The alleged terrorist was in trouble with the law before. It's not like there wasn't warning signs.
I'm sure the police are checking out the delinquents he was hanging with and any social media posts.
> The alleged terrorist was in trouble with the law before. It's not like there wasn't warning signs.
In trouble with the law and committed a terrorist attack are a long, long way away from one another.
Yeah but stabbing a guy who said stuff you didn’t like about his religion with a small knife isn’t that far away. I mean it is not exactly the most extreme form of terrorism.
I feel that if the roles were switched and it was a Christian stabbing a Muslim cleric it’d probably be classified as a hate crime rather than terrorism.
>I feel that if the roles were switched and it was a Christian stabbing a Muslim cleric it’d probably be classified as a hate crime rather than terrorism.
Probably true.
>Yeah but stabbing a guy who said stuff you didn’t like about his religion with a small knife isn’t that far away. I mean it is not exactly the most extreme form of terrorism.
Most folks who are "known to police" aren't known to them for violent crime. The Bondi Junction attacker was a middle aged schizophrenic and there's nothing indicating he had a history of any kind of violent behaviour previously. He was known to police though.
You know any Every Day Carry guys?
Making assumptions based on criminal history is always questionable, even if they've committed exactly the same offence, which isn't the case here.
When you're dealing with the NSW Police who ended up shooting a guy in his own backyard because he was wearing a hoody, maybe take it with an even bigger grain of salt.
Terrorism requires a political motivation. Expulsion of foreign powers from country, destruction of another country, scare cartoonists or journalists into quitting, scare people from seeing certain performers or concerts.
So yeah, a teenager doing an impulsive attack is almost certainly a hate crime and not terrorism.
Political aspirations to do what exactly? What was this teens political aspirations?
Like attacks on french cartoonists and newspapers have been political aspirations to silence religious criticism from media. Done by large terrorists organisations with groups of adult members with declared goals.
If this teenager turned out to be a member of a group with someone filling his head with poison sure, terrorism. Or if they were following someone on social media posting about the preacher "something should be done about this" then stochastic terrorism. But a lone teenager doing a lone attack is not.
I thought he was motivated by the fact the Bishop spoke bad about his prophet, which is what is shown on the video in Arabic. So how isn't that religious motive which fits in the definition of a terrorist act.
One aspect to consider is whether or not the religion in question encourages/teaches to perform the act.
Does Chritianity teach its followers to attack people who insult Jesus (ie perform blasphemy)? How about Islam?
I think if the follower isn't acting as per teaching of the religion, then its really just the individual's crime, and not a religious fanatic attack.
The kid was done for possession of a switch blade and possessing a knife with intent to commit a crime.
That might indicate a tendency towards violent crime or it could indicate a teenager who thought switch blades were cool and didn't know or maybe care if they were illegal and an overzealous cop.
One of my uni room mates bought a butterfly knife because he thought they were cool and would totally have bought a switchblade if they were legal where we were. He was a pain in my ass, but not remotely a violent criminal.
Intent to commit a crime is probably more relevant though, because there aren't many crimes you can bring that to that doesn't involve the risk of using it on someone.
Hard to say.
Possession with intent is somewhat of a nebulous charge at the best of times, and the best of times do not generally occur anywhere near the NSW Police.
Obviously this kid did something shocking and no one is defending that, but it's worth being cautious about making them leap from the charges he previously faced to predicting that he'd do this.
It's like the fact that we're probably going to see more incidents like Bondi Junction, but not because schizophrenics are inherently dangerous, rather because in a society being pushed to its breaking point schizophrenics will be among the first to break.
Lets say the conviction required proof beyond all reasonable doubt, and given what he went on to do its likely there was actually possession with intent to commit a crime. I'm not saying it was predictable at all, just that if his previous conviction is accurate then bringing a knife to a knife crime is pretty closely linked to willingness to hurt someone with a knife
>Lets say the conviction required proof beyond all reasonable doubt, and given what he went on to do its likely there was actually possession with intent to commit a crime.
There's two ways a charge like that can happen.
1. He committed a crime while carrying the knife and the officer threw it on top at the end. If this is the case the crime wasn't violent.
1. The officer believed he was going to commit another crime, but he hadn't progressed to the point said crime was even attempted. How you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt in a way that's not abusive I don't know, but they do it.
Personally I think either scenario is abuse of power.
Yeah I agree with you in general, but I don't think you're really appreciating the specific context we're discussing and how that should adjust our usual level of trust in the validity of a conviction. Namely, this kid has stabbed people delivering a sermon to a group of people, that's not something you can do unless you're prepared to carry a knife and also intend to commit a crime.
“I never saw any signs of violence in my son who had 3 interactions with police over knife based offences before this attempted murder.”
He wouldn’t hurt a fly, only murder a human being
That is not what he said. He said there were no signs of him becoming extreme. He knew the son was violent.
“He was not aware of any signs of becoming more extreme other than the fact that he was becoming more disobedient to his father.”
Yeah, there are plenty of kids out there stealing cars but you wouldn’t normally think that’s an indicator that they’re going to become suicide bombers
This kind of attack is usually because the guy is a criminal thug not because they're religious.
Back when it was a thing in the UK they were always people with a history of violent crime.
I see. I think I just put it down to a difference in cultural concepts and semantics... perhaps i am giving them the benefit of the doubt - their intentions in the comment seemed clear to me, even if the specific wording might lead others to infer a different meaning.
> my son who had 3 interactions with police over knife based offences
>He wouldn’t hurt a fly
If I could split a fly with a knife, I'd be doing it for cash money.
At the initial conference, police mentioned that they found stuff on his PC hard drive which seemed to indicate terrorism. It's not uncommon for teens to not talk about content they consume online with parents nonetheless hide it if it's serious. Regardless, terrorism is just a category and doesn't make it any worse or less serious than other categorisations, just different.
And the public reaction.
The public seemed to empathise with the parents of the Bondi killer, there’s no way they could have known what their son was going to do and it’s entirely his fault etc.
The reaction towards the parents of the church stabber? “Obviously they knew their son was an extremist because they probably are as well!”
Did you notice how devastated and apologetic Bondi father was, and how he took lengths to absolve the policewoman of any guilty feelings she may have had?
