According to David Shoebridge of the Greens in a recent sitting in the senate, the UN has named Australia as one of a number of countries supplying weapons to Israel, albeit a minor supplier. He stated that some government leaders (as well as in other countries) may be held accountable for war crimes or crimes against humanity. Labor’s Penny Wong had dismissed and denied the claims as ‘misinformation’. Someone’s lying to parliament? I think it’s called alternate facts.
Support The Echo
Keeping the community together and the community voice loud and clear is what The Echo is about. More than ever we need your help to keep this voice alive and thriving in the community.
Like all businesses we are struggling to keep food on the table of all our local and hard working journalists, artists, sales, delivery and drudges who keep the news coming out to you both in the newspaper and online. If you can spare a few dollars a week – or maybe more – we would appreciate all the support you are able to give to keep the voice of independent, local journalism alive.
Depends what you mean by “Weapon”, as it depends what you mean by “safe” and “effective”.
“Alternative facts ” in an alternative universe, more like.
Would anyone really believe what a green said?.
Rod you certainly come out with some clangers, the statement from David Shoebridge stating “that some government leaders (as well as in other countries) may be held accountable for war crimes or crimes against humanity for supporting Israel”, is typical Greens pro Palestinian and Hamas rhetorical nonsense. You Greens have been pushing this anti-semitic agenda since this appalling conflict started, but you need to be careful, Hamas is a terrorist organization, and Australia has strong laws regarding prosecuting people who support such organizations.
The High Court ruled long ago on suppressing voters political opinions. They said it’s voter suppression. How are you supposed to be an informed voter if you don’t have access to all political opinions
Hi Keith,
Get your facts straight, it was a direct statement from the UN, take it up with them.
We don’t all believe the warmongering politicians and corporations, priming the community for war.
Some of actually believe in a future for the planet free from wars and aggressive warmongering politicians and their dumb, naive supporters.
Hi Rod, the only thing that surpasses people like you with their ideological naivety, is their ideological stupidity. If people like you want to get rid of the” warmongering politicians and their dumb, naive supporters”, a great place to start would be in Russia, North Korea, China and Iran, but the only problem is they jail and murder anyone who dares to criticize their despotic regimes, unlike the freedoms people like you seemingly take for granted in Australia, get your facts straight for once.
Keith, best then we don’t look in the mirror as we / the collective freedom loving West persecute the Julian for daring to expose war crimes committed in our name in an illegal war.
Joachim old son, just more hollow extreme left rhetorical nonsense and from an out of towner at that, at least Rod lives in the area. As far as that traitor Assange is concerned, if you do the crime you do the time.
His crime was to expose war-crimes and governmental corruption, for which no-one has been held to account. Square that circle.
Err, Keith old son, the war crime/s were committed by the freedom loving West. Where are the court trials? But hang that, instead go after the truth teller Julian and make him out to be a criminal.
You getting it now.
Err Joachim old son, I seriously doubt that I would ever get anything you dream up, sorry old son.
I can have unpopular options without being censored or sanctioned, right? If I see a man in a dress and call him a man, that’s fine, right? My friends and I can protest without being hauled off to jail and having my bank accounts cancelled, right? If my social club, or neigbourhood, excludes LGBTQIP and non-Whites, we’re not going to get any problems, right? etc
I can’t see how some people can get into such a lather about who wears a dress. In summer there’s nothing like them for comfort and ease of movement. The Scots wear kilts – is that offensive? 🏴
Implying a kilt is a dress is indeed offensive, and illegal in your state. Don’t drop the soap.
Don’t think I did. I’d call it more a skirt!
Personally I can’t abide “alternate” used in this way. “Alternate facts” suggests that some propositions take turns to be true. The idea that we can choose between versions of reality is surely expressed as ALTERNATIVE facts.
I know there is some suggestion that “alternate” and “alternative” are synonymous but I find this notion sloppy, imprecise, inefficient and detracting from the power and clarity of expression.
An alternate is an alternative, it doesn’t mean it is alternating. You have confused ‘facts’ with ‘truth’. May I suggest the book – How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff.
I’m sure it’s an interesting book – thanks Christian – but Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) said it many years ago and I’ve long been aware of the pitfalls. Like 50% of people who died of Covid were vaccinated?
This is an entirely separate question. I might point out that in the phrase “alternate facts” “alternate” is used as an adjective (which does imply alternating). You’ve used the two examples as nouns in your strangled attempt at explanation.
The Oxford dictionary suggests alternate is a noun or verb and involves occurring in turn or every second It’s use as an adjective or noun meaning choice or turn or, as a noun, substitute, is a feature of North America – the birthplace of alternate/alternative facts?
Like I said sloppy. When you have two distinct words with distinct meanings why confuse them and lose choice and precision.
Oops that should read: “ The Oxford dictionary suggests alternate is an ADJECTIVE or verb…” Very sloppy – my bad!
I’m sure it’s an interesting book – thanks Christian – but Clemens said it many years ago and I’ve long been aware of the pitfalls. Like 50% of people who died of Covid were vaccinated?
This is an entirely separate question. I might point out that in the phrase “alternate facts” “alternate” is used as an adjective (which does imply alternating). You’ve used the two examples as nouns in your strangled attempt at explanation.
The Oxford dictionary suggests alternate is a noun or verb and involves It’s use as an adjective or noun
May I suggest the youtube channel: RobWords. He is far more educated on the subject of linguistics, and he would tell you that the common understanding is the correct one, as it is about communication, and dictionaries are always decades behind.
Not so sure CVS. If asked “What would you prefer – a kick in the pants or a poke in the eye with a burnt stick? “ are you suggesting it is aus common usage to answer “Is there no alternate?”
Or if someone takes a sickie, who asks: “Where can we get an alternate?”. I don’t think so – and I don’t have to watch an American YouTube channel to know.
In terms of alternate/alternative as an adjective in common usage, I know the distinction is going the way of the dodo – much like there/their/they’re, to/two/too and quite/quiet.
I don’t know so much as a a verb. Will we start talking about alternativing current? Will our cars have alternativors?
If it doesn’t destroy meaning I’m not overly fussed and language evolves towards simplicity. However having the two forms as distinct meanings allows for nuance and clarity.
Alternate must precede a noun. Alternative is its own noun. As far as what is correct Australian English, I’ll refer you to the case of Chicken Parmi v Chicken Parma, and what a swimming costume is called. My Wife is from SW QLD, and I’m from SE QLD – our daughter says ‘Togs’ to Mummy and ‘Swimmers’ to Daddy. Zee-bra becomes Zed-bra when I’m in the room. etc. She doesn’t cross her Z or 7.
We could just switch to Python as the young people, and I, are word perfect in it.
EVs don’t have alternativors. Long live alternativors!.
You are so correct KD, the greens are treading on dangerous ground with their anti-Semitic disgusting narrative. Bandt should be proud of his team of misfits… ..
Greg, you just made my day.
Lets not worry about grammar folks, after thousands of years of endless wars we are still thinking its ok to follow the US into a fifth pointless conflict with our you beaut, redundant in ten years, nuclear waste at the bottom of the ocean, submarines, thanks to our immature and deceitful government. Spending trillions on weaponry while millions live in poverty, endless deaths and suffering. If this is human evolution, Charles Darwin needs a re- think.
It’s not grammar we’re discussing here, it’s etymology.
I was discussing epistemology. “Social Sciences” are an over funded farce.
Mr Murray, I’m thinking that it is not Charles Darwin that needs a re-think, it’s actually you.
Oh Lizzy your’e so wonderfully intellectual, too bad you don’t give a crap about the real issues we are discussing here.
Too bad you don’t have the courage to be real and actually identify yourself, but no doubt you have an answer for everything.
We are actually discussing brain dead, Australian bogan warmongers, political corporate puppets and lack of interest in nature the future of the planet, but no doubt you will have an answer for everything.
Oh how presumptuous and judgemental you are Mr Murray! You just might be surprised about how much I not only care about the wide range of issues you allude to here, but the extent to which I have actually generally walked the walk as well. I just try to to do so without the high handed and dismissive hyperbole and cant you seem to need to make your point.
Charles Darwin wasn’t advocating a particular course of action. He developed the theory of evolution based on his observations of the way things were not the way we’d all like them to be. Natural selection is about competition for survival, and, as Tennyson observed as well, “nature is red in tooth and claw”.
We’re all hoping we are evolving into higher life forms, with greater levels of consciousness and morality and most of us would like to see the vast sums and energy spent on defence put to better use. We can’t overlook however, that evolution has simultaneously brought us greed, paranoia, megalomania and psychopathy to deal with. Peace signs and choruses of kumbaya will not change these aspects of the human condition. Dismissing all defence policy as “warmongering” is self righteously satisfying but not all that realistic.
Lizardbreath, Spoken like a real politician, avoiding any actual sense of reality and proven facts of history.
Keep voting for your do-nothing mainstream.
We’ll have to differ on who is harbouring the lesser sense of reality and grasp of history. Keep holding the view that you and your political allegiances have a monopoly on compassion and awareness of the big issues. That will let you keep voting for anyone promising everything but never likely to be called on to deliver.
I’m not, and have never been a politician. Have you thought about it? You seem to have the right turn of phrase.
Lizard, you have highlighted the tried and true path of stupidity and the result of voting for political parties who think that wars are an answer
for anything. Tit for tat never produces anything but obliteration and suffering and to obscure that fact by endless ‘greenbashing’ is just dumb.
The current war in Gaza has killed 13.800 children and 19,000 orphaned. If that’s your idea of compassion and awareness i’m glad I don’t vote for the major parties. And two third of the country of Laos are still littered with US mines which continue to kill and maim since the 60’s
Even the Pope has come out to say Ukraine should put out the white flag to end the obliteration and suffering but the US are still sending them weaponry.
Please don’t come back with some ego trip criticising those seeking world peace, we just don’t want self righteous political parties that waste taxpayers money to fund the military. Anyone with real compassion seeing even one child who has lost a limb, would see war as evil. Please don’t come back with your politician’s hat on saying it’s a necessary evil.
Time to climb down from your self-constructed pedestal and grow up a little, Rod. Who doesn’t think war is evil? Who doesn’t want world peace? (Especially beauty contestants) Who doesn’t thinks hatred and bigotry is at the heart of the evil in the Middle East?
This country, that boasts multiculturalism, has never been so divided, intimidated, afraid and intolerant of each other. The Coalition and the Greens each taking diametrically opposed stands on the Gazan situation might make for good politics, but what does it achieve beyond formenting racial and religious intolerance at home without making one fraction of difference on the other side of the world?
Forgive me if I think Labor’s recognition of the perspectives of both sides, while using measured language and trying to calm passions, is what responsible political leaders do. If you have some concrete foundation for the inference that this government is supplying weapons to Israel then spell it out rather than launching a grenade. What kind of an opening gambit is telling us that David Shoebridge reckons that the UN said … Said what exactly? Shouldn’t a senator ascertain some facts (they do have considerable resources available) rather than incendiary hints at who might be war criminals?
You’re not discussing “alternate (sic) facts” here – you’re presenting conjecture as fact surely? Peace loving? Give me a break!
I have nothing against green ideals, I just don’t like the type of politics the Greens Party has increasingly decided to play, making political mileage regardless of the consequences for progressive outcomes. Where they take every opportunity to undermine a government that has done some great things since elected and could achieve even more with acknowledgment, cooperation and less politicking from a supposedly fellow progressive party.
