Paras 1, 2 and 3 are as if I had written them myself. And on retrospect I could’ve been clearer in my original post that I see these protests as fruitless. You can protest against your local council in relation to a badly consulted project, or federal about the botched handling of let’s say ‘housing affordability’, heck it doesn’t even need to be government it could be your employer outsourcing work overseas. In each instance you are protesting/impacting the party who you disagree with.

Here we have a group protesting about the actions of a foreign nation, who undertook an action on the other side of the globe. And who are they impacting?, the cafe that had to close thier doors cos there’s a protest out the front, or the dress maker that lost a days trading because ppl were avoiding the area.

At best you can stretch it to they are trying to impact the federal government, but this is my concern here, with what? The government says we support a two party solution, we support no warfare in the region. What’s the tangible action you want from them? Cos I don’t see that in any messaging.

And if it’s ‘this public outcry will ensure both sides lay down thier weapons’ your shouting at a third party about something they cannot control, that would be like me protesting that the US shouldnt tariff other countries, or me shouting at the postman because he delivered me a rate hike on my home loan, fruitless.

And I was just suggesting that the retirees could go back to work and contribute to society again until they are 73 like the rest of us are gonna have to, cos they ruined the housing market in this country whilst they instead retire at 55 on thier defined benefits we need to work until we’re 70 to pay for thier pensions