About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

October 30, 2014 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 30 October 2014

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment313

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (313)

Login to comment or vote

Reid

No I think it’s just common sense Nostra.

You can’t let someone go and fight for thugs. There’s nothing sinister in it.

And these pricks are watched 24/7/365 so all their associates are known.

The dangerous ones are those who don’t advertise their presence.

And that often means the financiers. Because they have the contacts and the means to buy anything they want to happen.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 30, 2014 9:23pm
Nostradamus

Reid:

I’ve found the details – see this link.

Extract:

At a summit presided over by United States President Barack Obama, opened by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and addressed by scores of national leaders, the Security Council this afternoon called on all States to cooperate urgently on preventing the international flow of terrorist fighters to and from conflict zones.

Through resolution 2178 (2014), adopted unanimously during a meeting that heard from over 50 speakers, the Council condemned violent extremism and decided that Member States shall, consistent with international law, prevent the “recruiting, organizing, transporting or equipping of individuals who travel to a State other than their States of residence or nationality for the purpose of the perpetration, planning of, or participation in terrorist acts”.

Expressing concern over the establishment of international terrorist networks, the Council underscored the “particular and urgent need” to prevent the travel and support for foreign terrorist fighters associated with the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Al-Nusra Front (ANL) and other affiliates or splinter groups of Al-Qaida.

In that context, the Council, through the resolution, decided that all States shall ensure that their legal systems provide for the prosecution, as serious criminal offences, of travel for terrorism or related training, as well as the financing or facilitation of such activities.

So, if you accept that the state should intervene to prevent “outbound adventure jihad”, then what do we make of the Ottawa incident? That guy was under surveillance, as I understand it, but he still managed to cause mayhem.
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 30, 2014 9:25pm
Reid

Yeah but the issue is you get the what is a terrorist organisation coming into play and lots of people argue that Syria has been attacked and so has Ukraine, but not by Assad and Russia but by outsiders, however the UN begs to differ.

e.g.

what do we make of the Ottawa incident?

When I saw the PM speaking at the soldier’s funeral, I thought: false flag.

I don’t really know, but it’s not terrorism as we know it, is it.

20 years ago, it wouldn’t have been “tewwowist does etc” it would have “lone nut does etc” wouldn’t it.

So what’s changed?

Would the Aramoana massacre if it happened tomorrow be described not just here but worldwide as a terrorist incident? You know it would.

Beware the meme.
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
October 30, 2014 9:28pm
Nostradamus

Reid:

When I saw the PM at the soldier’s funeral, I thought: false flag.

Could you elaborate further?

I assume you agree with Thomas Mulcair:

New Democrat Leader Thomas Mulcair said he would not label killing of a solider at the National War Memorial and the attack on Parliament Hill by gunman Michael Zehaf-Bibeau as a terrorist act.

“I don’t think that we have enough evidence to use that word,” Mulcair told reporters Wednesday after emerging from the NDP caucus meeting held in the same room where MPs had cowered below tables while hearing gunfire outside a week earlier.

Mulcair said he based his opinion on reports that Zehaf-Bibeau had been struggling with mental illness, for which he had tried to seek help.

“If that turns out to be the case, I think we are not in the presence of a terrorist act in the sense that we would understand it and I think we have to be very careful with the use of the word terrorism, make sure that’s actually what we are dealing with,” Mulcair said.

The contrary view (as noted in the same article):

On Sunday, RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson said Zehaf-Bibeau had recorded a video of himself just before carrying out his attack on Cpl. Nathan Cirillo and Parliament Hill, which he said was “persuasive evidence” he had been “driven by ideological and political motives”.

I think a reasonable definition of terrorism has to be based on motive – particularly ideological and political motive – rather than the number of individuals involved.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 30, 2014 9:36pm
Reid

Could you elaborate further?

Single casualty, but will cause Patriot Act-style reforms in Canada. You wait. PM would not get speaking rights at my son’s funeral and it would not be a media circus. I recognise most people aren’t like me, but some are, and this has lots of cute aspects, up to and including media reports he was praying on a towel at his hostel beforehand. They call it sheep dipping: e.g. what happened to Lee Oswald got when he handed out commie leaflets on the Washington intersection where the US intel agencies had all their HQs.

To appreciate the possibility of a false flag you need first to recognise it’s possible for a govt to do that to one or more usually many of its own citizens, and most people fail to make even that first hurdle, and there are many after that before you can say for sure. Often it’s an instinct thing which, bizarrely, is precisely what prevents people from ever making that first hurdle.
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
October 30, 2014 9:53pm
SPC

holysheet, DG and others – sorry but you are both wrong.

The reason why the government has not chosen to first ask whether the flag should be changed – is that this could result in a perverse outcome.

There may well be a majority for a flag change. Then the second referendum would be over which was the preferred new flag. However the new flag we got through that process may not have been preferred over the existing flag (as those who want a flag change do not agree on what the new flag would be). Thus a perverse outcome.

By the process they have chosen it is less likely there would be a new flag – as there could only be a new flag is more people preferred the new flag to the existing flag.

I realise it is an irony because those who want to keep the flag would rather there be no debate on this, but those who want to keep the flag are best served by the process occurring and the process chosen. A referendum outcome of no change prevents a revisiting of the issue for some time.

The government’s motives are to

1. appease the urban liberals (who want change) and the conservatives in the party who do not at the same time
2. and by offering the people a say they follow a course advocated by the Conservative Party (future coalition options).
3. it’s supposed to signal that a third term government is open to change and does not need to be replaced for change to occur.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 30, 2014 10:17pm
EAD

Reid,

you will enjoy this article:

https://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014/10/29/the-most-dangerous-religion-americanism.html
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 30, 2014 10:19pm
SPC

I’ll call this now, a majority will vote to change the flag. But the flag change proposed will fail to get 50% support, and so we remain with the status quo.

Key gets the distraction he wants, a bit like the white noise during the 2014 election campaign to distract voters from considering alternatives to the direction of government.

In the end, removing the Union Jack from the corner of the flag will be connected to a break with the Crown of the UK – the change will be in effect an independence move – I would not say republican move (we do not need a president of the New Zealand state just have a Governor General that acts on behalf of the Crown of New Zealand, a Crown that is the sum of the peoples sovereignty).

By the time we move, the next generation will be used to a Maori flag (black, white and red), the silver fern on black at sporting events and the kiwi as a national symbol and nickname. These all exist now, while we have the current flag. They might all well continue when we have a new one.

The Canadian flag works because the maple leaf is in balance with the white and red colours. In this it is similar to the Union Jack, and also close but not too close to the (all too) common tricolour flags.

Both stars and stripes are effective on flags. One suspects the Australian republicans will promote the Southern Cross stars being gold on a green background. Or white stars on gold and green. We have more options, thus our problem will be getting consensus.

Options not considered include black and white stripes (this overcomes objections to a black flag or to a white flag) . Such is consistent with international flags. No one uses our black and white colours (we get them by virtue of being in the antipodes to the UK Crown, white stars of the southern cross in the night sky down under).

back and white stripes with a silver fern
black and white stripes with Southern Cross across the flag
black and white stripes with the Southern Cross in place of the Union Jack (white stars on black)
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 30, 2014 10:24pm
Nookin

Read on Herald Online

“Dr Norman said that if Mr Key wanted to avoid a 10-hour search of his home, “then maybe Mr Key should fess up and tell us who he thinks Rawshark is”.

Norman has become obsessed beyond reason. This sort of inane fixation on childish, prattish point scoring simply evidences his unsuitability for government. I doubt whether he will ever get to read this but in case his script-writer is lurking or anyone gets to talk to him perhaps they could point out:
1. Key only thinks he knows. He doesn’t say that he does know.
2. Hager says that he does know rawshark and he is a friend.
3. Key does not profess to have had any communication with Rawshark.
4. Hager sees that he has had extensive communication with Rawshark.
5. Key has received no material from Rawshark.
6. Hager received truckloads of stolen material from Rawshark and wrote a book with it.
7. The police would gain nothing in the shape of admissible evidence from Key and any search would be seen as an abuse of process.
8. The police had reason to believe that they could secure admissible evidence by searching Hager’s house. The only people who see this as an abuse are those who do not like Key.

Norman is to Key what Dad is to Bruv.
8 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 30, 2014 10:30pm
ngatimozart

Yes I just read that too Nookin. All Key has is hear say evidence at best which wouldn’t’ be admissible in court. Methinks Norman needs a lobotomy – it would certainly improve his intellectual capacity.
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 30, 2014 11:28pm
flipper

Nookin……

Excellent 🙂
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 31, 2014 7:22am
flipper

While the Magillicuddy Mad Turei warbles on about poverty, I noticed this morning, this excellent post on Stuff:

**** “Beadle17 hours ago
Well Moderator, if you cannot accept that Mr Small [Vernon Small, well known, ex UK, Labour biased, Dominion Post “reporter”] and Ms Morris-Travers [UNICEF wally in NZ] are away with the fairies, and should visit West Africa to discover real poverty, try this analysis which I suggest, explains the idiocy of their measure as applied in New Zealand and in Britain:

“Poverty” is defined [by some] as below 60% of the **median** income.
The median income means the income of the person in the middle. It is not the same as the average.
In theory, it is possible to have everyone above 60% of median, but that is a hard thing to achieve in the real world.
For example, if you have a mini-country where 4 people earn $100k and 5 people earn $50k, then the median income is $50k and 60% of that is 30k. Here, nobody is below $30k so nobody is in “poverty”.
However if one of those people on $50k was to get an education and increase their income to $90k, then the median would increase to $90k and the poverty level would increase to $54k. All those people on $50k are now “in poverty”.
So “poverty” is really a measure of upward mobility – people increasing their incomes and making something of themselves……”

So, as is often the case, opinion pieces by Mr Small are gratuitous.

The issue was debated, and judged in the General Election – not [perceived by the majority as] a major problem in N Z.
John Key has since promised to work on solutions to a perceived “poverty line”, has already put his officials at DPMC to work on it, but included an elephant sized caveat – finding a definition on which everyone can agree.

So let us first agree on what should be excluded. I will start with Sky, “family holidays”, and overseas travel. But let’s not go near tobacco, alcoholic beverages, and gaming – all parental failings.

That is just a start. But if Mr Small confined his scribbling to such matters, he would be making a worthwhile contribution to the debate. “
*****
As nice a summary as could be imagined.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 31, 2014 7:52am
Tauhei Notts

Johnboy at 8.40.
Can we all come to your Ruby Wedding celebrations next year?
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 31, 2014 8:03am

More comments:

‹
1
2
3
4

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« White House Correspondents Criticise Transparency of Obama Administration

Harvard University Poll of US Millennial Voters »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
Bob Ekelund Remembered
Utopia
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
This Weeks Email To Prime Minister Luxon.
No Minister
Daily review 22/11/2024
The Standard
More young offenders will get boot camp, bus drivers will get some protection – and there’s relief for southern farmers
Point of Order
Sowell says
Hompaddock
New Zealand government urged to back ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders without equivocation
The Daily Blog
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d