Islamic Extremism: not a threat

Written By: - Date published: 10:33 am, November 17th, 2014 - 112 comments
Categories: Spying - Tags:

The war-mongering and hysterics are ridiculous.

Apparently we have much to fear, an unprecendented threat and need to give up our liberties.

Bullshit.

We have no history of Islamic extremism in NZ.  No groups wanting sharia law.  No noticeable support for IS.

We have a small moderate Muslim community.

And we have the likes of Stephen Franks on the right claiming NZ has 30% Muslim support for IS, but – as RadioNZ Mediawatch worked out – in fact it was an international survey, a number of years ago, and the 30% was the number of Muslims who thought that the caliphate would be re-established in their lifetimes.  So hardly support for IS.

The threat is hardly “unprecedented” – IS are not so dissimilar from al-Qaeda, except much more focussed on the Middle East, much less on the West.  Islamic militantism has been about since the 7th century when they made the Mediterranean a Muslim lake.

It’s intriguing the great increase in powers the UK has given their authorities over IRA days – despite the fact that IRA was a much greater threat.  We don’t need to continue down that path.

I see no reason for us to send troops to Iraq to clean up US’s mess – we weren’t involved in the first place. Humanitarian aid? Sure.

I see no reason for us to give our spy agencies more powers.  A few (and the number is probably literally that) who are misguided and actual potential risks can be easily monitored in current ways.

I see no reason for us to make people stateless against UN conventions by canceling their passports while overseas.  We can follow the rule of law, and monitor anyone and charge them with any crimes in the proper way.

Let’s just tone it all back a notch.

112 comments on “Islamic Extremism: not a threat ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. vto 1
    17 November 2014 at 10:38 am

    Pretty much all of the west is currently at war in the middle east.

    As such all pronouncements by western governments must be discounted for the war / propaganda element. That element would be close to 100%

    • joe90 1.1
      17 November 2014 at 10:58 am

      A hundred years of interfering continues…

      In the early 1990s, the United States began emphasizing civil society development in the Middle East. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the George W. Bush administration significantly increased American assistance to the region. By fiscal year 2009, the level of annual U.S. democracy aid in the Middle East was more than the total amount spent between 1991 to 2001.

      But while it was categorized as democracy aid, it wasn’t necessarily meant to promote democracy. Democracy entails ‘alternation of power,’ but most NGOs that received Western assistance avoided anything that could be construed as supporting a change in regime.

      The reason was simple. The U.S. and other Western powers supported ‘reform,’ but they were not interested in overturning an order which had given them pliant, if illegitimate, Arab regimes. Those regimes became part of a comfortable strategic arrangement that secured Western interests in the region, including a forward military posture, access to energy resources and security for the state of Israel. Furthermore, the West feared that the alternative was a radical Islamist takeover reminiscent of the Iranian revolution of 1979

      http://www.aucegypt.edu/Gapp/CairoReview/Pages/articleDetails.aspx?aid=20

  2. Chooky 2
    17 November 2014 at 10:44 am

    +100… Great Post!….and bloody man made ‘Stupid Wars’…wars beget wars…and women , children and innocent men suffer.

    http://rt.com/shows/crosstalk/201763-islamic-state-us-terror/

    What is Washington’s strategy against the Islamic State? Is the Islamic State a creation of the United States? Is the war on terror really a war on Islam? Will the US make amends with Iran in order to defeat the jihadist militants? What is Washington’s endgame? CrossTalking with Ken O’Keefe, Majid Rafizadeh, and Peter van Buren.

    New Zealand should be keeping well out of this war!

    • wyndham 2.1
      17 November 2014 at 12:22 pm

      Always good for a military / industrial state to have someone to fire expensive armaments at. Helps the job market no end. And all those fired off armaments can’t be re-used. Simply replace them with more of the same.

      And if hot wars start to cool then poke a stick into the Russian nest. They’re always good for a cold war.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.2
      17 November 2014 at 2:13 pm

      Is the war on terror really a war on Islam?

      It does appear that way but what it really is, IMO, is a war set up to try and prevent the decline of the US Empire.

      New Zealand should be keeping well out of this war!

      Yes and declaring our total and utter neutrality. Essentially declaring our removal from the empire but, of course, National are working hard to tie us even more into the empire.

      • ropata:rorschach 2.2.1
        17 November 2014 at 10:45 pm

        War is the US solution to soaking up unemployment, and creating new markets for its corporations to take over. They want WW3 because look at how their economy took off after WW2 !

    • Psycho Milt 2.3
      17 November 2014 at 3:15 pm

      Is the war on terror really a war on Islam?

      Who cares if it is? You may not be at war with any particular totalitarian philosophy, but they’re all always at war with you.

  3. Raa 3
    17 November 2014 at 12:00 pm

    I think this is something of a lemming-like rush to destruction.

    Who benefits ?

