Spy overhaul needs cross party support

Security versus privacy and protection from spying is a difficult balancing act for the Government, with more transparency and oversight being very important without compromising the ability of our spy agencies to do their jobs effectively.

A report on the future of New Zealand’s spy agencies is due this week, and the results of several spy inquiries are due soon too.

This poses a test of John Key’s ability to bring together other parties into working on and agreeing on a way forward for our spy agencies. It it also a test of Andrew Little’s willingness to deal with this in a non-partisan way, given that the major parties have historically mostly put politics aside when it comes to security and intelligence.

Tracey Watkins writes Spy agency overhaul needs political buy-in to restore public confidence.

When John Key and Andrew Little eyeball each other across the table during a closed door session of Parliament’s intelligence and security committee this week, the prime minister will be ready to turn the tables on his opponents.

Key is asking Labour to back him on legislation overhauling the country’s spy agencies, the Government Communications Security Bureau and Security Intelligence Service.

The only tables being turned should be on dysfunction between National and Labour in particular on security issues.

The rise of the brutal Islamic State, and the emergence of its “lone wolf” disciples so close to home  – think Sydney’s Martin Place Cafe seige – have caused a further shift in the weight of the debate around individual privacy versus national security.

In that environment, this week’s report to Parliament’s intelligence and security committee takes on even greater significance.

The report, prepared by former Labour deputy Sir Michael Cullen and lawyer Dame Patsy Reddy, will likely recommend closer cooperation between the spy agencies. Greater transparency and oversight also seems to be on the cards after Sir Michael publicly criticised the overly secretive ways of those spy agencies and a culture of keeping things secret for secrecy’s sake.

Both moves are long overdue.

And both national and Labour need to deal with this responsibly.

Any move toward granting more intrusive powers to either spy agency will be fiercely opposed by the Labour’s activist base.

But Little’s job will be trading off those concerns against those of middle New Zealand, where he has to grow Labour’s votes.

He also has to put a priority on his responsibility to the country as a whole, regardless of some activists and voters.

The pending release of three serious inquiries may further strain the Labour leader’s ability to back any new powers, given that they go to the heart of confidence in our spy agencies.

The first of those inquiries, by the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, Cheryl Gwyn, is the most serious, looking at whether the intelligence agencies spied on other governments to boost the prospects of former Trade Minister Tim Groser against his rivals for the top World Trade Organisation job.

The other two inquiries, into whether the GCSB picked up the private communications of New Zealanders in the South Pacific, and its links to America’s CIA, may be less controversial.

Regardless of the outcomes of these inquiries they are likely to stir up opposition to spying.

But given the current state of unease and fear worldwide at the rise of terrorism, any further loss of public confidence in our spy agencies would be serious and significant.

Which is why both John Key and Andrew Little might want to see eye to eye on this one rather than go into another election campaign squabbling about spies.

It’s critical that Key and Little put politics aside and together workout what is best for the country as a whole, and for the rights of us, the citizens.

Any overhaul of our spy agencies and protection of our right to privacy needs to be as non-political as possible. At least National and Labour need to be more or less on the same page.

Leave a comment

76 Comments

  1. Klik Bate

     /  7th March 2016

    CLASSIFICATION: SECRET

    Rest easy New Zealand – it’s obvious the country is in good hands. LOL!!

    https://atlasmonitor.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/sis-spies-to-kim-dotcom-were-sorry-for-calling-you-fatty/

    Reply
  2. Oliver

     /  7th March 2016

    I have a bit of experience in this arena, and here is my take on spying. Firstly spying pp will never prevent a lone wolf attack or even an organized attack. 9/11 and Paris are good examples of spying agencies unable to prevent an attack. Spying agencies capabilities are highly overated and giving them more powers will achieve absolutely nothing, simply because those who are determined to do something will find away to avoid detection. The best security is not to antagonize the “enemy” ie stop sending troops overseas to meddle in other people’s affairs. The only people who will suffer from increased surveillance and security will be ordinary kiwis.

    Reply
    • Yes, spying will never be able to prevent every ‘lone wolf’ attack. But how many potential attacks does it deter and prevent?

      No security is no security, which is higher risk.

      Reply
    • Oliver

       /  7th March 2016

      People act like “terrorism” is a new phenomenon but actual fact it’s been around since the dawn of time and we will always have to a degree. The only way to prevent it is to not make enemies, it’s that simple. Spy agency around the world have failed to stop terrorism, and it’s been proven that giving them more powers makes no difference, Paris is a good example of that, at the time of the attack Paris was one of the most highly surveilled places in the world, there spy agency had powers ours could only dream of, but it still couldn’t be stop. Saying you can stop terrorism is like saying you can stop drugs, it just can’t be done. Stop meddling in Islamic countries is the only solution.

      Reply
      • Iceberg

         /  7th March 2016

        You have experience in nothing but eating your lunch.

        “The only way to prevent it is to not make enemies” For such a Global Expert in Terrorism you are naïve in the extreme. How do you explain the terrorist attacks in Egypt, Nigeria, Libya, Pakistan, Chad, Kenya, Niger, Cameroon, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Turkey, Somalia, India, France, US, Israel, Germany and the Philippines just in the last 12 months.

        You’re blaming the victims, just like you did the students…and the Jews.

        Reply
        • Oliver

           /  7th March 2016

          None of that has anything to do with NZ security. You really are clutching at straws. All those conflicts you describe aren’t terrorist attacks they are conflicts. But then I wouldn’t expect you to know anything about it. Go back to playing make believe on your PlayStation son.

          Reply
    • Oliver

       /  7th March 2016

      They other thing is we don’t have a terrorism problem here in NZ. But if you take away people’s rights and privacy then you make a lot of enemies here in NZ. People value their rights and freedoms, soldiers have sacrificed their lives to protect those rights and freedoms, mothers has sent their sons to die in some foreign land to protect our rights and freedoms. I think the government underestimates how this will effect the psyche of the nation. It will only increase the security risk. And make ordinary kiwis a security risk.

      Reply
      • @ Oliver – I think you are making sound and reasonable points above. I don’t see how they constitute “blaming the victims”? I sense “transumption” here. Example: If America hadn’t retaliated for 9/11 by invading Iraq and Afghanistan would this have been blaming the victims? Why do we think victims will be honoured by making war? Had I lost a loved one in 9/11 I’d feel more honoured by America making peace (along with bringing the actual individual perpetrators to justice). America’s response clearly created more INSECURITY. I wonder why?

        For me the important part of your comments are about various avenues to security? The avenue of restricted freedom, for instance. The avenue of increased surveillance. Hardly anyone ever discusses the avenue of greater understanding and communication? Especially not between “enemies”. Likewise, I virtually never hear anything about remedying the very root causes of insecurity?

        An analogy: In response to the recent spate of crime, Police &/or the Campus propose adding 50 more security cameras to the 300 cameras already installed at Otago University. All the surveillance in the world isn’t going to prevent the crime. It might reduce it somewhat? Make it more surreptitious? Make it more prosecutable perhaps?

        So how much crime prevention do we do? How much do we look at the causes of crime?

        Security is much the same. I agree, “The best security is not to antagonize the “enemy”. Even moreso, engage in peaceful trade and exchange with your enemy and make them your friend. As things are, of course, a realistic level of national security is required, but we should be working internationally to reduce rather than increase this need.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  7th March 2016

          “Hardly anyone ever discusses the avenue of greater understanding and communication?”

          It’s called free trade, PZ. I posted a quote recently citing the greatly reduced chances of violent conflict between nations that trade with each other.

          Reply
  3. NZ citizens are fools for trusting a state which has a strategic partner that is complicit in staged terrorist events which advance its political agenda.

    Video and photographic evidence shows that both Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombing were staged – there was no evacuation of children from the school in the police video and the “victims” of the bombing were actors – in photographs taken immediately after the explosion no blood is evident, with fake blood being added later.

    Additionally many aspects of 9/11 were faked – passenger jets did not fly into the Pentagon or into the south tower or crash in Pennsylvania. The controlled demolition of the twin towers is evident from audio recordings of the detonation of explosive charges and from the excess heat which resulted in surface temperatures hot enough to melt aluminium.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  7th March 2016

      Why haven’t they tracked you down and killed you in an unfortunate accident?

      It’s understandable because 9/11 was such a staggeringly unexpected and successful operation that quite a few Americans believe it had to all be a conspiracy because otherwise they’d have to accept a bunch of suicidal arabs succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in the first major attack on the US mainland since the War of Independence.

      All your statements above about 9/11 have been debunked many times. It’s not even worth debating them with you because nothing would convince you. In fact, you’re letting the side down talking about the excess heat being sufficient to melt aluminium. It’s accepted the heat from the burning fuel and office furnishings would be easily able to melt aluminium. The really determined 9/11 truthers argue the heat was enough to melt steel & they reckon that’s the clincher.

      Reply
      • “All your statements above about 9/11 have been debunked many times.”

        So what? Debunking can simply mean ridiculing a claim, but only the simple-minded think that it means anything.

        “It’s accepted the heat from the burning fuel and office furnishings would be easily able to melt aluminium.”

        You’re avoiding the point that the surface temperatures were that hot. The measurements were taken days after the event when what was left of the office combustibles were buried in the incombustible remains of the towers and the surface has been sprayed with water.

        http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

        “The really determined 9/11 truthers argue the heat was enough to melt steel & they reckon that’s the clincher.”

        Do you have an explain for the multiple reports of molten steel in the remains of the WTC?

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  7th March 2016

          UT has slipped his leash again, Gezza. You’ll never catch him so you’ll have to wait till he gets tired now.

          Reply
        • Gezza

           /  7th March 2016

          Thanks for the warning Alan.

          Melting point of aluminium is 600 degrees C, UT. Jet fuel in air burns at only around 250 degrees but it ignited all the combustible material including carpets, curtains, furniture, screens, combustible fittings, office equipment, paper and all the other stuff offices are full of. NIST-replicated fires burned at 1000-1100 deg C.

          I’m not going beyond this. 9/11 debates totally disrupt threads and I’ve got bored debating it. Same old tired arguments on both sides.

          Reply
          • “NIST-replicated fires burned at 1000-1100 deg C.”

            Again, you are not addressing the the original point, which was about ground temperatures post-collapse, not the temperatures in the towers before they collapsed. These temperatures cannot be explained without the existence of an energy source which falsifies the MSM explanation of the destruction of the WTC.

            “9/11 debates totally disrupt threads”

            Gladio-style state malfeasance is entirely relevant to threads about intelligence oversight like this one.

            Reply
    • Iceberg

       /  7th March 2016

      You’re lucky an IQ test is not required for an internet connection.

      Reply
      • Since when has accepting a story which is contradicted by the physical evidence been indicative of a high IQ?

        Reply
        • Iceberg

           /  7th March 2016

          It would be great if you could share your views on the Moon landings and Chem trails. Maybe vaccines and fluoride as well?

          Reply
  4. I continue to be amazed by some of the pronouncements about our security and intelligence agencies from people who lack the credentials to be able to comment authoritatively about the strengths, weaknesses and capabilities of the services and agencies concerned. What the capabilities of the agencies like the SIS, GCSB and the Police Intelligence Units, the External Assessments Burea, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defence, particularly, the methods they use are guarded, and should not be revealed to Public view and comment. The strength and nature of the oversight of these agencies must be transparent and subject to Parliamentary oversight, and that is the state that we are working towards. The operating limits of these agencies to our own people must adhere to the Bill of Rights. The operation of our intelligence and security agencies against foreign agencies must be founded upon the need to defend national sovereignty, and the economic and social well-being of the nation-state. The Government must control the nature of the activities of the agencies in this area, and decide upon such things as defining the missions and roles of the agencies from time to time to meet the needs of the country. Our relationships with other states in the security and intelligence fields must be controlled by our Governments, preferably in a bi-partisan way. For good security reasons, shown by past history to be needed and never ignored, appropriate security clearances are needed for those who are part of the system. The principles of security must be adhered to, in particular the “need to know” principle. With present demands for transparency, the Government should maintain its role in deciding what may or may not be put into the public arena. This we call good governance because it is our elected representatives who discharge this duty on our behalf. We shuld refrain from shooting the messengers of security and intelligence until we actually know enough about how such agencies need to work for the national interest’s sake.

