planned for months and came up with the idea of standing on a bridge randomly firing shots at a crowd of innocent people, including getting tackled by random incredibly brave bystanders whenever they left the bridge then just got themselves shot to bits… truly meticulous, minds of a generation
It's kind of common among mass shooters, I think. A lot of them develop big plans, but then realize it's one thing to dream up some grand plan, it's another to actually do it.
These men were absolutely pathetic moronic dickless cowards, for sure.
Imagine the moment that clarity kicks in. The moment you realize your plans were WAAAAAAY different than what’s actually happening and truly think to yourself “What have I done?”
You think these killers felt remorse? In their mind, they were carrying out Allah’s wishes. The son who survived is probably sad that he didn’t die a martyr that day. “Martyrs occupy the highest ranks of paradise and remain eternally blessed by their devotion.” (Source.)
They likely don’t feel remorse, but I don’t doubt there’s selfish regret at play - not for their victims, but a feeling that they’d rather not be in prison, not be in pain, and wanting to go back to their previously much more comfortable life.
Do i think they felt remorse - not a chance. I wasn’t referring to remorse. I was referring to the “oh shit moment” of realizing that NOTHING is going according to plan, and there’s no going back.
They just think the end result will be "good" but they don't even know how it would be good.
Because narcissistic psychopaths like this can't even consider that the end result will not be good because it was their plan and being wrong would shatter their fragile ego.
Jihadists don't fear death because they believe they will go to heaven and they even welcome death as something that is inevitable which makes Islamic terrorism the most dangerous and extreme form of terrorism so odds are they were prepared to go down fighting and did not expect to survive the attack.
It's kind of common among mass shooters, I think. A lot of them develop big plans, but then realize it's one thing to dream up some grand plan, it's another to actually do it.
Certainly wasn't the case with Anders Behring Breivik...
Sorry , forgot this was reddit and didn't mean to hurt your feelings, lol. I didn't disagree with your claim ( sounds like a plausable guess but a guess it is) but only though it interesting to point out an example of the opposite. In this case one of them most well planned and executed terrorist attacks of all times.
I mean, thankfully it seems most people who have the capacity to actually plan something horrific typically are of sound enough mind to not do these kinds of things.
That bridge was the only high ground in that area and it served them well enough except the dad was a moron who exposed himself by standing in line of sight of police and the son was smart enough to use the walls of the bridge as cover but he himself was ambushed from the side by a detective as once his dad was out of the picture he couldn't guard against attacks from 3 sides.
There really was no escaping that area no matter how well their plans were executed.
Say what you will but it was lethally effective. The fact that it went on for so long, and they were as effective as they were with the most basic of firearms is astounding.
But of course the police have to allege that it was meticulously planned. You need something to explain how this goes down when they had already investigated one of the two...
If the shooting went on longer then yes police likely would have set up shot up in the apartments eventually but the police on the scene were pinned down and couldn't exactly just sprint over to the apartments.
Spectators had access to the recordings taken from the apartments so it's very easy to judge the police in this situation but on the ground they had a much different view because the terrorists controlled the high ground and making their way across the street would not have been a walk in the park.
One of the recordings of it was from a window across the road that looked directly at both of them with a clean line of sight. Did make me think that a police shooter in there would end it all in 10 seconds. But hard to think that way during such a horrific situation I guess.
Well if there was already a cop there with a rifle that is, idk how long exactly it took for police to arrive but figuring out that that was a good location for a clear shot, getting access to the building and then breaking the window and taking a shot would have taken a lot longer than getting them from the road which had a pretty similar visibility
yeah I thought from the guy above that it had gone on for a long time, but I just checked as I didn’t actually know exactly how long it was and it seems like the whole thing was over in about 10 minutes so really not enough time for any grand planning!
Did make me think that a police shooter in there would end it all in 10 seconds.
Or any calm person with a hunting rifle. I don't think "good guy with a gun" is an easy solution for most tragedies like this, but with that line of sight over two shooters sitting still, reasonably backstopped, I have to wonder what might've been.
It just seems to make them sound even more incompetent, if the other stuff is heard about the shooters being known issues is to be believed. But I'm also from a place where tons of criminals showed signs they would do something terrible that go ignored for years, and then everyone cries about what they could've done to prevent it until the next crime happens.
I think by ‘planning’ police just meant the two men jerked each other off while scouring 4chan garbage together as they talked about how they think the world fucked them.
use Austarlia's anti terror police force to go after people with links to ISIS going on mystery trips to the philippines instead of using them to harass youtubers and college students. Just an idea.
Start deporting those with terrorist ties and do not have Australian citizenship. Why wait for them to break the law when they are linked to terrorists?
If they are Australian citizens then it will require other solutions.
The crime was Jews being openly Jewish. Yes, I known they murdered non-Jews too, but just as with the Holocaust, this was about Jews existing. Do not minimize why this occurred.
It's pointless hate. Bottom line is that pointless, unjustified hate can target anyone and any group. People must unite against this, because anyone can be the next victim.
It was about creating terror in the Jewish population, yes.
I’m curious why you came here to disagree about such a pedantic point.
Also curious why you decided to erase every other people that were persecuted in the holocaust. While telling me I am the one minimizing the representation of a tragedy?
Please try to be less divisive, that’s sort of the point here
The fact that other people were thrown in with Jews doesn't mean it wasn't about Jews. It wasn't the final solution to the trade unionist problem, or Communist problem, or the gay problem. It was the final solution to the Jewish question. Don't be so pedantic.
