What's new

‘Man with explosives strapped to him takes one hostage in Australia’

Hindustani78

BANNED
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
40,471
Reaction score
-47
Country
India
Location
India
Updated: July 16, 2015 21:07 IST
‘Man takes one hostage in Australian park, could be strapped with explosives’ - The Hindu

Police have cordoned off the park in Bunbury, Western Australia and ambulance and fire-fighters are at the scene
A man believed to have explosives strapped to his body on Thursday took at least one person as hostage in a park in Australia, prompting authorities to cordon off the area.

Images taken by reporters at the scene show a man wearing a black-hooded top and a figure in the background, sitting.

Park cordoned off
Police have cordoned off the park in Bunbury, Western Australia and ambulance and fire-fighters are at the scene.

Officers in bullet-proof vests are lying on the ground near the scene, where a large sign has been erected, understood to contain the man’s demands, the ABC News has reported.

Could be explosives
The man may have explosives strapped to his body, the report said.

Police have confirmed a hostage situation but refused to release any further details, it said.

Western Australia Police spokesman Samuel Dinnison was quoted by AAP news agency as saying that police sealed off an area in Bunbury known as Koombana Bay in the evening.

“Members of the tactical response group are on the site and they are dealing with the situation,” he said.

Cause unclear
Mr. Dinnison said it was unclear what sparked the hostage situation.

The report said the man had erected a handwritten sign that appeared to demand the Western Australia Crime Corruption and Crime Commission to release a report.
 
. . . .
If he is brown then then this is a terrorist incident. If he he is white then the poor guy is just going through a hard time. His wife probably left him and has bills he can't manage.



lol what a logical explanation for white man :rofl::rofl:
 
.
If he is brown then then this is a terrorist incident. If he he is white then the poor guy is just going through a hard time. His wife probably left him and has bills he can't manage.


wha? lol

If he is brown then then this is a terrorist incident. If he he is white then the poor guy is just going through a hard time. His wife probably left him and has bills he can't manage.


But what if he's yellow, or black ?
 
. .
Seems linked to the deployment of United States forces in Australia.
 
.
If the hostage taker is "non-white" (i.e. belongs to any other racial denomination except Caucasian) then the probability of him being labeled as a "terrorist" is pretty high based on past incidents...unfortunately "constantly cooked" perception in media peddles the notion of the following "default" generalizations...

Case 1 (The suspects are found to be "Non-Muslims")
1. If White (loner) implies Mentally disturbed person or Going through tough times (incident is not a terrorist act)
2. If Black (loner) implies Thug or Gang-banger (incident is general crime/drug related - not a terrorist act)
3. If Brown (Hispanic and loner) implies Member of Hispanic Gangs which often recruits Illegals (incident is general crime/drug related - not a terrorist act)
4. If Brown (Non - Hispanic and loner) implies a secluded event (incident is general crime related - not a terrorist act)
5. If Yellow same as 4 above.

Case 2 (The suspects are found to be Muslims)
1. If White (loner) - there will be a lag in time (just to make certain he is indeed a Muslim... some in media will raise the questions of his up bringing and his child hood experiences as well in the mix in that time frame) but eventually once he is found to be a Muslim he will be labelled as a terrorist (incident a terrorist act)...case closed.
2. All others will be labeled as terrorist in quick time in the media...there will be no need required to look into the reasons behind the motivation for their crime.
 
Last edited:
.
If the hostage taker is "non-white" (i.e. belongs to any other racial denomination except Caucasian) then the probability of him labeled as a "terrorist" is pretty low based on past incidents...unfortunately "constantly cooked" perception in media peddles the notion of the following "default" generalizations...

Case 1 (The suspects are found to be "Non-Muslims")
1. If White (loner) implies Mentally disturbed person or Going through tough times (incident is not a terrorist act)
2. If Black (loner) implies Thug or Gang-banger (incident is general crime/drug related - not a terrorist act)
3. If Brown (Hispanic and loner) implies Member of Hispanic Gangs which often recruits Illegals (incident is general crime/drug related - not a terrorist act)
4. If Brown (Non - Hispanic and loner) implies a secluded event (incident is general crime related - not a terrorist act)
5. If Yellow same as 4 above.

Case 2 (The suspects are found to be Muslims)
1. If White (loner) - there will be a lag in time (just to make certain he is indeed a Muslim... some in media will raise the questions of his up bringing and his child hood experiences as well in the mix in that time frame) but eventually once he is found to be a Muslim he will be labelled as a terrorist (incident a terrorist act)...case closed.
2. All others will be labeled as terrorist in quick time in the media...there will be no need required to look into alternate reasons and what not behind the motivation for the crime.

Its more or less depends on the internal situation.

Smugglers are mainly linked to international mafia which do harm to the countries economics and are indulge in drugs/weapons trade.
 
.
Its more or less depends on the internal situation.

Smugglers are mainly linked to international mafia which do harm to the countries economics and are indulge in drugs/weapons trade.


How can you relate your statement with the general bias in western media today dealing with incidents such as these...?
 
. .

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom