soldiers were being wrongly accused and illegally investigated for war crimes.

Is honestly pretty unambiguous wording.

And the other evidence against your claim is, why would McBride had been pissed off by the ABC's reporting of his leaked files? If you were right, the ABC's angle would be completely aligned with McBride's. Why would Oakes allege there was disagreement there?

Did you ready the article? McBride initially posted on his personal blog, which caught the attention of ABC journalist Dan Oakes. The information was leaked to Oakes and the ABC from there.

My reading of the article was McBride didn't initially think there were war crimes committed but:

ADF leadership alleg(ed) that SAS soldiers were being wrongly accused and illegally investigated for war crimes.

“If there is political bullshit going on against soldiers, and it doesn’t matter whether they’re SAS or not, you need to stand up for it,”

McBride didn't think war crimes had happened which is why he asserts that the soldiers were being wrongly accused and investigated. Oakes disagreed.

Now the question is, why is Oakes making this allegation allegation against McBride if it's not true?

I'm sorry mate you are a terrible first aider and you should reconsider your approach before someone dies on your watch. As an EMT, loss of consciousness is absolutely something that warrants clinical assessment by a healthcare professional.

As a first aider you should understand the chain of survival, one of which is "early access to advanced care". Delaying calling the ambulance completely violated that training. You should understand that the protocol DRSABCD has "send for help" after any response less than "alert" is identified. Your anecdote already shows you cannot follow the protocol and are not acting within your training. It also doesn't say "go back and cancel the ambulance if they regain consciousness". The training is simply "put them in the recovery position" which implies "and wait for ambulance to arrive".

The reason it is taught that way is, you are not a doctor qualified to diagnose whether someone's complex condition is an emergency or not. The absolutely worse thing you can do is make the wrong choice and delay necessary care. The best case is the paramedics come, assesses the patient, and decided they don't need to go to hospital and they go on their merry way (at no cost to the patient). So for you, you always make the worst case scenario.

It's not your responsibility as a first aider to consider the strain on the ambulance or the financial outcome to the patient. Your duty of care is to the medical outcome of your patient, nothing else.

No it's not. People don't generally lose consciousness, so even if they regain it, they should still be escalated to advanced care to be clinically assessed.

Wow did you not read the article? This isn't about a website login, it's about fake hijacked login screens on apps which last I checked, don't have URLs shown.

Wow did none of you read the full article? This is about malicious apps hijacking the login screen if phone apps. Last I checked you don't see the target url on a phone app.

On a completely unrelated note, I was scrolling down the article and saw a big X and clicked it thinking it was a popup or ad and hit it out of habit, but it was actually the embedded tweet.

Another reason why the X rebrand is dumb.

And the other point is you talked about Trump, which is the height of irrelevant since we are talking about Australia. If you're not Australian, get the fuck out of here. We don't need US politics infecting our country.

its extraordinarily useful to have everyone speak the same language the easiest way to achieve this would be to choose the language that the largest number of people speak so we will end up with English

I'm not sure how else I was supposed to interpret this. Maybe instead of being cryptic, just spell out what it is you're saying instead.

Forcing other people who have a shared language to not speak that language to each other sounds more divisive than allowing people to speak to each other in whatever they want to.

But honestly why would you care? Does it bother you that you're unable to eavesdrop on a conversation you have no part in? If they want to speak to you, then they'll speak English.

Also I didn't notice anywhere in my post that suggested people shouldn't learn to speak English. You put that up as a strawman argument.

Think there's a greater relevance here. He's speaking to a newly formed political think tank that current members of our parliament are actively engaged with. It speaks to the underlying values that one of our major political parties is actively leaning into.

I disagree. A society is more than culture. It's politics, law and economics, which are the pieces that actually run a society. I would never suggest migrants should ever import politics, economics and laws from their home country.

Culture and religion however, are personal things. There's no need to force those on anyone. If a society feels the need to do this, it has a tolerance problem and they ought to ask themselves, why does someone praying to a different god, speaking a different language or celebrating a foreign event threaten you?

What's the difference between "respect their culture" and "Federation of tribes and culture". Either you take the view that "respect their culture" means allowing people to retain and freely exercise their culture in public, e.g. speaking their language and celebrating their cultural events publicly, in which case it's really indistinguishable to a federation of cultures. The alternative view is, people can only speak English and practice English cultural things in public, in which case is that really "respecting their culture"?

I suspect Howard is dog-whistling the latter, because Australia is doing the former, and it certainly doesn't sound like he's supportive of that, otherwise why would be have so much trouble with it?

The Romans after they defeated the Greeks.

There was a podcast episode, I think from Democracy Sausage, that talked about how historically referendum no campaigning parties actually do poorly in the subsequent general election since they lean in to absolutely insane arguments during the campaign, which gets them the referendum win, but the loss in the general election. I hope that happens here.

I thought voting no was supposed to end the division?

You only need to look at the West Bank for an example of how things would play out with a more cooperative Palestinian government. Same shit, no autonomy, no say in its future, no say in its foreign policy, with the added bonus of a slow ethnic cleansing as Israel slowly annexes it's land.

There are no good guys here.

Well looks like we know what Price has got for selling out her people. Now we just gotta find out what Warren Mundine's pay day is.

So you want to help people who are born into disadvantage but you don't want to hear from those very same people?

Oooooookay?

Literally pulled a Mark McGowen. But to be fair, probably the best way to go rather than have it drag on for ages.