Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that a heroic Jewish bystander saved Jewish lives during the Bondi Beach massacre by tackling one of the gunmen. In fact, the man who made the heroic intervention is a Muslim of Levantine descent who was shot twice in the process.
Ahmed El Ahmed, from Idlib in Syria according to a relative, went up unarmed against one of the attackers, wrested his gun away and turned it on the terrorist, forcing him to flee, as footage shown by Al Jazeera demonstrates…
It’s actually very simple to zionists
good = jew
bad = everything else
Look, many of my cousins are zionists. While they might agree with you in spirit.
That’s it. They’d agree with you.
Sorry about your cousins.
many of my cousins are zionists
Hope they get better soon
More precisely bad = Palestinian or Khamas
Removed by mod
Wrong.
Zionism is genocidal maniacs in israel and abroad. Zionism is an ethnic supremacy movement with fascist elements of revanchism.
Zionism has been this way since before the foundation of the state of Israel.
You are arguing that Nazism wasn’t a problem, it was only the people in Germany.
Removed by mod
Nazism was about reclaiming the German homeland (and genocide).
Zionism is about genociding Palestinians (and reclaiming “homeland”).
They are the same thing.
And no, don’t you fucking dare pretend all Jewish people are Zionist scum. You do not get to frame this as antisemitism, when it is not.
Zionists love conflating jewish people and zionists so that any anti-zionist message seems anti-semitic
And it has the added bonus of convincing people that those annoying Jews who keep protesting them aren’t really Jewish
Including the anti-zionist holocaust survivors
I can’t believe how fucking stupid people are.
Like. It works. How fucking braindead do you have to be to not be able to tell the difference between a religion/ethnicity and a country?
Your second paragraph is the problem.
you’re arguing that jewish people are inherently genocidal
I mean, the bible pretty much backs up the fact that the Jewish people are inherently genocidal.
- The Midianites - Moses orders his army to kill every Midianite man, woman and boy… the virgin girls are spared so that the soldiers can have their ways with them. Numbers 31:1–18
- The Amorites - Their king didn’t allow the Israelites to cross his land to attack the Canaanites, so they killed the king and then killed all of his people: men, women and children. Deuteronomy 2:32-34
- Bashan - Then the king of Bashan did the same thing the king of the Amorites did… and he and his people met the same fate. Deuteronomy 3:1–6
- Jericho - The people of Jericho weren’t the only ones killed. The Israelites killed every man, woman, child, ox, sheep and donkeys. Joshua 6:21
- Ai - After killing all of the men on the battlefield the Israelites went into the city and killed everyone who lived there. Joshua 8:24–26
- Makkedah - “He struck it… he left no survivor.” Joshua 10:28
- Libnah - “He left no survivor in it.” Joshua 10:30
- Lachish - “Struck it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it.” Joshua 10:32
- Eglon - “killed every person in it” and “left no survivor.” (Joshua 10:34–39)
- Hebron - “killed every person in it” and “left no survivor.” (Joshua 10:34–39)
- Debir - “killed every person in it” and “left no survivor.” (Joshua 10:34–39)
- All Northern Cities of Canaan - The Israelites defeated a coalition of northern cities, then captured those cities… “and they did not leave any who breathed.” Joshua 11:10–15
- The Amalekites - This is a good one… during the Exodus the Amalekites attacked the Israelites. So, 400 years later King Saul killed every “man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” 1 Samuel 15:1–33
Even their own history books don’t just say that they’re predisposed to genocide, they celebrate it.
What’s the difference
Well you see, zionists are like cheerleaders. Would it be fair to blame the cheerleader for what the football players are doing? /s
Removed by mod
My favourite part of doing this exercise is being jewish and having some rando using bob marley songs to tell me “zionist” is an ethnic slur
If you tried to make this shit up it would be bad writing
for example, would you call Bob Marley a genocidal maniac?
no, because hes talking about an ideal in Rastafarian and not advocating for the genocide of a people. two very different situations and very different usages of the term zion.
its almost like words have different meanings in different contexts and its important to actually understand the contextual usage before we spout nonsense.
edit: unfortunately zionists w/ respect to isreal are inherently genocidal. its a per-requisite for isreal to exist. isreal was founded on a genocide and it’ll continue to perpetuate genocide for as long as is necessary to complete the job.
so maybe don’t use religious term to refer to the actions of a regime?
