The conspiracy grows
The controversy over Uncensored magazine's plans to use the Mt Albert War Memorial Hall on Anzac weekend has reached the mainstream media, with the New Zealand Herald running an article called 'Anzac Day Shame?' in its Thursday regional supplement The Aucklander.
In one of his rambling, semi-coherent monologue-press releases, Uncensored editor Jonathan Eisen claimed that my criticism of the Jew-baiting and Maori-bashing in recent issues of his magazine was a reflection of 'psychosis', and a Zionist plot to boot. Jonathan is evidently used to imagining vast conspiracies, so he'll probably have no trouble incorporating a number of new figures, including Eden Albert Community Board chairman Christopher Dempsey, into the plot against him. Dempsey, who was elected on the left-wing City Vision ticket, has spoken out against Uncensored, telling the Herald's Joseph Barratt that the prospect of the War Memorial Hall being used for 'anti-semitic activities' is an 'outrage'. The other members of the Eden Albert Board have backed Dempsey up by asking the Auckland City Council to review the permission it gave Uncensored to use the hall.
posted by maps at 3/27/2009 08:28:00 am
3 Comments:
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/77012/index.php
For those interested, a certain 'alex search' provides a fantastic rant against the conspiracy apologists over on the Uncensored's website:
http://uncensored.co.nz/2009/04/02/it-is-not-a-theory-anymore-conpiracy-theory-is-conspiracy-fact/
What exactly do folks defending the deployment of the SAS think that the American-led occupation of Afghanistan is achieving?
It's not about preventing terrorism: Al Qaeda are long gone from Afghanistan, having found much more hospitable homes in places like Yemen and Somalia.
It's not about bringing democracy and human rights to Afghans: the government Western forces prop up is run by warlords every bit as anti-democratic as the Taleban. Karzai lost Afghanistan's last national election and then simply refused to accept the result.
Nor is the occupation about some sort of crusade against fundamntalist Islam: the Karzai government has effectively introduced sharia law in many parts of Afghanistan. In Bamiyan, where New Zealand troops have been stationed for many years now, the Karzai regime has allowed men who rape girls or women to avoid punishment, if they marry their victims. So much for women's rights.
Despite what the rhetoric of politicians might suggest, the occupation of Afghanistan is not even some sort of straight-out fight against the Taleban. Matthew Hoh, a former leading strategist for the US in Afghanistan, has revealed, in a series of high-profile interviews and op-ed articles, that the vast majority of Afghans ighting Western forces are not part of the Taliban, but rather members of Pashtun village communities angered by the presence of foreign troops in their areas. They receive arms and money from the Taleban, but do not submit to any sort of Taleban direction. The war in Afghanistan is, Hoh says, really a thousand little local wars - and these wars are actually prompted by the presence of Western troops.
No conqueror has ever subdued Afghan's Pashtuns. Two British armies were destroyed by the Pashtuns in the 19th century and the Soviet military machine was unsuccessful in the 20th century. The attack which killed this SAS soldier took place on Afghanistan's national day, which celebrates those earlier victories against the British.
Can anyone explain, given all this, why exactly New Zealand troops should be fighting in Afghanistan?
Post a Comment
<< Home