New Zealand police make more weapon raids, arrests

[Kiwi]

WELLINGTON, Oct 16 (Reuters) - New Zealand police staged new raids and arrested more people on Tuesday in a crackdown on camps where training in firearms and other weapons was being given, and were weighing whether to bring charges under anti-terrorism law.

Those arrested include environmental, social, and indigenous Maori activists, who had allegedly attended the military style training camps.

A total of 17 people have been detained thus far on various charges, including possession of illegal firearms and weapons.

None have been charged with any breach of the country's never-used anti-terrorism law, but that was under consideration, police said.

Most of the suspects remained in custody although one activist, Jamie Lockett, was given bail despite police opposition.

Police told the court they had recordings of Lockett saying he was training to be "a vicious, dangerous commando", that he was "declaring war on this country very soon", and that "white men are going to die in this country".

The camps were based in rugged and mountainous country in the isolated eastern part of the North Island, the home of a strongly independent Maori tribe.

Firearms and reportedly a napalm bomb or molotov cocktails were seized in the raids, which followed a year-long police investigation.

The New Zealand Herald newspaper quoted unnamed sources who had attended the camps as saying the training had included wearing camouflage clothing, moving through forests carrying heavy packs, and the use of firearms.

But it also reported one man involved in running the camps saying they had been about improving fitness.

"It's not a Maori activist bunch of people. We are there for fitness, we are there for education, we are there for mental health and we are there for the long-term goals of New Zealanders," the paper quoted the man, identified only as "Dave".

Police have said charges may be laid under the country's anti-terrorism law, which has a provision protecting domestic political activities.

"This is not about targeting legitimate protest at all," said Assistant Commissioner Jon White on Radio New Zealand.

Any terrorism-related charges would have to be approved by the country's highest law official, the Solicitor General.

New Zealand, a South Pacific nation of 4.2 million people, has no history of domestic-related terrorism, although Maori, who make up around 15 percent of the population, have at times staged high-profile demonstrations and land occupations to highlight and gain redress for historic grievances.



woohoo 17 people 

[AussieJTFer]

Have the Maori's been given any native title like the Aboriginees here?

[Kiwi]

Yeah they have worse luck, but the thing is Maoris are not natives tho, unlike your abo's.

[AussieJTFer]

Well their ancestors who were Polynesian settled there in the 8th century, granted that doesn't compare to the 50,000 years of Aboriginal inhabitance of Australia, but it's still a fair bit of time before Cook reached New Zealand's islands in 1769.

[Kiwi]

Yes true but the real natives have the rights, not the maori's and just because they ate them doesn't give them any right to the land what so ever. And don't forget the maori's sold the land to whites.

[newman]

Yeah they have worse luck, but the thing is Maoris are not natives tho, unlike your abo's.

Todays abbos are merely the third wave of people who came here from Asia. They displaced the people who displaced the first lot, so they have no more right to the land than us. Less infact since they've done NOTHING with it.

[AussieJTFer]

Todays abbos are merely the third wave of people who came here from Asia. They displaced the people who displaced the first lot, so they have no more right to the land than us. Less infact since they've done NOTHING with it.

Who were the first lot? The oldest human fossils found in Australia are 40,000 years old, Mungo Man and Mungo Lady. The Aboriginees settled here around 50,000 years ago, how is there any evidence suggesting that there were any other humans before the Aboriginees?

[Ultra Requete]

Yes give up all world to baboons they were here first!

[newman]

Todays abbos are merely the third wave of people who came here from Asia. They displaced the people who displaced the first lot, so they have no more right to the land than us. Less infact since they've done NOTHING with it.

Who were the first lot? The oldest human fossils found in Australia are 40,000 years old, Mungo Man and Mungo Lady. The Aboriginees settled here around 50,000 years ago, how is there any evidence suggesting that there were any other humans before the Aboriginees?

'Aborigines' is a broad term. There were another lot of abbos like the Tasmanian abbos on the mainland before this present lot arrived. They were displaced. It is a fact that the left academics don't deny but they don't like discussing it.

[AussieJTFer]

Well Tasmania was part of the mainland until 13,000 or so years ago when the last Ice Age ended.
Do you have any documentation or proof that there were a distinctly different group of humans that inhabited and then were displaced by the ancestors of the current day aboriginees? I would like to read up on this as I have never heard of this before.
They came from SE Asia over what was once a land bridge between the Australian continent and Asia, the main theory I think is that they were originally from Africa.

[newman]

I heard it on ABC radio and 4BC (3AW equivelent up here). Can't remember names but they were well reputed Australian History professors. The Tasmanian type were Australoid (broadly speaking) but very different to the mainland abbos of today. It was said that there were three different waves of pre-white migration over the 50,000 years by three distinct and different groups.

[AussieJTFer]

Interesting stuff, I'll have to investigate this further, however, did any of these later migratory humans displace humans of a previous migration?

[Kiwi]

3AW wasn't that the one John Law was on?

[AussieJTFer]

John Laws is on 2UE Sydney which I think is the Sydney equivalent of 3AW. There's only one person worth listening to on 3AW and that's Peter Farris on Sunday mornings. Too bad he is on with some lefty farkwit. He has a pretty good blog here:

http://www.farisqc.observationdeck.org/

[newman]

Interesting stuff, I'll have to investigate this further, however, did any of these later migratory humans displace humans of a previous migration?

Yes. That's why the present lot are a different species to the earlier ones like those that were in Tasmania.

[Kiwi]

Interesting stuff, I'll have to investigate this further, however, did any of these later migratory humans displace humans of a previous migration?

Yes. That's why the present lot are a different species to the earlier ones like those that were in Tasmania.

Oh the River Tribes I remember reading about them when I was in Hobart.

[AussieJTFer]

Displaced or adapted to environment differently depending on where they settled, hence the differences? Obviously the Tasmanian Aboriginees would be whiter than those in the north considering they had to live primarily in caves in the south-western part of Tasmania to keep warm in the winters, remembering that they also lived through an ice age.

[newman]

Displaced or adapted to environment differently depending on where they settled, hence the differences? Obviously the Tasmanian Aboriginees would be whiter than those in the north considering they had to live primarily in caves in the south-western part of Tasmania to keep warm in the winters, remembering that they also lived through an ice age.

They were a distinctly different ethnicity.

[Kiwi]

From what I remember they were warrior tribes, and interesting warfare patterns, the whites had trouble with them for many years.

[Wayne Jude]

All explain!

[Kiwi]

Australo-Melanesian yes.

Sorry Australoid term is very out dated now.

[Kiwi]

Australo-Melanesian yes.

Sorry Australoid term is very out dated now.

But we at JTF believe in Racial Anthropology so it is not outdated.

Anthropologists have stopped using due to the term is to broad as a racial classification.

As presented in detail elsewhere (Neves et al., 2003) the arrival of an ''Australo-Melanesian-like'' population in the Americas is easily accommodated under what is presently known about the place of origin and the routes taken by modern humans in their first long-distance dispersions (Lahr and Foley, 1998). Acordingly, a population that began to expand from Africa around 70 ka reached southeast Asia by the middle of the late Pleistocene, carrying with it a cranial morphology characterized by long, narrow neurocrania and narrow, projecting faces. We postulate that after reaching southeast Asia, this stem population gave rise to at least two different dispersions. One took a southward direction and arrived at Australia around 50 Ka. Sometime between 50 and 20 Ka a second branch dispersed towards the north, and arrived in the Americas by the end of the Pleistocene, bringing with it the same cranial morphology that characterized the first modern humans. When the classical Mongoloid cranial morphology appeared in northeastern Asia, either as a local response to extreme environmental conditions, or as the product of a migration from northern Europe, a new expansion of northern Asians reached the New World, bringing with it a cranial morphology characterized by short, wide neurocrania and broad, retracted faces.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003784.html

I would of thought the new term was more fitting. 

[Kiwi]

But there are four human races. That is not going to change. Modern Anthropologists don't even believe in Racial Science anyway. You aren't going to learn about it in college if you take Anthropology.

This it what I find so interesting you are saying four, main modern medical science says 7.

This is where Religious thought and Science clashes, do you accept and take new knowledge, or remain hard fast on a idea that is safe and comfortable.

I am more simple in my beliefs I only believe in three. 

[Kiwi]

So you consider Abbos to racially be Oriental? Or do you believe them to be Negro?

Negro.

Maybe this is information that people might not want to know but...

There is only three types of embalming fluid used in all over the world, one for Black, White and Asians. If you used the wrong fluid the body just doesn't look right, And they use the Negro one for Abo's.

Its simple and body chemicals don't lie.

[newman]

Negro.

Maybe this is information that people might not want to know but...

There is only three types of embalming fluid used in all over the world, one for Black, White and Asians. If you used the wrong fluid the body just doesn't look right, And they use the Negro one for Abo's.

Its simple and body chemicals don't lie.

Three guesses which type is most effective embalming apes.............. the 'negro' type, I bet.