no form of zionism advocates for the genocide of a people…. many zionists do, but that’s not zionism
it’s like calling all muslims terrorists, and then any time there’s a muslim terrorist saying “those fucking muslims! i hate muslims!”the genocide is the problem, not zionism in and of itself
jews dont own the term zion. isreal zionism absolutely is genocidal at its very core. isreal was founded via a genocide and it continues perpetuating it to this day. you cannot be a isreal zionist and not be a genocidal supporter. its literally baked into the roots of isreali zionism movement from day 1.
isreal is not the whole of jewish culture. its not even a truly important aspect of the culture. jews existed before, exist outside of, and will likely continue well after it eventually collapses in on itself due to cut off from all outside support.
The belief that that land is ours by right, promised to us by an angry man in the sky - aka zionism - is ideological fuel for the genocide we’ve been inflicting on the palestinian people.
If genocide is the problem, then zionism is a big part of the problem.
I read the article, Netenyahu basically just calls him Jewish and a hero, all while the crows is dead silent. You can’t make this up. Even most Zionist’s have accepted he’s Muslim just “One of the good ones.” We might get a comment from him later, I think his actions as a Muslim man was both heroic, and also may quell the Islamophobia in Australia.
Netenyahu is a war criminal. Since when war criminals oppinion is relevant? He should go to jail for the rest of his life.
His opinion is relevant because he’s a cunt and cunts are stilling running the world.
I don’t get it. This guy tackled one, but they say there were only 2, both shot by the police in a shootout. There was a video of it.
Read the article or watch the video. He tackled him, took the gun but let the shooter flee
If he had fired there is a very real chance the police might have mistaken him for an active shooter. He was brave and/or foolish to tackle the terrorist but having disarmed him I think he did the right thing.
I would also argue that he should be allowed a breather after being shot twice and securing the gun. He did all that and you want more?
Have we considered that Australian police may have better trigger discipline than American ones?
Also, real talk: why are we armchair analyzing a shootout? Are we cooked?
You don’t have to, if you have something better to do. 😀
Let the shooter flee.
Ngl there is a lot of philosophical questions you would have to answer before even deciding to shoot or not.
“I am holding a gun for first time in my life what do I do”
“What if they were just recording a movie? The gun wouldn’t be real tho.
What if I just misunderstood in general?”“I don’t want to kill someone but it’s self-defense but they are disarmed do I just shoot in ankle?”
“Is this even legal? Will I get in jail?”
“Overall panic thoughts”
Like I can’t know how situation feels but surely it’s not as easy as “point the nuzzle and just fucking kill someone on your lunch break.”
I was thinking the same thing when watching that video. The other thing I thought is what if they have another gun on them?
I thought this too. Like he points the gun at the guy but “I don’t know how to use this” and “I don’t know if I should use this” are clearly going through his mind ALL WHILE THE OTHER SHOOTER SHOOTS HIM TWICE (In the hand and the shoulder.)
Overall I think it’s better that he didn’t shoot him, in terms of “morals” or whatever, you got the gun off him, and thats all you were there to do. He was clearly fleeing after the incident, even though the shooter is an evil man, in that moment, he was unnarmed, pointing the gun at him was all that was needed.
Mission was accomplished by disarming him. Its not like he had a knife of was a kung fu master. He wasn’t going to continue on a mass punching. If he was running; even better.
Shooting the other shooter might’ve been smart, but if you aren’t kind of an asshole who’s lived a life of violence; that could, yes, be really hard to execute or conceptualize in the moment.
Exactly. Shooting someone is hard. You have to train people to do it. This guy clearly was mostly concerned with saving life. It’s really easy to imagine a scenario in which he charged and had no idea what to do when he got there
We watched the video of him pointing the gun at the gun man and debated about the fact that he could have just shot the guy and the public would have praised him for it.
But the debate was that … what would YOU have done? Most of us agreed that we would not have wanted the guilt of killing someone on our conscious, even if it were justified.
So the thing we settled on was … he should have shot him in the leg or the foot.
Leg shots aren’t any “better,” there’s arteries in there. Foot shots are better for not killing the guy, but they’re also better for missing and having a ricochet kill an innocent bystander. And both are still AWDW at best, attempted/successful murder at worst.
