Posts by Kracklite
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
AS, you are simply repeating yourself. "It's not, it's not..."
Stating that because you haven't seen an explicit repudiation of violence that it's scary that activists must therefore implicitly support terrorism, that you don't give a damn about their point of view or experience and yet you still view them as insincere and make other insinuations. You have said quite clearly that you know that they're gutless and are only "playing". You state these as certainties, yet you have no way of knowing who they are or why they act as you have perceived them to act and you say that you have no interest in considering what they may be thinking.
And that's honesty?
I do not "arrogantly" assume that only the young have ideals.
Yes, I am angry, because people I know are being smeared through insinuations and leaks and they do not have the pulpit of the press to fight back.
Do I think that the world is against me? No. That's hyperbole, or "making shit up".
-
It's not of course possible that there's one or two police officers who are for peace, or green themselves, who might find the unjustified linking together of the 'pacifists and environmentalists' with the 'really dangerous people', y'know, immoral and illegal.
Funnily enough, I know/knew an ex-cop and she probably would be of the sort who'd have thought so. She left the force because lesbians weren't made welcome there and went on to do a Masters on why women don't last that long in the force. There's a collective culture that tends to, as Meurant wrote, enforce an understanding that it's "play along or shut up/get out."
There's been some interesting work lately on the dynamics of group psychology. Ironically, some of it's been related to finding out what makes a terrorist, but it also applies in a more positive way to sports teams, musicians and so on.
-
OK, but it's "implicit" and that's enough, isn't it? You're happy with implications. It's suggested, so don't hide behind pedantry. Your quote marks around activists as they were only pretending, the use of the word "play" and saying that they don't own their own shit all serve to reinforce the impression of triviality and insincerity in their motivations.
Sure, you did not say "middle class kids", but you clearly constructed your description to convey a definite impression. I call that a suggestion.
It is not my impression of people I have known closely for years that they are shallow, trivial or insincere.
-
The most frightening part of all of this is that I haven't seen a statement from any of the various causes named
Maybe you haven't seen anything yourself, but it is simply untrue that these people haven't disociated themselves from violence. I walk past 128 Abel Smith St every day, the door's always open and it's always been plastered with posters stating quite clearly what the various groups using the house are for and against. Now of course it's on a busy intersection and they've got a big banner with smiley faces to subvert the consciousness and undermine the work of the commuters.
You see, they don't have the cash for a large PR firm.
And what I've heard, there is a great deal of disagreement among the various groups, with the arguments boiling down into a spectrum between two camps: (a) everyone's been accused of terrorism and charged collectively with firearms offences and therefore for legal reasons, they should all keep quiet and (b) a clear distinction should be publicly made (which would no doubt be buried on page 20). In the case of the latter, that's been done to some degree already.
And:
Glibly suggesting that they're middle class kids playing games with no consequences betrays a great deal of wilful ignorance.
I suggested no such thing. Stop making shit up to suit your story.
Ahem:
Sure it is nice to play protester and blame everyone else for the woes of the world, but when are some groups going to start owning their own shit
-
Leaping to the defence of people is fine, implicitly supporting the breaking of some fairly serious laws through inaction, isn't.
Look, I'm also against paedophilia, holocaust denial, anti-semitism, intellectual property theft and offensive body odour. It's a thoroughly disingenuous argument to claim that because someone has not explicitly spoken out against something, it must be assumed that they're "implicitly" for it.
Do they have to parade around in T-shirts reading "Peace Action... meaning that we're for peace... as in not violence... definitely not terrorism...really"?
Surely we've thrashed that dead horse into mince by now?
I don't particularly like police for a raft of reasons, but I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who doesn't have the guts to front up and say that while the police handled things badly, the acts that people are accused of have to be condemned out of hand.
Gutless? A lot of them have been punched in the guts by police. A lot have been to the police in the past with rape complaints and guess where that got them. As I wrote earlier, a lot of these people have had serious issues with the police that go way beyond "not liking" them related to how fairly they have been treated in the past, how fairly they're likely to be treated and how anything they say could be used against them and their friends in the future.
Glibly suggesting that they're middle class kids playing games with no consequences betrays a great deal of wilful ignorance. As you said, you just don't care about their POV.
No reasonable, sane person outside of these causes is going to support people or organisations that look to be linked to assassination attempts, bombing campaigns or generally trying to undermine all that they have worked for.
And I'm sure that that is just what some in the police force are counting on by roping in the pacifists and environmentalists with the really dangerous people.
Oh, and of course I condemn terrorism, just in case. (Again)
-
Right on cue ...
and:
Again from Pita Sharples today, on the Dom Post:
Could have been worse, could have been Tariana Turia.
Or maybe I wrote too soon...
-
I'm not sure which supposed screw up you are talking about, sorry.
The failure to get terrorism charges allowed by the SG when they thought that they would, the ruling that evidence compiled over a year is inadmissable, that millions of dollars has been wasted. That's what I mean by a screw up, along with a hefty dollop of public humiliation.
I would have thought that...
Someone nearing retirement, someone so fucked off that they just didn't care, someone who thinks that they've covered their tracks, someone who thought/thinks that their mates will cover for them as Dewar did. Who knows?
I don't know about you but I haven't seen too many want ads seeking disgraced former policemen lately.
Rather below the level of Oscar Wilde, that one. Leaving the force is not the end of everything. A lot of ex cops find jobs in security and as private detectives. Wayne Idour comes to mind.
Again, i'm making shit up
Yep.
this could also be true.
Maybe, but it's not all hypotheses are of equal value simply because they're hypotheses. There is the problem of some activist getting their hands on the exact documents and handing them to TV3 and the Dompost when it is extremely unlikely that they could somehow break into the police or SG's offices versus the far more likely scenario of someone already inside doing the deed.
-
There has been an order of magnitude more hysteria from supporters of those arrested than from the general public.
I wonder if what we have here is a "perfect storm" where grievances over a number of issues are focussed on one case. The anger/hysteria is multiplied by each factor: race, land, raids, accusations of terrorism, fears of state power, the Foreshore legislation, trustworthiness or otherwise of the police and so on.
Look at the scrutiny of the police and the SIS over Zaoui, Tasers, Rickards and so on, combine that with a history of antagonism between police and activists...
None of these issues have had neat "closure" so it becomes a point of articulation for general anger. (What the hell is "closure" anyway? Who the hell believes that history has distinct chapters?)
One might compare it with the hysteria over the antismacking legislation or Tamaki's Blackshirts marching and shouting "enough is enough". I don't agree with those nutbars, but I understand that there is a definite cultural group that sees itself and its values as being under sustained attack when others saw minor points and issues blown out of all proportion or deliberately misrepresented. There's some point, some visible cause and reaction in which the reaction can be seen as being partly symptomatic, and if the grievances have a clear and deep historical basis, well...
-
Don't overestimate them.
Actually, to be fair, I should say "Officer X" or suchlike - it just takes one, very likely furious that a year's work has just been ruled inadmissable and must be destroyed and the media and activists are portraying the force as fools.
-
I did wonder a bit though about why the assumption is that the Police leaked this. It seems like every man and his dog had a copy of this information, why do we automatically assume it came from the Police, when looking at it logically it would be an own-goal from their perspective if they've been found to have leaked it...
I believe that Campbell and the Dompost definitely referred specifically to hundred-odd page affadavits. There is no way that the activists would have had that in their hands to give to the media.
Word of mouth can be effective in spreading details of charges from the moment those arrested had a chance to talk to someone who wasn't a cop.
As for the unlikelihood of an own goal, haven't we just seen a perfect example of a screw up by the police? Don't overestimate them.