In typical canadian fashion, with us it was non-violent attacking, mostly verbal insults. But a few years ago I heard an interesting perspective from a US base commander after a real terrorist attack at a recruiting center. He said in short: "bring it on". He would rather have his base, his people, attacked than a school or stadium full of civilians. His view was that it was the job of soldiers to stand between terrorists and civilians even on home soil. I think I agree with his point, but only if we assume that the terrorist attack was inevitable.
Curious, what is the background of that. Basically who would be attacking them and for what reason? I can't think of as Australia as an overly aggressive military power. Does it have to do with the treatment of Aboriginal Australians somehow?
Here's one recent news item: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-42146664
Our forces have fought alongside US and other allies in nearly every major conflict, so our flag and slouch hat regalia would be well known to most on the 'other side'.
Do the rules even apply on home turf?
[1] http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/bondi-synagogue...
How does that stop terrorism? The bad guys could just say they're doing official duties.
Then shoot those people, or, less hyperbolicly, throw them in prison.
If your cops or military have to live in fear of being murdered for merely wearing their clothes, then your/their country has incredibly serious problems and needs to start treating them directly instead of hiding the consequences.
I have zero frame of reference to understand that kind of environment. I literally can't imagine going out to the store and thinking, "Well, I better not wear that shirt, or I'll be murdered."
It's not like soldiers carry guns around everywhere they go (unlike the police).