Manhattan explosion

[smartcooky]

Nope. New Zealand has its own home-grown terrorism problem (almost exclusively anarchists and Maori). And, as with the US and Europe, the threat from homegrown terror dwarfs that of jihadist terror.

Thirty-four years ago (1982) one stupid man; a part time chef, part time punk rocker, and full time pothead, blows himself up outside of the Police Computer Building in Wanganui, in the dead of night, and leaves a message scrawled in the wall that says "We have maintained a silence closely resembling stupidity" (which wasn't even original btw) followed by the anarchy sign, and you think we have an anarchist terrorist problem in NZ? Bwhahaha! That is funny. That is really funny. You do have a sense of humour after all..

And as for so-called "Maori" terrorists, they are just a joke. Their "terrorism" consists of occupying land (that they spuriously claim is theirs) and then defecating and urinating everywhere like animals marking their territory. I was on a clean-up team (co-opted when I was stationed at Ohakea) after one of their "occupations"... Moutua Gardens. It was disgusting - the stench of human urine and excremement pervaded that area for weeks.

Hell, the French are more of a global terror threat to New Zealand than Muslims are. At least they've actually carried out attacks in your country.

Attacks? Plural? You are of course, talking about the single illegal French government operation on the Rainbow Warrior?

Where was the ongoing bombing campaign against Greenpeace that would mark what they did as terrorism?

Where was the fear of the New Zealand public that they would start blowing up other ships in our harbours. We were outraged, sure, but we were not terrorised!!! Its a very big stretch to call that terrorism

PS: There is a lot more to the Rainbow Warrior bombing than meets the eye and that was ever made public. But that is another story for another time.

 

[A'isha]

Its greater than zero, and greater than the threat from ETA and US Domestic terrorists, both of which are zero

As I said, you have your own homegrown terrorists to deal with. New Zealand's only suicide bombing was carried out by an anarchist New Zealander, and then there was this less than ten years ago.

Irrelevant. They are nothing to do with terrorism of any kind.

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/the-1951-waterfront-dispute/division-and-defeat

http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9872178/Wellingtons-unsolved-Trades-Hall-mystery

Irrelevant. They are nothing to do with terrorism of any kind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior

 

[A'isha]

Thirty-four years ago (1982) one stupid man; a part time chef, part time punk rocker, and fully time pothead, blows himself up outside of the Police Computer Building in Wanganui, in the dead of night, and leaves a message scrawled in the wall that says "We have maintained a silence closely resembling stupidity" (which wasn't even original btw) followed by the anarchy sign, and you think we have an anarchist terrorist problem in NZ?

Yes, as I said in the post above, New Zealand's only suicide bombing terrorist attack was carried out by an entirely homegrown terrorist.

And as for so-called "Maori" terrorists, they are just a joke.

That's not what your police said after the terror raids in 2007.

Attacks? Plural?

"Attacks" as in any at all.

Where was the ongoing bombing campaign against Greenpeace that would mark what they did as terrorism?

"They only carried out a single terrorist bombing of a civilian target" is certainly a novel argument that something doesn't count as terrorism.

It's interesting to see how the goalposts shift.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

PS: There is a lot more to the Rainbow Warrior bombing than meets the eye and that was ever made public. But that is another story for another time.

Oh, come on.

Don't be a tease. Tell us more.

 

[CosCos]

Obviously some are treating this as a purely academic exercise. It seems like scoring rhetorical points is more important than reality.

"the threat of homegrown terror dwarfs that of jihadist terror."

Ok Aicha, keep that head buried firmly in the sand.

 

[A'isha]

Oh, come on.

Don't be a tease. Tell us more.

I predict anything involving this terrorist attack, and all the others that happened in New Zealand, will be subject to a whole lot of special pleading in order to try and explain that these terrorist attacks aren't really terrorist attacks, and all of it will boil down to, basically, "because they weren't done by Muslims and therefore they don't count".

