MandM header image 2

The New Zealand Herald and Memory Loss

October 16th, 2014 by Matt

10712626_10153505848016959_9053938104017170005_o

Tags:   · 5 Comments

5 responses so far ↓

  • Sojourner
    Oct 16, 2014 at 4:59 pm

    What a crock! Our PM wants to send troops to help defeat ISIS!
    How intelligent is that!
    About as intelligent as the US attacking Iraq!
    If we want a crisis, all we have to do is start a war against people thousands of miles away and provoke one!

  • Doug
    Oct 16, 2014 at 5:49 pm

    My concern is twofold about attacking ISIS ( not just the legitimate point Matt makes about the press reporting ! )
    1) Does this meet the criteria of a Just War ? Airstrikes alone can’t win a war as some have stated we need ‘boots on the ground.’ So if the new Iraqi army isn’t up to the task on the ground we have no reasonable chance of success by using violence thus it’s not a just war
    2) Will there be more harm in the longterm if we bomb ISIS and ultimately cause ‘collateral damage’ of innocents, probably bound to happen?

    The most obvious issue is why is the West bombing the very people we were arming in Syria? OK not directly arming them but many warned these people would end up not only receiving US supplied weapons to the rebels but then turning them against us.

    best wishes from one concerned Australian, Doug

  • Matt
    Oct 16, 2014 at 7:28 pm

    I wasn’t going to get into this, but seeing people have raised it.
    First, regarding Sojouner’s comments, I don’t think its accurate to say NZ is “starting a war” the reality there is already a war in Iraq in which thousands are being slaughtered. So war in that region is unavoidable the question is whether NZ should get involved.

    This brings me to Doug’s comments.

    Regarding the issue of “collateral damage” that term refers to civilian deaths that come about as a result of deliberately targeting military targets due to their proximity to those targets.
    Whether that’s permissible depends to a large extent on whether the threat posed by the military target is proportionate to the violence of the military installation. In this case ISIS are threatening the mass genocide of Iraqi Christians and Shiites. So, there is a real possibility that failure to destroy ISIS as a military machine will result in significant civilian causalities and the invasion and attack of numerous other towns and civilian filled areas in the region. In that context it seems to me military strikes are justifiable even if some collateral damage occurs, if those attacks are necessary to halt ISIS’s advance of and slaughter of civilians.

    As to who armed them in the first place, that goes to the wisdom and potential hypocrisy of western polices to date, however I am not sure it really addresses the moral question of what is the just and right thing to do now that ISIS have invaded Iraq, taken large swaths of territory and are attacking other areas threatening the mass killing slaughter and potential genocide of others. I don’t think for example the fact the west armed them gives them a free pass to be exempt from armed resistance from the west when they use these weapons to engage in unjustified aggression.
    My point in this post however was about the dishonest reporting of the new Zealand herald where they seem to have clearly got a series of photos and made up commentary about at least one of them to create an impression for the reader. When Journalists exploit misery of others to sell papers without any regard for accuracy I consider it despicable.

  • Doug
    Oct 16, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    Hi Matt,
    Thanks for your considered comments. Sorry if you feel I hijacked your thread. That was not my intention I was following on Sojourner’s comments. Your comments are well considered, yes it’s a tricky one isn’t it? The moral arithmetic of collateral versus potential casualties takes the wisdom of Solomon to discern (so that’s me stuffed ). However back to your point about the press reporting. Have to say I’m truly shocked at the New Zealand Herald. Glad you pointed it out. I’ve every intention of sharing it.

  • Sojourner
    Oct 18, 2014 at 6:54 pm

    I should have made my intent clearer, my apologies.
    I meant, if we (here in NZ) want a crisis within OUR land we can potentially provoke one by joining the fight against ISIS.
    I just do not accept that there is any need for our troops to go overseas and fight ISIS.
    Are they truly perceived to be a threat against NZ?
    If not, why cannot the US and the other nations with more troops handle the crisis?
    I am against NZ’s involvement in the war.