"The Terrorism Files"
850 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 26 27 28 29 30 … 34 Newer→ Last
-
Jumping in on Merc & Sofies old school daze line.
Bumped into an old school mate last night - our School apparently has a tradition of "panty raids".
It's wasn't around in our day. Marlborough Girls' Principle of the time Mr Sophoclaous kept his girls on a tight leash back then & we were fearful of a Greek blood feud.
A couple of Rebels joined the Boys' trip to Wellington to see Othello - the nude bum of Desdemona would be too much for us to get up to no good apprently.
A TV Strip Doco that same year had MBC Basket Ball team taking a staring role at Licks.
-
Te hut o mate ist error.
shep, are you ok?
-
The tourist roar meet.
-
Te hori's torture team
-
blindjackdog
Yeah - why do you ask?
-
No reason, no reason. Just, you know, people start talking casually about panty raids and, well, next thing you know they're constructing this whole underground undergarment mythology, and who knows where that could lead.... especially when you throw in lust that crosses racial boundaries, bare arses, savage rage, fluttering handkerchiefs - that whole fetishistic thing....
-
especially when you throw in lust that crosses racial boundaries
I didn't pick that - whole theme of Othello wasn't it.
It was really just off topic ramblings - sorry.
-
merc,
WMD's...Wehi Is Middle-class Destruction.
Sophie, you're Dad looked fine, striding along. -
Treat ma trouser thio .
I win!!! Yay something with RB.!! Yay .
Wonders what a brain haemorrhage can do. -
Whole theme of Othello is how easily seemingly sane people can be misled if you know how to manipulate the signs that they believe in.
Looks like we've come full circle after all....
-
So. Back to the point.
As I said at the start of the original discussion.Had the warrants been issued after the amendment to the TSA was passed would the result have been any different, if so how?
also, the police must have known about the amendment debate so the timing is of the essence. Is it not?.
I have niggling doubts/fears about the motivation behind this whole thing and still can't figure who sparked the decision to go ahead with the raids.For those of you that considered my "conspiracy hypotheses" Here is the final solution.
The powers that be considered that the law as it stood gave no protection to the status quo. In fact, in it's current form, there was no protection unless an outside agency had defined the "offenders" as a terrorist organisation. So. therefore we had no protection against the tangatawhenua (unless they/we were considered as an international threat to America). Nuff said.
So. As I said earlier "there must be a reason why this happened at the same time as the parliamentary discussions on the TSA".
Well I think that the "Powers that be" (and I mean in the enforcement part of the tripartite) decided that, as it stands, the act would not "protect" us against the enemy that the police consider to be the real enemy. ie Maori. or for that matter anyone that would stand against the international agreements that we have in regards to trade, ie anti GE anti animal mistreatment anat.
I still stand by my initial observation that this was no coincidence.
Bugger the lawyers marching on Queen St in defence of their right to get the government they want to pay for. The real freedom here is to be able to say " I want to destroy GE crops" or whatever, without fear of being locked up for it under some ill thought out law. -
Well goodness, looks like I got here just in the nick of time (you n your panty raids have got me seeing double entendre everywhere - STOP IT!).
Glad to see you maintaining the standard, Steve (against all odds).
Where are the Nay sayers? Don't tell me Finn and Johnno have lives?
"I think we're alone now, doesn't seem to be anyone around..."
I think you're right Steve - that's what I was driving at with my haranguing yesterday. I'm sure the police see any active dissent as noteworthy, but I think it is Maori they see as really (potentially) dangerous. Yes, I think it is that glorious combination of paranoia and racism. Might sound funny written down but it is really really sad. I keep having those little existential flashes of recognition (ie - this is really happening) and disbelief (surely not - I thought we were better than this). Is this also a form of cognitive dissonance?
-
I guess a lot of the disbelief comes from how NZ still seems like a village - e.g. soph and merc. I mean we do all seem to know each other (okay, 2 steps, but that's not many, no sirree) so how the hell can we come to distrust and/or hate so easily?
Today had its weird moment - there I was helping the new girlfriend move into my sister's daughter's father's house, when new girlfriend says to the guy she's got putting TV brackets in the wall for her:
"Hey I was wondering if you could take my son shooting with you one day? It's on his 'things to have done if I don't make it' list." (Boy has leukemia).
Mate with large drill says, "Sure, we're going to somethingorother forest next weekend to shoot a few rounds - happy to teach him."
Sez I,"Just make sure you don't say anything political."
"Oh - ha - yeah," say they.Funny thing is that I already knew the girlfriend is part Tuhoe. What she told me afterwards was that Bloke is SAS - head of drug enforcement.
It truly is a small small country (world).
-
I think I'm alone now.
Boo hoo - I guess yr all off making tea before 24. Same here - see ya.
-
Well, yeah, Sara, you are alone sorry because I'm not sticking around.
But if you didn't see it and want to look, James George's (or George James's - can't remember) post in the first long discussion on this topic was quite worth reading re the conspiracy angle.
Sorry, can't be arsed trying to find it for you. It was a Hard News article called Te Qaeda and the post in question was around page, oh, I think somewhere between 7 and 12. Big long ramble, and he goes off topic sometimes, but it was pretty good. I think.
-
Is that ex-SAS & now a cop who heads drug enforcement or are we in blurred lines?