 

[cullennz]

I predict anything involving this terrorist attack, and all the others that happened in New Zealand, will be subject to a whole lot of special pleading in order to try and explain that these terrorist attacks aren't really terrorist attacks, and all of it will boil down to, basically, "because they weren't done by Muslims and therefore they don't count".

They worked for the French government

 

[quadraginta]

I predict anything involving this terrorist attack, and all the others that happened in New Zealand, will be subject to a whole lot of special pleading in order to try and explain that these terrorist attacks aren't really terrorist attacks, and all of it will boil down to, basically, "because they weren't done by Muslims and therefore they don't count".

No doubt.

I'd add that even if they were forced in to admitting that any of them do count they wouldn't count enough.

One way or another it all gets hand-waved away if it can't be fitted into the "Islam bad" message.

 

[smartcooky]

I predict anything involving this terrorist attack, and all the others that happened in New Zealand, will be subject to a whole lot of special pleading in order to try and explain that these terrorist attacks aren't really terrorist attacks, and all of it will boil down to, basically, "because they weren't done by Muslims and therefore they don't count".

Nice attempt to poison the well, but I will not be deterred

There is no special pleading here. The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was not in any way, shape or form a terrorist attack, no matter how much you wish it was, and no matter how many spurious and ill-informed Wikipedia articles you can to find to link to to say that it was.

Terror attacks are attacks on civilian and military people that are carried out for the purpose of terrorizing citizens. That is why they are called "terror attacks"; the clue is in the name!!!

The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was an officially sanctioned French Government covert operation by the DGSE (French Special Forces) carried out for the specific purpose of disabling the Rainbow Warrior in order to prevent it from sailing to Moruroa Atoll and joining the protest fleet against French nuclear testing in Pacific. The French Government initially denied any involvement, but were forced to admit their culpability after two of their agents (Dominique Prieur and Alain Marfart) were caught and arrested (They were found to be traveling on forged Swiss passports under the names of Sophie and Alain Turange)

This denial behaviour is completely at odds with what terrorists do, which is to either claim responsibility or at the very least, remain silent. The attack was EMPHATICALLY NOT carried out in order to scare/terrorize New Zealanders.

Oh, come on.

Don't be a tease. Tell us more.

What I have said above in this post and is nothing new. Those of us who were here when this happened and lived through it know exactly what the official line was.

That said, if you want me to tell you more then start another thread and I will tell you what I know, and how I know. I wont be able to give you any documentary evidence. I will not reveal names of my sources except in general terms.

As a teaser, I will tell you one thing - that the presence of Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur in New Zealand had nothing to do with the Rainbow Warrior. In fact the other DGSE agents involved in the plot; Jacques Camurier, Alain Tonel, Gerard Royal, Louis-Pierre Dillais and team leader Jean-Luc Kister were most likely unaware of the pair's presence in the country. Even counter intelligence officer Christine Cabon (who infiltrated the Greenpeace office in Auckland posing as an environmentalist), had no idea.

 

[quadraginta]

Nice attempt to poison the well, but I will not be deterred

There is no special pleading here. The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was not in any way, shape or form a terrorist attack, no matter how much you wish it was, and no matter how many spurious and ill-informed Wikipedia articles you can to find to link to to say that it was.

Terror attacks are attacks on civilian and military people that are carried out for the purpose of terrorizing citizens. That is why they are called "terror attacks"; the clue is in the name!!!

The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was an officially sanctioned French Government covert operation by the DGSE (French Special Forces) carried out for the specific purpose of disabling the Rainbow Warrior in order to prevent it from sailing to Moruroa Atoll and joining the protest fleet against French nuclear testing in Pacific. The French Government initially denied any involvement, but were forced to admit their culpability after two of their agents (Dominique Prieur and Alain Marfart) were caught and arrested (They were found to be traveling on forged Swiss passports under the names of Sophie and Alain Turange)

This denial behaviour is completely at odds with what terrorists do, which is to either claim responsibility or at the very least, remain silent. The attack was EMPHATICALLY NOT carried out in order to scare/terrorize New Zealanders.

<snip>

Apparently, while they were busy denying, the French also described it as a terrorist act.

But what would they know.

 

[smartcooky]

Apparently, while they were busy denying, the French also described it as a terrorist act.

Well yes, of course they did, and if you are clever enough, you will be able to tell us why (not holding my breath though!)

Hint: There is a clue in what you said

 

[quadraginta]

Well yes, of course they did, and if you are clever enough, you will be able to tell us why (not holding my breath though!)

Hint: There is a clue in what you said

Oh, I know why they did it.

But that doesn't mean they were wrong to call it that. They just didn't want to get the blame.

 

[smartcooky]

Oh, I know why they did it.

Great, you're more clever than I thought

But that doesn't mean they were wrong to call it that.

Well actually, no. That is a flawed conclusion.

They called it a terrorist act because they wanted to divert attention attention away from themselves when they knew they were responsible, i.e., they knew it was not the work of terrorists, but covert operation carried out by their own special forces.

That makes them both wrong and liars.

 

[A'isha]

If it was a terrorist act (and recognized as such) before the French admitted to doing it, it's still a terrorist attack even afterwards.

 

[mijopaalmc]

If it was a terrorist act (and recognized as such) before the French admitted to doing it, it's still a terrorist attack even afterwards.

Yeah, he doesn't seem to be familiar with either the relevant statutes in any country―or by any relevant international organization―dealing with terrorism or the idea that the act undertaken by the French government was also meant to induce fear in the targets.

 

[smartcooky]

If it was a terrorist act (and recognized as such) before the French admitted to doing it, it's still a terrorist attack even afterwards.

It was claimed to be a terrorist act by the French, but they were trying divert attention from what they did.

While the NZ government initially called it a terrorist act, that was before the French government were found to be involved. Once that happened, the official NZ Government line changed. The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior was offically described as "a criminal attack in breach of the International Law of State Responsibility, committed on New Zealand sovereign territory by a friendly state"


In the NZ Government's official submissions on the matter to the United Nations... Memorandum of the Government of New Zealand to the Secretary-General of the United Nations; ‘NZ Memorandum’ 202., the words terror, terrorist and terrorism are nowhere mentioned!

Yeah, he doesn't seem to be familiar with either the relevant statutes in any country―or by any relevant international organization―dealing with terrorism

I am in fact familiar with all statutes, legal proceedings and aspects of the case as regards the sinking the Rainbow Warrior.

or the idea that the act undertaken by the French government was also meant to induce fear in the targets.

Wrong!

France emphasized that the attack against the Rainbow Warrior originates in the illegal actions of the “Greenpeace” organisation’ and could not be understood without recalling the interventions of certain New Zealand authorities in French internal affairs, especially with respect to the nuclear tests conducted on Mururoa. Nevertheless, France acknowledged that ‘the attack carried out against the Rainbow Warrior took place in violation of the territorial sovereignty of New Zealand and that it was therefore committed in violation of international law and that New Zealand consequently has a right to compensation for the harm which it directly suffered from that attack.

Terrorists do not acknowledge that they were wrong to blow up someone and then offer compensation!!!

 

[A'isha]

It was claimed to be a terrorist act by the French, but they were trying divert attention from what they did.

Yes, it was acknowledged by the French to be a terrorist act. Thet just didn't want to admit was THEIR terrorist act at first, but they knew it was a terrorist act and said so because everyone could tell it was a terrorist attack when it happened.

While the NZ government initially called it a terrorist act, that was before the French government were found to be involved.

Yes, the NZ government acknowledged it as a terrorist act before the French admitted it was their terrorist act, because they knew it was a terrorist act and said so because everyone could tell it was a terrorist attack when it happened.

Wrong![\QUOTE]

France was trying to intimidate Greenpeace into doing what they wanted by carrying out an attack on a civilian target, causing the death of one civilian. Pretty much the definition of a terrorist act, which is why everyone knew it was a terrorist act and said so because everyone could tell it was a terrorist attack when it happened

Terrorists do not acknowledge that they were wrong to blow up someone and then offer compensation!!!

