someguy3@lemmy.world
on 14 Dec 2025 15:26
nextcollapse
At least 11 people were killed in a shooting targeting the Jewish community at Australia’s famous Bondi Beach, and 29 people were taken to the hospital.
A man believed to be one of the shooters has been killed, New South Wales Police said. The second alleged shooter is in a critical condition.
It was an organized Hanukkah event at the beach.
Threeme2189@sh.itjust.works
on 14 Dec 2025 15:43
collapse
Awful, just awful :(
Triumph@fedia.io
on 14 Dec 2025 16:03
nextcollapse
I hate Australian Nazis.
foodandart@lemmy.zip
on 14 Dec 2025 16:22
nextcollapse
One of the men was named Naveed Akram, so take of that what you will.
Am thinking this was a bit less Wehrmacht related and a bit more Gaza…
…but yeah… obligatory fuck NAZIs just so no one misunderstands my point.
tehsillz@lemmy.world
on 14 Dec 2025 16:35
nextcollapse
This news comes less than 24 hours after Hamas leader was killed in Gaza, during cease-fire no less. These innocent people have nothing to do with that, and it’s possible it’s not related, but BOTH sides need to stop this madness or it will never end.
foodandart@lemmy.zip
on 14 Dec 2025 16:46
collapse
…BOTH sides need to stop this madness or it will never end…
Isaac and Ishmael. It’s been going on for thousands of years. Old, old family squabble, it is. :(
andrewrgross@slrpnk.net
on 14 Dec 2025 17:16
nextcollapse
I must politely reject this assessment. There have been decades and centuries of peaceful coexistence. It isn’t as though this is a persistent condition.
Prior to 1948, there were a lot of Christians and Jews living in Palestine without major conflict.
The modern ethno-religious tensions are the product of modern political events, not some mystic curse.
Eldritch@piefed.world
on 14 Dec 2025 17:26
nextcollapse
This doesn’t get brought up enough. The UK and US rolling up with wealthy Zionists to bully people from their ancestral lands. To give those lands to the wealthy Zionists who has largely escaped personal suffering. As consolation for their suffering they’d largely escaped. (But also as a platform to influence and manipulate the middle east) Anyone should be infuriated. Not just Palestinians.
andrewrgross@slrpnk.net
on 14 Dec 2025 23:32
collapse
Yeah, a common them I come back to is cycles of mistreatment: people who were push from their homes pushed people from their homes.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
on 14 Dec 2025 19:23
nextcollapse
No there hasn’t, wtf are you on about? First of all, there literally has never been a Palestinian state in history before the modern one which started around the same time as the modern Israeli state. So what you’re referring to doesn’t exist.
Second of all, the different religious groups have been killing each for literally thousands of years over this crappy piece of land. This is true now, during the British mandate, during the Ottoman era, during the Mamluk era, and so on. Even in the most peaceful of times, there was still rampant oppression, discrimination, riots, and atrocities. This idea that things were just peachy before is complete nonsense.
FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 14 Dec 2025 19:29
nextcollapse
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
on 14 Dec 2025 19:34
collapse
You can deny history all you want, it’s not going to change it
andrewrgross@slrpnk.net
on 14 Dec 2025 23:11
nextcollapse
Chill, man. I’m not here to fight.
I’m also not going trying to white-wash anything. War and tribalism are indeed ancient, and historical echos can certainly be found. But my point is this: the regional conflict between Jews and Muslims is most certainly not a persistent, perpetual, irrational animosity that has stubbornly raged on for millennia. It is true that it is informed by a long cultural relationship. But the violence is modern. It’s caused by political forces, and it can be ended by changing those political forces.
Prior to the Zionist movement and the Arab nationalist movement of the twentieth century, Jews and Muslims (and many other groups) cohabitated Israel-Palestine (or Trans-Jordan or whatever you want to call it). They did in fact share the land peacefully in the nineteenth century.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
on 15 Dec 2025 06:56
collapse
the regional conflict between Jews and Muslims is most certainly not a persistent, perpetual, irrational animosity that has stubbornly raged on for millennia.
Using the reductio ad absurdum fallacy is not going to change the fact that what I said is true. Religion in the Middle East is NOT like what it is in the West. In the West religion is something that is private and chosen voluntarily. It is treated as another layer to someone’s identity. That’s not how it works in the Middle East, over there religion IS your identity. You religion defines you, your people, your culture, and your history. It’s something that you can’t escape, especially since secularism is not widely accepted.
Tribalism in the middle east is not ancient thing, it’s still alive and well. I’ve seen this first hand in my home country of Iraq. Things like collective punishments, discrimination on the basis of religion, and people in power prioritizing their own religious and ethnic groups over others or specifically targeting groups they don’t like are all very common.
The point of me saying all this is to say that religion in that part of the world has a different meaning. When people say different religious groups are fighting over there, they’re not fighting for some mythical holy war like you seem to think. They’re fighting for control, power, security, and resources like anywhere else in the world, it just that religion is primary driver to rally people. What this means is that if there’s a conflict, it’s usually between groups of differing religions because religion is what people there use to divide themselves. It’s similar to how Americans viewed race in the 1950s but on steroids.
In this case, Israel/Palestine is a region that’s claimed as the holy land by three major religions. All of which want complete control over it to give their religion legitimacy, which is a lot states in the region use to legitimize their rule. The competition for this regions goes way back and it hasn’t really stopped. Before the two modern states, the Ottoman empire controlled the region, but they had to constantly shift demographics via mass displacements, forced relocations, and migratory restrictions to make sure that the muslims and Turks were on top… and even they still had to deal with a lot of rebellions. Before that, the Malmuk Sultanate and the Ayyubid Caliphate faced a lot of resistance from Jews and Christians in the region and had to carry out a lot of cultural genocide campaigns to Arabize and muslimize them. Before that, the Kingdom of Jerusalem took over the region through the bloody crusades. You get the idea.
This idea that the different religious and ethnic groups in the region were living together in peace and harmony prior to the modern Israel/Palestine conflict is nonsense. It is quite literally propaganda. That’s not historically accurate, that’s not reality. This region was definitely not peaceful in the 19th century, in fact this was when this region was at its bloodiest because that’s when the century the Ottoman Empire started carrying out it’s infamous genocides before it collapsed during WWI. I’m literally from this region (Iraq), and I can tell you that the only people who believe this in this fiction are people who have never been to this part of the world.
Whatever Palestine ever existed as a state of not is completely irrelevant and that talking point is used by Zionists. The fact is that Palestinians was living on there land and foreigners came and forced a state on them then ethnically cleanse them two and not they are ethnically cleansed a third time . You have right to hate religions but please do not excuse settler colonialism, creating famine and the murder of children because of it.
