Blogs respond to ‘Hit & Run’

Blogs have been abuzz on the Hager and Stephenson book “Hit & Run”.

At Kiwiblog David Farrar plays it down saying *if* and comparing 6 civilian deaths to total civilian deaths in Afghanistan (26,000) – TLDR: Hager book summary

So far at The Standard it has been left to comments with no posts other than Nicky Hager’s book launch but that does include some politically aimed tweets including:

And:

The Daily Blog had live stream coverage of the book launch but that was apparently quite unreliable. Martyn Bradbury has since had a major rant in a post targeting John Key – you have to tell NZ if you committed a war crime:

If we as a country are going to cheer when our troops go to war to fight ‘da terrorists’ then we have to demand accountability when they kill civilians! We deserve to know the truth before John Key steps down – did he or did he not order a poorly planned strike that killed 6 civilians?

Jesus wept this disgusts and angers me so deeply – if you send troops to a foreign land you are fucking responsible for what they do!

Brothers & sisters, we fund the NZ SAS – when they pull a trigger, we help pay for that trigger – Key has made us all killers here.

The Prime Minister has blood on his hands and we must demand some answers before he steps down.

In Bombers eyes know inquiry is needed, he has already tried and convicted the whole country. He seems to have missed the fact that Key stepped down from being Prime Minister last year. Key is due to give his valedictory speech in Parliament today and then leave. I’m not sure if he will have time to consider Bradbury’s demands.

Tim Watkin at Pundit – The O’Donnell raid in Afghanistan: The seeds of the new Hager book

The 2010 raid in Afghanistan detailed in Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson’s new book, Hit and Run, was first revealed on a TV interview I produced in 2011. It’s time for some official answers

Andrew Geddis at Pundit: Killing in the name of?

Nicky Hager and John Stephenson’s book, Hit & Run, presents compelling evidence that our SAS was responsible for killing at least six Afghani civilians, wounding at least another fifteen, and handing over a man to be tortured for information. And then we were systematically lied to about what was being done in our name.

He concludes:

I say that again now. If our SAS must dissemble and lie by omission or commission to those for whom they fight, then it should not be fighting. If military leaders and their political masters are complicit in those lies, then we should follow the German example and require their resignations.

For at a time when our defence forces are asking us to give them some $20 billion from the public purse to upgrade their equipment, it is incumbent on them to prove to us that they deserve it. And the first step they must take in doing so is showing that we can trust them to tell us just what it is that they do in our name.

I thought that a law professor might have listened to the other side of the arguments before coming to strong conclusions.

To date Whale Oil has no posts on the book. Perhaps they are disappointed it isn’t about them again. Apparently Slater has been otherwise occupied and no one else has stepped up. There have been some comments on it in Whaleoil Backchat.

Media failure over donation reporting?

Posted yesterday (Sunday) at 9:30 am on Whale Oil: Another big donation for National, none for Labour yet

National has scored another big donation, again from Stone Shi.

A New Zealand Herald article National gets $50k donation from Oravida founder is quoted (without being linked), dated Friday.

So, Act and National are receiving big donations. Why isn’t Labour?

Then an our later at Whale Oil: So, a rich man gave money to Labour and the Greens, yet no one reported it

Earlier today I posted about the media announcing that Stone Shi gave $50,000 to the National party and that Jenny Gibbs has given a hundy to Act.

But, what is curious is the lack of reporting over another large donation, given just a few weeks before Stone Shi’s donation.

So, just three weeks before Stone Shi donated to National, Phillip Mills donated the same amount to the Labour party. Why was there no news of this in the mainstream media?

It isn’t like it is hidden, it is just two entries down the list from the Shi and Gibbs donations.

This can only be a deliberate deception by the NZ Herald to ignore large donations to Labour and highlight large donations to National and Act. It should be noted that on 9 November 2016 Phillip Mills also gave $65,000 to the Green party. Strangely that wasn’t reported either.

The register of donations is published in the interests of transparency to the government, yet the very people who are supposed to guard that transparency have failed the public because they have only reported donations to National and Act and not also to Labour and the Greens.

This is tantamount to a corruption of our news media, willingly, by them. The Media party has an agenda, and here is a perfect example of how they mislead, this time by omitting pertinent facts.

