Well someone's gotta do it.

After all, it is one of the most consequential events in Australia's recent past. Fifteen people dead with many more still in critical conditions.

The facts of the issue remain very unclear although it is clear that the authorities screwed up and are now anxious to deflect from that. So the go-to response has been to blame the guns as though the terrorists were mere instruments of the weapons.

I've said it on the pages many times before - Australia made and continues to make a terrible error by allow people from the Islamic world to come an live here. In the end, their ideology is incompatible with western values and it will always be so.

But they are here and there's no getting around that or reversing it. That's not to say it can't be managed or at least the damage mitigated. The problem however is that the authorities are not prepared to countenance let all implement the policy what would lead to such mitigation.

Islam should be confronted in this country and bought into line, suppressed and a cordon sanitaire placed around its adherents. Yet such a thing is impossible with our current leadership. Thus, they pretend that bringing in new guns laws will solve a problem that has nothing to do with gun laws. These people did use legal guns. Yet had they so wished, illegal guns are prevalent throughout their community.

Even now the PM, and his compliant ASIO advisors, want to pretend that right-wing violence is the real danger. Roam the streets of Sydney advocating for the deaths of Israelis, openly calling for the re-introduction of Zyklon B, and the authorities will turn a blind-eye. But raise your right arm to 45 degrees and the full force of the law will descend on you.

It is said this type of Islamic radicalism has no place in Australia. The politicians repeat it like a mantra. But the fact is, in reality it does have a place - on the outskirts of our major cities, dutifully voting Labor.

mhaze,

You begin by saying the facts are "very unclear", but then proceed as if motive, ideology, community responsibility, and policy failure are already established. Those two positions don't exactly sit comfortably together.

If the facts are unclear, then conclusions about Islamic terrorism, community prevalence of illegal guns, or deliberate deflection by authorities are, at this point, speculative rather than evidential.

Several different claims are being run together here:

1. That there were specific operational failures by authorities
2. That the attack was Islamist in nature
3. That Islam as a religion is incompatible with Western society
4. That gun laws are irrelevant to the incident
5. That enforcement priorities are politically biased

Each of these would need to be argued separately, with evidence. At present they're being treated as if they naturally imply one another, which they don't.

For example, if legal firearms were used, that doesn't make gun availability irrelevant. Equally, asserting that illegal guns are prevalent in a particular community is a factual claim that requires data, not inference.

Likewise, proposing the "suppression" of a religious group is a sweeping policy position. If that's the argument, it needs to be defended on legal, ethical, and practical grounds, rather than implied via a tragedy whose details are still emerging.

None of this precludes hard discussions about extremism or security. But those discussions are weakened, not strengthened, when uncertainty is used as a licence for certainty.

If you want accountability, the first step is clarity about what is known, what is unknown, and what is belief rather than evidence.

This'll elude you JD, but just because some things remain unclear doesn't mean all things are unclear.

Also what seems to elude you even though I've previous explained it and given proven examples (remember you embarrassment over the Australia banning of US meat issue?), some things can be known based upon past experience and history. That Islamism is incompatible with western values fits that category.

mhaze,

No one has argued that everything is unclear. The issue is which things are being treated as settled, and on what basis.

You are asserting three different categories as if they were equivalent:

1. Facts established by evidence about this specific event
2. Inferences drawn from documented patterns, with clear scope and limits
3. Broad civilisational claims about an entire religion and its adherents

The problem is that you are moving directly from (2) to (3), while using (1) as rhetorical cover.

"Based on history" is not a free pass to bypass evidence. History can inform hypotheses, but it does not justify collective attribution without specification. If "Islamism" is the subject, then it needs to be defined precisely and distinguished from Islam, Muslims, or migrant communities generally. That distinction is doing a lot of work here, and it is not being made.

Nor does past experience relieve you of the need to show relevance. Even if one accepts that certain ideological strands are incompatible with liberal democracy, it does not follow that:

- this attack was motivated by them
- suppression of a religious group is lawful, workable, or effective
- gun availability is therefore irrelevant
- or that entire communities can be treated as risk vectors

Those are additional steps, each requiring argument and evidence.

As for appeals to past debates, they don't substitute for engagement with the point at hand. If the case is strong, it should stand on its own logic and evidence, without detours or characterisations of the interlocutor.

The core issue remains unchanged: tragedy does not convert belief into fact, nor history into a blank cheque for certainty.