If you’re going to shoot (legally) it’s because you or someone else’s life is in immanent danger to the degree that if you don’t shoot the guy someone else will die or have permanent injury as a result of his actions, aiming for his feet can be argued by prosecutors as you “knowing” your life itself wasn’t in immediate danger, people have been convicted on that before. More importantly, the reason you’re trained to shoot for center mass is A) Aim small miss small, you’re more likely to actually hit center mass than a tiny moving foot and B) shots that hit center mass (with the appropriate ammo that you should be carrying for exactly this reason) are more likely to stay inside the attacker instead of over penetrating and endangering bystanders.
This situation would fall under the “protecting others” part, even having disarmed him, and would likely be covered by continuance of action. The shot would be legal.*
In any US state without a Duty to Retreat™, that does have Stand Your Ground®. Lord knows for AUS, idk their self defense laws at all.
Or he thought he was gonna face serious time if he shot the guy
He didn’t need to shoot him. He had a gun, which is a rather big leverage. He could threaten or in other way force him to stay there. There are other options.
Ah ok.
So… Like, I don’t want to split hairs here, but… it seems not much was accomplished then.
Kudos for the brass balls for sure, but best to follow through when you get the chance, otherwise, you know, a job half done…
Fuck off lol. The guy disarmed an active shooter for several minutes. Saving lives and letting people flee.
I don’t know.
He could probably get sued in America by people who the shooter hurt after the event…
I’m just spiting balls here. Doesn’t mean I mean it. There is something to it though, just enough…
The man is a hero sure.
We collectively agree (in principle at least) to give a monopoly on violence to a police force so that assholes don’t run around shooting whoever they think is a bad guy.
Judge Dredd is a fucking dystopia, pay attention.
Probably this sounded way cooler and made much more sense in your head than it does now that’s out 😀
Nah, I stand by that. Watch the video. The hero probably survived by not becoming another shooter, don’t trust cops not to overreact.
Also if he had it would have been a vigilante shooting at that point.
I’ve never heard the term spitting balls.
In this context I could see the use of the term spitballing. But maybe the former works too?
I thought I heard it on tv, maybe i misheard.
I’ve never used it like this before. Did it work like this, what do you think?
I would have used the term “spitballing” not “spitting balls.” I have never heard of the latter term.
It should be noted that unless you are actually properly trained/properly supervised on how to use the firearm you really shouldn’t be using it.
If the gentleman had any doubts about using that weapon for a lethal purpose, he was 100% correct in not pulling the trigger.
Even if his actions meant more people died?
Hopefully you aren’t ever put into such a situation where a split second choice means no matter which you pick someone says you were wrong. He should be praised for acting, period, and the discussion should then move to the incident itself. Not some, “well, actualllllyyy…”
Sure sure, he’s a hero.
But it’s a social media with mostly shitposts, so why not say stuff out loud if for nothing else than to sort these thoughts that are kind of presenting themselves. And they are.
I mean, it would be a way cooler story of the guy went all Rambo and dispatched both of them instead of just caused a short pause for one of them.
If you mean try and prepare all the readers for when they get into such a situation, that’s really stretching the purpose. It’s fine to question what you would have done in the same situation, it’s absolutely something everyone is thinking when they read it. But don’t critique the person who was there, they did what they did, regardless of the “best” options after days of reflection.
If this was a trolley problem, he only saw a trolley screaming down the track and a lever. How do you make a “good” decision in seconds when you don’t even know the results later? You see some guy with a gun, you either try to protect yourself or you see a brief opportunity to stop him. When you get the gun away, there’s another mystery trolley with all sorts of variables. He must be a peaceful person, as he chose the least aggressive choice. Is that bad?
I’m just saying there’s a fine line on a discussion board between speculation and judging. The real discussion should be why regular people are getting caught in such situations in the modern era. We should be better than this. But that’s a far broader talk than whether or not he should should have shot the guy.
Yes. Better to have one crazy guy shooting than one crazy guy and one untrained guy shooting.
Your equation doesn’t work. It’s more like:
It’s better to have a crazy guys shooting at everyone than one untrained guy shooting at the unarmed crazy guy…?
I think you will agree that it’s better to have three untrained guy shooting at the unarmed crazy guy.
But it’s not really about shooting. The armed person has incredible power over the unarmed one. They don’t need to shoot, they have other options.
Not really, an untrained shooter is almost as much a danger to the very people they are trying to protect if they do not know how to properly control the weapon.
deleted by creator