The bias is obvious, you just need to know where to look to reveal it.

National gets a donation, it becomes news. Labour gets a donation, not a mutter, not a murmur, not a mention. That is media dishonesty.

This is gobsmacking on a number of levels.

So Slater cut and pasted a Herald article and used it to diss Labour. Then he slams the ‘dishonest journalism’ that he repeated. I wonder if someone tipped him off to have a look at the donation list himself after his initial post, or perhaps he was just fed the details.

Whale Oil still claims to be media. From About:

Whaleoil is the fastest-growing media organisation in New Zealand. Its brand of news, opinion, analysis and entertainment is finding fertile ground with an audience that is feeling abandoned by traditional news media.

They often criticise other media  – while frequently using other media’s content. They claim they are a new way of doing journalism, much better than those they ridicule.

In this case Slater used Herald content to try and score a political hit against Labour, then turned on the Herald for ‘Dishonest journalism’. That in itself is highly ironic.

But why didn’t Whale Oil report on the donation to Labour three weeks ago? It’s as easy for them to monitor Electoral Commission donation lists as it is for the Herald.

They are slamming the Herald for not reporting on something that they didn’t report themselves, until they reacted to a Herald article that they used for their own purposes.

Whale Oil shows few signs of being a media site that does journalism these days.

The Daily Blog does a lot more original content than them now.

Whale Oil has reverted to being a blog that relies on repeating other media content, with trashing of the media that feeds them being some of their only original content.

The failure of Whale Oil to report the donation to Labour earlier is a symptom of it’s failure to become a credible alternative media outlet.

Whale Oil slump

Whale Oil has been trying to trash Bill English since he became Prime Minister and they have been trying to trash National since New Zealand along with all other countries in the security voted in December to censure Israel, except the US who abstained.

This morning ‘Cameron Slater’ tries to connect the poll result to their anti-English and anti-National agenda: First poll of year sees Nats slump 4 points, thanks Murray

National has slumped 4 points int he latest 1News/Colmar Brunton poll.

Winston Peters is in the box seat, but Bill English must be regretting letting Murray McCully run rogue at the UN Security Council. This is the cost.

National has started the slide to a number starting with 3.

Bill English better get well acquainted with Winston Peters…and he better sort out Murray McCully or this drop will be just the start.

That’s nonsensical analysis, it’s just trying to justify WO’s doom and gloom predictions with what is actually a fairly consistent poll result. National results since October 2015: 47, 47, 50, 48, 48, 50, 46 so 46% is nothing like a slump.

In fact National have been polling consistently within a fairly narrow band since 2012 with low points 4-5 years ago.

Slater is demonstrating again that he uses Whale Oil for political activism rather than as credible media alternative.

Notably Slater’s slant is largely unsupported in comments so far.

Wilson: Some in the media were saying the first poll will have a 3 in front of it. So 46% is great.

Curly1952: I believe the drop to 46% for National was to be expected as JK was the glue to the party.

As far as the McCully factor goes I would suggest that large swathes of the electorate won’t even consider the UN resolution as part of the political barometer in NZ.

Most of the electorate are unlikely to be aware of the UN vote, or won’t care about it.

Omlete:I think the broad electorate have enough native smarts to not want the wreckers/ haters and unionist thugs on the treasury benches. It will be a National led government.

Ross:On what evidence exactly do you blame Murray?

Korerorero: I don’t thinks it’s that bad. National was on 50% in the last colmar poll.
So this is probably a correction to be in line with the other polls which had Nats around 46%. I think you’ll see nats stay around this number (or possible rise again) after their budget surprise that will leave labour shell shocked and the voters happy.

The only one supporting Slater’s agenda was ‘Positan’:

It’s not a correction. Within my many circles there was utter disbelief at the Christmas Eve announcement of NZ’s position on Res:2334 – and then anger bordering on outrage at English’s failure to front during the holidays and explain. The anger grew with the continued failure of any senior Nat to front – especially, with the empty silly letters issued by pressured Nat MPs.

Next, there were the circulating stories as to how English & Co had believed the whole matter would be blown over by the end of the holidays – the reason for the deafening silence – which has wrought the real damage of “my party vote will go elsewhere,” and “sorry, no extra donation this year.”

