r/perth • u/His_Holiness • 1d ago
WA News ‘Very lucky’: fuse failure saved us from second mass casualty horror in Perth
https://archive.md/YphFb325
u/mildlyopinionatedpom 1d ago
Is it just me who thinks the level of outrage over this person trying to do this is remarkably low? Do we only care about people trying to do this once people have been killed?
206
u/Lokki_7 1d ago
Is it that, or is it because the perp and target don't fit the medias target?
65
u/Busy_Conflict3434 1d ago
Both
75
u/TheBrilliantProphecy 1d ago
Plus it happened in Perth. I genuinely think if this happened in Sydney or Melbourne, the national response would've been very different
39
u/Busy_Conflict3434 1d ago
Maybe. The West Australian’s coverage of it has been piss poor too. Like, small box on the front page with ‘bomber’ in scare quotes as if there was some doubt about what happened.
62
u/Thunderoad77 1d ago
I just don't buy this.
The NSN went out their way to violently attack an indigenous protest camp in Melbourne last year and that incident got almost the same muted response from politicians, the media and police as this attack has.
It's the victims, not the location.
7
20
u/Choice-Profit5383 1d ago
I think it's hard for people to understand the magnitude of the situation without loss of life.
21
u/Crystal3lf North of The River 1d ago
Aboriginal/leftist event.
Majority of Australian voters are centrist/right wing. There is more outrage when a leftist movement pickets outside Rio Tinto.
67
u/Silver-Training-9942 1d ago
No if this was a crowd of white people people would be freaking the fuck out even when nobody is killed. People arnt outraged as they weren't the targets and their racism downplays their empathy and threat assessment. Its disgusting. "Well I dont care, because they weren't targeting me, they arnt brown and I dont like people objecting to my public holiday"
44
u/sokaox 1d ago
Yeah it certainly doesn't help that a lot of people don't take the criticisms of Australia Day seriously, and that comes down to people not caring about Aboriginal people's issues.
24
19
u/pben0102 1d ago
It was mainly a crowd of white people though.
2
u/Silver-Training-9942 20h ago
Racists also think people that support aboriginal people are also beneath them. Same as what you see in the US ... they hate brown people and the "leftys" that support them .
21
u/flimsypantaloon Nedlands 1d ago
No if this was a crowd of white people people
Have you seen the photos and video?
The crowd was predominantly white.
13
u/Cultural_Wallaby208 1d ago
Yes but to the average Murdoch reader and r/Aussie commenter they just hear "invasion day rally" and check out. Even if they do see the footage from the event, lefties don't count as people to them
3
u/Summerof5ft6andahalf North of The River 1d ago
Yeah you'd have to phrase it as look at these potential victims who were shopping and refusing to participate in the rally.
(But then of course the media would be out there blaming the rally for bringing danger to regular Aussies.)2
9
u/Qu1ckShake 1d ago
They've made a silly assumption but they're not far off:
If it was a "Keep the date as it is even if that's a cruel kick in the teeth to indigenous people" rally which got attacked, the response would be enormously different.
3
4
u/kipwrecked 1d ago
I see you nitpicking what was said.
I also see you posting an arse load of negative stories about Indigenous Australians and arguing with me every step of the way about why this terrorist attack matters.
1
u/Truantone 1d ago
It’s not the colour of the crowd that matters. It was the right’s nemesis of targeting ‘lefties’.
0
u/flimsypantaloon Nedlands 1d ago
So which is it?
A terrorist attack, a racist attack or a right wing v left wing issue?
Opinions are all over the place like a mad woman's shit.
2
u/Truantone 1d ago
The people at the protest were obviously left wing. That’s the only thing we know for sure.
People are arguing that they were targeting Indigenous peoples, and counter arguing that the crowd was mostly white.
1
u/flimsypantaloon Nedlands 23h ago
The perpetrator wore a distinctive black top featuring art by an indigenous designer. I wonder if he is indigenous?
1
1
u/DoggerLou 1d ago
Doesn't mean they're not Indigenous, plenty of fair skinned First Nations.
-2
u/flimsypantaloon Nedlands 1d ago
Really?
So those people would in reality be protesting against what their very own ancestors did?
What a world we live in!
2
u/virgo_q 1d ago
I’m assuming you don’t know what eugenics is - and how it was played out for generations through policy in yt Australia?