    This is worth a read ..

    http://www.amazon.com/Host-Parasite-Israels-Consumed-America/dp/1893302970/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1416177700&sr=8-2&keywords=felton+host+parasite

    http://www.wcl.govt.nz/easyfind/?hreciid=|library/m/wellington-carl|0001137198

  4. alwyn 4
    17 November 2014 at 12:23 pm

    This posting says
    “I see no reason for us to make people stateless against UN conventions by canceling their passports while overseas. ”
    It appears to be confusing two things. To make someone “stateless” is to cancel their citizenship. Citizenship and the right to have a passport are completely different things and cancelling a passport does not affect the person’s citizenship.
    If a passport is cancelled whilst someone is overseas it may be very inconvenient for them, and could cause them to be deported from an overseas country but it does not deprive them of their New Zealand citizenship, or the right to re-enter New Zealand.

    • Colonial Rawshark 4.1
      17 November 2014 at 1:10 pm

      Have there been any assurances that these people remain NZ citizens after their passports have been cancelled, and cannot be summarily killed by US forces.

      • Psycho Milt 4.1.1
        17 November 2014 at 3:09 pm

        If these guys are engaged in irregular warfare against people the US has a military relationship with, they can be summarily killed by US forces regardless of their citizenship.

    • minarch 4.2
      17 November 2014 at 1:29 pm

      +1 to this

      a passport is simply a travel document, it does not necessarily infer citizenship

      eg: investment passports, like the Tongan Protected Person’s Passport (TPPP)

      or

      Kiribati investor passports

      • Bunji 4.2.1
        17 November 2014 at 1:48 pm

        Yes they’re different things, but there was discussion about “making it difficult to get back into the country”.

        So yay, you’re an NZ citizen who can’t get into NZ…

        What would that leave you? Effectively Stateless.

        • alwyn 4.2.1.1
          17 November 2014 at 2:42 pm

          Under the Citizenship Act it would appear, under sections 15 – 19, to be impossible to deprive anyone of their New Zealand citizenship unless they held some other citizenship or if doing so, even if they got citizenship by fraud, would leave them stateless.
          You can’t even renounce your citizenship unless you hold another one.
          http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1977/0061/latest/whole.html

          Do you have a link to the bit about “making it difficult to get back into the country”. I don’t see quite what they would be talking about.

        • Minarch 4.2.1.2
          17 November 2014 at 7:38 pm

          its called an emergency travel document

        • RedBaronCV 4.2.1.3
          17 November 2014 at 8:41 pm

          Well the airlines are gonna luv that – ex iraqi fighters holed up in the arrival louge forever?

  5. adam 5
    17 November 2014 at 12:27 pm

    Isis is going to be a massive failed state anyway. The so called new Caliphate is falling apart from within. Yes it’s not a bad military power, but ask yourself – where are the doctors, the teachers, the road workers, and the engineers? Running for their lives, yeap ISIS have taken a page from the Khmer Rouge and labeled intellectuals and professionals the enemy of the islamic state. And we all know how well that worked out for Cambodia.

    There is no power in many of the towns that ISIS have taken over, go get some satellite maps of the region at night, it really is seeing the lights go out slowly over time.

    So war with who, a bunch of nut jobs who have embraced the great leap backwards?

    I’m not convinced it can last. If the West really want to stomp on ISIS – well lets do it right. Tell Turkey and Saudi Arabia to stop funding them with cash and arms. Or will bomb them back to the dark ages as well. But no that will not happen, because our dear leaders, want to waste our men and women in a war it can not win.

    Welcome to the new corportarcy were reason, logic, humanity and the long view – are all political non issues.

    • Colonial Rawshark 5.1
      17 November 2014 at 1:13 pm

      ISIS holds a territory of hundreds of thousands of square km and 6M population (many of whom are veterans of Saddam’s army and have their own AK’s) with fewer than 10K of their own men.

      You can’t do that unless large elements of the local population (i.e. Sunnis and Baathists) are on your side.

      • adam 5.1.1
        17 November 2014 at 3:33 pm

        I agree, but how long can they hold it together when the people who hold societies together are leaving?

        • RedLogix 5.1.1.1
          17 November 2014 at 3:55 pm

          I think you tangentially hit on one of the key elements of the Islamic puzzle so often missed by Westerners – especially in NZ where we have relatively little cultural exposure.

          Islam in NOT a single coherent religion. No more than Christianity is. And overlooking it’s complex history renders our readings of it simplistic in the extreme:

          Contrary to prevalent Western beliefs, Wahhabism is not an old Islamic tradition and the House of Saud does not enjoy a credible historic claim to rule over Arabia. Indeed, Wahhabism emerged only 250 years ago under the guidance of an obscure fanatic known as Muhammad Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab who later formed an alliance with a group of desert bandits, the Sauds. From the time they established their covenant to the creation of the modern Saudi state, the Saudi-Wahhabi movement spread across the peninsula brutally defeating and enslaving non-Wahhabi elements.

          A substantial body of nineteenth century scholarship does exist to confirm the bloody rise of the Saudi-Wahhabi state. Thomas Hope, a British author, wrote extensively about the Wahhabi spread from his travels throughout the Middle East. In his novel Anastasius, he described Wahhabi agents in words that will be strikingly familiar to modern readers: as extremist puritans bent on dominating the Muslim world by adopting tactics reminiscent of Al-Qaeda’s calculated savagery.