If National’s members are saying those sorts of things out loud now – that’s why the 46% figure has happened. English has completely misread his party’s membership’s feelings and he’s blown it. I think National’s poll figures could get very much worse.

That sounds very similar to some of the anti-National posts over the last two months.

Of course National’s poll figures could get worse, but there is no discernible effect on them from the UN vote against Israel, and this poll result is only being called a slump by Slater and some desperadoes at The Standard.

The only slump shown here is in Whale Oil credibility as a political analyst.

More brainless sheep?

In researching Labour attack ‘brainless sheep’ I came across another use of the term ‘brainless sheep’ that was used recently – at Whale Oil.

SB posted: The National Party on Immigration and the refugee quota

I contacted National, Labour, Act, The Maori Party, NZ First, the Greens, the Opportunities Party, the Conservatives and United Future to ask them all three questions. The fourth party to respond to my questions was the National Party. My questions and the Minister of Immigration Michael Woodhouse’s answers are published below in full and un-edited.

Question:

The perception of many of our readers is that left-of-centre political parties prefer immigrants from low socio-economic countries who are highly dependent on the state and poorly educated because immigrants like that will naturally vote for the left-of-centre parties who allowed them in. Which immigrants get priority under your party’s policy and why?

Why do many Whale Oil readers (SB doesn’t quantify or say how she knows) think “that left-of-centre political parties prefer immigrants from low socio-economic countries who are highly dependent on the state and poorly educated because immigrants like that will naturally vote for the left-of-centre parties who allowed them in”?

This poorly informed political generalisation is as brainless as Labour Tauranga.

Answer:

Majority of our immigration policies are based on skill level and the Government is constantly making changes to improve the skill level of migrants coming to New Zealand.

Perhaps SN could learn about the objectives of Immigration New Zealand and educate her WO readers:

INZ Operational Manual – Residence

a The objective of New Zealand’s residence programme is to contribute to economic grow
th through enhancing the overall level of human capability in New Zealand, encouraging enterprise andinnovation, and fostering international links, while maintaining a high level of social cohesion.

b This objective is achieved through selecting a broad mix of migrants on the basis of either their skills and experience or their family links to New Zealand.

https://www.immigration.govt.nz/documents/ops-manual/residence.pdf

Question:

Many of our readers do not trust the UN to decide which refugees we will get and are concerned that they are not being vetted properly. There is also the problem that Christian and non-Muslim refugees who are more easily able to integrate and assimilate into New Zealand are not safe inside the camps and flee them which results in an almost 100% Muslim refugee intake for New Zealand. Given that we are a Christian and secular country where does your party stand on our refugee quota?

SB seems to state as fact “an almost 100% Muslim refugee intake for New Zealand”. I would be interested to know how she knows this, and if it is accurate.

Answer:

In regards to refugees, refugees are referred by the UNHCR to New Zealand for resettlement based on need for protection and are robustly screened by NZ Government agencies.

I thought this screening process (by NZ immigration) was common knowledge.

Question:

Our readers would also like to know if your party would support putting persecuted minorities such as Christian and non-Muslim refugees at the front of the queue?

Answer:

Under international conventions, religion is not a criterion that can be used for selection.

Using a poorly informed blog like Whale Oil to determine which religions were acceptable for consideration for refugee intakes is unlikely to happen, fortunately.

The ‘brainless sheep’ reference came up in comments.

Win: The answer “Religion is not a criterion that can be used for selection” – so why are all of these so called refugees muslim?

That SB states they are does not make it fact.

Shalice: That phrase only means “if we choose Christians we will be accused of not being diverse enough and being PC is infinitely more important than the safety of NZ citizens”

deja vu: At best it’s lazy thinking – at worst cowardice.

Who’s lack of thinking is lazy?

deja vu: Actually they’re not so private agendas. Can’t be, if even we stupid brainless sheep can find out what they are. There has to be another explanation which dares not speak its name in public – surrendering to the ultimate ambitions of the NWO.

I presume NWO refers to New World Order (conspiracy theory). That went unchallenged.

Trevor Hughes appears to have some detail:

Under the 1951 UN Convention a refugee is a person with a well founded fear of persecution because of their race, religion, social group or political opinion. New Zealand is free to take whichever refugees it wishes. Currently in the Middle East religious minorities like the Christians and Yazidis are the most severely persecuted groups.

Yazidism is an ancient religion in northern Mesopatamia (mainly Iraqi Kurds) and they have been persecuted by ISIS. Some of their own practices aren’t that flash either, with recent reports of stonings and ‘honour’ killings.

One of the largest Yazidi populations outside the Middle East is in Germany, something around 100,000 of them have gone their as refugees. Germany has been strongly criticised on Whale Oil for it’s immigration policies.

They have suffered unspeakable atrocities at the hands of radical Islamists and they dare not enter the UN run refugee camps which are largely muslim.

Many have suffered in the Middle East in Syria, Iraq, Yemen – mostly Muslims.

There won’t be many Muslims in the Yazidi refugee camp either. See “The first thing one notices upon entering the Yazidi refugee camp is the children. They seem to be everywhere—chasing each other between the UN tents…”.

Yet these people at present make up only about two percent of our refugee intake, the overwhelming majority of the intake being muslim.

Perhaps because most refugees currently in dire need are Muslim? Interesting he has quantified Christian and Yazidi refugees but not Muslims.

New Zealand could easily bypass UNHCR, which has a history of corruption running the camps, and work with agencies like the Barnabas Foundation to redress this travesty. Perhaps however we are afraid of upsetting our Saudi mates and the free trade deal?

Odd comment. Bypassing UNHCR and bypassing refugee camps would require a lot more work and vetting by New Zealand.

Whale Oil dirty and inconsistent

Missy posted:

Whaleoil have a post about the call from the HRC for the Govt to apologise about Child Abuse in State Care, supported by Jacinda Ardern. What caught my attention is the headline: Socialist Cindy, the childless champion of children

I am sorry, but her being childless should be irrelevant, I think that is just nasty to say that about her. There was a similar (sort of) situation here during the Conservative Party leadership election when it seemed one of the candidates kept prefacing every comment with ‘as a mother I….’, this was a direct dig at Theresa May who had no children, and the inference is that people with no children have no empathy – Cameron Slater is using the same tactic here. Pete tries to justify it, but in my view it is still shoddy on their part, and stigmatising Jacinda for not being a mother, and detracting from the point of the article – whether you agree or not with it.

I agree that having a dig at someone for being childless is nasty. perhaps this is some of the ‘more dirty’ that Slater has been talking about doing this year.

As Missy says, Pete Belt tries to defend the indefensible.

Spambot42: How is Cindy being childless relevant to the content of the article and the entirely relevant point you made about it…?

Pete Belt: She is the shadow minister for children. If they appointed a chinese person as minister of maori affairs, that would be notable. So, so is a childless woman being a children’s advocate.

BayPomNZ: She has been a child at some point in time so perhaps your analogy isn’t quite correct. I agree with spambot42 that being childless is completely irrelevant to ifnshed do a good job or not.

Pete Belt: It remains a factual statement. It is up to the reader to decide if it is relevant. As a parent, knowing what I thought about parenting and children before I became a parent, and what I know now, I feel confident in saying that a childless person can no understand what it is like to to have children and how their needs, thoughts and lives are experienced.

It may be a factual statement but it’s both nasty and stupid.

It’s ridiculous to suggest that any spokesperson role in politics is only credible if the person has been a mother, been a general, been a policeman, been a child in a sole parent family, been a property investor, been a tax evader etc etc.

Truby King founded Plunket and did a lot to teach mothers domestic hygiene and childcare, but he had never been a mother. That doesn’t negate what he achieved in reducing infant mortality. He also improved nutrition at the Seacliff psychiatric hospital, but I’m not aware of him having been a mental patient.

The Whale Oil headline is a dirty dig at Ardern, typical of Slater’s approach to politics. Talking of which, Slater has never been an MP, by Belt’s standards that means Slater being a political advocate is something worthy of taunting and degrading.

This just highlights the fact that Whale Oil is largely a political activist blog, and having never been a real journalist his attempts to portray his blog as an alternate new media should be rubbished by Belt, if he was to be consistent.

Who wrote the posts?

There has long been questions about the actual authorship of posts at Whale Oil under the name ‘Cameron Slater’. This is inadvertently raised again yesterday in a post where Slater describes his recent illness problems in How am I feeling?

I thought as it is nearly the end of January I’d give you an update on how I am feeling and what has happened since December 26.

After we returned from our Boxing Day lunch with the outlaws, a day where I spent most of it lying on a couch taking Panadol for a stonking headache, I went into my office to prepare posts for the blog for the next day.

My face, on the right-hand side, had slumped, and I couldn’t move it. I couldn’t raise my eyebrows, smile, grin, or even grimace. Half of my face was paralysed and it became more apparent when I couldn’t drink out of a glass because it spilt out of my half paralysed mouth.

On 27 December, I awoke in even more pain, and the paralysis was worse.

For the next few days, I lay in bed unable to get up due to the incredible pain and the Gabapentin and Tramadol barely touched it. It was excruciating.

I don’t even remember New Year’s Eve I was unable to get out of pain and finally, on 8 January, I cracked and couldn’t take it anymore.

It took another week to get in to see them and I spent all that time high as a kite but also suffering shivers, shakes and jolts of pain that broke through all the Gabapentin and Morphine.

He goes on in detail. It sounds awful for anyone to have to suffer like that.

This was now the middle of January. I had spent every day since the 27th lying flat on my back in a drug induced haze.

The supervisor gave us his diagnosis which was that I had a severe viral infection inside my head as well as Bell’s Palsy. It was a huge relief to finally know what had been causing all the pain.

It was only in this past week that I have been able to rise from my bed, but it is still debilitating. I am at best a half day man at the moment and am still on some pain killers and the last of the viral infection sticks around.

I am finally on the mend after a month in extreme pain and discomfort.

Meanwhile Whale Oil kept operating.

Of course in the meantime, I have had a blog to run and I have put a dreadful imposition during holiday time on Pete and SB to keep it running. I would have lucid moments and would furiously send links to either of them with a few short comments on the spin I wanted…but that was about it. They did a magnificent job and still are doing a magnificent job as I recover.

Pete and SB have stepped up and kept things going in Slater’s virtual absence. Good on them for that.

What caused the illness?

Well, my doctors and specialists are in no doubt that the stress of dealing with multiple vexatious litigants and the financial pressures associated with that has caused this. It is well known that Bells Palsy is stress related.

Ongoing legal issues, especially with Colin Craig, will certainly be stressful. Some of Craig’s actions have indeed been described as vexatious by a judge in a ruling. And this will no doubt cause financial stress.

But Slater is responsible  for some of his many problems. He still says he loves playing dirty so it’s hardly surprising he will get mud flung back at him. He has chosen to get involved in vexatious legal actions himself.

Nothing excuses the legal excesses of Craig but Slater provoked a reaction, he just happened to get a gross overreaction.

If you play with fire as much and as often as Slater there is bound to be some blow back and burning.

Back to authorship at Whale Oil. Slater has described in detail how debilitating his illness has been.

While the number of posts under ‘SB’ and ‘Whale Oil Staff’ increased during Slater’s illness there were also ongoing posts under ‘Cameron Slater’.

For example on December 31 there were seven posts under ‘Cameron Slater’ – a period Slater describes “For the next few days, I lay in bed unable to get up due to the incredible pain and the Gabapentin and Tramadol barely touched it. It was excruciating.” And “I don’t even remember New Year’s Eve I was unable to get out of pain”.

These posts were generally just quotes of other things, but many Slater posts these days consist mainly of quotes, including from media sources he otherwise savages when they aren’t providing him with material.

This highlights an ongoing credibility problem with Whale Oil. The authorship of posts continues to be questionable – both who has actually written the posts, and on what basis the material is provided.

I hope Cam’s health continues to improve – and perhaps once the fog of medications lifts he and his Whale Oil staff could consider being clearer about attribution of authorship.

Fake authorship does not look good. If they want to be taken seriously as an alternative media then they should act honestly professionally.

Mass shooting, but so what?

Five dead at a shooting in Mexico in a tourist town, at least one Kiwi present at the night club.

