"The Terrorism Files"
850 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 30 31 32 33 34 Newer→ Last
-
You mean the kind of bullshit escalation that reads "Cavity search" when "intimate body search" is printed, and translates "alleged actions" into fact when they're based on individual statements while translating them into fiction when they're based on 150+ pages of extremely detailed evidence and argument?
Which is what I was thinking. Jesus Christ, Sara. Try and examine what you're writing.
You moved on from using the phrase without a shred of evidence to putting "cavity search" in quotes as if it appeared in some claim from an actual person. This is hysteria.
-
No really, I've been there and made one, but is there something I am not doing AT gravatar (or here) that means its not coming up.
I think that you have to log off first and then log on again.
-
No, I will NOT give her name, nor will I demand a public pledge of loyalty to the state from her because her associates are accused of terroism. Really, what the hell are people thinking if they demand loyalty pledges?
Perhaps you could ask Asher that.
That seems much more like what you're objecting to than the examples you're citing, no?
-
Oh you're just mean.
But I wouldn't mind the sumo armour up there
-
The events that the 12 year old recounted 1st hand are completely unacceptable absolutely regardless of anything Tuhoe Lambert did or didn't do. The only question is, did they happen?
You make her accounts sound like the untarnished voice of truth, when they are merely one representation of the events. I would like to hear others before passing judgement.
The real politic of the situation, given the extreme imbalance of institutional, legal, financial and social power between the Police and the girl (and her family), is that her ability to present evidence, bring a case and get justice is severely constrained. This is not a level playing field.
Does this explain why the family chose to take their grievances to the court of public opinion - a court where they are free to say whatever they want, and where the police are constrained from responding? Where an uncritical media will accept their comments at face value, even when one organisation involved already held a copy of the affidavit that called into serious doubt anything that Tuhoe Lambert said? You can make a nice game out of comparing the comments made by Lambert, and to a lesser extent, his son, with actions observed in the bush. His credibility, and his son's, is very dubious.
-
Everyone has the right to remain silent. That's a valuable part of our legal system.
It's the people who have made actively disingenuous statements that piss me off. And there have been a few.
-
No other Lambert's behaviour has anything to do with what may or may not have happened to the girl. Listening to the girl herself (on nine to noon - not personally), and in the context of the myriad of complaints from these raid, I am inclined to believe her, knowing, of course, that it is unlikely that any of us will ever really know the truth.
IF these event occurred, are you prepared to condemn them?
BTW Russell "cavity search" is an actual quote from a real person (as explained above). But I put it in quotes because it is a prissy euphemism for something that, to me, amounts to rape. From Freud to Lacan, the psychologists would back me up that hysteria is closer to reality than denial - remember, the very theory of hysteria was developed out of the study of sexually abused women.
-
I am unable to condemn individuals or a group or an Iwi, based on out-of-context third hand evidence that was, in the first place, acquired, editted and leaked by a party that had just committed very real ATROCITIES against innocent civilians and needs to cover its very ugly rear end.
If you read the leaked material, you'll soon see that it didn't come from the police, but from the defence side of the equation. And most of it was second hand, not third hand.
And it's a bit of a stretch to say that anything that happened on October 15 was an atrocity. Let's keep the serious words for rape, pillage and murder shall we?
-
That seems much more like what you're objecting to than the examples you're citing, no?
And that's just a cherry picking and bloody snide. Care to make any other insinuations?
I repeat, I should not be required in a democratic society to disavow any sympathies with anyone to prove my good character and fitness.
-
third hand by the time it gets here
Re rape: see above.
Not sure if disingenuous refers to the transcripts or anyone here - If it is directed here, I assure you I am absolutely serious.
-
IF these event occurred, are you prepared to condemn them?
If you are referring to the girl's comments, the answer is no, I would not condemn them. I would, however, condemn the actions of a couple of the adults in the house. I think the AOS have established tactical procedures over many, many years and through many, many different circumstances. They do not point guns at people's heads unless the other person has a gun. They do, however, shadow suspects with their firearms. There is nothing in her description that appears different from their usual tactics I have seen. There are instances where 12 year olds have been detained at gunpoint in the past, and where even younger children have been used to hide contraband belonging to the people who are meant to be looking after them.
-
third hand by the time it gets here
Umm. And if you played Chinese Whispers with it would you claim it was 10th hand? The evidence was written down, reading it doesn't make it third hand, it's just reading.
Re rape: see above.
I'm sure being cavity searched, if that's what actually happened, is pretty unpleasant. It's not rape however, rape is sexual. I'm not sure you should go waving 'rape' around if that's not what happened.
-
And that's just a cherry picking and bloody snide. Care to make any other insinuations?
I was making an insinuation? Sorry, I must have missed it. I just saw you bringing out the "you're with us or against us" thing and went "hey, I said just that to somebody else recently..."