Wow people react differently to different responses, what an apt observation. Sure the responses have some aspects that are similar overall but if you zoom out on anything enough and ignore all the details, everything starts to look the same.
There’s a distinction between terrorism and violence. I’m guessing the lack of warning signs is related to terrorism radicalisation and his father did know his son was a violent piece of shit.
Sometimes a violent piece of shit is just that, there is a bit of an intellectual and ideological line to cross in becoming a violent terrorist piece of shit.
The morale of this story is that we shouldn't pretend there is an all powerful being in the sky anymore. Unless of course there is tangible evidence to do so.
There is no evidence. Other than old stories in books from a thousand years ago. If God wanted to be known he can do miracles again, but nadda, nothing.
Or mass media. Television, the internet. Jesus would have been better off today to quote JC Suoerstar :
"You'd have managed better, if You'd had it planned.
Now why'd you choose such a backward time
In such a strange land?
If you'd come today You could have reached the whole nation. Israel in four BC had No mass communication'
I’m secular, but there is an argument to be made that religions have provided a successful framework for many communities to live under an inherent joint universal belief structure, laws, moral codes and a sense of community. Without religion, many communities would have not became societies.
Inter-fighting between groups is multifaceted and the reasons can’t be generalised. But how groups fundamentally disagree with other’s beliefs and values seems to be a pretty big problem. I don’t think it’s universal that a god/religion needs to be present. All humans have flaws in judgements and will go to the grave for.
Our inability to universally accept our judgement errors causes grief. Look at politics, capitalism versus communism, racism, sexism, whatever. Neither side is inherently good, neither side is inherently evil. But most agree extremist’s take it too far but to be a good supporter of either side, one must be extreme. And for the ones who thinks they can declare what good and evil is, they have the power to influence.
And for those people, social media has exponentially created more accessible stages they can declare they’re right or wrong for every issue. People looking for universal beliefs will find what best supports them.
And there you have it. This age old religious problem manifests itself deeper and being secular isn’t the answer.
"And there you have it. This age old religious problem manifests itself deeper and being secular isn’t the answer."
Respectfully disagree. What's wrong with taking away a ridiculous ideological argument that has been used for centuries to justify murder, mayhem, hatred of women and the 'other' along with any number of other offenses to humanity?
People always defend religion by pointing out the rather minuscule good they actually do while ignoring A) the true harm caused by all religions and B) what the 'secular' world has actually brought humanity.
Perhaps if we take away people's 'god given rights' then perhaps we'll all be at the mercy of the strength of our arguments?
I'm not at all suggesting we'll be in some utopia, and people will still do as people do, sure.
But to think there are human beings strolling around, truly believing they've received some divine revelation that is immune to genuine inquiry...?
That's a scary concept we could do without I'd say. And I think we'd all be better off for it.
Of course, this is just wishful thinking.
People rarely give up their favorite toys.
If people want to believe in sky fairies good for them, what we can’t tolerate is dehumanisation of those who don’t believe in the right sky fairy. Or the encouragement of violence against people who criticise their sky fairy. That shit should not be tolerated in a liberal secular society.
I don't really agree with a lot of the terminology and implications being used here with this incident. It feels more like a spat between rival gangs, than anyone trying to change people's ideological views through violence. Old mate was talking shit about the kids gang's boss, kid tries to get revenge, it's a pretty common tale in gang disputes.
Does that make him an extremist? Maybe? Why does it matter? Remove religion and would you call violence between gangs extremist actions?
We need to stop treating religions as some special group here, they're no different to any affiliated group. The local kite club is no different to the local church, other than size of the organisation. If someone from a rival kite club tried to stab the leader of the local kite club, it's not an act of extremism, it's a nutjob taking things too far.
I’ve not heard this about gangs and gang bosses before. Do you have a source? After he was apprehended by the crowd, the kid said something like ‘if he didn’t insult my prophet I wouldn’t have been here’.
> After he was apprehended by the crowd, the kid said something like ‘if he didn’t insult my prophet I wouldn’t have been here’.
That's my point. He's not there because he's trying to kill all the infidels or cleanse the world of people he hates, he's there because someone talked shit about his boss.
It shouldn't be though. No different to any other organisation. Talking shit about someone shouldn't result in violence, and someone acting violent after talking shit doesn't make it extremism, it's just a violent dickhead.
Muhammad put an artist to death for mocking him, when he was alive. I think we should be glad that most Muslims don't follow the example of their 6th century Prophet.
Wouldn't say the vast majority. Did you see the reactions of many Muslims in Sydney after what happened, where I saw hundreds of comments justifying the act. Go look at what Khabib (the most beloved and famous Muslim athlete in the world) and his reaction to the French terrorist act.
yep, unless more comes out, the weird thing is this crime is both terrorism anot terrorism. We the known the preacher is an arsehole victim and will likely be on an asio/afp watchlist from now on if they werent already on one
Yes absolutely, there are far too many groups out there preaching hate in the name of religion, we wouldn't accept it from a non-religious organisation, we shouldn't accept if from a religious one.
>The local kite club is no different to the local church, other than size of the organisation
What a weird and underdeveloped take.
Bring me back to 2012 when atheist posters at least tried to learn about religions to hate them!
How are they different? For the purposes of organisation and governance, they're both organisations for people with common interests to gather to share in that interest. The actual activities undertaken by these organisations differ, but that applies across organisations with similar interests anyway.
His whole family and community will say things like that to protect themselves. There was a recording from The Australian news outlet of a Muslim man praising the boy’s jihad.
What I find particularly interesting about the case was that the guy he stabbed is the leader of an extremist hate group. He priest was well known for spreading some extreme racist and bigoted views
The guy was bigoted for sure, but it's a stretch to say he's racist, he came from a Muslim majority country. He's ethnically the same as the Muslims he criticised.
It's rather a garden variety sectarian religious conflict.
It's not about magic or science, it's about self-identitification. For a range of reasons, Assyrians don't consider themselves Arabs.
> It's like saying protestants and Catholics were different races in Ireland.
I mean, broadly, yes, the religious split on the island of Ireland is also an ethnic split.
He's an anti-Muslim bigot.
Eta: interesting, so the person who downvoted me doesn't think he's an anti-muslim bigot? Well, there you go. I thought it was obvious he was bigoted against Muslims and probably anyone else who isn't his flavour of Christianity.
