Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Terror panics and the war imperative, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I think I’m hearing a baited hook being waved in front of my nose I really shouldn’t rise to, but I’m certain I should take my own advice and presume good faith on your part.
I think the self-metaphor of you being some kind of slippery fish is quite apt. Yes, landing you on any point is as difficult as it is with a skilled politician. Instead of answering the question, you call the question bad faith or baiting or whatever, and then you respond with a question of your own. So I come away with no answer to my question, and an implication that somehow I'm the one with questions to answer. And that's bad faith on my part somehow.
In answer to your question posed to Mark and me: No, no one is suggesting that John Key should be restricting the freedom of people who willfully put themselves at risk of being caught by ISIL. Brave journalists should be allowed to do their thing. That would be completed unwarranted use of extraordinary powers that no one has suggested would be a good idea (and it's probably entirely outside of his power anyway), and it's also completely beside the point of whether John Key should be gearing up to send NZ troops to this conflict.
Is this particular line in bed yet or should I be even more unequivocal about it? No one suggested that. But it's now asked and answered so can we get an answer to my question? How on earth can you maintain that engaging in a military conflict with a group of people who openly use terrorist tactics constantly isn't going to increase our chances of having those tactics used on us?
Or are you saying that it's beside the point, and we shouldn't even consider it, because that's "giving in to terrorists", and that they will be doing it anyway? Very confused about your point.
-
Hard News: Terror panics and the war imperative, in reply to Marc C,
How bizarre, how bizarre, I’d say.
Wanna know the rest? Hey, <you know the rest>
-
How can military policy ever be based on anything but death threats? It’s the death threat business.
ETA: And that's when it's being nice. Usually it's just the death business.
-
Hard News: Terror panics and the war imperative, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
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.
I think I hear a no in there. I still can't be sure. It reads like you're saying that if you get a bunch of NZ soldiers to go into Iraq and start killing people, like what militaries do for their job, that somehow you don't think that it will make a lick of difference to whether NZers will now become targets for retaliation. But then again, maybe you're saying you don't give a fuck. I still can't be sure.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Dunne was a Labour MP from 1984 – 1994. Never been National Party
Heh, I actually knew that, too. But someone argued so blue in the face the other night to me that he had always been a Nat that it caused mental interference. I guess I can't tell the difference cognitively. Walks like a Nat, quacks like one.
-
Hard News: Terror panics and the war imperative, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
You mean this:
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.
was actually a question? It looks like some kind of statement about you and your straw men.
I don't know where that came from, or what it's asking. Who said Key should do that, and why should I answer it, having not suggested it? Mark didn't suggest it either, it's some kind of straw man you're trying to derail with.
But then again, considering you say:
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 can't even tell what your position is, or even what you meant by "No I don't". Tonally it sounds like you're arguing with me, but the words don't tally up. Do you actually mean to say you don't think directly engaging ISIL militarily increases the chances of terrorist attacks against NZers?
-
Hard News: Terror panics and the war imperative, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
No, I don’t.
Cool, I’ve permalinked this so that I can hand it back to you when the first Kiwi gets their head cut off over this.
-
Hard News: Terror panics and the war imperative, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
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?
Clearly Mark wasn't suggesting that. 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?
-
Hard News: Terror panics and the war imperative, in reply to Farmer Green,
Legitimate ? Really?
It's as close as we can get.
-
Hard News: Doing over the witness, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Because you can create a similar 2x2 logic equation that is absurd does not make what I presented less relevant, it is an utterly false equivalency.
Yes, your argument out of context looked to me like Pascal's Wager, but in context it makes sense. The missing bit was "And we also have good reasons in this case to think that I am right".
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 208 209 210 211 212 … 1066 Older→ First