Seriously: why would you call this guy “a teen?”

Just another example of many on how the lame stream media seeks to minimise the threat caused to our society by Islamic savages:

Sydney teen tried to buy suicide vest online.

(He could have asked his Momma to make him one.)

It’s understood 18-year-old Tamim Khaja, a former student of Epping Boys High School, was arrested as he tried to make new arrangements to buy a gun. He had a number of government targets in his sights, including the potential of a police station.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/…/9aba9b2638ce4c3600cdc045…

A SYDNEY teenager facing terrorism charges after yesterday being arrested in the Parramatta Stadium carpark had allegedly once tried to buy a suicide vest online.–DAILYTELEGRAPH.COM.AU

A teenager accused of planning a terror act remains in custody after a brief hearing in his absence at a Sydney court.

It’s alleged the 18-year-old was trying to get hold of a gun and was scouting for targets in the city that involved buildings representing authority.

The teen, whose alleged bid to join extremists in Syria was thwarted earlier this year, was arrested in Macquarie Park in Sydney’s northwest on Tuesday morning.

Named in media outlets as Tamim Khaja, he is believed to be a former student at Epping Boys High School and was allegedly investigated by counter-terrorism police for preaching radical Islam at the school last year.

The teen has been under surveillance since he allegedly tried to board an international flight from Sydney Airport in February to join the Islamic State terrorist group in Syria.

He was stopped because his passport was cancelled.

AAP

 

5 thoughts on “Seriously: why would you call this guy “a teen?””

  1. What the cops who either insist on keeping these guys penned up at home, &/or of letting them back into the country after they’ve already gone off to fight in Syria refuse to admit (because their treasonous politician bosses and owners control their pensions and job security) is that THESE GUYS ARE ATTEMPTED MURDERERS!

    They have a clear intention to go off and murder people!
    WHY?

    Well, since the Arabic Bashar Assad and his government in Syria are also all muslims, it’s not to defend islam from white racists, is it?!

    No, it’s because they want to use islam for what it was designed for: as an excuse to kill others and take (Yezidi) sex-slaves as their reward!

    So they’re also conspirators plotting gang-rapes!

    The main thrust of Western criminal law is “mens-rea”/guilty-mind INTENT – which these guys have in spades!

    Yet their resulting criminal attempts (and remember – even “merely” attempted crimes, are still considered crimes in the West) are all ignored and they’re coddled at home both when they try to leave – only their passports are seized, not their persons for their attempted crimes – and worse, when they return from abroad, after having been trained to murder us and quite likely after having successfully carried out a few murders there first, just for practice!

  2. He’s eighteen. In Australia he is old enough to drive, to drink (except of course that Islam bans alcohol), and to *vote*. He’s a legal adult. He should not be spoken about as if he is a thirteen-year-old. There is a world of difference between thirteen or fourteen, and eighteen or nineteen.

      1. “In all our wars our soldiers were younger than 18”.

        Really? How many of them are you claiming to have been “younger than 18”? You can *only* in fact be talking about those – who would surely not represent the majority of all volunteers! – who lied about their age and enlisted at age 14, 15, 16 or 17.

        One of our best-known WWI soldiers, author Ion L Idriess, author of “The Desert Column”, was *25* when he enlisted in 1914, having been born in 1889.

        Because the *official* cut-off – the age a young man had to be in order to be allowed to offer for the army – was originally *19*. Not 18; *nineteen*. I quote, from the Australian War Memorial official website – “The requirements in August 1914 were 19–38 years, height of 5ft 6in and chest measurement of 34 inches.”

        The height limit seems designed to ‘screen out’ boys below a certain age, because quite a few boys of 14-16 have not finished growing (indeed, some have barely started their adolescent ‘growth spurt’) and have not attained adult height.

        Now, as time went on, the *physical requirements* were relaxed somewhat, but the official *age* limit was reduced by only one year, from 19 to 18, the most significant change re age was that the *upper* age limit was raised from 38 to 45 – “In June 1915 the age range and minimum height requirements were changed to 18–45 years and 5ft 2in, with the minimum height being lowered again to 5ft in April 1917.”

        As for WWII:
        “The age limits set for enlistment in the Second Australian Imperial Force (AIF) in 1939 were 20 to 35 for recruits, higher for officers and some NCOs.
        “The maximum was raised to 40 in 1940, and the minimum lowered to 19 in 1941, and 18 in 1943; **written parental consent was required for anyone under the age of 21.** {nota bene}
        “Even when the limit was lowered to 18, men of that age were not permitted to go to New Guinea or the Northern Territory.
        “The same restriction also applied in the Citizen Military Forces (CMF), although the 18 year lower limit existed earlier.
        “From 1942, the CMF also shared with the AIF a requirement that all recruits under the age of 20 on enlistment undergo six months training before being posted to a unit. The CMF upper age limit was 60.

        “Height requirements for the AIF in 1939 was a minimum of 5 feet 6 inches (167.6 cm); a year later 5 feet (152 cm) was enough.”
        Lowering the height limit would allow younger lads to lie about their age… but note that the age brackets described suggest that neither in WWI nor WWII was our Aussie army exactly in a hurry to fill their ranks with people in the early-mid teens.

        The National Service system took youths from age 18 upwards. It did not require boys of 15 or 16 to take part.

        For the Korean War, volunteers had to be aged between 20 and 40; most who were chosen were WWII veterans.

        And Vietnam?

        “Under the National Service Scheme, twenty-year-old men were required to register with the Department of Labour and National Service (DLNS), they were then subject to a ballot which, if their birth date was drawn, meant the possibility of two years of continuous full-time service in the regular army, followed by three years part-time service in the Army Reserve. As part of their duty, national servicemen on full-time duty were liable for ‘special overseas service’ including combat duties in Vietnam.”

        So if you were under 20 you weren’t going to be called up.

        I will add, by the by, that among the various families to which I am related and whose history I know, I know of just two cases of under-aged soldiers, one who enlisted at 16 (in WWII) whilst claiming to be *18* [his older brothers who also enlisted were aged respectively 21 and 24], and another who was 16 when he joined the Air Force in 1939 (but he might have started as a cadet). The others were of the appropriate age – mostly the early 20s; I know this because I know their *birthdates*. One of my great-great-uncles was in the Gallipoli landing; born in 1886, he was *28* – well over 18 – when he enlisted in 1914. One great-uncle enlisted at 18 (the regulation age) in 1914; in the second war he also served, then aged in his *forties*.

        I don’t know when the age at which an Aussie citizen can volunteer to join the standing army was fixed at 17; it must have been relatively recently, given that 19 (and then 18) were the *official” minimum age **during previous full-on World Wars**.

        1. My comment was relating to European armies in general, not to Australians exclusively.

Comments are closed.