How would they have done that if they weren't in the room? Or do you mean they would have infiltrated without being seen?
It is interesting, but not likely that we will hear much more about their methods as they like to keep away from general knowledge for obvious reasons. There's plenty of SWAT demo stuff on YouTube, as well as MOUT tactics if ur interested in that line.
I think you're fully aware of what I'm saying - the general idea of being "disarmed" is to remove all weapons. The public can still legally own firearms, there are just imposed restrictions on what can be owned. Therefore if a person still has a firearm/firearms, irrespective of whether they have had some taken away, then they are "by definition" still armed. Bolt, lever, pump actions and handguns (semi auto and revolver) are still very much available and widely owned. The gun that was used in Sydney during the Lindt siege was probably a black market gun, sadly enough these are easily obtained as they're usually stolen from licenced owners or from "back in the day" when a whole bunch of them went "missing" during the seizure/buy back phase.
I don''t think he's a false-flagger, he's a life-long old-school journo so he wouldn't be that far gone I hope. But as a left-winger full of disgust for Tony Abbot's government I think he just *really* wants there to be some gross-misconduct involved to lay at his door.
The comments are pretty whiny, but typical. So Not a tony fan either, Pete? ;-)
The balistic reports so far that have been listed in the media, as above, state that two of the hostages died as a result of being shot by the offenders gun. The first was seen by the police sniper being shot, hence the 'hostage down' call, the second from a shotgun pellet rupturing her aorta. Police on scene were not using shotguns, the offender had a shotgun, seems fairly clear cut.
May be because we live in a modern world where thanks to information technology we can get so much instant information; we can watch new breaking as it happens, watch play by play sporting events from the other side of the world in real time and have almost instant access to vast amounts of information; some people expect everything to work that way. So therefore if the siege and resolution was instant and live, any investigation and inquiry that isn't 'as it happens' must therefore, to the paranoid CT mind mean something is being covered up.
I agree 100% - I guess it's as Whitebeard said, we're now living in an age of instant gratification and the public are used to getting it NOW. Even so, that still doesn't answer the question of why they're entitled to that information. It's a perfectly natural thing to want answers and hold people accountable for their actions, but that doesn't mean they get to be inside the cafe the instant the smoke clears. There are always going to be some things that can't or won't be released, I just can't see how they stretch this out to mean it's a cover up.