          The theological and political pact between the Saud clan and the Wahhabists resulted in the fall of Mecca for the second and last time in 1924, solidifying their grip on power. After the conquest of Mecca, the vast oil wealth of the kingdom would be used to export a radical Wahhabist ideology across the globe.

          http://www.meforum.org/535/saudi-arabia-and-the-rise-of-the-wahhabi-threat

          The Wahhabi’s are by no means the sole fundamentalist influence in modern Islam – but they are by far the best funded and politically powerful. Nothing about the Middle East and the ‘Islamic threat’ makes sense unless you factor them in. Prior to the rise of Arabic Wahhabism much of the Islamic world was a relatively (by the standards of their times) liberal, educated and tolerant place.

          • adam 5.1.1.1.1
            17 November 2014 at 4:37 pm

            The majority of Kurds I know are muslims, and they could not be more hated by other muslims. One of the worst fights I ever saw was between two groups of muslims in Melbourne – it was just not just an ethnic fight, as the media tried to play it at the time, but included within it – a fight over fundamental definition of what it meant to be muslim in Australia. It was a real eye opener for me.

    • Tiro 5.2
      17 November 2014 at 5:41 pm

      But it looks good on the GDP graphs …

    • Minarch 5.3
      17 November 2014 at 8:18 pm

      ‘Nobody is going to stick around if you’re beheading people left and right.’

      Islamic State Reportedly Minting Coins as It Struggles to Function Like an Actual State

      https://news.vice.com/article/islamic-state-reportedly-minting-coins-as-it-struggles-to-function-like-an-actual-state?utm_source=vicenewsfb

  6. Ad 6
    17 November 2014 at 12:47 pm

    Interesting that there now appears no relationship between oil barrel price and Middle East instability. Petrol is comparatively cheap and projected to be so for a while.

    Its as if Kerry and the Saudis have opened their pumps to punish Russia for The Ukraine. The US-Saudi alliance in turn sends the coalition message to Iran to agree to the nuclear deal.

    And yet cheap oil punishes not only Russia but also US and Canadian heavy-oil producers who all need a fairly high barrel price. Quite a game to play, Obama.

    So which Arab petro-state is funding and provisioning IS? And for whose interests? Tanks ain’t cheap. Some good reporter needs to follow the money.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 6.1
      17 November 2014 at 12:58 pm

      Thats because its a jack up between the Saudis, who see $100 barrell oil as leading to a boom using fracting and oil sands, and the US who wants the Russian and Iranian economies wrecked by lower oil prices.

      After all if Goldman Sachs and others can jack up the price of oil on every rumour of an oil refinery having an explosion, the price can be pushed down ( which makes the speculators dissappear) for geo-political reasons

      • Pascals bookie 6.1.1
        17 November 2014 at 4:05 pm

        Not too sure that the US are in cahoots with the Sauds on oil price. Saudi will do what Saud wants, pretty much.

        They have started pumping it out recently though, around the time IS started being too nasty to stay undercover. Low oil price hurts both Iran and Baghdad, 2 Shia countries actually fighting on the ground against IS.

      • GregJ 6.1.2
        17 November 2014 at 6:29 pm

        the US who wants the Russian and Iranian economies wrecked by lower oil prices.

        Not just the US – the Saudis are really pi$$ed at the Russians over Syria and the Russian support of Assad. Causing Iran economic discomfort is just a bonus. So the current (over)production levels in OPEC will continue until the Saudis decide otherwise (Venezuela and Iran want a production cut but OPEC requires a unanimous decision – and the Saudis are refusing to consider it).

  7. Colonial Rawshark 7
    17 November 2014 at 1:15 pm

    I think everyone understands by now that western moves toward becoming a mass surveillance and para-military security state are aimed at protecting the elite 1% from the masses of ordinary citizens. Especially as economic, energy and climate conditions deteriorate over the next 10-20 years. Terrorism etc – that is just the pretext.

    • grumpystilskin 7.1
      17 November 2014 at 2:09 pm

      It’s not everyone, just read fisiani’s responses in posts.
      He must be being paid by someone to write idiotic replies, the other option is too scary..

    • Gosman 7.2
      17 November 2014 at 2:31 pm

      Everyone? Why are parties espousing this view not getting a greater share of the vote then? Are you seriously suggesting 30% plus of the electorate is comfortable with protecting 1% of the population by reducing their own civil liberties?

  8. ghostwhowalksnz 8
    17 November 2014 at 1:25 pm

    Islamic Extremism would be less of an threat than the Suffragettes of the beginning of last century.
    Its often forgotten the hard core militants were engaged in violence

    “They burned down churches as the Church of England was against what they wanted; they vandalised Oxford Street, apparently breaking all the windows in this famous street; they chained themselves to Buckingham Palace as the Royal Family were seen to be against women having the right to vote; they hired out boats, sailed up the Thames and shouted abuse through loud hailers at Parliament as it sat; others refused to pay their tax. Politicians were attacked as they went to work. Their homes were fire bombed. Golf courses were vandalised. The first decade of Britain in the twentieth century was proving to be violent in the extreme.”

    Today, in that eccentric way typical of England, a period manor house in the Surrey suburbs has a ‘Grade 2 listed crack’ from when it was bombed by suffragettes as it was home to David Lloyd George, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/period property/7590914/Property-in-Surrey-The-house-the-suffragettes-bombed.html

    • RedLogix 8.1
      17 November 2014 at 1:28 pm

      Yes but you confuse means with ends. The suffragettes were fighting for something worthwhile.

