Greens say NZ should welcome terrorists
January 4th, 2009 at 2:36 pm by David FarrarGreen MP Keith Locke wants New Zealand to take in the “detainees” from Guantamamo Bay.
While the inmates there are undoubtedly being held in flagrant breach of international law, it is quite obvious that most of those inmates are also ruthless terrorists. They need to be put on trial in somewhere like the Hague, not brought to New Zealand to learn to fly planes. It was honourable of New Zealand to welcome the Tampa refugees to our country in 2001. They were refugees from the Taleban and Al Qaeda. The Guantanamo Bay inmates are the Taleban and Al Qaeda.
Indeed. As TVNZ reported:
Top US general John Altenburg says 30 Guantanamo inmates who were released have since been involved in terrorist acts or have been recaptured on the battlefield.
This reminds me of just after the 9/11 attacks, when the Greens marched just days later to demand the US not respond, and they merely negotiate with the Taliban.
Related posts:
- Don’t call the terrorists names
- Greens compare US to terrorists
- The Greens Party List
- Trevor vs the Greens
January 4th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I can only say thank God the Greens don’t have the influence in Parliament anymore.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Perhaps the bleeding hearts would like to bring in a few really old Taliban who were fighting in the days when Keith Locke supported the Soviet Union against them.
Locke in his communist heyday even backed Pol Pot.
Perhaps he thinks we should take some of the Khmer Rouge butchers who so slowly receive justice in Cambodia?
The Greens showed their true colour is red when they brought Locke into Parliament. Shame on them for bringing a person so contemptuous of Western-style democracy into our Western parliament.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
“I can only say thank God the Greens don’t have the influence in Parliament anymore.”
Amen.
Keith’s a nice guy, but all his FP ideas are quite mad. Hard to understand really why the entire Green caucus can’t wake themselves up and recognise the deep naivity of their idealistic fantasies.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
So hang on, Keith Locke supported the USSR fight against the Taliban and you want to howl him down for it? Perhaps if the USSR had more support then, the world would have changed forever, and for better. But no, the USA and its running dogs gave support to the Taliban to oppose the USSR, the USSR eventually left Afghanistan to the Taliban and we all know what happened next. In fact, its still happening now.
Keep in mind people that these terrorists locked up in Guantanamo Bay are so evil, such an enormous threat to our safety and liberty, as well as being a danger to children and small animals, that no law can describe their crimes, no court can be found to try them in.
[DPF: The USSR did not fight the Taliban whose first military outing was in 1994 some years after the USSR disappeared. But you are right Keith Locke is possibly the only person alive to have supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that took away democracy and fought against the US liberation that restored it for many]
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
IMO when Jeannette Fitzsimmons – (the softer trusted auntie type face of the greens) finally leaves parliament the greens will have lost their appeal to the naïve, and hopefully fall below the 5%
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Here’s a much better idea.
Why don’t we send Keith Locke to Guantanamo Bay?
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
The Greens are Communists in drag.
thedavincimode Great suggestion.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I may not agree with Keith Locke on taking them in, but he is being consistent when he says there should have been talks with the Taleban – he supports talks with Hamas (and lets note the USA made demands of the Taleban which if met would have avoided any military intervention). Those who demand Israel talk with those firing rockets at them rather than use a military response while supporting their own nation’s military occupying Afghanistan are hypocrits.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
The same applies to greenies like Locke who want to limit the growth of New Zealanders, while encouraging those who have not made a contribution to society in years to come to our shores.
“The Greens are Communists in drag.” Well obviously, Locke’s parents were active Communists, so says wikipedia, and I believe Delahunty openly despises democracy, or “democratheid” as she calls it.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
“IMO when Jeannette Fitzsimmons – (the softer trusted auntie type face of the greens) finally leaves parliament the greens will have lost their appeal to the naïve, and hopefully fall below the 5%”
Don’t think it will happen, Patrick. Unfortunately.
Greens have all sorts of mad ideas. You’d think the Greens of all people would eschew caucus comptetion but they madly compete for the dumbest most idiotic idea. Some people probably vote for them because they’re so funny.
I’d love to see a psychographic breakdown of the Greens core demographies. That would be funny and sad at the same time, but mostly funny.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
“when Jeannette Fitzsimmons – (the softer trusted auntie type face of the greens) finally leaves parliament the greens will have lost their appeal to the naïve, and hopefully fall below the 5%”
I disagree with the above statement.
I’m of the opinion that, unfortunately, there will always be people gullible enough to believe in the lies the Greens peddle, because the Luddites use the cunning strategy of caring for the environment (raise his/her hand those among us who don’t care?) as a Trojan horse for their communist agenda.
Keith Locke and Russell Norman are prime examples of this devious approach. Both are staunch socialists, if not communists, pretending to save the Earth.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
[DPF: The USSR did not fight the Taliban whose first military outing was in 1994 some years after the USSR disappeared. But you are right Keith Locke is possibly the only person alive to have supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that took away democracy and fought against the US liberation that restored it for many]
First, I accept that I was wrong about the taliban, it was a variety of warlords, collectively known as the mujahudeen that Soviets fought. But from thsoe seeds, the taliban grew. The Taliban and Al Quaeda were also operative in the early 1980′s.
What democracy was that? The 1973 coup pretty well ended that. The PDPA ended the coup, but did not restore democracy. And today Afghanistan is a long way from being a functioning democracy.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
‘The US has already approached Australia and Britain to take inmates from the military prison in Cuba and Australia has confirmed it is considering taking some of them.’
Vote:If New Zealand’s government is approached with the same request, what will be Mr Key’s response do you think? After all, we are very, very good friends with the United States.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
First, I accept that I was wrong about the taliban, it was a variety of warlords, collectively known as the mujahudeen that Soviets fought. But from thsoe seeds, the taliban grew.
False. The Taleban fought against the mujaheddin government that ousted the communists.
The Taliban and Al Quaeda were also operative in the early 1980’s.
Again false. The Taleban was organized and supplied by Pakistan _after_ the Mujaheddin government started fighting amongst themselves. Al Qaida wasn’t organized until after the Soviets had left.
And today Afghanistan is a long way from being a functioning democracy.
And so in Billy Borker’s universe, the current government is no better than the Taleban.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
GREENFLY:…………On the ‘Bloomfield’ news ticker I watched last night Australia refused to consider taking any Guantamano prisoners…..It seems no Western Country will accept them and they prefer where they are to the Moslem alternative. If the election result had been different they might have been accepted here if they made a $5000 donation to the Liabour Party.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
baxter – so Mr Farrar’s link is out of date then .. your call on Key’s response, should his very, very good friend America ask? Instant dismissal of the idea?
This sentence from Farrar’s post is a beauty!
“This reminds me of just after the 9/11 attacks, when the Greens marched just days later to demand the US not respond, and they merely negotiate with the Taliban.”
Surely negotiating would be a response. Perhaps Farrar neglected to describe the kind of response the Greens were urging the USA not to take – speaking of which, didn’t that go well! Sure sorted the Taliban out!
[DPF: So you think the world and Afghanistan would be a better place if the Taliban were still in charge of Afghanistan? Nice to know the sort of world you want]
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
If nothing else Locke can serve as an example to us all of what a full blown two bob looks like. The Melons are quick to offer the hand of friendship to oppressive regimes, perhaps it’s in their genes. Many of the regimes the mad Mr Locke looks up to form some of the base beliefs the Melons would like to impose on Kiwi’s. Quite frankly the whole mad lot of them can go and fuck themselves, I have no time for any of them.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Perhaps Farrar neglected to describe the kind of response the Greens were urging the USA not to take – speaking of which, didn’t that go well! Sure sorted the Taliban out!
Before 9/11, the Taleban were in control of 90% of the country. Now they are confined to the eastern and southern provinces along the borders of Pakistan from where they operate freely. Additionally they control no major Afghan cities. So the question has to be asked: what measure of sorted are you using? Or were you going full retard in a pathetic attempt at a cheap shot?
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
metcalph – value for money then, do you think? ( taking colateral damage into account of course, and the unfortunate situation where they aren’t destroyed and by many reports, regaining strength). But this is more than I know – my point was, Farrar’s spin on the Greens position immediately after 9/11 was disingenuous and no doubt designed as a seed to your and others cliched anti-Green crystal.
[DPF: Are you saying the Greens did not support the marches where they demanded no action be taken against the Taliban]
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Rudd says this
Vote:“The Weekend Australian newspaper says Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has left open the possibility of Australia taking former inmates from Guantanamo Bay, but has warned that any US request for an inmate to come would be subject to legal criteria and assessed on a case-by-case basis.”
How close was what Locke said, to this?
Will Key say differently?
January 4th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
metcalph – value for money then, do you think? ( taking colateral damage into account of course, and the unfortunate situation where they aren’t destroyed
A very good job was done in ousting the Taleban from power with far fewer casualties than you guys were predicting.
and by many reports, regaining strength).
They didn’t start regaining strength until 2006 when the Pakistan government effectively conceded NW Pakistan to them. The only they could have been stopped then was if the US invaded Pakistan. Then you would have been screaming blue murder about another innocent country being invaded.
But this is more than I know
That much was patently obvious from your posting.
my point was, Farrar’s spin on the Greens position immediately after 9/11 was disingenuous and no doubt designed as a seed to your and others cliched anti-Green crystal.
The fact remains that if the US government had followed the Green position, the Taleban would still be in power and things would be a thousand times worse. Alluding to the fact that the NZ Greens were being fucking stupid at the time is not being disingenuous.
I also note that the German Greens supported the US intervention in Afghanistan. Does the name Joschka Fischer ring a bell?
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
metcalph said: – The fact remains that if the US government had followed the Green position, the Taleban would still be in power and things would be a thousand times worse (emphasis added)
- you base this confident assertion on .. your deep knowledge of negotiation methodology?
[DPF: Well why don't you cite some examples where it has worked in getting a regime that is so ideological it stops women from even learning to read, to suddenly agree to change things for the better. Maybe you can cite Mr Chamberlain as your precedent]
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
So what, greenfly? You’re not trying to allege that if Key does a deal the purpose of which can only be specifically to curry US-favour, that Locke is advocating it for the same reason, are you?
Putting on my objective strategic calculating sombrero (I use a beret in winter), I calculate that Keithy is vewy vewy concerned at the human rights of the teworwists and that’s why he’s saying what he is. How accurate is my sombrero, greenfly?
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
The Greens are silly sods.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Poneke said: ” It was honourable of New Zealand to welcome the Tampa refugees to our country in 2001″
Vote:It would be fascinating to hear what Kiwiblog regulars were saying as that issue unfolded
January 4th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
reid said: “You’re not trying to allege that if Key does a deal the purpose of which can only be specifically to curry US-favour, that Locke is advocating it for the same reason, are you?” Nope. Locke and Key eh!
Vote:btw – when you slipped on your sombrero, it infantalised your voice. Curious!
I’m mostly interested to know if any of you are bold enough to predict how Key will respond, should he be asked. So far, none of you are.
January 4th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Locke and Delahunty simply prove the old saying that 6.72% of the population are stark raving mad.
Those of us who have always considered Locke to be the classic Green party nutter are in for a huge surprise this year, watch as that mad bitch Delahunty surpasses Comrade Keith in ways we never thought possible.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Why does Poneke think that the inmates at Guantanamo Bay are held illegally ? They are certainly held legally according to the Geneva Convention, if that applies (look up unlawful combatants). If not, what does apply to terrorists ? Local criminal laws are not generally intended to apply in cases like terrorism. The US took the stance that the situation against acts such as 9/11 is essentially a war situation, not a criminal one, and that is a decision that would need to be challenged, not just opposed.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Greenfly:
Instead of blatantly trolling, as you’ve been doing, how about expressing your own opinion. Do you think New Zealand should take in Guantanamo detainees or not? If so (and – deep breath here – supposing you were in charge), how would you propose to deal with them?
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Took your advice, Ed and found
“The phrase “unlawful combatant” does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
“Mary Robinson, the UN human rights chief, said they should be considered prisoners of war, as defined by the Geneva Conventions. At the time, U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other military officials called them “detainees” or “unlawful combatants.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/genevaconventions.html
“However, denying the detainees POW-status does not change the way the United States is legally obligated to treat them. Both the Geneva Conventions and human rights law mandate that that Washington treat detainees humanely regardless of whether or not they are considered to be POWs.”
http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/pow-intro.html
And, of course, America’s own unlawful combatants.
Vote:http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/15/nation/na-blackwater15
January 4th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Nomestradamus – my interpretation of ‘trolling’ must be different from yours but I’ll hold my tongue.
Vote:I’ve expressed several of my own opinions and asked questions; about Farrar’s intentions and methods and the Prime Ministers likely response to the ‘detainees’ issue – so far, none have responded. I’m intrigued as to why. Some here have put words and thoughts into Keith Lockes mouth and mind and into those of the Green Party, but none have cared to speculate as to what Mr Key might do. The post, it seems to me, was not about the detainees, but about Mr Locke and the Greens – yes or no? “Greens say New Zealand should welcome terrorists” Hmmmmm……
January 4th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Perhaps we are over reacting, no sane person could really take the words of Locke seriously given his past support and glowing testimonials to the likes of Pol Pot.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
“btw – when you slipped on your sombrero, it infantalised your voice. Curious!”
It’s got a telepathic mind-mapping empathetic MK III Zephyr Microsoft drive, greenfly. Unfortunately I couldn’t afford the MK IV and Linuz hasn’t hooked into it yet, bugger it.
As a consequence, the transcripts are made exactly as transferred from the actual thoughts of the subject, without translation. Those were Keithy’s actual thoughts, I omitted the dribbling, snorting and girly giggling out of courtesy.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
“Perhaps we are over reacting” – it’s a Big Bruv epiphany!
Vote:reid – check your hat band – it’s too tight!
What will Key do, btw?
January 4th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
“What will Key do, btw?”
Don’t know, greenfly. He could go either way. You want my pick – he’ll go with building US relationship provided the security risk can be managed. By that I mean not only managing the prisoners but also managing the possibility and risk of attracting terrorist attention toward NZ. Neither the attractions of currying US favour nor the downside attached to the other risk, are trivial things, so you’d have to work that through really carefully, wouldn’t you. Really hard to predict, really.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Keith Locke,a trainee suicide bomber , EVERY TIME HE OPENS HIS MOUTH,HIS BRAIN EXPLODES
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
greenfly notes:
Proving what, exactly? More than one left winger wants to embrace people whose values are diametrically opposed to everything they espouse, and is too dumb to see the inherent contradiction? (I wonder how Elsie Locke would view the Taliban’s equal opportunities policies?). It’s not only New Zealand that’s elected some stupendously daft people to its Parliament? That two idiots do not a sensible suggestion make?
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
“Proving what, exactly” – that Rudd is less reactionary than most of the commenters here and , curiously, enjoys considerably greater influence over world events than Kiwiblog contributers – coincidence? I don’t think so
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
OK greenfly.
John Key will turn down any request from the US to accept Guantanamo prisoners.
Vote:But he hasn’t even been asked yet.
Why the hypotheticals?
Would you accept any of them?
January 4th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
DPF – “DPF: Well why don’t you cite some examples where it has worked in getting a regime that is so ideological it stops women from even learning to read, to suddenly agree to change things for the better.”
The Evil Bastards can’t be reasoned with (Why, they’re no better than animals!), so we’ll send in the Machines of Mass Destruction! Is this what you are implying Mr Farrar? I’m guessing the Greens weren’t expecting ‘sudden’ change, as you describe, negotiation is generally a game of patience and transfer of ideas. Does this stick in your craw so much that you rule it out immediately?
[DPF: The Talban had many years to change their ways. They also were given time in which they could have handed over Al Qaeda operatives. They refused. But hey I have thought of a great example of your patient negotiations strategy - Zimbabwe. They'be been trying it for the best part of a decade now. I am sure anyday now it is going to work]
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
KEITH LOCKE:
A LIFETIME OF BAD DECISIONS, U-TURNS AND BACKDOWNS.
Keith Locke, of “the most notorious comunist family in New Zealand” started his career of poor choices after completing a BSc Psych. at Canterbury University. He travelled across to Canada to attempt a PHd but
DROPPED OUT.
Returning to New Zealand at the beginning of the 1970′s for a short stint lecturing at VUW before ending up on the vocational scrapheap of meatworks and workshops.
He wrote supportive articles about the Khmer Rouge regime while he was editor of the New Zealand Socialist Action newspaper. Later on however, he made a
U-TURN
on his support for the communist regime.
Another communist regime which he once supported but then renounced was that of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. He believed that the invasion would protect human rights in Afghanistan.
And who can forget his
BACKDOWN
on running naked through the streets if Rodney Hide was elected member for Epsom. In the event, he dressed in underwear, shoes, socks and a painted-on suit.
Not to encourage tired old communists to streak fully nude downn makor shopping centres, but his life is just a litany of backdowns and u-turns from idiotic positions.
I suspect that his support for these extremes stems not from an actual desire for their ends, communism would never work in New Zealand because we are too well off, but from some sort of attention-seeking disorder. Why else did he join with the greens rather than stay with the alliance?
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
[DPF: Well why don't you cite some examples where it has worked in getting a regime that is so ideological it stops women from even learning to read, to suddenly agree to change things for the better.]
I thought this discussion was about terrorists and Taleban/ Al quaeda, now you want to make it about Saudi Arabia?
[DPF: And once again you blunder, not knowing the facts. Do you eerget sick of being wrong so often? Saudia Arabia treats women disgracefully, but not in education where 70% of university students are female. While the Taliban banned girls from education once they reached the age of eight.]
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
You are all missing the point here. We don’t need to take in any more terrorists to get brownie points as John Key has stated he is happy to sponsor Helen to a UN job. What the fuck is taking him so long?
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
This whole ‘bang up’ by Locke is proof positive that this is the silly season for ‘news’. THe Greens and lazy Journos anxious for a headline. For Keith. Sorry old son, reflect back to election day. Your mob lost and while you might have had a degree of traction with Labour (to wit light bulbs and showers) right now your ability to influence decision making where it mattesr is zip, zero, nix. So I guess its back to the streets and long evenings sipping low quality Chardonnay (cheaper by the cask) and reflecting on what might have been.
New Zealand needs ‘refugees’ from Gitmo about as much as it needs Mad Cow disease.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
The greens are yellow….
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
they’re watermelons
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
One of the best things about the Nat’s election victory is that whenever you see a headline that begins “Greens say” or “Labour say” you can skip past the story safe in the knowledge that those wankers are irrelevant for at least the next three years.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
I just saw the ‘Green’/'Lefty’ way to fight a war on telly. The penguin program on 3 now. A skua came along looking for a feed and wandered around pecking at a chick here and a chick there, meanwhile the penguins (Greens? Lefties?) stood and watched. The skua finally found a chick that appealed to him and got stuck into it. The penguins (Greens? Lefties?) go “Ho hum.” and wander off.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Ross Miller
Vote:Phew, some sense on this thread at last.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
# greenfly (83) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 4 Says:
January 4th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
I’m mostly interested to know if any of you are bold enough to predict how Key will respond, should he be asked. So far, none of you are.
……………………
Britain and Oz both have lefty, PC, green appeasing govts and the US is in the process of becoming the same.
I hope when it comes time for John Key to make a decision on this that it wont be based on any minority green, lefty, commo, PC pandering.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
I think the Greens going public in support of G/bay prisoners could actually work to further expose them, (provided Act/Nats know how to open their mouths outside the election).
Think about it, the Greens and the Taliban are at opposing ends of the ideology scale on environmentalism, feminism, homosexuality and religion. The only common ground is anti USA and the destruction of western democracy ……..which really shows what’s at the top of the Greens agenda. The Greens’ embracing the Taliban defies every publicised principle the Greens claim to stand for.
Keep up your yapping Locke. This ones better than you lot trying to ban showers
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
[DPF: And once again you blunder, not knowing the facts. Do you eerget sick of being wrong so often? Saudia Arabia treats women disgracefully, but not in education where 70% of university students are female. While the Taliban banned girls from education once they reached the age of eight.]
have you been to Saudi? Do you know what it is like to be a woman there?
Saudi women cannot vote. They are not allowed to drive. They cannot be admitted to a hospital or examined by a doctor or travel abroad or leave the house without the express permission and/or company of an immediate male family member, and of course they must, at all times, be covered from head to toe in black sackcloth and if they dare venture outside or break the fashion code in any way they could very well be arrested and jailed indefinitely and beaten and even killed, no questions asked.
God only knows where you got the 70% figure from, I can’t find it on the Saudi’s own education website.
there are plans for a new university for women only, but you m,ust know that no matter how many universities accept women, they are restricted in the subjects they may study.
“Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has announced plans to build the first women-only university in the kingdom, and vows that it will be the largest women’s university in the world.
This is a bold move by the king, who has frequently struggled against Saudi Arabia’s powerful religious establishment to educate women in the kingdom and integrate them in the workplace. Until now, women have had limited access to higher education in restricted women’s sections of Saudi universities where they are only permitted to study certain subjects. Saudi women still can’t drive, vote or be caught in public without their spouse or a male relative.”
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/the-saudi-question/saudi-arabias-first-womens-university/3486/
Women who wish to continue their education beyond high school are often persuaded to stay within the kingdom’s reigns, as it isn’t customary for women to leave their home before marriage. And if a woman does leave, she must be accompanied by her spouse or a male relative. Women experienced university studies in Saudi Arabia as they experience much of life in the kingdom — behind the veil.
Here’s a dollar – buy a clue.
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
billyborker (138) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
January 4th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
[DPF: And once again you blunder, not knowing the facts. Do you eerget sick of being wrong so often? Saudia Arabia treats women disgracefully, but not in education where 70% of university students are female. While the Taliban banned girls from education once they reached the age of eight.]
…………………….
What the fuck are you argueing about in your last post?
You agree with David that “Saudia Arabia treats women disgracefully…” and then tell him, “Here’s a dollar – buy a clue.”
Vote:January 4th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
” disagree with the above statement. I’m of the opinion that, unfortunately, there will always be people gullible enough to believe in the lies the Greens peddle”
Agree with you Manolo. The question remains are there 100,00 or 150,000 ‘gullible people’ when the Greens most human face (Fitzsimmons) is no longer peddling it
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 6:39 am
WebWrat, my arguent with DPF is not about the treatment of Saudi women in general, but about his claim that 70% of Uni students are female. Surely the question I asked and the links I posted showed that? Maybe you could try to keep up.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 7:44 am
So billyborker is a woman living in Saudi? it all becomes clear – your education ended at age 8.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Depending on what Locke said the guy might just have a point.
The majority of inmates at Gitmo we would certainly not want here and on that i agree with poneke. But it is true that there were some who got caught up through circumstance who were perfectly innocent. If Locke is talking aout those people then as friends of the US we should help put things right.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Look, the dots have been connected for us long since by Ian Wishart and Trevor Loudon in “Investigate” Magazine. There is a clear nexus between neo-Communism, the Greens, and violent Islamist extremism; the last just happens to be a convenient ally against a common enemy, Western free market democracy.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 8:14 am
So your entire post could be reduced to this Billy:
“God only knows where you got the 70% figure from, I can’t find it on the Saudi’s own education website.”
No wonder the world is so confused with all the mindless yap that goes on.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 8:35 am
>>> Top US general John Altenburg says 30 Guantanamo inmates who were released have since been involved in terrorist acts or have been recaptured on the battlefield.<<<
I’m not suprised they would want to try to get their own back after such treatment. It is hardly rehabilitation.
The Greens have a worthy cause, only trouble is that they are extremists with it … like terrorists.
I have canvas bags, five of them, for my shopping and various jobs like going to the Library but I don’t support elimination of plastic bags, a very useful invention.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 8:48 am
“I’m not suprised they would want to try to get their own back after such treatment. It is hardly rehabilitation.”
You mean treatment that started when they were not executed on the battlefield or had their nuts cut off like they do to their Prisoners. Or when they get such good food that depite the exercise gear they have they are all getting fat. It was like we kept hearing about how David Hicks was starved and he came out a candidate for the biggest loser…I think he won by the way.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 9:11 am
“Saudi women cannot vote. They are not allowed to drive.”
Hmmm….well the Saudi’s got something right then.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 10:19 am
I think it will be a political decision for John Key if he is asked. Don’t forget, there is a new president and I think it will be Obama asking, if he does. That changes things. I am still not convinced that Osama Bin Laden attacked the towers so, who are these terrorist in Guantanamo? I have never supported the greens, infact, I think they are out for control evidence with the antismacking bill. I have questions with this whole terrorist thing and sometimes I find myself consumed by these questions and I just have to stop asking otherwise I get depressed.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Many people have been released from Guantanamo without charge. That indicates that innocent people have been held there, some of them for some time, and all without access to legal representatives.
Also, I am absolutely not surprised that some of the people who have been released have made their way into battle against the United States either in Iraq or Afghanistan. If anything is going to fuck someone off to the point that they want to get revenge it is being held against their will without access to a laywer and suffering “enhanced interrogation techniques” which we all know are actually torture but aren’t allowed to say it.
The people being held in Guantanamo who have actually committed crimes should be delt with by the United States, and not shipped off to Australia, Great Britain, or New Zealand. And the innocent ones should be freed.
[DPF: Yeah they are terrorists because they were locked up. Nothing to do with the fact that they were captured fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan in the first place]
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 10:39 am
keith locke hates NZ. He hates the west. He is just a hater.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 10:49 am
JackP writes: “I am still not convinced that Osama Bin Laden attacked the towers so, who are these terrorist in Guantanamo?”
If it wasn’t Al Qaeda that attacked the twin towers, then it ain’t Israelis attacking Gaza, it’s a Hizbollah army in Israeli uniforms; the bombs on London in 1940 were from a dissident right-wing faction in the RAF; Hitler was no more than a harmless vegetarian who hated cigarette smoking; and, the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were staged simulations to scare the Russkis.
Do you check your morning paper’s the same as everyone-else’s JackP? Not a special edition printed by the Thought Police just for you?
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 11:25 am
“[DPF: Yeah they are terrorists because they were locked up. Nothing to do with the fact that they were captured fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan in the first place]
Are you saying that everyone locked up in Guantanamo was fighting with the Taleban in Afghanistan? So all the people released from that have been terrorists?
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I have long suspected that if the Greens re-wrote their constitution so they could throw out all the refugees from Communism and become a true Green Party that focussed on the Environment rather than on attacking the West and Democracy they would gain about 15% of the vote, and be a major force in any government.
So maybe we should be thankful that the ex Communists were able to roll their first AGM and get themselves appointed to high places and run the Greens ever since.
Maybe JF will resign this year and form a new TrueGreen party and leave the existing Green Party to attract the same voters that used to vote for the Socialist Unity Party and the like.
So be careful of what you wish for.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Owen
I would have no problem with a REAL Green party apart from the climate change bullshit.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Shouldn’t this post heading be “GREENS SAY WE SHOULD WELCOME WRONGLY ACCUSED MUSLIMS”
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Jack5 says:
Locke in his communist heyday even backed Pol Pot.
That’s an unfair accusation in the manner which you make it. It’s better levelled at the Americans (who have a long tradition of supporting unconscionable regimes, including the Zionist one in Palestine) than at Locke. Here’s the lowdown;
Most of the communist world supported the Khmer Rouge (with the notable exception of Vietnam) as an agreeable alternative to the corrupt Lon Nol regime. in ’79 when the Vietnamese invaded and installed a Hanoi-friendly government and the truth of the atrocities emerged, the communists did a collective about-face and along with the rest of the world condemned the Khmer Rouge.
Except for America and China.
Chinese motivation was simple – They were vying for supremacy against the USSR and Cambodia was their client-state while Vietnam was a Soviet client state. China had invaded northern Vietnam earlier in the year and was deeply unhappy about a Hanoi/Moscow-friendly puppet government supplanting their friends in the Khmer Rouge in Phnom Pen.
America was smarting from their defeat at the hands of the Vietnamese and motivated by their sense of petulance backed the Khmer Rouge -knowing full well the crimes that had been committed in Cambodia over the previous five years.
Here’s the critical bit. The Khmer Rouge stands alone in the theatre of international relations, as the only government-in-exile to maintain its seat at the United Nations. This occurred at American insistence with Chinese assent.
So, while Locke and the rest of the head-up-the-arse communists were backing the Khmer Rouge before the truth of atrocities emerged, the Americans and the Chinese were doing so after and while the central base for Khmer Rouge operations was inside refugee camps in Thailand.
There’s a lot wrong with Locke’s opinions and background -as there is with pretty much all of the Greens and their ideology. Support for Khmer Rouge atrocities however is not amongst them.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
No, but shouldn’t this post heading be “91% OF NZ DONT WANT THE GREENS EITHER”
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
radar (179) Vote: 1 5 Says:
January 5th, 2009 at 11:25 am
“[DPF: Yeah they are terrorists because they were locked up. Nothing to do with the fact that they were captured fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan in the first place]
“….Are you saying that everyone locked up in Guantanamo was fighting with the Taleban in Afghanistan? So all the people released from that have been terrorists?….”
Well, yes, Radar, presumably you are unaware that a good proportion of those released from Guantanamo so far due to lack of evidence or whatever, have turned up again somewhere or other blowing people up and sawing heads off hostages etc…..
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
oob (2) defends Keith Locke’s position vis a vis Pol Pot.
Here’s what Trevor Loudon blogged in New Zeal on 18th December, and Loudon seems to have a great filing system, and as far as I know this has been unchallenged:
“For several years in the 1970s, Keith Locke was editor of the Trotskyite newspaper Socialist Action. The April 25th 1975 edition, carried a lead article by Mr Locke under the banner heading: “Cambodia Liberated: Victory For Humanity”.
“Who were the “liberators”? The Khmer Rouge of course. Who led the Khmer Rouge? Mass murderer Pol Pot-that’s who.
“Up to two million dead.”
Locke, Loudon also asserts, was at least an indirect supporter of East Germany, yet he later accused NZ police of using Stasi tactics.
Loudon also reveals Locke’s close link with a radical Auckland group, Students for Justice in Palestine.He contributed to its magazine Intifida, Loudon says, and in the same edition was an article which seems sympathetic to suicide bombing.
Locke is a true-Red reborn as a Green.
oob talks of America’s “long tradition of supporting unconscionable regimes”.
I guess that included New Zealand in the early 1940s under a Labour government, when young American carrier pilots, including the young man who went on to become President Bush senior, shed blood to stop the Japanese fleets that would undoubtedly have led to enslavement of New Zealand.
To hell with the Melon Greens!
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Wonder if Orb will be out protesting in Wellington tomorrow. All the local rent a crowd (Minto, Locke etc) will be out in force to rally against the evil capitalist west.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
There is a protest in Wellington?….what a pity we cannot arrange one in support of the Israeli’s, that would be one that I would definitely attend.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Big Bruv I was thinking the same. I don’t have a flag, but have an IDF TShirt which may be even better. I would like to have a meaningful discussion with some of members of Students for Justice.
I saw pictures of a protest in Paris I think with more Israeli flags than protesters. It was a joy to see.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Jack5 Says:
oob (2) defends Keith Locke’s position vis a vis Pol Pot.
Here’s what Trevor Loudon blogged in New Zeal on 18th December, and Loudon seems to have a great filing system, and as far as I know this has been unchallenged:
“For several years in the 1970s, Keith Locke was editor of the Trotskyite newspaper Socialist Action. The April 25th 1975 edition, carried a lead article by Mr Locke under the banner heading: “Cambodia Liberated: Victory For Humanity”.
“Who were the “liberators”? The Khmer Rouge of course. Who led the Khmer Rouge? Mass murderer Pol Pot-that’s who.
“Up to two million dead.”
You really ought to take another read of what I wrote above as it’s accurate. Feel free to cross-reference against other resources and come back to me.
Locke is innocent due to timing. The Americans and the Chinese are guilty due to the timing. It’s all a matter of timing.
The Khmer Rouge were an intensely secretive regime. No-one (including Cambodian observers like Father Francois Ponchoud) had even heard of Pol Pot before 1978 and when the name emerged, along with the fact that this man was a member of the Paris study group, most observers presumed (incorrectly) that “Pol Pot” was the nom de guerre of Ieng Sary rather than Saloth Sar.
During ’78 rumours of atrocities, that were given little credence, emerged from Cambodians in Thai refugee camps. The full horrors of the Khmer Rouge regime was not exposed until ’79, when Vietnamese photographers embedded in the Vietnamese Army published, notably of S-21 and the Killing Fields. I suggest that you go there.
Locke, like the rest of the Communist imbeciles, supported the Khmer Rouge in ’75, simply because the Khmer Rouge were communists. In ’75 it appeared from the communist point of view that Cambodia was another victory over American aggression in Indochina. They retracted that support in ’79 when the atrocities were exposed by the Vietnamese. They had nothing to lose after all -from their point of view a “bad” communist regime was being replaced by a “good” communist regime. This is the point in time when the Americans began supporting the Khmer Rouge – who’d they’d previously been bombing (in support of the Lon Nol regime) in ’74 and ’75, because the subsequent regime was a puppet of Hanoi and by extension, Moscow.*
I’m more than happy for people to chip at Mr Locke and the Greens in general, chipping them fits well with my world-view. Given their stances there’s a lot of ammunition to chose from; in this instance, you’ve chosen poorly.
oob talks of America’s “long tradition of supporting unconscionable regimes”.
Wow, you’re really going to argue that point? Really? Friend, you really need to read up on some 20th Century history.
(*) For those familiar with modern Asian history, I’m deliberately avoiding mention of Norodom Sihanouk, Nixon’s visit to China in the context of the Sino-Soviet split, ASEAN and the Pathet Lao (and Laos in general) for brevity, due to my interlocutor’s unfamiliarity with the topic at hand.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 9:29 am
I think we should let the Greens have thier way on this one provided that they are personally responsible to house, cloth, medicate and feed these “refugees”. No tax payer funding involved at all. Additionally they are to be personally liable for any misdeeds committed. I think you will see thier enthusiasm wane considerably. Do-gooders generally only want to do good with someone elses money.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 10:46 am
oob (3) says: “Locke is innocent due to timing. The Americans and the Chinese are guilty due to the timing. It’s all a matter of timing.”
Keith Locke is deep red! He was born into a family that supported Stalinist style communism even after its appalling atrocities were revealed. He has sided with the Soviet Union himself on Afghanistan, with East Germany, and with the Khmer Rouge, and now that communism is moribund, with extremist Muslims.
oob doesn’t challenge Loudon’s reporting of the article supporting Pol Pot-led Khmer Rouge.
Using oob’s argument you could say the spies and traitors who worked for the Soviet Union, the flaky western intellectuals who praised the Soviet Union under Stalin, those who supported Mao at the time of the murderous Great Leap Forward, are all innocent because Stalin’s and Mao’s crimes hadn’t been officially announced, debated, published and authenticated. What bollocks!
Or with oob as judge Eichmann might have been allowed to plea at his trial: It was all a matter of timing your honour. At the time I wasn’t aware of what I was doing was wrong as my conscience hadn’t then developed.”
Your choice of words shows, too, oob, you are an American hater.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Jack 5 says:
oob doesn’t challenge Loudon’s reporting of the article supporting Pol Pot-led Khmer Rouge.
Actually I did, you merely failed to notice.
Aside from your shortcomings in comprehension, you appear blissfully unaware that in my case, you’re simply over-matched. Go play with someone a little closer to your own weight division kid.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Oob takes the titles for ad hominem attacker of the year and then, for his huge self-evaluation, another title, for pomposity.
The original post said Locke in his heyday backed Pol Pot.
Oob responded Locke did not support Khmer Rouge atrocities.
C’mon oob, even if the original post HAD said Locke supported Pol Pot atrocities: 1. The Locke family backed Stalin well into the days of knowledge of gulags; 2. Locke backed the Soviet Union against the Afghans. 3. Locke backed Pol Pot. 4. Locke backed the East Germans. There’s a pattern. It’s of a man who ignores the terrible acts of communist tyrants or regards any assertion about them as mere Western propaganda.
Of course Locke wouldn’t support atrocities. No-one admits to that. But if you support A, and A causes B you support B.
Vote:Ooby can argue that in this case Locke didn’t know A caused B. But he should reasonably have known this was highly likely after what was then well known: Stalin led to the gulags, Mao led to the Great Leap Forward.
January 6th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Jack5 Says:
The original post said Locke in his heyday backed Pol Pot.
Oob responded Locke did not support Khmer Rouge atrocities.
C’mon oob, even if the original post HAD said Locke supported Pol Pot atrocities: 1. The Locke family backed Stalin well into the days of knowledge of gulags; 2. Locke backed the Soviet Union against the Afghans. 3. Locke backed Pol Pot. 4. Locke backed the East Germans. There’s a pattern. It’s of a man who ignores the terrible acts of communist tyrants or regards any assertion about them as mere Western propaganda.
Again and for the very last time; Locke did not back Pol Pot, because he had no idea who he was.
What’s faintly disturbing is that within this thread, you’ve accused Locke of being both a Stalinist and and Trotskyite. You really ought to familiarise yourself with a subject prior to both speaking of it and forming conclusions based on erroneous suppositions. In this case I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the difference between ComIntern and the 4th International. There is a difference. A big one.
Of course Locke wouldn’t support atrocities. No-one admits to that. But if you support A, and A causes B you support B.
Some do. The Americans and the Chinese for example did support the Khmer Rouge, after the truth of atrocities emerged and the Khmer Rouge had been overthrown. You support the Americans. Does it then follow that you support Pol Pot?
