Home Blog Page 1706

NZDF Response To Book

1

The New Zealand Defence Force stands by the statement it made dated 20 April 2011.

As the 2011 statement says, following the operation, allegations of civilian casualties were made. These were investigated by a joint Afghan Ministry of Defence, Ministry of the Interior and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) assessment team, in accordance with ISAF procedures.

The investigation concluded that the allegations of civilian casualties were unfounded.

The NZDF does not undertake investigations or inquiries into the actions of forces from other nations. That was the role of the joint Afghan-ISAF investigation.

The NZDF is confident that New Zealand personnel conducted themselves in accordance with the applicable rules of engagement.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

No Pride in Prisons to present submission on ‘racist’ Oranga Tamariki Bill

0

On Wednesday, 22nd of March, members of No Pride in Prisons will present a submission at parliament on the Children, Young Persons and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill.
“Key clauses of this legislation are fundamentally racist and will result in Māori children being removed from their whānau,” says No Pride in Prisons Parliamentary Advocacy Coordinator Kate McIntyre. “The state care system is already rife with abuse and mistreatment as it is.”
“Many who survive state care later end up in prison. Taken as it is, this bill will serve to funnel young Māori into the prison system, so it is vital that we intervene now to put a stop to it.”
The submission is based on an argument that the bill contradicts both national and international law.
“This bill is in violation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which the New Zealand government is a signatory,” McIntyre says. “By weakening priority to keep children raised within their whānau, hapū, and iwi, the state denies Māori the right to tino rangatiratanga as it relates to the capacity for Māori to raise their own children.”
“We are proud to stand in solidarity with Hands Off Our Tamariki, and everyone else who made submissions in opposition to the attempted removal of whānau first priority.”

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

List of official denials made to the media about SAS civilian deaths (2010 – 2014)

16


ISAF Joint Command: “No civilians were injured or killed during this operation”
– ‘Numerous insurgents killed and weapons recovered’, news release 2010-08-CA-266, 23 August 2010, Kabul, Afghanistan.

New Zealand Defence Force: “Following the operation allegations of civilian casualties were made. These were investigated by a joint Afghan Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Interior and International Security Assistance Force assessment team, in accordance with ISAF procedures. The investigation concluded that the allegations of civilian casualties were unfounded”
– ‘NZ Defence Force operations in Bamiyan on 22 August 2010’, media release, 20 April 2011.

Defence minister Wayne Mapp: “That’s been investigated and proven to be false…. I am satisfied around that”
– Wayne Mapp asked about civilian casualties, Q+A, Television New Zealand, 24 April 2011.

John Key: “My understanding is that after a thorough review of the CDF [Chief of Defence Force] at the weekend, he is very confident that the New Zealand Defence Force version of events is correct…. They say there were insurgents that were killed, but that was it”
– John Key on TV3 Firstline, 1 July 2014.

The New Zealand Defence Force: “The NZDF stands by its statement made on 20 April 2011 [above] and will not be making further comment.”
– New Zealand Defence Force, statement to Maori Television Service, 30 June 2014.

Defence minister Jonathan Coleman: “What I would emphasise is New Zealanders were not involved – and that’s categorical – in any civilian casualties or deaths”
– Jonathan Coleman in Stacey Kirk, ‘Categorical: ‘NZ troops did not kill civilians’, Stuff, 1 July 2014.

Defence minister Jonathan Coleman asked by reporters if coalition forces had killed civilians during the raid: “There is no evidence that they did.”
– Jonathan Coleman, New Zealand Herald, 1 July 2014.

John Key: “We don’t discuss the detail of SAS operations, but what we do say categorically is that no New Zealand soldier was involved in killing civilians”
– John Key in Ripeka Timutimu, ‘Key denies SAS involvement in civilian deaths in Afghanistan’, Maori Television Service, 1 July 2014.

 

New Zealand, your political, military and media class have lied to you about an atrocity and possible war crime that we have carried out and was signed off by the Prime Minister.

The denial and lies must stop now and we must have a independent inquiry. It is as simple as that.

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Press release from Nicky Hager

0

Author and investigative journalist Nicky Hager and war correspondent Jon Stephenson have teamed up, in a book released today, to tell the story of a dark and guilty secret of New Zealand’s recent history. The book is about what the New Zealand military – and especially the Special Air Service (SAS) – did in Afghanistan in response to the first New Zealander dying in combat in August 2010.

The book, called Hit and Run, was released this evening at a book launch at Unity Books in Wellington. It was written by Nicky Hager following a long collaboration with Jon Stephenson, who brought the majority of sources to the project. For more than two years, they gradually gathered and pieced together the evidence.

The book describes a series of operations which proved to be ill-conceived, tragic and disastrous. These included an SAS attack on two isolated villages in Afghanistan’s Baghlan province where they mistakenly believed they would find the insurgents who’d attacked a New Zealand patrol 19 days earlier in neighbouring Bamiyan. SAS officers commanded and led the attack, supported by US and Afghan forces.

The insurgent group wasn’t there. Instead, at least 21 civilians were killed and injured – many of them women and children – and the SAS and US forces burned and blew up about a dozen houses. The SAS also failed to help the wounded. The defence force and government then tried to keep the whole thing secret. They have never admitted nor taken responsibility for what they did.

In a second raid on one of the villages about 10 days later, the SAS destroyed more property. When they eventually caught one of the targeted insurgents in Kabul he was beaten before being handed to the Afghan secret police and tortured.

Fragments of the story have reached the public before but the vast majority has remained secret until now. It is much worse than anyone knew. As former chief human rights commissioner Margaret Bedggood says, there needs to be a full, principled and independent inquiry into the actions described in this book, which, if confirmed, would seriously breach international law.

Hit and Run is based on numerous and extensive interviews with people involved in these events, including New Zealand and Afghan military personnel as well as residents of the villages. All wanted this story told to recognise the dead and the injured. “This story also needs to be told to ensure our military is held to account for its actions,” says Hager.

“Whether or not the public agreed with New Zealand sending troops to the US-led war in Afghanistan, there is no doubt that what the SAS did was wrong and betrayed the defence force’s core values of courage, commitment and integrity.”

 

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Q+A with Nicky Hager on war crime allegations

3

What, where, when, and who?

The events in the book occurred in 2010, mainly in an isolated and mountainous area of Baghlan province known as Tirgiran valley, about 50 kilometres across country from the then-Kiwi base in neighbouring Bamiyan province. New Zealand SAS troopers, supported by Afghan commandos and US helicopters, raided two villages in the valley early in the morning on 22 August 2010. The SAS believed, based on flimsy intelligence, that they would find a group of Taliban fighters who’d attacked a New Zealand patrol 19 days earlier. But the group wasn’t there, and the 21 people killed and wounded in the operation were all civilians – mostly women and children. The campaign continued over the following two years.
How do you know 21 people were wounded or died?

The book contains details of each person: their name and family connections, and injuries, as well as details of precisely where they were when they were wounded or killed. These names have been officially confirmed by the district governor and by numerous other sources; they were all civilians. Each name on the list has a human story: the recently graduated school teacher home on holiday who was killed behind his parents’ house; the three-year-old girl killed by exploding munitions as her mother was trying to carry her to safety; the farmer who lay without medical assistance for nine hours, with a piece of shrapnel lodged in his body, before he died. (See chapter 4)
The New Zealand Defence Force has claimed on multiple occasions that only insurgents were killed in this raid. Is this possible?

No. The defence force knew very soon after the raid that none of the fighters they were targeting had been found during the raid. The claims about killing insurgents, made then and later, were simply false. Indeed, within a day of the raid, an Afghan informer gave our defence force video footage that had been taken on a mobile phone showing the whole insurgent group arriving alive and well at the funerals for the dead villagers. (See chapter 5). It was common in Afghanistan for US-led forces to claim that civilians killed during military operations were “dead insurgents”.
Who is responsible for the events described in the book?

Most of all, people in the SAS. They gathered the intelligence, planned the raid and commanded and led the operation. The authors believe that the deaths and injuries of 21 civilians, the destruction of homes, and the beating and torture of a detainee were due in large part to their actions and inactions, and that they led the efforts to keep it quiet afterwards. Next there are officers in the defence force who were responsible for overseeing the SAS and who should have investigated more responsibly when news of civilian casualties emerged. This includes the then-chief of defence force Lieutenant-General Jerry Mateparae, who was in Afghanistan at the time, and who watched on the screens at the SAS operations room in Kabul as the operation unfolded. Then there are the political leaders. Most government decisions are made by individual ministers or by Cabinet as a whole. However in this case, as Chapter 2 describes, the prime minister John Key was briefed by phone from the SAS compound in Kabul and personally gave his approval for the raid.
How did you get the information for the book?

This book would not have been possible without the assistance of present and former New Zealand, Afghan and US military personnel, who spoke to the authors on the condition that their names and identities would not be revealed. These interviews allowed the facts gradually to be assembled and cross-checked. At the same time, people from the Afghan villages that were raided assisted enormously, describing in detail what they experienced and where and when each part of the event occurred.
Why should New Zealanders care?

New Zealanders were told that their military was in Afghanistan to bring peace and reconstruction and that they treated the locals with empathy and respect. But when a New Zealander died in the attack on a New Zealand patrol, our military response was reckless: innocent people were killed and wounded, houses were blown up or burnt down, and our soldiers did nothing to check on or assist the wounded. All this happened in New Zealand’s name, in an operation commanded by New Zealanders, by people whose salaries are paid for by the New Zealand public. Our soldiers’ actions, and those of their US allies, alienated locals and led many to join or support the insurgents and was a key factor in the Taliban gaining complete control of the area.
Surely bad things happen in all wars?

Even in wars and conflicts, people must behave legally. It is vital for the world that they do, or there would be chaos. This is why we have international agreements like the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture which New Zealand has signed and is committed to observing. The New Zealand Defence Force prides itself on obeying international law and acting with integrity. Its core values and Code of Conduct lay out the principles and rules. What is seen in this book goes against much of what the New Zealand military stands for.
Is this book an attack on the troops?

Not at all. Many people in our defence force will be appalled by what is revealed in the book. It was kept secret from most of them as well. Indeed, there would be no book now if there had not been professional New Zealand personnel who were upset with what happened, believed the story needed to be told and helped the authors. Most criticism in the book is reserved for the senior staff and politicians who made the decisions, failed to stop abuses and then, later, when news of the tragedy began to leak out, did nothing about it and joined in the cover up.
Have parts of this story come out before?

Yes. A few of details have emerged in the past, thanks to the efforts of journalists. But the vast majority of the story has remained secret, and what the authors have discovered is much worse than anyone knew. As the book reveals in chapter two, the defence minister at the time, Wayne Mapp, has privately called the raid on Tirgiran “our biggest and most disastrous operation. A fiasco.” (Chapter 2.) But the military decided to keep it all from the public.
Is the SAS responsible for casualties and destruction of property caused by US helicopter gunships or the torture of a detainee by the Afghan secret police?

For a number of reasons, the answer is yes. Under military law, the commander of an operation is responsible for the actions of the subordinate personnel. This was an SAS-led and commanded operation, with a dedicated radio network linking the various New Zealand, Afghan and US components. The SAS collected the intelligence, decided the targets, and led the raid on the ground. That ground commander reported to SAS operations staff at their compound in Kabul. The SAS had requested the use of US helicopters for the operation and were responsible for briefing the pilots. During the operation, US attack helicopters made numerous attacks in two different villages while the SAS commander was present at the scene, yet the SAS on the ground did nothing to help the people caught in the heavy fire. In addition, some of the deaths appear to have been from bullets, not helicopter weapons. An inquiry is needed to determine if any of those deaths were caused by SAS snipers who were reportedly involved in the raid. (See chapters 3 and 4.) Later, when one of the fighters was captured in Kabul, he was beaten by an SAS trooper and handed to the Afghan secret police, where he was tortured. It is not good enough to say that our Afghan allies were responsible for the torture; the SAS knew the people they were handing him to were notorious for mistreating and torturing detainees, yet they transferred him anyway (Chapter 6). When they learnt he had been tortured, they did nothing.
Does the book undermine the safety of the troops by talking about secret SAS operations?

No. And it is very important that “security” isn’t used as an excuse for the military and government to evade responsibility for their decisions and actions. The events in the book occurred when New Zealand was running a military base in Bamiyan province and an SAS contingent in Kabul, but both groups returned to New Zealand several years ago. This is the time to face up to wrongdoing. In fact, international law requires countries to investigate their own breaches, including potential war crimes. The government and military have failed to do this. It’s fallen to others to get the story out.
Are you saying there were war crimes?

War crimes are a highly technical area of law and the authors will leave it to experts to determine whether they have been committed. What we are saying is that there are grounds to suspect that war crimes were committed and it is vitally important that these are taken seriously and investigated in an independent way. We asked human rights lawyer and former Chief Human Rights Commissioner Margaret Bedggood to read the book before it was published and her response is printed on the back cover. She says the alleged actions and decisions described in the book, “if confirmed, would seriously breach international human rights and humanitarian law and could amount to war crimes.”
What do you expect the defence force and the government to do in response to the book?

We hope they will order a full and independent inquiry into the raid at Tirgiran and other operations and incidents outlined in the book. We also hope they’ll consider immediately offering an apology and reparations to the affected people in the Afghan villages. What do we expect? Based on their actions to date, there is a chance they may deny and dodge, running the dishonourable line that if anything bad happened – which they won’t admit – it had nothing to do with New Zealand. The whole country will be able to watch how they respond. It will be an important test of the military’s avowed core values: courage, commitment, comradeship and integrity.
Is this all too old to worry about?

Not at all. Things as serious as potential crimes of war fester away, sometimes for decades, until they reach the public and are dealt with. It took six years in this case until enough of the people involved felt ready and willing to help reveal the guilty secrets.
What needs to happen?

First, there needs to be the independent inquiry into all these events, with the power to gather all the relevant information and compel witnesses to appear. Besides the SAS’s own secret reports on their various operations, there may be radio communications and weapon systems video recorded during the raids. There will also be reports and official paperwork relating to the handover of the detainee to the Afghan secret police, and the reports the defence force received describing his torture and interrogation. Finally, there will be defence force and SAS documents showing how much the SAS tried to keep the story secret – even from the rest of the defence force. Chapter 7 documents years of cover-up and it is now time for the SAS and defence force to front up about this.

The government also needs to give the apology and reparations to the villagers. But perhaps most important, there need to to be changes to the SAS and defence force to make what occurred in Afghanistan less likely to happen again. The public should have been told about the SAS action within days of it happening – not years later. The public should not have had to rely on insiders being willing to be whistle blowers. The defence force needs a culture change to be more open to the kind of accountability and democratic control we expect from other government organisations.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

NZ’s first Anti Racism campaign reaches more than 2m people – Human Rights Commission

0

The Human Rights Commission’s That’s Us  anti-racism campaign has reached almost 2 million people (1.9 million) and engaged with more than 600,000 people since its launch on the 1st September 2016. That’s Us is New Zealand’s first nationwide, anti-racism campaign with its first stage focused on sharing the stories of everyday Kiwis.
Stand up to racism. That’s Us

www.thatsus.co.nz

That’s Us is New Zealand’s first anti-racism campaign that asks Kiwis to start sharing our own personal stories about racism, intolerance and hatred as well as …

Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy announced the figures when she launched Race Relations Day this morning.

“This is good news. It tells us that Kiwis care deeply about race relations and it shows in other ways, this year we have an unprecedented number of Race Relations Day events taking place throughout March,” said Dame Susan.

“But the reality is that racism is something many Kiwis face every day. Incidents happen here in New Zealand, in Auckland, in Huntly, in Lower Hutt, in Christchurch and they happen to everyday people.”

“We urge Kiwis to remember three words: Support, Record and Report: Support the person being abused or attacked. Record the incident if you can. And report the incident to authorities,” said Dame Susan.

“It’s time to stand up for each other. Don’t be a bystander. Let victims of racial abuse know they are not alone.”

The Commission launched a video on its Facebook page that shows victims and witnesses what they can do when they see racial abuse taking

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

With Wayne Mapp admitting civilian deaths – Government & Military can no longer pretend

10

The major development today from the Hit and Run launch by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson yesterday, was former Defence Minister Wayne Mapp admitting that there were civilian deaths…

Former Defence Minister concedes civilian casualty in 2010 SAS raid in Afghanistan

Former Defence Minister Wayne Mapp has conceded civilians were killed in a 2010 Afghanistan raid – the first Government concession of the deaths.

The raid is the focus of Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson’s new book, which claims six people were killed.

Newshub spoke to Mapp – who was Defence Minister at the time of the attack – today.

…remember the NZ Military and Government are still claiming nothing happened here and there doesn’t need to be an inquiry.

According to Paula Bennett on Morning Report this morning, this is just a conspiracy theory by Nicky Hager.

I’m not sure many ‘conspiracy theories’ generate this kind of media attention…

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

New Zealand’s First “Revenge Raid” – Surafend, Palestine, 1918

7

Troopers of the NZ Machine Gun Squadron, NZ Mounted Rifles Brigade, Palestine, 1918.

The shocking events described by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson in Hit and Run: The New Zealand SAS in Afghanistan and the Meaning of Honour are not without precedent in the history of New Zealand’s military engagements overseas. In the tiny Palestinian village of Surafend, in the final days of 1918, New Zealand troops participated in what was indisputably a serious war crime. The parallels with the SAS “Revenge Raid” of August 2010 are striking. The Surafend Massacre was also sparked by the killing of a New Zealand soldier. It, too, was a murderous “fiasco”, the details of which were kept from the New Zealand public for many years.
This, as best as I can determine, is what happened.

THE WAR WAS OVER. At the eleventh hour, on the eleventh day, of the eleventh month 1918, the fighting ceased. For the men of the New Zealand Machine Gun Squadron, and all the other troopers of the New Zealand Mounted Rifle Brigade encamped among the barren sandhills of central Palestine, that single fact was all that mattered.

But, as the weeks passed, the war’s end, while obviously a source of immense relief, had also become the cause of intense frustration. Now that their job was done; now that the killing had stopped; now that they had survived; all these men wanted to do was go home.

WHEN Trooper Leslie Lowry pulled his kit-bag under his head on the night of 9 December 1918 it was to home that his thoughts inevitably wandered. Wrapped in his blanket to ward off the late autumn chill, he lay motionless beneath the low canvass ceiling of his tent thinking of New Zealand until, lulled by the companionable snorting of the tethered horses, he drifted off to sleep.

An hour later he awoke with a start to feel his kit-bag/pillow being unceremoniously yanked from under his head. He scrambled out of the tent, stumbling in the sand as he pulled on his trousers, and shouting at the top of his voice to the men on sentry duty:

“Stop him! Stop that little bastard – he’s stolen my kit-bag!”

The thief was clearly visible in the moonlight, weaving in and out of the thorn bushes that dotted the sandhills.

Trooper Lowry had always been a good runner and he proved it now by sprinting after his quarry like a huntaway. Within seconds he’d caught up with the man who’d stolen his property.

“You give that back – you thieving little swine!”

For a moment the New Zealander and the Palestinian faced each other, breathing heavily. In the distance both of them could hear the shouts of the alerted sentries and the alarmed whinnying of the horses.

“Come on mate,” said Lowry, speaking in what he hoped was a more reasonable tone, “you’re not going anywhere. Hand it over.”

The Palestinian said nothing. Instead, he reached into the folds of his caftan and pulled out a heavy Webly revolver, retrieved six months earlier from the corpse of a British officer. Pointing it at the New Zealander’s chest – he fired.

Lowry sank slowly to his knees, hands fluttering uselessly as blood spouted from the neat little hole in his chest, pouring out through his fingers and down over his bare stomach. Without a word he toppled over onto his side, an awkward, quivering bundle in the cold sand.

The Palestinian turned and ran off into the darkness.

THE news of trooper Lowry’s death spread rapidly – and its effect was devastating. For a man to have come through everything the NZ Mounted Rifles had endured, only to be murdered by an Arab thief just weeks before sailing for home, was almost too much for his comrades to bear.

“He was unarmed for Christ’s sake! The thief must have seen that. What kind of man calmly shoots an unarmed man, at point-blank range, for the sake of a bloody kit-bag?”

“We’re not going to take this lying down – I don’t care what the Heads say. This is too bloody much. Come on you blokes, it should be easy enough to track the bastard through all this sand. Look! – there are his footprints!

“You three, go back and round up the rest of the Squadron – and see if you can get some of the Aussies from the Light Horse to join us. We’re going to track this murdering bastard back to the hole he came from and cork it up tight. Make sure he’s still there in the morning when the Red-Caps arrive.”

The thief’s footprints led the New Zealanders and their Australian allies across the sand to the nearby Palestinian village of Surafend. Within the hour they had set up a tight military cordon around the cluster of stone houses: no one was permitted to enter or leave.

THE morning light came slanting down into the village of Surafend and illuminated the faces of the New Zealand and Australian troopers encircling it. But the rising sun brought no Military Police. Indeed, having being informed of the murder of Trooper Lowry and the situation at Surafend by the Australian and New Zealand Divisional Commander, Major-General Edward Chaytor, General Headquarters had peremptorily ordered the cordon lifted. There would be no official investigation, no Red Caps, no arrests. By the afternoon of 10 December all the troopers who had surrounded Surafend were back behind their tent-lines, allowing a steady stream of Palestinian men to make their way out of the village without hindrance.

Trooper Lowry’s comrades were furious.

“I don’t believe this – I simply don’t believe this! How can the bloody British just sit there, knowing that a soldier of the Empire has been murdered, and do nothing about it?”

“You know the Heads. There’ll be some behind-the-scenes skulduggery between the British and that Arab king Lawrence has been squiring around. The last thing they want is any ‘unpleasantness’ – nothing to upset the ‘delicate diplomacy’ between His Majesty’s Government and the leaders of the Arab tribes. What’s one Kiwi digger’s life compared to ‘the future of the Middle East?’”

“It’s just like that bloody fiasco at Ain Es Sir – remember? When our lot were sent back to help the Circassians and the ungrateful little bastards ambushed us. Nobody did anything about the men they killed there either.”

“Well that’s not going to happen this time. I’ve been talking to the men. They’re ready to do something on their own. And there’s a swag of blokes in the Light Horse who’ll join us. The Aussies are as sick of this turning a blind eye to theft and murder as we are. I hear there’s even a few Brits willing to their bit.”

“Do what?”

“We’re going to pay the village of Surafend a little visit. And if they refuse to hand over the bastard who shot Les, we’ll administer some justice of our own – ANZAC-style.”

THERE was fear in the eyes of the women, children and old men of Surafend as they were assembled in front of the village well. These strange men from distant lands said little, but their gestures were clear enough. Holding the pick-axe handles they were carrying with both hands, they pushed and prodded the little huddle in the direction they wanted them to travel – out of the village and up into the sandhills. One of the old men pleaded with his grim shepherds.

“We are friends,” he cried in heavily accented English, “friends of the British.”

“You may be friends of the British,” hissed one of the troopers, pushing the old man back into the huddle, “but you’re no friends of ours.”

“Keep them well back!” Someone shouted. “Well back.”

From the crest of the big sandhill overlooking Surafend, the little huddle watched as around 200 troopers closed in on their homes. In addition to pick-axe handles, the New Zealanders and Australians were armed with the heavy, canvass-sheathed chains used to haul supply wagons and field guns. They were eerily silent, and the expressions their faces wore were hard – very hard.

“We want the man who shot Trooper Leslie Lowry.” The leader of the troopers was speaking slowly and very clearly to the village headman. “We tracked him to this village. If he’s not here, we want to know where we can find him. Lead us to him, now, and nothing will happen to you and your people. Refuse, and ….” The trooper cast a meaningful glance at the mute formation drawn up behind him.”

The Palestinian looked into the eyes of the New Zealander standing before him. Neither man moved a muscle. Then, drawing himself up to his full height, the headman leaned forward to within a few inches of the New Zealander’s face, and speaking in a clear voice so all the men of his village could hear, he said:

“Get your infidel dogs out of my village!”

And spat in the trooper’s face.

A roar, deep and guttural, leapt from the throats of all the men present, and both sides lunged towards the other. The troopers swung their pick-axe handles high and brought them down with deadly force. The heavy chains hissed and whistled. The air was filled with the sickening sound of wood and metal connecting with human bone and tissue. Men screamed, fell, and lay still, but still the Palestinians continued to hurl themselves upon the troopers.

“Allahu Akbar! They cried. “God is Great!”

“Get them! Get the bastards!” Shouted the troopers.

From a distance it was all-too-clear how the fight would end. The villagers were outnumbered and the troopers superior training and discipline easily overcame their furious resistance. Slowly, methodically, the New Zealanders and the Australians beat and beat and beat. The pick-axe handles rising and falling like some vast threshing machine.

Soon the village was ablaze. The contents of the stone-walled houses burned fiercely, bathing the whole scene in a lurid glow. As their men fell, the women up on the sandhill began a high keening. The children, seeing the fathers and brothers being beaten to death, sobbed uncontrollably.

By the time the troopers tired of their grim sport, thirty Palestinian men lay dead or wounded on the bloody sand. As the rising wind swirled the smoke and cinders into the night sky, the New Zealanders and Australians formed up in ranks and, without a backward glance, marched out into the darkness of the sandhills.

The village of Surafend had ceased to exist.

NO New Zealand or Australian soldier was ever charged as a result of the Surafend Massacre. The British High Command was furious at what could only be considered a diplomatic disaster in terms of the British Empire’s relations with the Arab peoples.

The borders of the Middle East were in the process of being redrawn, and the gentlemen at the Foreign and Colonial Office in London were determined that this process should not rebound to the Empire’s disadvantage.

There can be little doubt that the military authorities would very much have liked to punish the ringleaders, but the troopers and the junior officers of the NZ Mounted Rifles and the Australian Light Horse closed ranks against all investigation.

In the end it was left to the British Commander-in-Chief, Major-General Edmund Allenby, to state the views of His Majesty’s Egyptian Expeditionary Force. Forming the ANZAC’s into a hollow square he unleashed a tongue-lashing the like of which no British or Empire troops had heard for many, many years:

“I was proud of you as brave soldiers but now I am ashamed of you as cold-blooded murderers.”

This outburst aroused such mutinous resentment among the New Zealand and Australian troops that Allenby was soon forced to retract his words.

It was a necessary concession because with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the US President, Woodrow Wilson’s, promise of “self-determination” for the world’s subject peoples, the British soon had their hands full keeping the Arab population of the region from breaking out into full scale rebellion. In this task the brutal reputation of the Australian and New Zealand troopers rode before them, striking fear into the hearts of the Arab population wherever they appeared.

UNFORTUNATELY, there was no Nicky Hager, no Jon Stephenson, to write an exhaustive account of the Surafend tragedy for the New Zealand public of 1918. Bill Massey’s deeply authoritarian government, having expended the blood of thousands of young New Zealanders in the cause of Britain’s empire, was not about to sanction a full and independent investigation into a war crime perpetrated by his own troops. As far as Massey’s stridently imperialistic government was concerned, the “boys” of the New Zealand Mounted Rifle Brigade were heroes – blameless heroes.

The closest “official” New Zealand ever came to acknowledging the Surafend Massacre was in the bare summary of the event written by, Lieutenant-Colonel C. Guy Powles, author of The New Zealanders in Sinai and Palestine, the third volume of the Official History of New Zealand’s Effort in the Great War, published by the New Zealand Government in 1922.