      Religious fundamentalists – regardless of label – are not.

      • Colonial Rawshark 8.1.1
        17 November 2014 at 1:32 pm

        If the radical violent fundamentalists are going to get rid of someone we don’t like eg Assad, is there a problem with helping them do that? /sarc

        • RedLogix 8.1.1.1
          17 November 2014 at 1:46 pm

          That’s what happens when geopolitics are played as a value-free game – and why the Left has been utterly out-maneuvered everywhere.

          When we allowed ourselves to abandon our internationalist origins and human rights ideals we ceded the global stage to the corporatists, think-tanks and war-hawks. And this is important because in our modern world – genuine power is wielded on a that same scale.

        • ghostwhowalksnz 8.1.1.2
          17 November 2014 at 2:21 pm

          So we dont like Assad ? Its nothing to do with Assad its all about Sunni war against Shia and its offshoots ( Assad was backed by Christians and Druze as well as his own Alawites)

          Reflect for 30 secs on how ‘we didnt like Mubarak’ but loved MB who were then replaced by US friendly Mubarak look alike

          • GregJ 8.1.1.2.1
            17 November 2014 at 6:46 pm

            The Muslim Brotherhood wasn’t the leader of the Egyptian Arab spring revolution though – it was the liberal opposition that lead the way. None of the Gulf States (or the North African Arab states for that matter) except for Qatar wanted the Brotherhood in charge.

            The dilemma for the Brotherhood was that they were not ready for Government but were afraid if they didn’t stand for the Presidency they would be outflanked by the hardline Islamists. Morsi was pretty much incompetent and the Brotherhood had no idea of how to rule once they got into power.

            Probably the Brotherhood should have tried to support one of the “Liberal” candidates for President – like convincing El Baradei to run or failing that Amr Moussa – and then gaining experience in the Egyptian Parliament and through Cabinet positions in a El Baredei or Moussa administration.

        • Jim 8.1.1.3
          17 November 2014 at 9:55 pm

          If they are worse than Assad hell yes!

    • greywarshark 8.2
      17 November 2014 at 1:38 pm

      gwwwww
      That’s a lot of interesting trivia. Thanks.
      and
      Islamic Extremism would be more of a n threat than the Suffragettes of the beginning of last centuryI Its often forgotten the hard core militants were engaged in violence. FIFY

      Suffragettes were trying to get a fair and better political system and human rights, not destroy the method of government and set up a women’s one or a Sharia one (though they probably tossed that around, which would provoke an armed raid by the men in black here no doubt when they listened in and heard that).

      When reasonable, educated people in a so-called democracy who are said to be the mothers of the nation were refused repeatedly to be given rights, they had to hurt the smug men in their tender spots, their love of property and material things as a mark of their status. (ACT is their natural Party.)

  9. fisiani 9
    17 November 2014 at 1:47 pm

    This is the most preposterous post ever. Islamic extremism: not a threat.

    The writer knows more than the GCSB. The writer knows more than the PM. The writer knows the classified material as well as the publicly released information. The writer has a fully functioning crystal ball.

    No one posting here has enough knowledge to actually know the extent of any threat but to claim with no evidence that there is no threat is reckless.

    [RL: Deleted. Lose the sycophancy. Last warning.]

    • vto 9.1
      17 November 2014 at 1:53 pm

      There is no credibility in anything John Key says.

      Only fools trust the GCSB

      No evidence has been outlined in detail to the NZ public about all of this.

      There is nothing
      nothing
      nothing except a cry for war

      I see now why you come across as more arse than brain all the time

    • Bunji 9.2
      17 November 2014 at 1:54 pm

      We’ve been seeing a lot of National’s arse over climate change.

      I think the great WibblyWoos from the planet Troodonton are going to invade and slay us all. Therefore we need to hand all power over to me so I can save us.

      Show me the evidence that this isn’t true and I’ll accept your argument that I shouldn’t take over.
      Because I know it’s true because of all my secret evidence, even if any public evidence makes it seem preposterous.

      So really, you just need to trust me.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 9.3
      17 November 2014 at 2:16 pm

      Remember when JoKey knew all about the economic recovery – in 2009.

      “Saturday, 18 July 2009 – 3:48pm
      This week we have been assailed in the media by John Key and other economic commentators by the news that the economic recovery is supposedly near at hand.”

      JoKey knew nothing back then, it was all hot air , same as now.

      So a few people want to do some ‘war tourism’, they did the same during Iraqi occupation as there were plenty of mercenary jobs around.

      Its not a big deal, as we have been given no proof any violence was intended back in NZ

    • Draco T Bastard 9.4
      17 November 2014 at 2:26 pm

      Actually fisiani, you’re preposterous.

      Islamic extremism isn’t a threat because the Islamists in place will deal with it. The problem is that the West keeps going in there and bombing people creating people with vengeance in mind and then we arm them. Best thing the West could do is leave them to it while preventing arms from going into the conflagration.

      • Achtung_baby 9.4.1
        17 November 2014 at 2:50 pm

        You must be joking. The Islamists will never deal with it. Where or when have you see Islamists intervening in their wars, other than massacring each other?

