Terrorism or fearmongering?

Dillonlikescookies — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:25:23 -0800

Tame Iti, Maori activist, is no stranger to controversy - with his full facial moko he has a face you won't soon forget. But is he a terrorist? Recently, the New Zealand Police force carried out a series of "raids" against a "training camp" in the north island, in the first use of the Terrorism Suppression Act, legislated in 2002. The act itself is not without it's critics but the country seems divided about the raids. Deluded extremists? Harmless Activist? or Real Threat? Some have claimed the raids are politically motivated, enacted by a police force with a declining public image. The whole case is racially loaded The "culture of fear" that is so written about seems to have trickled down somewhat, but time will tell whether it stays with the NZ public. By one account the camps are "amateurish" and with the exception of Tame Iti the most significant charge seems to be possession of a firearm without a license. The police, however, are certainly not helping matters - releasing information suggesting the group intended to start a "race war" and aimed to created an independent state through methods borrowed from the IRA, while keeping quiet on other details. Their press release here Troublesome, to me, is that the police also conducted a "non-raid" of the homes of environmental activists simultaneously, most notably in Christchurch, over a thousand kilometres away. I don't mean to start the thread with strong bent on it, but personally I find this worrying. New Zealand has had it's share of radicals, gun-wielding-forest-living cultists and so on, but the hype that this has reached in the media is unsettling. Worth noting, of course, is the Tuhoe tribe, of which Tame Iti is a member, with unresolved/ignored disputes with the government, which are a significant sticking point. Given this, and the harsh treatment of Tame Iti in regards to the flag protest, was further "radicalization" inevitable? Does the government have a responsibility, not so much to prevent radical groups from acting violently, but instead to incorporate them into public discourse rather than disenfranchise, and thus alienate them and antagonize them? Your thoughts?

9/11 report preview

jbou — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:39:41 -0800

9/11 report preview "As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen." We must wait till January for the full report.

Misinterpreting Osama's Message: Erring on the Side of Danger

BentPenguin — Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:00:21 -0800

Misinterpreting Osama's Message: Erring on the Side of Danger (via AlterNet) Bin Laden's messages are mistaken for unconditional threats and vows to attack. They are really conditional warnings that whatever we do, they will respond in kind. Some new insights from reading between the lines of OBL's communiques without lapsing into left wing apologia (More inside)

hmgovt — Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:02:22 -0800

If you have dignity, the terrorists have already won Ted Rall writes about the cheesification of 9/11.

MetaFilter posts tagged with terrorist and politics

Terrorism or fearmongering?

9/11 report preview

Misinterpreting Osama's Message: Erring on the Side of Danger