The NSW police commissioner seems to be in denial too.

Mal Lanyon said it was “important to find a motive” for the Bondi terror killings.

Hell's Bells! What sort of cop is he? ISIS flags; previously investigated by ASIO; Terrorist training in the Philippines; Jews only targeted.

The bloke had already declared it a terrorist attack. Who else does terrorism these days apart from Islamic types?

Two of the blighters. No ‘lone wolf’ head case.

But, we all know that any “investigation” will be worth squat. Nothing useful will be done. And Bondi will occur again somewhere in Australia, given that ASIO's “possible”/50% chance within a year warning still stands.

Dear Ttbn,

«Muhammad himself was keen on killing followers of any religion not Muslim.»

Muhammad, peace be upon him, was a Christian. More precisely he was a pagan who converted to Christianity and then led a Christian military unit to conquer the city of Gaza. Following that he became a successful merchant. Coins were found from the 7th century with "Muhammad" on one side and a cross on the other. Islam only existed since the 790's at the earliest.

You seem to pay more attention to fake Islamic sources like the Quran and the Hadith than to modern archaeological science.

That framing already shifts the ground, mhaze.

//Liberal democracies are built on a consensus of the citizenry to abide by the rules and mores of the society.//

No, liberal democracies are built on limits to state power precisely because consensus is never complete. Rights are not conditional on cultural alignment. Once they are, citizenship itself becomes conditional.

//When one group… don't accept those rules… some of the niceties have to be suspended.//

Suspending rights based on group judgement is not a temporary adjustment within liberal democracy. It is a replacement of it. Liberal systems expect dissent, even radical belief, and respond to conduct, not presumed loyalty.

//Those seeking to replace the rules of society aren't entitled to benefit from those rules.//

That is collective disqualification in principle. It abandons individual responsibility and due process in favour of categorical judgement. Liberal law does not work that way.

//I didn't say [scripture] substituted for behavioural evidence.//

But you are using doctrine to justify heightened suspicion prior to behaviour. That's the issue. Texts do not commit violence. People do. Liberal societies police incitement, recruitment, training, financing, and violence, not belief systems or theological lineage.

//The difference between Islam and Christianity…//

Internal theological disputes do not solve the evidentiary problem. Once the state decides which religious interpretations are acceptable and which justify surveillance, it has crossed from policing conduct into policing belief.

//This isn't collective punishment… just heightened vigilance.//

If vigilance is triggered by religious category first and behaviour second, it is collective in structure regardless of how it's labelled. Saying some adherents "wouldn't shouldn't and couldn't be interfered with" doesn't change that; it simply describes uneven application of a categorical policy.

//They rely on their electoral clout to maintain special privileges.//

That adds another layer of collective suspicion, this time political. It doesn't rescue the argument, it broadens it.

At this point the disagreement is foundational. What's being advocated is conditional rights, group-based suspicion, and suspended liberties in advance of wrongdoing.

That is an authoritarian security model. It can be argued for. But it should be named honestly.

It is not liberal democracy.

When the bungling defence minister who prefers be called Deputy PM - which he is of course, but it's not as important as defence minister - was asked if there should be greater emphasis on hate speaking by Muslim clerics, he didn't give the obvious answer - YES; he said, “ er ah um, ah er ah ahem”, then eventually, “We will go through all of this”.

How could we possibly expect an idiot like that to do anything at all, let alone protect Jewish Australians, or the rest of us in an emergency! The clown is frightened to upset Islamists.

His mad mate Albanese yabbers about not letting us be divided, whe he is doing more dividing than anyone, with multiculturalism, aboriginal exceptionalism, and three different flags.

“The Paradox (of tolerance) states that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance”.

Some of the things the Albanese government has tolerated:

. Hundreds gather at Sydney Opera House to chant ‘Gas the Jews!’
. Multiple bomb threats are made to several synagogues across Australia.
. Australia’s largest Jewish school is graffitied with hateful slogans
. Antisemitic graffiti is sprayed on a Jewish bakery in Sydney.
. A kosher restaurant is torched in an arson attack.
. Cars are set on fire and buildings vandalised in Sydney’s Jewish neighbourhood.
. The Adass Israel Synagogue is torched in Melbourne during an arson attack.
. A man allegedly threatens worshippers at Chabad North Shore Synagogue in . Allawah Synagogue in Sydney vandalised with . Attempted arson and vandalism of . . Newtown Synagogue vandalised in Sydney.
. A Jewish childcare centre in Sydney is set on fire and vandalised.
. Two Sydney nurses allegedly declare they would harm Jewish patients.
. Activists march across Sydney Harbour Bridge, some of them waving Ayatollah placards.
. A large pro-Palestine rally takes place on Bondi Beach
. Shabbat dinner at East Melbourne Synagogue is targeted in.

Result : Bondi Beach terrorist attack on Jews.

ttbn,

Thanks for showing us what a textbook misuse of Popper's paradox looks like when combined with a post hoc fallacy.

Popper's point was not that a liberal society must suppress any intolerant expression, nor that the existence of intolerance automatically explains subsequent violence. His argument was narrower: that a society may justifiably defend itself when intolerance becomes organised, violent, and actively seeks to destroy tolerance itself, and when persuasion and law enforcement are no longer sufficient.

That distinction is being collapsed in your list.

Several of the items you cite are serious criminal acts: arson, bomb threats, vandalism, threats against worshippers, threats by medical staff. Those are not examples of "tolerance". They are crimes, and they should be investigated and prosecuted accordingly. Failure to prevent or solve crimes is not the same thing as tolerating them.

Other items on your list are lawful political expression or assembly, however offensive or misguided one may find them. Marches, rallies, placards, and protests do not become criminal by association with later violence. Liberal democracy does not treat political speech as causative guilt.

Conflating these two categories is the core error in your most recent attempt to pin this on a person (or people) you dislike.

Finally, your conclusion:

"Result: Bondi Beach terrorist attack on Jews"

does not follow. It's a post hoc assertion, not an argument.

Where are the organisational links? The incitement pathways? Or coordination between those events and the attackers? Listing prior incidents and placing "Result" at the end is narrative construction, not evidence. You could do it with just about any list of random events slapped together.

Nothing in Popper's paradox licenses collective blame, suppression of lawful dissent, or the abandonment of due process. In fact, Popper explicitly warned against precisely that slide.

If the concern is antisemitic violence, the correct response is targeted law enforcement, intelligence work, and protection of threatened communities, not retrofitting a chain of guilt across unrelated acts and lawful speech.

Getting this distinction wrong doesn't defend tolerance. It undermines it.