Let’s not also forget that the 2 world wars didn’t happen because of religion and the European colonial powers had the most bloody colonization history. You would not dare to infer that Europeans are natural savages that are always bloody like you are trying to portray all Muslims and jews
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
on 15 Dec 2025 06:33
collapse
Whatever Palestine ever existed as a state of not is completely irrelevant. The fact is that Palestinians was living on there land and foreigners came and forced a state on them then ethnically cleanse them two and not they are ethnically cleansed a third time
It’s not though. The point that I was trying to make is that this region never had sovereignty until very recently with the two modern states. Prior to this, the region was always controlled by foreign empires like the British, Ottoman, Malmuk, Ayyubid, and so on. Every one of these empires came and forced a state on to the region.
But we have to contextualize what this means. Back during the days of the Ottoman Empire, there was an infamous system in place called sürgün that kept everybody the boot and the Turks were at the top. They did this by radically shifting demographics of all the regions they conquered. They would forcibly deport entire ethnic and religious groups that they viewed as threat to their rule to other regions of the empire that they felt were safer, and vice versa.
For example, the Ottoman empire famously did this with the Christians in Southeastern Europe. The Ottomans moved millions of Christians Europeans to Anatolia and the Levant, and relocated just as many muslims and Turks to southeastern Europe. This is why countries like Bulgaria, Albania, Bosnia, etc have such large muslim populations and why Turkey and the Levant region have so many people who are ethnically European. This of course includes the region of Israel/Palestine. A lot of prominent figures in the Palestinian movement were ethnically European. For example, Amin al-Husseini was ethnically Bosnian.
The Israel/Palestine region meant a lot to the empire as it was a strategic location, but also contained important islamic sites that the empire uses to derive its legitimacy as the muslim empire. To ensure this, they wanted to make sure that the region stayed firmly in islamic hands, and so they tried their best change the demographics. The Empire forcibly relocated muslims and Turks from all over empire to settle in the region, they forcibly relocated Jews to other parts of the empire like Cyprus and Anatolia, they placed restrictions to prevent Jews from migrating to key cities in the region like Jerusalem and Hebron, and they use dubious reasons to depopulate Jewish areas by forcing them to evacuate from a nearby battle for example, but then the empire would give the okay for muslims to return but not Jews. They did the same to Christians in the region, but to a lesser extent. What this means is that a lot of the inhabitants of the region were moved out and replaced by other people not from the regions via imperial policy
The point is that this region was always controlled and populated by foreigners. This idea that the region of Israel/Palestine was inhabited by Natives like North America was when the Europeans arrived is simply false. The region’s population was pretty cosmopolitan and dynamic, though not by choice. This doesn’t excuse the ethnic cleansing campaigns that happened afterwards, but I do think there’s value in maintaining a historically accurate understanding of the region rather than repeating misinformed online narratives.
You have right to hate religions but please do not excuse settler colonialism, creating famine and the murder of children because of it.
This is a very myopic and historically inaccurate view of history. While some elements of Israel’s establishment can be classified as settler colonialism, it’s not accurate to say that all of it is. For example, when Israel was established. The muslim world started committing pogroms in mass against their Jewish communities even though they had nothing to do with Israel. These people who been living in their communities for hundreds, and for some, thousands, of years were forced to abandon everything, including their citizenship, and flee to Israel because that’s the only place that took them in. The total number of people from the exodus total around 1 million people. These people and their descendants now make up a very large chunk of the Israeli population, if not an outright majority.
The term “colonialism” implies intent, but in reality these people were refugees who ended up in Israel due to circumstance. This is a stark difference from European Jews, who were also refugees, but they actually migrated to the region with the intent of settling and creating their own state.
Let’s not also forget that the 2 world wars didn’t happen because of religion and the European colonial powers had the most bloody colonization history.
This is true, but these are also different regions with different histories.
You would not dare to infer that Europeans are natural savages that are always bloody like
mrdown@lemmy.world
on 15 Dec 2025 13:39
nextcollapse
At the end of the day, most zionists at that time was europeen recent immigrant that came to palestine forced a state on the people by ethenically cleaning them from the region. It was imposible to create israel without ethenic cleansing since jew only has 9% of the land and was spread out and not contiguous. There was even a suggestion to have a one state from thr begining by arabs but israel refused and wanted an etheno state on the whole land. All your bullshit is irelevant thst you just use to portray jews and muslims as savages. You are no different from a non religious version of Tuck Carlson and Nick Fuentes
You demonstrate a good enough understanding of the history that you clearly know that you are being deceitful.
While some elements of Israel’s establishment can be classified as settler colonialism, it’s not accurate to say that all of it is.
Is there any colonised country that this doesn’t apply to? Colonisation is a core principle of Zionism. It’s so central to Zionism that it’s in the introductory paragraph on it’s Wikipedia page. Many of the early Zionist leaders said that their goals could only be achieved through the displacement of Arabs, and the migration of Jews was, and still is, strongly encouraged by Zionists.
For example, when Israel was established. The muslim world started committing pogroms in mass against their Jewish communities even though they had nothing to do with Israel.
Gosh, I wonder if that was in response to the treatment of Arabs in Palestine.
These people who been living in their communities for hundreds, and for some, thousands, of years were forced to abandon everything, including their citizenship, and flee to Israel because that’s the only place that took them in.
And they had no problem pushing out the Arabs (who had been living in their communities for hundreds, and for some, thousands, of years) on their way in.
The total number of people from the exodus total around 1 million people. These people and their descendants now make up a very large chunk of the Israeli population, if not an outright majority.
Before they started settling in Palestine it used to be that less than 5% of the population were Jewish.
A majority of Australian colonists were sent there for committing petty crimes, such as theft. The industrial revolution left much of the working class without work, so theft in Britain rose rapidly. For the crime of trying to fees their family, over 100,000 people were forcibly transported to Australia. Their descendants now make up a very large chunk of the Australian population.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
on 17 Dec 2025 09:10
collapse
You demonstrate a good enough understanding of the history that you clearly know that you are being deceitful.
I’m not being deceitful. I just stated historical facts to bring necessary context to something that you’re intentionally trying to oversimplify.
Is there any colonised country that this doesn’t apply to?
Actually it goes beyond that, it applies to all the modern states. The point I was trying to make is that you can’t water down history to narrative driven soundbites.
Colonisation is a core principle of Zionism. It’s so central to Zionism that it’s in the introductory paragraph on it’s Wikipedia page.
Wikipedia is not a source for anything related to modern conflicts because it’s prone to manipulation. This article in particular has been edited so much that it’s literally unrecognizable from a few years ago.
Many of the early Zionist leaders said that their goals could only be achieved through the displacement of Arabs, and the migration of Jews was, and still is, strongly encouraged by Zionists.
And you would be correct, and this notion that pushes ethnic cleansing is wrong. However, there’s nuance that can’t be overlooked. For example, Israel is a secular, democratic country, and because of this, there are a lot of people with a lot of different views. The current government of Israel is very unpopular among Israelis, and the majority of people oppose it. The current government is considered far right and extremist by Israeli standards, and the most don’t support their actions.