    Reply
    • Oliver

       /  7th March 2016

      Do you read the post? Because your comment is irrelevant because it doesn’t tackle the question of whether eroding our rights and freedoms will protect us from terrorism. I don’t think that there is a need for sis at all, there capabilities are overstated and the threats are embellished. In a bid to maintain there existence. I read an article where the sis wanted to help the police with organized crime, because they often didn’t have anything to do. The type of stuff the sis investigate could be done by the police or border protection. Having work for a government agency I know the members of those organizations will always try and justify their existence even if the have to make shit up. Welcome to real world and don’t be so naive.

      Reply
      • Oliver, so you read an article. Have you worked in the NZSIS or GCSB environment? Do you have the faintest idea of the history of the GCSB NZSIS and Defence Force Intelligence units and what they ave achieved. Can you justify your comments about the inability of those agebcies to address terrorism? Is t so long ago that you have forgotten that the British Commonwealth military, security and intelligence agencies wrote the book on conter-insurgency. Your trashing of those who by convention are unable to speak out is the tactic of an ignorant fool who has only got detruction of the pillars of society. Quite frankly you and your ilk are the problem and not the solution.

        Reply
        • Oliver

           /  7th March 2016

          BJ I think you have watched one to many “Bond” movies. Yes I have had dealings with the intelligence community here in NZ, which means I have a more realistic view then you will ever have. Let me see about the recent history of the intelligence services, there was the illegal spying on Kim Dotcom who can hardly be called a terrorist. Then their was the “operation 8” debacle where they mistook harmless civilians for terrorist. Which lead to an independent audit which found the intelligence organization to be incompetent and dysfunctional. I know you’re a patriot and you believe that what ever Defense does must automatically be good, when in reality it isn’t.

          Reply
          • Oliver

             /  7th March 2016

            And of course there was Mohammed Zoui, falsely accused of being a terrorist. Another blunder from our lustrous intelligence services.

            Reply
            • Timoti

               /  7th March 2016

              Think again, Ollie. There were admittedly tenuous links to suspect organisations. But I mainly went with my gut on this chap.I wasn’t disappointed when a few years back I received an email from a friend.
              There was a photo showing an anti Jewish,pro Palestinian protest in Palmerston North. And guess who was there?

            • Oliver

               /  7th March 2016

              You do know that Israel and Palestine are at war? So he supports Palestine, that doesn’t make him a terrorist threat to NZ.

            • @ Oliver – BINGO!!! But of course it was an anti-Jewish protest, because the BigT says so, not an anti-Zionist Israeli protest. There’s an enormous distinction. If it was the latter, which I suspect it was – against the State of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians – there may have been Jews among the peaceful protesters?

            • Timoti

               /  7th March 2016

              Never said it did. But it is indicative of a mindset that is at odds with his official story. An anti Israeli rally is the last place anyone like him should attend given what he has endured.

            • Timoti

               /  7th March 2016

              Zionism. The shield used to protect and justify Lefties hatred of Jews. Zionists are such a small minority in Israel.

            • A small minority controls the State of Israel then?

              And I don’t hate Jews. My paternal Grandmother was Jewish.

              What I dislike is how the State of Israel has developed.

            • Are Palestine and Israel at War? Really?

            • Oliver

               /  8th March 2016

              Yes. That’s what you would call a situation were to nationalities are fighting each other. For someone who workerd for the govt you don’t seem to know much. Let me see you are going to say that Palestinians are terrorist and that Israelis are just trying to protect themselves.

            • Timoti

               /  8th March 2016

              I dont think they are at war. I may be wrong though.

      • I should add that I addressed specifically Pete’s post hence the nature of my comments. I dn’t actually bother answereing your comments O;iver because of you continuing anti-Government and anti-US bias. You are irrelevant to my thinking.

        Reply
    • Well, at least National and Labour have got the basis for non-politicization and bi-partisan cooperation on security all sewn up after their Flag Consideration experience, eh?

      There’s a Whale of a lot of things could benefit from cross-party support!?

      “But Little’s job will be trading off those concerns against those of middle New Zealand, where he has to grow Labour’s votes.” Oh yes, of course, let’s make it a vote winning exercise targeted at the next elections! My cynic rules today!

      @ bjmarsh1 – “… must be founded upon the need to defend national sovereignty, and the economic and social well-being of the nation-state” like we do in the economic arena, right?

      I think there’s a potential problem here. I think the nation-state is losing ground to more internationalist, though still divisive ‘power bloc’ ideologies, certainly economically, if not in military-intelligence as well. This may be nothing new?

      BJ I realise you are being serious and have much experience in the area. I guess “need to know” is a suitable principle where national security is concerned at the “operational” level. How can it be otherwise?

      Where security encroaches upon the accepted freedoms enjoyed by citizens I hold with their right to question it or, if necessary, protest about it. I guess that’s covered by your adherence to the Bill of Rights provision?

      Reply
    • “…who lack the credentials to be able to comment authoritatively…”

      http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

      Reply
      • I speak from the advantage of 50 years training and experience in the areas concerned including being the Director of Security in MFAT for 5 years. Argumentum ad hominen is no counter for genuine experience.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  7th March 2016

          BJ, I’d be interested in your views on independent monitoring and oversight which really seems to be the crux of the issue where powers are given which could be abused.

          Reply
        • Oliver

           /  7th March 2016

          MFAT lol.. So no real security or intelligence experience.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  7th March 2016

            Oliver, even the Village Idiot should have watched enough Bond movies to realise the part foreign embassies play in intelligence. Now run away and look up what MFAT does.

            Reply
            • Oliver

               /  7th March 2016

              Lol I’m well aware of what they do Wilky. Everyone department plays apart in intelligence. But they don’t collect intelligence for security reasons.

          • Oh Oliver, once again you have laughed too early. I spent nearly 10 years with GCSB and gained awards from our specialist partner Int organisations. Now that I have added that, have you the balls to describe your so-called experience in this community. I have the evidence of my contributions recognised by others. Time to explain Oliver – or disappear.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  7th March 2016

              BJ, taking Oliver seriously is a complete waste of time and energy. It is like pouring a perfectly good drink down the toilet. He won’t explain and if he does no-one will believe him. He won’t go away but we can pretend he has.

            • Oliver

               /  7th March 2016

              Now I know you’re a Walter Mitty because no one who worked for the GCSB would ever, and I mean ever disclose that information to anybody (including family) let alone on social media. And just saying that you worked for the GCSB is not evidence. Yep you definitely making things up. I suppose you lied about your Army career, MFAT as well.

            • Oliver

               /  7th March 2016

              And no I would never tell anyone my exact role in the intelligence community. Because that would breach our confidentiality protocol. But everyone who worked in the intelligence community knows that. It like the first rule of intelligence “never tell anyone what you do”.

            • Oliver, I was in GCSB and that is a fact. There is nothing in the conditions of my employment with them that denies me the right to state the ract of my being employed there, and it is known internationally. I would be very happy for you to use your position, presumably in the PM and Cabinet Office, to check my background. I have not revealed my name, only the pseudonym that I use. You are bullshitting about your claim to being protected by confidentiality and any protocol you are using to defend yourself. If you are a present employee in the security and intelligence area, your continual trashing of Government policy in your comments, is grounds for dismissal. Check with the State Services Commission about the rights of public servants to publically criticise the government in power, if you don’t believe me. If you don’t like the Government’s policy, then the appropriate thing to do is to resign rather than publically criticise matters related to Government policy.

            • Oliver

               /  8th March 2016

              I no longer work in the field so I can say what I want. You may be using a pseudonym but Pete as the administrator can easily ID you, and do what he wants with that info. That’s really sloppy of you to reveal your part with the GCSB. That fact that you made such a school boy error confims in my mind that have not worked for the GCSB. But then again the intellegence services have beknown to be incompotent so maybe you did work for them, you do fit the profile.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th March 2016

              I told you not to pour perfectly good sense down Oliver’s toilet, BJ. His utter crap generator is insatiable.

        • “Argumentum ad hominen is no counter for genuine experience.”

          Who, if anyone, was responsible for an ad hom?

          Reply
          • ad hominem
            [ad hom-uh-nuh m -nem, ahd‐]
            Spell Syllables
            Word Origin
            See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
            adjective
            1.
            appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
            2.
            attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

            Reply
            • Oh, I see that you subscribe to the old “I’ll reply as if you are an idiot in order to draw attention away from my inability to argue effectively” gambit. I was pursuing the issue of the existence or relevance of any ad hominem, I wasn’t asking for clarification of what it is.

              In other words, you brought up the issue of an ad-hominem, but appear to be unable to show how it relates to the issue at hand.

              So it looks like your earlier comment now reduces to the following:

              “I speak from the advantage of 50 years training and experience in the areas concerned including being the Director of Security in MFAT for 5 years. Bazinga is no counter for genuine experience.”

              So the subtext here is basically: “I don’t care if you can show malfeasance by one of the Crown’s strategic partners, I’m way to important to be troubled by a pissant with no credentials”.

            • Oliver

               /  7th March 2016

              Wasn’t Kitty about ad hominem a few weeks ago.

            • Nelly Smickers

               /  7th March 2016

              There was a girl way ahead of me at boarding school, she was a Prefect and her name was Becky Kitteridge. The other girls used to call her ‘Kitty’.

              I wonder if they’re related?

          • All will notice the lack of authenticity of Oliver’s claims to experience. It is a fact that NZSIS employees are protected from being named – except the Director. No other agency, as far as I can recaall has that protection. Oliver is not prepared to ante-up with his so called experience in the sector and should be treated accordingly. Alan yu are quite right, I waste time challenging Oliver, but in my view those who sup at the table of the owner should observe the rule of not biting the hand that fees them. I can’tfind the words to satisfactorily express the contempt I feel for Oliver.

            Reply
  5. Oliver, I was in GCSB and that is a fact. There is nothing in the conditions of my employment with them that denies me the right to state the ract of my being employed there, and it is known internationally. I would be very happy for you to use your position, presumably in the PM and Cabinet Office, to check my background. I have not revealed my name, only the pseudonym that I use. You are bullshitting about your claim to being protected by confidentiality and any protocol you are using to defend yourself. If you are a present employee in the security and intelligence area, your continual trashing of Government policy in your comments, is grounds for dismissal. Check with the State Services Commission about the rights of public servants to publically criticise the government in power, if you don’t believe me. If you don’t like the Government’s policy, then the appropriate thing to do is to resign rather than publically criticise matters related to Government policy.

    Reply
    • In fact Oliver, I challenge you to answer these questions:
      1. Are you at present employed in the security or intelligence areas of the New Zealand Government?
      2. Under what requirement are you constrained from revealing your area of employment?
      3. If you are not an SIS employee, under what statute are you protected from revealing your name as an employee of other Security and Intelligence Agencies?
      4. Do you still work in a Government Department.

      For your benefit, I am retired. I no longer work for the Government in any way. I am not a member of any political party.

      Reply
      • MOD: In the absence of any comment to defend his position, and because of the nature of his contemptuous comments, I hereby declare that henceforth, i will no longer participate in this blog. I am not surrendering the field to Oliver by so doing, He lacks total merit as a commentator. To those who have commented positively, or even questioned my comments, thanks for your contributions which I have taken aboard. To Oliver: when you grow up boy, and accept that maybe some of your elders may have been there and done much more you and your ilk will contribute, you may like to reflect that your total lack of reason and logic bespeak an immaturity of intelligence beyond comparison. I will stop before I really tell you just how hateful you are as a person. Goodbye all!! And thanks.

        Reply
        • Oliver

           /  8th March 2016

          Don’t be like that BJ. Remember it was you who challenged me and not the other way around. I don’t like my credibility attacked, so I will defend it.

          But hey no hard feelings aye.

          Reply
        • Don’t take him seriously BJ! He’s clearly trolling you and has no respect for men and women who have served their country. Oliver hasn’t so much as put forth what regiment/battalion/unit he served with let alone any stories that actually have a ring of authenticity. Your statements on the other hand do have authentic rings to them.

          While it would be nice to be rid of Oliver’s Holocaust denying, victim bashing (balcony collapse), troll wind ups…. That’s the start of a slippery slope eh.

          No one has a monopoly on the truth. Not you, not me and for fucking sure not Oliver.