Whilst antisemitism was the central tenant of Nazi ideology, and Jews were the primary victims of the Holocaust, your own post does a massive disservice to other ethnic groups that the Nazis tried to exterminate by focusing on victims murdered for non-ethnic reasons. The Hunger Plan aimed to murder millions of ethnic Ukrainians, Russians, and Belarusians. Slavs and other "untermensch" were facing extermination too, with Poland losing the largest percentage of their population of any country in the war (which included Jews living there). Over 20,000 Roma and Sinti people were murdered. Such a narrow view of the Nazi extermination program does disservice and divides the victims of Nazi ideology.
This attack was purely antisemitic, trying to make Jews scared. In this case other victims were coincidental, and it was a terrorist attack through and through.
Down played !? Are you fucking kidding me. They have been the only focus of everything related to WORLD war since it happened. Yes they had a bad thing happen to many of them but by no means were they the only ones affected.
Rediculous to imply anything along the lines that Jewish people have had a situation other than being the absolute centre of that specific part of history.
It's well past due we pay respect and acknowledge the others affected. Including the young soldiers on all sides.
It was horrible for everyone involved on a lot of levels.
Especially what took place after the wars were over.
Jews were not the only victims.
matter of fact ZIONISTS WERE FUNDING THE NAZI PARTY.
If anything it's time to acknowledge their role in it outside of being victims.
We aren't going to end hate by ignoring it or refusing to name it. Please be better and find something better to do than seek out arguments on the internet.
All I did was make a post trying to make sure people read the names of some of the victims today.
As of right now 25,000 people have done that.
Show me where I invited argument except by misinterpretation.
I feel pretty secure in having achieved my goal.
I am but a man. I can vote for Jewish friendly politicians. I can make friends of my Jewish neighbors. I can persecute the antisemites in my community.
I have done all these things. But because I forgot to mention the victims of the famously antisemitic attack were indeed Jewish, I myself am suddenly an antisemite?
I think it’s obvious who between the two of us actually has a problem.
EDIT 50,000 now. You guys need to try to make the world around you a bit better instead of downvoting the guy trying to do the same.
By refusing to admit this heinous act was driven by hatred of a specific group, Jews. As I said in my original reply, it wasn't because they were human, it was because they were Jews. Don't hide what this was about. Anti-semitic attacks like this won't go away simply because people like you like to pretend they aren't what they are. Be honest about what's going on here.
I immediately agreed it was a terror attack on the Jewish community.
I never said or pretended any of that. I didn’t word it how you wanted. There’s a key difference. I’ve done more to represent the Jewish victims of this attack than you have with this one post.
The whole point I’ve been trying to make is you do more harm than good with this. You’re doing your damndest to alienate me, a staunch ally of Jewish people. Why?
Because I didn’t use a particular word in my post?
I immediately agreed it was a terror attack on the Jewish community.
No, you didn't. Go read your own post. If it had been a shooting at a Pride parade, everyone would acknowledge it was about homophobia. But, somehow, it's ok to not call out anti-semitism for what it. You're just upset you got called out for it. Just admit your mistake and do better next time.
Don't really see how this attack is ever gonna be an answer for the atrocities that Israel commits. What the fuck do innocent Jews halfway across the world have to do with Israel? Even if they show their support for the country, they're not directly responsible for what happens there.
It's anti-Semitism, pure and simple, i.e. hatred for Jews existing.
Be kind. We have experienced reckless hate from the beginning and are still here. Be kind to yourself, your friends, neighbors, and stranger and animals. To paraphrase Vonnegut's last speech, we are all going through our own apocalypse, all we can do is help each other. Music and humor help. Love helps. Hate comes from somewhere. Spread as much anti hate as possible. It multiples. Also read Vonnegut. So it goes. ting a ling!
I am entirely on board with taking anti Asian hate far more seriously but you’re gravely mistaken if you believe antisemitism is taken seriously.
Bondi is the case in point - many people have been calling out the anti semitism that’s found a welcome home at the protests for years and saying more needed to be done to prevent a tragedy, but that fell on deaf ears until tragedy actually occurred.
Well I'd say it can be taken much more seriously. I'm not trying to downplay Sinophobia or anti Asian hate or engage in one ups-manship or anything like that, and I would agree with you that those need more attention. However I've noticed something striking since the first attacks on 10/7 which is that when something racist happens everyone says "that's racist" and everyone else agrees and when something homophobic happens everyone says "that's homophobic" and everyone else agrees but when something antisemitic happens only certain people say "that's antisemitic" and most everyone else says "you can't just label any criticism of you as antisemitic."
It concerns me because in nearly every case it's abundantly obvious that if you just took the exact same situation and replaced words like "Jew" with words like "black person" or "gay person" no one would have any issues using those respective hate labels to describe the situation.
Despite it being widely reported and spotlighted, I don't disagree with you there, I find it quite alarming how inconsistently and even indeed actively resisting people are of identifying and labeling this kind of hate when they have no such issues doing it the exact same way for other minorities.
Edit: like you'd be shocked how many threads about the Bondi attack had so many people in them saying that Israel was to blame for the attack. Somehow the people holding and firing the guns weren't actually to blame. And yet if this were another group being targeted there would've been no blame shifting going on at all.
That's like trying to abolish homosexuality. It will never, ever happen. People are going to have spiritual beliefs no matter what, making it illegal doesn't make it go away.
Please do not confound a race with a religion, they are separate things. For example: Jews are not currently carrying out an ethnic cleansing, Israel is.
That's correct. The people who were killed in Bondi Beach were JEWS practicing JUDAISM and had nothing to do with the choices of the Israeli state. I'm responding to a person who thinks that we should "abolish religion." The religion I'm talking about is Judaism.
That tends not to work, and also creates martyrs. The only way to get rid of religion is to explain the gaps in understanding that it’s used to patch up. That starts with education. Even then, I think more and more lately that there is no way to combat this kind of thing short of changing human nature entirely. We might just be fucked. Taking religion out of the equation just makes it a slower process.
1) Tone Down Rhetoric. News, Politicians, & Influencers need to stop making every issue an "Us vs Them" debate. When we turn a group into an "Other" they do the same back to us.
2) Policies that help everyone, and don't oppress the few. Why are we writing laws to make specific groups lives worse, when we could be using that same energy to make everyone's lives better? Happy people don't hurt others.
3) Put down the phone and talk to your neighbour. If you see someone struggling, take out to a movie, go for a walk with them, or spend some time doing what they like. Isolation breeds anti-soical behaviour, include everyone you can, and if their behaviour isn't acceptable Teach and Help them don't ridicule them.
And when all else fails be brave, like so many of these Australians were. We can't live in a utopia, and mental health is a constant battle, but if we strive to make the lives of all those around us, and care and fight for our neighbours, regardless of their background, we can come close.
Every Jew who was in Nazi-occupied Europe for a reason other than being part of Allied military and who survived the war is a Holocaust survivor. Any hierarchy of survivors is BS. Jews who were in camps or ghettos, whether as adults or children, are survivors. Jews who successfully fled are survivors. Jews who passed as gentiles are survivors. Jews who hid or were hidden (including hidden children) are survivors.
The goal of the Nazi state was 100% extermination of the Jews, the sole test for whether a particular Jew within their reach is a survivor is if they survived.
And this is the best they came up with? Random shots at innocent people in an area with a tonne of escape routes, easy access to medical care, etc.
The morons could not even cover each other’s sight lines to avoid being taken down by an unarmed man!
It is not tremendously hard to think of a better idea. The Bataclan attack and the truck crash in Nice both killed far more by using dense crowds where movement is hard. Shit, they could have just used a movie theatre and blocked an entrance.
Never forget that whilst these assholes are evil, they’re also pathetic in their evil. They’re not interesting, or remarkable, or making a statement. They’re fucking embarrassing.
It is awful that two people of such limited means we're able to cause so much pain - I think it is a stretch to say that there was meticulous planning
Thank goodness these people we're not able to get hold of semi-automatic weapons. I think that says something about the gun laws
There are heaps of questions to be answered by the authorities about the response time. Bondi Police Station is 600 meters from where the shooters were standing.
I think it is reasonable to assume that the Bondi Police would have a rapid response plan for a situation at the beach? Is it reasonable to assume that the police station has a supply of high powered weapons?
Then there is the longer term intelligence failures - more so that a registered gun owner with an immediate family member that has some exposure to radical groups is not investigated more heavily - when was the gun licence last renewed for example and what investigations took place
And no its not reasonable to assume that. Most cops are only qualified to shoot hand guns at short ranges. The detective who took out the shooter was a hobbyist on the side which is why he was able to make the shot.
The USA has 12x the population of Australia, so having only 4x the number of those events isn't exactly helping your cause. Much simpler just to Google it per capita:
"Australia's gun death rate is very low, around 0.88 to 1.04 per 100,000 people in recent years (2018-2023 data), a significant drop from 2.9 per 100,000 in 1996, with firearm suicides and homicides both decreasing dramatically after major gun law reforms. For comparison, recent data shows the U.S. rate significantly higher, around 13.7 per 100,000, emphasizing Australia's success in reducing gun violence."
An interesting statistic, which I can't necessarily attribute to something specific, the gun death rate went down in Australia since 1996. The homicide rate however has gone up over that same span. So more people are being killed per capita just not with guns.
The homicide rate in America in that span has gone down, despite having a significantly higher gun homicide rate comparatively.
US homicide rate has most definitely fallen a lot in the last few decades but that almost speaks more to just how absurd our peak homicide rates were throughout the 80's/90's when it got as high as 10 per 100k. Our lowest homicide rate (4.5) even in the big dip since the 90's is still like 2-3 times higher than other developed countries, our safest year for homicides would be considered a unmitigated disaster for them.
You're making your point very poorly here because adjusting those numbers by population makes it seem that the US has fewer instances of mass killings per capita. You mock "2Aers" in your first sentence, then support their stance with evidence in the rest of your comment.
This is a really terrible way to make your point, given the population differential. Overall gun-related deaths is a much better statistic, since it's per capita.
Why stop at guns, why not trace it back to the root of religious extremism?
Yes, it can both. But the mere fact of owning firearms didn't make these cowards go out and do this. Their beliefs, lack of mental fortitude, and lack of empathy for other people did.
I understand where your viewpoint comes from, and I don't totally disagree with you. I do, however, disagree with the gut reaction to remove a person's inherent right to choose how they want to protect themselves rather than providing greater resources towards preventing religious and political extremism in the first place.
Not sure what that has to do with anything I or OP said. In order to get a licence you need to nominate, with substantial proof, a reason for owning a fire arm. Self defence is not one of them. So OP saying they disagree with removing the right to choose how to defend yourself is irrelevant, as it wasnt an option to begin with.
I know Australia doesn't legally allow a person to own a firearm for self defense, which is exactly why I mentioned it.
I personally believe people have an inherent right to defend themselves. The Australian government and presumably a majority of its citizens decided to legally remove that right, but then why not remove the right to freely practice religion, which we all agree was really the cause here?
I think it's probably because it's politically popular and expedient to attack firearms instead.
I dont care what you personally believe. I dont want to live in a shithole were people routinely shoot each other, much like the rest of the people who live here. There are gun owners on every street, there are guns in my own home, but the cultural belief that guns arent for self defence cannot be understated when talking about the low rates of gun crime here.
You obviously have only been paying attention to gun related headlines and forming opinions on that. Our PM has already announced new legislation aimed at religious leaders/preachers who spread harmful rhetoric. In fact it was announced before any gun reforms were.
I only see the headlines I see, I'm not omniscient ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Regardless, I applaud those moves then and hope to see more action in tackling the root cause of this tragedy rather than seeking to further reduce the inherent right of individuals to choose for themselves how they would like to have the opportunity to defend themselves.
As you point out, the guns in your own home aren't running out and killing people, so I wonder what the difference is between you and these particular individuals who did.
Edit - You don't care what I personally believe, but do you expect others to treat you with the same contempt?
I certainly see what you mean, but the world is messier than that. How does the 21 year old woman defend herself from a male home invader when he outweighs her by 70 pounds? What about the retiree who can barely get up their stairs? What about the family in Arkansas who went on a walk and both parents were stabbed to death in front of their little girls? Or the 11-year old Australian girl who was stabbed 8 times by a random stranger while shopping with her mother in London?
Fewer guns does mean fewer gun deaths, but it doesn't equate to less violence. For now, I personally would rather make that choice for myself and with my family rather than have a politician make it for me.
Albanese had said he first came to the attention of the authorities in 2019, but an "assessment was made that there was no indication of any ongoing threat or threat of him engaging in violence".
Additional questions are being asked as to why - in light of this previous investigation - the father and son were able to travel to the Philippines in the month before the attack, and how the father was able to buy guns. At a news conference on Monday, NSW Premier Chris Minns said he did not want to speculate and an investigation was ongoing.
Don't let the Australian government gas light people into thinking some more pointless and arbitrary gun bans or ownership restrictions would in any way have prevented this attack. The son was a known IS follower, and despite that they allowed his father to own firearms.
The Australians have laws and legislation existing that could have prevented this..but this whole woke "don't upset Muslims" mentality that all western countries have been infected with has allowed IS bad actors to slip through the cracks.
Meanwhile the government will say "watch out for right wing extremism" as if that's even remotely fucking related. These destructive globalist psychopaths are trying to associate right wing populism with Islamic terrorism. They are completely different things and conflating the two is intentionally divisive and purely for securing more power over people. Except Islamic extremists, those are okay because their terror attacks strengthen the resolve of tyrannical governments.
Law of Reddit: Every thread will contain at least one comment referencing US politics regardless of the context of the post. Hate him but what does a shooting in Australia have to do with the head of the FBI?
Why is the descriptor “ Bondi Gunmen” instead of “Jewish Mass Murderers Religious Terrorist Father Son Duo Sajit and Naveed ”
Did the two of them not target a Jewish event specifically to try to kill as many Jewish people as possible and were successful ending 15 passerby human lives
planned for months and came up with the idea of standing on a bridge randomly firing shots at a crowd of innocent people, including getting tackled by random incredibly brave bystanders whenever they left the bridge then just got themselves shot to bits… truly meticulous, minds of a generation
It's kind of common among mass shooters, I think. A lot of them develop big plans, but then realize it's one thing to dream up some grand plan, it's another to actually do it.
These men were absolutely pathetic moronic dickless cowards, for sure.
Imagine the moment that clarity kicks in. The moment you realize your plans were WAAAAAAY different than what’s actually happening and truly think to yourself “What have I done?”
More like "why aren't my victims falling over themselves to present themselves as perfect targets so my ego won't be wounded?"
"Wait, this is a shitty way for me to die too FUCK"
You think these killers felt remorse? In their mind, they were carrying out Allah’s wishes. The son who survived is probably sad that he didn’t die a martyr that day. “Martyrs occupy the highest ranks of paradise and remain eternally blessed by their devotion.” (Source.)
Remorse and regret are two different emotions.
They likely don’t feel remorse, but I don’t doubt there’s selfish regret at play - not for their victims, but a feeling that they’d rather not be in prison, not be in pain, and wanting to go back to their previously much more comfortable life.
Do i think they felt remorse - not a chance. I wasn’t referring to remorse. I was referring to the “oh shit moment” of realizing that NOTHING is going according to plan, and there’s no going back.
I mean isn't their plan to die as some fucked up martyr so they get their virgins?
They just think the end result will be "good" but they don't even know how it would be good.
Because narcissistic psychopaths like this can't even consider that the end result will not be good because it was their plan and being wrong would shatter their fragile ego.
Jihadists don't fear death because they believe they will go to heaven and they even welcome death as something that is inevitable which makes Islamic terrorism the most dangerous and extreme form of terrorism so odds are they were prepared to go down fighting and did not expect to survive the attack.
I mean lot of religions believe in heaven ...
Islam is one the few that rewards you if you kill infidels
hence why plenty kill themselves once cops arrive
Certainly common among wannabe jihadis
Certainly wasn't the case with Anders Behring Breivik...
Or others, but I didn't claim it was all of them, did I? But I guess you just wanted to well actually something.
Sorry , forgot this was reddit and didn't mean to hurt your feelings, lol. I didn't disagree with your claim ( sounds like a plausable guess but a guess it is) but only though it interesting to point out an example of the opposite. In this case one of them most well planned and executed terrorist attacks of all times.
I mean, thankfully it seems most people who have the capacity to actually plan something horrific typically are of sound enough mind to not do these kinds of things.
That bridge was the only high ground in that area and it served them well enough except the dad was a moron who exposed himself by standing in line of sight of police and the son was smart enough to use the walls of the bridge as cover but he himself was ambushed from the side by a detective as once his dad was out of the picture he couldn't guard against attacks from 3 sides.
There really was no escaping that area no matter how well their plans were executed.
They probably intended to die.
They should have just done that first then.
Say what you will but it was lethally effective. The fact that it went on for so long, and they were as effective as they were with the most basic of firearms is astounding.
But of course the police have to allege that it was meticulously planned. You need something to explain how this goes down when they had already investigated one of the two...
If the shooting went on longer then yes police likely would have set up shot up in the apartments eventually but the police on the scene were pinned down and couldn't exactly just sprint over to the apartments.
Spectators had access to the recordings taken from the apartments so it's very easy to judge the police in this situation but on the ground they had a much different view because the terrorists controlled the high ground and making their way across the street would not have been a walk in the park.
One of the recordings of it was from a window across the road that looked directly at both of them with a clean line of sight. Did make me think that a police shooter in there would end it all in 10 seconds. But hard to think that way during such a horrific situation I guess.
Well if there was already a cop there with a rifle that is, idk how long exactly it took for police to arrive but figuring out that that was a good location for a clear shot, getting access to the building and then breaking the window and taking a shot would have taken a lot longer than getting them from the road which had a pretty similar visibility
yeah I thought from the guy above that it had gone on for a long time, but I just checked as I didn’t actually know exactly how long it was and it seems like the whole thing was over in about 10 minutes so really not enough time for any grand planning!
Or any calm person with a hunting rifle. I don't think "good guy with a gun" is an easy solution for most tragedies like this, but with that line of sight over two shooters sitting still, reasonably backstopped, I have to wonder what might've been.
Wonder if the police are amping them up to mitigate their own failings
It just seems to make them sound even more incompetent, if the other stuff is heard about the shooters being known issues is to be believed. But I'm also from a place where tons of criminals showed signs they would do something terrible that go ignored for years, and then everyone cries about what they could've done to prevent it until the next crime happens.
There was nothing random about it, they selected a target in order to kill Jews.
I think by ‘planning’ police just meant the two men jerked each other off while scouring 4chan garbage together as they talked about how they think the world fucked them.
Right on the money for their ilk to need months of planning to
checks notes stand on a bridge and shoot at old Jewish people
All these extremists are the same, they’re morons
Most mass shooters are pretty dumb to begin with, firearms are precision weaponry.
They probably asked ChatGPT for help and it just enthusiastically validated all their dumb ideas.
They should've practiced more
They killed an 87 year old holocaust survivor, Alex Kleytman
They killed an elderly Russian couple who saw them exiting the vehicle and tried to stop them, Boris and Sofia Gurman
They killed a 10 year old, Matilda
They killed the man who famously threw a brick at the shooters in the video that circulated of al-Ahmed disarming the older shooter, Reuven Morrison
They killed a random local who was simply out for a walk with his wife, Alex Smyth
They killed a father shielding his already wounded son, Boris Tetleroyd
People slaughtered for the crime of being human
What can men do against such reckless hate?
use Austarlia's anti terror police force to go after people with links to ISIS going on mystery trips to the philippines instead of using them to harass youtubers and college students. Just an idea.
The connections to these men’s training need to be exposed
Start deporting those with terrorist ties and do not have Australian citizenship. Why wait for them to break the law when they are linked to terrorists?
If they are Australian citizens then it will require other solutions.
The crime was Jews being openly Jewish. Yes, I known they murdered non-Jews too, but just as with the Holocaust, this was about Jews existing. Do not minimize why this occurred.
It's pointless hate. Bottom line is that pointless, unjustified hate can target anyone and any group. People must unite against this, because anyone can be the next victim.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
It was about creating terror in the Jewish population, yes.
I’m curious why you came here to disagree about such a pedantic point.
Also curious why you decided to erase every other people that were persecuted in the holocaust. While telling me I am the one minimizing the representation of a tragedy?
Please try to be less divisive, that’s sort of the point here
The fact that other people were thrown in with Jews doesn't mean it wasn't about Jews. It wasn't the final solution to the trade unionist problem, or Communist problem, or the gay problem. It was the final solution to the Jewish question. Don't be so pedantic.
Whilst antisemitism was the central tenant of Nazi ideology, and Jews were the primary victims of the Holocaust, your own post does a massive disservice to other ethnic groups that the Nazis tried to exterminate by focusing on victims murdered for non-ethnic reasons. The Hunger Plan aimed to murder millions of ethnic Ukrainians, Russians, and Belarusians. Slavs and other "untermensch" were facing extermination too, with Poland losing the largest percentage of their population of any country in the war (which included Jews living there). Over 20,000 Roma and Sinti people were murdered. Such a narrow view of the Nazi extermination program does disservice and divides the victims of Nazi ideology.
This attack was purely antisemitic, trying to make Jews scared. In this case other victims were coincidental, and it was a terrorist attack through and through.
No one has a narrow view people are just sick of the Jewish experience being downplayed.
Down played !? Are you fucking kidding me. They have been the only focus of everything related to WORLD war since it happened. Yes they had a bad thing happen to many of them but by no means were they the only ones affected.
Rediculous to imply anything along the lines that Jewish people have had a situation other than being the absolute centre of that specific part of history.
It's well past due we pay respect and acknowledge the others affected. Including the young soldiers on all sides.
It was horrible for everyone involved on a lot of levels. Especially what took place after the wars were over.
Jews were not the only victims.
matter of fact ZIONISTS WERE FUNDING THE NAZI PARTY.
If anything it's time to acknowledge their role in it outside of being victims.
What can men do against such reckless hate?
Not this. Not what you’re doing. Please be better, and find something better to do than seek out arguments on the internet.
We aren't going to end hate by ignoring it or refusing to name it. Please be better and find something better to do than seek out arguments on the internet.
All I did was make a post trying to make sure people read the names of some of the victims today.
As of right now 25,000 people have done that.
Show me where I invited argument except by misinterpretation.
I feel pretty secure in having achieved my goal.