        • Draco T Bastard 9.4.1.1
          17 November 2014 at 4:13 pm

          Possibly. It’s certainly one way of dealing with it. The English Civil War/Revolution partly came to an end because, after decades of fighting, the people got sick of killing each other. Ever since we of Anglo-Saxon descent have been somewhat wary of war.

          • Clean_power 9.4.1.1.1
            18 November 2014 at 6:37 am

            Surely not possibly. Some of those barbarians have been killing each other since the 7th century, all in the name of Allah.

            • joe90 9.4.1.1.1.1
              18 November 2014 at 6:49 am

              Amateurs, since 1914 our lot has topped 80 million in the name of who fucking knows.

            • felix 9.4.1.1.1.2
              18 November 2014 at 6:58 am

              Best we get over there and show them how it’s done then.

              Seriously though C_p, that is all you and fizzy are putting on the table.

      • Gosman 9.4.2
        17 November 2014 at 3:20 pm

        The West doesn’t always go in to places where Islamic extremism is causing problems. Many parts of North Africa have little to no Western intervention yet Islamic extremism is on the rise.

        The West tried leaving them to it (as you so quaintly put it) in places like Afghanistan between the mid 1990’s and 2001 and look what happened.

        • joe90 9.4.2.1
          17 November 2014 at 3:45 pm

          Many parts of North Africa have little to no Western intervention yet Islamic extremism is on the rise.

          Nah.

          http://jb-hdnp.org/Sarver/Maps/WC/wc13_coloniesafricam.jpg

          • Gosman 9.4.2.1.1
            17 November 2014 at 3:54 pm

            Ummm… what has what the Europeans did in Africa 50 plus years ago got to do with things?

            • felix 9.4.2.1.1.1
              17 November 2014 at 5:33 pm

              What has western intervention got to do with western intervention?

            • joe90 9.4.2.1.1.2
              17 November 2014 at 5:47 pm

              Most of these conflicts have anti-colonial struggles as their genesis, a forever war – from the taking up of arms to win wars of independence to civil war to todays wars of religion.

            • Minarch 9.4.2.1.1.3
              17 November 2014 at 7:42 pm

              are you serious…….

              were you paying attention in history class, or did you drop out ?

        • adam 9.4.2.2
          17 November 2014 at 3:51 pm

          Bollocks Gosman and you know it. The US and the British were funding groups all across Afghanistan in the 90’s and 2000’s. Where do you think the title of the movie, Charlie Wilson’s War came from? The funds didn’t taper off with the withdraw of the soviet’s. Nor did it stop with the rise of the Taliban. Who funded the Warlords, Elvis?

          Little or no intervention in North Africa, please, what rock have you been living under? Libya, Egypt and Morocco have had active intervention in one way or another by western powers to help sustain the tinpot regimes in these regions. By buying oil, air strikes, having torture operations, or many of the other subtle means of influence and support of these corrupt regimes in power right across North Africa. Are you calling the locals stupid?

          Come on Gossy, you know the west helps creates the opportunities for these nut jobs to flourish. Fighting another war against an ideology/theology won’t help. Nor will turning a blind eye to the sickening behaviour of our so called allies in this.

          • Gosman 9.4.2.2.1
            17 November 2014 at 4:05 pm

            Please note I stated from the mid 1990’s t0 2001. The West lost interest in Afghanistan after the fall of the Soviet backed regime. That is why Pakistan’s ISI stepped in to the void and helped create the Taliban.

            • adam 9.4.2.2.1.1
              17 November 2014 at 4:27 pm

              Yes and no, I agree with the you on the ISI and their aid to the Taliban. But there was still funding of the Warlords throughout this period.

              Actually I have no idea what to call them apart from Warlords, even though Warlords are a common feature of Afghan History. Hell even post Soviet Russia was funding Warlords. The Great Game carries on, it has never really stopped.

        • GregJ 9.4.2.3
          17 November 2014 at 7:13 pm

          Many parts of North Africa have little to no Western intervention

          What aside from the French troops in Mali and the Central African Republic, the cooperation with Mauritania, Burkina Faso and Chad to fight Islamists such as AQIM, the French led airstrikes in Libya, the EU training and support of African Union troops fighting al-Shabaab in Somalia, anti-piracy operations off the Somali coast…

    • KJS0ne 9.5
      17 November 2014 at 2:32 pm

      “No one posting here has enough knowledge to actually know the extent of any threat”

      – Least of all a John Key lickspittle like yourself.

      One thing is absolutely for sure, regardless of the threat – Non existent or otherwise – National are using ISIS in order to rescind individual liberty and play lap dog to Obama by sending our troops to another war zone, and that should be a problem for all authentic human beings liberal and conservative alike.

      Goering, when he wasn’t high as shit, was incredibly pragmatic about the ol’ game:

      “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

      • Gosman 9.5.1
        17 November 2014 at 3:29 pm

        Why should sending “our” troops to another war zone be seen as a problem for all “authentic” human beings liberal and conservative alike?

        • felix 9.5.1.1
          17 November 2014 at 5:12 pm

          Why the “” around the word “our”?

          Who’s troops do you think they are?