And just have a good ponder about all those warmongering politicians and their unjust wars. What do the Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Gulf Wars largely have in common: the Republican Party and Australian Coalition Governments. I know the others have remained once we were dragged in but it’s somewhat harder to unscramble the egg and abandon newly formed allies on withdrawal. But the Greens seem hell bent on returning the Tories ASAP.
Would you have advocated pacifism against the ambitions of Hitler? You think a sovereign state should be crushed by a much greater force? A la Israel? You think Putin will stop in the Ukraine? What if the war criminals are on the other side?
Just for the record, I think Biden should tell both Israel and the pope to go jump! But please don’t get back to me with more of your ad hominem, self righteous pontifications.
Pick me teacher! I don’t think war is evil, I think it is a conflict resolution strategy. A small war at the right time prevents larger suffering. NATO vs Russian was going to be far worse than Ukraine, and possibly would have glowed green in the dark.
I also don’t think that hatred and bigotry are the issue in the Middle East. All animals fight for territory. If there is only enough food for one child, my child is definitely going to get it. Culture needs space to be maintained. My child requires the culture that created her, to maintain her, as culture is down stream of genetics.
Multiculturalism (multi-racialism): diversity + proximity = conflict. This has failed everywhere it has been tried. Evolution requires subpopulations to be segregated, as was rediscovered when the genetic selection algorithm was applied to AI development. We are preprogrammed with the correct amount of racism to allow this. I can explain further if you like.
Oh Please, your arguments just don’t stack up against any factual reality.
If your opinions are an example of a so called intelligent species getting smarter….god forbid.
You might like to read Paul Keating’s damning response to the AUKUS deal at the Australian Press club. We don’t need Australian sucking up to the US bullshit and leading us into a fifth pointless war.
When we have had no direct threats from any country, we don’t need idiotic governments creating a fantasy of aggression to support weapons manufacturers and instability in our region. Many pacific nations have expressed concerns about the AUKUS deal and why wouldn’t they?
We need a government such as The Greens, which takes seriously all the challenges facing the world and not merely profits for corporations.
And you wonder why people have to resort to streets protests, because people vote for pathetic, idiotic governments.
Get real.
You’re all over the shop Rod. We’ve covered a lot of ground here – the history of Australia’s involvement in wars (presumably since 1901), whether Australia is supplying weapons to Israel, environmentalism, pacifism, general defence policy and now you have alighted on AUKUS. Whether being prepared for war is the same as seeking it. Have you deftly narrowed the focus to avoid taking up the challenge of answering any of my questions or related complexities? Now that’s the mark of a politician!
I’ve read Paul Keating’s views and watched the Press Club address. I don’t have a strong opinion on AUKUS – I’ll readily admit I don’t have all the background intel nor expertise in modern warfare and strategising. Nor can I assert so confidently that “we have had no direct threats from any country” – including 1942? – nor will in the future. That’s generally enough for me to avoid confidently mouthing off or coming up with generalisations about all politicians (except the Greens) and all defence policy and simplifying complex geo-political matters.
What was the point about your little missive about what Shoebridge said at a senate sitting? I’d suggest having a look at a Guardian analysis of the question. I can’t give you a link but you could have a Google.
I’m sorry if I have deeply offended you in taking exception to your use of “alternate”, which I freely admit can be found daily all over the place. Go in peace my friend!
It’s great you feel like you have a party to vote for that you agree with, most Australians don’t. If your only choice is Coke or Pepsi, then it’s dehydration or diabetes, then you are blamed for bad decision-making. If you ask for water, you are considered a terrorist extremist.
Yes , that would be nice, if we could ALL go in Peace.
Too bad we live on a planet underpinned by weapon technology and military spending at the expense of the environment.
But wait! With our well documented diminishing attention spans our species won’t have to think for itself any longer, we have Artificial Intelligence!!