Tonally it sounds like you’re arguing with me, but the words don’t tally up.
Ben, I'm flat out telling you I've zero interest in getting tone policed by someone who could type this: "I’ve permalinked this so that I can hand it back to you when the first Kiwi gets there head cut off over this."
That's a repulsive rhetorical game to play when people are being murdered.
Do you actually mean to say you don’t think directly engaging ISIL militarily increases the chances of terrorist attacks against NZers?
I think anyone who doesn't adhere to the letter of their extremist interpretation of Sunni Islam and sharia law is an enemy. That's hardly a great secret. There are plenty of argument to be made against military engagement, but that's not a terribly good one and I really hope we're not going to be basing our foreign policy on death threats. I'm not sure that ends up places New Zealand really wants to go.
Cool, I’ve permalinked this so that I can hand it back to you when the first Kiwi gets there head cut off over this.
Please do, Ben. And when you want to seriously answer my question instead of trying to score cheap and tasteless debating points, I’ll be waiting.
Full marks for dexterity Craig. ;p
And nul points for not answering the question, which you’re not obliged to do but I could do without the usual bad faith crap.
He was referring to Key’s real power, and intention, of putting our troops in there, who will most likely very soon be involved in killing ISIL people, after which a retaliation is very much more likely.
Or do you not think so?
No, I don’t. And I think it’s perfectly legitimate to ask whether you think Key should (as Mark puts it) ” prioritise the defence of New Zealand” by ruling out any New Zealand citizens’ participation in humanitarian aid or independent journalism because ISIL don’t seem to like that infidel nonsense overmuch either. And yeah, take it as read I'm not down with New Zealand criminalizing its citizens for going to the wrong parts of the world.
I’d like to see a much stronger case (and a Parliamentary mandate) for New Zealand participation in any military intervention, but I’m not buying into knee-jerk isolationism either.
I want John Key to sidle up to God and prioritise the defence of New Zealand. Regardless of whether these risks actualise, to dispute their existence shows a reckless disregard for our safety
And that's all very nice, Mark. So, should Key do that by restricting Jon Stephenson's freedom of movement until he stops putting New Zealanders at risk by reporting that might piss off ISIL and their ideologial chums? Same treatment for irresponsible aid workers or tourists?
The US hasn’t killed very many people in Syria and Iraq in the last year, although the body count will be rising quickly with Raqqa being bombed.
Yeah - and I don't mean to harsh on nzlemming, but does anyone want to go to Kobane right now and split that hair? While we're doing a reality check on Western hypocrisy, it's useful to rethink how looking at people's suffering through a very long media telescope can dehumanize and shunt people to the margins of their own lives -- and deaths.
People worry about what they’re doing, but they’ve still killed fewer people in the last year in that region than the US has.
Which is a little too damn easy for everyone to say sitting behind a keyboard on the other side of the planet, isn't it? One of the great things about Al-Jazeera is how it privileges voices for whom this isn't a high-tech version of Game of Thrrones.
"It's not actually all about us (or the US)," is a point that should be made with more force.
I can’t find that relevant. I’d struggle to find a war that I’d accept as a ‘good one’. But if I did (I do support some peace-keeping, and can see a peace-keeping angle in this one) devaluing our passport is the least of our concerns.
And, really, should we start telling journalists and aid workers -- you know the folks ISIL are cheerfully murdering -- they "endanger New Zealanders traveling overseas" and "devalue our passports" as well?
ooh, you must have loved your tribe calling the King of Tonga a slug.
etc, etc ,etc
Of course I do, Sacha. Every bit as much as you love "your tribe" calling National Maori MPs "John Key's little house niggers" -- which was defended by a couple of other ex-MPs turned talk radio shocks jocks, who have the most lovely record of on-air slut-shaming of rape victims.
If you want to play guilt by tenuous association, we can play. I prefer to operate on the presumption that everyone with a grain of human decency finds Messers Laws, Jackson and Tamihere repugnant.
Craig, please enlighten me, is someone righteous like you happy to have someone as your current party leader and prime minister who lies as freely and frequently as John Key does?
I'm perfectly happy to criticize "my party" -- and everyone in it, from the leader on down -- when I think it's warranted. Just like everyone else. It's really not that hard to do it while avoiding dehumanizing and demeaning slurs.
poodle does not warrant dudgeon (high or low) when it so accurately reflects the relationship.
Well, I'll look after my dudgeon (whatever level it settles at) and you take care of yours. I really get that the government isn't shaking down to your taste, but you better get used to it and the simple realities of both what "confidence and supply" actually means and how MMP works.
And I guess I had the misfortune of being brought up around kuia where calling anyone an animal tended to provoke the kind of dudgeon aimed squarely at one's arse.