Not sure which “authorities” are being referred to - eyewitnesses say the police were hopeless (with just the TV vision to go on, a police marksman should have been able to take out the one with the rifle on the bridge easily enough).

Politicians, particularly Albanese and Burke, are responsible for this terrorist act, and they should resign or be sacked. I wonder if the GG's reserve powers would be of use.

Blaming guns, like blaming machetes (Victoria) is just another slippery way of avoiding judgement for the terrible immigration, multicultural policies of both parties.

Welcome to Australia today. No more of the un-Australian claptrap. This is Australia now.

The 4,000 antisemitic occurrences - and that's just those recorded - are Australian.

The mass immigration of people who hate us is Australian.

Antisemitism is a global disease, and it is an Australian disease.

There is nothing exceptional about Australia; it is the same as any Western country ruined by mad politicians, mass immigration, multiculturalism and self-hatred.

Hi John Daysh,

1. That there were specific operational failures by authorities
- It's clear they from the complete 10+ minute footage they could've done things better, but I don't want to criticise them too much, they stopped the shooting.

2. That the attack was Islamist in nature
- We may not know this for absolute certain, I've heard different things that he may have been a Christian who recently converted to Islam, I've seen x posts claiming that the shooters were in the IDF.
We can probably assume it was Islamist in nature, we can 'hypothesize'.

The discussion needn't stop waiting for evidence, we can make judgements based on likely different scenarios.
Fine tune when more info comes to light.
3. That Islam as a religion is incompatible with Western society
- I think its fair to say there are conflicts, maybe we should identify them.

'What is the cause of the conflict?'

"Likewise, proposing the "suppression" of a religious group is a sweeping policy position. If that's the argument, it needs to be defended on legal, ethical, and practical grounds, rather than implied via a tragedy whose details are still emerging."

- I say we hold an inquiry on all religions.
I'm not sure that 'religious' and 'ethical' are mutually exclusive.
We should take all these religious texts, take them apart piece by piece and work out which parts promote conflict and hate.

4. That gun laws are irrelevant to the incident
- They actually are. A determined person who planned, would've found a way even if they drove a RAM through the park instead, and there's little to nothing anyone can do to stop it.

Hi mhaze

"Even now the PM, and his compliant ASIO advisors..."
- Yes, they'll probably come out and say they've received Israeli intelligence that this attack was sponsored by Iran.
(Until they prove their last claims I have doubts their intelligence can be trusted.)

Well, we have a likely Muslim attack on Jews and the only person who stepped in was a Muslim, this will break everyone's minds.

Israel and it's supporters are trying to blame the PM for lack of anti-Semitic crackdown.
I certainly have issues with this.

As for the victims, Jews and non-Jews alike I WOULD offer condolensces, as I take no sides with the innocent dead.

But the way pro Israel supporters have carried on already blaming anti-Semitism and those who critised Israels war (like me), I will only offer my condolences to non-Jews.

‘You’re a coward’: Ray Hadley calls for Albanese’s resignation over Bondi Beach terror attack
http://youtu.be/_zFO49GxXl8
Quite the performance there from Mr. Ray 'which Jewish d-ck do I gotta suck 'round here' Hadley.

You built this, brick by rhetorical intifada brick. So spare us your shock and save your prayers
[Paywalled article in the Australian]
I believe a copy of the article may be here
http://scottaaronson.blog/?p=9416#comment-2020876
'We saw this coming. We warned that anti-Jewish rhetoric, disguised as war criticism, would pave the way for violence. Now, as the Intifada you globalised arrives, spare us your feigned surprise and condolences.'
- As you wish.

They are also trying to link this to Palestinian marches and support for 2 state solution, and recognition of Palestine at the UN, and force Albo to say he guarantees Jews safety.
I have things to say about that.

It's been more than a day for respect of those who killed and injured.
I'm going to throw out a word that should get everyone in a frenzy.

'BLOWBACK' - the unintended adverse results of a political action or situation.

Armchair Critic,

Thanks for engaging substantively. This is a more productive direction, but a few distinctions still matter if the discussion is going to remain grounded rather than drift into assumption.

1. Operational failures
I don't disagree with your framing here. It's entirely possible to acknowledge that police ultimately stopped the attack and that, with hindsight, aspects of the response could be examined for improvement. That's precisely what inquiries are for, provided they're evidence-led rather than blame-driven.