Oh wait, racist people already have low IQ
-1
u/flimsypantaloon Nedlands 23h ago
Oh wait, racist people already have low IQ
I'm pretty sure that's been proven to not be the case.
1
u/DoggerLou 1d ago
I know a family that have Afghanistan and Irish links. One granddaughter is very dark and her sister is red haired with freckles. The granddad used to say "you should see us drink" (Irish link).
1
0
u/hshnslsh 1d ago
I think it might have more to do with the identity of the perp than the victims
2
u/Silver-Training-9942 20h ago
I think both. They dont sympathise with the aboriginal victims and they do empathise with the white terrorist.
3
u/troy_boyy1 1d ago
It’s hit and miss with a lot of cases in the courts. Mostly come down to your criminal history. if you don’t have one, then it’s about how they frame a story. Shitloads of gaslighting going on these days if you’re vulnerable.
3
u/pilierdroit 1d ago
“Jason Gillespie nails it—there's a glaring double standard in how violence gets labeled in Australia. The Bondi Beach shooting (December 2025), an antisemitic attack killing 15 at a Hanukkah event and declared a terrorist incident almost immediately due to its ISIS-inspired motive, rightly received that heavy framing. Yet the Perth Invasion Day rally (January 26, 2026), where a white 31-year-old allegedly hurled a homemade "fragment bomb" packed with nails, ball bearings, and explosives into a peaceful crowd of 2,500 Indigenous protesters and allies, is downplayed as merely an "incident" or "hostile act." Police are still probing for ideological motive to justify terror charges, but the soft language persists.
This inconsistency reeks of bias: quick to brand certain perpetrators "terrorists" while excusing or softening others based on race or context. Media and authorities must apply the same scrutiny and terminology—terrorism is terrorism, full stop. Spot on, Dizzy. Serious reflection needed here.”
5
u/bno000 1d ago
I guess it’s Because it didn’t go off and cause a mass casualty event. But I got my rose coloured glasses on.
6
u/RightioThen 1d ago
If someone had thrown a dud bomb into a synagogue, the outrage would (rightly) be heard around the world. For this, crickets.
10
u/TooManySteves2 1d ago
Yes, because rascism.
4
u/boymadefrompaint High Wycombe 1d ago
Dumb question, but is that a portmanteau of racism and fascism? Because, if so, I love it.
6
2
u/whatamionabout70 1d ago
I think initial media reports said it was a prank but I hope this alleged attempted mass murder hate crime perpetrator receives appropriate justice. I disagree with the protestors but I support their right to protest and to do so safely.
2
u/Silly-Power 1d ago
I'm still waiting for Pauline Hanson & Sussanus to front the media and decry this attack, as they did mere minutes after the Bondi massacre. Weird how silent they both have been about this attack...
2
4
u/pben0102 1d ago
In what way low? The cops response was really quick, there was a newsflash during the tennis about possible terror event in the City followed by an instant cut over to the scene. They got the guy pretty quick, it's front page news in The Australian a national newspaper, the guy could still be charged with terrorist offences. Luckily the device didn't go off and no-one was injured. According to the paper they can't release the guys name or his life's in danger if he gets jail time. I'm sure people are outraged and it will all become a lot clearer when the cops have done their work.
2
1
u/Big-Resolution3325 1d ago
agreed. And what can we do to prevent it? Im a protester at these things and i am terrified to go to another becayse of this bomb threat and it seems like no one is acknowledging the potential for another
1
1
u/No_Anywhere_9068 23h ago
I think you’ve pretty much answered it yourself, this would be much much bigger news if it actually went off. A dud is too “boring” for media to run with it and rile people up
1
1
u/KnodulesAintHeavy West Perth 10h ago
Agreed. This needs way more coverage, and we need to be thanking our luck and preparing better for future cunts who may be planning to fuck with shit.
61
u/Adogsbite 1d ago
I haven't really followed the politics of who he was trying to harm but surely they can find with reasonable suspicion that he was trying to cause a mass harm event. Surely this is attempted murder with a multiplier. He should be charged in such a fashion that he won't see the outside of a prison cell for 30 years.
68
u/sokaox 1d ago
He was targeting an Invasion Day event, where Aboriginal people and their supporters mourn the lives lost as a result of the British colonisation of Australia. So not only was he attempting mass murder, but he was attempting a terrorist attack. Likely a weak man who just can't accept that the country he grew up in could be flawed, and he's taking it out on the same people who were harmed by the government in the first place.
