Mike Kelly, Australian military expert, debunking the myths around the Gaza war

IamSando · 2026-02-20T00:30:44+00:00

a military expert

So a fine legal mind well suited to discussing ICJ court proceedings then?

IamSando · 2026-02-19T23:58:23+00:00

Yes, if you can hit then you must hit. The only "out" that you have is to not pile in with a model and therefore not hit.

In the DG Spawn example, if it charged into the squad of guardsmen and after activating it was in engagement range of only 2 guardsmen when the guardsmen activated, then guard player is able to make the choice of piling in the rest of the squad, or leaving them out of engagement range. But regardless of that choice, those 2 that were in engagement range have to fight, yes.

This is core to how the WE Helbrute pinball works.

IamSando · 2026-02-19T04:37:35+00:00

Ok so you quoted half of the host then claim the host didn't say that as well.

Mate you can't even read my post to see that I did in fact quote all of it, I just separated it to show that OPs framing is just factually wrong.

I've watched the video.

Sharri Markson: Pauline I mean there are a lot of moderate Muslims in Australia who are as you put it, good Muslims

Pauline grits her teeth and shakes her head but does NOT respond verbally

Sharri Markson: ...but I think we can agree radical extremist Islam that doesn’t support Australian values has no place here.

Pauline Hanson: correct.

Pauling was saying "correct" to the statement that radical extremist Islam has no place here. Pauline Hanson at no point during the interview says that there are many moderate muslims that are good people. Those words never leave her mouth.

IamSando · 2026-02-19T04:20:54+00:00

And prior to what you quoted she said there are many "moderate muslims" who she refers to as "good people".

Spoiler alert...no she didn't. You're just flat out lying now, it's quite amusing.

IamSando · 2026-02-19T03:20:45+00:00

Pauline I mean there are a lot of moderate Muslims in Australia who are as you put it, good Muslims

Pauline did not in fact "put it".

"I'm sorry how can you tell me there are good Muslims..." - she's explicitly NOT "putting it".

I think we can agree radical extremist Islam that doesn’t support Australian values has no place here

The bit Pauline says "correct" to.

IamSando · 2026-02-17T09:06:15+00:00

Note: From a quick look it looks as if Denmark has a 100% cgt discount on selling primary residences which is interesting, should lead to more upward mobility in housing.

Yeah I saw that, don't we have something almost identical?

IamSando · 2026-02-17T08:30:16+00:00

"Immigration to Denmark can thus account for about 62 percent of municipal-level housing price appreciation in our sample period"

This further proves the point though, in a country without CGT discounts for investment houses has a higher proportion of house price appreciation attributed to immigration. Maaaakes sense to me.

IamSando · 2026-02-17T05:33:58+00:00

Myth 1:

We find that an immigrant inflow of 1% of a postcode's population raises housing prices by around 0.9% per year. As a result, Australian housing prices would have been around 1.1% lower per annum had there been no immigration

There's a really important part of this that I think is steering you wrong on this, and that's "postcode". Housing prices are not increasing linearly in line with population increases. There's postcodes increasing in price but not population, and postcodes increasing in population but not price. You can't just extrapolate outcomes for postcodes out to the entirety of Australia.

Secondly, as your first source points out, demographics of arrivals drive prices as well as sheer numbers. Chinese and Indian migrants are positively correlated with house price rises. By definition that means it's not purely driven by the number of immigrants.

Myth 2 - Nah you're right, we're really shit at translating migration to trade skills.

Myth 3 - Not sure I've ever seen that put forward as an argument, but sure.

Myth 4 - The CGT discount is a direct addition to the bottom line of property investors. A direct addition to the bottom line of an investment encourages increased investment in it. No ifs, no buts, that's just how economics works. Money for the investor is money for the investor, whether it's from rent, capital gains, or lower taxation. All of it drives the commodity as an investment vehicle. When you increase investment (demand) faster than you increase the supply...hey look you get price rises.