2. Motive and "hypothesising"
This is where I'd urge more caution. Hypotheses are fine, but they need constraints. At the moment you've listed mutually incompatible claims circulating online, including some that are clearly implausible. That should itself be a signal that confidence is premature.

Hypothesising is most useful when it's bounded by known facts and probabilities. Otherwise it risks becoming a Rorschach test where people project prior beliefs onto an event before evidence arrives. Fine-tuning later doesn't fully undo the damage of early misattribution.

3. Islam, conflict, and inquiry
I agree that religions can and should be examined critically, including their texts and historical interpretations. That's already a long-standing academic field.

Where I'd draw a line is between:

- analysing doctrines and texts, and
- attributing present-day violence or incompatibility to entire religious populations living within liberal democracies.

Those are very different moves. The former is legitimate scrutiny. The latter risks collapsing descriptive critique into collective suspicion unless handled with extreme care and specificity.

4. Gun laws and inevitability
I don't think "a determined person would find another way" is sufficient to dismiss gun laws entirely. Policy isn't about eliminating all risk, it's about shaping probability, lethality, and opportunity.

A vehicle attack, a knife attack, and a firearm attack don't have identical dynamics, casualty profiles, or intervention windows. Acknowledging that doesn't mean guns are the sole factor, just that they remain part of the environment being assessed.

None of this precludes difficult conversations about extremism, ideology, or religion. It simply insists that those conversations be sequenced properly: evidence first, attribution second, policy last.

Otherwise we risk answering the wrong question very confidently.

These facts are known.

- The attackers targeted a Jewish community event celebrating Hannukah
- They had the flag of an Islamist terror organisation in their car.
- One of them has been investigated by ASIO for links to Islamic State

It is unbelievable than anyone could think this was not an antisemitic terrorist attack.

This government has been warned loudly and repeatedly of the growing prevalence and vehemence of antisemitism in Australia, and the likelihood that it would become more violent. We have also witnessed more frequent and more violent antisemitic attacks overseas. While it is not true to say that it has done nothing in response, its response has clearly not been strong enough or quick enough. It has sat on antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal’s report for months, implementing some of its recommendations but ignoring the hard and controversial ones.

Many of its actions have encouraged antisemitism. It has allowed demonstrations to proceed that celebrate the murder and rape of Jews, and lionise terrorists. Its move to recognise the non-existent state of Palestine legitimised the regimes that claim to govern it – one a group of islamo-fascist terrorists; the other corrupt, incompetent and deeply unpopular with its own citizens. Until recently it has done almost nothing to prevent antisemitism and intimidation of Jewish staff and students at universities and in arts organisations it funds. And in true Albanese style, its main action has been to commission another report.

It is the government’s job to keep its citizens safe. If has failed.

Lots of anger towards the government. Burke booed. He and Albanese would resign if they had any decency. But, there's no such thing as decency in politics, particularly from a PM whose best effort is to "stand by" Jews instead of protecting them. And Burke brought in 3,000 Gazans on tourist visas!

Australian Jews would be safer in Israel than they are in Australia, now a bloody awful country, filling up with undesirables.

At least Israel protects its citizens, something no Australian government has done since they started importing trash who despise and hate us, our way of life, our values and the democracy we used to have.

mhaze,

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. A principle of treating others as you would have them treat you is all that is needed. Saying that people are incapable of assimilating or have conflicting values is the foundation of hatred.

What angers me is the repeated failure of cult leader Albo and his minions to act against the hatred. There should be freedom to be who you are, but hatred should have no place.

The crowd chanting "F the Jews", "Gas the Jews" etc on the steps of the Sydney Opera House should have been dealt with harshly instead of meekly tolerated, as were the rolling marches that followed ad nauseam across Australia. By not acting, Albo endorsed the hatred.

I can not believe how many people still don't understand what Islam is so glaringly openly stating !
Islam's doctrine is to take over the World !! What is it the Woke don't get ? Are they even more stupid than we give them credit for ?

There's going to be a lot of ugly questions and scenarios come out in this discussion I think.
The bigger question I think is whether or not people can handle it or not.

Lets start with the footage.
10 mins and 36 seconds of uninterrupted footage.
Full side view across the little bridge.
(I wonder if they will bulldoze it or turn it into some Jewish forever memorial to remind us forever like the holocaust but I digress)
- 6 minutes of uninterrupted footage before the perpetrators are shot, and 4 and a half minutes of footage afterward.

