- Ahh I see the banality has given way to a more overt ticking of boxes now with the carefully chosen ‘panel’ of predictable themes.Validate western actions, check. Promote flag, check……..thanks morrissey for keeping us updated on the decline of broadcasting.
Morrissey1.1.1
And it was dealt with in the “One Quick Question” feature, which never has any follow-up. Mora—or more likely his producer—made sure that it would not be dealt with any further by burying it with two more “Quick Questions”.In spite of that deliberate attempt to stymie any further discussion, if even one of the Panelists had any moral fibre, or gumption, he or she would have contested Professor Ayson’s horrifying little homily.savenz1.1.1.1
+1 MorrisseyGrindlebottom1.1.1.1.1
These sorts of comments by prof Ayson, Western coalitions, Russia, and others engaged in bombing and wars around the globe implying the families and compatriots of thousands of civilians killed as “collateral damage” should somehow regard those killings as unfortunate, qualitatively different, and in no way warranting any kind of reciprocal response, are just bizarre.We never get to hear about the real numbers of innocent people killed by these “great powers” but those who live there all know the situation. Of course some of them will seek vengeance. The righteousness of seeking vengeance is the very example their attackers keep giving them!
North1.2
Professor Ayson – “That’s not to say that civilians are unaffected”.Hmmm ……. ” Following the drone attack 27 villagers were found ‘not unaffected’ in the rubble. In accordance with local custom their bodies will……”And closer to home…….” The father of three who was airlifted to Whangarei Base Hospital was ‘not unaffected’ on arrival “.Classy…….Professor.Crashcart1.3
This guy has drunk the Sam Harris cool aid.Intentions are a matter of perspective.The US would say that they don’t intend to do evil things. They bomb a funeral hoping to get some terrorists knowing that civilians will die or a hospital but it is not their intent to do an evil deed.Russians don’t think their actions are evil. They are supporting what they see as an ally and bombing what they see as terrorists. For any one to try and make a distiction between the US actions and Russian is a sure sign of dishonesty.Muslim extreemists don’t think they are evil either. They believe that what they are doing is in defence of their religion and that it is the only way to take the fight to those who they see as oppressing them and killing them back home.All of them do horrible things and the way they can do that is by justifying it to themselves is that its for the greater good. Intentions is the most redicuolous reason to try and distinguish one from the others.les1.3.1
quite clearly the roads to all religious hellfire are paved with ‘good intentions’!- Seeking answers from Professor Ayson
Thursday 19 November 2015Jim Mora’s producers made sure that there would be no chance for the Panelists to debate with the VUW Strategic Studies professor Professor Ayson yesterday.
http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-19112015/#comment-1097870This bothered me, as I found Professor Ayson’s comments to be profoundly disturbing. Unlike Jim Mora, his producers and the four other silent people in that studio yesterday, I don’t think anyone, leave alone a university professor, should be allowed to make such statements without having to defend or explain them.I have, therefore, just sent the following email to Robert Ayson. I’ll publish his response when it comes in….Some questions about your statements on RNZ National yesterday afternoonDear Professor Ayson,Yesterday on RNZ National, you claimed that the terrorism in Paris and above the Sinai “reflects a clear intention to target and kill innocent civilians, to cause great shock and fear”. You also stated that when “the West” kills innocent civilians, it is “qualitatively different”.Could you please explain how you would categorize the intentions of the United States’ strategists when they decided to attack hospitals and kill patients and medical staff, as in Fallujah, Iraq in 2004 and Kunduz, Afghanistan just last month.Thank you for your time,Morrissey Breen
Northcote PointSabine10.1
that Professor Ayson must have never read the thing about “Shock and Awe”.but then i guess some terrorism is more equal than other terrorism.- He’s read it, all right. He just supports it.But maybe he has a convincing rationale for his comments. I’ll keep you posted.
- Professor Ayson replies
Thursday 19 November 2015Dear MorrisseyThanks for your email. If you have information which shows that the United States was deliberately targeting medical staff and innocent patients I would be interested to see it. I don’t believe that is what they are intending, and I think this makes the comparison with the Paris terrorism problemmatic. But those in the US and similar countries who are making decisions about the use of force and the armed forces personnel who undertake these attacks can and do get targeting wrong, and in seeking to target people and groups they believe to be in particular locations they sometimes make poor judgements about the wider consequences.regardsRob- so his excuse is simply that as long as the US and its allies proclaim innosence and lack of knowledge in finding their targets it make the killing more human and less murderous?
Good one.
So next time the terrorists just simply state that their suicide drivers drove to the wrong establishment, and oops its ok, cause no harm was intended there.- I replied thusly…Dear Professor Ayson,The United States military was repeatedly given the coordinates of Kunduz Hospital. They didn’t get their targeting wrong.When they “conquered” Fallujah General Hospital in November 2004, U.S. troops tied up doctors and nurses, and forced patients out of their beds, before also tying them up. Again, that doesn’t seem like getting their targeting wrong.Yours sincerely,Morrissey Breen
Tuesday, 2 January 2018
Prof. Robert Ayson explains why mass killings by our side is okay
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
“The difference is not in the NUMBERS, it’s in the INTENTIONS.”
The Panel, RNZ National, Wednesday 18 November 2015
Jim Mora, Jock Anderson, Ellen Read, Zara Potts, Jesse Mulligan