Of the bloody evening of 10 December 1918, Powles writes:

“While the brigade was camped in the vicinity of Richon le Zion a disturbance occurred in the divisional area following the murder of a New Zealander, during which a village and an Arab camp were burned and some 30 Arabs killed and injured ….. It appears that the murdered man’s comrades, feeling aggrieved that the murderer was not immediately brought to book, went to the village and demanded his surrender. They were met by an insolent answer from the head man of the village so they determined to find him and the searching of the houses led to a collision with the natives which resulted in a riot.”

Powles also notes, drily: “[A]t the [subsequent] inquiry it was found impossible to get any evidence as to who took part in the disturbance.”

Then, as now, the New Zealand military authorities preferred to bury their mistakes beneath a crushing mountain of official silence.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

On Recent Opinion Polling

7

Yesterday, two polls were released – the latest Roy Morgan andmost recent Reid Research. They’re both interesting, albeit for almost entirely different reasons.

The Roy Morgan data is probably what folks with an implicit left-wing bias will be most interested in; due to its showing a reduction in National support of 4.5%, and corresponding rise in Labour/Greens support of 5% – for totals of 43.5%, 29.5%, and 14.5% respectively.

The explanations for these rather radical shifts in numbers are immediately obvious. After a somewhat protracted ‘honeymoon period’, Bill English’s tenure as Prime Minister has started to enter rocky territory. His comments on large-scale immigration being justified because Kiwi workers were allegedly unemployable due to drug use did not resonate as they might once have, leading to a backdown of sorts shortly afterward in which he conceded that changing immigration policy-settings might be possible. The recent (and ongoing) semi-literal quagmire over water – whether pollution of waterways, or the extraction of our resources for a pittance to be sold offshore as the latest example of Kiwi-victimizing Neo-Colonialism – has also followed a similar trend. Namely, inflammatory statements made to the media [although in this instance, by Environment Minister Nick Smith] based on either a misreading of public sentiment or just sheer bloody-mindedness, followed up in relatively short order by a signaled possible change in position.

On top of this, English’s apparent determination to walk the fine line between death and destruction entailed in messing with superannuation will also have cost him. It was, after all, the same issue which effectively sealed the fate of Labour at the last Election, and which has caused serious problems for the National Party in previous contests (admittedly, mostly in the 1990s). Although if the controversy over the retirement age is actually a salient causation in National’s shedding of votes in the Roy Morgan, then it is somewhat surprising indeed that New Zealand First [on 7.5% – a reduction of 0.5% on the previous poll] has not been a greater beneficiary.

Perhaps this indicates that there are indeed some stirrings of mood out there in the electorate for a fulsome change of government, rather than mere dissatisfaction with the present regime; meaning voters who’d otherwise gravitate towards NZF are exercising trepidation in doing so due to media speculation that we’d side with National.

To these factors we may also be able to add Labour’s decision to elevate Jacinda Ardern to the Deputy Leadership. Regardless of whether one thinks she’s made a truly substantive contribution to our nation’s politics over the previous decade, it would appear indisputable that she is the highest-profile Deputy Leader of the party since the days of Michael Cullen. And, as we shall see when it comes to dissecting the Reid Research poll’s Preferred Prime Minister results, her promotion alone has certainly made a bit of an impact. Certainly, it is difficult to imagine a situation in this Parliamentary Term wherein Winston Peters has found himself out-polled by a Labour Party MP for Preferred PM [indeed,according to this list from Wiki, it is an event without precedent going back to the last Election.]

In any case, whilst my affection for the Roy Morgan poll is well known, it is certainly not the only game in town. And the Reid Research material out the same day makes for some decidedly interesting comparison-work between the two analyses.

Particularly because in many respects they flat-out contradict one another.

In contrast to the Roy Morgan’s falling National but rising Labour/Greens, Reid Research has National increasing by 2% to 47.1%, Labour falling by 1.9% to 30.8%, and the Greens dropping 0.3% to 11.2%. New Zealand First, meanwhile, has fallen 0.5% to 7.6%.

So what to make of this. Well, for starters, it’s probably worth noting that Reid Research have just changed their polling methodology in a bid to reach out to different [and traditionally less-contactable] voters. It’s possible that that has had an impact upon the results we’re seeing here, although difficult to determine whether this axiomatically makes their conclusions more or less accurate than their previous and more exclusively landline-based efforts. Certainly, a cursory look at their record in the immediate run-up to the 2014 and 2011 General Elections would appear to suggest that Reid Research’s old methodology had some noticeable flaws in it [consistently over-polling the Greens, and having National’s result out by more than two percentage points – which in this day and age is the literal difference between Governments continuing or falling upon the ashheap of history].

The alternate interpretation, of course, is that Reid Research’s new-and-sharper methodology is, in fact, on the money – and that the cautious optimism which was beginning to break out on the Left in recent weeks has found itself somewhat misplaced. Certainly, this would be in demonstrable keeping with the trends of previous Elections, wherein at every turn the ‘hope’ that the latest scandal of whatever flavour would be National’s undoing has turned to ashes in our mouths as they’ve emerged in each successive poll or popular vote almost entirely unscathed. Indeed, almost seeming to ‘feed’ off the controversy!