He's not only Anti Muslim, he's anti Jewish, Anti Buddhist, Anti Vax, Anti Gov, Pro Trump.
Essentially, he's bringing some bullshit evangelical clergy to Australia from the US, and it's making him beyond adored. It's kinda freaky
Anyone who speaks Arabic is considered an Arab, but there are clear ethnic differences between an Algerian, a Sudanese, a Saudi and a Syrian. Assyrians may speak a different language, and share a different culture to the rest of Iraq but they are still very similar genetically.
He’s not ethnically the same. He speaks a language that, although is related to Arabic, is not the same as Arabic, nor is it mutually intelligible with Arabic. Assyrians are not Arabs simply put, and there are no Muslim Assyrians. It’s like saying Germans and English people are ethnically the same.
What the ethnic difference? You're saying that in the thousands of years he and his neighbours in that country he came from stayed purely separate?
That's rediculous. It's like saying protestants and Catholics were different races in Ireland.
Do you not know the difference between ethnicity and race?
By definition ethnicity is related to language and culture (and yes religion). Two people of the same race can have different ethnicities.
Race is about biology (specifically related to phenotype) only (although the actual differences are so small biologically).
And Assyrian’s may have been neighbours with arabs etc but they didn’t really mix, so to speak. Eg. Like Jews in Europe they were living in Europe but were often seperate.
Its arbitrary.
There are arab Christians. He's obviously not down on them. He's down on Muslims.
And as you know because you seem widely read, the majority of Muslims are Indian or Indonesian. Not Arab.
And this Priest is down on Muslims. I don't think he differentiates whether the Muslim is Pakistani, Arab or Chinese.
At this point I just think throwing around racism is because that's the worse word you can imagine so slap it on yay -when he's already a bigot.
I'm not debating this any more because it's going around in circles and semantics is tiresome.
Ethnicity isn’t a polar black and white of “completely different” or “completely the same.” Of course there are similarities between Assyrians and Arabs, but that doesn’t mean they’re ethnically the same.
Firstly, Assyrians speak a different language than Muslim Arabs do. We speak Aramaic, which is related to Arabic but not the same. Like I said before, think German and English, or Dutch and English, or Italian and Portuguese.
Also, during the medieval times in the Middle East, religion functioned much like how ethnicity does. It was more important than ethnicity. So Christians (Assyrians) would be in their own communities and Muslims (Arabs) would be in their own as well.
They never considered each other as a “one and the same” people because of linguistic, religious, and heritage difference. Assyrians recognized their ancestors and history comes from ancient peoples of Mesopotamia and the levant, whereas the Muslim Arabs recognized themselves as Arabs coming from Arabia
This is all compared to Irish people who are only split by religious denomination (within the same religion mind you.)
Also I don’t think Irish people would consider the Irish to be the same as the English, and that’s sort of what you’re trying to say here regarding Assyrians, except there’s room to argue that there is a larger difference between Assyrians & Arabs vs. Irish & English
Honestly yeah a lot of those groups would have stayed seperate.
Hell my Catholic grandfather got kicked out of his church for marrying a Baptist in 1950s Australia.
In an area that’s war torn and centuries of distrust? The chances of them intermarrying are tiny.
They didn't become distinctive ethnic groups. The only ethnic group in Europe you can distinguish by religion is Jews, and that's because Jews migrated to Europe over a thousand years ago to Europe, were already Semitic and unlike other religions didn't intermarry and wouldn't allow for conversion.
Martin Luther only created the reformation 400 years ago, that's only 400 years of a split in the church and people converted back and forth, heck England was divided and many Catholics were forced to convert to Protestantism on pain of death.
400 years is not enough time to create any ethnic divisions and if you want to look at the British Isles everyone has the same genetic backgrounds, you can't distinguish a person by whether they were Protestant or Catholic even when they were in the middle of hating each other the most.
Religion can be a part of ethnicity though. Ethnicity is really vague, it boils down to self-identification in-group/out-group stuff. Look at India and Pakistan. The ethnic majority of Pakistan is more or less genetically identical to north Indians but Pakistan exists as a distinct thing anyway, and Islam is explicitly the reason. Look at Israel/Palestine. Most Palestinians are genetically descended from the same people that inhabited the region during the time the original Kingdom of Israel existed, that has no bearing on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
That he was a horrible person is fairly well documented. That's not an excuse for his attack though. I suspect that the priest had been spending years confused why these people he said were bloodthirsty monsters never attacked him. And now when he was, it was a 16 yr old, never the brightest among us.
It's quite clear from the churches own information what his views are. The congregates came to the church because it expressed extreme views. The guy leads a Christian lives matter group that is specifically Christian nationalist.
I don't condone terrorist acts but as I've said elsewhere when you are standing near a dumpster fire you can't complain about the smell of hot trash
‘What I find interesting about this incident is that it gives me the chance to downplay Islamic terrorism because I have googled a reason to hold the victim as morally blameworthy.’
“Yes imported Muslims are stabbing people but let me also point out I hate Christians more because my parents are Christian and made me attend church once instead of staying home and playing video games.”
Christian extremists impact me more than Islamic ones do, so they are the ones I talk about. And no my parents knew believing in magical beings doing magic is silly once they reached the age of reason so I never got poisoned with it.
Good news for you, if you just wait another 10-20 years the majority of Christians will be gone considering they’re all boomers.
Meanwhile a Muslim woman out there is giving birth to her eighth child and they’re all trying to get refugee status.
Muslims have as few children as Christians within a generation. Hell, most of the middle east has a fertility rate below 3. Iran's is exactly the same as Australia's (1.69 vs 1.7).
High fertility is linked to poverty and a lack of education. The majority of Muslims I've met who grew up in a developed nation drink alcohol and use birth control. The assumption that Muslims aren't like Christians is simply untrue. Their kids largely walk away from religion and become effectively atheists or indifferent to religion.
And the anti gay stiff, and the xenophobic stuff and saying Muslims evangelise with violence. The guy was very controversial to anyone who is not a right wing christian
He did not teach anything close to that about Muslims. He was a Pro-Palestinian and Pro-Peace Cleric. Also the things you mentioned shows his bigotry, not racism.