-
Lordy I don't know... but sister's daughter's father's home grown has disappeared from view.
-
The nearest I can get to putting it in a sentence is this:
Common identity - which we all, really, long for in some shape or form - is so fragile in this country that we react with a visceral, almost instinctual violence against agencies that lay claim to local identities that defy or belie or challenge the current myths.
That does seem like paranoia. Is it also racism? I don't think so; I think the racism, or selfism, thank you, comes later, finds expression, when the paranoia seeks to rationalise itself, moves to justify its anger.
So it's not really racism as such, because even as we speak it we don't actually believe it: but it sneaks out because it's the only way we can sustain our underlying belief that whatever we're feeling must be right. Selfism.
As I tried to suggest on another thread, on another day: the kind of racism we're talking about (subtle, institutional, consensual - not the hoods and lynchings, inveterate hatred kind - though we sure have that in NZ too) is not an experience of being racist; it's an experience of being on racism's receiving end (I think I was suggesting that maybe pakeha aren't the best judges of the existence, or not, of this). For the perpetrator it's something altogether different: merely the lonely manifestation of selfism's necessary identity crisis. Hence all the silly semantic disagreements.
-
we react with a visceral, almost instinctual violence
Or with a head-in-the-sand acceptance of / blindness to such violence.
-
the act would not "protect" us against the enemy that the police consider to be the real enemy. ie Maori. or for that matter anyone that would stand against the international agreements that we have in regards to trade
I don't really think the coppers are worried about international trade agreements. I'm sure they'd argue they've got enough on their plates as it is.
The real freedom here is to be able to say "I want to destroy GE crops" or whatever, without fear of being locked up for it under some ill thought out law.
So are you saying that if someone says "I want to destroy GE crops" or whatever, but doesn't actually mean it ie they're mouthing off, then they shouldn't be arrested? Or do you mean that if someone says "I want to destroy GE crops" or whatever, and means it (and starts planning to turn those words into action), that they shouldn't be arrested?
And if you think they shouldn't be arrested I presume you'd agree they should be arrested when they actually destroy GE Crops. Or do you think that it is an ethical crime and they should maybe be arrested, held in the cells for a day, and then released without charge? Or should we instead shave the heads of the farmers growing the crops and march them through town with signs around their necks reading "Monsanto Collaborators"?Is that ex-SAS & now a cop who heads drug enforcement or are we in blurred lines?
Or just a bullshit artist who can't get his story straight?
I think I'm alone now.
Sorry, I was watching The L Word.
-
"not the hoods and lynchings, inveterate hatred kind - though we sure have that in NZ too"
I would have thought the police in balaclavas while cutting off a community at gun point and taking photos of the innocent would be a fair proxy here.
-
"not the hoods and lynchings, inveterate hatred kind - though we sure have that in NZ too"
I would have thought the police in balaclavas while cutting off a community at gun point and taking photos of the innocent would be a fair proxy here.
Proxy: the agency, function, or power of a person authorized to act as the deputy or substitute for another.
Seriously. Eyes on the ball. This wasn't a gathering of the KKK with torches and rope.
-
So are you saying that if someone says "I want to destroy GE crops" or whatever, but doesn't actually mean it ie they're mouthing off, then they shouldn't be arrested? Or do you mean that if someone says "I want to destroy GE crops" or whatever, and means it (and starts planning to turn those words into action), that they shouldn't be arrested?
My point rather was that we do not need laws that suppress dissent. Mouth off all you want to, that is a true mark of democracy. In terms of activism I do belive that as long as it is acting/theatrical as opposed to Action/Harm then this also is a mark of democracy. What we do not need are laws that can be used to suppress dissent even if those laws were not intended for that use and the TSA is one of those laws.
-
Mouth off all you want to, that is a true mark of democracy.
Yup, I can agree with that.
I do believe that as long as it is acting/theatrical as opposed to Action/Harm then this also is a mark of democracy
Yup, I can agree with that too. And this also gets Mark Ellis off too (despite what that letter writer in this morning's Herald thought)
-
My point rather was that we do not need laws that suppress dissent. Mouth off all you want to, that is a true mark of democracy. In terms of activism I do belive that as long as it is acting/theatrical as opposed to Action/Harm then this also is a mark of democracy.
I agree with all that. For me the questions remain:
1. Were people actually heading down a path of doing harm.
2. And/or were police reasonable in their belief that someone was heading down a path of doing harm.I still don't have answers to those questions to my satisfaction, though I'm hopeful that we do.
The questions about suppressing dissent are valid. They'd be helped along if the TSA was scrapped, but I suspect the government would say that international treaties and the policies of other countries might be a real problem.
And this also gets Mark Ellis off too (despite what that letter writer in this morning's Herald thought)
As I understand it he and a bunch of mates wandered up to the top of the island and set off smoke flares for his own commercial gain. I presume neither he, nor his mates, have any ability in controlled pyrotechnics and fire safety.
DOC rightly points out that he could have set Rangitoto on fire. The fact that he didn't is, I presume, more luck than good management.
The fact that he didn't cause harm, beyond wasting emergency services time, isn't a reason to do something. The difference between 'nothing happening', and 'harm happening to Rangitoto by fire' is probably a combination of wind and chance.
And he's still an idiot.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.