          (serious question)

        • KJS0ne 9.5.1.2
          17 November 2014 at 10:55 pm

          The individual liberty rescindment should be a concern to true torries as much as it should be to liberals. Sending our troops was added after with less thought towards congruity re: conservatives. Though if one were of a Libertarian bent, an involvement in a region on the otherside of the planet for no fundamental purpose other than to kowtow to the whims and fancies of the Obama adminstration, thus placing a giant red target on our backs would justly be seen as idiotic foreign policy. Even looking at it purely from the perspective of self interest , there is little to be gained from being so eager to be the USA’s lap dog.

    • emergency mike 9.6
      17 November 2014 at 6:00 pm

      It’s up to Key and co to present evidence of an Islamist threat in order to justify sending NZ troops. What he’s given so far is a bunch of flimsy distortions, and the ol’ “It’s classified, but trust me,” isn’t good enough on it’s own.

      Maybe “coz John Key said so” is good enough for you to see your countrymen shipped off to fight, but I think you’ve spent enough time on The Standard to not be too surprised if it’s not good enough for folk around here.

  10. Sable 10
    17 November 2014 at 2:48 pm

    No but we do have idiot politicians getting into bed with the US on foreign policy matters, a country more on less permanently at war with the Middle East, which in turn stands to make us a target by proxy. The Keys governments toadying attitude to the US is the real problem here as per usual. Yet another problem that could have been avoided simply by staying out of it.

  11. Tracey 11
    17 November 2014 at 4:14 pm

    Genuine question.

    do these videos actually show the beheadings as they happen?

    • Matthew Hooton 11.1
      17 November 2014 at 4:57 pm

      Are you concerned they might be fake?

      • vto 11.1.1
        17 November 2014 at 6:52 pm

        Are they not real Matthew?

        Show us the money …

        • Matthew Hooton 11.1.1.1
          17 November 2014 at 6:57 pm

          I assume they are real and understand they actually show the beheadings. I am just interested in Tracey’s motivation for her question.

          • felix 11.1.1.1.1
            17 November 2014 at 7:08 pm

            It would be a bit weird though, wouldn’t it, if the world was going full Farrar over videos of beheadings and no-one noticed that there were no beheadings in them.

            Wouldn’t it?

            Not that I would know, I haven’t seen them either.

            • tinfoilhat 11.1.1.1.1.1
              17 November 2014 at 7:32 pm

              They videos in question are sickening I would advise everyone to avoid viewing them.

              • felix …
                17 November 2014 at 8:16 pm

                I can only find photos.

                Have you seen videos that actually show heads being cut off?

                • BM …
                  17 November 2014 at 9:32 pm

                  Not that I’ve seen them or into that sort of thing but if you do want to see these acts and other unbelievably brutal and nasty stuff.
                  This is the website for you.

                  http://www.bestgore.com

                  • joe90 …
                    17 November 2014 at 9:50 pm

                    You’re not a /b fan?.

                  • felix …
                    18 November 2014 at 6:15 am

                    So BM hasn’t seen them either.

                    Has anyone seen a video that actually shows a beheading?

                    Starting to feel like the emperor’s new murder…

                    • BM …
                      18 November 2014 at 7:08 am

                      No, but there’s a video of the latest one on the first page.

                      I just don’t want to watch some poor bastard getting his head sawn off .

                    • Matthew Hooton …
                      18 November 2014 at 12:28 pm

                      Could you check BM’s link. I don’t want to.

                    • felix …
                      18 November 2014 at 1:57 pm

                      Ok, I had a look just for you Matthew.

                      It contains some throat-slitting, John Key style.

                      It’s fronted by a man who sounds like Ali-G.

                      There’s lots of before/after stuff, i.e. a row of infidels kneeling waiting to be slaughtered followed by a row of bodies with heads removed.

                      What happens in between is difficult to say. These are not home movies shot on someone’s phone, they are quite elaborate productions. Multiple camera angles, carefully scripted action, slow/fast motion effects, dubbed foley and atmospheric sound elements, very dramatic quick editing with lots of cutting to black at crucial moments.

                      The whole thing looks and feels like a scene from a hollywood action film, it seems designed to give an impression rather than to document an event.

                      I can say I definitely saw what looked like someone’s throat being slit.

                      I can also say I definitely didn’t see anyone’s head being cut off.

    • TheContrarian 11.2
      17 November 2014 at 7:35 pm

      The idea that the videos are faked fails the Occams Razor test.

      • felix 11.2.1
        17 November 2014 at 8:03 pm

        That wasn’t the question.

        Tracey was asking whether the videos actually showed beheadings or not.

      • les 11.2.2
        17 November 2014 at 10:37 pm

        on what logic?

        • McFlock 11.2.2.1
          17 November 2014 at 10:52 pm

          Because the footage claims to be evidence that someone has been murdered in a particularly brutal way.

          Firstly, the victims can’t be seen walking around later. Easiest way to do that is to murder them.

          Secondly, faking the video means you still need to kill the victims, and the video might be identified as fake.

          Thirdly, even if the video is real, opponents might argue it is fake, just to call the murderers liars or wusses. So the video needs to be as explicit as possible. More difficult to fake.

          So you’ve got people in the middle of a war zone going to great lengths to pretend to kill someone who they really kill someone in a different manner at some other time.

          OR

          You’ve got some hard-core bastards using exceptional brutality as a psychological weapon to keep the West engaged and bleeding itself in a cosmic war.

          • RedLogix 11.2.2.1.1
            17 November 2014 at 11:14 pm

            Their calculus is indeed brutal. They do not have the military capacity to defeat the West. They do not even constitute a majority of Muslims – who want nothing more than to carry on quiet lives. In the conventional sense they are relatively impotent.

            But if they goad us into military retaliation they can count on us generating a steady stream of recruits to their cause. It becomes a self-perpetuating war – with no possibility of the West defeating them short of killing every one of the aprox 1.5 billion Muslims in the world and successfully expunging the memory of Islam from human memory.

            They’re counting on us not being willing to do this and at some point (after who knows how many millions have been sacrificed to this strategy) – the West simply caves in to their superior moral force.

            We have two options: find a way engage the majority of ordinary Muslims in the modern world so that they themselves reject the ISIS brand of fundamentalism.

            Or Plan B as mentioned above. After all it’s more or less how the Romans finished up dealing with the original ‘Palestine problem’ some 2000 years ago.

            • McFlock 11.2.2.1.1.1
              17 November 2014 at 11:31 pm

              pretty much.

              I’m actually pretty loathe to even frame it as a “Muslim” thing. Seems to me that religion’s just a handy totem for the regional movement to latch onto, rather than the movement being a byproduct or extreme of the religion. Like how the norse/germanic/aryn vibe was for the nazza-matazzies, or other similar mythologies of other brutal movements of social exclusivity.

              edit: yuss, my fiendish use of codewords avoided automoderation 🙂

              • RedLogix …
                17 November 2014 at 11:36 pm

                shit – I was rather hoping you’d come up with a Plan C McF …

                • McFlock …
                  17 November 2014 at 11:47 pm

                  Reeboks.

                  thirty years of massive investment to eliminate extreme poverty across the world and put most people in the middle class. Relax population surveillance, reward regimes for democratisation, lose the Security Council vetos, work on food and water supplies.

                  And try not to globally lose our shit whenever a few nutters get lucky with a strike.

                  edit: excuse the handwavy shit. The world would be awesome if I was global dictator, but then most people probably think the same thing about themselves to greater or lesser degrees 🙂

                  • RedLogix …
                    17 November 2014 at 11:58 pm

                    Exactly – Plan A.

                    Which is why capitalism’s ever expanding inequality is so dangerous. While in the local NZ context it’s corrosive and demeaning – on a global scale it threatens everything.

                    It’s one more component in my thesis that left made a terrible mistake in abandoning it’s original Internationalist values at the end of the Cold War.

                  • weka …
                    18 November 2014 at 12:17 am

                    “thirty years of massive investment to eliminate extreme poverty across the world and put most people in the middle class. Relax population surveillance, reward regimes for democratisation, lose the Security Council vetos, work on food and water supplies.”

                    Have to put that in a context of resource depletion and AGW though. Redefining what middle class is would help. I’d settle for everyone having shelter, nutrition and localised food security, education, social stability/safety etc rather than home ownership and being able to buy the latest iphone. Some of us would have to give up some things.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 November 2014 at 12:28 am

                      yes, and there will also be a transition period before the lower birthrate from relative security results in a sustained demographic shift. Isn’t there a state something like half of the ME population is under 20/25?

                      A bit like AGW, the easier comfort levels of change to stop the problem were thirty years ago, and it’s getting exponentially more painful.

                      Although on the flipside the tech curve seems to be improving on a number of fronts, particulalry battery energy density.

                    • RedLogix …
                      18 November 2014 at 12:40 am

                      And it may turn out that cold fusion works after all:

                      http://www.e-catworld.com/

                    • RedLogix …
                      18 November 2014 at 12:59 am

                      On the other hand you might want to watch this:

                      http://pro.moneymappress.com/EADZEROSH/WEADQA07/?pub=ead&h=true

                      Someone please tell me this is hogwash. He sounds like a huckster – but then:

                      http://www.businessinsider.com.au/lockheed-martin-desalination-graphene-filters-2013-3

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      18 November 2014 at 6:21 am

                      Ah yes Pakistan vs India…that’s a problem area as ever. But as the commentator says, now they have nukes.

                      As for defusing the Middle East and halting the recruitment of radicals to ISIS/ISIL/etc. Austerity throughout Europe certainly isn’t helping. Of course, there is much more culpability than that.

                      The west funds, arms and props up hard line dictatorships (friends) throughout the Middle East. The House of Saud is but one clear example. And while Israel is nominally a liberal western style democracy – that is so only if you are not an Arab or a Palestinian. The stationing of a massive US military presence in all of these countries also causes a lot of dissent in many of the countries – dissent which is typically ignored or suppressed.

                      And now, NZ wants to join in the century long western party over there.

    • Minarch 11.3
      17 November 2014 at 7:47 pm

      They’ll be real alright..

      they learnt that move from the Chechens, they were beheading russian soldiers on the Internet well over a decade ago

  12. TeWhareWhero 12
    17 November 2014 at 8:40 pm

    All religious extremists scare me but I find nothing more awful about extremists who are Muslim than extremists who are Jewish, Christian or Hindu.

    When the USA and its allies (especially Australia) conspired with reactionary forces in Indonesia to overthrow Sukarno in 1965/66, they set in train one of the worst (and least commented on) acts of genocide of the 20th century. No-one knows how many died but estimates range from 500,000 to 2 million.

    The army, under the control of right wing generals, armed and trained devout Muslims. Muslim clerics in Java and Sumatra proclaimed that the extermination of communists constituted Holy War so for many young Muslims, the killing of communists, or anyone suspected of being a communist or sympathetic to communists, became a religious duty that they carried out with extraordinary brutality. Communists and suspected communists were shot, beheaded, strangled, or had their throats slit by the military and Islamic groups.

    In Bali. Hindu religious leaders and high caste rich landlords called on devout Hindus to kill communists as the enemies of religion. An estimated 80,000 Balinese men, women and children were slaughtered between December 1965 and early 1966 – about 5 percent of the island’s population and a higher death rate proportionately than anywhere else in Indonesia.

    The Australian Prime Minister Harold Holt said : “With 500,000 to 1 million Communist sympathizers knocked off, I think it is safe to assume a reorientation has taken place.”

    Who’s scary and barbaric?

    • RedLogix 12.1
      17 November 2014 at 9:21 pm

      All religious extremists scare me but I find nothing more awful about extremists who are Muslim than extremists who are Jewish, Christian or Hindu.

      Something I absolutely agree with.

      BTW – how odd you should mention Holt. I happened to look at the peculiar circumstances of his disappearance just this morning.

  13. Slippery 13
    18 November 2014 at 2:02 am

    the last thing NZ should be doing is fueling the war machine by shipping supplies of Ammo & Weapons ect to the Middle East, there is so much complexity involved in the true story, I’ve given up on the NZ MSM to provide any real information about what is really going on in the world ,the latest top story’s are things like Kim Kardashions Butt, so I recommend to everyone interested to research elsewhere to keep informed. to save me typing what most people should (or already) know about ISIS (& to spare you having to read a long post) I highly recommend that you find the time to watch
    ‘The Covert Origins of ISIS’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI

  14. wtl 14
    18 November 2014 at 1:10 pm

    While the story of the murder of an American hostage by some extremists half way around the world is making headline news, I thought that we should remember that over the weekend, three young New Zealanders were killed in a fire. A recent report quotes a public health specialist as saying that this is a consequence of the lack of regulation in the rental housing market – landlords do not have to ensure that smoke alarms are present in their properties. More tellingly, the spokesperson for a landlords association refuses to acknowledge this problem, and simply makes up an excuse: “even if the smoke alarms were compulsory, the tenants might remove the batteries” (paraphrasing).

    If we are serious about protecting our citizens from harm, maybe we in New Zealand put things in perspective and consider where our real priorities should be ?

    • RedLogix 14.1
      18 November 2014 at 1:28 pm

      More tellingly, the spokesperson for a landlords association refuses to acknowledge this problem, and simply makes up an excuse: “even if the smoke alarms were compulsory, the tenants might remove the batteries” (paraphrasing).

      Ours have alarms, extinguishers and several have sprinklers. Beat that.

      But the batteries are always removed. Everytime.

      • Colonial Rawshark 14.1.1
        18 November 2014 at 1:34 pm

        Interesting. Why is that? To prevent false alarms? To allow people to smoke in doors? To save on the costs of replacing a 9V batt?

        • RedLogix 14.1.1.1
          18 November 2014 at 1:41 pm

          Most of the time it’s a false alarm due to cooking I think. Not really sure why.

          One thing that should be mandatory in my view are the new generation of cost-effective fire sprinklers. Much more effective.

          http://www.renovate.org.nz/villa/common-problems-and-remedies/fire-safety/

          http://www.leapltd.co.nz/our-products/fire-sprinklers/blazestop.html

          Heavily subsidise them and make them compulsory for all new builds and renovates over a certain value. Last thing the gnats would do – far sooner send soldiers to far-off wars.

          We do seem to have drifted rather off topic 🙂

          • felix 14.1.1.1.1
            18 November 2014 at 3:20 pm

            “Most of the time it’s a false alarm due to cooking I think.”

            Yep, seen that lots of times. Done it myself. Alarm goes off while cooking, you push the button, it stops, you carry on cooking, it goes off again, you push the button, it stops, you carry on cooking, it goes off again, you disable the bloody thing.

            And with the best will in the world, for some reason I always forget to put the batteries back in.

        • Murray Rawshark 14.1.1.2
          18 November 2014 at 8:19 pm

          Toasters can set them off. They’re too sensitive.

      • greywarshark 14.1.2
        18 November 2014 at 4:05 pm

        And one landlord said that there was a mix of working people in his properties and a large number of them have removed smoke alarm batteries for various reasons.

        Then there is the situation where they go off and can’t be stopped, though nothing is happening. And they shouldn’t be installed so close to stovetops etc that they are so easily spooked.

        Another problem. They start peeping that they are low – in the night – have to get some sleep. It’s not all peachy with them. I didn’t know some were biased to heat and some to smoke! Then if you are short you have to find a way to get up to ceiiling level. Drag table over. Stand chair on box or box on chair. Not everyone has steps. Wait for tall person to visit.

        And just to segue back to topic – I think that problems and disasters from cooking fires etc are more likely than Islamic extremism.
        edited