Shown here
http://x.com/CRYPTOBAE8055/status/2000223896339882096

What's interesting is police did not rush in and secure the area including weapons before locals stormed the bridge.
Young drunk-ish Aussie bloke kicks the older father perpetrator in the head
http://x.com/Dear_Men_Life/status/2000420975461208201

It is claimed:
'Bondi hero Ahmed Al Ahmed did two years military service in the Syrian Arab Army.'
http://x.com/Partisangirl/status/2000468479909183683
- That is, one of the nations Israel and America engineered the destruction of during theirs and Israels War of Terror.
Ahmed Al Ahmed came to Australia in 2005, Ex Syrian President Bashar Al Assad had only taken over from his father Hafez 5 years prior.

Hi Rhian,

"- The attackers targeted a Jewish community event celebrating Hannukah
- They had the flag of an Islamist terror organisation in their car.
- One of them has been investigated by ASIO for links to Islamic State"

I just saw some news footage of that flag on the windscreen. here.

Couple in dashcam footage who were killed trying to fight off Bondi shooter identified as Boris and Sofia Gurman
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/dec/16/boris-and-sofia-gurman-identified-as-couple-who-lost-lives-trying-to-stop-bondi-gunmen-as-attack-began-ntwnfb
Also news reports they went to Philippines for 'military style training' a few months back.

"This government has been warned loudly and repeatedly of the growing prevalence and vehemence of antisemitism in Australia, and the likelihood that it would become more violent."

I reject the idea that criticism of Israel is in any way responsible for the actions of other individuals.

I'm probably the most critical of Israel here, why don't you all just come out and blame me for it, like I did it?
I absolutely denounce and condemn what the perpetrators did, what they've done is no better than what Israels been doing, killing innocent people.

I reject the idea that denouncing Israels actions over the last few years somehow makes me worse than what they've been doing.

It's like Netanyahu issuing a directive 'Silence those witnesses'

It's a false narrative, in the same way Netanyahu blamed Tik Tok and X for displaying footage of atrocities in Gaza on their platforms rather than the fact he was conducting these atrocities himself.

By taking this position you and others would be effectively arguing that Israel should be allowed to commit said atrocities in Gaza and the West bank without criticism, and that Israel was right to have assassinated 280 journalists and their families to stop the world from seeing what they were doing.

[Cont.]
You're blaming the reaction to an event, without recognising the events themselves.
And the reason they wish to blame the reaction to the event, is they wish to continue their genocide without criticism.

It's like McDonalds adding arsenic to their burgers and then getting upset about the bad publicity.

Antisemitism is just a made up word to stifle criticism of Israel, when Zionist aims have always been to take more land whilst blaming the Palestinians as cover.
And if there is such a thing as Anti-Semitism, Jews historically kicked out 155 countries 1039 times, then why are they despised?
- I've seen plenty of evidence of why that may be in the last few years.

You say this is an anti-Semitic attack, an 'attack on Jews'
But I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to portray it this way.

Reason: How many non-Jews were killed and injured at Bondi being caught up in the middle of an ongoing beef between one group and another?
Aussies, for which they had absolutely nothing to do with Islam or Isreals atrocities and ethnic cleansing.

I say it's an attack on Australians, on an Australian beach by 2 groups that can't sort their own BS out.

Non-Jews wouldn't have been caught up in the middle of all this if Jews hadn't been holding their event during an ICC genocide which is accepted by quite a few prominent Jews themselves, and what does Hannukah celebrate, the reconquest of Jerusalem?
I think this kind of public religious oriented celebration is divisive and asking for trouble in a nation with a Muslim population.

Furthermore...
If you want to state anti-Semitism is the cause...
(Of which I'm guilty by their own definitions, which has nothing to do with me)

If any of you dare to say that I caused this, you'd be implying guilt by association for something I didn't do and have denounced;

Then I'd have to respond by asking if all Jews are guilty by association of the atrocities committed against innocent men women and kids that IDF commit?

That's what awaits if you wish to go down the 'guilt be association' path.

It's Israels atrocities that painted a target on Jews backs, not my opposition to something for which the opposition is indeed well deserved.
Standing up for innocent men, women and kids in Palestine is no different to standing up for the innocent men women and kids in Bondi.