Hmmm...

Well, its in your job description to find things fishy.

If there is any flame, it should be the flame of facts that burns away incorrect conclusions. Which, may be hard, as <as per usual> we have so little real, tangible information. To go full Chris Paul on this, we can acknowledge that the only info we are getting is already filtered though: the media, the 'authorities', second hand testimony, etc.

I must admit, I approach these things from the position of somewhat of a skeptic. I am happy to entertain many theories and ideas than the non-conspiracy theorists do, but i am also wary of the tremendous pull of the emotional conspiratorial mindset, which can sometimes see a bogeyman behind every tree. So, I think I tend to defer to the more benign explanations than I do to others, simply because sometimes I feel like there are too many of us on that side of the boat, and I do NOT want it to tip over!

Let me counter argue then, and see where it gets us.

1. The guy (Ahmed el Ahmed) gets the gun off him and doesn't shoot him. "he points the gun to make sure the shooter goes back to where he came from". Subjective. The way he is pointing the gun looks to me like what one would very naturally do in a defensive posture. "If you come at me, I will fire".

2. He is clearly in the field of fire from the other shooter. Yes, and indeed, he ends up getting shot. Very possibly, he was NOT aware of the other gunman. Or he might have been. We cannot know from the footage, I think.

3. I cannot find much about the guy who throws the bottle, except this:

https://www.facebook.com/couriermail/posts/the-second-hero-seen-throwing-items-at-one-of-the-bondi-gunmen-as-ahmed-al-ahmed/1305457854948317/

Do you have an extended clip?

Does it show him going back and getting the gun and shooting?

The gunman on the bridge looks a lot like the son, which would mean the one that got tackled was the father. In the channel 7 footage, the son on the bridge is seen ducking from gunfire, but it doesn't show who is firing.

This comment on reddit links to a 2-minute video. However, the video post appears to have been scrubbed. (deleted)

I cannot comment on the narrative you state here because I have not seen that footage.

4. Apparently both fruit sellers. Gunman Father Sajid Akram is reported as arriving in Aus from Pakistan, but Philippines authorities have confirmed that he visited there on an Indian passport.

Ahmed is reported to have come Syria "fled from Syria". Reported to be a Maronite Christian. (pop in Syria approx 50-64k)

According to Grok, early reports described him as a fruit sho owner in Sutherland Shire (south of Sydney) , but more recent confirmed reports say he owned and operated Cigara, a tobacco and novelty shop.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15384185/Bondi-Beach-attack-hero-hospital-fundraiser.html

And, reportedly a muslim!

So, who knows what's going on?

Depending on one's angle, multiple explanations are possible, I think.

Possibly, the Duo (Akrams) were part of an Islamic terrorist cell, and this even was planed as actual terrorism. (Their trip to Philippines seems quite suspicious)

"Terrorism" has been bandied about excessively since the days of 9/11, but originally, what it is is simply acts of politically inspired violence on an innocent population in order to strike fear, terror, trauma on the wider community. Re; the terror campaigns of bombings by the IRA in the last century.

In this sense, actual terrorism is a form of psyop, suing actual real violence to manipulate the public psychology.

The problem I have with the more generic psyop theory theory (i.e. that somehow this is a psyop that is NOT what it appears to be) is that its pretty darn speculative. Like many of these, it seems to hinge so much on assumptions and prejudices of the interpreter than on factual evidence.

Which is understandable. JFK was clearly a psyop job (the reality was cloaked and hidden and covered to appear as something it was not), so was 9/11. But, we have plenty of evidence for that. Plenty.

At the moment, with Bondi, all we have is information coming via media organizations and authorities, and who knows what, if any of it, is real or true.

Example. Hero = fruit store owner, now Tobacconist convenience store operator. Hero = Maronite Christian, now Muslim.

Confusion in information being fed to media is the least of worries. How muchof the info is real, we cannot actually know. We have to 'trust' what we are being told.

On the surface, this appears to be an orchestrated terrorist attack by an Islamic radicalized terror cell, directed by ? ISIS? It could possibly be simply the execution of the orders that they get (non specific) about how they should accomplish their orders from higher ups.

Could something else be happening? False flag operation? What if controllers who want to push through their agenda in Australia (Digital ID, mass surveillance, censorship laws) sent instructions down through an ISIS like organization to execute this sort of attack on a Jewish gathering in the country. The ISIS-type group would not know WHO is giving them the orders (except the guys at the very top) - from their viewpoint, they are simply executing their terrorist activities in order to advance the objectives of their group. Useful puppets.

But if the controllers of Australia orchestrated this to provide a means for other puppets, like Albanese, the political parties, etc, to execute THEIR missions (Digital ID, surveillance, control, etc), Then these puppets (aust govt puppets) don't need to know, either. Compartmentalized. ISIS and Aus govt party are separated, and 'opponents' on the battlefield, but are being orchestrated by the same controllers.

Plausible? Sure. Provable? Darn hard. Difficult to get any evidence supporting this. Apart from the more obvious potentials.

Cops in on it?

I find that hard to corroborate. Its simply NOT necessary. And having cops do <illegitimate thing x> plus having a guy nearby to make sure the gunmen stick to plan plus it all being coordinated = too many possibilities of leaks, failure, screwups. Simply not necessary IF the end objective is to empower the Aus govt to do stuff by executing a really horrific terrorist attack by evil ISIS.

Simple is best, unless and until more stronger evidence comes to light. Imo. The real smoke and mirrors is not the operation here. It is the absolute fraud constantly perpetrated by the politicians who pretend they are doing one thing when in fact they are executing an agenda that is the opposite. Who did the attack and how not so relevant, I think.