Ooby can argue that in this case Locke didn’t know A caused B. But he should reasonably have known this was highly likely after what was then well known: Stalin led to the gulags, Mao led to the Great Leap Forward.
Great Leap Forward? What are they teaching kids in school these days? Acquaint yourself with “The Cultural Revolution” which I think is what you mean. In fact, that’s a remarkably good starting point for obtaining a familiarity with Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.
Listen – this stuff is thoroughly fascinating if one has a penchant for international relations, history or politics. Why don’t you take the time to investigate it? I strongly suspect that you’ll find it rewarding.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Why is the left so keen to re write history when it comes to Comrade Locke?
If Locke is a man of principle as the Greens constantly remind us then I fail to see why the have a problem with his past (and perhaps ongoing) support of Stalin, Pol Pot and the Taleban.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
OOB: I didn’t mean to suggest Locke was a Stalinist and a Trotskyist at the same time. The Lockes were among the most prominent of the handful of NZ Stalinists. Later this Locke edited a Trotskyist magazine.
And surely Mao did play the lead role in the Great Leap Forward, before the Cultural Revolution, in which Madame Mao and her cronies were at least as important.
I think also there’s far greater relationship between Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge than any support relationship between any sections of the American establishment and Pol Pot. And if there was such an American support, it would have been of the “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” type of relationship which most people accepted for the alliance with Stalinists in World War 2. What was Locke’s excuse for siding with the Khmer Rouge but “America’s enemy is my friend”?
Regardless, Locke is Red. He’s also presumptuous as in his statement today at the pro-Palestinian protest: ” … the people of New Zealand want their Government to take action.” (NZ Herald).
How would Locke know?
Vote:January 7th, 2009 at 2:30 am
Jack5 Says:
OOB: I didn’t mean to suggest Locke was a Stalinist and a Trotskyist at the same time. The Lockes were among the most prominent of the handful of NZ Stalinists. Later this Locke edited a Trotskyist magazine.
You’re bloody lucky young fella that the wiggle-room of this get-out-of-gaol free card was available to you. You know, as I know, that this avenue was available purely serendipitously.
As an aside, check Stalin’s popularity amongst modern Russians. The fact that he came upon them when their level of technology was the plough and he left them with the world’s foremost space programme has not gone unnoticed amongst them. Despite his crimes, in the two-column accounting approach to evaluating a human being’s contribution to the world, he isn’t doing too badly amongst those who knew him best.
And surely Mao did play the lead role in the Great Leap Forward, before the Cultural Revolution, in which Madame Mao and her cronies were at least as important.
Spare me. You know and I know that you meant the Cultural Revolution. The GLF is inconsequential in the context of our discussion.
I think also there’s far greater relationship between Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge than any support relationship between any sections of the American establishment and Pol Pot. And if there was such an American support, it would have been of the “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” type of relationship which most people accepted for the alliance with Stalinists in World War 2. What was Locke’s excuse for siding with the Khmer Rouge but “America’s enemy is my friend”?
I’ve explained Locke’s motivation ad infinitum and I don’t want to belabour the point because my next one (in the following paragraph) is more important. I’ll say it again however and add an extra justification from my point of view;
Locke: Locke supported the Khmer Rouge in ’75 because they were communists. Nothing more, nothing less. You can take him to task for being injudicious (but not to the extent that you have been.)
Me: Supporting the Khmer Rouge in ’75 was an entirely defensible position because the Lon Nol regime was so heinous. anything would have been an agreeable alternative.
Now, onto America. I want you to think carefully about this. In ’79, when the fact that the communist regime in Cambodia, who the Americans had been bombing for several years five years earlier and who had been exposed as the perpetrators of a genocide that had annihilated 40% of the Cambodian population, had America as their very best diplomatic friend.
Their. Very. Best. Friend.
This is the moral equivalent of backing the Nazis in ’45 or backing Israel today. Take a moment and think about it.
Regardless, Locke is Red. He’s also presumptuous as in his statement today at the pro-Palestinian protest: ” … the people of New Zealand want their Government to take action.” (NZ Herald).
How would Locke know?
Locke is a socialist moron. His ilk have inflicted harm upon our society that in my view will take generations to undo. Please, do the Right’s cause a favour and inform yourself before taking him to task; you do us no favours when you fight on shaky ground.
Vote:January 7th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Hi Oob:
So we agree Locke supported the Pol Pot led Khmer Rouge.
But Oob, of your comment: “Please, do the Right’s cause a favour and inform yourself before taking him to task; you do us no favours when you fight on shaky ground.”
How do we really know you are of the Right or Centre-Right or otherwise right of Locke? You could be some far-leftist Greenie fifth columnist masquerading as a Rightist so you can whitewash Locke, minimising his communist background. “Socialist moron” could just give vent to resentment against a deviationist, eg perhaps Locke’s no longer a Trot.
And I’d be careful praising Stalin. Perhaps Russia would have become a Japan or China scale industrial giant if it had gone through its industrial revolution without socialism, or even with a milder communist leadership. Stalinism has stuffed up Russia for a century or two it seems. A brilliant man, but a psychopath and a mass murderer. He had some good bureaucrats, but chopped most of them eventually, and kept some of the others, such as the brilliant aircraft designer, in prison while he worked. Stalin was pretty smart shooting tens of thousands of his military officers not long before the Germans attacked, wasn’t he?
I see you’re a late worker, OOB. Hopefully not late enough to stop this being the last post before Mr Farrar archives this string.
Vote: