Hostages Taken in Martin Place

[dajop]

..... the semantics of terrorism. It is such a nebulous concept.

I agree, and suspect terrorism is defined not by the act itself, but the degree with which it scares/"terrifies" people. But if you look at acts of crazy madmen, what distinguishes this as a terrorist act, than from, for example, the tragic events at Port Arthur in 1996 or Queen St, Melbourne in 1987?

 

[BAM1748]

Reasons this is terrorism, tactics change and as it becomes harder to hit other targets small soft ones can still grab a headline.

The use of a flag held by hostages to draw attention and make a point.
The many hours holding off the police for extended publicity even though the likely end would be the same.

This is the use of psychological and physical force on the greater society.

Don't forget his wife is now incarcerated as of today, she may also be a madman with a jihadist bent ? I don't know.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/1...anada-one-terrorist-attack-galvanizes-others/

 

[OATEK]

I agree, and suspect terrorism is defined not by the act itself, but the degree with which it scares/"terrifies" people. But if you look at acts of crazy madmen, what distinguishes this as a terrorist act, than from, for example, the tragic events at Port Arthur in 1996 or Queen St, Melbourne in 1987?

Probably only the fact that the perpetrator, in his actions forcing the hostages to contact the media etc, sought to portray it as terrorism.

There have been acts by individuals as far back as 1868 (the attempted assassination of the Duke of Edinburgh, Clontarf Beach) that have that political edge. Terrorism is as several have said very difficult to define with any certainty. But in this case the hostages were indeed terrorised, and that is perhaps enough to classify the act that way.

 

[burmans]

Probably only the fact that the perpetrator, in his actions forcing the hostages to contact the media etc, sought to portray it as terrorism.

There have been acts by individuals as far back as 1868 (the attempted assassination of the Duke of Edinburgh, Clontarf Beach) that have that political edge. Terrorism is as several have said very difficult to define with any certainty. But in this case the hostages were indeed terrorised, and that is perhaps enough to classify the act that way.

Hostages are frequently terrorised but that's not necessarily the point of it in many cases, rather than a bye product.

 

[drron]

Everything in context.IS called for random acts of violence.Since then at least 2 acts in the US,2 in Canada,1 in Belgium and now 2 in Australia.Most committed by "madmen"
His lawyer said he was unhinged because of his intense thought of Jihad.Is that a mental illness.
Some say this incident was not related to the others as he didn't kill his victims immediately.
However on CNN they had what they called a "terrorism expert.His thoughts was this was not the work of a madman because it was carried out across from a major TV network studio,the centre of financial,legal and government offices in Sydney all of which ensured maximum publicity for his cause.And he certainly got that.
However I think that what former president of Pakistan called those involved in the school shooting applies just as well to this fellow-"They are not Muslims.Indeed they do not belong to the human race.They are animals."

 

[serfty]

We see seemingly organised groups of people using their own corruption of religion to justify deliberate acts of violence in the name of that religion - suicide bombings and the events of 9/11 are examples. There is a consistant theme of martyrdom in these.

Events like those at Queen st., Hoddle St. & Port Authur had no such banner applied. The have been many "murder suicides" over the years where religion was not at issue.

This particular incident appears to have had religious justification - corrupted as it seems. I believe the guy had no doubt in his mind he would become a "martyr".

A different event (and lacking in sophistication) but still consistent in base self justification and religious nature occurred in Dandenong some weeks ago.

These types of events are occurring more and more - does killing oneself with a deliberate act of violence in an effort to inflict harm on others using religion as justification equate to terrorism?

I believe it does.

 

[JohnK]

Something for thought.

This was a calculated incident designed to draw maximum exposure and attention. Terrorism at it's finest.

Everything in context.IS called for random acts of violence.Since then at least 2 acts in the US,2 in Canada,1 in Belgium and now 2 in Australia.Most committed by "madmen"

Add France to the list now.

 

[Pushka]

And now IS is killing its own who decide that IS isn't for them. Shame. Not.

 

[medhead]

I agree, and suspect terrorism is defined not by the act itself, but the degree with which it scares/"terrifies" people. But if you look at acts of crazy madmen, what distinguishes this as a terrorist act, than from, for example, the tragic events at Port Arthur in 1996 or Queen St, Melbourne in 1987?

I think the only thing is the guy trying to associate himself with terrorism. I think this will be defined as terrorism by how we response to it. Personally I refuse to dignify the act of a madman as something having a bigger meaning. To me he was a criminal who reached the end of the rope.

Reasons this is terrorism, tactics change and as it becomes harder to hit other targets small soft ones can still grab a headline.

The use of a flag held by hostages to draw attention and make a point.
The many hours holding off the police for extended publicity even though the likely end would be the same.

This is the use of psychological and physical force on the greater society.

Don't forget his wife is now incarcerated as of today, she may also be a madman with a jihadist bent ? I don't know.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/1...anada-one-terrorist-attack-galvanizes-others/

Against that is the lack of any clear political objective. He held up a flag to try to claim association to distract from the fact he was nothing but a criminal. Plenty of examples of madmen pretending to be something they're not. Distraction. Trying to claim a noble purpose instead of facing the reality that he was a complete maniac.

Is there any suggestion that national security services initiated the review of the bail for the girlfriend?