April 7, 2006 7:15am by David Farrar

Ignorance is bliss

The SIS has warned in its annual report that New Zealand is not immune from terrorism and that there are friends of al Qaeda in NZ, along with people who have participated in jihad – holy war – in countries such as Bosnia.

But of course Keith Locke knows better and says the SIS is crying wolf.

Considering that our next door neighbour Australia just a short while ago arrested several people who were plotting terrorist attacks in Australia, it is dangerously naive to think we are magically immune.

And did Dr Buchanan even read the report (link to pdf) when he says we “continue to scapegoat native-born Muslim men, particularly Arab men”. I quote the report:

“That said, in the Service

Share this:
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More
Pinterest
Print
Tumblr
Like this:
Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment20

Uncategorised

Related Stories

The six main threats to NZ

Doh

Full SIS report

Comments (20)

Login to comment or vote

sid

True
Our awareness is pathetic……..
I flew in from Oz last year to AKL, a guy, middle eastern appearance, was taking telephoto pictures of all the security cameras, and the keypad locks on doors. After half an hour or so I went inside and told a cop………… he was too busy.

When Prince Charles was over here a while back….. I was at the fishing shop at Westhaven, Cops everywhere, Road closed, a guy bwalked from the start of the closed block with a 44 Gallon drum on a trolley, down the middle of the road, past at least 20 cops, then finally was stopped 10 Mtrs from the Restraunt door, and escorted to the footpath, right beside the door.
Apparently he collected waste cooking oil, but what if the drum had been full of explosives?
Scares me a lot….

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 7:56am

gd

The best defence we or any other western country has is the moderate Muslim community.As the report says the vast majority have come here to escape the violence etc in their home countries.We need to show these poeple that we both respect and value them provided they make a positive contribution.In return they will want to weed out any undesirables.Thats what they left behind.Keith Locke needs to take a deep breath check his hatred for the SIS and those of us who dont agree with he extremist views and think carefully what he says.

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 10:30am

ross

“Considering that our next door neighbour Australia just a short while ago arrested several people who were plotting terrorist attacks in Australia, it is dangerously naive to think we are magically immune”.

You mean allegedly plotting, right? Or have you already convicted the accused? And is there any evidence they belong to al Qaeda? And of course, we’re talking about Australia, which is right behind Bush and Blair.

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 10:30am

Simon

I have no doubt that Australia is and was a target (although I have grave doubts that those arrested recently were a part of that threat..it was too conveniently close to Howard’s anti Terror Bill, and we know that Johnny is not immune to manipulation of the truth for political purposes), I have to smile a little at the thought that “Al Qaeda” even knows or cares where New Zealand is. Seriously….

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 10:44am

Simon

I have no doubt that Australia is and was a target (although I have grave doubts that those arrested recently were a part of that threat..it was too conveniently close to Howard’s anti Terror Bill, and we know that Johnny is not immune to manipulation of the truth for political purposes), I have to smile a little at the thought that “Al Qaeda” even knows or cares where New Zealand is. Seriously….

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 11:00am

paul

Hi David:

Your quote does not include the qualifier I used: IF. As in IF we continue scapegoating Muslim men…then we might have a problem. The constant harping about al-Qaeda sympathizers in NZ (the latest claim is nothing new)takes a page from Winston’s book used during the last election campaign, and is unsubstantiated fearmongering that is counterproductive. As it stands, by SIS definition anyone who displays even rheotrical sympathy for why someone might join a jihad against the West is liable to be labeled an al-Qaeda sympathizer. I feel that the definition is too loose, and a recipie for abuse. But the issue goes further, to that of motivation. Why would anyone engage in a Islamicist attack on NZ soil?

Our geostrategic, diplomatic and historical position with regard to the Islamic world is quite different than that of the UK or OZ (with whom parallels are being drawn). We have a history of treating Muslims fairly, of not selectively targeting them as terrorist suspects, and we did not participate in the invasion of Iraq. We diplomatically keep Israel at arms length, and have extensive commercial relations with the Islamic world. Although we have had citizens killed in other countries by Islamicist attacks, they were incidental victims, not deliberate targets, and the chances of a home grown al-Qaeda inspired threat a la London bombers is remote when compared to other local possibilities (animal rights activists, eco-militants, etc.). What is of concern is that disgruntled individuals with local greviances can now imitate al-Qaeda methodology, since the technical knowledge to make dirty bombs, car bombs etc is just a few clicks away on the web. The cyanide letter writer of a few years ago is a case in point (and he was not a Muslim as far as anyone can tell).

Where the SIS got it right is its mention of people with Bosnian combat experience (in a war of resistance against genocidal Serbian occupation of majority Muslim territory, BTW). Such individuals undoubtably have the technical knowledge and jihadi networks to pose a threat if they have not renounced violence, and rightfully should be monitored. But it paints to broad a picture to aver that the threat of Islamicist-inspired home grown terrorism is significant in NZ.

My larger concern is that the report appears to be politically opportunistic in its assessment of real security threats to NZ. Recent modifications to anti-terrorist legislation allows the SIS to be vague in its definitions of terrorist threat, and it appears to be using the 9/11 environment to ratchet up concerns about Islamicists in our midst when the hard fact is that we have other, more pressing threat scenarios to worry about than home grown jihadis. Moreover, the NZ police counter-terror squad is plenty competent to deal with what theats we have. If 19 phone intercepts are the extent of SIS eavesdropping (and I assume one of those monitored is Ahmed Zaoui, and perhaps pro-Palestianian groups), then the realistic threat assessement belies the SIS report.

FYI, in spite of some claims that I am (left)ideological in my approach to these affairs, I will note for the record that I simply strive to be ruthlessly objective when it comes to threat assessments and to call things as I seem them. I did this in a past life and I continue to do so today, even if it knots the panties of intelligence bureaucrats in Wellington.

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 11:09am

insider

Paul

got to disagree with your comment that NZers have been “incidental” victims of overseas bombings. As far as I am aware there hasn’t been a claim that Bali was anything but aimed at westerners of all nationalities as a whole – not just Australians, as I think was your implication. It was entirely predictable that non Australians would be killed. It makes the killers indiscriminate but not the victims ‘incidental’. The London bombings similarly.

Re the Bosnian jihadis, while the war may have started as you described, I believe none of the protagonists had much to be proud of by the end of it. Your comment makes them seem like innocents.

That said I don’t necessarily disagree with you on the direct threat to NZ, but the SIS are damned if they don’t monitor what is percevied as a global threat. We don’t want Northern Ireland situation where such actions radicalise a generation though.

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 12:29pm

Neil Morrison

Isn’t there an odd and rather negative view of Muslim/Arab men implied by Paul B’s assertion –

“If we continue to scapegoat native-born Muslim men, particularly Arab men, sooner or later some youth will become enraged and do something.”

In the 70’s many Polynesians did in fact experience quite insults to their community, eg dawn raids, but did not resort to bombing buses or trains. And similarly with the Asian community.

Are we to believe then that the Mulsim community is somehow more predisposed towards acts of violence?

One major porblem with PB’s therat assessment is that he assumes that terrorists will have the motives that he thinks they should have. He forgets that they may have there own quite irrsational motives. For instance Australia was targeted because of its support for East Timor’s independence – not because of the war in Iraq. NZ also supported independence, we are already a target. Just not a very important one.

I’m really not sure what to make of the claim that we are not a target as we “diplomatically keep Israel at arms length”. I don’t think that avoiding teh attention of extremists on that basis is anything to be proud of.

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 12:43pm

Sean

Paul said “FYI, in spite of some claims that I am (left)ideological … I simply strive to be ruthlessly objective …. I did this in a past life and I continue to do so today, even if it knots the panties of intelligence bureaucrats in Wellington.”

So he is ruthlessly objective but has no problem referring to the intelligence community as “bureaucrats” in a clearly perjorative manner.

Well, thanks Paul, for your fascinating views but I see nothing in your background that indicates that I should prefer them over the professionals.

You strike me as the sort of person who would have been in the WTT or in the Bali hotel, claiming loudly until the last second that we have nothing to fear from Muslim males…

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 1:03pm

Aaron Bhatnagar

Having studied under Paul Buchanan, I can state that he was without a doubt one of my finest and most interesting lecturers at the University of Auckland. He also has experience in intelligence work. However, his American influenced style of teaching and writing may strike New Zealanders as a little odd, one of those cross-cultural confusions perhaps.

Sean’s comments that Buchanan would have been one of the people in the WTT or Bali clubs saying we have nothing to worry about could not be more incorrect. If anything, had Buchanan the raw intelligence data regarding Al Qaeda and political Islam in the late 1990s, he would be more likely to interpret that the political/social winds were a’changing in Islam.

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 2:11pm

David Farrar

Thanks for the comments Paul. It’s great to be able to have clarification here beyond the snippets in a newspaper. I still wonder who you were were referring to because even with the “if” you said “continue” and I don’t think NZG (apart from Winston) does scapegoat NZ Muslims. In fact I they win a lot of support for being moderate and as the SIS themselves say, helping police any extremists.

And to Sean I would note that Paul is a former CIA staff member or contractor so does know a fair bit about the intelligence community. In fact one of the major criticisms of the CIA by detractors is that it is too bureaucratic.

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 2:20pm

paul

Dear All:

My view reduces to the following. The threat assessment of the potential for terrorism derives from the combination of external and internal factors. Internally, the root cause of Muslim violence in Europe and eslewhere is spiritual alienation, economic deprivation and lack of political voice (when not political oppression). Absent that, as is largely the case in NZ (except for the xenophobic claims of one politician and a few conservative commentators), the internal motivation for adherence to jihadist ventures is remote if not absent–unless we start targeting people unfairly based upon who they are, rather than what they do.

Externally, the geostrategic and military-political stance of NZ is fundamentally different than that of the UK, US and OZ, Coupled with our history of good relations with the Muslim world (the differences with Indonesia over East Timor were government to government, and the Indonersian regime is( nominally) secular), means that we are in a fundamentally different position, internally and externally, when it comes to the potential for a home grown (or foreign) Islamicist threat. I judge that the Labour government has played its cards relatively well on this score, but the SIS annual report has the potential to be counter-productive since it hypes what is a relatively minor security concern to the detriment of other very real ones

Insider: my read of statements of Jamal Islamiya (sic) indicates to me that the targets in Bali were Australians and Yanks, with all others considered the terrorist equivalent of collateral damage. The London bombers were, to my mind, indiscriminate, simply because of what Tube ridership looks like on any given workday morning.

Neil: I hope that the explanation above clarifies my thoughts on the cause of violence amongst resident Muslims in Western countries. I am not saying that we should appease any extremists that might arise here–far from it–but I do think that in the scheme of things the most significant threats to NZ’s well-being will not come from home grown jihadis, and it was disingeneous for SIS Director General Woods (whose track record on this issue is to my mind suspect) to raise that red herring. Also, I do not believe that al-qaeda and its adherents are irrational. If they are they are crazy like foxes because they have lured the US into a global war that has taxed its resources and eroded international goodwill towards it. If that was the intent, then 9/11 was the ultimate sucker ploy!

My bottom line–and I am sorry that Sean does not like it–is that intelligence analysis should be objective, factual and neutral. Let the politicians put their spins on it, but the duty of intelligence is to provide nothing but the assessed facts, in balanced fashion, so that policy-makers can make the last call on what, in fact, constitutes a “threat” to the nation.

Thanks for hearing me out–now back to the hate mail.

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 3:30pm

insider

Paul

Re your hate mail: Just tell the vice chancellor to take a chill pill.

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 3:36pm

err..

“Where the SIS got it right is its mention of people with Bosnian combat experience (in a war of resistance against genocidal Serbian occupation of majority Muslim territory, BTW). Such individuals undoubtably have the technical knowledge and jihadi networks to pose a threat if they have not renounced violence, and rightfully should be monitored.”

I find this whole “Bosnians as Al Qaeda threat” idea quite amusing. Have the people discussing the idea ever met any actual real-life Bosnian muslims? A hell of a lot of them are big into their leather jackets and Metallica albums for crying out loud. They strike me as having more in common with the average Westie. Not only that, but they’re often forcibly excluded from even more moderate Arab muslim circles (at least in the UK) just because the more ignorant Muslims of arabic origin seem totally unable to process the idea that there could be a nation of white Muslim people who like to drink and swear a lot. It’d be a bit like a newly-converted gansta rapper showing up in a midwest American church…

Bosnian muslims as the new sidekicks of Osama Bin Laden? I can’t quite see it, somehow.

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 4:02pm

baxter

Having read the above I,m beginning to understand why the Police are proposing to police Muslim women differently from other New Zealanders. Even if it is true that the majority of Moslems have sworn allegiance to New Zealand and her sovereign majesty the Queen we are left with the on-coming generation secluding themselves within their own enclaves, adopting the idealism of radical clerics and behaving no differently than those of their faith in London, Paris, and Sydney. The Chamberlain approach won’t make any difference. It is unfortunate that our SIS does not enjoy the Intelligence availiable to Australia from our very good friend America.

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 4:31pm

ruth

What rubbish. Paul is quite right. You only need to talk to the folk at the US Consulate in Auckland to know where the threats come from. White NZers. Who sends fake anthrax, harasses staff coming to work in the morning, tailgates cars going into staff carparks? White NZers.

Snap back to reality.

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 4:57pm

reid

Who sent the real weapon-grade anthrax to congress after 911 ruth?

Answer that and you get a clue about the real terrorists.

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 8:02pm

ruth

And who required the Council to seal up the manholes on Customs Street because of terrorist threats? Get real. The only people treatening us in NZ are NZers.

NZ is NOT a Muslim target. Political spin does not make it so.

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 9:07pm

ruth

And who required the Council to seal up the manholes on Customs Street because of terrorist threats? Not the Muslim community. Get real. The only people threatening us in NZ are NZers.

NZ is NOT a Muslim target. Political spin and mouth-breathing rednecks do not make it so.

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 9:10pm

reid

Ruth just to clarify,

I wasn’t referring to the NZ terrorist situation, merely pointing out that if you could track down the currently unprosecuted culprits who sent genuine weapons-grade anthrax spores that have been DNA traced to a single weapons lab in Maryland to certain Congress Representatives soon after 911, then you might make some progress in tracking down the actual people that cause worldwide terror.

Of course that would be a long haul and of course your first match would not be your last, but it would be nice if the worldwide blogger community started focusing upon such obvious points of entry.

0 0
Report
April 7, 2006 9:38pm