Scoop Feedback: US And Israel Harbor Terrorism Too
In This Edition: Any list of countries harboring terrorism excluding US and Israel is incomplete and will only help terrorism to succeed with a different face!! - Copy Of Letter To Police Commissioner - An Indebted People - Response To Peter Dunne On Immigration
Note Scoop invites readers to submit their views as letters to the editor for publication. Please send your views to firstname.lastname@example.org
Any list of countries harboring terrorism excluding US and Israel is incomplete and will only help terrorism to succeed with a different face!!
We must understand the problem to solve it correctly whether it is mathematical, economical, political or international. Thus, the definition of terrorism and terrorists need to be established clearly for the sake of a long lasting world peace. If we consider Newton's Third Law Of Motion - 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. This is equally true for all US actions including Vietnam, Korea, Philippines, Indonesia, throughout South America, Middle East and Africa, and former Yugoslavia. For ideological war or economic interests, most terrorists have been either trained in US or trained by US in some way, including many notorious world dictators!
It is once again unfortunate that President (Non-Democratically Elected) George Bush has started labeling countries with ancient civilization and heritage as terrorist. This is being done at a time when the world was so close to be united against the evils of arms race, global warming, mines, guns as well as weapons of mass destruction including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Our beautiful World had a wonderful chance after World War II for a long lasting peace! Unfortunately, imprudent partitioning and redrawing of many Asian, African and European countries were done to satisfy long term American and British strategic interests. The very interests of the local people, cultures, values and securities, were sacrificed for the sake of the American and British economic and military interests.
There is still time to begin 21st Century in a good note ensuring peace and good environment while maintaining a sustainable worldwide economy considering mutual interests of all countries. We must not miss this wonderful opportunity by separating countries and dividing the world, in the name of a virtual enemy 'terrorism'.
Since its inception, Israel has been terrorizing Palestinians and Arabs armed with latest US weapons including nuclear bombs and missiles. They even destroyed USS Liberty killing 34 and wounding 171 American marines in 1967. Prime Minister Sharon himself has been charged as a war criminal who helped kill and massacre 20,000+ Lebanese and butchered thousands of Palestinians refugees including women and children. Israeli intelligence regularly conducts assassinations throughout the world.
Most people in the world including US and Israel are for peace and common good of mankind. It is the self-censored commercial media which diverts world opinion labeling death and destruction as collateral damage.
This is a time when our beloved world leaders must use their power and intelligence toward uniting the world and not dividing it further in the name of terrorism!
Copy Of Letter To Police Commissioner
Mr Robert Robinson
Commissioner of Police
Dear Mr Robinson
It is of great concern to the Peace Council that a member of the public is visited by the police because of a letter he wrote to the editor of the Evening Post expressing his democratic right to give his views which are also shared by many other New Zealanders.
I refer of course to Mr Tahir Ali, who expressed his views concerning the SAS and the attacks on Afghanistan.
Could you please tell me what has suddenly happened to warrant a police investigation into a law-abiding citizen and his right to free speech? And will other law-abiding letter-writers be receiving a visit from the police. There is no doubt that the actions of the police has contravened the Bill of Rights, and is an intrusion into the individual's right to freedom of expression. My father who fought for this country to defend our rights and the freedom to speak our minds will be turning in his grave. I never thought I would see this in New Zealand.
To my mind, the government is creating a legal and political framework to intimidate and stifle political dissent, and help to whip up a "Cold War" atmosphere of paranoia and witch hunts. This has much to do with the anti-terrorism bill currently before Parliament. Its sponsors and promotors hope by a combination of bullying and taking advantage of current public sentiment about terrorism, that the public will ignore infringements of our rights and support the bill. The police are a useful tool.
This is dirty politics and similar to the return of McCarthyism in the US. This neo-McCarthyism has seen the blacklisting of TV commentators in the US for deviating from the official position on the situation in Afghanistan. The silencing of dissent and the attacks on personal freedoms are a greater threat to our respective countries than any threat of terrorism.
I would like you tell me if this policy of the police to interview letter-writers whose letters are deemed subversive is to continue. This subject is of concern to many.
Peace Council Aotearoa NZ
An Indebted People
I wonder how many people have noticed the subtlety of the Government and spin-doctors in shifting the emphasis (and blame) for New Zealand’s indebtedness on foreign capital from that of the Nation as a whole to that of the householder.
In his concluding remarks, Don Brash, Governor, Reserve Bank, in a speech to the Canterbury Employer’s Chamber of Commerce states “ … that quite substantial adjustment in household balance sheets will be needed over time, … to reduce the levels of external indebtedness.”.
His reasoning is that New Zealand’s Cumulative Current Account Deficit over the period 1975-2001 of almost $80billion is due to the fact “New Zealand has consistently spent more on goods and services from abroad than it has earned.”
Who is to blame?
Surprise, surprise. The “culprit” according to Mr Brash has been the private sector and New Zealand households in particular.
Mr Brash rightly points out the majority of debt in the 1970’s through to 1984 was due to government (Public) fiscal deficits. He goes on to say “But a decade or more of prudent fiscal management means our public debt is among the lowest in the world”.
What he failed to mention in the achievement of this “fiscal miracle” is that the formerly big ticket items such as electricity, railways, airways, telecommunications and a host of smaller enterprises were not included in the Public figures for most of the past decade.
Where are they?.
Surprise, surprise. In the Private sector of course (except for Air New Zealand which, through the Government bail out, is now “temporarily” included again).
In the intervening years (1975-2001), successive governments have encouraged Private sector spending through: - the deregulation of the financial markets (allowing greater access to, and dependence on, foreign capital); - reduction of import tariffs and liberalisation of our markets (allowing for the importation of cheaper and a greater range of goods and services) - and an expectation (brought about largely by governments pre-occupation with what will keep it in favour rather than the implementation of responsible fiscal legislation, deregulation and liberalisation) that these halcyon days will continue unabated with no-one eventually calling the spending excesses to account.
To Mr Brash and the Government I say, “NO”.
The “culprit” is not only the Private sector or the New Zealand householder. It remains a New Zealand issue requiring all sectors (Government, Public, Private and the Banks) to be aware of the potential pitfalls, accept joint responsibility and all work toward ensuring we redress the issues.
Response To Peter Dunne On Immigration
If Messrs Prebble and Peters are two sides of the same coin, turncoat Dunne is the edge of another coin. Mr Dunne's coin is the globalist melting-pot fantasy coin. It's not shiny, and is made of cheap base-metal - therefore, it does not reflect the realities of humanity - namely, our differences.
What Mr Dunne labels 'fear' is in fact a legitimate natural response to a genuine threat. That threat consists of economic, cultural and genetic differences which are simply incompatible with and harmful to our society.
Anywhere in the world where race/culture-mixing is forced on a native population, problems result. This goes for same-colour mixing as well - Northern Ireland is a classic example.
It is perfectly natural for people to want to mix with their own kind. And why shouldn't they? Witness the Somali/Pacific Island problem in Auckland. The area is in effect a Pacific Island community. If they don't want Somalis, fine. It's their turf. If someone else wants them, they can go live there.
The forced 'integration' of totally foreign people in a society has never worked. So lets stop it before our society becomes even more of a mixed-up mess. I have yet to see any evidence that the mess is not the specific intent of the globalists. So, if anyone has any evidence this is so [i.e. that the mess isn't intended], please forward it.
Now this does not mean that we should hate or ill-treat other races or cultures or religions simply because they are different.
We should instead recognise that race awareness and identity is an essential step in expanding and deepening our consciousness. It proceeds slowly , from family to community to region,to race, nation-state and/or religious identity, and then perhaps to world awareness, and sometimes to even higher levels. This awareness develops in parallel with other aspects of our consciousness, and at different rates on an individual, community and national level.
If people are deprived of community or Gemeinschaft when they need it, how can they proceed to the next step without feelings of resentment?
We can best help our foreign brothers and sisters by vetos and sanctions against human-rights abusers as well as encouraging the "have's" to offer greater practical assistance to the "have not's" in developing all those things we hold dear, but in their own country and in their own way.
This might require some sacrifices as a nation, but it would be more meaningful than the token and resentment-generating gestures of refugee asylum, forced on us by UN sympathisers in our own government. I note that few of the advocates of these policies choose to live in the melting pots they create for everyone else. These race-denying totalitarians would have more credibility if they practised what they preached.
So, if turncoat Dunne is so keen on all these refugees, let him host a Somali family in his house for 6 months or so.
Or perhaps let him answer this question: "Would he rather his teenage daughters associated with Euro/Caucasian teenage boys with excellent academic records and university-level ambitions, or would he rather his daughters associated with non-english-speaking Somali boys or perhaps some other boys whose race/cultural group regard women as chattels?"
If Peter Dunne has no fear of the classless multi-culti mélange, then let him state publicly that he would not mind his daughters having children out of wedlock to motorbike-riding uneducated skinhead bums from Upper Hutt. Or perhaps an African drug-dealer.
I suspect his reaction to these things would be no different to that of a Jewish or Chinese man whose university educated daughter turned up at home and announced that she was going to cohabit with a white Muslim fundamentalist who worked in a biscuit factory.
Some people may feel a physical or spiritual connection with others from different cultures or classes. They may choose the sometimes-difficult path of integration. But not every individual/community/nation/culture shares this connection, so the promotion of it as a universal standard by the globalists is totally fraudulent and an abnegation of nature. I'm sure nature can produce new cultures and races in her own good time - without the administrative assistance of the miscegenated internationalists in New York (and their followers).
Very simply, we do not have to live together with different cultures and classes in order to respect them and appreciate the dignity of their lives.
And nor should we be forced to.