The far right factions, like Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit and Smotrich’s Religious Zionist party, are responsible for the vast majority of things people associate negatively with Israel. Here’s a short list:
They are responsible for starting unprovoked aggression against their neighbors like Syria and Lebanon (excluding the Hezbollah conflict)
They keep sabotaging peace deals to keep the Gaza war going for as long possible
They go to extreme lengths to defend war crimes and war criminals
They’re the ones are aggressively expanding and creating illegal settlements in the West Bank
They’re the ones who encourage and defend discrimination and bigotry
They want to erase Israel’s secular and democratic institutions so they can turn into a theocracy
They’re horrible people. They follow a specific ideology called Kahanism, which is basically Jewish fascism. This ideology is so extreme that the US and Israel both designated the original founder of the ideology and his party as terrorists. The entire far right Kahanist coalition only got 10.84% of the vote in the 2022 election, and they only got 14/120 seats. A lot of their voters were the illegal settlers in the West Bank. By all accounts, these parasites shouldn’t have sniffed any significant position in power, but Netanyahu, being the corrupt war criminal that he is, decided incorporate them into his wing so he could form a government with himself at the top. He also went the extra mile of giving them outsized positions of influence.
The point I’m trying to make here is that Israel is a diverse country and the people responsible for most of what’s wrong with it are a small, corrupt minority that do not represent the general population. Just because the country started a certain way or has extremist politician today, that doesn’t mean all 10 million people there are extremist as well. A lot of them don’t support these things, and it would wrong to generalize any country in general.
Gosh, I wonder if that was in response to the treatment of Arabs in Palestine.
Are you seriously trying to defend these people getting ethnically cleansed because you think that this is somehow a justified reaction?
Just to refresh, these people who have no connection to Israel. These are people who have been living in their communities for centuries, for some it’s literally thousands of years, and for no other reason than being Jewish they were expelled or chased out of their country and were forced to flee to Israel as refugees because they had nowhere else to go. These people lost their homes, their livelihoods, their property, their communities, and they’re citizenship. They’re just as much victims as the Palestinians you’re trying to defend.
If you’re going to sit here and wag your finger about the morality of Israel ethnically cleansing Palestinians and then turn around and justify the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the muslim world then you’re nothing more than a hypocrite and your words mean nothing.
And they had no problem pushing out the Arabs (who had been living in their communities for hundreds, and for some, thousands,
I wouldn’t usually continue to engage, but you don’t actually come across as a hasbarist. I do agree with quite a few of the things you’ve said, but the conclusions you seem to come to regarding modern Israel are, at the very least, confusing.
If you understand Zionism’s history then you must understand that the modern state of Israel would not exist without Zionism. One of Zionism’s core principles is colonisation^. Therefore, Israel is a settler-colonial state. The circumstances and motivations of the individual settlers are irrelevant when the outcome is the same. Knowing this yet still claiming that Israel is not a settler-colonial state is deceitful.
^Wikipedia is not an ideal source of information, but that particular page cites more than enough quality sources that clearly show this to be the case.
The views I have expressed are mostly directed specifically at the state, not every single individual. Anyone with any sense understands that no group of people consists of identical individuals. You have made a lot of assumptions about my views. Just because I can see why something happened does not mean that I agree with it.
These issues and events existed well before Netanyahu, and whether or not the citizens like him is largely irrelevant when polls repeatedly show that the vast majority approve of the general treatment of Palestinians.
While my comment about Australia was facetious, the intent was to point out that, regardless of the history, the treatment of the local populations in both situations is wrong, but in Australia amends are slowly being made. I don’t think the comment you’re referring to meant “peaceful coexistence” in the sense that there was absolutely no conflict (they did say “no major conflict”), but were more likely thinking along the lines of “peaceful enough to coexist”, whereas that is not how I would describe the current situation at all.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
on 18 Dec 2025 04:13
collapse
Therefore, Israel is a settler-colonial state. The circumstances and motivations of the individual settlers are irrelevant when the outcome is the same. Knowing this yet still claiming that Israel is not a settler-colonial state is deceitful.
I think you’re misunderstanding what I actually said. So let me be clear, what I’m saying is that Israel, like any other country, has a complex history that can’t be oversimplified into a singular soundbite. What this means is that there is more nuance than any online narrative would have you believe. Like I said earlier, aspects of Israel’s founding did in fact revolve around it being colonial settler state, that much is true and nobody is arguing otherwise. However, what I am arguing is that the country evolved to be more than just that with time, and I demonstrated this point by giving you the exodus of Jews from the muslim world as an example this.
The point is that countries aren’t static, they continuously evolve and change. A lot of countries started out as colonial settler states, but ended up evolving into being something else. Turkey, Mexico, New Zealand, Brazil, Canada, the US, and so many others fall under this category. Israel is not an exception even if some of the founding elements are still present. For example, Turkey is still colonizing and ethnically cleansing groups of people, the US is still an imperialist in its policy, Brazil still has a culture that’s entrenched in racism, and so on. However, all these countries have different national identities from when they started, and Israel is no exception.
Wikipedia is not an ideal source of information, but that particular page cites more than enough quality sources that clearly show this to be the case.
The reason why I’m dismissive of Wikipedia as a source for this discussion is because this same article from a few years ago also had a lot quality sources to justify it, yet it was changed drastically nonetheless. What this implies is that are active campaigns to manipulate information on there. Regardless, the precise definition of Zionism is irrelevant to this conversation, so I don’t really have much of an interest in arguing about Wikipedia.
Anyone with any sense understands that no group of people consists of identical individuals. You have made a lot of assumptions about my views. Just because I can see why something happened does not mean that I agree with it.
I originally interpreted your previous comments as tribalistic as it seemed like you were trying to push for a team rather than just making observations. However, If this is what you genuinely believe, then we’re on the same page.
These issues and events existed well before Netanyahu, and whether or not the citizens like him is largely irrelevant when polls repeatedly show that the vast majority approve of the general treatment of Palestinians.
I disagree, I think Netanyahu is single handedly responsible for making things way worse. He greatly weakened Israel’s democracy, he worked hard to erode the country’s institutions, he went out of his way to incorporate radical fascists into his government, he aggressively pursued conflicts as a way to escape his trails, and the list goes on and on. His very presence in government does Israel a disservice as he is an icon for corruption inside and outside the country. His exit from politics will do wonders for the country and the region.
It’s like Turkey with Erdogan or Hungary with Orban. There are a lot of protests and opposition there as there is in Israel against Netanyahu. Polls show whatever depending on how the questions are worded and how the results are interpreted, however, the one metric that is reliably consistent is people’s confidence in the government. If people have no faith in their government then they fundamentally are at odds for what it stands for and they seek drastic change. Looking at what this current government stands for, a drastic change from is exactly what this country needs.