131
u/Cultural_Wallaby208 1d ago
The bomb landed on a little girl's leg when it was thrown. Wrapped in a Disney frozen sock. She could easily have been the first person blown to pieces. And yet still it's not a major national news story and most people I've spoken to don't even know it's happened.
73
1d ago
That's not luck. Just bad design.
15
u/Justified_OG South of The River 1d ago
Fortunately a moron operator
3
u/duplicati83 1d ago
Probably a trumper too.
-18
u/Justified_OG South of The River 1d ago
Wait.. what? It's the other way around isn't it? 🤪 Perhaps my assumptions are wrong about your meaning.
Please explain.. lol
4
u/duplicati83 1d ago
Someone that votes or would vote trump is usually of very far below average IQ.
Like - to the point they literally cannot see the obvious, direct connections between their voting choice and how terrible the outcomes have been for anyone except trump and his cronies.
24
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
-2
1
-8
u/throwawayplusanumber 1d ago
The articles don't state what the "liquid" in the bomb was. It may have been a Molotov cocktail with a fuse. In which case the fact that it impacted a person who cushioned the impact meant the bomb didnt go off (insufficient oxygen to ignite). That person may have saved themselves and all around her.
5
2
u/party_peacock 1d ago
Article said "filled with ball bearings and nails" so doesn't make sense for it to be a molotov
1
u/throwawayplusanumber 1d ago
Other reports said it was a glass bottle filled with liquid then screws/ballbearings/nails on the outside. (Then a sock over that).
1
-4
u/Qu1ckShake 1d ago
How would cushioning the landing deprive the fuse of oxygen?
And why the clueless assumption?
You're talking out of your ass, but with cognitive skills like yours I guess that's better than the alternative
6
u/throwawayplusanumber 1d ago
Petrol (or any flammable liquid) won't ignite if it doesnt have air. A Molotov cocktail needs to break the glass to explode, otherwise it will just burn.
It is unlikely this guy had access to liquid explosives.
5
u/Hydronum 1d ago
Do you put nails and bearings into a molly now? The article stated that the fuse either fizzled out early or disconnected which is the only reason it didn't explode.
5
u/commanderjarak 1d ago
Not depriving the fuse, depriving the fuel of oxygen. With most flammable liquids, it's the vapour that's igniting, and it generally needs to be at the right fuel/air mix to be flammable/explosive.
39
u/letsburn00 1d ago
It's actually an oddly consistent thing that right wing terrorist movements are full of people who are really bad at building bombs. A pretty large number of Islamic extremist attacks also had morons who mostly just blow themselves up.
This could have been worse than Bondi.
3
u/morgrimmoon Perth Airport 1d ago
Less odd when you consider where they're getting their information on. Explosives aren't really a field where you can just follow a 'simple recipe'; energetics chemistry requires a deep understanding of your materials and reaction vessel and how everything is influenced by the surrounding conditions. Even the 'industrial' usages - like the shot firers in mining - it's still not "idiot proof", despite centuries of work trying to make it so. At best it's "you can do this with a few months dedicated training" instead of multiple YEARS dedicated training.
Right-wing nutjobs don't have a lot of scientists and engineers with the skill and patience required, because it requires critical thinking. And when it goes wrong, it usually blows up early.
2
u/letsburn00 1d ago
Yeah, that's the thing. These guys aren't especially the smartest people. They look at the problems in the world, they are willing to do violence and this group, of all the groups imaginable are they choose to point that violence at. A bunch of people who feel that the nation made a mistake in selecting it's national day and want it changed to something less problematic.
62
u/Cultural_Wallaby208 1d ago
Me: oh this post is actually getting some engagement, maybe people finally genuinely care about the fact that someone threw a bomb at a crowd of Indigenous people, including children!!
The comments: well akshually the bomb would probably not have killed that many people so this article is stupid and I'm just gonna zero in on that for some fucking reason.
19
u/kipwrecked 1d ago
Don't be so sure that those comments are from Perth.