RNZ: Mexico shooting: Five dead in Playa del Carmen music festival nightclub shooting

At least five people have been killed, three of them foreigners, when a gunman opened fire outside the Blue Parrot nightclub in the Mexican resort town of Playa del Carmen during the BPM electronic music festival, police say.

More than 2000 people were said to be in the club at the time of the attack, many of them Australians. The festival is popular with foreign tourists.

In contrast to some shootings there doesn’t seem to have been any jumping to conclusions. Whale Oil hasn’t posted on it and there doesn’t seem to be any mention in comments – they mustn’t care about Mexicans and non-Israeli tourists.

When should NZ speak out against terrorism?

Yesterday SB posted at Whale Oil: We need to talk about our government’s attitude towards terrorism

The Bill English led National government I am very sad to say, does not speak out against terrorism if it is terrorism against Jews.

SB refers to a single attack that occurred when most of the Government was on holiday at it’s quietest time of year.

She quotes a blog post from Shalom Kiwi – New Zealand has an issue with terrorism

When an Islamist drove his truck into a crowd in Nice last July, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key spoke out against the terror attack. When an Islamist drove his truck into a crowd in Berlin last December, New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English spoke out against the terror attack. An Islamist has just driven a truck into a crowd in Jerusalem and the New Zealand government is silent.

While Kiwi politicians are yet to make comment on the terror attack, there was condemnation from around the rest of the Western world following the tragedy that claimed 4 young lives and injured 16 others.

Has the New Zealand government been deliberately selective in which terrorist attacks they condemn, and in particular do they not denounce terrorism if it’s against Jews?

Perhaps it’s a matter of scale – the Nice attack killed 86 people and injured 434, the Berlin attack killed 12 people and injured 56.

But it’s not just the one terrorist attack in Jerusalem that the Government has not denounced.

Terrorist attacks so far this year that have resulted in multiple deaths:

  • Shooting in Istanbul, Turkey – 39 dead, 70 injured
  • Bombing in Najaf, Iraq – 7 dead, 17 injured
  • Car bombing in Baghdad, Iraq – 56 dead, 122 injured
  • Car bombing in Magadishu, Somalia – 7 dead, 17 injured
  • Suicide bombing in Samarra, Iraq – 7 dead
  • Shooting in Abyan, Yemen – 3 dead, 10 injured
  • Shooting in Badhakshan, Afghanistan – 4 dead
  • Shooting in Bria, Central African Republic – 2 dead (UN peacekeepers), 2 injured
  • Shooting in Quetta, Pakistan – 2 dead
  • Shooting in Kunduz, Afghanistan – 2 dead (US service members)
  • Car bombings in Baghdad, Iraq – 28 dead, 57 injured
  • Car bombing in Jableh, Syria – 16+ dead, 30 injured
  • Car bombing in Izmir, Turkey – 2 dead, 10 injured
  • Car bombing in Ad-Dawr, Iraq – 4 dead, 12 injured
  • Shooting in Tala wa Barfak, Afghanistan – 9+ dead, 3 injured
  • Suicide bombing in Abyan, Yemen – 6 dead (British soldiers), 20 injured
  • Car bombing in Azaz, Syria – 60+ dead, 50 injured
  • Attack in Yobe State, Nigeria – 5 dead
  • Car bombing in Baghdad, Iraq – 20 dead, 50+ injured
  • Vehicular attack in Jerusalem – 4 dead, 17 injured
  • Shooting in Jourian, India – 3 dead
  • Car bombing in Arish, Egypt – 8 dead, 15 injured
  • Car bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan – 38 dead, 70+ injured
  • Bombing in Kandahar, Afghanistan – 11 dead, dozens injured

There were also 18 terrorist attacks with 1 or 0 deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_January_2017

I understand that Shalom Kiwi would have a focus on Israel, but why is SB and Whale Oil, which sometimes promotes itself as much better media, ignoring all these other terrorist attacks?  They could pad out a lot of posts with various terrorist attacks if they wanted to be balanced.

What should our Government’s attitude be to terrorism? Denouncing every terrorist attack is obviously impractical.

Should terrorism denouncements be based on the number of attacks? If so what would be a practical and reasonable threshold be?

Should we only care about terrorism in certain countries, or regions of the world? There’s obviously a lot of terrorism in the Middle East – but if we ruled out there that would also rule out Israel.