Which is why the French first tried to deny it was their terrorist act, even though they knew it was a terrorist act and said so because everyone could tell it was a terrorist attack when it happened.

And all your attempts at terrorism apologia here don't change the fact that everyone knew it was a terrorist act and said so because everyone could tell it was a terrorist attack when it happened.

 

[Craig B]

Islamic holy texts tell Muslims to pray five times a day, so devout Muslims pray five times a day and we can all agree the connection is uncontroversial. Islamic holy texts tell Muslims to kill infidels, and when they kill infidels it somehow needs magical abilities to do that. Ludicrous.

McHrozni

The question is one of consistency. No Muslim denies that her or his religion enjoins prayer five times a day. But most would deny that it requires them to kill all non Muslims.
[ETA: Here for instance is an account of what the Muslims of the Umayyad Caliphate^WP believed that the Prophet had decreed with regard to certain non-Muslims.

Muhammad had stated explicitly during his lifetime that abrahamic religious groups (still a majority in times of the Umayyad Caliphate), should be allowed to practice their own religion, provided that they paid the jizya taxation.]​

This difference has long been evident. Here's the Ottoman Sultan responding to the expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492, by inviting them to settle in his own domains.

"How can you call Ferdinand of Aragon a wise king--the same Ferdinand who impoverished his own land and enriched ours?" he asked. He employed the Jew in making weapons to fight against Europe.​

This same Sultan was in all probability punctilious in the matter of the number of times per day he prayed. He seems to have perceived a difference between killing non Muslims and praying a specific number of times.

This difference I have noted also in the shopkeeper whose business occupies the ground floor of my block. It is often closed while he prays, but he has not killed even one of his non-Muslim customers as far as I know, and even treats them with courteous helpfulness, if my experience is typical.

But where do you get the idea that those Muslims who do kill people employ, or claim to employ, magical powers?

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, it was acknowledged by the French to be a terrorist act. Thet just didn't want to admit was THEIR terrorist act at first, but they knew it was a terrorist act and said so because everyone could tell it was a terrorist attack when it happened.

Yes, the NZ government acknowledged it as a terrorist act before the French admitted it was their terrorist act, because they knew it was a terrorist act and said so because everyone could tell it was a terrorist attack when it happened.

Learn to understand the difference between "acknowledged" and "claimed"

Learn to understand what "retracting a claim" means

France was trying to intimidate Greenpeace into doing what they wanted by carrying out an attack on a civilian target, causing the death of one civilian. Pretty much the definition of a terrorist act, which is why everyone knew it was a terrorist act and said so because everyone could tell it was a terrorist attack when it happened

No, France was trying to prevent the Rainbow Warrior from traveling to their nuclear test area.

Which is why the French first tried to deny it was their terrorist act, even though they knew it was a terrorist act and said so because everyone could tell it was a terrorist attack when it happened.

No. They denied it because the didn't want to get found out

You have failed to address the lack of any mention of terror, terrorist or terrorism in any of NZ's official goverment documentation on the matter

You have failed to address the lack of any mention of terror, terrorist or terrorism in any of France's official government documentation on the matter.

You have failed to address the lack of any mention of terror, terrorist or terrorism in any of the United nation's official documentation on the matter

You don't convince anyone of your view...sycophantic liberal coattailers excepted, of course

And all your attempts at terrorism apologia here don't change the fact that everyone knew it was a terrorist act and said so because everyone could tell it was a terrorist attack when it happened.

Terrorist apologia?



That is really rich coming from this forum's resident apologist for ISIS, Islamic jihadists and Islamic terrorists!!!

 

[smartcooky]

Muhammad had stated explicitly during his lifetime that abrahamic religious groups (still a majority in times of the Umayyad Caliphate), should be allowed to practice their own religion, provided that they paid the jizya taxation

You do understand what the jizya taxation was, don't you? It was paid "in return for protection and as a mark of their submission", in other words it was what we now call a "protection racket"; criminal gangs use it to intimidate people and business owners in their neighborhoods.