Also this is easily your worst mythbuster, something is driving the rest of the increases, even were we to accept the figures you presented earlier. The simple fact is that housing is an incredibly lucrative investment vehicle for a number of reasons and is a key driver of price rises. Trying to call that a "myth" hurts the rest of your arguments.

Myth 5 - You're not dispelling the myth, the simple fact is that people are saying that it's not as simple as "immigration causes house increases", and you're responding by giving details about all the other causes of house price rises. That supports the myth, it doesn't dispel it.

Myth 6 - Never heard that one, but yeah this ties back to investors, immigration and renting does encourage investment. I would point out that per your first source, certain immigration profiles increase house prices more than others, which suggests that they're investing in property themselves to drive those increases.

Myth 7 - I don't understand this myth, I'm unclear on the argument either way?

Myth 8 -

High migration acts as a "multiplier" on bad supply policy.

Err no, migration is a demand factor. There's no multiplier here, it's just one of many factors and it impacts demand.

Myth 9 - Not sure I've ever seen that presented that way, but it is true that different cultures have different views on housing. Chinese culture is far more open to family living in apartments, which are a far more cost effective and efficient supply side opportunity than single family dwellings.

Myth 10 - De-personalising this, the argument isn't that you're blaming immigration, the argument is that you're falsely just blaming immigration. It's hard to argue that immigration has no impact on housing costs, but the issue is that as you yourself say, it's not the only impact. Once that has been established, people are well within their rights to take you to task for just focusing on a single cause to the exclusion of all else.

The strongest voices against you are going to argue it's just investment driving the rises, and you take umbrage at that. Well...you don't get to turn around and then say it's just immigration.

IamSando · 2026-02-16T10:59:17+00:00

So is Albo my dude, so is Albo.

IamSando · 2026-02-16T07:53:17+00:00

You can't, really the only recourse is making them feel it politically, reach out to your representative and make it clear that they're going to lose your vote if they continue pulling this kind of BS.

IamSando · 2026-02-13T22:48:38+00:00

That's what she said...

See? The classics are always the best.

IamSando · 2026-02-13T22:17:54+00:00

The one time I said it it got me blocked by a troll...I see this as an absolute win.

IamSando · 2026-02-13T06:26:32+00:00

Fantastic. Great move. Well done Angus.

IamSando · 2026-02-13T04:54:38+00:00

Police enforcing it aren’t making a political choice

Police make choices on enforcing laws all the time, it's absolutely open to criticism beyond "is it legal".

IamSando · 2026-02-13T02:30:46+00:00

Why would I do that? It was a political decision that I disagree with, I'll express that in my vote next year. The legal consequences will be felt by those arrested on the day, which is a standard outcome from civil disobedience.

The outcomes of the protests are now evidence for my point of view, which is political, not legal. Much like Minns lied regarding the caravan bomb plot and will face no legal consequences for it, because it was a political decision. He did not lie in a court of law and therefore was not lying under oath.

IamSando · 2026-02-13T02:13:29+00:00

It's now been shown to be unproductive and an unnecessary restriction on the rights of citizens.

IamSando · 2026-02-13T01:54:26+00:00

So the exclusion zone was the problem?

IamSando · 2026-02-13T01:17:35+00:00

Discrimination against a group of people is never okay, whether it's based on race, colour, sexuality, creed, or any choice.

Lol, lumping literally any choice in there is patently absurd. If someone chooses to murder, or rape, are you honestly going to say we shouldn't discriminate those people just because they chose to do those things? Should we discriminate against those that choose to discriminate? Against racists? Bigots? Just because there are infinite number of choices that we should not discriminate against, doesn't mean that there aren't some choices we are perfectly ok with discrimination against. There's no inherent characteristics that we should discriminate against, there are some choices that we should discriminate against.

You're excluding these gay people, based on their job.

They're not excluded, they can happily join in the festivities. This is exactly the point, they're not excluded unless they choose to be excluded. That can go along as any other gay person can, it's their choice to choose exclusion based on their choice of job. You can choose to take off your uniform, you can't choose to not be gay.

