Sri Lanka bombings: Christchurch retaliation suggested, ISIS claim responsibility

A politician has told the Sri Lankan Parliament that the bombings there in the weekend were a retaliation for the Christchurch mosque attacks on 15 April, but has given no details.

The Prime Ministers of both Sri Lanka and New Zealand say that this claim is ‘premature’.

ISIS have claimed responsibility for the bombings, but it is not clear to what extent, if any.

RNZ: Easter Sunday bombings were retaliation against New Zealand mosque attack – Minister

A Sri Lanka official says initial investigation shows Easter Sunday bombings were a retaliation against New Zealand mosque attack.

A series of coordinated blasts in churches and hotels hit Sri Lanka on Sunday leaving 321 people dead and 500 injured.

“The initial investigation has revealed that this was in retaliation for the New Zealand mosque attack,” junior minister for defence Ruwan Wijewardene told parliament.

“It was done by National Thawheed Jama’ut along with JMI,” he said, referring to another local group, Jammiyathul Millathu Ibrahim.

However, the Associated Press said Mr Wijewardene made the statement about retaliation “without providing evidence or explaining where the information came from”.

So it isn’t clear if this is based on information or facts, or if it is just speculation.

A spokesperson for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said: “We have seen reports of the statement from the Sri Lankan Minister of state for defence, alleging a link between the the Easter Sunday terrorist attack and the March 15 attack in Christchurch.

“We understand the Sri Lankan investigation into the attack is in its early stages. New Zealand has not yet seen any intelligence upon which such an assessment might be based.

While it was always possible the Sri Lankan bombings could be in some way linked to the Christchurch shootings I doubt that is the whole explanation.

Finding seven people wiling to be suicide bombers, training and equipping them and planning and carrying out a co-ordinated attack would take time, weeks perhaps, but likely months. Christchurch could just be being used as a convenient excuse, with the connection being used to stir up division and fear.

ABC News:  ISIS claims responsibility for Sri Lanka Easter bombings that killed over 300

The Islamic State group claimed responsibility for a wave of coordinated bombings at churches and high-end hotels across Sri Lanka.

The terrorist organization offered no evidence to support that assertion, which was initially announced in a statement in Arabic published by its Amaq news agency on Tuesday, saying the attackers were “among the fighters of the Islamic State,” according to a translation by SITE Intelligence Group, a company that tracks extremist groups.

ISIS later issued a longer, formal statement identifying the seven suicide bombers who detonated explosive-laden vests at the churches and hotels and a housing complex on Sunday.

Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe acknowledged the claim during a press conference in the capital, Colombo.

“All that we knew earlier is that there were foreign links and that this could not have been done just locally,” Wickremesinghe said. “There has been training done and a coordination which we [have] not seen earlier.”

According to multiple U.S. sources briefed on the investigation, ISIS is believed to have been involved in the Sri Lanka attacks in a supportive capacity, but it’s not clear to what degree.

There is always a risk of escalation of terrorism. Violent extremists aim to generate as much publicity and provoke as much fear as possible. Terrorism was established as a global threat with the 9-11 attacks in New York in 2001, and the subsequent retaliation by the US in Iraq that began in 2003 but spread to other countries in the Middle East.

Violence begets violence. There will always be a risk of mass shootings, of bombings, and of other atrocities, but the best way to minimise the risks is to fight violence and provocation with peace and dignified defiance, along with vigilant security systems.

We know that ISIS and other violent extremists are intent on provoking bigger, wider conflict. That risks of that must be minimised, which means minimising irrational and over the top reactions.

 

The responsibility of forming Government

Probably the biggest responsibility in a democracy such as ours is an election. That is one time every three years that voters, the people, have a say in who runs out country. Most people take that responsibility seriously.

Another of the biggest responsibilities follows every election – the formation of Government, especially so when a number of options are possible.

Due to the way all the other parties have stood aside waiting this responsibility falls in particular this year on NZ First and on it’s leader Winston Peters. They represent about 163 thousand voters (with specials to add), just 7.5% of eligible voters.

Peters and NZ First have a responsibility to represent the wishes of their party members and their supporters and voters first and foremost, but they also have a responsibility to everyone and to the whole country.

Peters has been criticised for ‘keeping the country waiting’, but he is correct to take his time. The process needs to be done right, and that can’t happen until the final results come in on 7 October.

The final results may substantially change the balance of power. Many expect them to give the NZ First-Labour-Green option a bit more weight by giving Greens and perhaps also Labour an extra seat, which would give this triumvirate a buffer in their majority of 63-57.

However this isn’t certain, and there is a chance that National could gain a seat giving them with ACT 60-60 parity. This would change things substantially.

So until we get the final results all the parties can do is prepare for coalition negotiations.

Labour and National are doing this carefully in order to win positive attention and respect from Peters in particular.

Peters has also taken care not to reveal what he might decide. He appears to have taken his responsibilities seriously, He has been through this process twice before, in 1996 and in 2005, so he knows as well as anyone how it should work.

On election night when it became clear that NZ First were in a pivotal position Peters acknowledged his responsibilities. From Newsroom Winston Peters plots a path as kingmaker:

Yet as he noted, NZ First still holds what he called “the balance of political responsibility”.

“We have been strong enough and honest enough with our supporters to make it home and to have not all the cards but we do have the main cards – we’re not going to squander that opportunity.”

He counselled patience during negotiations, aware of the flak he copped in 1996 after weeks of talks, and reaffirmed a pledge to make a decision public by the return of the writs on October 12.

I think serious negotiations should start as soon the final results are known on 7 October but will probably take at least as long as the return of the writs.

A smooth transition to a new Government and the stable running of Government are at stake.

So far Peters appears to be taking his responsibilities seriously.

Unfortunately someone or some people in NZ First have chosen to be irresponsible, as has Newshub sensationalist Patrick Gower. See Gower’s disgraceful power play, and more in the next post.

Disclosure and freedom of speech

Yesterday somebody demanded “Full disclosure Pete”, which was a bit ironic considering their lack of disclosure, but what they asked for was already in the open.

But it has prompted an issue that I’ve wanted to bring up here in regards freedom to comment here and disclosure.

Last year there were attempts to disrupt and discredit Your NZ, and also attempts to legally gag and shut us down. The commenting problems were mainly with a small number of people abusing anonymity and through the misuse of pseudonyms and false disclosures.

Most regulars here are open to me about who they are, with some preferring to comment under a pseudonym. This works very well in general.

A small number choose to try and disguise their identity and provide false information. There may be sort of valid reasons for this in some cases, but in other cases less so.

Those who are not prepared to disclose requested information potentially put this site at greater risk should they post anything claimed or found to be defamatory or illegal. In such cases I need to take greater care.

The malicious actions of a few can impact on others who use similar techniques, in order to protect the integrity of the site. Occasionally this may be unfortunate but it will affect very few.

While freedom of speech is one of the fundamental principles of Your NZ there are responsibilities involved with the privilege to speak here.

If a valid email address isn’t provided then I can’t contact people over issues of concern should they arise, so I can’t deal with things as I can with a person who discloses who they are.

If anyone chooses non-disclosure here then your participation and your right to speak may have greater limitations as a necessity to keep Your NZ functioning as freely and as reasonably as possible.

Generally commenting here has been much better over recent weeks, in part due to less disruptive individuals, and in large part due to the manner in which most of you participate. Thanks very much for your ongoing contributions.

Fuck and run fathers and male irresponsibility

A comment on Sensible reaction from Little on Tolley/contraception raises some of the most important issues when it comes to at risk CYF kids and contraception.

I have worked on construction sites where the usual minimum wage day labourer sorts brag about the number of females they got pregnant. One had 4 kids to 3 females and was very proud of that.

Thats a lot of low quality sperm getting sprayed everywhere and fertilising equally low quality eggs and its the tax payer that will be paying over and over for it as the low IQ progeny work their way through the welfare, education and justice system.

It has to stop.

For every women (or girl) who has a baby who is born into an at risk family/lack of family situation there is also a father (I doubt that many of these kids are the result of artificial insemination or immaculate conception).

It’s known that it’s common in the problem demographics for struggling or incompetent mothers to have multiple fathers of their children.

Not all multiple father families are a problem, far from it.

But irresponsible father families – or no responsibility father families – are a major part of the problem, from fuck and run fathers to those who can’t cope and move on.

Why is it common for males to actively have sex knowing it may result on offspring that they have little or no intention of taking any financial or parenting responsibility for?

Like drink driving forty years ago it is probably seen as a joke by some, and an achievement by others.

But the victims are many, and they include the mothers who get pressured or conned into having unprotected sex, but most importantly the victims are the many kids born into hopeless situations because they have hopeless fathers.

This is a substantial systemic male problem.

So this needs male leadership. Not the easy male leadership in politics, business and sport.

It’s very difficult leadership that’s required, both because it’s a difficult issue, and because males seem to have difficulty in taking joint responsibility for male problems.

Many males are either a part of or do nothing about masculine culture irresponsibility when it comes to contraception and fatherhood.

How about it male political leaders? Who is willing to to stand up and confront the fuck and run father mentality?

John Key?
Andrew Little?
Winston Peters?
James Shaw?
Te Ururoa Flavell?Peter Dunne?
David Seymour?