Will most of the major issues be solved with Netanyahu going away? Probably not, however, if he is replaced by his opposition, then that means you’ll have a more sensible government in charge, and that alone is a huge change because it means that diplomacy has a real chance. When you show people a more peaceful, more reasonable path, they will always gravitate towards it. Netanyahu leaving politics is the first step to deradicalize, not just Israel but the whole damn region.
I don’t think the comment you’re referring to meant “peaceful coexistence” in the sense that there was absolutely no conflict (they did say “no major conflict”), but were more likely thinking along the lines of “peaceful enough to coexist”, whereas that is not how I would describe the cu
Buffalox@lemmy.world
on 14 Dec 2025 20:25
collapse
The ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict dates back to the rise of the Zionist movement, supported by the United Kingdom during World War I.
So it does go back a bit further, but the United Kingdom fueled the fire.
andrewrgross@slrpnk.net
on 14 Dec 2025 22:50
collapse
True. It definitely has a long history. My point though – as you said – is that it’s really a persistent myth that these people are just oil and water. Their conflict is far more material than that.
It certainly isn’t intractable.
MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world
on 14 Dec 2025 17:35
nextcollapse
It’s been going on since \~1900. Before that they were friends, often brothers in arms.
mrdown@lemmy.world
on 14 Dec 2025 23:27
nextcollapse
Yeah let’s ignore all other times in history where there was inter religion solidarity. Like when the ottoman welcomed Jewish refugees kicked out from Spain and portugal or the yemeni jews welcomed in palestine in the late 1800s and both participated in each other festivities. Or when jews was allied with the early muslims in the 7th centuries or during the Farhud pogrom where both communities protected each others.
Eldritch@piefed.world
on 14 Dec 2025 17:40
nextcollapse
I think you’re right. They aren’t just nasal Aussies no matter how close proximity they are. It sucks no matter where it happens. I hate that us Americans have gotten so desensitized to it. There’s definitely middle ground to work from on reducing mass murders including gun violence.
skeezix@lemmy.world
on 15 Dec 2025 01:22
nextcollapse
It’s ok, a majority of americans don’t know the difference between Aus and NZ.
Eldritch@piefed.world
on 15 Dec 2025 03:40
collapse
True though I’m a pretty big fan of Lucy Lawless, Taika Watiti, and Jermaine Clement. I hold myself to a higher standard. 😆
redwattlebird@lemmings.world
on 14 Dec 2025 20:21
nextcollapse
Around 30 years ago in Port Arthur. I think 40 people were killed that day. It triggered our national strict gun laws, although they’re continually being watered down since we’ve been experiencing more gun violence in the last decade.
prex@aussie.zone
on 14 Dec 2025 22:01
nextcollapse
Well you have 2 countries here, that had very similar laws on this specific topic until mass casualty events. One country completely overhauled their gun laws, while the other sent thoughts and prayers to the victims. It’s worth talking about what those differences have meant.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
on 15 Dec 2025 15:07
collapse
It’s worth talking about what those differences have meant.
it’s also worth talking about Five Eyes. What is Five Eyes you ask? I’m glad you asked!
The Five Eyes (FVEY) is an Anglosphere intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These countries are party to the multilateral UKUSA Agreement, a treaty for joint cooperation in signals intelligence. Informally, “Five Eyes” can refer to the group of intelligence agencies of these countries.
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
on 16 Dec 2025 04:00
collapse
Main character syndrome on a national level. MAGA is just the more self-accepting end of it.
RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com
on 15 Dec 2025 14:03
collapse
No we’d call it a terrorist attack because the shooters are arab. Have you been paying attention the past 24 years?
Hatshepsut@lemmy.world
on 14 Dec 2025 17:29
nextcollapse
Real fucking hero. He was shot twice during the scuffle and was in surgery expected to survive.
His name is Ahmed al Ahmed. Found the footage of his relative being interviewed and he is named. Saw it early in Aussie news, can’t remember if it was 9 News or ABC (Australia Broadcasting)
Edit: updated link
Weirdmusic@lemmy.world
on 14 Dec 2025 19:42
nextcollapse
What no one seems to be asking is the obvious question: how the fuck did these attackers get hold of guns? This is Australia folks not fucking America. We have laws to stop exactly this. How, where and by whom were they circumvented? More importantly: how can we prevent this from happening again?
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
on 14 Dec 2025 21:52
nextcollapse
You can get semi automatic hunting weapons relatively easily, same as in New Zealand.
The problem is, there’s enough people with a legitimate use case of firearms that banning them completely isn’t possible.
abysmalpoptart@lemmy.world
on 14 Dec 2025 22:43
nextcollapse
This is the exact question i asked my spouse when told it was in Australia. I was under the impression that their gun laws are fairly strict?
Their gun laws are strict, compared to America. But the notion that Europeans and other first-world citizens can’t have guns is far from the truth. Hell, some laws are looser. Most (all?) Europeans can buy a suppressor, and I gather those are mandated in some places, or at least you’re frowned upon for not having one.
One of my favorite GunTubers was visiting and interviewing in a central European gun shop (forget the country, sorry) and I was like, “Well, shit. They can buy about anything we can buy!”
America doesn’t have a gun problem. America has a culture problem. I could tell you a dozen stories of idiot Americans not understanding the laws we already have. Many of those idiots are dead or in prison.
Hunting with firearms is not illegal in Australia. They are relatively common in rural areas, they have their use. All you need is someone stealing guns one way or another and then smuggling them to the city. It’s not like the police will stop you to rummage through your belongings… unless you drive like an absolute reckless imbecile.
I don’t think you can prevent this from happening again. You can definitely take measures to make it more difficult to happen again, ie. police cordoning an area where there is a religious gathering. But there is always a way. You can’t control everything. When it’s not guns it’s a car driving over people or explosives or poisoning or whatever.
mrdown@lemmy.world
on 14 Dec 2025 23:37
nextcollapse
My sympathy to families of all the innocent people who got murdered. Ending Israeli occupation is the only way to prevent those type of incident
skeezix@lemmy.world
on 15 Dec 2025 01:17
nextcollapse
shut the fuck up with that bullshit.
WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
on 15 Dec 2025 08:33
nextcollapse
When is the right time to acknowledge that injustice radicalises people? Once everyone is blind?
How long do we have to act as though Israel’s genocide is not directly causing a sharp increase in “antisemitism” globally?
EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
on 15 Dec 2025 16:43
collapse
You’ve been on Lemmy long enough that you should know that this is one of the most discussed topics here. Probably top 3.
WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
on 16 Dec 2025 02:18
collapse
Okay, so why are attacks targeting Jewish people the wrong time to discuss how dangerous the Israeli states actions are to the global Jewish diaspora?
The Islamic world has not grown anti-jewish over the last century in a vacuum, just like they didn’t grow anti-American in a vacuum. The exact same binary “you’re either with us or against us” rhetoric has been displayed after every terrorist attack since 9/11. It’s never the right time to discuss how our own past and present crimes recruit current and future enemies. They just hate us for our freedoms — who we are and our way of life — and that’s the only narrative our ministries of truth deploy.
EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
on 16 Dec 2025 02:44
collapse
It’s never the right time
That’s precisely the point of my comment though: there are tons of other posts one can condemn Israel’s genocide that don’t come off as opportunistic. The other side engages in this behavior: Netanyahu made a ridiculous statement that blamed Australia’s recognition of Palestine - www.commondreams.org/…/australia-palestian-state
Honestly though, this isn’t a hill worth dying on. Especially when we are on the same side, so this is just pointless infighting. You win, I forfeit. Have a good day.
When there is mass shooting in schools we discuss the root of the issue. When there is increase of violence we talk about how poverty etc. contribute to it . Only when there is a major massacre related to the colonization of Palestine that people feel like it’s not the time to discuss the root of the issue
EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
on 16 Dec 2025 02:12
nextcollapse
It could be interpreted as victim blaming in a way that talking about gun control following a school shooting cannot be.
The other side openly engages in that sort of mentality, and I aggressively condemn it.
A school shooting can also definitely be used for victim blaming. Nobody who victim blaming would preface his comment by expressing sympathy for the families of the victims
LoneWolf_McQuade@lemmy.zip
on 22 Dec 2025 16:36
collapse
We can discuss the root cause of Israel causing targets to be set on innocent Jews (even if these actions that took place on Bondi Beach can never ever be justified).
But what I’m frankly seeing and it really disturbs me, is that pro-Palestinians here and on Reddit shifts the blame on Isreal in a different way. They call it psy-ops or false flag operation by Jews/Israel with no evidence whatsoever. I even got banned from their subreddit when I tried to push back against that narrative. That is honestly antisemitism in its purest form and not the type of discussion that should be had
Israel is like the boy who cried wolf. Israel ia lying all the time and did real false flags before like the king david hotel where they was disguised as arab workers and the lavon affair admited by israel former leaders. I don’t believe this attack is a false flag but israel is creating with it behaviour many conspiracy theories.
I also heard more disgusting things from the zionist side like justifying kids murder and palestinian being arab colonizer which justify the ethenic cleansing
khaleer@sopuli.xyz
on 15 Dec 2025 13:57
nextcollapse
You see, everyone in there is surprised because it happens in Australia, not USA.
Everyone is surprised because it happens there SO RARELY, because of strict firearm rules.
jojowakaki@lemmy.world
on 16 Dec 2025 03:46
collapse
I’m waiting for this to be used in USA as “see gun control doesn’t work”
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
on 16 Dec 2025 03:58
collapse
I think they’re way past the point of even discussing that.
threaded - newest
It was an organized Hanukkah event at the beach.
Awful, just awful :(
I hate Australian Nazis.
One of the men was named Naveed Akram, so take of that what you will.
Am thinking this was a bit less Wehrmacht related and a bit more Gaza…
…but yeah… obligatory fuck NAZIs just so no one misunderstands my point.
This news comes less than 24 hours after Hamas leader was killed in Gaza, during cease-fire no less. These innocent people have nothing to do with that, and it’s possible it’s not related, but BOTH sides need to stop this madness or it will never end.
Isaac and Ishmael. It’s been going on for thousands of years. Old, old family squabble, it is. :(
I must politely reject this assessment. There have been decades and centuries of peaceful coexistence. It isn’t as though this is a persistent condition.
Prior to 1948, there were a lot of Christians and Jews living in Palestine without major conflict.
The modern ethno-religious tensions are the product of modern political events, not some mystic curse.
This doesn’t get brought up enough. The UK and US rolling up with wealthy Zionists to bully people from their ancestral lands. To give those lands to the wealthy Zionists who has largely escaped personal suffering. As consolation for their suffering they’d largely escaped. (But also as a platform to influence and manipulate the middle east) Anyone should be infuriated. Not just Palestinians.
Yeah, a common them I come back to is cycles of mistreatment: people who were push from their homes pushed people from their homes.
No there hasn’t, wtf are you on about? First of all, there literally has never been a Palestinian state in history before the modern one which started around the same time as the modern Israeli state. So what you’re referring to doesn’t exist.
Second of all, the different religious groups have been killing each for literally thousands of years over this crappy piece of land. This is true now, during the British mandate, during the Ottoman era, during the Mamluk era, and so on. Even in the most peaceful of times, there was still rampant oppression, discrimination, riots, and atrocities. This idea that things were just peachy before is complete nonsense.
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
You can deny history all you want, it’s not going to change it
Chill, man. I’m not here to fight.
I’m also not going trying to white-wash anything. War and tribalism are indeed ancient, and historical echos can certainly be found. But my point is this: the regional conflict between Jews and Muslims is most certainly not a persistent, perpetual, irrational animosity that has stubbornly raged on for millennia. It is true that it is informed by a long cultural relationship. But the violence is modern. It’s caused by political forces, and it can be ended by changing those political forces.
Prior to the Zionist movement and the Arab nationalist movement of the twentieth century, Jews and Muslims (and many other groups) cohabitated Israel-Palestine (or Trans-Jordan or whatever you want to call it). They did in fact share the land peacefully in the nineteenth century.
www.972mag.com/before-zionism-the-shared-life-of-…
Using the reductio ad absurdum fallacy is not going to change the fact that what I said is true. Religion in the Middle East is NOT like what it is in the West. In the West religion is something that is private and chosen voluntarily. It is treated as another layer to someone’s identity. That’s not how it works in the Middle East, over there religion IS your identity. You religion defines you, your people, your culture, and your history. It’s something that you can’t escape, especially since secularism is not widely accepted.
Tribalism in the middle east is not ancient thing, it’s still alive and well. I’ve seen this first hand in my home country of Iraq. Things like collective punishments, discrimination on the basis of religion, and people in power prioritizing their own religious and ethnic groups over others or specifically targeting groups they don’t like are all very common.
The point of me saying all this is to say that religion in that part of the world has a different meaning. When people say different religious groups are fighting over there, they’re not fighting for some mythical holy war like you seem to think. They’re fighting for control, power, security, and resources like anywhere else in the world, it just that religion is primary driver to rally people. What this means is that if there’s a conflict, it’s usually between groups of differing religions because religion is what people there use to divide themselves. It’s similar to how Americans viewed race in the 1950s but on steroids.
In this case, Israel/Palestine is a region that’s claimed as the holy land by three major religions. All of which want complete control over it to give their religion legitimacy, which is a lot states in the region use to legitimize their rule. The competition for this regions goes way back and it hasn’t really stopped. Before the two modern states, the Ottoman empire controlled the region, but they had to constantly shift demographics via mass displacements, forced relocations, and migratory restrictions to make sure that the muslims and Turks were on top… and even they still had to deal with a lot of rebellions. Before that, the Malmuk Sultanate and the Ayyubid Caliphate faced a lot of resistance from Jews and Christians in the region and had to carry out a lot of cultural genocide campaigns to Arabize and muslimize them. Before that, the Kingdom of Jerusalem took over the region through the bloody crusades. You get the idea.
This idea that the different religious and ethnic groups in the region were living together in peace and harmony prior to the modern Israel/Palestine conflict is nonsense. It is quite literally propaganda. That’s not historically accurate, that’s not reality. This region was definitely not peaceful in the 19th century, in fact this was when this region was at its bloodiest because that’s when the century the Ottoman Empire started carrying out it’s infamous genocides before it collapsed during WWI. I’m literally from this region (Iraq), and I can tell you that the only people who believe this in this fiction are people who have never been to this part of the world.
Whatever Palestine ever existed as a state of not is completely irrelevant and that talking point is used by Zionists. The fact is that Palestinians was living on there land and foreigners came and forced a state on them then ethnically cleanse them two and not they are ethnically cleansed a third time . You have right to hate religions but please do not excuse settler colonialism, creating famine and the murder of children because of it.
Let’s not also forget that the 2 world wars didn’t happen because of religion and the European colonial powers had the most bloody colonization history. You would not dare to infer that Europeans are natural savages that are always bloody like you are trying to portray all Muslims and jews
It’s not though. The point that I was trying to make is that this region never had sovereignty until very recently with the two modern states. Prior to this, the region was always controlled by foreign empires like the British, Ottoman, Malmuk, Ayyubid, and so on. Every one of these empires came and forced a state on to the region.
But we have to contextualize what this means. Back during the days of the Ottoman Empire, there was an infamous system in place called sürgün that kept everybody the boot and the Turks were at the top. They did this by radically shifting demographics of all the regions they conquered. They would forcibly deport entire ethnic and religious groups that they viewed as threat to their rule to other regions of the empire that they felt were safer, and vice versa.
For example, the Ottoman empire famously did this with the Christians in Southeastern Europe. The Ottomans moved millions of Christians Europeans to Anatolia and the Levant, and relocated just as many muslims and Turks to southeastern Europe. This is why countries like Bulgaria, Albania, Bosnia, etc have such large muslim populations and why Turkey and the Levant region have so many people who are ethnically European. This of course includes the region of Israel/Palestine. A lot of prominent figures in the Palestinian movement were ethnically European. For example, Amin al-Husseini was ethnically Bosnian.
The Israel/Palestine region meant a lot to the empire as it was a strategic location, but also contained important islamic sites that the empire uses to derive its legitimacy as the muslim empire. To ensure this, they wanted to make sure that the region stayed firmly in islamic hands, and so they tried their best change the demographics. The Empire forcibly relocated muslims and Turks from all over empire to settle in the region, they forcibly relocated Jews to other parts of the empire like Cyprus and Anatolia, they placed restrictions to prevent Jews from migrating to key cities in the region like Jerusalem and Hebron, and they use dubious reasons to depopulate Jewish areas by forcing them to evacuate from a nearby battle for example, but then the empire would give the okay for muslims to return but not Jews. They did the same to Christians in the region, but to a lesser extent. What this means is that a lot of the inhabitants of the region were moved out and replaced by other people not from the regions via imperial policy
The point is that this region was always controlled and populated by foreigners. This idea that the region of Israel/Palestine was inhabited by Natives like North America was when the Europeans arrived is simply false. The region’s population was pretty cosmopolitan and dynamic, though not by choice. This doesn’t excuse the ethnic cleansing campaigns that happened afterwards, but I do think there’s value in maintaining a historically accurate understanding of the region rather than repeating misinformed online narratives.
This is a very myopic and historically inaccurate view of history. While some elements of Israel’s establishment can be classified as settler colonialism, it’s not accurate to say that all of it is. For example, when Israel was established. The muslim world started committing pogroms in mass against their Jewish communities even though they had nothing to do with Israel. These people who been living in their communities for hundreds, and for some, thousands, of years were forced to abandon everything, including their citizenship, and flee to Israel because that’s the only place that took them in. The total number of people from the exodus total around 1 million people. These people and their descendants now make up a very large chunk of the Israeli population, if not an outright majority.
The term “colonialism” implies intent, but in reality these people were refugees who ended up in Israel due to circumstance. This is a stark difference from European Jews, who were also refugees, but they actually migrated to the region with the intent of settling and creating their own state.
This is true, but these are also different regions with different histories.
At the end of the day, most zionists at that time was europeen recent immigrant that came to palestine forced a state on the people by ethenically cleaning them from the region. It was imposible to create israel without ethenic cleansing since jew only has 9% of the land and was spread out and not contiguous. There was even a suggestion to have a one state from thr begining by arabs but israel refused and wanted an etheno state on the whole land. All your bullshit is irelevant thst you just use to portray jews and muslims as savages. You are no different from a non religious version of Tuck Carlson and Nick Fuentes
You demonstrate a good enough understanding of the history that you clearly know that you are being deceitful.
Is there any colonised country that this doesn’t apply to? Colonisation is a core principle of Zionism. It’s so central to Zionism that it’s in the introductory paragraph on it’s Wikipedia page. Many of the early Zionist leaders said that their goals could only be achieved through the displacement of Arabs, and the migration of Jews was, and still is, strongly encouraged by Zionists.
Gosh, I wonder if that was in response to the treatment of Arabs in Palestine.
And they had no problem pushing out the Arabs (who had been living in their communities for hundreds, and for some, thousands, of years) on their way in.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/1a834f5a-3f4f-4a05-a280-e6f31038cb44.jpeg">
Before they started settling in Palestine it used to be that less than 5% of the population were Jewish.
A majority of Australian colonists were sent there for committing petty crimes, such as theft. The industrial revolution left much of the working class without work, so theft in Britain rose rapidly. For the crime of trying to fees their family, over 100,000 people were forcibly transported to Australia. Their descendants now make up a very large chunk of the Australian population.
I’m not being deceitful. I just stated historical facts to bring necessary context to something that you’re intentionally trying to oversimplify.
Actually it goes beyond that, it applies to all the modern states. The point I was trying to make is that you can’t water down history to narrative driven soundbites.
Wikipedia is not a source for anything related to modern conflicts because it’s prone to manipulation. This article in particular has been edited so much that it’s literally unrecognizable from a few years ago.
And you would be correct, and this notion that pushes ethnic cleansing is wrong. However, there’s nuance that can’t be overlooked. For example, Israel is a secular, democratic country, and because of this, there are a lot of people with a lot of different views. The current government of Israel is very unpopular among Israelis, and the majority of people oppose it. The current government is considered far right and extremist by Israeli standards, and the most don’t support their actions.