          Just let it and him go chum. I doubt he would talk so much about his ‘service’ if he had seen the horrors of war. Y’know…. Dead bodies, children cradling their dead parents bodies after air strikes, the fear that pervades when you know IEDs are potentially everywhere, the feeling of being watched 24/7 when you are occupying an area/country/location, the comradeship built on defending the man next to you and knowing he is doing the same and so on and so forth.

          Oliver’s a keyboard warrior, poll rigger and lacks decency. Let it go 🙂

          Reply
          • Timoti

             /  8th March 2016

            “I doubt he would talk so much about his ‘service’ if he had seen the horrors of war. Y’know…. Dead bodies, children cradling their dead parents bodies after air strikes, the fear that pervades when you know IEDs are potentially everywhere,”

            You nailed it, Ben.. The only other thing I would add is the smell of shitty underwear…from both the living and dying.

            Reply
          • Oliver

             /  8th March 2016

            Wow you people have no idea. You know what I don’t give a damn if you believe me or not. I’m the realist person on this blog. I’m the only one who has the courage to say what’s really on my mind. If you don’t like it then don’t read it. Most of the people who post on this site have airy fairy ideas that are such nonsense, but I bite my lip and let people have their say. If you don’t agree me fine, but if you’re going to respond then have evidence to back up your claim. No one has provided evidence to prove the holocaust happened. I’ve actually spent a lot of time researching it and I haven’t come across credible evidence that genocide happened, that’s why I question it. I don’t just believe everything people say, I look at the facts and then decide what I will believe.

            Reply
            • This is a poor attempt to wind people up even by your standards.

              The holocaust is far too serious a part of history to play petty games with. Shameful.

            • Oliver

               /  8th March 2016

              I’m not playing games. I have never lied or been a “Troll”. Every post I’ve made has been genuinely serious. Maybe my belief seem extreme to some, but not to me. Like I said I don’t believe everything the history books tell us. Or politicians, scientists, or any other person of “authority” for that matter. Think about how unlikely it would be that everything in our history books would be 100 percent true. No not when humans have written the history. Because people have an agenda and different believes that cloud their judgment and how the perceive the world. So don’t judge me for haven’t a different view. Because you simply don’t know the truth.

            • Timoti

               /  8th March 2016

              You may have a point regarding numbers. I’m more worried about Nazi u-boats unaccounted for, or the fact the Nazis beat the Yanks to making the A-bomb.

              However,Ollie, here is General Eisenhower with a message for you:

              “Get it all on record now. Get the films. Get the witnesses, because somewhere down the track of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened. – General Dwight D. Eisenhower, on future Holocaust denial”

            • Oliver

               /  8th March 2016

              If it really happened then why would Eisenhower go through the trouble of saying

              “Get it all on record now. Get the films. Get the witnesses, because somewhere down the track of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.”

              It’s an odd thing to say. Surely if so many people knew about their would be no need to collect evidence in order to prove to future generations. Just like 9/11 there was no need to collect evidence to prove to future generations that 9/11 was real.

            • Oliver

               /  8th March 2016

              I have no doubt the Jewish people suffered in concentration camps during world war 2. And they were put into slave factory to keep the German war machine going. And yes many sadly died under horrific conditions and disease. But there is no proof of deliberate execution on a mass scale, and that is a fact.

            • Timoti

               /  8th March 2016

              People who know about the holocaust are a dime a dozen.
              Proof in court is another matter. Physical records are another matter. Likewise a legacy for future generations to remember Either Eisenhower starved thousands of actors for a long time, and created piles of corpses with special filming effects…..or his films actually recorded real events.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  8th March 2016

          BJ, Oliver is indeed our Village Idiot. Just ignore him or give him something to play with but for heavens sake don’t take him seriously. Just accept that he will continue to spout random trash for ever whatever we do unless PG bans him. And being an idiot, even an annoying one, is not quite a banning offence here.

          So just ignore him and participate and contribute to the issues that interest you.

          Reply
      • Oliver

         /  8th March 2016

        I take security seriously, unlike you. I am a professional and I will never reveal my involvement with intelligence. However I am quite happy to admit that I have been a soldier in the past with NZDF.

        Reply
        • Robby

           /  8th March 2016

          Oh please Olly! The only ‘militant campaign’ that I see any evidence of you being involved in is winding people up on this forum

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s