u/BoganFlavouredWater

Was fairness or consistency in the design documents, MOU, etc?

People are going to point at needing more mental health support but then vote for another government that won’t support our Nurses getting their fair pay, let alone Medicare being properly supported.

It isn't as simple as this, and I feel it underplays how people are presented with facts and options and solutions.

People will vote for what is offered, which is typically a "tough on crime" approach. This means tough on the results of crime, not tough on the causes of crime, presumably because the latter is harder to do, has slower results, and does not appease the desire for justice (or "justice" given how some people react), while the former is easier, quicker, and appropriately "bloody" (I mean just, but it is apparent that some people are not interested in justice except as a bloodsport). Note I did not say cheaper. It is typically cheaper to give more police powers, but housing prisoners is not cheap, but it is cheaper than enacting/funding good policy. And more police powers is politically cheaper than any long term solutions.

Lets also look at how some people respond to reports of violence - let's just focus on mental health related violence: typically it (mental helath) is viewed as an excuse (and certainly not the medical issue it is) to avoid responsibility and justice; people with similar mental health issues will talk about how they don't do the violence, so everyone should act the same; grifters and political agenda-rists will use it to their own ends (this is why we need tougher laws/police powers/the (left|right) are at it again, immigrants/people of colour/those people are just that way you know?, etc); and so on. Discourse around mental health funding/availability? No. Discourse around long term changes to improve things? No. Discourse around how most of the time crime can't be reduced to zero so some sort of other measure should be used? No. Discourse around how the media reports things? No. Discourse on any factors other than mental health and ideology for being a cause? No. Discourse around how discourse is just ineffective waste of time? Yes.

From the river to the sea, no "globalise the intifada" for you and me.

I guess we'll just be left with localise the intifada then?

A reminder that bodycams in NSW being on or off are optional (police discretion). Because of this, they probably forgot it was on when they recounted enjoying the fruits of their labour

It is also worth noting two things about this video: it demonstrates an example of how the NSW conduct themselves (and what they think about civilians and their rights), both individually and as a collective. Note that in the video not one single officer reprimands the person speaking for their behaviour. Not. A. Single. One. It isn't "a few bad apples"; it is the whole organisation.

You’re skipping over the most important part though: intent.

No. You're deliberately (and I say deliberately because those who promote pro-Zionist genocide love the talking point you've given, while glossing over what I'm about to talk about) skipping over the Genocide Convention, which states that countries have an obligation to take reasonable measures to prevent genocide when they know, or should normally know, that there is a serious danger that genocide will occur. This was made particularly clear by the ICJ with regards to Bosnia v Serbia, where the ICJ said the obligation is triggered by a sufficiently serious risk; a state doesn't have to have certainty that genocide will occur.

Australia is clearly failing in this regard, and there is no argument about this.

There is also the question of complicity in "providing support" to countries doing a genocide. The ICJ held that a state providing assistance can potentially incur responsibility where it knowingly provides aid or assistance that enables or facilitates genocide, with the requisite awareness of the genocidal intent

After what the members of the Likud/Israel's government have publicly stated, along with the actions of the IDF that we know to have occurred, then it is not unreasonable to say that we are assisting said genocide. I think there is some wiggle room, but not when one includes the intel that Australia almost certainly has that demonstrates the extent of the destruction in Gaza along side who have been targetted.

Note that this is different to other genocidal or mass-civilian slaughters that have occurred and where Australia likely has intel on what exactly is happening, in that Australia in those cases is not sending components or intel to be used by the genocidal state - at least not to the best of anyone's (the public's) knowledge. And if it were ever found out that we were, there will be outrage, as is appropriate.

The public wasn't exactly happy with the government for spying on Timor-Leste during negotiations of use of oil and gas resources, in part because it was a shitty thing for Australia to do, and in part because Woodside worked alongside Australia. Of course, too bad so sad for the Australian public, and ditto for anyone who opposes our role in the genocide that Israel is committing.

We don't need to fight against people who support those genocide and genocidal actions here. We do need to fight against people who do support Israel's genocidal actions, however.

I raised some questions elsewhere and can't for the life of me find it, so if you have actual answers, that would be lovely. Is the phone compromised? I know the software isn't just a cloning tool, so I'm wondering if not only are one's passwords compromised, but the phone also, so that it can't ever be used securely. If the phone is compromised, can one change one's passwords on one's bank/socials/etc while the phone knows about these things and still have those accounts "protected"?

I also have questions about abuse of these powers. We know that NSW police abuse and misuse the powers they have, including legislative powers. What is (or will be) in place to monitor usage of this system and the information it gathers? Is there any legislation to properly punish misuse of this system (haha! I know, but I still ask)?

I've been asked to hand over my phone already, for merely walking down the street and getting the attention of the police. I was handcuffed and searched because I claimed not to have my phone on me. In my layperson's view, they had no right to ask me for my phone or to search me, I'm just a civilian and they are the police. No body cameras were on; it's just my word against theirs with the complaint. Is there any requirement around the use of this legislation, including all usage recorded, etc? Or is it like S21 and S22, where the police can declare whatever they want and all the machinery "just works" in their favour.

Just finished the Star Trek but it’s an Unhinged Foreign Film (Bad Subtitles) (I and II) vids. Riker's sausage, indeed.

I love how after all these years of RLM watching (hours of watching fat old men talk about TNG episodes) YouTube doesn't recommend this channel to me. It's an absolute Bloody Disgrace!

As the owner/mod of r/BarnabyJoyceErotica, I don't suppose you've got a similar sort of image but with someone more Joyce looking?

Where does one even start?

I think others will cover some of the things I would say, so I'm going to go with the following: When a person assaults a civilian, it is a different (more severe) crime if a person assaults a police officer or member of parliament and so on. I would like legislation that made police who are found guilty of misusing their state powers guilty of a more sever version of the crime than a similar crime between civilians, with correspondingly stiffer penalties. And in no way does resigning help them to avoid the justice system.

Ditto members of parliament.

This is not surprising given that the Powerpuff Girls live in Queensland also.

If you would be so kind as to answer:

• When the German snipers in WWII were targetting civilians in Paris, was that acceptable behaviour, or unacceptable behaviour?
• When the German snipers in WWII were targetting children in Paris, was that acceptable behaviour, or unacceptable behaviour?

I grew up in one of those countries that no longer exists. The cops in NSW have the same feel as those in the mother country.

However, that is authoritarianism. The cops over there weren't shitheads because they were communists. The authoritarianism was the problem, and that can happy in non-communist countries also, as we can see.

So, while I see what you are saying, I disagree with your conclusion. We're not becoming a communist state, more than sufficiently evident by the business that is done here. Unless you think that, for example, the gambling lobby is state owned? No, you're mistaken. It is authoritarianism we are sliding into, and any number of those -ocracies.

But you'll be fine, with your experience, right? Unless your comment here is noticed by the right people, then it is knock knock o'clock.

I'm not at all knowledgable about phone security, but if the "spyware" (and I think it is that) is allowing access to passwords, the wallet, etc, then all accounts are accessible. I presume phones have some sort of security token like thing, so I'm wondering if the spyware can mimic that also, in which case the phone is forever compromised. Even if this is not true, I don't see how one can change any password via the phone and not have the police know about it. Or even have the phone know about the password change (as in, say you change your socials password on your computer, and the details a synced with the phone).

All that you said is also a concern, yes. On top of that is the abuse that police do. I've already been asked to hand over my phone when a couple of cops took interest in me. Not a roadside stop, unless you include them pulling over and demanding I answer questions (I was walking, btw, and yes, I was searched because they didn't believe me). We already know NSW police abuse S21 criteria and strip search criteria for malicious reasons, don't ID themselves when asked to, and we know they misuse access to information they have. And we know that DV amongst police is one of the highest levels amongst any profession. This is a nightmare scenario. Some of the others here are downplaying it, but the point is they don't need a warrant and the law does not help citizens at the time of the police misconduct. And, of course, any court cases where the police as sued for misuse of this law will be paid by the taxpayer.

Again, I imagine this will be knocked back in a higher court, but the "prove you don't have a concealed weapon" law wasn't, so who knows? And by then, like robodebt, the damage is done.

Presumably, since they are not simply cloning the phone, the phone is no longer secure? And all account passwords should be changed? What does this mean for security via any mobile device in one's possession?

I'd like to think this will be thrown out in a higher court, but I'm not holding my breath.

Bodycams being on are optional in NSW. Their choice.

They also know they will suffer no lasting repercussions. Further training in what to do before gleefully spouting off about how much fun it was to assault someone, which will include "check bodycams is off" and "not in public when you can be recorded". Certainly it will not be "professional standards and expectations".

The first one belongs in r/BarnabyJoyceErotica and that's exactly what I'll do. Don't worry, I'll fully attribute it to you :p

Australia expelled an Israeli diplomat in 2010 or so because of Israel's forging of Australian passports. It is interesting to compare what has happened to Australian citizens at the hands of the IDF and Israel in recent times and the government's response.

Let's quote then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith (smh):

> "No government can tolerate the abuse of its passports, especially by a foreign government," he said. "This represents a clear affront to the security of our passport system."

I guess a government can tolerate the killing and rape/torture of its civilians, though.

Obviously that was not a protest, and for you to attempt to reframe it as such is interesting, but weak. What is it you think those 5k Anglos were protesting? The existence of a certain ethnic group? The plight of surf lifesavers? Is Alan Jones' rhetoric in line at all with your claims? No, obviously not.

What did the then Premier say? And the police? Premier condemns 'coward' race rioters (lefty-pinko ABC):

> New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma has joined police in condemning yesterday's racist attacks on Sydney's Cronulla beach.

and

> "They tried to hide behind the Australian flag today - they are in fact cowards."

However, given how Premier's and the police respond in general, we (or perhaps, I) shouldn't use their opinions as evidence.

As for injuries, I seem to recall about 30 people were injured, most were minor. One stabbing, though I'm not sure if that was in Cronulla or in a surrounding area.

One point you seem to have missed is that there was no RC into Islamophobia or racism or bigotry or similar as a result. I guess when obviously racist or bigoted actions are taken and nobody dies, then we should not take those things seriously. And this is interesting given Australia (and NSW) has enough Islamophobic shit stains that one of them moved to NZ and did a massacre in a mosque. Not on our soil, so not a problem, right?

The RC in question is a problem, and the primary part of that problem (for me) is that it is not about racism or bigotry in Australia. It is hyper-specific while ignoring the surrounding landscape - is Australia more racist or bigoted in "recent" years, leading to increased attacks on minorities across the board? Do we even care? PHON, for example, has been stoking racial anger for decades, with specific targets. Sky News Australia also. Did you even read the part in my response where Mr Jones was found in breach of the code for rhetoric that could lead to violence? Could the media have a part in any racially motivated violence?

If this was the topic of an RC, I think many of us would be, generally, fine with it. Not the racists who hate immigrants, of course, but in general I think people would be fine. I would expect a lot of denial though (actually, come to think of it, I expect a media storm over the attack of Australian values and freedom of speech by certain media outlets). Instead, what we're getting is a group of people who insist on conflating Zionism and Judaism, who insist that criticism of Israel is criticism of Judaism, and who insist that it is wrong to conflate all Jewish people together/collectively, but also all Jewish people are one, so that for one to, for example, point out that it is wrong for the IDF to kill a family in a car and then kill the ambulance that came to help them (seriously, go find the audio of Hind Rajab being killed by the IDF, so that you can be reminded about how young Hamas fighters are in the eyes of the IDF) means that one is attacking all Israelis and thus all people of the Jewish faith.

It is obvious here. It is obvious in the UK. It is obvious in many countries. There is an asymmetry in the discourse around bigotry, and we are not getting the ear of the politicians. That this asymmetry extends to people rewriting a riot as a protest is telling. However, I don't think you are a serious person.

As you know, TJS is single-minded in their justification for the IDF to do anything, including shooting a breastfeeding child in the head because, you know, Hamas.

There are at least two people on that account. One is notably dumber than the other. This one also likes to conflate Gazans/Palestinians with Hamas, as they did here.

The Cronulla riots come to mind, helped along by the delightful Jones. What came out of it? Increased police powers, which included the ability of police to lock down an area, demand ID (face a fine or jail time if you refuse) if the police have "reasonable" suspicion that someone was or had been involved in a crime, stop and search people and vehicles, and seize vehicles and phones. The last one is interesting given the new proposed warrantless phone hacking legislation is in this light.

The important thing to remember is that ACMA found insufficient reason to connect Alan Jones' rhetoric with events that happened, despite finding that he did breach the commercial radio code via his rhetoric that was likely to encourage violence. No police investigation into Jones' role were pursued. So, not all bad news! /s

No need for considering social cohesion either.

Mods have given me permission to reply again with just the key points, which I will do. First, though, I'd like to apologise to the sub for lowering the tone with my initial reply. Hopefully others can read the evidence I provided and take on the discourse. Note that the report I link will not make people happy - I'm certainly not happy with it - but one can't argue the facts with made up information.

In all fairness they changed their route from the one co-ordinated with the military

True. Too bad it was not discovered until after the decision to attack. Let me quote SPECIAL ADVISER PUBLIC REPORT ON THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL’S RESPONSE TO THE IDF ATTACK ON WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN AID WORKERS IN GAZA ON MONDAY 1 APRIL 2024, (dfat.gov.au, pdf warning) pg5:

The actual route taken by the WCK aid convoy was not the route pre-coordinated with CLA; however, Head FFAM stated that this was not discovered until later in the investigation and, as such, it did not play a factor in the 1 April incident.

You go on to claim without evidence:

designed a new route and took it under cover of darkness

It was dark, yes. Despite you making it seem like it was their nefarious choice to use the "cover of darkness" (pg3):

Eight contracted aid trucks and two of the WCK escort vehicles with WCK personnel completed loading at the jetty at approximately 2030 local time; however, WCK was delayed in receiving approval from the IDF to move south due to communications difficulties with CLA and possibly an unrelated IDF operation in the vicinity. Movement approval was eventually facilitated by the local IDF commanders and the convoy commenced movement, initially to the WCK Welcome Centre.

2030, so not exactly midday, and who delayed the approval to leave back to the WCK Welcome Centre? Did the convoy choose "under cover of darkness"? No. Approval was delayed by the IDF, which delayed the convoy leaving time.

and had hired local armed guard to protect the convoy, that was also not cleared with the military.

Again, from the report I linked above (pg4):

The identification of the armed individuals on the convoy and near/in the WCK vehicles had not been done in a professional manner. The mindset involved in the decision making was wrong.

Also:

During the aid convoy transit to the warehouse the Brigade Attack Cell contacted CLA with concerns there were armed individuals on the convoy. CLA attempted through various means to contact WCK, first directly to the convoy, then to international WCK contacts. CLA eventually made contact with the WCK Headquarters in the United States who, after multiple attempts, made text message contact via WhatsApp with a WCK member who had gone ahead of the convoy to the warehouse. They replied that the locally-contracted security personnel had ‘fake guns’. WCK Headquarters replied to CLA that they had made contact with WCK in Gaza and would address the gun issue when WCK completed the task. It was difficult to tie down the exact timing of this extended set of communications; however, they appear to have continued after the WCK vehicles had already been attacked, indicating a lack of awareness by CLA of real-time events.

The "gun issue", though clearly problematic, was going to get the WCK a dressing down on return of the convoy. Too bad members of the IDF had already decided "to protect the WCK" by killing everyone in the convoy. And yes, that is the reason the IDF gives for attacking the convoy: they thought they were taken over by Hamas, and that Hamas was planning to attack the WCK centre.

