Tragic end to the siege in Sydney – fact and fiction

Yesterday, a man by the name of Man Monis walked into the Lindt Cafe in Martin Place Sydney. He had a shotgun in a blue backpack and he had decided to hold all those inside as hostages. Tragically, after 17 long gruelling hours, the siege ended with two of the hostages being killed, as well as the gunman (it was deserved).

Yesterday there was a lot of hype about the siege, including the claim that Islamists had stormed the cafe. Well, first of all, there was no storming of the cafe. There are witnesses who were on the outside as the drama began to unfold. One woman tried to get into the shop but the electric doors had been disengaged. This indicates that the man had disabled the door after he entered the cafe. That woman spotted the gun that was inside the bag, she screamed out that the man had a gun, and she immediately got on her phone and called the police. Another person who was present, and again on the outside of the cafe was the reporter Chris Kenny. He had purchased a takeaway coffee and then sat down outside the shop whilst talking to someone on the phone. The man must have entered the shop a short time after Kenny had exited. Both Kenny and the woman are reliable witnesses and the same goes for the delivery man who also saw the drama as it began to unfold. He gave a very accurate description of Mani to the police. However, another witness gave a very unreliable account claiming that there was more than one person present.

The media, as usual got a lot of things wrong and one of those things was the comment from the Lindt CEO claiming that there were probably around 60 people in the shop at the time. The truth is that there were 17 persons present including customers and staff when Mani entered the shop. All other comments about the number of hostages were pure fiction, including the lower figure of about 8 people being held hostage.  Obviously, the other area of fiction is the usual claim “We do not know his motivation”.

Watching the clowns on the TV yesterday was quite an ordeal. I found that most of the reporters were talking garbage and few of them had any real knowledge with regard to Islam. This comment includes the go to experts that were interviewed. All of them danced around the obvious and they seemed to be able to comprehend the obvious – the use of the black flag known as the Shahada.

The black flag known as the Shahada is well known as it is displayed by most Islamist jihadis now fighting in Syria and Iraq. On top of that, there was an incident back in September where an 18 year old was killed in Melbourne, after he had wounded two members of the special terrorist squad (one was a Federal guy and the other was local to Victoria). The young person had his passport cancelled because he was intending on going to Syria or Iraq to join the jihadis. He acted as a lone wolf when he attempted to kill the two police officers by inflicting stab wounds. The reason that I bring this up is due to the fact that the young man had displayed this very same flag.

However, the usual lying suspects aka Keysar Trad has already proclaimed that the use of the Shahada Flag by Mani was blasphemy. Well I proclaim mushroom fodder in regard to that claim. Keysar Trad knows all too well that the extremist Islamists here in Sydney use this flag at their rallies.  Another spokeswoman from the same community also made other claims about how this was not part of the Muslim “faith”.  I felt as I watched her speaking that she was lying and that she also knows the truth in regard to this whole jihadi thing.

One little piece of information that I spotted this morning about Monis Mani is that one report stated that Mani was a self-proclaimed IS sheik.  Apparently within some of the demands being made yesterday Monis Mani wanted an IS flag to be delivered to him. Does anyone want to talk about motivation for this attack now? No!!

One commentator, Ray Hadley, boldly proclaimed that this kind of thing has nothing to do with the Muslim community. It seems to me that Hadley simply has no clue as to the truth about Islam. What he stated is simply not the truth. Was Monis Mani a crazed person? Yes, that is highly likely since even his former lawyer described him as damaged goods.

Now for some other facts about Monis Mani:

1. Monis Mani was responsible for writing hate letters to the families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan. In the end he got a slap on the wrist after the case made it to a higher court with a defence proclaiming that the letter writing was freedom of speech – I beg to differ on that one.

2. Monis Mani was charged with being an accessory to the murder of his ex-wife. The magistrate allowed him out on bail claiming that the police case was weak.

3. Monis Mani was charged with 49 counts of sexual assault against 7 women. He had set himself up as being a “spiritual healer”. Again he was allowed out on bail.

4. The spooks were keeping an eye on Monis Mani, but it seems that they were not keeping a close enough eye on him.

One other point here:  Monis Mani had a shot gun. I question whether it was legally obtained because I would doubt, given his background that he would have been granted a licence in the first place. Unfortunately, most of the gun crime in Australia is carried out by people who have obtained illegal weapons.  This does in fact make the rest of us more vulnerable… but Australians as a whole are not into gun ownership.

This leads me to countering some more fiction regarding gun ownership in Australia. We are allowed to own guns and that has always been the case. We do need to be licenced to own a gun and I have no quarrel with such a requirement. Criminals are not allowed to own guns, but criminals continue to get access to guns. Some have been importing gun parts and make their own illegal guns.

The Australian gun laws were tightened after the Port Arthur massacre to make it harder for people to own semi-automatic and automatic weapons. There was a gun amnesty and many guns were voluntarily surrendered. However, since then legal gun ownership has increased and there are more gun owners than prior to the Port Arthur massacre. I will add here that the perpetrator of that massacre was a misfit who should never have been allowed to own a gun in the first place.

In other words, Australians have not been stripped of any gun rights. Australian citizens can own a gun if they wish, but there are restrictions upon how those guns are stored, as in they must be secured. Yes there have been thefts from gun owners and that is one way in which the criminal gangs get hold of their guns. It is simply wrong to make the claim that Australians are not allowed to own guns because the opposite is the truth.

Comments are closed.