Sam Buchanan’s Reply

I challenged Wellington anarchists, particularly Sam Buchanan and Asher Goldman to distance themselves from the pro-violence views of Mr Geoff Karena.

Here’s Sam Buchanan’s reply with some comment by me in the first section.

Sam Stretching it a bit here aren’t you, Trev? If you have issues with Mr Karena shouldn’t he be the one you approach for comment? Or is this you’re socialist streak coming through again – your deep tendency to group people together and hold them collectively responsible for each others views? I wouldn’t expect you to take responsibility for what other people say…expect me to?

New Zeal I asked you to distance yourself from and to condemn Mr Karena’s writings. I gave you as a well known anarchist and friend and colleague of several of those arrested on October 15th, the opportunity to condemn terrorism. I did not say you were responsible for Mr Karena’s views. You are fudging the point here Sam.

Sam By the way, you still haven’t replied to my offer to correct the errors in your piece about me, and the mis-lablelled photos you still have up, for a reasonable price. This seems a bit irresponsible of you.

If you want my thoughts on political violence, you are welcome to fund me to write and publish a small book on the subject. Please let me know your terms.

New Zeal I have removed two photos of Val Morse on the request of her lawyer, Mr Lilico. I have also removed one of Tim and Emily Bailey because I found that their images are still under suppression orders.

I don’t believe I have stated any falsehoods about yourself. I Blog for free (though if anyone would like to sponsor me, feel free to offer), for my own gratification and as a public service. That’s an ethos I’m sure you’ll appreciate, Sam.

I would be willing to pay for some info Sam, but not the kind I think you’d be willing to reveal.

Sam However, here’s something for free – it’s already in the public domain anyway. A short piece I wrote for a newsheet at the time of the public transport bombings in London a few years back. It also refers to the idiots who grafittied an Auckland mosque in response. it’s somewhat terse, and the language is a bit untypical of me, but I was pretty angry at the time.


Sam Buchanan


The bunch of fuckwits who put bombs on public transport in London and the politicians who ordered the bombing Baghdad are on the same moral level.

The glib liberal slogan “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” is claptrap. Terrorism is terrorism – it doesn’t matter how worthy your cause is or what means you use to deliver it. Whether a bomb is in a suitcase, or dropped from a B-52 makes fuck all difference to the victim.

Terrorism is trying to gain a political aim by frightening a population into submission. The term was first used to describe government’s who terrorised their own populations in order to stay in power, still the most common form of terrorism.

Meanwhile the press trumpets the ‘defiance’ of ordinary Londoners who go to their jobs as if nothing has happened. Do they have any choice? Are they choosing to show their courage by taking the bus and leaving their armour-plated limousines in the garage? Unlike their bosses and leaders they don’t have country houses to flee to, or an army of police and soldiers to stand between them and their attackers. They can’t stay home until the threat has receded – if it ever does.

Do Blair and Bush really think they can fight wars overseas and not have their own cities attacked? Could they care less? Behind the smiles and rhetoric another dead Londoner, Spaniard, Iraqi or Sudanese is a detail of history, or worse, a handy PR opportunity, for these great colonial statesmen.

Meanwhile, some opportunist losers in Auckland take the opportunity to slide their own sick little agenda forward on the blood of the victims of the London bombing. Blaming Auckland muslims for the attacks is like blaming the local branch of Youth for Christ for an IRA attack on the grounds that all Christians are the same.

New Zeal Thanks for that Sam.


Author: Admin

Related Articles

3 thoughts on “Sam Buchanan’s Reply

  1. “I don’t believe I have stated any falsehoods about yourself.”

    You ran a photo you said was me when it wasn’t, and you’ve done the same with other people. The article on Peace Action contains statements about me that are utterly wrong. Trust me on this, Trev. I’m no expert on a lot of things, but when it comes to the subject of Sam Buchanan, I know what I’m talking about.

    “I asked you to distance yourself from and to condemn Mr Karena’s writings.”

    Anm I pointed out that Mr Karena doesn’t speak for me, nor did he purport to, so why should I distance myself from his views? I’m not going to spend my life writing commentary on the opinions of everybody in the world I disagree with. However, for the record I disagree with at least some of the statments of Mao Zedong, Paul McCartenay, Prince Faisal of Saudi Arabia, Chris Knox, the Pope, the guy at the dairy down the road, Omar Khayyam, Scrooge McDuck, Helen Clark and Trevor Loudon. Happy?

    – Sam Buchanan

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *