The Face of Terror

Yesterday, we watched as a homicidal nut took hostages in Sydney. In the ensuing action, two hostages died and the gunman was killed. While the gunman proclaimed his allegiance to ISIS, there were no official ties. Furthermore, he had some serious criminal issues going on. He was complicit in the murder of his wife, who was stabbed 18 times and set on fire. And he was being charged with 50 counts of indecent behavior and sexual assault. Why he was not sitting in a jail cell is a bit of a mystery to me.

There have been some attempts to divorce his actions from his Islamic fundamentalism, to say that this was just about a crazed nut. Well, the Taliban reminded us yesterday that this is what Islamists are like:

Pakistani Taliban gunmen stormed into a military-run school in northwestern Pakistan on Tuesday, killing scores of teachers and schoolchildren and fighting an eight-hour gun battle with the security forces, officials said.

At least 145 people were killed, more than 100 of them children, in a siege that lasted more than eight hours before the last of the nine attackers were killed, government and medical officials said.

A spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban said his group was responsible for the attack and said it was in retaliation for the military’s offensive against militants in the North Waziristan tribal district.

So, yeah, this guy helped murder his wife and sexually assaulted women. That makes him pretty much your basic Islamist. That’s practically a job application for Al-Qaeda. These radicals murder children, they shoot teenagers in the face, they throw acid on women and girls, they kidnap women and force them into rape marriages. They engage in honor killing and behead innocents. This is what they do. Why are we acting like this guy in Sydney was unusual?

Comments are closed.

  1. HARLEY

    The way i understand it, this guy and his current wife was on Parole for murder, of the last wife. also on Parol of the molestation too?>?> WTF do ya have to do to get thrown in prion down there? I know Aus, was used as a giant ass jail for a long time, but this is ridiculous!
    As for the murders in Pack, godo god, i want to see the mead and apologists try to wiggle out of this not being a religiously motivated attack

    Children, Children…. how can one not be enraged enough do anything to get these … terrorists…

    Thumb up 3

  2. Poosh

    It was a few weeks ago the Australians cracked down on various Islamist nests. I think there was a plan to publicly behead civilians, so this entire event was a little extra horrific.

    I love how the the degenerates of the world invented the “Ill ride with you” hashtag as a response to this (the event that sparked it was more than likely fabricated of course). It says everything you need to know about the death wish and profound stupidity of certain kinds of western people.

    Thumb up 2

  3. CM

    Wow, such quality reporting. You sure do go to great lengths and woeful places to support your existing opinon.

    “Unless she is someone entirely different from the person called Tessa Kum who wrote this blog,”

    Brilliant.

    Thumb up 1

  4. Iconoclast

    Wow, such quality reporting. You sure do go to great lengths and woeful places to support your existing opinon.

    What a fucking tool you are, CM. You asked the question, and Poosh answered it. And this is how you respond?

    Words fail…

    Explain what is wrong with “i’ll ride with you” to the point that it would make someone a degenerate?

    Poosh never said a hashtag campaign would “make someone a degenerate” so your question is a non sequitur to begin with. Poosh only claimed that the campaign was started by people who were already degenerates. And then he posted an article to back it up. That it fails to impress the likes of you is predictable, but it still illustrates how much of a tool you are.

    Thumb up 6

  5. CM

    What a fucking tool you are, CM. You asked the question, and Poosh answered it. And this is how you respond?

    Words fail…

    Compliments of the season to you too mate.
    He seems to have answered a different question, e.g. “What does degenerate mean?”
    Clearly he was trying to be all clever by implying that I don’t know what degenerate means. But sure, let that slide why don’t you. Perhaps your brain has failed you and you’ve mistakenly think it’s just the words.

    Poosh never said a hashtag campaign would “make someone a degenerate” so your question is a non sequitur to begin with. Poosh only claimed that the campaign was started by people who were already degenerates. And then he posted an article to back it up.

    No, he also said:

    It says everything you need to know about the death wish and profound stupidity of certain kinds of western people.

    How does the hashtag say “everything you need to know about the death wish and profound stupidity of certain kinds of western people”? He’s playing his childish fingers-in-ears selective-response game again and you seem to be acting as his ‘tool’ (in more ways than one) so perhaps you can clarify.

    Thumb up 0

  6. CM

    I wasn’t bothering to respond properly mind you as it’s a waste of time :p copy and paste was probs too much, I should have just ignored him.

    When DO you bother? With anything other than half-assedness?

    Thumb up 0

  7. Iconoclast

    But sure, let that slide why don’t you.

    Don’t mind if I do. After all, you did too, initially; your response, the one I was responding to, made absolutely no mention of it whatsoever. That you being it up now in a lame, goal-post-moving attempt to score points only illustrates the accuracy of my assessment.

    Perhaps your brain has failed you and you’ve mistakenly think it’s just the words.

    If my brain failed me, then yours failed you, by the exact same token.

    Thumb up 3

  8. Iconoclast

    That you being bring it up now in a lame, goal-post-moving attempt to score points only illustrates the accuracy of my assessment.

    Thumb up 4

  9. CM

    Don’t mind if I do. After all, you did too, initially; your response, the one I was responding to, made absolutely no mention of it whatsoever. That you being it up now in a lame, goal-post-moving attempt to score points only illustrates the accuracy of my assessment.

    I saw no need to, before you decided to barge in and start a forensic analysis (and patently misrepresented what happened, which is why I then pointed it out). I thought I’d let it go. So no goal-post moving involved by me. An example of goal-post moving would be pretending a discussion was about condemning the US for torture when it was about whether waterboarding was torture.

    Thumb up 0

  10. Iconoclast

    I saw no need to…

    … and neither did I, by the same token.

    …and patently misrepresented what happened…

    Explain how it was a “misrepresentation”. Like I said, Poosh answered your question, and you replied with snarks, illustrating what a tool you are. We can repeat this forever if you like.

    An example of goal-post moving would be pretending a discussion was about condemning the US for torture when it was about whether waterboarding was torture.

    The two are inextricably linked, and my perspective in that thread was always about how much of a lopsided partisan exercise the report is. The report calls it torture in order to condemn the CIA for torture. Pretending that the two aren’t linked is disingenuous at best.

    Thumb up 3

  11. CM

    … and neither did I, by the same token.

    You omitted it from your narrative, even though it changes your narrative considerably if you include it. Which was my point.

    Explain how it was a “misrepresentation”.

    I did. Why are you ignoring the fact that the vast majority of his response was providing dictionary definitions? To simply suggest I asked a question and he answered it, and then I introduced snark is abysmal misrepresentation.

    We can repeat this forever if you like.

    I sure we could as long as you continue to ignore the obvious.

    Pretending that the two aren’t linked is disingenuous at best.

    I didn’t. We were specifically discussing whether waterboarding was/is torture, and more specifically about what Hitchens thought after experiencing it.

    Thumb up 0

  12. Iconoclast

    You omitted it from your narrative, even though it changes your narrative considerably if you include it. Which was my point.

    Your “point” exists only in your fertile imagination. I was responding to your response, which omitted it in the first place. That’s the real point that you seem desperate to avoid.

    Why are you ignoring the fact that the vast majority of his response was providing dictionary definitions?

    Because you did, intially. Bonehead.

    I sure we could as long as you continue to ignore the obvious.

    The only things that’s obvious is your desperate goal-post-moving.

    Thumb up 1