ISIS Threat Led To Australian Police Raids

[Richard]

Psycho MFers.

Richard

Australian PM Says Police Raids Follow Threat Of Beheading
Reuters, 18 Sep 2014

Militants connected with radical group Islamic State were planning to behead a member of the public in Australia, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said on Thursday, after hundreds of police raided homes in a sweeping counter-terrorism operation.

Abbott said there was a "serious risk from a terrorist attack" days after Australia raised its national terror threat level to "high" for the first time, citing the likelihood of attacks by Australians radicalised in Iraq or Syria.

Australia is concerned over the number of its citizens believed to be fighting overseas with militant groups, including a suicide bomber who killed three people in Baghdad in July and two men shown in images on social media holding the severed heads of Syrian soldiers.

More than 800 police were involved in the pre-dawn security operation in Sydney and Brisbane, which was described as the largest in Australian history and resulted in the detention of 15 people, police said.

Abbott told a news conference that members of the radical group had planned to conduct a public beheading.

"That's the intelligence we received," he said.

Media reported that the plans included snatching a person at random in Sydney, Australia's largest city, and executing them on camera draped in the group's black flag.

"The exhortations, quite direct exhortations, were coming from an Australian who is apparently quite senior in ISIL to networks of support back in Australia to conduct demonstration killings here in this country," Abbott said, referring to the group otherwise known as Islamic State that has seized large swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq.

Sydney man Omarjan Azari, 22, appeared in court after the raids. He has been charged with conspiracy to commit a terrorist act and will remain in custody until a hearing in November, authorities said.

Prosecutor Michael Allnutt told the court in Sydney that an attack was being planned that "was clearly designed to shock and horrify, perhaps terrify" the community, the Sydney Morning Herald reported.

Azari's lawyer, Steven Boland, did not apply for bail. Boland told the court the allegation was based on one phone call, according to media reports. Boland was not available for comment

(Cont'd)

http://news.yahoo.com/australia-says...005009228.html

[LarryW]

Think it won't happen here ? ISIS has so many world wide wanna-bees that to imagine otherwise is folly.

[The Reaper]

I am sorry, but the jihadis are going to continue to increase in numbers and violence until we find an answer to the people who are preaching the violence, as well as those embracing it.

As a minimum, everyone preaching this hate and inciting jihad needs to be deported, and possibly their families as well so that they have some real incentive not to do this.

I would also suggest that those leaving to go to countries and fight should lose their US passport and never be allowed back in again.

Kidnapping needs to be a capital crime, and we can put the ransom money into rewards for capturing the terrorists and turning them in, dead or alive.

Right now, there are no real disincentives.

TR

[Stobey]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I am sorry, but the jihadis are going to continue to increase in numbers and violence until we find an answer to the people who are preaching the violence, as well as those embracing it.

As a minimum, everyone preaching this hate and inciting jihad needs to be deported, and possibly their families as well so that they have some real incentive not to do this.

I would also suggest that those leaving to go to countries and fight should lose their US passport and never be allowed back in again.

Kidnapping needs to be a capital crime, and we can put the ransom money into rewards for capturing the terrorists and turning them in, dead or alive.

Right now, there are no real disincentives.

TR

I agree, TR. The problem is, these scumbags are following their quran and their equally psychotic "prophet", Mad Mo. Until pislam has been relegated to history's dustbin there will always be more and more to emulate their evil and psychotic "prophet", just champing at the bit to get their 72 virgins.

I would try to change "hearts and minds" with the following:


Islam is NOT the truth! It's the best and longest-running con that Satan ever pulled. Unfortunately, its primary victims are Muslims themselves who will never know the love of a loving God. Jesus Christ DID die; and he died for you as well as for me. Don't believe me? Ask, with a sincere heart, for God to show you the truth. He will.

And to those who question how God can be three persons... Well, in order to be able to fully comprehend this we would need to be God, which we are not. It is impossible for us, not for God. It is not within human understanding to be able to explain that mystery completely. That is why Jesus Christ referred to Himself as the Son of the Father. Jesus, by His divine nature was/IS God; but in His human nature, was less than God. However, Jesus, in His humility, did not see equality with God, the Father, as something to be grasped at (unlike Lucifer/Satan). The closest I've ever heard anyone be able to explain this "Three-in-One" phenomenon is a nun on EWTN: Mother Angelica. The way she explained it was that we - each of us - is one human being; but we each have memory, intellect and will. Those are three separate and distinct parts of each of us; but they are not separate FROM us.