You're right, with-us-or-against-us arguments are bollocks. But I don't see anybody making them here, which was more my point. I just provided you with a better example of somebody doing it.
I repeat, I should not be required in a democratic society to disavow any sympathies with anyone to prove my good character and fitness.
Bollocks. Much was made of Margaret Thatcher's lack of good character and fitness in her blindness to the dubious activities her good friend August Pinochet was involved in. There are certainly circumstances where refusal to disavow somebody's actions does reflect on your own character and fitness, just as John Howard's refusal to apologise for (and thusly disavow) Australia's treatment of its aboriginal population reflected on his.
That's not to say that people can't raise genuine concerns about civil liberties surrounding the recent arrests, or that they can't remain silent and be treated with respect. But there have been a lot of people making very aggressive accusations against the police on incredibly scant evidence while crying out about "political prisoners" and the "criminalisation of dissent" because of people being arrested on the basis of quite specific evidence that they were preparing for violence. This is neither taking a balanced position or staying silent, so I think it's a pretty reasonable target for derision.
-
Yet in this instance they were looking for a person who wasn't there and guns that didn't exist, and still they had four women lined up on their knees in their pajamas with a gun pointed at each of them, being shouted at not to move and not to talk and the mother not allowed to comfort her crying 12 year old with a gun pointed at her head.
IF this is true, you would still not condemn it?
Dear Kracklite - I realise I am falling into arguing as if all this is fact, when as you keep saying and I keep reading and appreciating, it is all perception. I guess I am just trying to break through the reification of status quo perceptions. And yet, some how I feel I have fallen into an endless show of Crossfire. I think I've had enough. I'd far rather be watching one of the movies you suggested. Thank you!
-
In addition to condemning utterly, and being sickened by, child abuse, may I say that I find murder a very bad thing indeed and express my gratitude for the invitation to make that radical opinion clear.
Actively plotting murder with the genuine intention of carrying it out is also a very bad thing.
(My facetiousness should not be taken as lack of sincerity, but rather as indignation at being [I feel] called upon to make such a manifestly unnecessary statement.)
As one who has practised it, though, I am reluctant to speak too strongly against the idle suggestion of killing someone one despises. I don't defend it: I simply have no strong views on something so vague and context-dependent.
An earlier suggestion by Russell that the accused have been represented as "heroes" I find difficult to fathom: I can't recall anyone on these threads expressing such a view. Personally, I have few heroes. Among NZers, perhaps David Lange was one.
There are essentially two conversations going on here: one related to the semantics of truth and information, which through translation and decontextualised representation have been rendered virtually opaque in terms of the topic under discussion; and one examining broader patterns of social and cultural behaviours. Some posters are more interested in the latter conversation, which they see as actually relevant to their own and others' lives; periodically, though, they are dragged back into the former by the snide pedanticism of those who are (self-)satisfied with cheap sophistry.
In simple terms (and I enter here the terra mauvais of speaking for others and offer all appropriate caveats) what Sara and friends are interested in is the FACT that if the same evidence was gathered "incriminating" a bunch of builders, plumbers, shearers and bus drivers, all pakeha, all living in Riverton, the police operation would have looked significantly different. And they're asking why.
As for:
Jesus Christ, Sara. Try and examine what you're writing.
You moved on from using the phrase without a shred of evidence to putting "cavity search" in quotes as if it appeared in some claim from an actual person. This is hysteria.
Jesus Christ, Russell. You accuse anarchists of being patronising? Sara's is pretty much the least damaging of the many examples of hysteria we've seen surrounding this particular issue. And frankly, "hysteria" is a dangerously loaded word, up there for thinking women with "fascist", "nigger" and "nazi". Best left out of the old lexicon of polite debate. Besides, Sara did say:
I am not particularly concerned that you accuse me of making up the cavity search. I believe the person who told me and she believes the accuser who told her.
Sara's merely entering the much-vaunted I-know-something-you-don't-know game, which has pretty much been the trademark of this discussion from the beginning.
the ridiculous meme that this was just some racist, Bush-fellating plot to put the frighteners up some uppity nig-nogs and tree-huggers
Craig, this is an absurd simplification and misrepresentation. Others may, but I do not perceive any "plot" as such. But the police/media/public (re)actions bespeak the disturbing levels of underlying racism within our society, whether you're inclined to notice it or not. The Bush factor merely points to the power of this term "terrorism", whether it refers to anything real or not. And the fact that some of the accused may have used the term themselves is merely, to my mind, corroboration of that, not any firm indication of their intentions (and that others would take their use of it as such an indication is even further corroboration). (Terrorists in this world are merely renegades: why don't we call them that?) And as for putting the frighteners up nig-nogs and tree-huggers, frankly, my less-than-active conspiracy alert has yet to come up with any compelling "motive" behind the gross display of state power that took place in Ruatoki. More frighteningly, I see it as simply the natural playing out of human brutality and mindlessness.
-
Kyle - I can go out leaving your comment on rape sitting there. I take it you have completely missed all the stuff about rape being primarily violence rather than sex - that the sexual aspect is merely a tool that effectively expresses the violent subjugation of the victim.
I think it makes little difference if the instrument of penetration is penis, fingers or anything else. An imposed cavity search by a male police officer on a female inevitably carries with it implications of violence and sexual humiliation.
I won't carry on this kind of discussion with the heartless. It makes me sick.
-
Can't - after Kyle - I...
-
I won't carry on this kind of discussion with the heartless. It makes me sick.
Heartless and mindless. Good on you Sara: I don't think anyone else is reading, and these creeps really aren't worth the effort.
-
But the police/media/public (re)actions bespeak the disturbing levels of underlying racism within our society, whether you're inclined to notice it or not.
Personally I'm not opposed to the idea that individuals and institutions in our society are, to some extent, racist, and I'm also not opposed to the idea that this made the events of October 15 different in Ruatoki than in other places around New Zealand, though I doubt that was as much racism, probably more 'Tuhoe-ism'. I think a side-by-side comparison of Ruatoki and Wellington or any other place is pretty simplistic, as there's more factors involved than 'race' in the minds of the police.
But I don't believe that the possibility of racism invalidates any of the evidence that the police collected before October 15, including video evidence. And I think the frothing at the mouth about the police gets a bit much given how much worse the events of that day could have been (try transplanting the same situation to the USA and see how many people end up as bodies), and in the context of having a good read of the plans that some of these individuals were starting to form, with 'us' and our society in mind. It's like a big cast iron cauldron calling a one cup kettle black.
-
I was making an insinuation? Sorry, I must have missed it. I just saw you bringing out the "you're with us or against us" thing and went "hey, I said just that to somebody else recently..."
And that's just what you were doing. Is it all just point scoring is it?
You didn't answer tyhe cherry picking charge I see.
But I don't see anybody making them here
A S was quick to do exactly that.
bollocks
Ah, charming and eloquent logical argument I see.
FWIW, Asher's argument is intemperate and "us verus them" - "with us or against us" if you like, but he/she/it does state that one has a legal and constitutional right to remain silent and that is the core of their argument. Should that be taken as a sign of degeneracy?
That's not to say that people can't raise genuine concerns about civil liberties surrounding the recent arrests
You forgot the 'but" - and everything before the "but" is bullshit. Oh hang on, there was a "but"... Civil liberties issues are not incidential objections - they are utterly crucial.
Thatcher...Pinochet...There are certainly circumstances where refusal to disavow somebody's actions does reflect on your own character and fitness
Arbitrary association to avoid the obvious Godwining. Yes, there are plenty of examples of changing the subject in order to score cheap but irrelevant points.
eople being arrested on the basis of quite specific evidence
Some may have been, others haven't. The charges to everyone -all sixteen are related to what's on the warrants and those are firearms charges. If I do some quick maths, that comes to less than five people per gun recovered and over 2.5 million dollars per gun - it must mean some pretty heavy firepower - perhaps ex-Soviet artillery? Evidence, you say - and where is the trial and the cross-examination by defence counsel? All we have seen are accusations.
Just trivbial, incidental civil liberties issues, worthy of derision, eh?
And Sara:
I'd far rather be watching one of the movies you suggested. Thank you!
Don't, they're depressing. Watch The Sound of Music or something.
-
Bah, four per gun out of, what, 17?
It's late and it's been too much of Scotland's most famous export - and I don't mean golf.
-
Kyle - I can go out leaving your comment on rape sitting there. I take it you have completely missed all the stuff about rape being primarily violence rather than sex - that the sexual aspect is merely a tool that effectively expresses the violent subjugation of the victim.
You're reading a whole heap of intent into the actions of a police officer, who might have actually been doing a clinical job of cavity searching someone (if indeed a cavity search took place). You've got this male officer committing sexual violence, that's making a whole heap of assumptions.
Yes, if a male officer did a cavity search on a female, that's a big problem and very inappropriate. That doesn't make it rape though. That makes it a cavity search conducted by the wrong person.
An imposed cavity search by a male police officer on a female inevitably carries with it implications of violence and sexual humiliation.
I'm sure it does. That doesn't necessarily make it rape though.
-
I'm sure it does. That doesn't necessarily make it rape though
Ever heard of "sexual violation"? It's classified as a crime. More than just "inappropriate"
-
Ever heard of "sexual violation"? It's classified as a crime. More than just "inappropriate"
Yup. But the word that was used was rape, not sexual violation.
-
quite specific evidence
What part of "inadmissible" don't you understand - or do you not care?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.