Context needed over Sydney siege

Your editorial (December 17) saying the perpetrator of the Sydney siege was possibly mentally ill may be correct.

However, isn’t it more likely he was simply taking his revenge, as a member of Isis, a group created by the United States invasion of Middle East countries, where it perpetrated crimes far worse than holding hostages in a cafe.

Heinous though that was, it doesn’t really compare with Operation Shock and Awe, the title of the US’s strike in which bombs and missiles were rained down on innocent Iraqi civilians and soldiers. Nor does it compare with the fomenting of coups carried out by the CIA against democratically-elected governments the US just happens not to like, as in Venezuela, Chile and Ukraine where hundreds died.

Any country supporting the US in these invasions can expect retaliation in the only way possible for people who’ve experienced attacks on the innocent in their own countries.

They want revenge, and they don’t have bombs so can only take innocent hostages.

I don’t condone what was done in Sydney, but a study of US/ Middle East political history over the last 10 years certainly explains it far better than does the label of mental illness. CAROL WORTHINGTON

Stokes Valley many recipients did have jobs but their pay, even with government ‘‘handouts’’, wasn’t enough to cover all the necessities of life. I told her strict vetting and education in financial management we installed ensured only the truly needy were helped – and, even then, only for limited periods. My relative was surprised, but understanding. Compare that reaction with the cynics and rednecks who write to your paper claiming that all ‘‘socalled’’ needy people are only in that situation because they are lazy parasites who waste their money on booze, smoking and gambling or who deliberately (or carelessly) have more children that they can support.

It’s true that such may apply to a small minority – just as a tiny number of wealthy business