I am but a man. I can vote for Jewish friendly politicians. I can make friends of my Jewish neighbors. I can persecute the antisemites in my community.
I have done all these things. But because I forgot to mention the victims of the famously antisemitic attack were indeed Jewish, I myself am suddenly an antisemite?
I think it’s obvious who between the two of us actually has a problem.
EDIT 50,000 now. You guys need to try to make the world around you a bit better instead of downvoting the guy trying to do the same.
By refusing to admit this heinous act was driven by hatred of a specific group, Jews. As I said in my original reply, it wasn't because they were human, it was because they were Jews. Don't hide what this was about. Anti-semitic attacks like this won't go away simply because people like you like to pretend they aren't what they are. Be honest about what's going on here.
I immediately agreed it was a terror attack on the Jewish community.
I never said or pretended any of that. I didn’t word it how you wanted. There’s a key difference. I’ve done more to represent the Jewish victims of this attack than you have with this one post.
The whole point I’ve been trying to make is you do more harm than good with this. You’re doing your damndest to alienate me, a staunch ally of Jewish people. Why?
Because I didn’t use a particular word in my post?
Go fight actual antsemites.
No, you didn't. Go read your own post. If it had been a shooting at a Pride parade, everyone would acknowledge it was about homophobia. But, somehow, it's ok to not call out anti-semitism for what it. You're just upset you got called out for it. Just admit your mistake and do better next time.
You mean like you're actively doing?
[removed]
I’m not being weird about anything. I agreed it was an attack on Jewish people, meant to inflict terror on the Jewish community.
I’m sorry you all took offense to how I worded it, I guess, but I’m not editing a thing.
What did you think I meant by saying “the crime of being human”?
Their hatred was for 'Jews existing'? Really? Nothing to do with Palestine, at all?
Don't really see how this attack is ever gonna be an answer for the atrocities that Israel commits. What the fuck do innocent Jews halfway across the world have to do with Israel? Even if they show their support for the country, they're not directly responsible for what happens there.
It's anti-Semitism, pure and simple, i.e. hatred for Jews existing.
So that war justifies killing Jews thousands of miles away?
No. the terrorists were evil murderers. But the motivation was not necessarily the same as a Nazi, who really do hate Jews 'for existing'.
The internal rationale for Nazis was never they "were just existing". But it was a fundamentally nonsensical rationale.
Yes. And frankly you should feel ashamed of yourself for doing the antisemites legwork on these threads.
Be kind. We have experienced reckless hate from the beginning and are still here. Be kind to yourself, your friends, neighbors, and stranger and animals. To paraphrase Vonnegut's last speech, we are all going through our own apocalypse, all we can do is help each other. Music and humor help. Love helps. Hate comes from somewhere. Spread as much anti hate as possible. It multiples. Also read Vonnegut. So it goes. ting a ling!
Actually take antisemitism seriously.
Considering it gets widely reported and spotlighted, how much more seriously can it be taken?
I’d like Sinophobia and anti Asian hate to be taken at a fraction of how serious antisemitism is taken.
I am entirely on board with taking anti Asian hate far more seriously but you’re gravely mistaken if you believe antisemitism is taken seriously.
Bondi is the case in point - many people have been calling out the anti semitism that’s found a welcome home at the protests for years and saying more needed to be done to prevent a tragedy, but that fell on deaf ears until tragedy actually occurred.
You're unnecessarily pitting then against each other
This is what Jews are talking about
We can obviously care about both
Which community just booed the leader of the country at a funeral? Was it the Muslim community after the Christchurch shooting?
I like how you’re speaking for all Jews. This is what Jews are talking about? Get outta here.
Chill it's just an incomplete statement expecting you to be smart enough to infer the rest
"This is what Jews are talking about... when they raise awareness of anti-Semitism"
What Jews are talking about is that anything they don't like is antisemitic. That's just a fact of life.
Antisemitism would be taken much more seriously if it only applies to stuff that are actually antisemitic.
Well thank you at least for proving the point so that everyone reading this exchange can see it's still a problem
Thank you for proving my point, so everyone can see what I'm talking about.
Well I'd say it can be taken much more seriously. I'm not trying to downplay Sinophobia or anti Asian hate or engage in one ups-manship or anything like that, and I would agree with you that those need more attention. However I've noticed something striking since the first attacks on 10/7 which is that when something racist happens everyone says "that's racist" and everyone else agrees and when something homophobic happens everyone says "that's homophobic" and everyone else agrees but when something antisemitic happens only certain people say "that's antisemitic" and most everyone else says "you can't just label any criticism of you as antisemitic."
It concerns me because in nearly every case it's abundantly obvious that if you just took the exact same situation and replaced words like "Jew" with words like "black person" or "gay person" no one would have any issues using those respective hate labels to describe the situation.
Despite it being widely reported and spotlighted, I don't disagree with you there, I find it quite alarming how inconsistently and even indeed actively resisting people are of identifying and labeling this kind of hate when they have no such issues doing it the exact same way for other minorities.
Edit: like you'd be shocked how many threads about the Bondi attack had so many people in them saying that Israel was to blame for the attack. Somehow the people holding and firing the guns weren't actually to blame. And yet if this were another group being targeted there would've been no blame shifting going on at all.
That’s incorrect. People absolutely don’t agree when something racist or homophobic happens and call it as such.
Remember Floyd? Huge amount of people said it’s not racism and that he deserved it for not complying.
Deportation of those who spread that hate is a good start.
We can remember, improve laws against firearms, and fight against religious extremists that inspire these evil acts.
Love. Be kind to one another. Realize that none of us are in this alone.
You guys are all replying to a bot btw lol
Abolish religion. End of story.
I mean the shooters agree with you. They were certainly trying to abolish a religion.