The far right factions, like Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit and Smotrich’s Religious Zionist party, are responsible for the vast majority of things people associate negatively with Israel. Here’s a short list:
They’re horrible people. They follow a specific ideology called Kahanism, which is basically Jewish fascism. This ideology is so extreme that the US and Israel both designated the original founder of the ideology and his party as terrorists. The entire far right Kahanist coalition only got 10.84% of the vote in the 2022 election, and they only got 14/120 seats. A lot of their voters were the illegal settlers in the West Bank. By all accounts, these parasites shouldn’t have sniffed any significant position in power, but Netanyahu, being the corrupt war criminal that he is, decided incorporate them into his wing so he could form a government with himself at the top. He also went the extra mile of giving them outsized positions of influence.
The point I’m trying to make here is that Israel is a diverse country and the people responsible for most of what’s wrong with it are a small, corrupt minority that do not represent the general population. Just because the country started a certain way or has extremist politician today, that doesn’t mean all 10 million people there are extremist as well. A lot of them don’t support these things, and it would wrong to generalize any country in general.
Are you seriously trying to defend these people getting ethnically cleansed because you think that this is somehow a justified reaction?
Just to refresh, these people who have no connection to Israel. These are people who have been living in their communities for centuries, for some it’s literally thousands of years, and for no other reason than being Jewish they were expelled or chased out of their country and were forced to flee to Israel as refugees because they had nowhere else to go. These people lost their homes, their livelihoods, their property, their communities, and they’re citizenship. They’re just as much victims as the Palestinians you’re trying to defend.
If you’re going to sit here and wag your finger about the morality of Israel ethnically cleansing Palestinians and then turn around and justify the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the muslim world then you’re nothing more than a hypocrite and your words mean nothing.
I wouldn’t usually continue to engage, but you don’t actually come across as a hasbarist. I do agree with quite a few of the things you’ve said, but the conclusions you seem to come to regarding modern Israel are, at the very least, confusing.
If you understand Zionism’s history then you must understand that the modern state of Israel would not exist without Zionism. One of Zionism’s core principles is colonisation^. Therefore, Israel is a settler-colonial state. The circumstances and motivations of the individual settlers are irrelevant when the outcome is the same. Knowing this yet still claiming that Israel is not a settler-colonial state is deceitful.
^Wikipedia is not an ideal source of information, but that particular page cites more than enough quality sources that clearly show this to be the case.
The views I have expressed are mostly directed specifically at the state, not every single individual. Anyone with any sense understands that no group of people consists of identical individuals. You have made a lot of assumptions about my views. Just because I can see why something happened does not mean that I agree with it.
These issues and events existed well before Netanyahu, and whether or not the citizens like him is largely irrelevant when polls repeatedly show that the vast majority approve of the general treatment of Palestinians.
While my comment about Australia was facetious, the intent was to point out that, regardless of the history, the treatment of the local populations in both situations is wrong, but in Australia amends are slowly being made. I don’t think the comment you’re referring to meant “peaceful coexistence” in the sense that there was absolutely no conflict (they did say “no major conflict”), but were more likely thinking along the lines of “peaceful enough to coexist”, whereas that is not how I would describe the current situation at all.
I think you’re misunderstanding what I actually said. So let me be clear, what I’m saying is that Israel, like any other country, has a complex history that can’t be oversimplified into a singular soundbite. What this means is that there is more nuance than any online narrative would have you believe. Like I said earlier, aspects of Israel’s founding did in fact revolve around it being colonial settler state, that much is true and nobody is arguing otherwise. However, what I am arguing is that the country evolved to be more than just that with time, and I demonstrated this point by giving you the exodus of Jews from the muslim world as an example this.
The point is that countries aren’t static, they continuously evolve and change. A lot of countries started out as colonial settler states, but ended up evolving into being something else. Turkey, Mexico, New Zealand, Brazil, Canada, the US, and so many others fall under this category. Israel is not an exception even if some of the founding elements are still present. For example, Turkey is still colonizing and ethnically cleansing groups of people, the US is still an imperialist in its policy, Brazil still has a culture that’s entrenched in racism, and so on. However, all these countries have different national identities from when they started, and Israel is no exception.
The reason why I’m dismissive of Wikipedia as a source for this discussion is because this same article from a few years ago also had a lot quality sources to justify it, yet it was changed drastically nonetheless. What this implies is that are active campaigns to manipulate information on there. Regardless, the precise definition of Zionism is irrelevant to this conversation, so I don’t really have much of an interest in arguing about Wikipedia.
I originally interpreted your previous comments as tribalistic as it seemed like you were trying to push for a team rather than just making observations. However, If this is what you genuinely believe, then we’re on the same page.
I disagree, I think Netanyahu is single handedly responsible for making things way worse. He greatly weakened Israel’s democracy, he worked hard to erode the country’s institutions, he went out of his way to incorporate radical fascists into his government, he aggressively pursued conflicts as a way to escape his trails, and the list goes on and on. His very presence in government does Israel a disservice as he is an icon for corruption inside and outside the country. His exit from politics will do wonders for the country and the region.
It’s like Turkey with Erdogan or Hungary with Orban. There are a lot of protests and opposition there as there is in Israel against Netanyahu. Polls show whatever depending on how the questions are worded and how the results are interpreted, however, the one metric that is reliably consistent is people’s confidence in the government. If people have no faith in their government then they fundamentally are at odds for what it stands for and they seek drastic change. Looking at what this current government stands for, a drastic change from is exactly what this country needs.
Will most of the major issues be solved with Netanyahu going away? Probably not, however, if he is replaced by his opposition, then that means you’ll have a more sensible government in charge, and that alone is a huge change because it means that diplomacy has a real chance. When you show people a more peaceful, more reasonable path, they will always gravitate towards it. Netanyahu leaving politics is the first step to deradicalize, not just Israel but the whole damn region.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine
So it does go back a bit further, but the United Kingdom fueled the fire.
True. It definitely has a long history. My point though – as you said – is that it’s really a persistent myth that these people are just oil and water. Their conflict is far more material than that.
It certainly isn’t intractable.
It’s been going on since \~1900. Before that they were friends, often brothers in arms.
Yeah let’s ignore all other times in history where there was inter religion solidarity. Like when the ottoman welcomed Jewish refugees kicked out from Spain and portugal or the yemeni jews welcomed in palestine in the late 1800s and both participated in each other festivities. Or when jews was allied with the early muslims in the 7th centuries or during the Farhud pogrom where both communities protected each others.
what “side” were the people on the beach on?
What's in a name? That which we call a Nazi, by any other name would stink as foul.
50 / 50 this guy was at some point a member of thr IDF. Good chance it’s a false flag.
They immediately labeled it a terrorist attack. In the US this would’ve been called Tuesday.
When was the last time Australia had a mass shooting before this?
Christchurch at least. But I’m sure there might have been something between. But just not daily/weekly like the US or middle east.
Isn’t Christchurch in New Zealand?
I think you’re right. They aren’t just nasal Aussies no matter how close proximity they are. It sucks no matter where it happens. I hate that us Americans have gotten so desensitized to it. There’s definitely middle ground to work from on reducing mass murders including gun violence.
It’s ok, a majority of americans don’t know the difference between Aus and NZ.
True though I’m a pretty big fan of Lucy Lawless, Taika Watiti, and Jermaine Clement. I hold myself to a higher standard. 😆
Close proximity. They’re about 1500 km apart according to this site outthere.kiwi/…/is-new-zealand-part-of-australia/
That’s about the same as the distance from Australia’s westernmost point to the easternmost point, so I say we take over.
It is, though I believe the shooter was Australian, which may have been what the previous commenter was confused about.
Relevant Jim Jefferies bit about gun control in the US and Australia
Around 30 years ago in Port Arthur. I think 40 people were killed that day. It triggered our national strict gun laws, although they’re continually being watered down since we’ve been experiencing more gun violence in the last decade.
Does the lindt hostage situation count?
nice way you turned this Australian tragedy into an attack on the US.
Well you have 2 countries here, that had very similar laws on this specific topic until mass casualty events. One country completely overhauled their gun laws, while the other sent thoughts and prayers to the victims. It’s worth talking about what those differences have meant.
it’s also worth talking about Five Eyes. What is Five Eyes you ask? I’m glad you asked!
The Five Eyes (FVEY) is an Anglosphere intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These countries are party to the multilateral UKUSA Agreement, a treaty for joint cooperation in signals intelligence. Informally, “Five Eyes” can refer to the group of intelligence agencies of these countries.
Main character syndrome on a national level. MAGA is just the more self-accepting end of it.
No we’d call it a terrorist attack because the shooters are arab. Have you been paying attention the past 24 years?
Watch the guy who disarmed one of the shooters
Real fucking hero. He was shot twice during the scuffle and was in surgery expected to survive.
His name is Ahmed al Ahmed. Found the footage of his relative being interviewed and he is named. Saw it early in Aussie news, can’t remember if it was 9 News or ABC (Australia Broadcasting)
Edit: updated link
What no one seems to be asking is the obvious question: how the fuck did these attackers get hold of guns? This is Australia folks not fucking America. We have laws to stop exactly this. How, where and by whom were they circumvented? More importantly: how can we prevent this from happening again?
You can get semi automatic hunting weapons relatively easily, same as in New Zealand.
The problem is, there’s enough people with a legitimate use case of firearms that banning them completely isn’t possible.
This is the exact question i asked my spouse when told it was in Australia. I was under the impression that their gun laws are fairly strict?
Their gun laws are strict, compared to America. But the notion that Europeans and other first-world citizens can’t have guns is far from the truth. Hell, some laws are looser. Most (all?) Europeans can buy a suppressor, and I gather those are mandated in some places, or at least you’re frowned upon for not having one.
One of my favorite GunTubers was visiting and interviewing in a central European gun shop (forget the country, sorry) and I was like, “Well, shit. They can buy about anything we can buy!”
America doesn’t have a gun problem. America has a culture problem. I could tell you a dozen stories of idiot Americans not understanding the laws we already have. Many of those idiots are dead or in prison.
Hunting with firearms is not illegal in Australia. They are relatively common in rural areas, they have their use. All you need is someone stealing guns one way or another and then smuggling them to the city. It’s not like the police will stop you to rummage through your belongings… unless you drive like an absolute reckless imbecile.
I don’t think you can prevent this from happening again. You can definitely take measures to make it more difficult to happen again, ie. police cordoning an area where there is a religious gathering. But there is always a way. You can’t control everything. When it’s not guns it’s a car driving over people or explosives or poisoning or whatever.
My sympathy to families of all the innocent people who got murdered. Ending Israeli occupation is the only way to prevent those type of incident
shut the fuck up with that bullshit.
When is the right time to acknowledge that injustice radicalises people? Once everyone is blind?
How long do we have to act as though Israel’s genocide is not directly causing a sharp increase in “antisemitism” globally?
You’ve been on Lemmy long enough that you should know that this is one of the most discussed topics here. Probably top 3.
Okay, so why are attacks targeting Jewish people the wrong time to discuss how dangerous the Israeli states actions are to the global Jewish diaspora?
The Islamic world has not grown anti-jewish over the last century in a vacuum, just like they didn’t grow anti-American in a vacuum. The exact same binary “you’re either with us or against us” rhetoric has been displayed after every terrorist attack since 9/11. It’s never the right time to discuss how our own past and present crimes recruit current and future enemies. They just hate us for our freedoms — who we are and our way of life — and that’s the only narrative our ministries of truth deploy.
That’s precisely the point of my comment though: there are tons of other posts one can condemn Israel’s genocide that don’t come off as opportunistic. The other side engages in this behavior: Netanyahu made a ridiculous statement that blamed Australia’s recognition of Palestine - www.commondreams.org/…/australia-palestian-state
Honestly though, this isn’t a hill worth dying on. Especially when we are on the same side, so this is just pointless infighting. You win, I forfeit. Have a good day.
Fuck you
Read the room. This ain’t it.
Only morons say things just to fit in with others.
Cringe
Found one.
Says the less than a day old outrage account lol
So you don’t want to root of the problem to be fixed?
Of course I do, and I’ve been rather vocal about it over the last 2 years.
When there is mass shooting in schools we discuss the root of the issue. When there is increase of violence we talk about how poverty etc. contribute to it . Only when there is a major massacre related to the colonization of Palestine that people feel like it’s not the time to discuss the root of the issue
It could be interpreted as victim blaming in a way that talking about gun control following a school shooting cannot be.
The other side openly engages in that sort of mentality, and I aggressively condemn it.
A school shooting can also definitely be used for victim blaming. Nobody who victim blaming would preface his comment by expressing sympathy for the families of the victims
We can discuss the root cause of Israel causing targets to be set on innocent Jews (even if these actions that took place on Bondi Beach can never ever be justified).
But what I’m frankly seeing and it really disturbs me, is that pro-Palestinians here and on Reddit shifts the blame on Isreal in a different way. They call it psy-ops or false flag operation by Jews/Israel with no evidence whatsoever. I even got banned from their subreddit when I tried to push back against that narrative. That is honestly antisemitism in its purest form and not the type of discussion that should be had
Israel is like the boy who cried wolf. Israel ia lying all the time and did real false flags before like the king david hotel where they was disguised as arab workers and the lavon affair admited by israel former leaders. I don’t believe this attack is a false flag but israel is creating with it behaviour many conspiracy theories.
I also heard more disgusting things from the zionist side like justifying kids murder and palestinian being arab colonizer which justify the ethenic cleansing
You see, everyone in there is surprised because it happens in Australia, not USA.
Everyone is surprised because it happens there SO RARELY, because of strict firearm rules.
I’m waiting for this to be used in USA as “see gun control doesn’t work”
I think they’re way past the point of even discussing that.