Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The Sydney hostage situation ended in bloodshed, of course

The Sydney hostage situation ended in bloodshed, of course

Could it have ended any other way? No.

Last night’s hostage situation in Sydney lasted almost 17 hours and captivated the entire world, which was of course exactly what Islamic cleric Man Haron Monis had in mind when he walked into that cafe. When the guns stopped firing, a man and woman lay dead, four more were rushed away with injuries, and Australian authorities were left with the task of scraping up what was left of Monis.

From the Daily Mail:

Initially one man emerged with his hands up and lay down on the ground in front of police. Seconds later, a group of at least five hostages appeared suddenly after apparently escaping the cafe.

Seven Network reporter Chris Reason, who was watching the siege from his newsroom across the road, said Monis was attempting to usher the hostages from one side of the café to the other when a group broke away.

It is not clear what prompted police to storm the building, but it is believed Monis fired his shotgun, reportedly killing one of his captives.

This appeared to be the trigger for tactical police to move in. Within seconds, they had blasted through the cafe door and opened fire with automatic weapons, also hurling what appeared to be stun grenades. The sounds of explosions echoed through the city, and the flashes of rifle fire and the grenades lit up the area.
The gunfight lasted less than two minutes, and more hostages emerged after the police raid.

As the scene calmed down, a bomb disposal robot was seen entering the cafe.
The dramatic end to the siege came as the gunman holding the remaining captives was revealed as a self-proclaimed Islamic cleric Man Haron Monis.

Donald Trump appeared on Fox and Friends this morning and made a good point about how borderless the world becomes when Islamic extremists pick a target:

“You look at those images, that could happen anywhere,” said “Fox and Friends” host Steve Doocy, “You live on Fifth Avenue here in New York City. There’s a Lindt chocolate shop close to your house.”

“Maybe that will be next,” replied Trump. “And the fact is they no longer respect this part of the world, our world. They no longer respect it. They see what’s happened. They see what they get away it, and they just don’t have respect.”

“And it will happen in this country,” he predicted, “and it’ll happen more and more and throughout the world. A lot of it is a lack of respect, and they certainly don’t have that.”

The most striking thing about the world’s reaction to this is that nobody seemed particularly surprised that a card-carrying terrorist was holding court inside a downtown chocolate shop. It’s terrifying, and perverse—and we expect it.

A great number of people out there wish that the United States and her allies would ignore the threat of Islamic extremism, but the reactions I saw during the standoff prove that even if the politically correct classes don’t like it, people understand who these people are, and what they do.

Most importantly, they understand that anyone can be a target.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

Charles Curran | December 15, 2014 at 3:08 pm

I’m not sure what they will call this ‘Down Under’, but here it would have been ‘Work Place Violence’.

Are we feeling empathetic towards The Religion of Peace yet?

“Self-proclaimed cleric?” Does this mean this man was not a graduate of any of the legitimate Schools of Islam?

    MarkS in reply to Valerie. | December 15, 2014 at 5:22 pm

    Would that make him any less a terrorist?

    The media have been calling him self-proclaimed BUT in fact the man was a refugee from Iran, and was an Ayatollah in Iran before he fled to Australia.

    I think that it is most likely that he was behaving in a criminal fashion in Iran and that he did end up in jail prior to him fleeing the country…

    Perhaps his lawyer is correct in stating that the man was “damaged goods”.

Uh, I thought Australia was a gun free paradise.

How in the world did a “self-proclaimed cleric” happened to get hold of one?

    Here we go again with people not understanding Australian gun laws… Australia has never been a gun free paradise. We are allowed to own weapons but they must be of the kind that is permitted AND we must be licenced.

    The gun used in this crime was a sawn off shot gun… it was not a legal weapon but an illegal weapon.

    Australia has an issue with gun crime mostly among gangs made up of Middle Eastern types, but also some Asians (not Pakistani) being involved. Prior to this incident there was a spate of shootings involving people from the Muslim community including an incident involving the mother of the notorious Hamzy (in prison for his terrorist activity) who was the founder of Brothers4Life.

    Most of the weapons involved in these incidents have been illegally obtained.

    FYI at the time of the Port Arthur massacre a number of gun owners surrendered their weapons, but recently I noticed an article that indicated that the ownership of similar weapons that are legally approved has been on the rise and more weapons are owned than at that time. So does that sound like we are gun free?

    Also FYI most Australians do not feel the need to own a gun and thus we remain gun free.

      Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to Aussie. | December 15, 2014 at 9:36 pm

      We are allowed to own weapons but they must be of the kind that is permitted AND we must be licenced.

      Oh, good. It’s great to hear the recitation of the rules.

      The gun used in this crime was a sawn off shot gun… it was not a legal weapon but an illegal weapon.

      But… but, the rules! What about the rules?

      Also FYI most Australians do not feel the need to own a gun and thus we remain gun free.

      “We” remain available as hostages and defenseless dupes. “We” are only gun free until confronted with the muzzle of the weapon of someone who isn’t “one of us”.

      But it doesn’t sound like “we” are much concerned with seeing to it that those “others” are held to the rules, does it. Who pungled up all the legal fees for Man Haron Monis in all his court travails, and what the hell was he doing out of jail, and was he coddled as an “other” because the PC choir felt the laws should be lenient?

      Voyager in reply to Aussie. | December 16, 2014 at 9:44 am

      I think you’ve completely missed his point. A common justification for gun control is that by outlawing certain types of guns, this kind of thing cannot happen.

      The reality, as you have pointed out, is the people who do this sort of thing just go get their guns illegally and do it anyways.

    Right, he got a pump shotgun, in a country where they’ve been banned for going on 20 years. The whole thing is getting some of Australia’s leaders to question just why they have such strict gun control in the first place if it doesn’t stop these tragedies.

