? That they’re a hotbed of violence? With that assertion you’ll get no disagreement from me (other than to assert that the sin of the ‘moderate’ majority is to turn a blind eye rather than commit acts of violence), but is it not the position of Milne and her party that muslim ‘extremists’ are a minority who should be rejected? I think it is hypocrisy that for anyone, but especially non-violent muslims, should warrant reproach.
And what difference does it make whether that Australia is following the US in this matter or not; it is a matter of moral obligation that Australia involves itself in this affair, before and above all else. What will become of the world around us if we resign ourselves to isolationism - and will it do anything to stop it from reaching our shores anyway? If the recent reports are to be believed, of plans having been hatched in the past few months to conduct attacks on random Australian citizens, then has it not already reached our shores?
Police say a large-scale anti-terrorism raid in Sydney this morning has foiled a plot to “commit violent acts” in Australia, including a plan to behead a member of the public.
..the plan involved snatching a random member of the public in Sydney, draping them in an Islamic State group (IS) flag and beheading them on camera.
I think the genuine era of Islamophobia began when that soldier was beheaded early last year, in daylight on a public street in England, through no fault of his own, but for being by mere existence in violation of a religious ideology that demands more than it desires to assert itself on the world.
Who does not live in fear of Islam now, given that no matter who you are or where you’re from or whatever your held convictions, you can no longer consider yourself precluded from one of the most tortuous of deaths?
From the prospective of an Islamophobe, it is bordering on infuriating to read what is by-and-large the popular response to this, which is that we should not ‘provoke’ them by attempting to bring them to justice, that these are isolated or ‘random’ and ‘insane’ incidents which should not arouse fear, that the cost to pursue is too great as it would forgo peace and possibly liberties, and even that events such as these are state fabrications to arouse war fervor.
The more of this I witness first-hand, the more I think I understand how Hitchens felt about 9/11 ‘truthers’ and isolationists.
How could it be any more clear that there is no way to avoid provocation? Natural rights and natural law are anathema to this religious ideology, and the only rights or laws proscribed to any person in this world are to be those of the Qur’an. Would you have us stripped of the protection of even our innate rights to appease these butchers?
And where are the representatives of ‘moderate’ Islam in all of this, who claim that IS and other fundamentalist entities aren’t the dominant actors of their faith? Nowhere to be seen it seems, except when they come out to protest that the government either isn’t doing enough (lack of Islamic ‘education’) or is doing too much (‘targeting and vilification of muslims’). But if one had to sum up the response in one word - both from the moderates and isolationists, I can think of no word more accurate than ‘resigned’.
Total War: Rome II in a nutshell
Alex Jones does death metal
It just blows my mind that “Social Justice Warrior” is considered a pejorative. I mean, it sounds like an awesome thing. Like, some badass with a katana and a bow and arrow, cutting down social injustices left and right. Racism? Cut the fuck in half. Misogyny? Peppered with arrows.
But no, the term is used like it’s a bad thing. As though social equality is a state that should not be achieved.
So don’t believe people who say shit like “I’m anti-SJW but I’m not racist/sexist/queerphobic/xenophobic/etc.” Because they are synonymous.
'Pro-life' and 'Pro-choice' are both agreeable names, but only one of these two positions can be morally right.
You’re not against life, or against choice, are you?