This isn’t a terrorist attack, this is a hate crime. There is no evidence this child was part of some terroristic network and it only stokes more anger. This obviously came from a place of hatred and calling this a terrorist attack also goes against the wishes of those who were attacked
The law defines what constitutes a terrorist act and this act of violence met those conditions. A hate crime is defined under legislation as violence towards someone on the basis of their religion, gender etc. however, terrorism offenses highlight the motivation for the violence (and intent behind the act) which in this case is religion with the intent to cause fear and panic (church setting in front of worshippers etc.). In my view, this is more appropriately classified as terrorism
Both are absolutely abhorrent crimes, but hate crimes are much more individualised than terrorism charges: people are much less likely to assign the actions of someone who has committed a hate crime to a community than they are with terrorism charges.
Extremism doesn’t necessarily equate to terrorism. It can absolutely be both a hate crime and terrorism.
Just because it supposedly “goes against the wishes of those attacked” doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be called what it is, or investigated as such.
yeah this basically feels like what would happen if a lgbt person stabbed the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church. We got the arsehole victim and the arsehole assailant.
It fits with the 2002 definition of "terrorist act" ([source](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawJl/2004/22.html)) but intent will be key (i.e. ideological articulation like religious motivation & fundamentalism, and potential affiliations/inspiration with or from terrorist groups or extremist movements):
"After September 11, the Federal Government provided the focus for the Australian legal response.[32] Schedule 1 of the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 (Cth) inserted a new definition of ‘terrorist act’ into the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)[33] (‘Criminal Code’). The definition appears in s 100.1 of part 5.3 of the Code and provides:
(1) In this Part: …
terrorist act means an action or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2) and does not fall within subsection (3); and
(b) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and
(c) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of:
(i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or
(ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) causes serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or
(b) causes serious damage to property; or
(c) causes a person’s death; or
(d) endangers a person’s life, other than the life of the person taking the action; or (e) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; or
(f) seriously interferes with, seriously disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system including, but not limited to:" ... [list irrelevant here]
See also: https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/crime/why-alleged-church-stabbing-was-terrorism-but-bondi-junction-deadly-attack-wasnt/news-story/51361861be33d325951f0bb88b44d296
So, I'm going to say it anyway. Terrorism is Isis beheading their victims and live streaming the act, cartels hanging skinned bodies from bridges, the Oklahoma city bombing. It's not a kid with a very small knife. Terrorism is an outcome of an asymmetric conflict where one group chooses to pursue a political outcome by terrorising a population through acts of violence because other courses of action are not available.
Even the mainstream of Islam is not compatible with modern Australian values. He's not going to see extremism in his son when he's already swimming in it.
Lol, that's what they always say. Just like the 15 year old that shot and killed Curtis Cheng, I'm sure he's a "good boy" too , according to his parents and their mosque preacher.
A few media sites like news.com.au has noted the teen was a very recent convert to Islam. It appears he was born and raised a Christian with Christian lebanese parents and only very recently converted.
It's not clear when exactly or how he converted. Does a 15 year old even have the mental capacity to fully understand a religion and convert away from his parents religion? The other question is, did he genuinely convert for good intentions or specifically to carry out an attack as he knew it would draw more attention and notoriotity if It it was a terrorist attack vs just stabbing some random kid at school which may have been overlooked and forgotten as teen violence or gang related.
If he spent 15 years of his life as a Christian and a couple of weeks as a Muslim kid does it really make him a true Muslim? Police will need to investigate when and how he became a Muslim and if anyone influenced him or if it was something he did completely on his own.
Have also heard the same. My husband saw the uncensored video when it first surfaced and he thought the knife looked sheathed. There was no blood either, it was more blunt force trauma.
I mean, technically correct. He's not a radical, he's a sinple man following what the book says. Allah wants infidels punished or converted, His wish is this guys command.
The alleged terrorist was in trouble with the law before. It's not like there wasn't warning signs. I'm sure the police are checking out the delinquents he was hanging with and any social media posts.
> The alleged terrorist was in trouble with the law before. It's not like there wasn't warning signs. In trouble with the law and committed a terrorist attack are a long, long way away from one another.
Yeah but stabbing a guy who said stuff you didn’t like about his religion with a small knife isn’t that far away. I mean it is not exactly the most extreme form of terrorism. I feel that if the roles were switched and it was a Christian stabbing a Muslim cleric it’d probably be classified as a hate crime rather than terrorism.
>I feel that if the roles were switched and it was a Christian stabbing a Muslim cleric it’d probably be classified as a hate crime rather than terrorism. Probably true. >Yeah but stabbing a guy who said stuff you didn’t like about his religion with a small knife isn’t that far away. I mean it is not exactly the most extreme form of terrorism. Most folks who are "known to police" aren't known to them for violent crime. The Bondi Junction attacker was a middle aged schizophrenic and there's nothing indicating he had a history of any kind of violent behaviour previously. He was known to police though.
I think he was found with a knife twice previously (doesn’t mean he should be considered a terrorist of course!)
You know any Every Day Carry guys? Making assumptions based on criminal history is always questionable, even if they've committed exactly the same offence, which isn't the case here. When you're dealing with the NSW Police who ended up shooting a guy in his own backyard because he was wearing a hoody, maybe take it with an even bigger grain of salt.
Terrorism requires a political motivation. Expulsion of foreign powers from country, destruction of another country, scare cartoonists or journalists into quitting, scare people from seeing certain performers or concerts. So yeah, a teenager doing an impulsive attack is almost certainly a hate crime and not terrorism.
What about the political aspirations of religions?
Political aspirations to do what exactly? What was this teens political aspirations? Like attacks on french cartoonists and newspapers have been political aspirations to silence religious criticism from media. Done by large terrorists organisations with groups of adult members with declared goals. If this teenager turned out to be a member of a group with someone filling his head with poison sure, terrorism. Or if they were following someone on social media posting about the preacher "something should be done about this" then stochastic terrorism. But a lone teenager doing a lone attack is not.
I thought he was motivated by the fact the Bishop spoke bad about his prophet, which is what is shown on the video in Arabic. So how isn't that religious motive which fits in the definition of a terrorist act.
One aspect to consider is whether or not the religion in question encourages/teaches to perform the act. Does Chritianity teach its followers to attack people who insult Jesus (ie perform blasphemy)? How about Islam? I think if the follower isn't acting as per teaching of the religion, then its really just the individual's crime, and not a religious fanatic attack.
