Recent issues surrounding ISIS brides, IDF returnees and Gaza activists in the global flotilla exemplify our government’s erosion of its responsibilities to Australians.
apologist for the Labor govt and I also think Shoebridge knows more
I’ve gone to some length to give credit to Shoebridge and his better placed position to view these things in this thread. That doesn’t take away from the fact he presented only his opinion. He can have an opinion, but that isn’t the definite truth. He could be wrong in his opinion, wholly or partially, and there was no information he gave that rebuts that.
Calling me an apologist means you’ve singularly failed to notice there are often unidentified reasons for policy and decisions.
The unsealing of government records after ~50 years~ is an interesting case. In this case the public can finally match the inside of a story to the outside of that same known event a Government dealt with. This can give better public clarity to how the issue was viewed by the PM or Minister, and why and how they differed to the public narrative of the time.
firstly responsible for the welfare of their citizens…
…and they are meant to publicly object to their ill treatment by other jurisdictions
This is two statements that don’t always meet with each other for a Government. The welfare of the mass sometimes has a different need to publicly advocating. In fact publicly advocating can also be deteimental for the individuals involved. It can force the captor party into acting more aggressively. The effective method, often doesn’t suit hollywood heroics.
A recent example is the Government quietly got Julian Assange home. Making a public song and dance could’ve embarrassed the US into keeping him, possibly punishing him more. Make an example. In that case, like many others we don’t hear about, the quiet public diplomacy course was the correct one.
By no means do they have similar political traditions
I mean, this is just incorrect. Of course each have differences, but they have a shared history. South East Asia has shared history with each other, that we don’t share much of, and thus haven’t had many of those cross-cultural influences.
I do understand your viewpoint and respect it but cannot agree.
You could posit that Shoebridge said more than the ‘comfortable’ description of the current govt approach to Israel etc but that this could not be spelled out for fear by the author, Paul Gregoire, of getting into legal trouble, or, that Shoebridge himself did not want to make waves that could damage his Party. We’ll never know but speaking like this is often a sign of a system that is ‘not comfortable’ with openness.
there are often unidentified reasons for policy and decisions
Yes I know but to keep quiet with the bare-faced evidence that your citizens are being assaulted by your ally illegally, to keep quiet about the ongoing murder of Palestinians and the mass destruction of Sthn Lebanon with thousands already killed is very suspect, no matter how hush-hush the reasons might be. The UN has condemned this activity and so should everyone. These are mass crimes. And assaulting foreign nationals on international waters is also breaking the law. Silence is condoning the breakdown of the international order.
Government quietly got Julian Assange home.
We are talking of one high-profile figure and I was overjoyed when our govt finally got him out imprisonment. It saved his life. The above situation is the opposite. Whatever the ‘unidentified reasons’ for the silence and the continued support directly or indirectly of Israeli military action, it has cost at least 100,000 lives and counting. Keeping silent about that but being super public about supporting the illegal bombing of Iran which has caused thousands more deaths and will probably continue on is… what would you say?
Germans and others were castigated after WW2 for turning a blind eye or supporting what was happening to Jews and other minorities in Europe during the war but what many of us are doing now (including our own govt) looks very similar. I am sure they have ‘unidentified reasons’ but the result is still criminal and many lives are being obliterated, including
tens of thousands of innocent children. I cannot excuse putting people’s lives behind political expediency.
These aren’t my points of view. Stop putting me in the position of defending Labor. I’ve stated multiple times in different ways that my issue is I’m not willing to take Shoebridges word for it, not that I support the direction the Government has taken. Go back and read again what I’ve said. Don’t really know why you’re having trouble seeing the difference.
I don’t appreciate having the murders of tens of thousands being wiped in my face because I’m willing to question a Greens Senator as much as any other public personality.
My example of “unidentified reasons” is me trying to show you an alternative reason for a Government to act in the way they’re acting, and to demonstrate that we and Shoebridge have no information to determine Shoebridge’s reasoning is correct or not.
I’ve gone to some length to give credit to Shoebridge and his better placed position to view these things in this thread. That doesn’t take away from the fact he presented only his opinion. He can have an opinion, but that isn’t the definite truth. He could be wrong in his opinion, wholly or partially, and there was no information he gave that rebuts that.
Calling me an apologist means you’ve singularly failed to notice there are often unidentified reasons for policy and decisions.
The unsealing of government records after ~50 years~ is an interesting case. In this case the public can finally match the inside of a story to the outside of that same known event a Government dealt with. This can give better public clarity to how the issue was viewed by the PM or Minister, and why and how they differed to the public narrative of the time.
This is two statements that don’t always meet with each other for a Government. The welfare of the mass sometimes has a different need to publicly advocating. In fact publicly advocating can also be deteimental for the individuals involved. It can force the captor party into acting more aggressively. The effective method, often doesn’t suit hollywood heroics.
A recent example is the Government quietly got Julian Assange home. Making a public song and dance could’ve embarrassed the US into keeping him, possibly punishing him more. Make an example. In that case, like many others we don’t hear about, the quiet public diplomacy course was the correct one.
I mean, this is just incorrect. Of course each have differences, but they have a shared history. South East Asia has shared history with each other, that we don’t share much of, and thus haven’t had many of those cross-cultural influences.
I do understand your viewpoint and respect it but cannot agree.
You could posit that Shoebridge said more than the ‘comfortable’ description of the current govt approach to Israel etc but that this could not be spelled out for fear by the author, Paul Gregoire, of getting into legal trouble, or, that Shoebridge himself did not want to make waves that could damage his Party. We’ll never know but speaking like this is often a sign of a system that is ‘not comfortable’ with openness.
Yes I know but to keep quiet with the bare-faced evidence that your citizens are being assaulted by your ally illegally, to keep quiet about the ongoing murder of Palestinians and the mass destruction of Sthn Lebanon with thousands already killed is very suspect, no matter how hush-hush the reasons might be. The UN has condemned this activity and so should everyone. These are mass crimes. And assaulting foreign nationals on international waters is also breaking the law. Silence is condoning the breakdown of the international order.
We are talking of one high-profile figure and I was overjoyed when our govt finally got him out imprisonment. It saved his life. The above situation is the opposite. Whatever the ‘unidentified reasons’ for the silence and the continued support directly or indirectly of Israeli military action, it has cost at least 100,000 lives and counting. Keeping silent about that but being super public about supporting the illegal bombing of Iran which has caused thousands more deaths and will probably continue on is… what would you say?
Germans and others were castigated after WW2 for turning a blind eye or supporting what was happening to Jews and other minorities in Europe during the war but what many of us are doing now (including our own govt) looks very similar. I am sure they have ‘unidentified reasons’ but the result is still criminal and many lives are being obliterated, including tens of thousands of innocent children. I cannot excuse putting people’s lives behind political expediency.
These aren’t my points of view. Stop putting me in the position of defending Labor. I’ve stated multiple times in different ways that my issue is I’m not willing to take Shoebridges word for it, not that I support the direction the Government has taken. Go back and read again what I’ve said. Don’t really know why you’re having trouble seeing the difference.
I don’t appreciate having the murders of tens of thousands being wiped in my face because I’m willing to question a Greens Senator as much as any other public personality.
My example of “unidentified reasons” is me trying to show you an alternative reason for a Government to act in the way they’re acting, and to demonstrate that we and Shoebridge have no information to determine Shoebridge’s reasoning is correct or not.
I’ll be leaving this here now.
I was responding to the points being made, not trying to disparage you personally.