This was posted 3 months 5 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Louis Theroux: The Ultra Zionists - Free Streaming @ ABC iView

7051
Louis Theroux: The Ultra Zionists - Free Streaming @ ABC iView
Go to Deal
Aus Falcon on 02/07/2025 - 21:05 iview.abc.net.au (2464 clicks)
Last edited 24/07/2025 - 13:51 by 2 other users

Currently available for a very limited time on ABC iview until 8:56pm AEST 22 Jul 2025 12:52am on 21 Aug 2025.

https://iview.abc.net.au/show/louis-theroux-the-ultra-zionis…

In this provocative documentary, Louis Theroux travels to the West Bank to meet Jewish settlers living in some of the most controversial and politically sensitive areas. With his signature calm and inquisitive style, Theroux explores the motivations, beliefs, and tensions that define life among ultra-nationalist Zionists, shedding light on the complex realities of the the region.

Also available, is the very hard to get until the ABC posted it 2 weeks ago is Louis Theroux: The Settlers. This does not have an expiry date, but don't be surprised if it is taken down soon as it has been done with services in several other countries.

Entertainment Documentary TV Series

Related Stores

ABC - Australian Broadcasting Corporation
ABC - Australian Broadcasting Corporation

closed Comments

  • ThirtySixNights on 02/07/2025 - 21:06
    +81

    Thank you for sharing

    • Pimpiticians 4 Life on 02/07/2025 - 22:34
      +52

      Genobride Trump is supporting his husband Netanyahu.

      • MKBHD on 02/07/2025 - 23:40
        +16

        Needed someone to cuddle after breaking up with Elonia.

    • Aus Falcon on 02/07/2025 - 21:13
      +48

      Where else can I watch these free then?

        • Chazzozz on 02/07/2025 - 21:59
          +138

          It’s nice to see my tax money is being spent in a worthwhile manner, then. The ABC is vastly better than the sea of dross from the commercial networks which are also ‘free’.

            • Big L on 02/07/2025 - 22:33
              +32

              @Mr Plow: Commercial stations are subsidised as well. By licences, by dropping local content, subsidising local sport coverage, etc.

              • eccaz on 02/07/2025 - 23:26

                @Big L: 139 baby

              • entropysbane on 03/07/2025 - 07:48
                +1

                @Big L: Pretty sure that list costs commercials.

              • 1st-Amendment on 03/07/2025 - 08:00

                @Big L:

                Commercial stations are subsidised as well. By licences

                Eh what?

                Broadcast licenses cost money, millions of dollars a year in fact. That is the opposite of a subsidy, it is a cost.

                by dropping local content

                Also a cost

                subsidising local sport coverage

                Also a cost.

                You might want to look up what the word 'subsidy' means…

                • Big L on 03/07/2025 - 10:16
                  +8

                  @1st-Amendment: Have a look at what they're paying for broadcast licences and start again, billions isn't even close.

                  Our taxes paying for their ability to make profit (or attempt to) is a subsidy.

                  • 1st-Amendment on 03/07/2025 - 15:00
                    -1

                    @Big L:

                    Have a look at what they're paying for

                    When you pay for something it is a cost, not a subsidy.

                    Our taxes paying for their ability to make profit (or attempt to) is a subsidy.

                    They pay the government for the licence. You might want to look up what the word 'subsidy' means…

                    • Big L on 03/07/2025 - 19:43
                      +2

                      @1st-Amendment: You obviously didn't look - they don't pay for licences anymore.

                      • 1st-Amendment on 04/07/2025 - 09:18
                        -4

                        @Big L:

                        You obviously didn't look - they don't pay for licences anymore.

                        Oh right, so you're talking about the millions and millions in licensing fees which they've been paying for decades being suspended for 12 months? And you think this is 'Our taxes paying for their ability to make profit'?

                        So you recognise that licensing fees have been a cost for decades (not a subsidy) until last month, and you're aware how a rebate works?
                        Hint: Rebates are not the government giving you someone else's money (like they do with the ABC funding), it's allowing you to keep more of your own money. This is a common error made by the ABC types, it's the exact same confusion made between 'renewable energy subsidies' (taking money from one person to give to someone else) and 'fossil fuel subsidies' (allowing people to keep more of their own money)

                        • Big L on 04/07/2025 - 20:14
                          +4

                          @1st-Amendment: No, you still didn't look. They're not paying at all. Take a look at the facts before I ignore your next rant.

                          • 1st-Amendment on 05/07/2025 - 12:51
                            -2

                            @Big L:

                            Take a look at the facts…

                            You saying things does not make it fact.

                            Here is the ACMA schedule of fees for broadcast licences:
                            https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-07/Commerci…

                            So the fact is that broadcast licenses cost money.

                            before I ignore your next rant.

                            Facts vs feelings, you know the drill…

                            • Big L on 05/07/2025 - 15:50
                              +1

                              @1st-Amendment: Read page 2

                            • Igaf on 05/07/2025 - 15:50
                              +1

                              @1st-Amendment:

                              Facts vs feelings, you know the drill…

                              Roflmao. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/16684839/redir
                              Hypocrisy and irony in a handful of words.

                              • 1st-Amendment on 06/07/2025 - 15:41
                                -3

                                @Igaf:

                                Hypocrisy and irony in a handful of words.

                                Where is the hypocrisy or the irony, you forgot to make an actual argument again.

                                ABC are taxpayer funded. This is a fact.
                                Broadcast licenses that all private broadcasters pay are a cost. This is also a fact
                                Even with the rebate, which is only for 12 months, this is not 'taxpaying funding', it is allow a private company to keep it's own money. This too is a fact.

                                See if you can use your words to explain how any of this is not true using something other than your feelings. I'll wait while you think up excuses to avoid doing so…

                                • jackspratt on 06/07/2025 - 23:02
                                  +1

                                  @1st-Amendment:

                                  Broadcast licenses that all private broadcasters pay are a cost.

                                  It's actually the price they pay to buy a public asset.

                                  So if they don't pay, it is a subsidy.

                                  A bit like the price the major oil companies (don't) pay for a multitude of public assets come tax time.

                                  • 1st-Amendment on 07/07/2025 - 08:53
                                    -2

                                    @jackspratt:

                                    It's actually the price they pay

                                    So a cost exactly like I said…

                                    So if they don't pay, it is a subsidy.

                                    And exactly like I already said, allowing you to keep your own money is NOT "Our taxes paying for their ability to make profit" as claimed.

                                    A bit like the price the major oil companies (don't) pay for a multitude of public assets come tax time.

                                    Also already covered this above.

                                    Subsidy type 1: Government allows you to keep more of your own money. This is generally a good thing, it is pro-capitalist and pro free-market and pro competition.
                                    Subsidy type 2: Government takes more of your money and gives it to someone else. This is generally a bad thing, it is pro-communist, and is anti-free-market, anti-competitive.

                                    The ABC-types always deliberately conflate these two very different things because it serves their interest to do so. They only exist on the dollar of other_people's_money and they need to protect that grift at all costs.

                                    • Big L on 08/07/2025 - 15:12
                                      +1

                                      @1st-Amendment: It's cute that you still believe there's such a thing as a free market

                                      • Igaf on 08/07/2025 - 15:31
                                        +1

                                        @Big L: There never was such a thing but it's easy to fool the ignorant and credulous. His concept of "your own money" is juvenile, particularly in the case of resource exploiters like multi-national petroleum companies. A few hours of reading would help but the knowledge gained would shake the very foundations of his carefully manicured beliefs.

                                      • 1st-Amendment on 09/07/2025 - 10:51

                                        @Big L:

                                        It's cute that you still believe there's such a thing as a free market

                                        This website is the free market in action. It's absurd that you don't know how that works…

                                        • Big L on 09/07/2025 - 17:29

                                          @1st-Amendment: The existence of one thing doesn't prove another, but logic isn't your strong suit.

                                          • 1st-Amendment on 10/07/2025 - 09:22

                                            @Big L:

                                            The existence of one thing doesn't prove another,

                                            I agree. But where did I say this? This is sounding like a Straw Man

                                            but logic isn't your strong suit.

                                            There’s no coherent argumentative link between your premise and your conclusion here ie a non-sequitur.

                                            So in one short sentence you've managed make two of the most basic logical fallacies, and you think it's me that isn't good with logic?

                                            • Igaf on 10/07/2025 - 12:18

                                              @1st-Amendment: Lol, as Daltry said: 'Go to the mirror boy'.

                                              There's a wealth of evidence on this site that logic isn't your forte, nor are logical fallacies and non-sequiturs, although you have unknowingly provided some doozies over the years. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/15139126/redir (I can find more if you're interested, they're regular features of your posts).

                                              This website is the free market in action. It's absurd that you don't know how that works…

                                              Your statement starts with both actual and logical fallacies, then doubles down by accusing someone else of doing PRECISELY what you did.

                                              So in one short sentence you've managed to display a fundamental ignorance of : this site, Australian (retail) markets, and so-called "free markets", AND provide an exemplar for explaining both irony and hypocrisy.

                                              What does your mate ChatGPT have to say about ignorance and hypocrisy?

                                        • Igaf on 09/07/2025 - 20:53

                                          @1st-Amendment: You need to learn the some basic economics. This website provides examples of a competitive REGULATED market.

                                    • Nom on 09/07/2025 - 19:34

                                      @1st-Amendment:

                                      Subsidy type 1: Government allows you to keep more of your own money. This is generally a good thing
                                      Subsidy type 2: Government takes more of your money and gives it to someone else. This is generally a bad thing

                                      Those are two completely ridiculous assertions.

                                      Type 1: If the Government allows you to keep more of your own money, and the result is that they can no longer fund your Fire Service, then this is objectively not a good thing.

                                      Type 2: If the Government takes more of your money, and gives it someone else who comes up with the cure for cancer, then this is objectively not a bad thing.

                                      • 1st-Amendment on 10/07/2025 - 09:02

                                        @Nom:

                                        Those are two completely ridiculous assertions.

                                        Only if you resort to the False Dilemma logical fallacy which you did both times.

                                        False Dilemma Fallacy
                                        This occurs when someone presents only two options as if they’re the only possibilities—e.g., “Either we keep taxes high or we won’t have fire services.” It ignores the complexity of budgeting, spending priorities, and alternative revenue sources. In reality, governments can adjust spending, restructure taxes, or find efficiencies without eliminating essential services.

                                        • Nom on 10/07/2025 - 10:38
                                          +1

                                          @1st-Amendment: Right, and this is exactly what you did.

                                          Subsidy type 1: Government allows you to keep more of your own money. This is generally a good thing
                                          Subsidy type 2: Government takes more of your money and gives it to someone else. This is generally a bad thing

                                          The False Dilemma Fallacy says those are two completely ridiculous assertions.

                                          You ignored the complexity of budgeting, spending priorities, and alternative revenue sources.

                                          There are effectively an infinite number of possibilities where the Government allowing you to keep more of your own money has a negative effect.
                                          There are effectively an infinite number of possibilities where the Government taking more of your money has a positive effect.

                                          In reality, governments can adjust spending, restructure taxes, or find efficiencies without eliminating essential services.

                                          Of course they can, that was exactly my point. There are a billion ways that decisions can be made. You just boiled them all down to "more taxes bad" and "less taxes good".

                                          • 1st-Amendment on 10/07/2025 - 11:34

                                            @Nom:

                                            The False Dilemma Fallacy says those are two completely ridiculous assertions.

                                            Well you said it so it must be true. Is that what you're sticking with?

                                            If you prefer to pay more taxes you are welcome to do so. Why aren't you doing that if you believe it is better for you?

                                • Igaf on 07/07/2025 - 00:06
                                  +1

                                  @1st-Amendment:

                                  Where is the hypocrisy or the irony, you forgot to make an actual argument again.

                                  Still struggling to grasp simple concepts after years on this site? The redirect SHOULD have been self-explanatory but I'm happy to help you out, for the umpteenth time. The hypocrisy is allowing your ideology ("feelings") to blind you to very well know facts (such as the no-strings-attached $40M handout to News Corpse you were totally ignorant of), then accusing another poster of the same thing, something which you've made a habit of on these pages for a very long time. To help weed you off spoonfeeding I'll leave you to work out the patently obvious irony but I'll give you a hint. One (irony) follows the other (hypocrisy). Get back to me if it still doesn't sink in.

                                  Wrt taxpayer funding. Here's another clue: pretty much every business is "taxpayer funded". Again, I'll leave you to work out how, and why. It's not complex but it does require a tiny bit of lateral thinking for some.

                                  • 1st-Amendment on 08/07/2025 - 08:42

                                    @Igaf:

                                    Still struggling to grasp simple concepts

                                    Struggling you understand your incoherent rambling yes. Use your words it will help communicate your message better, if you learn how that works you wouldn't always find yourself in this situation.

                                    The hypocrisy is allowing your ideology ("feelings") to blind you to very well know facts (such as the no-strings-attached $40M handout to News Corpse you were totally ignorant of), then accusing another poster of the same thing,

                                    See that wasn't so hard was it? Now that you have managed to actually present an actual argument, allow me to show you where you went wrong.

                                    The subject was Broadcast licences and specifically the rebate for licenses being "Our taxes paying for their ability to make profit".
                                    Go read it again, it's all up there in black and white.

                                    A rebate is not "our taxes". The claim was that a broadcast licences rebate equates to taxes having to be paid by someone else. It doesn't. That is the simple fact.

                                    To help weed you off spoonfeeding I'll leave you to work out the patently obvious irony

                                    It's only obvious in your head because you've proceeded on a false assumption. But now that you used your words and I've cleared that up for you, do you still think that broadcast licences are a cost or a subsidy? Do you think the rebate is "Our taxes paying for their ability to make profit" or merely allowing them to keep more of their own money to keep their business running and keep more people employed who each pay taxes?

                                    Wrt taxpayer funding. Here's another clue: pretty much every business is "taxpayer funded".

                                    This is known as the reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy. At least you are consistent…

                                    • Igaf on 08/07/2025 - 16:48
                                      +1

                                      @1st-Amendment: Ever heard the phrase "look over there"? Your post is a classic example of kiddie deflection, which might work on some but doesn't here. I've already dealt with it but here's another reminder: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/16684839/redir
                                      Suffice to say you either have very limited comprehension or memory problems - unless your account was hacked for that particular post?

                                      Wrt taxpayer funding. Here's another clue: pretty much every business is "taxpayer funded".

                                      Logical fallacy? We long ago discovered that you don't know the meaning of that term so why do you still use it? I'd look for the previous posts but can't be bothered. Just an observation but you seem to resort to that when you have no place to hide. People reverting to type under pressue is very common. Yours is an obvious giveaway.

                                      Simply because you don't understand, are ignorant of, or can't conceive of something doesn't mean that something is a "logical fallacy".

                                      Again, I'll help you out with a clue to just one small way businesses are taxpayer funded: infrastructure. There's FAR more if you're willing and capable of putting your mind to it. Everything from policing, education…..to health. Woops,gave you too many clues, now you'll be totally confused. Okay, small steps, stick with infrastructure for starters.

                                      Now to be fair to business, the whole point of communities sharing the load is that we also share the benefits and businesses on the whole bring numerous benefits. The question is ALWAYS - where do we draw the line. The line of course differs for every sector.

                • calcium on 08/07/2025 - 08:29

                  @1st-Amendment: He probably meant stuff like these…

                  https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/40-million-fox-sport…

                  There were a few of these handouts but this was just the one I remember right now. I seem to recall there was an 18m one too.

            • shroomish on 03/07/2025 - 09:19
              +14

              @Mr Plow: Scomo and Josh let Murdoch off a billion dollar tax bill at the 11th hour before the ATO had them in court for claiming that they failed to make a profit in the preceding decade. Not to mention C7 getting 42 million in covid payments after he was best man at a stokes wedding. Murdoch also got 40 million dollars of tax dollars to buy up regional newspapers which he promptly closed and replaced with a newscorpse websites.
              Your tax dollars are exactly paying for billionaires shitty media.

          • sim36 on 17/07/2025 - 15:38
            +1

            @Chazzozz: This movie, an excellent watch, is free for all to see. It's a bargain!

            We need to be vigilant, if Jillian Segal and her buddies have their way this type of doco won't be shown (for free) on our ABC. Screen it in an Australian University and the Uni will lose funding, have it on your phone when you try to enter the country and they'll turn you away at the border.

            Jillian Segal is our new “Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism in Australia” in order to preserve “social cohesion, appointed by PM Albanese no less. Her husband funds far right extremist Group 'Advance Australia' ($50K no less) but of course she knows nothing about that. If I spent $50,ooo funding a far right extremist group my missuz would freak out. Jillian just deflects and changes the subject.

            https://theklaxon.com.au/government-must-explain-over-segal-…

            • fredblogs on 17/07/2025 - 19:16
              -2

              @sim36:

              if Jillian Segal and her buddies have their way this type of doco won't be shown (for free) on our ABC. Screen it in an Australian University and the Uni will lose funding, have it on your phone when you try to enter the country and they'll turn you away at the border.

              Got any evidence for this nonsense?

              • Igaf on 17/07/2025 - 23:51
                +1

                @fredblogs: Sadly it's not a long bow to draw. Read the commentary surrounding Segal's report, there's plenty available including : https://www.amnesty.org.au/special-envoys-plan-to-combat-ant…

                The Klaxon article above focuses on a tenuous link to the $50K donation to a mob who posted numerous lies during the last election - and thankfully got their @rses kicked when the electorate rejected their extremism. That article should have urged Burke to reject Segal's report because it is far from impartial and proposes punitive measures which are a fundamental threat to democratic debate. Her report attempts to weaponise a particular definition of "antisemitism" which has already been infirectly rejected by one Federal court judge (Justice Stewart). He ruled that : “Political criticism of Israel, however inflammatory or adversarial, is not by its nature criticism of Jews in general or based on Jewish racial or ethnic identity”, and “Disparagement of Zionism constitutes disparagement of a philosophy or ideology and not a race or ethnic group.”

                • fredblogs on 18/07/2025 - 00:15
                  -2

                  @Igaf: Amnesty flat out lying again. See https://unwatch.org/tag/amnesty-international/ for their shameful history.

                  IHRA: https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitio…
                  "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."

                  Amnesty: https://www.amnesty.org.au/special-envoys-plan-to-combat-ant…
                  "IHRA’s deeply flawed definition of antisemitism that conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel"

                  • Igaf on 18/07/2025 - 00:18
                    +1

                    @fredblogs: Any reason why you omitted this bit?

                    To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

                    Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.

                    Or this? "Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

                    Two fine lines drawn there which imo are not as black and white as those words suggest.

                    • fredblogs on 18/07/2025 - 00:47
                      -3

                      @Igaf: What parallels are there for other countries and ethnoreligious groups?
                      If these types of criticisms are unique to Israel and Jews, then it's obviously antisemitic.

                      • Igaf on 18/07/2025 - 10:38
                        +2

                        @fredblogs: Wrong question. The IHRA is claiming parallels have primacy. To a point they're right, but given the extreme leeway which has been provided to Israel over decades of ignoring international law they are also very wrong.

                        On the point of priorities it has been patently clear from actions here that bad actors who support Israel - have fomented trouble in Australia, in one case egged on by the fwits at News Corpse/the Daily Bellylaugh. We've also seen online baiting by a known "influencer" whose actions arguably contribute to antisemitism, at least in the short term. As do certain egregious acts by the IDF, but that's a separate issue. The Bellylaugh example clearly demonstrates displaced "loyalties" and a total disregard for/ignorance of this country's norms. It goes without saying that the same applies to other groups. Calling this out is NOT antisemitic despite the IHRA attempting to claim so.

                        In the here and now (nb), is 'antisemitism' worse than Netanyahu's actions in Gaza and elsewhere? I suspect those on the receiving end of what has been described as genocide/war crimes will have a particular and probably universal view of that.

                        There is plenty of commentary on the IHRA's definition and the effects of its (mis?)use in this country if you want to broaden your horizons.

                        • fredblogs on 18/07/2025 - 11:53

                          @Igaf: Can you be more specific? That all sounds very vague and I have no idea what you're talking about.

                          • Igaf on 18/07/2025 - 14:11

                            @fredblogs: Read their definition, it should become clear.er although I don't see what you're struggling with. I've highlighted the two sticking points. The "alleged priorities" statement (ie don't accuse us of divided/compromised loyalties or you're antisemitic) is particularly egregious and has one clear aim.

                            • fredblogs on 18/07/2025 - 14:14
                              -1

                              @Igaf: Again, if these types of criticisms are unique to Israel and Jews, then it's obviously antisemitic.

                              • Igaf on 18/07/2025 - 14:43
                                +1

                                @fredblogs: Ah I see. So your premise is that criticising Jews/Israelis/sympathisers is antisemitic unless there's evidence of similar cirticism being applied elsewhere. Interesting generalisation. How do you propose that be tested? A questionnaire?

                                You can label people however you wish but extreme use of the antisemitic trope will only bring more antagonism and erode the legacy of holocaust victims. It will not, and should not shut down voices of protest, even those badly expressed in the heat of argument. Universities for example need to encourage reasoned, robust debate (difficult when bloody massacres and denial of basic human needs are happening to innocents) and at times tolerate noisy and inconvenient protest while at the same time show zero tolerance for certain behaviours - without having to second guess whether someone thinks it's based on a disputed definition of antisemitism. Interstingly many uni academics are totally at odds with the approach being proposed by some uni administrators, with the same "antisemitism"/censorship arguments at the forefront. Weve seen what lobbying pressure can lead to in political circles - the Chris Minns example being a stark reminder.

                              • Igaf on 18/07/2025 - 22:36
                                +2

                                @fredblogs: Just in today, yet another powerful article by Richard Flanagan which touches on some of issues mentioned above. I urge you to read it: https://www.smh.com.au/national/to-defend-our-democracy-pm-m…

                                One small extract - there's much more - to whet your appetite, or not:
                                There are numerous examples in other countries of the IHRA definition being used to muzzle critics of Israel’s policies towards Palestinians. No less than the IHRA definition’s lead drafter, Kenneth Stern, a Zionist, has warned of it being weaponised, and that using a data-collection definition as the basis of a new punitive state policy is “a horrible idea”. It evokes McCarthyism, he warns, and would mean that you would “have to agree with the state to get official funding”.

                                Seems to me Stern is echoing Amnesty and many other voices. Whether Albanese has the balls to file Segal's report in his "mistakes I made as PM" archives (where it would find company with the footage of the utterly cringeworthy Modi rally, among other things) is now the question.

        • SupeNintendoChalmers on 02/07/2025 - 22:16
          +31

          My tax money goes to News Corp, who little to no tax, so what is your point?

            • the-fuzz on 03/07/2025 - 08:59
              +14

              @1st-Amendment: My tax dollars allowed you to post this dribble - what is your point?

            • Igaf on 03/07/2025 - 12:52
              +10

              @1st-Amendment: Why am I not surprised that you're totally oblivious to the very well publicised fact that Turnbull and Morrison handed $40M in undocumented grants to Foxtel without any deliverables or market testing. Just one example. Ignorance and ideological blindness are common bedfellows as your posts regularly demonstrate.

              Those grants may or may not have been value for money but as you know (cough) they form a very small portion of taxpayer funding of private enterprise, which is both a common and completely rational action in most cases.

              • 1st-Amendment on 07/07/2025 - 09:02
                -2

                @Igaf:

                $40M in undocumented grants

                If they are undocumented how do you know about them?

                You might want to think about that a little harder before you attempt another brain fart…

                Ignorance and ideological blindness are

                The subject here was broadcast licences. If you want to change the subject to talk about taxpayer dollars being wasted on handouts to women sports, then I'm with you 100% there. That is a complete and utter rort.

                • Igaf on 07/07/2025 - 12:19
                  +3

                  @1st-Amendment:

                  If they are undocumented how do you know about them?

                  I've told you many times about the importance of both real knowledge and context. If you'd bothered to do basic reseach on that topic you might have understood what undocumented meant in the context of the $40M in handouts you were/are oblivious to. The material is still easily found should you want to drag yourself out of the fug of ideological ignorance. If you need keywords for your search don't hesitate to ask for help.

                  The subject here was broadcast licences.

                  After reading you multiple puerile comments on this deal I doubt even the thickest junior secodnary schooler would have any trouble shooting holes in that bit of tosh. The subject was broadly your ideological and juvenile ('bludgers over at the ABC') attacks on "taxpayer-funded" ABC. I simply linked your posts about "feelings" and taxpayer funds. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/16684839/redir
                  It's not rocket science, do try to keep up:

                  "so what is your point?"

                  You: "That Newscorp does not receive your tax money, unlike the bludgers over at the ABC".

                  While I have your attention, care to explain what an "ABC-type" is in your little world? Presumably that's a term you picked up from your hours of mindlessly absorbing Bolt etc over at Sky?

                  • 1st-Amendment on 08/07/2025 - 09:17
                    -2

                    @Igaf:

                    I've told you many times

                    ChatGPT:

                    "The comment is clearly charged with frustration, condescension, and a hint of sarcasm. The writer appears to feel exasperated or impatient
                    - Uses ad hominem-style attacks rather than engaging the actual argument.
                    - Likely intended to intimidate, dismiss, or end debate, rather than continue it constructively.
                    - This kind of language tends to escalate conflict, not resolve it.
                    - It could also alienate neutral third parties observing the conversation.
                    - Likely to provoke defensiveness, not dialogue"

                    care to explain what an "ABC-type" is in your little world?

                    See above.

                    • Igaf on 08/07/2025 - 13:49
                      +2

                      @1st-Amendment: ChatGPT is way beyond your pay level but again I'm not surprised you have to resort to a semi-trained artificial assistant to help explain your own deficiencies. That you believe (I was going to use the word 'think' but that would be a step too far) those attributes are exclusive to ABC supporters (assuming they're the target of your juvenile label) says a lot about your blinkered mindset. Reminds me of the teacher who debunked horoscopes with a very simple experiment. I'll leave you to investigate but there's a hint in my second sentence.

                      Did that semi-intelligent bot have anything to say about ideological blindness or closed minds perchance? Does it understand nuance - something else we've "discussed" on this site? What does it say about dribble and drivel?

                      Here's a couple of observations about rational adult debate and discussion. (1) Surprise, surpise - it involves rational adults; (2) Generally yu get the respect you deserve. Some people learn from their mistakes, some simply repeat them. I suggest you take a long look at some of your comments on this site over many years. Generally I pay little heed to comment negs but in other cases there are very clear reasons why there's a consistent history of pile ons.

                      Btw. Any chance that elementary climate change homework I set you many moons ago will ever see the light of day or do you still believe (that word again) that your uninformed opinion trumps the learned and tested views of tens of thousands of trained and experienced experts? Rhetorical question.

              • 1st-Amendment on 08/07/2025 - 09:18

                @calcium:

                This ?

                This what?

                • Igaf on 08/07/2025 - 14:17

                  @1st-Amendment: The irony. Did I mention rational adult discussion already?

                  This what?

                  Ask ChatGPT. I don't know if it understands the concept of links or the reason they're used but there's one way for you to find out. It's always advisable to check the bona fides of a link before you click through (and, probably even more importantly, after because there's a huge amount of ideological drivel, lies and disinformation to suck in the credulous). On this website generally you're pretty safe from the initial risk in my limited experience but you still may have to spend some time assessing the credibility of the linked content. Happily for you there are many credible reports on the "taxpayer funded" issue you know nothing about.

                  If ChatGPT can't help here's the nuanced answer, in context (as you know ChatGPT knows sfa qbout context, it assumes you'll be able to use your human brain to probe further, or ask a more specific question):

                  This is the road to escape the fug of ignorance on the topic of taxpayer funds I and others have mentioned earlier.

        • A 1 on 02/07/2025 - 22:53
          +6

          Maybe my tax dollars paid for it. You're welcome!

        • mpember on 03/07/2025 - 09:22
          +2

          The streaming service is made possible at no additional cost to the viewer. Think of it like paying for the cost of the mint on the pillow and getting the hotel room for no additional fee.

          • Jaspa7 on 03/07/2025 - 16:52
            +4

            @mpember: hey I'm feeling left out here…

            [incoherent rambles].. mah tax dollars!! [shakes fist]..

      • chingy213 on 04/07/2025 - 15:04

        Rumble

      • Stuj on 03/07/2025 - 07:28
        +22

        Unlike the ilks of SKY et al. They are the bastions of impartial reporting

      • isthisreallife22 on 04/07/2025 - 09:20
        +3

        Guess thats why the most watched show globally in 2024 was an original ABC production?

    • diddy50 on 03/07/2025 - 17:55
      +4

      They can always find ways to spend our taxes better, but the ABC is value for money. And I'm a Liberal.

    • CptnObvious on 02/07/2025 - 21:17
      +113

      the truth doesn’t need a discount. Propaganda's the markup you pay for ignoring it.

    • lachlantula on 02/07/2025 - 22:10
      +14

      i wonder if you've voted and commented on similarly political posts in the past with a different, more supportive tone?

    • Stuj on 03/07/2025 - 07:30
      +20

      And using starvation as a weapon is Apparently not a war crime…

    • Ruddaga on 02/07/2025 - 21:20
      +191

      Or maybe just the 50,000 civilians Israel has bombed in Gaza over the past two years in what's clearly become collective punishment for the actions of a militant group?

      Nah, you're probably right… that kind of story probably doesn’t fit the narrative.

        • Ruddaga on 02/07/2025 - 21:39
          +6

          "Mc" 😅😅 😅😅 😅😅 😅😅

        • wizza13 on 02/07/2025 - 22:21
          +24

          Come on McFly, surely you've got something of substance to contribute to the discussion instead of just quoting others and dropping 😅😅

          Let's hear what you really think! I'm sure it will be great

      • dumdum2 on 02/07/2025 - 23:15
        +25

        According to Hamas, 50,000 civilians have died and zero Hamas fighters have died.

        Israel's aim must be amazing not to hit even one Hamas member by accident.

        • dealhunter52 on 02/07/2025 - 23:58
          +10

          Hamas only wear their uniforms for propaganda parades and training videos.

          During war they claim to be civilians. It's amazing that no one Hamas fighter has died, according to Al-Jazeera and rest of the Arab media.

          • Ruddaga on 03/07/2025 - 09:18
            +14

            @dealhunter52: You’re either deliberately lying or just parroting nonsense. No credible source, including Al Jazeera or “Arab media,” claims zero Hamas fighters have died. That’s a bad-faith strawman.

            According to the Israeli Defence Forces themselves, they estimate that at least 10,000 Hamas fighters have been killed, that’s from their numbers, not “pro-Palestinian propaganda.” I guess that's an acceptable ratio of innocent lives lost by your messed up moral compass?

            Also, under international law, combatants not in uniform are still combatants. You don’t magically become a civilian by ditching a uniform, just like you don’t magically become a moral authority by ignoring facts.

            Try again, this time without the bad-faith talking points.

            • dealhunter52 on 03/07/2025 - 10:22

              @Ruddaga:

              According to the Israeli Defence Forces themselves, they estimate that at least 10,000 Hamas fighters have been killed, that’s from their numbers, not “pro-Palestinian propaganda.”

              That's an old figure IDF provided in Feb 2024. According to their current estimates, around 17,000 - 20,000 Hamas fighters have been killed. There are always civilian casualties in war and this not a new phenomenon, especially when Hamas is fighting from civilian areas or from tunnels dug under civilian infrastructure. There is no bomb that only harms the terrorists and spares everyone around them. There was no need for war in the first place, if Hamas surrendered and returned all the hostages.

              More civilians than Gaza war are dying in Sudan war or died in Yemen/Saudi war before it or the Syrian conflict, but somehow they don't get the same coverage. I guess if the warring community is from same religion, it's somehow acceptable.

              Truth is that war is ugly, it's not suppose to be sunshine & rainbows.

              • Ruddaga on 03/07/2025 - 17:43
                +4

                @dealhunter52: Oh well, guess you’re right then. Since Hamas hides in tunnels and civilians unfortunately exist nearby, might as well just keep bombing neighbourhoods, flattening hospitals, and killing thousands of brown kids. I mean, war isn’t supposed to be sunshine and rainbows, right?

                Wild how you’re more outraged by people being upset about genocide than by the genocide itself. Also love the lazy “what about Sudan/Yemen” deflection, as if the solution to one war crime is to ignore another. Sounds less like a moral stance and more like an excuse to not care when it’s Arabs and Muslims dying.

                But hey, keep quoting IDF stats like they’re the Holy Gospel while entire families are buried in rubble.

                Just be honest and say it: you don’t actually care about civilians unless it’s politically convenient. Own it. It's who you are mate.

                • dealhunter52 on 03/07/2025 - 21:30
                  -2

                  @Ruddaga:

                  Wild how you’re more outraged by people being upset about genocide than by the genocide itself.

                  You keep throwing the 'Genocide' word like candy, knowing well nearly as many Arab Muslims live in Israel as in Gaza. Must be the worse genocide where population of Gaza keeps dramatically increasing every decade.

                  Do you know how many Jews live in More than 50 Muslim countries? Why they have to flee with their families?

                  But hey, keep quoting IDF stats like they’re the Holy Gospel while entire families are buried in rubble.

                  I will take IDF stats over proscribed terrorist organisation any day.

                  Just be honest and say it: you don’t actually care about civilians unless it’s politically convenient.

                  I care about all civilian deaths, especially the ones dying in the music festival, but bit less for the ones who were dancing in the streets and spitting over the dead bodies.

                  I also vividly remember one community celebrating the 7th Oct massacre on the steps of Opera house on 8th Oct, just 1 day after and well before Israel retaliated. I also remember their chants of "Gas the J3ws" & "Kill the J3ws" live on TV.

                  Just admit you're a biased and move on.

                  • Ruddaga on 04/07/2025 - 20:59
                    +3

                    @dealhunter52: Actually, mate, unlike you, I am capable of nuance. I was horrified and angered by the October 7th attack, genuinely. As someone who’s spent years going to music festivals around the world, including Tomorrowland three times, it hit hard. That’s where my anger started. That’s where the rage began. But where it started to shift was watching the so-called “civilised” response turn into two straight years of collective punishment, mass civilian slaughter, and international law being spat on while idiots like you cheer it on like it’s a football match.

                    So yeah… I’ll admit my bias: I’m biased against mass murder, regardless of who does it. You? You’re just biased and shameless about it.

                    Now, let’s talk about this garbage you’re pushing: "Gaza population goes up = no genocide.” Are you serious? That’s like saying domestic abuse doesn’t exist if the victim survives. You think genocide is only valid if there's zero people left at the end? Go read a book (they're those things that existed before the internet, you probably haven't seen one) or at least Google the actual definition of the word.

                    As for your deflection about Jews in Muslim countries… what the hell does that have to do with bombing refugee camps today? That’s like someone justifying Russia bombing Ukraine by saying “Well, once upon a time…” It’s irrelevant history used to excuse present-day crimes.

                    And let’s not pretend your “I care about all civilians but…” line isn’t absolute trash. You don’t “care” about anyone…. you just regurgitate propaganda to justify your bloodlust. You bring up people celebrating as if fringe extremists define an entire population. But when it’s Israelis livestreaming themselves mocking dead Gazan children or chanting “wipe them all out,” you stay dead silent. That’s not moral clarity, that’s selective outrage. That’s your bias. Own it.

                    So no buddy… I’m not the biased one here.

                    I’m the one who’s horrified by both October 7th and the slow-motion atrocity that followed. You? You picked a side and decided war crimes were fine as long as it was your side committing them.

                    • dealhunter52 on 04/07/2025 - 23:29
                      -6

                      @Ruddaga: For the nth time, war could finish today if Hamas surrenders and return all the hostages. Your whole response is about blaming a nation surrounded by the savages, that just want their citizens returned and to live peacefully without the fear of terror attacks and unguided missiles falling on them.

                      FWIW, Israel left Gaza in 2005 to let them govern themselves. But Gazans instead of living in peace and prosperity, started doing terror attacks and building terror tunnels. What a waste? Never has any group of people received so much UN money as Gazans & Palestinians in the history of the world. They could have build a Singapore in the Middle East, but no, they would rather teach their kids terror and hate towards Israel. You're just a terrorist apologist trying to justify their terror and blame Israel for defending it's citizens.

                      How many 2 states solutions have been failed because of Palestinians refusal to recognize state of Israel and their outright threat of complete annihilation of the Jewish people. You are either an ignorant fool or biased member of the fanatical cult.

                      That’s like someone justifying Russia bombing Ukraine by saying “Well, once upon a time…”

                      Stop with you nonsensical arguments. Ukrainians didn't launched unprovoked attack on Russia and killed 16,800 Russians and took 3500 as hostages (population of Russia is 14x of Israel) to deserve Russian attack. Neither did Israel attacked Gaza for some historical once upon a time.

                      Hamas has said time and again that they will keep launching attacks like 7th of October and will never recognize state of Israel. Guess what, Israel won't stop until they eliminate Hamas. You're delusional fool or just arguing in bad faith. You have no understanding of why Israel launched the war on Gaza and why they won't stop until they get their hostages back and eliminate Hamas.

                      • Igaf on 08/07/2025 - 15:09
                        +4

                        @dealhunter52: You clearly know NOTHING about the history. Do some reading on who scuttled the agreement the PLO (Arafat) and Begin negotiated and why they did that. Then do some reading on who consistently refused to even consider a two state solution, with the support of the grossly ignorant Americans, whose record of cultural ignorance extends around the world for more than half a century. They of course have, prior to Trump, done plenty of global good, but that doesn't excuse their foreign policy actions in Sth America, Asia, or the Middle East.

                        • dealhunter52 on 08/07/2025 - 15:31
                          -3

                          @Igaf: Every 2 state proposal has failed because of unrealistic demands from Palestinians. Also, no future 2 state proposal will succeed until Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist and stop their terror attacks. US has been trying to get both parties to negotiate since 1970's Camp David accords. US has been one of the major contributor to UNRWA and they don't want to keep funding UNRWA till eternity. Nowhere in the world has a group of refugees received continuous UN funding for nearly 80 years, other than Palestinians.

                          • Igaf on 08/07/2025 - 16:11
                            +4

                            @dealhunter52: As I said, you clearly know NOTHING about the actual modern history which has ultimately led to this attempted genocide. Google and read some of the numerous commentaries available instead of blindly swallowing the company line. Forces within the the USA (you may be able to guess who the successful lobbyists were) not only helped to scuttle the Araft-Begin accord but have continuously thwarted every effort to find a compromise on a two state solution.

                            Nowhere in the world has a group of refugees received continuous UN funding for nearly 80 years, other than Palestinians.

                            I don't see the relevance but as a simple counter I suggest you read up how, when and why the state of Israel was formed. Pretty good deal that even if the Arab states didn't like it and had other ideas - ideas not very dissimilar to those of current extreme Israeli elements.

                            Israel's actions under Netanyahu have led me to the conclusion that it no longer deserves any special consideration for its behaviour or policies, consideration which it rightly accumulated due to the deplorable anti-human Nazi persection. Its leaders and extreme enablers deserve to be brought to book. History suggests that, like other tyrants around the globe, they will not face the retribution they deserve.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join