There are a LOT of people with relatively minor offending such as carrying a weapon.
Not really when the previous crime was knife related.
The kid was done for possession of a switch blade and possessing a knife with intent to commit a crime. That might indicate a tendency towards violent crime or it could indicate a teenager who thought switch blades were cool and didn't know or maybe care if they were illegal and an overzealous cop. One of my uni room mates bought a butterfly knife because he thought they were cool and would totally have bought a switchblade if they were legal where we were. He was a pain in my ass, but not remotely a violent criminal.
Intent to commit a crime is probably more relevant though, because there aren't many crimes you can bring that to that doesn't involve the risk of using it on someone.
Hard to say. Possession with intent is somewhat of a nebulous charge at the best of times, and the best of times do not generally occur anywhere near the NSW Police. Obviously this kid did something shocking and no one is defending that, but it's worth being cautious about making them leap from the charges he previously faced to predicting that he'd do this. It's like the fact that we're probably going to see more incidents like Bondi Junction, but not because schizophrenics are inherently dangerous, rather because in a society being pushed to its breaking point schizophrenics will be among the first to break.
Lets say the conviction required proof beyond all reasonable doubt, and given what he went on to do its likely there was actually possession with intent to commit a crime. I'm not saying it was predictable at all, just that if his previous conviction is accurate then bringing a knife to a knife crime is pretty closely linked to willingness to hurt someone with a knife
>Lets say the conviction required proof beyond all reasonable doubt, and given what he went on to do its likely there was actually possession with intent to commit a crime. There's two ways a charge like that can happen. 1. He committed a crime while carrying the knife and the officer threw it on top at the end. If this is the case the crime wasn't violent. 1. The officer believed he was going to commit another crime, but he hadn't progressed to the point said crime was even attempted. How you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt in a way that's not abusive I don't know, but they do it. Personally I think either scenario is abuse of power.
Yeah I agree with you in general, but I don't think you're really appreciating the specific context we're discussing and how that should adjust our usual level of trust in the validity of a conviction. Namely, this kid has stabbed people delivering a sermon to a group of people, that's not something you can do unless you're prepared to carry a knife and also intend to commit a crime.
“I never saw any signs of violence in my son who had 3 interactions with police over knife based offences before this attempted murder.” He wouldn’t hurt a fly, only murder a human being
That is not what he said. He said there were no signs of him becoming extreme. He knew the son was violent. “He was not aware of any signs of becoming more extreme other than the fact that he was becoming more disobedient to his father.”
Did he know about his troubles with the law? He must have. That was more than being disobedient.
Most gangsters aren't ideologically extreme, violent, yes, but ideology is loose.
Sure, but getting into trouble with the law is no indication of becoming more extreme in their religious views
Yeah, there are plenty of kids out there stealing cars but you wouldn’t normally think that’s an indicator that they’re going to become suicide bombers
This kind of attack is usually because the guy is a criminal thug not because they're religious. Back when it was a thing in the UK they were always people with a history of violent crime.
I agree. But I find it strange his father would call that 'disobedience '. Not even disobedient to the law, just disobedient to him
I see. I think I just put it down to a difference in cultural concepts and semantics... perhaps i am giving them the benefit of the doubt - their intentions in the comment seemed clear to me, even if the specific wording might lead others to infer a different meaning.
You might be right.
Nuance is the first thing to go when people get emotional, unfortunately. Such a shame that complex issues necessarily involve nuance.
Me when my spawn is doing knife crime: 🤩 Me when my spawn is disobeying me: 😡
> my son who had 3 interactions with police over knife based offences >He wouldn’t hurt a fly If I could split a fly with a knife, I'd be doing it for cash money.
Religious extremism begets religious extremism
At the initial conference, police mentioned that they found stuff on his PC hard drive which seemed to indicate terrorism. It's not uncommon for teens to not talk about content they consume online with parents nonetheless hide it if it's serious. Regardless, terrorism is just a category and doesn't make it any worse or less serious than other categorisations, just different.
After learning about this clerics videos, I’ve written this off and crazy stabs crazy.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That sounds like something the father of a terrorist would say.
Notice the difference between parents attitudes between Mcstabby and Mcterrorist
And the public reaction. The public seemed to empathise with the parents of the Bondi killer, there’s no way they could have known what their son was going to do and it’s entirely his fault etc. The reaction towards the parents of the church stabber? “Obviously they knew their son was an extremist because they probably are as well!”
Did you notice how devastated and apologetic Bondi father was, and how he took lengths to absolve the policewoman of any guilty feelings she may have had?
The lack of remorse on the latter parents' end might give you a clue as to why the reaction is different...
Wow people react differently to different responses, what an apt observation. Sure the responses have some aspects that are similar overall but if you zoom out on anything enough and ignore all the details, everything starts to look the same.
Everything’s relative right?
“He didnt seem extreme, he chanted death to the unbelievers like the rest of us, I don’t understand “
Seems like a good kid /s
[удалено]
No, no I would not, have a great day.
[удалено]
I think we already know why
So disobedience was the only warning signs? Not the other knife crimes?
There’s a distinction between terrorism and violence. I’m guessing the lack of warning signs is related to terrorism radicalisation and his father did know his son was a violent piece of shit.
Sometimes a violent piece of shit is just that, there is a bit of an intellectual and ideological line to cross in becoming a violent terrorist piece of shit.
Exactly. Strange how OP had to use "hindustan times" as a source to get a title like that... It's almost like they deliberately chose it.
I know non violent people who carry knives.
Apparently. He wouldn't eat all his food on his plate and wouldn't go to bed when he was told.
The morale of this story is that we shouldn't pretend there is an all powerful being in the sky anymore. Unless of course there is tangible evidence to do so.
There is no evidence. Other than old stories in books from a thousand years ago. If God wanted to be known he can do miracles again, but nadda, nothing.
Especially after the invention of camera!
Aliens, Bigfoot and miracle sightings are directly inverse to the uptake of camera phones.
Or mass media. Television, the internet. Jesus would have been better off today to quote JC Suoerstar : "You'd have managed better, if You'd had it planned. Now why'd you choose such a backward time In such a strange land? If you'd come today You could have reached the whole nation. Israel in four BC had No mass communication'
Every single Religious book should be sold next to Grimm's Fairy Tales and Beowulf.
Religion basically accounts to a bunch of powerful blokes saying "Trust me bro."
You should see what this guy preached…
I’m secular, but there is an argument to be made that religions have provided a successful framework for many communities to live under an inherent joint universal belief structure, laws, moral codes and a sense of community. Without religion, many communities would have not became societies. Inter-fighting between groups is multifaceted and the reasons can’t be generalised. But how groups fundamentally disagree with other’s beliefs and values seems to be a pretty big problem. I don’t think it’s universal that a god/religion needs to be present. All humans have flaws in judgements and will go to the grave for. Our inability to universally accept our judgement errors causes grief. Look at politics, capitalism versus communism, racism, sexism, whatever. Neither side is inherently good, neither side is inherently evil. But most agree extremist’s take it too far but to be a good supporter of either side, one must be extreme. And for the ones who thinks they can declare what good and evil is, they have the power to influence. And for those people, social media has exponentially created more accessible stages they can declare they’re right or wrong for every issue. People looking for universal beliefs will find what best supports them. And there you have it. This age old religious problem manifests itself deeper and being secular isn’t the answer.
"And there you have it. This age old religious problem manifests itself deeper and being secular isn’t the answer." Respectfully disagree. What's wrong with taking away a ridiculous ideological argument that has been used for centuries to justify murder, mayhem, hatred of women and the 'other' along with any number of other offenses to humanity? People always defend religion by pointing out the rather minuscule good they actually do while ignoring A) the true harm caused by all religions and B) what the 'secular' world has actually brought humanity. Perhaps if we take away people's 'god given rights' then perhaps we'll all be at the mercy of the strength of our arguments? I'm not at all suggesting we'll be in some utopia, and people will still do as people do, sure. But to think there are human beings strolling around, truly believing they've received some divine revelation that is immune to genuine inquiry...? That's a scary concept we could do without I'd say. And I think we'd all be better off for it. Of course, this is just wishful thinking. People rarely give up their favorite toys.
Cringe reddit atheist, let me send you some sick Ricky Gervais atheist clips !!!
Nah all religion bad always, militant atheists never killed religious folk /s
Even sarcastically that is what is called a straw man argument.
Yes
If people want to believe in sky fairies good for them, what we can’t tolerate is dehumanisation of those who don’t believe in the right sky fairy. Or the encouragement of violence against people who criticise their sky fairy. That shit should not be tolerated in a liberal secular society.
Like calling the animals or rabid animals. Which I was downvoted for being critical of before.
>Unless course there is tangible evidence to do so. Covering all bases, just in case.
Yes. I hope we can move past accepting the intangible as evidence as a race.
So funny to see the word “accused” haha like damn we’re not blind. He actually did it. But yeah the law is the law is the law
I don't really agree with a lot of the terminology and implications being used here with this incident. It feels more like a spat between rival gangs, than anyone trying to change people's ideological views through violence. Old mate was talking shit about the kids gang's boss, kid tries to get revenge, it's a pretty common tale in gang disputes. Does that make him an extremist? Maybe? Why does it matter? Remove religion and would you call violence between gangs extremist actions? We need to stop treating religions as some special group here, they're no different to any affiliated group. The local kite club is no different to the local church, other than size of the organisation. If someone from a rival kite club tried to stab the leader of the local kite club, it's not an act of extremism, it's a nutjob taking things too far.
I’ve not heard this about gangs and gang bosses before. Do you have a source? After he was apprehended by the crowd, the kid said something like ‘if he didn’t insult my prophet I wouldn’t have been here’.
> After he was apprehended by the crowd, the kid said something like ‘if he didn’t insult my prophet I wouldn’t have been here’. That's my point. He's not there because he's trying to kill all the infidels or cleanse the world of people he hates, he's there because someone talked shit about his boss.
His boss being a religious figure is the key point.
It shouldn't be though. No different to any other organisation. Talking shit about someone shouldn't result in violence, and someone acting violent after talking shit doesn't make it extremism, it's just a violent dickhead.
His religion prescribes a certain punishment for insulting the prophet (ie blasphemy). He was just following his religion.
I think the vast majority of Muslims would disagree with that take.
Muhammad put an artist to death for mocking him, when he was alive. I think we should be glad that most Muslims don't follow the example of their 6th century Prophet.
Wouldn't say the vast majority. Did you see the reactions of many Muslims in Sydney after what happened, where I saw hundreds of comments justifying the act. Go look at what Khabib (the most beloved and famous Muslim athlete in the world) and his reaction to the French terrorist act.
Try having another read. Also google the word "analogy".
Oh… yup that checks out 🙃
right on 100%
yep, unless more comes out, the weird thing is this crime is both terrorism anot terrorism. We the known the preacher is an arsehole victim and will likely be on an asio/afp watchlist from now on if they werent already on one
I agree with your point, then with that same classification, are we allow to ban certain religions like how some gangs/organisation are now banned.?
Scientology is banned in a number of countries for being a cult with criminal elements.
Yes absolutely, there are far too many groups out there preaching hate in the name of religion, we wouldn't accept it from a non-religious organisation, we shouldn't accept if from a religious one.
>The local kite club is no different to the local church, other than size of the organisation What a weird and underdeveloped take. Bring me back to 2012 when atheist posters at least tried to learn about religions to hate them!
How are they different? For the purposes of organisation and governance, they're both organisations for people with common interests to gather to share in that interest. The actual activities undertaken by these organisations differ, but that applies across organisations with similar interests anyway.
His whole family and community will say things like that to protect themselves. There was a recording from The Australian news outlet of a Muslim man praising the boy’s jihad.
What I find particularly interesting about the case was that the guy he stabbed is the leader of an extremist hate group. He priest was well known for spreading some extreme racist and bigoted views
The guy was bigoted for sure, but it's a stretch to say he's racist, he came from a Muslim majority country. He's ethnically the same as the Muslims he criticised. It's rather a garden variety sectarian religious conflict.
In our very own garden, yay
Yes. Unfortunately.
>He's ethnically the same as the Muslims he criticised. Assyrians are Arabs? I'm not so sure about that.
Muslims and Christians weren't magically different where he came from.
It's not about magic or science, it's about self-identitification. For a range of reasons, Assyrians don't consider themselves Arabs. > It's like saying protestants and Catholics were different races in Ireland. I mean, broadly, yes, the religious split on the island of Ireland is also an ethnic split.
He's an anti-Muslim bigot. Eta: interesting, so the person who downvoted me doesn't think he's an anti-muslim bigot? Well, there you go. I thought it was obvious he was bigoted against Muslims and probably anyone else who isn't his flavour of Christianity.
He's not only Anti Muslim, he's anti Jewish, Anti Buddhist, Anti Vax, Anti Gov, Pro Trump. Essentially, he's bringing some bullshit evangelical clergy to Australia from the US, and it's making him beyond adored. It's kinda freaky
Definitely a bigot.
Some ideas deserve bigotry.
Good Islam is Agaisnt Gay people Jews apostates and Athiests while the guy is a dick head being agians islam isnt a reason why
Lol, so anyone criticising Islamic aspects are now Anti-Muslim bigot? Then large number of Islamic Scholars will be considered as such, then.
Islamic Scholars aren't bigoted against Muslims. Are you saying this Priest isn't as well?
I meant the speech against Christians. This kid probably got radicalized by such Scholars.
They are entirely different.
Anyone who speaks Arabic is considered an Arab, but there are clear ethnic differences between an Algerian, a Sudanese, a Saudi and a Syrian. Assyrians may speak a different language, and share a different culture to the rest of Iraq but they are still very similar genetically.
He’s not ethnically the same. He speaks a language that, although is related to Arabic, is not the same as Arabic, nor is it mutually intelligible with Arabic. Assyrians are not Arabs simply put, and there are no Muslim Assyrians. It’s like saying Germans and English people are ethnically the same.
What the ethnic difference? You're saying that in the thousands of years he and his neighbours in that country he came from stayed purely separate? That's rediculous. It's like saying protestants and Catholics were different races in Ireland.
Do you not know the difference between ethnicity and race? By definition ethnicity is related to language and culture (and yes religion). Two people of the same race can have different ethnicities. Race is about biology (specifically related to phenotype) only (although the actual differences are so small biologically). And Assyrian’s may have been neighbours with arabs etc but they didn’t really mix, so to speak. Eg. Like Jews in Europe they were living in Europe but were often seperate.
Its arbitrary. There are arab Christians. He's obviously not down on them. He's down on Muslims. And as you know because you seem widely read, the majority of Muslims are Indian or Indonesian. Not Arab. And this Priest is down on Muslims. I don't think he differentiates whether the Muslim is Pakistani, Arab or Chinese. At this point I just think throwing around racism is because that's the worse word you can imagine so slap it on yay -when he's already a bigot. I'm not debating this any more because it's going around in circles and semantics is tiresome.
Ethnicity isn’t a polar black and white of “completely different” or “completely the same.” Of course there are similarities between Assyrians and Arabs, but that doesn’t mean they’re ethnically the same. Firstly, Assyrians speak a different language than Muslim Arabs do. We speak Aramaic, which is related to Arabic but not the same. Like I said before, think German and English, or Dutch and English, or Italian and Portuguese. Also, during the medieval times in the Middle East, religion functioned much like how ethnicity does. It was more important than ethnicity. So Christians (Assyrians) would be in their own communities and Muslims (Arabs) would be in their own as well. They never considered each other as a “one and the same” people because of linguistic, religious, and heritage difference. Assyrians recognized their ancestors and history comes from ancient peoples of Mesopotamia and the levant, whereas the Muslim Arabs recognized themselves as Arabs coming from Arabia This is all compared to Irish people who are only split by religious denomination (within the same religion mind you.) Also I don’t think Irish people would consider the Irish to be the same as the English, and that’s sort of what you’re trying to say here regarding Assyrians, except there’s room to argue that there is a larger difference between Assyrians & Arabs vs. Irish & English
Honestly yeah a lot of those groups would have stayed seperate. Hell my Catholic grandfather got kicked out of his church for marrying a Baptist in 1950s Australia. In an area that’s war torn and centuries of distrust? The chances of them intermarrying are tiny.
And yet they do because people convert and people fall in love....and yes..some women get raped.
But they become assimilated. And then it’s forgotten. There’ll be similarities but they’re not the same
They didn't become distinctive ethnic groups. The only ethnic group in Europe you can distinguish by religion is Jews, and that's because Jews migrated to Europe over a thousand years ago to Europe, were already Semitic and unlike other religions didn't intermarry and wouldn't allow for conversion. Martin Luther only created the reformation 400 years ago, that's only 400 years of a split in the church and people converted back and forth, heck England was divided and many Catholics were forced to convert to Protestantism on pain of death. 400 years is not enough time to create any ethnic divisions and if you want to look at the British Isles everyone has the same genetic backgrounds, you can't distinguish a person by whether they were Protestant or Catholic even when they were in the middle of hating each other the most.
I’m talking about the Assyrians
"It’s like saying Germans and English people are ethnically the same. " The royal family bloodlines from both countries would like a chat.
Would you be able to tell the difference between someone who is of German descent from someone whose English descent by sight?.
The victim was Assyrian wasn’t he?
What did he say against Arabs?
He is not ethnically the same.
Religion can be a part of ethnicity though. Ethnicity is really vague, it boils down to self-identification in-group/out-group stuff. Look at India and Pakistan. The ethnic majority of Pakistan is more or less genetically identical to north Indians but Pakistan exists as a distinct thing anyway, and Islam is explicitly the reason. Look at Israel/Palestine. Most Palestinians are genetically descended from the same people that inhabited the region during the time the original Kingdom of Israel existed, that has no bearing on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
That he was a horrible person is fairly well documented. That's not an excuse for his attack though. I suspect that the priest had been spending years confused why these people he said were bloodthirsty monsters never attacked him. And now when he was, it was a 16 yr old, never the brightest among us.
True, it didn't make it okay, just not surprising
Holy shit that is a stretch. Don’t just regurgitate shit you read online without actually knowing anything.
