Sympathising with genociders isn't a vote winner anymore.

But yeast is important for Beer, so...

It could be interpreted that he is a Zionist calling for the continued genocide against Palestinians

Just say you don't support ethnic cleansing in Gaza, there is zero reason not to say it.

"Zionism isn't Semitism" would be a lot more believable if Zionists wouldn't rush out to conflate each and every case of antizionism with antisemitism.

Case in point, do you have a comment about the majority of Israelis reported in the poll supporting ethnic cleansing?

We will decide who steals our resources, and the manner in which they steal them !

Antisemitism is hostility toward Jewish people.
Antizionism is hostilitiy towards the country of Israel

In the novel Fahrenheit 451, book owners were only sent to the 'insane asylyum'... dystopia has failed.

This a hard question

They are broken beyond fixing.

It's practically impossible to alter their constitution, so it will continue to rot, be ignored, or selectively enforced, a tool only for the powerful.

They need state amalgamations or to become multiple countries.

The first broken promise of every government is to increase transparency.

SAS is not even Australian, it's SASR.

Whatever your opinion, at least try and get the name right, it's one extra character.

OK, yea, I did insult you, you are a complete jerk.

Your insisting others DYOR on things where there are more capable experts have already done the research.

DYOR applies to thing like investing, not international law.

You are so hysterical that you aren't even tracking who you're responding to... touch grass.

Remember how the dems (and repubs) hunted Assange for 10 years, jailed Maning, Snowden still can't go home.

Dems wanted no leaks.

LOL, are you Trump ???

The right way to defend a position is to defer to experts

And the public interest test wasn't allowed based on national security grounds. It wasn't "ruled" that it wasn't in the public interest, the court said they don't care if it was in the public interest.

I know it's not synonymous, but the law doesn't define reality.

It's objectively true the documents were in the public interest based on the media interest and legal court cases that resulted from the documents.

The courts decided they didn't care about public interest in this case.

The court can't decide what is 'in the public interest', only the public can.

The court decided public interest wasn't a valid reason for a soldier to avoid carrying out his duties.

There was massive public interest, and their still is, that is unquestionably true.

The courts can only rule if the public interest ican get over the huge bar the government has in place to protect itself from public interest.

When you were asleep on cushions on the floor, it stuck into your bed and had an excellent night's sleep.

Actually, no, I apologise, you said dog, not cat.

Some good came from his whistleblowing, that should be acknowledged irrespective of his motives... i can't respect anyone's opinion that can't see that.

Maybe there is a conflict of interest with a government deciding what government information is or isn't in the public interest.

If you can't differentiate between intent and effect, we are wasting each other's time.

(Leakers, not leaders)

Again, your conflating two completely separate issues;
1. Should the information have been made public
2. Was the leaders motivations honourable.

We can weigh them up and decide as individuals in a binary way (good/bad), but it's not rational to expect everyone to agree.

The leaked material was of profound public interest. He exposed war crimes, which led to investigations and prosecutions.

You could take that into consideration when judging him.

Transparency and accountability, even towards powerful people, should be a goal for society. Governments have limits.

Your conflating two issues.

Your advocating for shooting the messenger.

The photos are flat as well !!!

So we're finally sending rock-hoppers to Luna. 'Bout time, beratna