I’m fairly sure our Government would denounce all terrorism generally. In fact our Foreign Minister Murray McCully says that UN resolution 2334, voted on just before Christmas, does just that:

Resolution 2334 condemns the obstacles to a negotiated two state solution: incitement and acts of violence and terror against civilians of all sides, and the ongoing settlements programme which carves ever more deeply into the land available for a Palestinian state on the West Bank.

It would be impractical to denounce every terrorist act.

From New Zealand Foreign Affairs and Trade:  Counter terrorism


New Zealand is committed to regional and international counter-terrorism cooperation.

Ongoing upheaval in the Middle East and the rapid rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da’esh) have changed the international security landscape, where terrorism is now a significant threat. While the risk of a terror attack here is thought to be low, we need to be vigilant, and play a part in countering terrorism abroad.

MFAT’s role

We build networks with other countries and international organisations so we can keep informed of terrorist threats, share information, and improve our capacity to respond.MFAT represents New Zealand at international forums that deal with terrorism.

What we’re doing globally

New Zealand works with several international partners to improve global counter-terrorism capability. We do this through policy, legislation and practical initiatives that help prevent terrorist financing, violent extremism, radicalisation and recruitment.

We support the UN Global Counter Terrorism Strategy (external link). We’ve co-sponsored a number of terrorist designations and follow a national process to make sure New Zealand complies with the UN Security Council’s terrorist sanctions against these entities.

Read more about our list of designated terrorist entities and our UN obligations (external link) (which includes the military wing of Hamas)

More on UN Security Council sanctions

Groups and initiatives New Zealand works with include:

  • UN al Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committees – UN committees that impose measures to limit the capabilities of these specific terrorist groups. This committee also deals with ISIL and its affiliates.
  • International Coalition to Counter ISIL – New Zealand has deployed a military training mission to Iraq as part of our overall contribution to the international coalition against ISIL. This is a non-combat mission, aimed at building the capability and capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces to counter ISIL and promote peace and security.
  • UN Alliance of Civilisations – works to address the root causes of extremism through improving cross-cultural understanding and cooperation among countries, peoples and communities.
  • Global Counter Terrorism Forum (GCTF) – a group of around 30 countries that work together to find ways to prevent, combat and prosecute terrorist acts, and to promote the UN’s Counter Terrorism Strategy.
  • Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund (GCERF) – an initiative of the GCTF that supports local efforts to prevent violent extremism.
  • Financial Action Task Force (FATF) – helps countries put in place laws and regulations that prevent the financing of terrorist organisations.

Whale ill

Cameron Slater has posted at Whale Oil that he is suffering from a debilitating illness – Quick update on my health – it turned out to be not very quick as he responded with details a number of times in comments through the day, and has also commented on it on Facebook.

He says that it is stress related, after a tough year last year.

The stresses of 2016 have come home to roost, and it is something else I can thank Colin Craig and others for.  I’ll make sure I’ll bring this up as one of the outcomes of what happens when a rich angry man uses the courts for personal leverage without any merit to the case.   His last court room encounter with me was thrown out as vexatious before it even went to trial.  So I’m somewhat annoyed my left brain has decided to go all sookie on me and chuck it all in for a bit.

Jokes aside, I’m not in great shape.  I can barely work.  I’m on morphine to keep the worst of the pain at bay.  But you know me, I can still take and make phone calls, and I have a great team I can dictate, direct and delegate to so it is business as usual.

The others at Whale Oil say they are doing more to keep things ticking over on the blog but some are still appearing under the authorship of Slater.

When Slater recovers enough to think things through clearly he should do more than just blame others – it would be an opportune time for him to re-evaluate his approach to blogging.

Many of his old sources seem to have dried up since the ‘Dirty Politics revelations, so continuing to promote himself as a dirty political activist, and promising to get dirtier this year, doesn’t seem a very smart approach.

Slater could be incisive and hard hitting without resorting to murkier dirtier tactics – if he actually tried to be a well informed new media journalist rather than trying to be dirtier and click batier than the old media he keeps criticising he may be able to reinvent Whale Oil as an effective and credible media site.

One problem with Whale Oil is their commitment to half hour posts . This often results in repeats on the same topics, many times on some topics, which either look like fillers, or like promoting an agenda. There are too many petty repeats of whine-posts.

An emphasis on quality rather than quantity would declutter the daily post lists and would probably attract more interest. When skimming 20-30 post titles it’s easy to miss worthwhile posts.

Slater would do well to reassess his approach to blogging. He may not only improve Whale Oil, potentially substantially, but also reduce his stress levels. The latter may be essential if he wants to recover properly and avoid any recurrence of stress induced illness.

A tighter, better focussed and less dirty Whale Oil would be more effective as a media site and also as a political activist site. And it may mean the difference between blog and blogger surviving online or not.

More Breitbart ‘fake news’

The Breitbart news site has been accused of spreading ‘fake news’ about an alleged Muslim attack on a church in Germany. This has been debunked by multiple sources.

This raises concerns for a number of reasons:

  • The ex CEO of Bretibart, Steve Barron, will soon become Trump’s chief strategist in the White House.
  • Breitbart plans to set up a German language site (and also a French site).
  • Germany is having elections this year.
  • Whale Oil wants to imitate Breitbart  in New Zealand.

Guardian: German police quash Breitbart story of mob setting fire to Dortmund church

German media and politicians have warned against an election-year spike in fake news after the rightwing website Breitbart claimed a mob chanting “Allahu Akbar” had set fire to a church in the city of Dortmund on New Year’s Eve.

After the report by the US site was widely shared on social media, the city’s police clarified that no “extraordinary or spectacular” incidents had marred the festivities.

The local newspaper, Ruhr Nachrichten, said elements of its online reporting on New Year’s Eve had been distorted by Breitbart to produce “fake news, hate and propaganda”.

The justice minister of Hesse state, Eva Kühne-Hörmann, said that “the danger is that these stories spread with incredible speed and take on lives of their own”.

Tens of thousands clicked and shared the Breitbart.com story with the headline “Revealed: 1,000-man mob attack police, set Germany’s oldest church alight on New Year’s Eve”.

It said the men had “chanted Allahu Akbar (God is greatest), launched fireworks at police and set fire to a historic church”, while also massing “around the flag of al-Qaida and Islamic State collaborators the Free Syrian Army.”

The local newspaper said Breitbart had combined and exaggerated unconnected incidents to create a picture of chaos and of foreigners promoting terrorism.

Dortmund police on Thursday said its officers had handled 185 missions that night, sharply down from 421 the previous year. The force’s leader judged the night as “rather average to quiet”, in part thanks to a large police presence.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung daily said Breitbart had used exaggerations and factual errors to create “an image of chaotic civil war-like conditions in Germany, caused by Islamist aggressors”.

Breitbart is unlikely to be deterred by belated debunking of their slanted and misleading campaigns.

Bild, Germany’s top-selling daily, also predicted trouble ahead – pointing to the fact that Breitbart’s former editor Steve Bannon had been appointed as US president-elect Donald Trump’s chief strategist.

It warned that Breitbart – which plans to launch German and French language sites – could seek to “aggravate the tense political climate in Germany”.

Meanwhile in New Zealand Whale Oil is trying to revive it’s imitation of Breitbart – and already has a history of anti-Muslim posts.

How Whaleoil can become New Zealand’s Breitbart

Whaleoil can become New Zealand’s Breitbart if the subscription numbers continue to grow. We will use the extra income to hire more staff and we will train interns. Given the appropriate resources, we will expand services which may possibly include news aggregation from sources you can trust.

When you subscribe to Whaleoil you become part of our plan to once again imitate what works overseas and to replicate its success here in New Zealand.

Sources you can trust? Breitbartising Whale Oil might appeal to those who want to be told what they believe, but the trust levels here are already very low.

Because of this Whale Oil rarely gets traction in social and mainstream media for any of the campaigns they try to run – they have been complaining about the lack of media interest in their daily barrage of pro-Israel anti-NZ Government posts.

Any ‘news’ posted by Whale Oil should be viewed with a healthy degree of skepticism, whether it is from their own ‘tip line’ or unnamed sources, or from ‘trusted sources’ like Breitbart. Both have records of political skulduggery and dirt – and Whale Oil has been promising to get dirtier this year.