Hey Aussie Socialist politicians? How’s that nationwide #NoGunZone working out?

If that ISIS Islamobastard tried that in an Arizona restaurant where I was dining he would have eaten my lead and the lead of some of the other armed patrons as well.

    That nationwide no gun zone does not exist, except in your mind.

    Australians continue to own guns and they do so when they are licenced to own a gun. There are more guns owned today than prior to the Port Arthur massacre. Guns are used in a lot of crime and murders in Australia especially among bikie gangs and drug dealers. There has been a spate of incidents involving guns in recent weeks… except that those guns are illegal weapons (obtained illegally or they have been altered to make them illegal).

    Until now we have not felt the need to possess a gun.

      Sian in reply to Aussie. | December 16, 2014 at 1:22 pm

      That’s a common attitude I see. Nobody imagines they could ever need such a thing… until they do and it’s too late.

It could have ended differently. They could have kept his raping, murdering butt in jail instead of letting him out on bail pending his murder trial. It isn’t like he didn’t write letters to the families of dead Australian soldiers telling them that it’s good their sons were dead. Known wolf indeed.

“Anyone can be a target,” sure, but there’s a difference between being a “target” and being a “victim”.

Just one more reason to steer clear of “gun-free zones”.

Known Wolves depend on finding a bunch of sheep.

They won’t last long amide Momma and Poppa Grizzlies.

    Rags, buddy, that is LONE wolf…. not known wolf.

    He was known to police because of his past. Once he was identified by the police they knew immediately who he was.

    The guy was a monster and I cannot understand why he was allowed out of jail on bail. I do suspect that he had a mental illness but I cannot prove the same. Please do not misunderstand me on this point because I do think that what I read about his behaviour inside the cafe was very erratic and extreme. At the same time I believe that anyone who stays within Islam is mentally defective.

      Ragspierre in reply to Aussie. | December 15, 2014 at 10:20 pm

      The reference was made deliberately.

      Like Major Hassan or the monsters of Rothingham, this guy was a KNOWN danger to society. He should have been OFF the streets.

      He was a KNOWN Wolf. Not merely a “Lone Wolf”.

      healthguyfsu in reply to Aussie. | December 16, 2014 at 3:08 pm

      Cool glad they identified him after he had taken people hostage, shot a few, and then was taken down while probably trying to kill the rest.

      The police can’t protect you…only respond with force. Arm and protect yourselves.

Vox.com is finding this an appropriate teaching moment, reminding us to stop demanding muslims denounce terrorism every time a muslim commits an act of terrorism. Twitchy is having fun with it.

If you are white, Vox wants you to check your privilege. If you are American, you consume too much. If you are male, your penis makes you guilty. But being muslim means never having to say you’re sorry.

    C. Lashown in reply to cazinger. | December 16, 2014 at 9:33 am

    Motive? His motive was ‘everyone’ hates Muslims, and with GOOD reason! He was there to balance the world, according to his unbalanced mind.

A picture appeared of this guy standing in front of the cafe window looking like the perfect police sniper target. Why wasn’t the shot taken?

    Lack of positive ID, most likely, along with the possibility that there might have been a second gunman inside who might have reacted negativly on the rest of the hostages. Waiting is normally the best thing to do with these nuts. As the hours tick on, they get sleep-deprived and sloppy, particularly if there’s just one of them and they can’t take turns sleeping. Generally (but not all of the time) if they’re going for massive casualties, they start shooting really early, hence the difference between police response to ‘active shooters’ vs this kind of nut.

    Ragspierre in reply to MarkS. | December 15, 2014 at 6:35 pm

    Fear of bombs, and a lack of a clear field of fire (you can easily kill someone behind the target you don’t see.)

    He was using a female hostage as a human shield and that would mean that her life would have been in danger at the same time.

    The police acted appropriately.

The Leftie psychotics at the Sidney Morning Herald called for empathy for the Mooselimb murderer, and reaching out the hand of friendship. I say time to send all Muslims out of civilized lands–they have 57 Muslim states, send them there.

When I caught up on things, the first thing I read was about religious figures and ordinary Australians coming together to head off a backlash against the Muslim community.

It was only afterwards, as an afterthought, that I discovered that two of the hostages had perished.

So the backlash story was out before the bodies were cold. I somehow find that… reprehensible. Deeply so.

    Radegunda in reply to JBourque. | December 15, 2014 at 10:28 pm

    The Daily Mail (my go-to source for pictures) has two photos of the same group of grieving Muslims placing flowers at the square, plus another picture of one of the same women in hijab wiping away tears. I’m not going to question the sincerity of those particular Muslims, but I will note the rather transparent intent of the DM in so insistently spotlighting those particular people among the many, many who placed flowers there.

    C. Lashown in reply to JBourque. | December 16, 2014 at 9:46 am

    That’s right, the left with their multicultural utopia, have to protect the ‘nest’ from which this reptile crawled. The proper and common sense thing to do would be to burn out that nest of vipers, not protect it.

    Instead, all the moderate Muslims must be protected until they’re mature and become fully fledged jihadits, slaughtering their thousands in the name of spiritual purity. I’m looking forward to hearing the liberal feminists scream with outrage when their Mosque leaders demand all woman submit to female circumcision. Multiculturalism indeed!

I’ve read that the chocolate company refused to pay the halal tax. That could be motive.

One wonders why he wasn’t denied bail for his murder trial.

Charles Curran | December 16, 2014 at 7:58 am

What about this ‘Aussie’. http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/

What really bothers me is that with a dozen hostages the guy went to sleep. Any 12 people could have easily beat the guy to a bloody pulp but they just cowered in the floor or ran for it leaving the others behind. When did the common Aussie turn into timid progressives?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend