This one stays... though no answer as to why the first was deleted yet

Another day another example straight from the pages of 'Newspeak'.  This time it is an article letting us, the reader, in on what the people of Afghanistan really think about this latest offensive.  Turns out, they are buying into Taliban 'conspiracy theories', tacitly implying a contrast with the 'reality' that is the Wests pursuit of peace:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/16/afghanistan-moshtarak-conspiracy

The conspiracy theories the Taliban were suggesting?  Well, they are nicely summarized by this poster...

• Neoconned

  16 Feb 2010, 4:05PM
  Conspiracy Theory No.1 ---
  Karzai - "Afghan geological reserves worth $US1 trillion"
  Conspiracy Theory No.2 ---
  U.S. to open consulate in Herat (right next to the Iranian border)
  Conspiracy Theory No.3 ---
  Karzai election team included former Helmand Governor caught with nine tonnes of opium in his basement.
  ++++++++++++
  Clearly mineral resources, Iran, and drugs, have nothing whatsoever to do with anything at all.
  

So I put this up:

• usualsuspect83

  16 Feb 2010, 3:52PM
  The book 'Newspeak in the 21st Century' gives vital context for when reading articles such as this in mainstream media. After reading their detailed and much researched arguments, one can really start reading 'between the lines' so to speak... it's incredible just how one sided arguments can be whilst seeming to be balanced. This is relevent here because:
  Case in point: The framing of Taliban ideas as conspiracy theories is presented simply as fact in a tacit acceptence of hte 'real' motives of benevolent security. Yet does recent History not warn us (in particular journalists who succumbed to it, and transmitted it to the masses on their behalf) to be extremely critical of the 'official' line?
  I have absolutely no problem with macro-geo-political explanations for our tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan... no historian would since it is what has been the dominating force behind foreign policy for, well, forever.
  That book is amazing. The last time I mentioned it my comment was deleted by the moderator. I would like to point out that I have done my research and this cannot be regarding as off-topic or commercial in nature. The one recourse left to the Guardian in its guidlines would be to decide the book itself mis-represnts its journalists and so by extension a reference to the book does also.
  If this comment is deleted for that reason then it highlights a dangerous loophole through which the Guardian can delete anything it regards as damaging to itself. If that were the case, it strongly needs addressing and bringing to light.
  
  It's still up so I guess that's the green light.  I wonder if they'll put up with it constantly happening?
  
  We shall see!