NZ Terrorist

[Teret]

I Love this thread

[Phil O]

I should point out that this has been kind of unfair as I am a media studies major. To be generous to Doctor Weazel I will give him a decent comeback that is based on something I actually said, rather than his own dogmatic assertions.

 

Terrorism is a convenient label

 

So is "sensationalist"

 

[Known One]

orFay uckfay akessay uys...gay. opstay arguingway andway oinjay emay inway ethay ugglestray againstway everythingway

[Known One]

...ybay ethay ayway, athannay isway eyghay

[Pakage]

...ybay ethay ayway, athannay isway eyghay

 

[dr_weazel]

I should point out that this has been kind of unfair as I am a media studies major. To be generous to Doctor Weazel I will give him a decent comeback that is based on something I actually said, rather than his own dogmatic assertions.

 

Terrorism is a convenient label

 

So is "sensationalist"

 

 

Wow, you must absolutely suck at your studies then. You cant even argue the same point as the person you're arguing against. I was talking about the article relating to the bugged conversations and evidence of terror, not the Ashers getting raided(which was pretty fucking obvious, especially when the Ashers getting raided is completely insignificant to the rest of what we've been discussing here). And even that Herald article was quoting the Ashers themselves saying that they have been hanging out in the Ureweras recently.

 

And pulling the old (and extremely lame) "Oh yea, the police? well shit, I dont trust them" just because what they have to say doesn't match up to what YOU want to believe? Come on buddy, we're talking about taped conversations and video of training camps, how are you going to talk your way out of that?

Edited November 15, 2007 by Guest

[dr_weazel]

igpay atinlay siay tupidsay

[Phil O]

Personal attacks, the last resort of the beaten.

 

My single point was this: you are intensely critical of the media to the point of likening the editor of the Herald to Joeseph Goebells, then you readily accept their account of this event. That is an inconsistent stance.

 

Sure the police account might be true, but there are 2 sides to every story, and the other side is given far less weight by the mainstream media.

[dr_weazel]

Personal attacks, the last resort of the beaten.

 

My single point was this: you are intensely critical of the media to the point of likening the editor of the Herald to Joeseph Goebells, then you readily accept their account of this event. That is an inconsistent stance.

 

Sure the police account might be true, but there are 2 sides to every story, and the other side is given far less weight by the mainstream media.

 

All you are doing is:

 

a) Arguing semantics

and

b) Twisting whats been said to suit your own petty need to "win" in a discussion.

 

I'm presenting you FACTS.

 

FACT 1: The police reports, INCLUDING VIDEO AND AUDIO SURVEILLANCE, indicate QUITE CLEARLY, that these people were AT THE VERY LEAST conducting some fucking extremely shady operations in the Ureweras, whether or not it's "terrorism" is a matter of debate (but I personally would call having weapons and "planning" to use them on NZ infrastructure and high-profile people, terrorism).

 

FACT 2: The Asher family have FREELY ADMITTED THEMSLEVES that they:

a) Are of Tuhoe Descent

b) Have been visiting the Ureweras a lot lately

and

c) Have a daughter who has been visiting the Ureweras to visit her relative Tame Iti, a key figure in the alleged "training camps" (which police have audio and video proof of)

 

FACT 3: The ONLY reason the people arrested and accused of "terrorism" weren't charged under the Anti-terrorism act is because THE ACT IS OVERCOMPLICATED AND BADLY WRITTEN as stated by the Solicitor General.

 

There is NO "inconsistency" in my "stance" on the New Zealand Herald, I STILL maintain that printing a massive editorial on the front page is wrong, and really THAT IS COMPLETELY BESIDE THE POINT BECAUSE IT'S FROM A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT. (i.e electoral spending, not NZ terror). But hey, you've got nothing better to say, so drag it on over from another thread

 

I never accepted the New Zealand Heralds account of ANY event, I wasn't even the one who linked that article from the New Zealand Herald for fucks sake! I just happened to read it and comment that "hey, the family themselves admitted to blah blah blah, So maybe it's not quite as strange for the cops to be raiding them as it may at first seem.". Take note of the word in bold there buddy, MAYBE. That's a LOOOOONG stretch away from saying "I believe 100% the account given here by the New Zealand Herald".

 

Your "single point" doesn't even hold water.

[Phil O]

If I dont have a point then why are going to these absurd lengths to shut me down?

 

If youd have just casually dismissed me and not continued to argue the point I would have got bored and done something else.

 

 

Its been fun though cheers. I'll leave it at that.

[Evil]