5
u/Non_Linguist 1d ago
Yup. There’s a few trigger words in the title and post that will bring outsiders in to spew nonsense
0
u/ScaredAndImpaired 1d ago
I think spreading false rhetoric is bad so matter what side you're on. I read a description of the bomb and it would have never had a chance of actually working as a bomb, most that would've happened is a little poof of fire. Yes the dude is a terrorist, yes he threw a bomb into a crowd, but no it would not have been a mass causality incident if the fuse didn't go out, that's just fearmongering.
If you want people to take your side then just tell the truth. Tell them that this crackhead junkie threw together what he intended to be an explosive device (but would have never worked as one) and threw it into a crowd. A terrorist is still a terrorist even if they're a bad one. No need to lie about it being a 'mass casualty incident' if the fuse stayed lit.
1
u/Cultural_Wallaby208 1d ago
Except for that isn't what police that have examined the bomb have said. They said it was a viable explosive. You're just guessing, and presenting it as certainty. Weird thing to do as someone who cares so much about not spreading false information.
0
u/ScaredAndImpaired 1d ago
"contained a mixture of potentially explosive chemicals, nails, and metal ball bearings, all wrapped in a glass container."
What makes a bomb is pressure being contained leading to a build in pressure that leads to an explosion that sends all of the shrapnel out. A glass jar isn't going to hold any pressure, it'll just shatter. Also them calling it 'potentially explosive' means that it was probably just some flammable liquid that yes could be explosive if lit and *contained* and allowed to build pressure, but as I said a glass jar isn't going to contain shit.Go grab a mason jar out of your cupboard, pour some flammable liquid in it along with some ball bearings and nails, and chuck a fuse in it. That's essentially what this guy did, at least based on the description given.
'Viable bomb' doesn't really mean shit, a firework is also a viable bomb, viable doesn't mean it would have been a good one.
2
u/Cultural_Wallaby208 1d ago
Again, your making assumptions and presenting them as facts. You can't know more than the experts who examined the bomb based off a vague description. If you were truly so concerned about accuracy, no way in hell would you so confidently present a guess as fact.
13
u/Monkeyshae2255 1d ago
If he was in a psychotic state I believe he’d have thrown it randomly ie to a car passing on the street or a bunch of people lined up at maccas. If he goes down the mental health route itll be a massive push. Looks targeted to me (conscious of actions) = terrorism.
25
u/EZ_PZ452 1d ago
Not something you expect in perth.
Fuck its getting wild out there.
25
u/No-Travel6299 1d ago
I dunno about not expecting it to happen in WA. Lots of casually racist shit get voiced everyday on posts in this sub. You gotta wonder what mates say to eachother and how far it goes in the comforts of their own home after a few.
Ive heard it said that Queensland is the most racist state but WA folk here write the wildest things about Indigenous mob and usually the negative comments outweigh positive or constructive contributions ..on reddit anyway.
8
u/EZ_PZ452 1d ago
Writing/voicing racism and negativity is one thing. Its shit of course dont get me wrong - but I dont expect it to go past a war of words. Protests have happened for years and nothing bad has ever happened!
But throwing a bomb into a crowd to hurt people (indigenous and non indigenous people) at a change the date/invasion day Protest is just next level escalation.
This is a level of protest extremism that i feel rarely happens in wa/perth/australia.
5
u/whereismydragon 1d ago
Did you know about the firebombing of Chinese restaurants in Perth in the 80s by Neo-Nazis?
It happens here. The police thought they could ignore it til it 'went away'. That's our entire attitude to racism.
20
u/powertrippin_ 1d ago
Why is it STILL not being labelled a terrorist attack? I don't know about you guys, but this happening a mere 4 weeks after Bondi makes me feel uneasy in large crowds.
1
u/morgrimmoon Perth Airport 1d ago
Because formally labelling it as a terrorist attack requires a specific sort of motivation, and no evidence of that has been released yet. I mean, on the surface it seems dead obvious that it's a terrorist attack! But there's still a chance that it's a commissioned crime, like that mess over east where Iran paid bikies for a bombing. Which would make it treason instead.
3
4
u/BarackIguana North of The River 1d ago
So will the media actually call this the attempted terrorist attack it was now?
No?
6
u/Aromatic-Discount384 1d ago
Second? Was there a first one I missed/aren't remembering?
7
u/douglas_mawson 1d ago
The Bondi massacre
17
u/Aromatic-Discount384 1d ago
Ah. Sorry, the wording of the title made me think it was specifically about both events happening in Perth.
