Without referring back to the letter of the law, who defines what a terrorist organisation is? What about 'state sponsored terrorism'? Does that count? Is that also defined – or is there a neat exclusion clause for nation states?
And I have something to ask 'Natman': is Anders Behring Breivik a gunman, a terrorist, or a patriot?
I must admit the revelation on nat radio this morning that Slater (spit) et al are in the process of starting their own agency sort of sent a shiver down my spine - it's an obvious ploy to try and control the press just a little bit more and to make the Nat's message the only one that many people hear
Sounds like what Breitbart has done in the States.
If I go to Syria to fight for the Assad regime, and kill ISIS fighters, am I a terrorist?
Who here saw Matthew VanDyke's "Point and Shoot" at the NZFF?
I think the key test is how much weight the 'believer' gives to verifiable facts. Refusing to face unpleasant facts is the psychological starting point of many a conspiracy theory. For example, many people were unhappy with the outcome of the New Zealand elections, and could not believe that so many people had voted for the Key government. Their conclusion (unsubstantiated by any evidence) was that the result must have been due to electoral fraud or some such jack-up.
I'm certainly not one of them; I'm of the view it was a perfect storm of factors.
On the flipside, there are also the conspiracy theories of the 'beneficiaries with SKY dishes and BMWs', which is basically the NZ version of the American 'welfare queen'. And those who throw the term 'PC gone mad' are themselves rooted in conspiracy theorism of the McCarthyist kind.
It wouldn't surprise me if most of these people also happen to believe in the Eurabia dystopia, which is basically a reheated Cold War Domino Theory - Pamela <cough> Geller is probably its most infamous figurehead.
others have to taken to the internet to declare him guilty of "receiving stolen property"
But where the criticism of the book isn't simply in bad faith, it's often hapless, as Roughan's column is. Nicky Hager isn't perfect. But it seems fair to say he really does deserve better critics.
Said critics are effectively saying, "it's not illegal when President Nixon is doing it."
One sentence immediately springs to mind: "We will always be at war with Eastasia."
A sensible precaution against nearsighted ZAP devotees, who were given to smashing Lada windscreens in secluded spots like the University car park.
Some property rights believers they are.
On the one hand, this Granny editorial is wary of the police raid on Hager…
BUT… John Roughan fiddles while Rome burns. And he’s still on the Press Council?
Which leads me to believe the editorial was a Tim Murphy piece.
And I've come to realise that all those who keep insisting Hager is a recipient of stolen property, are the same people who seem to think that it's not illegal when Tricky Dick is doing it.
The later incarnation of the graphics-geek friendly Amiga was hyped by the local distributor as a cheap colour rival of the Mac. Unfortunately it suffered from the kind of instability that only a bleeding edge enthusiast could love. The regularly encountered guru meditation must have provide hours of fun for the hapless milkies.
When Commodore was producing Amiga 500s in its West Chester, PA facility, the engineers and other employees became fond of drag racing on the parking lot. Subtler means having failed to dissuade this practise the company had speed bumps of ever-increasing size installed. The bumps got to the point of shaking the shipping trucks so much that the socketed main chips would loosen in the motherboards, causing sporadic failure. It got to the point where dealers were instructed to take their freshly delivered machines and drop them several feet to reseat the chips.