So why didn't they just shoot him. He was obviously a terrorist, evidence being in the flag he displayed. I can't believe how our world is controlled by political correctness.

So what happens next time, same agin, or do we just shoot them.

Don't think there will be a next time? Keep dreaming! This is only the beginning.

Butch, Monis The Bastard attacked a foreign owned chain cafe staffed almost entirely by Asian immigrants and killed their gay manager yet the Left are raving about "backlash", "racism" and "rednecks"! Why the hell would we even care much less lift a finger in response to an attack upon a target symbolising everything we decry as being wrong with this country? Monis The Bastard struck at the heart of tolerant, multicultural Australia, he's had no effect on the parochial, illiberal and largely oblivious White society I live in.
When I got to work at seven on Tuesday morning my client asked me "How'd the siege end?" I told him and he made a noise like "Hrrmph!", he didn't even turn on the TV or the radio, just ate his breakfast and went off to work.

It's nothing to do with political correctness. They didn't just shoot him because they couldn't get a clear sight.

Dear Rehctub,

In retrospect we know that Monis was not a terrorist, just an ordinary deranged criminal who just used the flag to draw attention.

Police could not determine whether it is safe to shoot him without injuring hostages. They had insufficient information - but the hostages knew better! What was needed are pre-arranged traps which the hostages could activate. For example, a gun/explosive hidden behind a picture on the wall which the Cafe owner could activate by clicking a series of keys on a remote device just when the criminal/terrorist is there.

Garbage Yuyutsu.

They didn't shoot him because the deputy police commissioner boasted on TV that they prefer to talk them out, not take them out.

We have a police force controlled by politically correct, bleeding heart academic cops, & we need to change it.

We have let ratbags into our country, & now we are about to pay the price of that stupidity.

We are going to have to sit on the bleeding hearts, & get a few tough people at the top of many of our organisations.

Affirmative action has been as much a disaster as our migration & refugee programs. We have to fix these mistakes, & the longer we take, the more of this stuff will happen.

If the Channel 7 news team had him in view on their camera, then police by all accounts should have had him in view in their sniper sights.

But did police know that he was alone at that time?
And did he really have others working with him with bombs?

I'm not saying the police have blood on their hands, as it was Man Monis's fault doing what he did, but they could have just shot him and none of the hostages might've ended up getting hurt.

I think that police resisted any opportunities to take him out when they had the chance earlier in the day because they feared making him a martyr, and of enraging those who may be sympathetic to the Islamic State cause and of of inciting further attacks.

I think the police may have endangered the lives of the hostages not taking him out when they had a chance.

I also think he was a terrorist in every sense of the word, (and a sex pest) and I don't buy into the played-down idea that he was a lone wolf and not a terrorist.

Firstly he had an 'End's Justifies the means' mentality.
He was willing to put others peoples lives at risk to further the agenda of a terrorist organisation, one with extremist religious views.
Secondly he may not been a member of Islamic State, but he did advocate their views and mentality, and asked for an Islamic State flag.
Thirdly he asked to speak with the Prime Minister.

So we have violence and threats of violence against hostages held at gunpoint; with an 'end justifies the means' mentality for potential political gain, whilst advocating a terrorist organisation.

Which part of that does not equal terrorism?