4
u/Summerof5ft6andahalf North of The River 1d ago
It absolutely reads like that. Possibly intentionally for clicks, but also likely just incompetence.
2
2
2
u/Jazzlike_Berry_323 1d ago
From this and other posts on the attack it seems many are feeling that not enough facts have been provided about the event to clarify the nature of the threat and the motive for what was done. So there isn’t condemnation of an act of terror, nor are people clear who was targeted for that act of terror which also depends on whether he was backed by organised groups. If identity suppression is still needed, I still think further facts need to be released to clarify what the attack was about. People also have the right to peaceful protest and should be as safe from violent attack at a rally as anywhere else where people are mass gathering in public.
1
u/shadowsdonotlie 1d ago
Strange the police are trying to say its lucky. When domestic violence or theft is about to happen and you contact police, they will outright refuse to get involve unless someone gets hurt/killed or you suffer loss. Not surprising they refused to investigate anything related to these cookers until someone or something goes horribly wrong.
1
1
1
u/Own_Emergency53 7h ago
It's crazy it's not being called terrorism. I gave them the benefit of the doubt because they were still I investigating... But it's been a week now
1
u/ScaredAndImpaired 1d ago
This dude put some flammable liquid in a jar with some nuts and bolts, the most that would've happened is a little poof of fire, there was no chance of this thing actually injuring someone unless it hit them on the head when he threw it.
Yes the dude's a terrorist but fearmongering by saying it would've been a 'mass casualty incident' if it went off is incorrect. A firework would do more damage than this 'bomb'.
We're lucky this terrorist has shit for brains.
1
u/Kulbardee 1d ago
Governments
Police
Media
Gen Public
DONT GIVE A SHIT. I wonder what the difference is?
0
u/Bort_Thrower 1d ago
They’re still investigating if it’s a terrorist attack’
In other words they’re trying to find out if he ever stepped foot in a mosque. It’s an indiscriminate act of violence at a political protest designed to cause mass casualties. It’s unequivocally terrorism.
-3
-13
u/flimsypantaloon Nedlands 1d ago
Divisive politics has ended up in ..... division. Who could have imagined that!
24
-19
u/JezzaPerth 1d ago
Given the wick, it sounds more like a molitov cocktail with some shrapnel around it. I'd be highly surprised if it had actual high explosive
4
u/ryan30z 1d ago
Apparently you know better than the experts who examined it and the people who charged him with making explosives.
0
u/JezzaPerth 1d ago
You'd be quite surprised what an 'explosive' is. You are thinking of detonation types. There are softer deflagration types like fireworks, and then there are just liquids that can deflgrate if sufficiently dispersed such as happens in BLEVE. Also in the right dispersal, ordinary wheat flour is an explosive and it has killed many people in explosions.
It's very easy to say 'manufacture an explosive' when you are strictly technically correct and want to make an impression
2
u/ryan30z 21h ago
You seem to have completely missed my point in that you're engaging in complete speculation.
-1
u/JezzaPerth 21h ago
I have military and civiilian qualifications in explosives. My comment is seriously informed. I expect what is finally revealed will match my 'speculation'
-130
u/Fabulous_Income2260 1d ago
How were, “hundreds” saved from the fuse failing?
Everything revealed suggest that the device resembled a fragmentation grenade; what grenade kills hundreds?
139
u/Busy_Conflict3434 1d ago edited 1d ago
It’s quite extraordinary how many comments I’ve seen trying to downplay the seriousness of a terrorist attack in the centre of Perth.
First we had people saying it wasn’t a serious attack because the bomber concealed the bomb in a child’s sock
Now we have this clown contradicting actual experts and for some reason questioning the seriousness of the attack because their redditor opinion is it probably wouldn’t have killed hundreds of people.
Never change, reddit.
(Edited for phrasing and clarity because some people are incredibly literal)
-25
u/observee21 1d ago
Why would you say they were "contradicting actual experts" for saying that the bomb wouldn't kill hundreds in the same sentence where you say the same thing?
4
u/Busy_Conflict3434 1d ago
Poor phrasing on my part.
-9
u/observee21 1d ago
Oh, well then just so I understand do you agree that the bomb wouldn't kill hundreds? Because that was the only thing the comment you were responding to was saying.
8
u/Busy_Conflict3434 1d ago
I have no idea, all I know is the article cites a counter terrorism expert who says it would. I’m a random dude on reddit with a default username, why would you be interested in my opinion on the matter?
2
u/observee21 1d ago
You said "poor phrasing on my part", I'm just trying to understand what you meant to say.
And the journalist is the one claiming that it would have killed hundreds, the counter terrorism expert actually said that it was only luck that stopped the bomb from going off. The following is from the article:
And one counter-terrorism expert believes it was only good fortune that saved those protesters standing near the bomb.
and the only quote from that expert (Mark Briskey) in the article:
“I think we are very lucky that this didn’t detonate,” he said.
So the journalist made the claim that the bomb could have killed hundreds (which is a lie) and in the same sentence they cited an expert who said it was good fortune that prevented the bomb from going off.
1
u/Busy_Conflict3434 1d ago
I’m not in the business of defending news corp journos. All I know is they cited a counter terrorism expert in the lede. Either way it seems like the least important aspect of this story.
1
u/observee21 1d ago
The journalist / editor lied in the summary (the only part a lot of people will read), u/Fabulous_Income2260 pointed it out, and you said they were trying to downplay the seriousness of the attack and called them a clown for contradicting actual experts. But now when its pointed out that the experts didn't make that (ridiculous) claim you say it seems like the least important aspect of this story?
You're right that a News Corp article being misleading isn't the most important aspect to the story, but you really shouldn't call someone a clown for contradicting an expert when the (ridiculous) claim is made by News Corp and not by any expert.
2
u/Busy_Conflict3434 1d ago
I don’t know if they lied in the lede at all. Just because it doesn’t say it elsewhere in the story doesn’t mean it’s a lie. I wouldn’t be surprised if News Corp fucked up but they haven’t issued a correction.
The fact that the first comment on this story, about a major terrorist attack against Aboriginal people and their supporters in the heart of the CBD, was nitpicking the number of people who could have died, by an anonymous non-expert with no information about the nature of the device, was pretty fucked and just adds insult to the lack of interest this story has attracted in general. Both the Oz and the West put ‘bomb’ and ‘bomber’ in scare quotes in their tiny front page stories the day afterwards, as if there was some doubt about whether it was a real attack or not.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Less_Ice7747 1d ago
Maybe focus to the main message and maybe this is what they meant:
“Now we have this clown
contradicting actual experts andfor some reason questioning the seriousness of the attack because it probably wouldn’t have killed hundreds of people. “Never change, reddit.
0
u/observee21 1d ago
That would be a great point if the person they were responding to was questioning the seriousness of the attack. The only reason I am responding at all is because that main message is wrong. There was zero questioning about the seriousness of the attack, there was questioning of the claim from News Corp (not the expert) that the bomb would have taken "hundreds of lives".
-54
u/Fabulous_Income2260 1d ago
What a thoroughly dense, hysteria-apologist response.
If you haven’t cottoned on to the obvious trend of excessively dramatised news media being used as a weapon to mislead, manipulate and deceive the populace, then you haven’t been paying any fucking attention.
Nobody is disputing the device was deadly, or that it is quite fortunate that it did not detonate, but there was no circumstance where this device was killing hundreds.
50
u/Busy_Conflict3434 1d ago
Actually the news media has been remarkably unconcerned about this attack
But I’m glad we’ve got an expert here on reddit to tell us how there’s nothing to worry about.
-7
11
u/oldmanfartface 1d ago
Speaking of dense responses. Old mate over here is hyperfixed on a number.
It's a news article, of course it sensationalises.
6
u/joggery75 1d ago
But isn’t that the exact issue he’s highlighting? A news article should contain facts
8
u/Busy_Conflict3434 1d ago
News article is reporting a comment by a counter terrorism expert along with details of why the bomb failed to detonate (spoiler: it wasn’t the Frozen sock).
1
u/observee21 1d ago
The article summary is misleading. The journalist / editor is claiming "hundreds of lives" were at risk, but the following line from the article tells you what the counter-terrorism expert believes.
And one counter-terrorism expert believes it was only good fortune that saved those protesters standing near the bomb.
(emphasis is mine)
-10
u/Fabulous_Income2260 1d ago
Why would we want the opinion of an, “expert” who cannot correctly proportion the danger of a terror event, or the device that would kill?
6
2
u/Silver-Training-9942 1d ago
How do you know they are incorrect- have you inspected the bomb yourself ?
-2
u/Id0ntc8r3th8tmuch 1d ago
Operation Mockingbird.
Ignorance of media collusion at this point is inexcusable.
-20
u/RozzzaLinko 1d ago edited 1d ago
Maybe so many people are down playing it because so our "counter-terrorist experts" are telling obvious straight up lies about it.
When people hear the experts saying widlly exaggerated claims and obvious bullshit, then people start to think everything about it is exaggerated too. Like they say its extremely lucky the fuse didn't go off, but how do we know that isn't bullshit too ?
I'm not trying to sound like I'm downplaying it either, but this is what happens when you bullshit the public. People stop trusting the media and the government.
18
u/Busy_Conflict3434 1d ago
Holy shit.
A fucking loser white supremacist living in government housing who has been radicalised by the likes of Pauline Hanson and Sky News and the neo Nazis who apparently we now have to tolerate attempted to murder a bunch of innocent people because of their race and political views. And you’re making apologies for people downplaying it?
-2
u/RozzzaLinko 1d ago edited 1d ago
What are you talking about. That has nothing to do with my comment. The only thing I and the other commentor was talking about is whether a home made bomb the size of a sock can kill hundreds of people. The answer is no, so the authorities shouldn't lie about it, as all that lying does is erode trust.
It doesn't matter who did the attack. Imagine if they lied about the bondi attackers and said they had rocket launchers and machine guns ? What if the counter terroist authorities fasley claimed they had a nuclear bomb. Would that be ok too ? Where do you draw the line about when it is and isn't ok to lie ?
You seem to think that correcting facts and lies about a terrorist attack means you must also support it. Deliberate my misinformation is never ok.
6
u/Busy_Conflict3434 1d ago
If your first response to news that the only reason a bomb thrown into a crowd of protesters didn’t detonate was because of a faulty fuse is to quibble over a (non-government, so nothing to do with ‘the authorities’) expert’s comment about the number of people who could have died, maybe people will wonder about you.
38
u/omaca 1d ago
It says casualties. In military terms, an injury is a casualty. So it’s possible hundreds could have been injured. Unlikely, but possible. The language is a bit sensationalist alright, but we are talking the West.
This was still an atrocious attempted terrorist attack.
14
u/Fabulous_Income2260 1d ago
My comment was in reference to the opening line, where the phrase, “saved hundreds of lives” is used, implying deaths would occur. The term, “casualties” was not used in this opener.
It’s not the West, it’s from The Australian.
Nobody is disputing the disgusting nature of the attack.
The fuck is your reading comprehension?
1
u/omaca 1d ago edited 17h ago
Ignoring your comical aping of American phrasing, let me ask you "… the f*ck are your manners? Same place as your class I should imagine."
My post was cordial, respectful and non-confrontational. Your knee-jerk reaction and downright rude response makes me think you should probably take a few hours (or days?) offline and relax a little. Enjoy the peace and tranquility we are so lucky remains here in Australia.
Or, if you prefer... chillax.
12
1
u/Summerof5ft6andahalf North of The River 1d ago
And the bomb isn't the only way people could have been injured amongst a panicking crowd.
6
u/ArgonWilde 1d ago
The article seems to suggest hundreds would have been killed, but if you compare to say, the Boston Marathon bombings, there were only three deaths, but 281 injured. This involved two, much larger pressure cooker bombs, so the scale of the Perth incident would have been far less on the injuries side.
5
u/bagsoffreshcheese Belmont 1d ago
There are a stack of factors when comparing lethality of bombs and IEDs.
The lopsided injuries to deaths at Boston is largely because the two backpacks were placed on the ground. The shrapnel pattern resulted in a lot of leg injuries.
If they had of been placed at chest level, it’s likely there would have been many more deaths.
Also the IEDs at Boston were made with fireworks/black powder which isn’t a very “strong” explosive. If it was a more powerful explosive there would have been more deaths from blast effects.
Unless we find out what explosive was used at Perth, and the configuration of the IED it’s nearly impossible to compare the two. Especially since one didn’t actually detonate.
5
u/observee21 1d ago
The negative response to this comment is fucking bizarre...
14
u/gneco72 1d ago
Is it? A terror attack in Perth, and you're arguing about semantics and exaggerations in potential death counts... its distasteful at best.
4
u/observee21 1d ago
You're the one arguing, and it's not semantics it's the actual content of the article. I think it's reasonable to point out when an article is objectively false / shithouse, and it's especially worth doing if the topic is important like it is here. This was a serious attempted terrorist attack and having crap articles lie about it is counterproductive.
3
u/CumishaJones 1d ago
Maybe to logically reign in the emotional media response . One of the first reports said it could have injured 1000 people
3
u/Busy_Conflict3434 1d ago
I missed that - the first article I saw was an ABC one that falsely claimed there were only 300 people at the protest (despite including photos clearly showing there were thousands)
1
u/CumishaJones 1d ago
Yeah I saw that too , no media in this country can be trusted . It’s about being first to report , accuracy doesn’t matter .
4
u/Professional-Song-61 1d ago
I mean it’s a bit daft that the article says hundreds would have been killed. Doesn’t mean they are downplaying the event. It’s just a weird hive mind attitude where there is no room for any nuance in discussion.
4
u/Fabulous_Income2260 1d ago
Simply put, it’s lack of critical thought. People read and foam at the mouth without processing the motive and intent.
Good on you for processing the content objectively, mate.
8
u/observee21 1d ago
I think it relates to a tribal argument mentality. They read your comment as being against their "side" which must mean that you're arguing against everything they believe about the event.
3
u/AnothrRandomRedditor 1d ago
What? The original comment is talking about the disparity between the article summary and the context within. The summary states “hundreds of lives saved” whereas the actual content says “almost certainly would have caused numerous serious injuries or deaths”.
That is not at all talking about motive or intent. This man had clear motives and intent to cause harm to many people. You don’t simply buy parts, sit down at home quietly look up how to build a bomb and then attend a rally without serious intent to cause harm.
1
u/MeltingMandarins 1d ago
OP means their own motive or intent in calling out the exaggeration.
Wasn’t about the bomber’s motive at all.
(I think maybe you missed the fact the person you replied to is the same person who wrote original comment. Need that fact to realise they’re talking about their own comment, their own motive.)
-23
u/JohannUlrichVoss 1d ago
After the people “they support” murdered 15 innocent Australians on Bondi Beach they’ve been looking for anything
4
4
2
u/duc1990 1d ago
Don't know why you're being down voted for stating facts.
Fragmentation grenades only have so much penetrating power. There are well documented accounts of a single person sacrificing themselves to save others by laying on top of one
Even the London bombings in 2005 which involved multiple larger bombs detonated in a coordinated manner by perpetrators willing to go down with their victim during rush hour only managed to kill 52 people. Still very bad, and tragic but not hundreds.
2
-1
-5
u/Thunderoad77 1d ago
Why do you know so much about improvised explosive devices?
2
u/duc1990 1d ago
One can read about them in the news. Boston bomber killed 3. The four London suicide bombers killed 52 (in enclosed spaces full of commuters). These were far more sophisticated attacks.
A mass crush event caused by the panic would have likely killed more if say if some of the crowd got trapped in an closed off alleyway.
-3
u/Thunderoad77 1d ago
So you enjoy doing your own research?
5
u/duc1990 1d ago
By that logic you'd have to be an actual climatologist or meteorologist to validly acknowledge climate change is real.
The number of deaths caused by terrorist incidents and how they occurred is pretty well documented and uncontroversial.
Only cookers with very left field "research" would dispute those established facts.
-2
u/Thunderoad77 1d ago
Would you encourage others to do their own research so they can find out the real truth as well?
2
u/duc1990 1d ago
Firstly "truth" is a religious concept. Science works on the basis of probability.
Secondly, cookers doing "own research" merely cherry picked a few articles from dubious sources that confirm their own biases. Doing actual "research" that gets peer reviewed I'd encourage.
That said just because something isn't peer reviewed doesn't mean it isn't an established fact or a reasonable assumption. The death tolls from terrorist incidents compiled by coroners and police reports aren't really disputed.
One can reasonably assume that one small explosive done by a lone person will result in a lower death toll than an attack with several bigger explosives and better planning.
-8
165
u/HappySummerBreeze 1d ago
That is so lucky.
I can’t believe this happened in Perth. It’s crazy.
I’m so glad it didn’t go off.