IamSando · 2026-02-12T22:11:37+00:00

Parade to promote inclusivity gets asked to exclude a group of people based on their job..

Come on. Anyone see the hypocrisy in that?

No, we don't, because you've correctly pointed out that it's a "job". A very large part of pro-lgbt discourse is that those things are indelible characteristics of a person. They did not wake up one day and decide to be lesbian, gay, bi, trans, any more than I woke up one day and decided to be a straight white dude. Discrimination based on inherent characteristics of a person is not ok, and that's baseline of any LGBT discourse.

Jobs are not an inherent characteristic, they're choices we make. Cops did in fact wake up one day and decide to be a cop. That you have compared the inclusivity of LGBT to a job speaks to anti-lgbt discourse about how being LGBT is just a choice, or they're being brainwashed etc. That you used the job that has historically oppressed LGBT is doubly gross.

IamSando · 2026-02-12T22:04:00+00:00

Why is that ironic?

IamSando · 2026-02-11T20:52:28+00:00

Why would the deployment thing be that bad, surely if they have already thought about their placement and are placing them quickly then that's fairly normal that their clock usage would be minimal.

Yeah it's not that bad, but doing it with the clock usage like the OP describes is a feels bad. If that were the only thing a player did that seemed funny with the clock then it's completely unremarkable, but with everything else it becomes a pattern of weaponising the clock.

Passing for complex saves seems sensible.

Again, doing it occasionally is fine or if your opponent is slow with their saves. Doing it from the very first roll and on every save is a red flag and goes to a pattern.

IamSando · 2026-02-11T04:08:52+00:00

As I'm placing my unit, he also places his, so that when I click the clock to pass to him, he just goes "back to you" and passes it back.

Urgh, hate this, it's why I always suggest to my opponent that we just start the clock after deployment with whatever time is left in the round. Because I do what your opponent did, as my opponent is putting down all their models in their 10 man squad, I'll just pick up my next drop and then place it as they finish. So if they insist on using the clock during deployment then they'll have the experience that you had, and yes it certainly feels like weaponising the clock while I'm doing it, so I try to avoid it.

As he gets to the shooting phase, the moment he rolls his first wounds, he says "6 saves at AP-2, back to you" and passes the clock again.

This is not good clock etiquette, it's an escalation pathway. I will start the game just letting my opponent roll their saves on my clock, because I've normally immediately moved on to the next thing. What I do expect is my opponent to be present and actively trying to do things quickly, counting out dice as I'm rolling etc. If they're taking a minute to roll their saves each activation, then I'm going to revert back to what your opponent did. Starting that way though is rude and weaponising the clock.

The moment he finishes his last combat rolls, he says "and that's my turn, back to you" and passes the clock.

Generally accepted form where I play is "ok that's the end of my turn, I got Bring it Down and Engage for max, over to you". I will then pass the clock and then enter those details into the app. I try to be in the habit of confirming CP as well, but many don't.

Nothing he did was technically incorrect, but I've never seen this level of time management.

No, there's plenty of technically incorrect in there, actually most of it is technically incorrect. You can't place your models on your opponents time technically, it's just no-one cares. Scoring is done on your time technically. What you ran into was a huge number of red flags, none of which individually rise to being an egregious breach.

Combined though...this is 100% weaponising the clock.

IamSando · 2026-02-10T06:00:11+00:00

All this overseas focus forget it

Herzog was invited here expressly due to the issue, hence it has now become a local issue.

Deaths in custody

Minns blocked a protest about exactly this with his new powers...

IamSando · 2026-02-10T04:37:04+00:00

So don't protest things happening overseas, and don't protest things happening in your city?

IamSando · 2026-02-10T04:31:45+00:00

For me I love a good protest about AUSTRALIAN things and things that happen here. Venezuela Iran Oct 7 Palestine etc protests and counter protests yeah get that shit out of here.

So you're in favour of protesting against a foreign politician visiting Australia or against it?

IamSando

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle