Who’s A Terrorist?

The other day one of the “terrorist accused” was releasted. Here’s what TVNZ said:

Rongomai Bailey who was released on bail on Tuesday, describes Tame Iti, one of his co-accused, as a passing aquaintance.

But Bailey will not say whether he has been to the Ureweras where police allege there have been military style training camps.

Bailey has protested against the Wellington by-pass, genetic engineering and the war in Iraq.

He told a news conference he is a concerned citizen, not a criminal.

“I am not a terrorist, there you go. Happy?,” he says.

“I have never planned to injure or even touch anyone in a manner that would cause them offence.”

Bailey, who is charged with four firearms offences, was granted bail on Tuesday.

“I just think this whole terrorism thing is bogus. All only terrorism I know is done by the United States.“

Let’s think about that. This guy is claiming that only the United States conducts terrorism.

What about 9/11? Al Qaeda? How about Hamas firing rockets into Israel? How about ETA, the IRA? Clearly these are not regarded as “terrorist” or “terrorist acts” by this fellow.

Given that, it’s no wonder this guy says he’s not a terrorist - under his own definition of terrorism he might be plotting to fire-bomb Wellington, but if it wasn’t done by the US, it’s not a terrorist act.

Just shows you how little you can trust what some people say. It’s a pity this statement wasn’t given more airtime by the media.

This statement also caught my eye:

Bailey says Tame Iti lectured at a Wellington design school where he was a student.

Why on earth would a design school have a Maori radical give a lecture is beyond me.

Update: MandM have some very pertenant comments.

I discovered at Uni that many segments of the far left in this country are a nasty group of malicious people who will lie, slander, and defame others, without any evidence at all to achieve their political goals. I also discovered that they frequently lies distort the truth, suppress or refuse to consider any evidence against their views they then whip up irrational mobs to repeat their slogans. In fact they tend to get very nasty and aggressive if counter evidence is provided. For example if say a PhD student ethics writes into a magazine and refutes their argument, they often respond with nasty puerile slander and abuse, but are unable to actually deal with the evidence provided.

All of which is echoed by my own personal experience, and several people I know.