Personally, if I were a Labour supporter – and, not for the first time, I must confess to feeling inordinately glad that I am not – I’d probably be attempting to look for a ‘silver lining’ [other than Winston] in the form of both polls discussed here having Labour at or about 30%. It’s probably a sign of how dismal Labour’s prospects have been for the last few years that this is somehow an achievement worthy of note – and yet, it is. Thirty percent is where a party can start to credibly claim to be one of the ‘Big Two’; in rather marked contrast to its previous low-twenties polling, which had many commentators (myself included) wondering how long until Labour effectively wound up relegated to semi-official ‘Minor Party’ status. [The requisite number for that, if you are wondering, would probably be semi-consistently scoring below twenty percent; although as Bill English-era National so handily demonstrated fifteen years ago, there is no axiomatic rule of political gravity which definitively states that a result just above 20% is unrecoverable from]

Having said that, instead of taking either of the above polls as ‘good news’ [an understandable eschewment], many Labourites will presumably be instead attempting to cast doubt upon the veracity and utility of opinion polling all up. Perhaps they will even be once again quoting former National Party Prime Minister [and arguable, in some ways, proto-Bill English] and resorting to his famous political maxim: “Bugger the polls!”

But this would be a bit of a mistake. It’s no secret that political polls can occasionally be substantially inaccurate. The results from the US Presidential Election and Brexit both serve to bear this out in an Anglosphere context. There, as is now well known, the inaccuracies in results lead to an indelible false sense of security on the part of the ‘Establishment’ sides of those contests. Which fed into overconfidence, and consequent defeat.

It would, perhaps, be too much to hope for a similar occurrence here in New Zealand. Namely, that the National Party buys into the myth of electoral invincibility off the back of a few polls which have them in the mid-high 40s, and starts making ever-more-significant errors. Although some are, of course, of the opinion that we are already starting to see this happen. [A phenomenon which we can also tie fairly directly to the much-dreaded ‘Third-Term-Itis’]

Instead, the reason why it would be arguable folly for Labour supporters to write off polls entirely is a simple one. They appear to be getting more accurate.

This means that while it might have once been true – most especially in both of 2005 and 2008, wherein many polls had Labour and National several percentage points off, and often in pretty much inverted positions in terms of their rough support, these errors diminished in 2011 [with the exception of auguries for the Green Party’s result – who appear to remain prone to chronic over-estimation by as much as 4%], and by 2014 had been reduced to frequently less than a percent out from the actual final electoral result. Particularly where Labour is concerned.

It would be both cumbersome and somnolence-inducing to go through poll-by-poll and show this; but as a sort of evidentiary shorthand, we’ll take a brief excursion through the  final Roy Morgan poll of the 2014 Campaign season.

This had National on 46.5%, Labour on 24%, The Greens on 13.5%, NZ First on 8%, the Maori Party on 1.5%, Internet MANA on 1%, the Conservatives on 3.5%, and each of ACT and United Future on 0.5% apiece [which is considerably better than the 0% they’d registered in some – admittedly perhaps rather optimistic – predictions].

How did this compare with the actual results of the 2014 General Election? Well, National 47.04%, Labour 25.13%, Greens 10.7%, NZ First 8.66%, Maori 1.32%, Internet MANA 1.42%, Conservatives 3.97%, ACT 0.69% and a whole 0.22% for United Future [which, as it happens, is less than half of the Aotearoa Legalize Cannabis Party’s 0.46%, but I digress].

That represents a difference of 0.54% for National between the Roy Morgan and the eventual result; 1.13% for Labour, 2.8% for the Greens [who, as noted, are almost invariably overpolled]; 0.66% for New Zealand First; 0.18% for the Maori Party; 0.42% for InternetMANA; 0.47% for the Conservative Party; 0.19% for ACT; and 0.28% [admittedly more than its entire vote, but bear in mind the Roy Morgan moves in 0.5% increments] for United Future.

That’s pretty dang close.

So, given the Roy Morgan is the same poll which yesterday had Labour and the Greens swelling by a combined total of 5% to beat National … perhaps there IS some hope for a non-National Government come 2018 after all.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Malcolm Evans – Nicky Hager

0

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Compare NZ Herald coverage of John Key’s war crimes to the Dom Post

16

Here is the Dom Post coverage of claims that John Key is complicit in war crimes…

…here is the NZ Herald’s coverage, the Newspaper whose Editor wrote Key’s biography, the newspaper who was deeply complicit with Cameron Slater to attack National’s opponents in Dirty Politics and the newspaper that had a journalist pretend to be a PR advisor to smear the young waitress who accused Key of touching her at work…

…this morning the NZ Herald had a story about Justin Bieber dancing sexily with an old woman as a bigger story than Key being complicit in a war crime.

This is why we can’t get accountability in NZ.

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

List of lies NZ Defence Force have used to deceive NZers about Afghanistan

9

The NZDF have come out and claimed that Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are wrong about their latest claims of war crimes  and that they have put peoples lives in danger.

Bullshit.

With all due respect NZ, you have been lied to and deceived for a very long time by the NZDF.

This is the exact same NZDF who co-ordinated a disinformation campaign against Jon Stephenson to discredit him after he published articles highlighting the SAS role in handing civilians over to known torture units. That smear attempt was the subject of Stephenson’s defamation case, sadly for Stephenson and journalism in NZ, the jury returned a hung decision allowing the NZDF to get away with zero public scrutiny, however they were forced to ‘settle’ out of Court to prevent it going back to Court, so terrified were the NZDF that NZers would wake up to what was happening.

But that isn’t the only example of how the NZDF have lied and manipulated the NZ media over what the NZDF are really doing in Afghanistan.

Nicky Hager’s other brilliant ‘Other People’s Wars’ blew the lid right off how much manipulation has really happened.

The mainstream media’s self censoring compliance with the NZ military and their outright willingness to don a flak jacket and helmet and play the intrepid journalist shtick is actually part of the problem.

From the book…

having CIA operatives inside the Kiwi base fitted poorly with the deployment’s stated goals. Why would the New Zealand authorities risk the New Zealanders working at Kiwi Base, and the credibility of the New Zealand peacekeeping mission, by mixing them up with a CIA operation? After the suicide attack on the FOB [forward operating base] Chapman, the issue of CIA operations inside a provincial reconstruction team was widely discussed. The Times wrote that “PRTs have been criticised widely for endangering civilian aid workers by blurring the line between development staff and the military.

…so from the beginning of our deployment we were a cover for the CIA and it’s not as if our teams actually built anything of any use with independent reports citing the spin work we did for the locals to hide what we are really doing as “poorly planned” and “wildly exaggerated”.

The level of deceit Hager exposed hasn’t just been promoted by the left, it has also been held up by the Right.

NZ Herald’s Fran O’Sullivan at the time…

Bluster won’t bury Hager’s revelations on military
The tsunami of flannel emanating from John Key, Phil Goff and the former Defence top dogs will not bury Nicky Hager’s latest exposure on New Zealand’s involvement in Afghanistan, Iran and the war on terror.

Nor should it.

Whatever your position on New Zealand’s relationship with the United States – and I have been a long-time advocate for much closer political, trade and defence ties – Hager’s Other People’s Wars makes public plenty of new material about the origins of this country’s entry into the first wars of the 21st century.

Former Political Editor John Armstrong at the time…

‘Candyfloss’ PR exposed in all its cynicism
Those who think Nicky Hager is just another left-wing stirrer and dismiss his latest book accordingly should think again.

Likewise, the country’s politicians should read Other People’s Wars before condemning it.

Whatever Hager’s motive for investigating New Zealand’s contribution over the past decade to the United States-led “war on terror”, it is pretty irrelevant when placed alongside the mountain of previously confidential and very disturbing information his assiduous research and inquiries have uncovered.

With the help of well-placed informants and thousands of leaked documents, Hager exposes the cynical manner in which the Defence Force has purposely misled the public by omission of pertinent facts and public relations flannel.

This is particularly the case with regard to the “candyfloss” image the military has built around the deployment of New Zealand soldiers in the Bamiyan province of Afghanistan.

That image is of our soldiers acting more like peacekeepers armed with nothing more dangerous than a shovel.

Our military have lied and deceived our own politicians about what we were really doing in this war for America…

Defence Force staff responsible for the deployment of Orion aircraft and Anzac frigates to the Gulf in the “war against terror” ignored instructions from then prime minister Helen Clark to keep their operations separate from those being conducted by the United States against Iraq. The book quotes unidentified officials and former diplomats as agreeing that Clark – lacking a strong defence minister – fought a lone battle against never ending efforts by the Defence and Foreign Affairs ministries to rewrite Government policy and buy military equipment which would enable New Zealand to build bridges with the United States.

New Zealand diplomats resorted to underhand tricks when they did not get their way with the last Labour Government. For example, when Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials did not like a particular Government policy decision, New Zealand’s ambassadors in Washington and Canberra were told to sound out the views of the local bureaucrats. The ministry would then tell Government ministers that the Americans and Australians had made it known they were very concerned and there could be “relationship implications”.

So when we look over all the deceit, misinformation and anti-democratic tactics used by the NZDF to manipulate the compliant mainstream media, how much more difficult is it to believe the NZDF are suddenly telling the truth now?

 

Hit and Run details with precision what happened in the run up to a revenge attack for the death of a NZ soldier and the incompetence of the so called intel led to us attacking villages that had nothing to do with the death of our soldier.

The SAS led a mission signed off by John Key that has killed 6 people and injured 15. To pretend there is nothing to see here suggests that the NZDF and our Political class think we are fucking stupid.

You have to read the book to know that these claims the whole thing is just one big lie by Hager and Stephenson are void of any fact.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Political Caption Competition

3

 

Look, I would feed all these hungry poor people but according to Trump that’s socialism and a waste of resources which we could spend on new stealth bombers. I don’t make the rules, take it up with management

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Daily Blog Guerrilla Radio – System Of A Down – B.Y.O.B.

0

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Workers described as “pimple on a pumpkin” return to work

1

 

Workers described as “pimple on a pumpkin” return to work

BNT (Brakes and Transmission), the Australian-owned car parts supplier, is struggling to get products to the market after workers at its Auckland distribution centre walked off the job for the fifth time on Friday.

The fifth strike, ending today, comes a month after the company’s chief executive described ongoing strike action at the company as just a “pimple on a pumpkin.” But an internal memo sent to staff with the New Zealand CEO cc’d reveals that BNT is hiring additional staff and requiring “everyone to do at least 5 hours of overtime in the week” to help clear the product backlog the strikes are creating.   

“Our members just want to get the job done, but that’s becoming harder and harder as their wages and conditions fall further and further behind their colleagues at other distribution centres in Auckland,” said the workers’ representative, FIRST Union organiser Emir Hodzic.

“They’re taking strike action as a last resort. All they’re after is a wage they can support their families on. The cost of housing is through the roof, the cost of electricity is rising, even school fees are going up. But while everything else goes up their wages remain the same.”

“BNT have been dragging negotiations out for months now. They’re one of the poorest-paying employers in the industry and our members are left with no choice but to take action,” said Hodzic.  

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

STAY CONNECTED

11,996FansLike
4,057FollowersFollow

Foreign policy + Intel + Security

Subscribe | Follow | Bookmark
and join Buchanan & Manning LIVE Thursdays @ midday

MIL Public Webcast Service