The report also includes such things as:

Notwithstanding good pre-coordination between WCK and COGAT, specific details about the precoordinated WCK aid mission had not been passed down from higher levels of Southern Command to the Brigade and UAV operator

and

After the arrival of the truck convoy at the warehouse and the initial request to strike the escorting vehicles, the Division Commander directed that ‘no more strikes around humanitarian convoys were to occur that night’

Apparently the IDF are incompetent when it comes to following orders and internal communication. And then there is this little gem:

The continued firing on the second and third WCK vehicles after the first had been hit was a violation of IDF Standard Operating Procedures and Rules of Engagement (RoE)

Laughable on the face of it and given their behaviour in other incidents, but taken at face value, the incompetent IDF couldn't even follow their own RoE in the matter. I guess the convoy is to blame for that also.

You go on to write:

This spur of the moment bad decision making, deviation from what had been arranged and agreed upon to keep people safe, lead to the calamity.

It. Was. Not. Spur. Of. The. Moment. This is a complete fabrication.

So, TL;DR: the person I replied to lied or misrepresented almost everything in favour of the IDF. The IDF, from the report I linked, should have Yakety Sax as their theme song, which makes the genocide in Gaza even more tragic in my opinion.

In all fairness

You are a disgusting used tampon of a person, and I mean that as nicely as I can manage it.

In all fairness they changed their route from the one co-ordinated with the military

True. Too bad it was not discovered until after the decision to attack. Not that you give a fuck. Let me quote SPECIAL ADVISER PUBLIC REPORT ON THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL’S RESPONSE TO THE IDF ATTACK ON WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN AID WORKERS IN GAZA ON MONDAY 1 APRIL 2024, (dfat.gov.au) pg5:

The actual route taken by the WCK aid convoy was not the route pre-coordinated with CLA; however, Head FFAM stated that this was not discovered until later in the investigation and, as such, it did not play a factor in the 1 April incident.

You go on to claim without evidence:

designed a new route and took it under cover of darkness

It was dark, yes. Nice of you to make it seem like it was their choice that it was dark, shit stain. Also, (pg3):

Eight contracted aid trucks and two of the WCK escort vehicles with WCK personnel completed loading at the jetty at approximately 2030 local time; however, WCK was delayed in receiving approval from the IDF to move south due to communications difficulties with CLA and possibly an unrelated IDF operation in the vicinity. Movement approval was eventually facilitated by the local IDF commanders and the convoy commenced movement, initially to the WCK Welcome Centre.

Who delayed the approval to leave back to the WCK Welcome Centre? Did the convoy choose "under cover of darkness"? No, you prolapsed anus. Approval was delayed by the IDF, which delayed the convoy leaving time.

and had hired local armed guard to protect the convoy, that was also not cleared with the military.

Again, from the report I linked above (pg4):

The identification of the armed individuals on the convoy and near/in the WCK vehicles had not been done in a professional manner. The mindset involved in the decision making was wrong.

Also:

During the aid convoy transit to the warehouse the Brigade Attack Cell contacted CLA with concerns there were armed individuals on the convoy. CLA attempted through various means to contact WCK, first directly to the convoy, then to international WCK contacts. CLA eventually made contact with the WCK Headquarters in the United States who, after multiple attempts, made text message contact via WhatsApp with a WCK member who had gone ahead of the convoy to the warehouse. They replied that the locally-contracted security personnel had ‘fake guns’. WCK Headquarters replied to CLA that they had made contact with WCK in Gaza and would address the gun issue when WCK completed the task. It was difficult to tie down the exact timing of this extended set of communications; however, they appear to have continued after the WCK vehicles had already been attacked, indicating a lack of awareness by CLA of real-time events.

The "gun issue", though clearly problematic, was going to get the WCK a dressing down on return of the covoy. Too bad the IDF had already decided to execute people "to protect the WCK".

The report also includes such things as:

Notwithstanding good pre-coordination between WCK and COGAT, specific details about the precoordinated WCK aid mission had not been passed down from higher levels of Southern Command to the Brigade and UAV operator

and

After the arrival of the truck convoy at the warehouse and the initial request to strike the escorting vehicles, the Division Commander directed that ‘no more strikes around humanitarian convoys were to occur that night’

Apparently the IDF are incompetent shits when it comes to following orders. And then there is this little gem:

The continued firing on the second and third WCK vehicles after the first had been hit was a violation of IDF Standard Operating Procedures and Rules of Engagement (RoE)

Laughable on the face of it and given their behaviour in other incidents, but taken at face value, the incompetent shit stain IDF couldn't even follow their own RoE in the matter. I guess you blame the convoy for that also.

You go on to write:

This spur of the moment bad decision making, deviation from what had been arranged and agreed upon to keep people safe, lead to the calamity.

It. Was. Not. Spur. Of. The. Moment. Another absolute fabrication on your behalf.

So, in all fairness, did you just forget the important pieces of information while you presenting these abhorrent actions by the IDF as justifiable? While you were forgetting key points, did you accidentally make up new information to justify the IDF's actions? Or were you spreading lies for the sheer fun of it? It certainly wasn't because you were being honest, and it certainly isn't because you give a fuck that the IDF killed innocent people.

Oh, but perhaps I'm being unfair to you. Please provide the sources for your claims. It could be that you are a stupid shit who believes anything the likes of Sky News Australia (or similar media) tells you, or perhaps you have the reading comprehension of my dog's morning shit. So, please, provide us with sources for your claims.

Or, you know, publicly apologise to this sub and, by extension, to the victims of this attack, for spreading misinformation about the incident.

Justify your terrorist funding all you want. Who received the money ?

Please reread what SnoopThylacine wrote.

The PA doesn’t work with Hamas so it has zero relevance to anything in Gaza - so you’ve literally contradicted yourself.

Did SnoopThylacine mention the Palestinian Authority?

As for the PA, they still have relevance in Gaza, though the situation is quite complex. They are is still considered the official governing authority of Gaza under the Oslo framework and Palestinian law. However, since 2006 when Hamas won the election, and around 2007 when the fighting between Hamas and Fatah "concluded", Hamas has the majority of the actual control of Gaza. Note the word majority. The PA still have no relinquished all control, and still have apart to play, albeit a relatively small part.

Due to infighting amongst Hamas itself, fighting between Hamas members and PA members, Israel’s refusal to guarantee full Palestinian voting rights in East Jerusalem (you know, because it is an apartheid state), and what many consider to be the likely win of Hamas, no elections have occurred since. The latter point is, again, a complex one. It is generally believed that even if Hamas did not win (quite possible. They are no universally liked by Palestinians, despite Zionist/Israeli propaganda), their apparent popularity in election outcomes would be enough to undermine the PA/Fatah legitimacy, and infighting amongst Fatah members would likely disintegrate or severely weaken them. In a weird way, it's like the collapse of the Libs in this country, or the Torries in the UK - even where the won, their power was gutted, and the perception of them as capable people/leaders dropped through the floor.

The only people benefiting from anything to do in Gaza are its billionaire leaders in Qatar- so which was it ? The Pa who works with Israel or Hamas terrorists who starved their own citizens they govern and started the war ?

This is a laughable comment. All sorts of people are making obscene wealth from this, and other, genocides and military actions. DO you know who isn't make money from this? The people of Gaza. Do note that approximately 70% of the land of Gaza is now occupied by Israel. Take a guess how mcuh Palestinian culture is kept in this region. If your answer was ethnic cleansing, you'd be right. You know, yet another war crime by the Israelis.

As for your orinigal coment:

Where was Penny Wongs outrage when an Australian was killed on October 7th by Hamas ?

What the fuck fantasy land do you live in? There was plenty of outrage at the attacks by Hamas on Oct 7. Governments around the word literally were fine and even promoting war crimes (via collective punishment) as valid responses by Israel.

As for Penny Wong's response, why don't you look it up? Here is the official response to Galit Carbone's death: link (foreignminister.gov.au). Let me quote an interesting part:

There is no excuse for the deliberate killing of innocent civilians.

This sentiment, surely, applies to everyone, no?

Instead of being a frothing-at-the-mouth zealot, how about you take the time to understand things? Preferably before you publicly post nonsense, let alone try to make an argument.