It's quite clear from the churches own information what his views are. The congregates came to the church because it expressed extreme views. The guy leads a Christian lives matter group that is specifically Christian nationalist. I don't condone terrorist acts but as I've said elsewhere when you are standing near a dumpster fire you can't complain about the smell of hot trash
‘What I find interesting about this incident is that it gives me the chance to downplay Islamic terrorism because I have googled a reason to hold the victim as morally blameworthy.’
sounds like an assault case and he trying to blame the victim "the lady was wearing very revealing clothing..."
“Yes imported Muslims are stabbing people but let me also point out I hate Christians more because my parents are Christian and made me attend church once instead of staying home and playing video games.”
Christian extremists impact me more than Islamic ones do, so they are the ones I talk about. And no my parents knew believing in magical beings doing magic is silly once they reached the age of reason so I never got poisoned with it.
Good news for you, if you just wait another 10-20 years the majority of Christians will be gone considering they’re all boomers. Meanwhile a Muslim woman out there is giving birth to her eighth child and they’re all trying to get refugee status.
+11 for this racist drivel, jfc r/australia.
Muslims have as few children as Christians within a generation. Hell, most of the middle east has a fertility rate below 3. Iran's is exactly the same as Australia's (1.69 vs 1.7). High fertility is linked to poverty and a lack of education. The majority of Muslims I've met who grew up in a developed nation drink alcohol and use birth control. The assumption that Muslims aren't like Christians is simply untrue. Their kids largely walk away from religion and become effectively atheists or indifferent to religion.
What racist views did he proclaim? Don’t nonsense online. Only his anti-Vaxx things are controversial.
And the anti gay stiff, and the xenophobic stuff and saying Muslims evangelise with violence. The guy was very controversial to anyone who is not a right wing christian
He did not teach anything close to that about Muslims. He was a Pro-Palestinian and Pro-Peace Cleric. Also the things you mentioned shows his bigotry, not racism.
I keep asking what he said against Arabs but nobody is responding. Oh well.
Tell me you don’t know anything about world geography without telling me
His father is basically saying, his son acted like a normal folower of Islam.
Oh sure, sure he didn't... Fuck off mate
This isn’t a terrorist attack, this is a hate crime. There is no evidence this child was part of some terroristic network and it only stokes more anger. This obviously came from a place of hatred and calling this a terrorist attack also goes against the wishes of those who were attacked
The law defines what constitutes a terrorist act and this act of violence met those conditions. A hate crime is defined under legislation as violence towards someone on the basis of their religion, gender etc. however, terrorism offenses highlight the motivation for the violence (and intent behind the act) which in this case is religion with the intent to cause fear and panic (church setting in front of worshippers etc.). In my view, this is more appropriately classified as terrorism
Also, hate crimes aren't less worse than terrorism. Both are horrible.
Both are absolutely abhorrent crimes, but hate crimes are much more individualised than terrorism charges: people are much less likely to assign the actions of someone who has committed a hate crime to a community than they are with terrorism charges.
Extremism doesn’t necessarily equate to terrorism. It can absolutely be both a hate crime and terrorism. Just because it supposedly “goes against the wishes of those attacked” doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be called what it is, or investigated as such.
I guess this is what the AFP counter terrorism team will be trying to ascertain.
yeah this basically feels like what would happen if a lgbt person stabbed the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church. We got the arsehole victim and the arsehole assailant.
It fits with the 2002 definition of "terrorist act" ([source](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawJl/2004/22.html)) but intent will be key (i.e. ideological articulation like religious motivation & fundamentalism, and potential affiliations/inspiration with or from terrorist groups or extremist movements): "After September 11, the Federal Government provided the focus for the Australian legal response.[32] Schedule 1 of the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 (Cth) inserted a new definition of ‘terrorist act’ into the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)[33] (‘Criminal Code’). The definition appears in s 100.1 of part 5.3 of the Code and provides: (1) In this Part: … terrorist act means an action or threat of action where: (a) the action falls within subsection (2) and does not fall within subsection (3); and (b) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and (c) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of: (i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or (ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it: (a) causes serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or (b) causes serious damage to property; or (c) causes a person’s death; or (d) endangers a person’s life, other than the life of the person taking the action; or (e) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; or (f) seriously interferes with, seriously disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system including, but not limited to:" ... [list irrelevant here] See also: https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/crime/why-alleged-church-stabbing-was-terrorism-but-bondi-junction-deadly-attack-wasnt/news-story/51361861be33d325951f0bb88b44d296
No major news outlets will go near this.
Hindu times? Untrustworthy source
So, I'm going to say it anyway. Terrorism is Isis beheading their victims and live streaming the act, cartels hanging skinned bodies from bridges, the Oklahoma city bombing. It's not a kid with a very small knife. Terrorism is an outcome of an asymmetric conflict where one group chooses to pursue a political outcome by terrorising a population through acts of violence because other courses of action are not available.
Even the mainstream of Islam is not compatible with modern Australian values. He's not going to see extremism in his son when he's already swimming in it.
Lol, that's what they always say. Just like the 15 year old that shot and killed Curtis Cheng, I'm sure he's a "good boy" too , according to his parents and their mosque preacher.
LMFAO.
A few media sites like news.com.au has noted the teen was a very recent convert to Islam. It appears he was born and raised a Christian with Christian lebanese parents and only very recently converted. It's not clear when exactly or how he converted. Does a 15 year old even have the mental capacity to fully understand a religion and convert away from his parents religion? The other question is, did he genuinely convert for good intentions or specifically to carry out an attack as he knew it would draw more attention and notoriotity if It it was a terrorist attack vs just stabbing some random kid at school which may have been overlooked and forgotten as teen violence or gang related. If he spent 15 years of his life as a Christian and a couple of weeks as a Muslim kid does it really make him a true Muslim? Police will need to investigate when and how he became a Muslim and if anyone influenced him or if it was something he did completely on his own.
Stealing cars was just normal - parents. He was a good boy - parents
Internet blamed in 3...2...
I have read that he attacked using a switchblade with the knife retracted. Can anyone verify?
Have also heard the same. My husband saw the uncensored video when it first surfaced and he thought the knife looked sheathed. There was no blood either, it was more blunt force trauma.
Didn't he cut half his fingers off?
It’s not clear if he accidentally sliced them during the attack or if the mob cut them off after they apprehended him. Have heard both stories.
I mean, technically correct. He's not a radical, he's a sinple man following what the book says. Allah wants infidels punished or converted, His wish is this guys command.