Jesus Christ IS God. (“I and the Father are one.” “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” “Before Abraham was, I AM.”) [“I AM” being the name God told to Moses when Moses asked: “Who shall I say has sent me, Lord?”] No, Jesus was not in the least confused about just who and what He was. God came to us as a human so that His birth, His works, what He said, His death and His resurrection could be recorded in history. He paid the penalty for ALL the sins of humanity, since we would be unable to do so without suffering eternal death. God is love, but He is also just; and penalty for sin MUST be paid. God loved us so much that He took that penalty upon Himself so that we could once more be united with Him. Instead of arguing about whether or not Jesus Christ was crucified, we should be down on our knees with tears of humility and gratitude, thanking Him for His love and His sacrifice.

I know that it does not look like strength for God to "die" in such a horrible and ignominious manner, but He did. Jesus said that "No one takes my life. I have been given authority to lay down my life, and to take it up again." Therein is Christ's victory over Lucifer/Satan, over sin and over death; and believe me, it pissed Satan off no end. Lucifer/Satan hates God; but his arms are too short to box with God, so his plan was to get back at God by attacking what God loves – His children. That's us. The Almighty and ever-loving God does not want any of us lost to Him; but He gave us (as He gave the angels) free will - to love and serve Him, or to reject Him. Satan wants us - every one of us - to suffer as he does; and to lose the joy of life everlasting with a loving God.


Here are some ways you can tell that the one who Mohammed supposedly was quoting was NOT God, but Satan:

* Almighty God is the author and architect of LIFE, not death. Pain, death and suffering only came to be because our first parents (Adam and Eve) were seduced by Satan to disobey God. It was Satan who was - and still is - a liar and "…a murderer from the beginning".

* Almighty God is NOT proud. He humbled Himself to become one of us in every way but sin; and died a horrible and shameful (in the eyes of man) death on a cross. Lucifer/Satan IS proud. He wanted to BE God; but as we all know, that was impossible. Lucifer/Satan was merely a creature of God, as we all are. So Lucifer/Satan, and approximately one third of the angels that God created, rebelled; and were cast out of heaven. (Hebrew: Satan – adversary.) Satan has used his main vice - PRIDE - against humanity from the very beginning. Listen to what "allah" supposedly tells Mohammed: that Muslims (males) are the very BEST of creatures. What does that do? It engenders in Muslims (males particularly) a false sense of pride, which pushes them AWAY from the true God.

When Jesus heard a few of His disciples arguing about who was the greatest among them, Jesus said: "Whoever among you who wishes to be the greatest among you must be the servant of you all." His message? Jesus (God) came to this Earth to SERVE, not to be served. Any of us who wish to be pleasing to God must imitate Christ's life on Earth, plain and simple; and that doesn't mean having a puffed-up ego thinking that "we are the best of creatures". That means acknowledging who and what we are, sinners - ALL of us - whose only salvation was made possible by the love and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That means also acknowledging who and what God is – the Creator of all things, and our Heavenly Father.

* God does NOT deceive, nor can He be deceived. He knows everything that is in our hearts and minds. In Islam, one of the names for "allah" is "the great deceiver".

* God is love; and Jesus preached - and lived - God's love. Jesus did not incite any to war or to hate others. He told His apostles to go and preach the "Good News" of salvation; and if any town did not want to hear the message, to "Shake the dust of that town from their sandals so that it would be a testament unto them." Islam - with its concept of "jihad" - incites Muslims to hate the "infidels"; and to "make war against them until all proclaim that there is no god but allah and Mohammed is his messenger".

* God said to mankind: "Two ways are set before you, O man: the way of life and the way of death. Therefore choose life." (One that I would recommend the pro-abortionists take heed.) Mohammed tells us that "there is no greater glory than to slay and to be slain for allah".

* God the Father’s heaven is one where we enjoy eternity with our Creator. This is purely spiritual. Mohammed's view of paradise is one that appeals only to the carnal lusts of man. Does that sound like what the True God would promise to those who love and serve Him? Nope. Sounds like another con from the greatest con-artist ever known: Satan. Sorry guys. There will not be 72 virgins awaiting your beck and call; and no eternal erections either. I mean really, how gullible does one need to be to believe that nonsense?


Are you getting the idea? If you still don't believe me, read the Quran and haddiths. Then start reading the Bible. Above all, ask God, with a sincere and humble heart, to show you the truth. Jesus said that: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." I'll leave you with that thought.

[fng13]

Originally Posted by Stobey

et al...

Stobey,

I do not mean this in a disrespectful way, nor do I wish to start a religious debate, however I don't believe replacing one god for another to be much of a strategy.

As soon as one points to ones own religion as the true religion what ground has been made? The opposition also believes that they know the truth.

As TR outlined above it is the people who preach the violence as well as the weak minded who absorb it and act on it that are equally the enemy. Most religions can be perverted to justify violence against another group.

We seem to have painted ourselves into a corner with how to handle these so called religious leaders. We believe in freedom of speech and the limited role in government to censor that speech, yet we know that these clerics are using their teachings to recruit terrorists.

Do we put a microscope on them and try to pull them off the street for anything we can, for example using the IRS to target them for audits? I would like to see that but it doesn't seem to be a good answer without opening the floodgates for more government in all of our lives.

I'm sure hell will freeze over before this happens, but the only way I see this ever ending is if a couple things change.

1. The muslim world truly turns on the radicalized not just lip service and oust them from their societies.

2. The conservative Islamic nations go through an enlightenment period that emerges more western values. (I'm not saying that all western values are de facto better rather that if these places adopted more western values there would be less appetite for death and destruction. A playboy and blue jeans kind of strategy)

[Stobey]

Originally Posted by fng13

Stobey,

I do not mean this in a disrespectful way, nor do I wish to start a religious debate, however I don't believe replacing one god for another to be much of a strategy.

As soon as one points to ones own religion as the true religion what ground has been made? The opposition also believes that they know the truth.

As TR outlined above it is the people who preach the violence as well as the weak minded who absorb it and act on it that are equally the enemy. Most religions can be perverted to justify violence against another group.

We seem to have painted ourselves into a corner with how to handle these so called religious leaders. We believe in freedom of speech and the limited role in government to censor that speech, yet we know that these clerics are using their teachings to recruit terrorists.

Do we put a microscope on them and try to pull them off the street for anything we can, for example using the IRS to target them for audits? I would like to see that but it doesn't seem to be a good answer without opening the floodgates for more government in all of our lives.

I'm sure hell will freeze over before this happens, but the only way I see this ever ending is if a couple things change.

1. The muslim world truly turns on the radicalized not just lip service and oust them from their societies.

2. The conservative Islamic nations go through an enlightenment period that emerges more western values. (I'm not saying that all western values are de facto better rather that if these places adopted more western values there would be less appetite for death and destruction. A playboy and blue jeans kind of strategy)

Here's the deal: The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact. Islam - with its sharia law - is a complete totalitarian legal, political and social structure hiding behind the veneer of a religion. There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam; rather Islam and Sharia constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level. While it is in theory possible for an Islamic society to have different outward forms — an elective system of government, a hereditary monarchy, etc. — whatever the outward structure of the government, Sharia is the prescribed content. It is this fact that puts Sharia into conflict with forms of government based on anything other than the Quran and the Sunnah.

As should be plain to anyone who has examined the Islamic sources, to take the violence out of Islam would require it to jettison two things: the Quran as the word of Allah and Muhammad as Allah’s prophet. In other words, to pacify Islam would require its transformation into something that it is not. The Western Christian Reformation, that is often used as an example, was an attempt (successful or not) to recover the essence of Christianity, namely, the example and teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Trying to get back to the example of Muhammad would have very different consequences. Indeed, one may say that Islam is today going through its “Reformation” with the increasing jihadist activity around the globe. Today, Muslims of the Salafi (“early generations”) school are doing exactly that in focusing on the life of Muhammad and his early successors. These reformers are known to their detractors by the derogative term "Wahhabi". Drawing their inspiration from Muhammad and the Quran, they are invariably disposed to violence. The unhappy fact is that Islam today is what it has been for fourteen centuries: violent, intolerant, and expansionary. It is folly to think that we, in the course of a few years or decades, are going to be able to change the basic world outlook of a foreign civilization. Islam’s violent nature must be accepted as a given; only then will we be able to come up with appropriate policy responses that can improve our chances of survival.
[My thanks to Gregory M. Davis -- Islam 101 on JihadWatch.org for much of the above. sft]


These so-called "radicals" are doing nothing more than going back to the quran and haddiths - to sharia - for their marching orders. Under izlam, NO "reform" is possible because the possibility to alter the quran and sharia - referred to as "ijitihad" - ended sometime in the 10th century; and anyone attempting to change sharia as it stands would be deemed an apostate and subject to the death penalty!

So there you have it. Idiotic politicians, the media and the bought-and-paid-for whores of academia deny these facts; and don't want the non-muzlim world to be aware that, while we may not be at war with izlam, izlam certainly is at war with the rest of the civilized world. Not much of a choice left for those of us who do not wish to be martyred or live in abject dhimmitude. And make no mistake, izlam is about conquering the entire world for [their] "allah".

You might want to check out for further reference:
Robert Spencer's site: www.jihadwatch.org
David Wood's site: www.answeringmuslims.com
Bill Warner's video: "Why We Are Afraid, the 1400 Year Old Secret"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

Do your homework. Your life, and the lives of those you love, may depend upon it.

[fng13]

Originally Posted by Stobey

Here's the deal: The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact. Islam - with its sharia law - is a complete totalitarian legal, political and social structure hiding behind the veneer of a religion. There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam; rather Islam and Sharia constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level. While it is in theory possible for an Islamic society to have different outward forms — an elective system of government, a hereditary monarchy, etc. — whatever the outward structure of the government, Sharia is the prescribed content. It is this fact that puts Sharia into conflict with forms of government based on anything other than the Quran and the Sunnah.

As should be plain to anyone who has examined the Islamic sources, to take the violence out of Islam would require it to jettison two things: the Quran as the word of Allah and Muhammad as Allah’s prophet. In other words, to pacify Islam would require its transformation into something that it is not. The Western Christian Reformation, that is often used as an example, was an attempt (successful or not) to recover the essence of Christianity, namely, the example and teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Trying to get back to the example of Muhammad would have very different consequences. Indeed, one may say that Islam is today going through its “Reformation” with the increasing jihadist activity around the globe. Today, Muslims of the Salafi (“early generations”) school are doing exactly that in focusing on the life of Muhammad and his early successors. These reformers are known to their detractors by the derogative term "Wahhabi". Drawing their inspiration from Muhammad and the Quran, they are invariably disposed to violence. The unhappy fact is that Islam today is what it has been for fourteen centuries: violent, intolerant, and expansionary. It is folly to think that we, in the course of a few years or decades, are going to be able to change the basic world outlook of a foreign civilization. Islam’s violent nature must be accepted as a given; only then will we be able to come up with appropriate policy responses that can improve our chances of survival.
[My thanks to Gregory M. Davis -- Islam 101 on JihadWatch.org for much of the above. sft]


These so-called "radicals" are doing nothing more than going back to the quran and haddiths - to sharia - for their marching orders. Under izlam, NO "reform" is possible because the possibility to alter the quran and sharia - referred to as "ijitihad" - ended sometime in the 10th century; and anyone attempting to change sharia as it stands would be deemed an apostate and subject to the death penalty!

So there you have it. Idiotic politicians, the media and the bought-and-paid-for whores of academia deny these facts; and don't want the non-muzlim world to be aware that, while we may not be at war with izlam, izlam certainly is at war with the rest of the civilized world. Not much of a choice left for those of us who do not wish to be martyred or live in abject dhimmitude. And make no mistake, izlam is about conquering the entire world for [their] "allah".

You might want to check out for further reference:
Robert Spencer's site: www.jihadwatch.org
David Wood's site: www.answeringmuslims.com
Bill Warner's video: "Why We Are Afraid, the 1400 Year Old Secret"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

Do your homework. Your life, and the lives of those you love, may depend upon it.

While I can agree with most of what you said regarding the modern sects of Islam and the fact that the religion at its core as written is very violent.
However, I would argue most people don't follow their own religions to the letter.

Having said that If you were directly responding to my post I think you may have missed what I meant by enlightenment.

I was talking about the "age of enlightenment" or "age of reason" which began in the 17th century. Where the populace moved away from traditional beliefs and began to be more receptive to new ideas. Leading to the emergence of modern science.

This has taken place much more recently as then the 10th century. Take a look at pictures from Kabul from the 1960's and 70's. Girls in skirts walking around, with the right to vote and freedom of speech. Granted the ultra-conservative Muslims were not in power, but it shows that the general populace was not against this.

I was not talking about the "reformation" period which took place in the Christian church.

To say that it is not possible for Islamic nations to change or not live and die by sharia law is plainly false. There are many nations with large concentrations or predominately Muslim populaces that either have not adopted sharia law at all, or have a mix of sharia and other laws.

All I am suggesting here is if we can encourage the Muslim world to continue on into the modern age, rather than slip back into an ultra-conservative head chopping murder fest, we will all be better off. I believe we have a much better chance of doing that then we do of converting 1 billion Muslims to Christianity.

Furthermore, with regards to the 1st amendment discussion, I am not in so much fear of Islam here at home that I am willing to sacrifice any more of my freedoms in the name of safety.


I apologize if I have derailed this thread.