That's like trying to abolish homosexuality. It will never, ever happen. People are going to have spiritual beliefs no matter what, making it illegal doesn't make it go away.
If history has shown us anything, it is that people really like to make up stories to explain things they don't understand.
That's never going to change.
This comment here! It's funny that homosexuality was used as an example like it's a made up thing lolol.
They don't need to make it illegal, science needs to advance enough to make people realize it's all witchcraft.
Lazy and implausible take.
Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water.
[removed]
Please do not confound a race with a religion, they are separate things. For example: Jews are not currently carrying out an ethnic cleansing, Israel is.
That's correct. The people who were killed in Bondi Beach were JEWS practicing JUDAISM and had nothing to do with the choices of the Israeli state. I'm responding to a person who thinks that we should "abolish religion." The religion I'm talking about is Judaism.
This comment here is amazing!
That tends not to work, and also creates martyrs. The only way to get rid of religion is to explain the gaps in understanding that it’s used to patch up. That starts with education. Even then, I think more and more lately that there is no way to combat this kind of thing short of changing human nature entirely. We might just be fucked. Taking religion out of the equation just makes it a slower process.
Yes, all religion, including non religion.
1) Tone Down Rhetoric. News, Politicians, & Influencers need to stop making every issue an "Us vs Them" debate. When we turn a group into an "Other" they do the same back to us.
2) Policies that help everyone, and don't oppress the few. Why are we writing laws to make specific groups lives worse, when we could be using that same energy to make everyone's lives better? Happy people don't hurt others.
3) Put down the phone and talk to your neighbour. If you see someone struggling, take out to a movie, go for a walk with them, or spend some time doing what they like. Isolation breeds anti-soical behaviour, include everyone you can, and if their behaviour isn't acceptable Teach and Help them don't ridicule them.
And when all else fails be brave, like so many of these Australians were. We can't live in a utopia, and mental health is a constant battle, but if we strive to make the lives of all those around us, and care and fight for our neighbours, regardless of their background, we can come close.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Get bigger guns.
Now multiply all of these individual cases x1000 and you'll start to see 'the stories' in Gaza
So the Holocaust survivor was 3 years old when they placed him in a concentration camp ?
What ?
Do you think 3 year olds had a special exemption to Nazi horrors?
what level of brainrot is this comment?
Every Jew who was in Nazi-occupied Europe for a reason other than being part of Allied military and who survived the war is a Holocaust survivor. Any hierarchy of survivors is BS. Jews who were in camps or ghettos, whether as adults or children, are survivors. Jews who successfully fled are survivors. Jews who passed as gentiles are survivors. Jews who hid or were hidden (including hidden children) are survivors.
The goal of the Nazi state was 100% extermination of the Jews, the sole test for whether a particular Jew within their reach is a survivor is if they survived.
Yeah, the Nazis were kinda messed up.
Guess he forgot to plan for someone tackling him from behind.
Didn't the guy that was tackled retreat and shoot two more people or did I hear wrong?
Yes he did.
Which goes back to why didn't the hero that tackled him kill him? Answer, he would have gone to jail.
If I remember, he tackled the dirtbag when he was reloading. The gun he took from him was empty.
And this is the best they came up with? Random shots at innocent people in an area with a tonne of escape routes, easy access to medical care, etc.
The morons could not even cover each other’s sight lines to avoid being taken down by an unarmed man!
It is not tremendously hard to think of a better idea. The Bataclan attack and the truck crash in Nice both killed far more by using dense crowds where movement is hard. Shit, they could have just used a movie theatre and blocked an entrance.
Never forget that whilst these assholes are evil, they’re also pathetic in their evil. They’re not interesting, or remarkable, or making a statement. They’re fucking embarrassing.
It is awful that two people of such limited means we're able to cause so much pain - I think it is a stretch to say that there was meticulous planning
Thank goodness these people we're not able to get hold of semi-automatic weapons. I think that says something about the gun laws
There are heaps of questions to be answered by the authorities about the response time. Bondi Police Station is 600 meters from where the shooters were standing.
I think it is reasonable to assume that the Bondi Police would have a rapid response plan for a situation at the beach? Is it reasonable to assume that the police station has a supply of high powered weapons?
Then there is the longer term intelligence failures - more so that a registered gun owner with an immediate family member that has some exposure to radical groups is not investigated more heavily - when was the gun licence last renewed for example and what investigations took place
The response time was less than 30 seconds?
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/footage-reveals-untold-story-of-police-firefight-at-bondi-20251217-p5noeg
And no its not reasonable to assume that. Most cops are only qualified to shoot hand guns at short ranges. The detective who took out the shooter was a hobbyist on the side which is why he was able to make the shot.
This was an intelligence failure, period.
What guns were used?
They must have had to put a lot of thought into that plan.
For all the 2Aers out there who say "see, gun control doesn't work"
This was the deadliest shooting since 1996 when 35 people were killed. Making it 50 people total in 29 years.
In that same span the US has had 8 shootings of 15 or more victims. For a total of 254.
It's the guns.
The USA has 12x the population of Australia, so having only 4x the number of those events isn't exactly helping your cause. Much simpler just to Google it per capita:
"Australia's gun death rate is very low, around 0.88 to 1.04 per 100,000 people in recent years (2018-2023 data), a significant drop from 2.9 per 100,000 in 1996, with firearm suicides and homicides both decreasing dramatically after major gun law reforms. For comparison, recent data shows the U.S. rate significantly higher, around 13.7 per 100,000, emphasizing Australia's success in reducing gun violence."
An interesting statistic, which I can't necessarily attribute to something specific, the gun death rate went down in Australia since 1996. The homicide rate however has gone up over that same span. So more people are being killed per capita just not with guns.
The homicide rate in America in that span has gone down, despite having a significantly higher gun homicide rate comparatively.
Australia's homicide rate has consistently gone down since 1996
US homicide rate has most definitely fallen a lot in the last few decades but that almost speaks more to just how absurd our peak homicide rates were throughout the 80's/90's when it got as high as 10 per 100k. Our lowest homicide rate (4.5) even in the big dip since the 90's is still like 2-3 times higher than other developed countries, our safest year for homicides would be considered a unmitigated disaster for them.
You're making your point very poorly here because adjusting those numbers by population makes it seem that the US has fewer instances of mass killings per capita. You mock "2Aers" in your first sentence, then support their stance with evidence in the rest of your comment.
This is a really terrible way to make your point, given the population differential. Overall gun-related deaths is a much better statistic, since it's per capita.
Why stop at guns, why not trace it back to the root of religious extremism?
Yes, it can both. But the mere fact of owning firearms didn't make these cowards go out and do this. Their beliefs, lack of mental fortitude, and lack of empathy for other people did.
I understand where your viewpoint comes from, and I don't totally disagree with you. I do, however, disagree with the gut reaction to remove a person's inherent right to choose how they want to protect themselves rather than providing greater resources towards preventing religious and political extremism in the first place.
What do you think? I'm genuinely curious.
You want to ban religious extremism? Not sure that's possible.
Why not? We do it with every other crime.
We have a rather big jewish population and the biggest synagog in Europe, yet there is no religious extremism. It isn't rocket science how.
No religious extremism in Europe????
It is the side effect of not having muslim population.
You cannot own a firearm in Australia for self protection and have not been able to for a long time.
Man, they should have outlawed murders first. Than this whole tragedy could have easily been avoided.
Not sure what that has to do with anything I or OP said. In order to get a licence you need to nominate, with substantial proof, a reason for owning a fire arm. Self defence is not one of them. So OP saying they disagree with removing the right to choose how to defend yourself is irrelevant, as it wasnt an option to begin with.
I know Australia doesn't legally allow a person to own a firearm for self defense, which is exactly why I mentioned it.
I personally believe people have an inherent right to defend themselves. The Australian government and presumably a majority of its citizens decided to legally remove that right, but then why not remove the right to freely practice religion, which we all agree was really the cause here?
I think it's probably because it's politically popular and expedient to attack firearms instead.
I dont care what you personally believe. I dont want to live in a shithole were people routinely shoot each other, much like the rest of the people who live here. There are gun owners on every street, there are guns in my own home, but the cultural belief that guns arent for self defence cannot be understated when talking about the low rates of gun crime here.
You obviously have only been paying attention to gun related headlines and forming opinions on that. Our PM has already announced new legislation aimed at religious leaders/preachers who spread harmful rhetoric. In fact it was announced before any gun reforms were.
I only see the headlines I see, I'm not omniscient ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Regardless, I applaud those moves then and hope to see more action in tackling the root cause of this tragedy rather than seeking to further reduce the inherent right of individuals to choose for themselves how they would like to have the opportunity to defend themselves.
As you point out, the guns in your own home aren't running out and killing people, so I wonder what the difference is between you and these particular individuals who did.
Edit - You don't care what I personally believe, but do you expect others to treat you with the same contempt?
Have you considered that one way to defend yourself is to limit the amount of weapons that can kill you?
I certainly see what you mean, but the world is messier than that. How does the 21 year old woman defend herself from a male home invader when he outweighs her by 70 pounds? What about the retiree who can barely get up their stairs? What about the family in Arkansas who went on a walk and both parents were stabbed to death in front of their little girls? Or the 11-year old Australian girl who was stabbed 8 times by a random stranger while shopping with her mother in London?
Fewer guns does mean fewer gun deaths, but it doesn't equate to less violence. For now, I personally would rather make that choice for myself and with my family rather than have a politician make it for me.
Cool, not outlaw murder so it never happens again.
It’s the guns
TIL, guns can load rounds in their own magazines and cause mayhem
Who knew ? 🤷🏽
Why do you think there are fewer capita gun related deaths in Australia then?
I'm glad we are taking antisemitism seriously
Has there been any research into their backgrounds?
Don't let the Australian government gas light people into thinking some more pointless and arbitrary gun bans or ownership restrictions would in any way have prevented this attack. The son was a known IS follower, and despite that they allowed his father to own firearms.
The Australians have laws and legislation existing that could have prevented this..but this whole woke "don't upset Muslims" mentality that all western countries have been infected with has allowed IS bad actors to slip through the cracks.
Meanwhile the government will say "watch out for right wing extremism" as if that's even remotely fucking related. These destructive globalist psychopaths are trying to associate right wing populism with Islamic terrorism. They are completely different things and conflating the two is intentionally divisive and purely for securing more power over people. Except Islamic extremists, those are okay because their terror attacks strengthen the resolve of tyrannical governments.
[deleted]
Law of Reddit: Every thread will contain at least one comment referencing US politics regardless of the context of the post. Hate him but what does a shooting in Australia have to do with the head of the FBI?
I can’t get over how calm the young shooter was. DEFINITELY had training.
They must’ve planned for Aussie cops being total pussies
So fucking meticulous
Police allege a lot of things.
And I'm sure there are some people who will argue this terrorists would deserve a trial and hearings etc nonsense.
[deleted]
Wtf? If you think that opening fire on a crowd of innocent people is sane, you belong on a list.
Why is the descriptor “ Bondi Gunmen” instead of “Jewish Mass Murderers Religious Terrorist Father Son Duo Sajit and Naveed ”
Did the two of them not target a Jewish event specifically to try to kill as many Jewish people as possible and were successful ending 15 passerby human lives