• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

?First, they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.?

Gaard

Diamond Member
Nice op/ed piece.

We can win a peaceful world!


John Pilger

Let us be clear on the facts of what happened one year ago on March 20. The United States, aided by Britain and Australia, attacked a sovereign country, unprovoked, and in breach of the most basic principles of international law.

By the most conservative estimates, up to 55,000 people were killed, including at least 10,000 civilians, a figure confirmed this week by Amnesty International.

More than 1000 children are killed or injured in Iraq every month by exploding cluster bombs, left by the US and British forces. According to the Uranium Medical Research Centre, the main cities of Iraq are poisoned with radiation from uranium-tipped shells and missiles, fired by the US and British soldiers.

Indeed, so contaminated are sections of Baghdad and Basra that Coalition troops are not allowed to go anywhere near where their own shells have fallen ? streets where children play, oblivious to the danger.

In one report, Iraq is described as a ?silent Hiroshima?. What this means is that the people of Iraq, and the occupying soldiers, perhaps including Australians, are left to get sick, many of them fatally. Listen to the US soldiers and their families who are now speaking out. Untold thousands of them have gone home sick, or deeply disturbed. Many have committed suicide.

This is the scale of the crime committed ?in our name?. By every meaning of the word terrorism, the invasion of Iraq was a massive act of terrorism.

If we are to get to the truth and understand momentous events in the world, we have to look critically at our countries and our own governments. We have to think in terms of our terrorism. Not just the terrorism the mainstreammedia wants us to know about, which relentlessly blames the Islamic world. This officially approved threat is racist; it ignores the fact that most of the victims of terrorism are people in Muslim countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine.

Yes, al Qaeda is a threat and a serious one, now thanks largely to US President George Bush, British PM Tony Blair and PM John Howard. If there is a terrorist attack in this country and Australians are killed, Howard will share the responsibility ? just as Jose Aznar, the former prime minister of Spain, brought bloodshed to his people, 90% of whom wanted nothing to do with Bush?s imperial adventure.

That?s why Howard and his spin doctors this week silenced the federal police commissioner, Mick Keelty, who merely stated the obvious ? that by joining the attack on Iraq, the Australian government has all but invited retaliation against this country.

Last year, in Washington, I interviewed Ray McGovern, one of the CIA?s most senior analysts, a man so close to the US establishment that he was a personal friend of George Bush Senior. He told me, ?The invasion of Iraq was 95% charade. And they all knew it: Bush, Blair and Howard.?

Take just one speech by John Howard on February 4 last year. In less than an hour, he referred 30 times to the ?threat? posed by Saddam Hussein?s weapons of mass destruction. He was quite specific. He declared, and I quote, ?Iraq has an intact arsenal of chemical and biological weapons?. Everything he said was false.

What a disreputable bunch they are, these machine politicians in Canberra who take their orders, which endanger us, from a foreign power. By any measure of the truth, we ought not to believe a word that Howard and foreign minister Alexander Downer says, and yet we have to put up with front pages and lead items on the TV news that amplify their deceit.

Five years ago, as the people of East Timor struggled to gain their independence, Downer told the Australian people that the government knew nothing about the Indonesian terrorism that was about to engulf East Timor. But he knew. We now know he saw the intelligence; and the Australian SAS had trained Kopassus, Suharto?s storm troopers who committed the worst crimes in East Timor.

So it is not surprising that our heroic SAS should have gone into Iraq guns blazing, before March 20 last year. The retired diplomat and whistleblower Tony Kevin has produced evidence that the SAS may have killed hundreds of people. He describes the SAS attack as a ?turkey shoot?; he is still awaiting a reply from Downer.

Australians have a right to know these facts. Recently, on the ABC?s Lateline program, I suggested that it was important that Bush?s so-called ?coalition? in Iraq was driven out. I pointed out they were illegal invaders, who were selling off Iraq to their cronies: in effect, stealing a country.

I asked: What if the Japanese had occupied Australia, or the Germans had taken over Britain? The next day, Downer, and John Anderson, the deputy prime minister, issued statements calling on me to apologise for having defamed the honour of Australia and its noble work in Iraq.

This tells us a great deal. These politicians are frightened. One dissenting voice is heard on the ABC, and they panic. In an international index of press freedom, Australia is 50th. How shaming for an allegedly free country. Token appearances by dissenters on the ABC and token critical programs, like the ABC?s soft Media Watch, do not make up for this disgrace.

That?s why Howard and Downer appear so confident they will get away with their deceit. They think they can say what they like, and tell any lie, and silence any critic: be it the federal police commissioner or myself, and no one will object. They know that the ABC is now so intimidated it will channel and amplify their nonsense and call it news.

What about the real news? What about the fact that the United States is secretly negotiating with Pakistan to send troops into that country, hoping to find Osama bin Laden before the presidential election in November? A US invasion of Pakistan, with the connivance of the military regime in that country, will be the biggest recruiting drive for al Qaeda since the invasion of Iraq.

What about the real news from Afghanistan. The situation of women is, in many parts of that country, worse than under the Taliban. A US-installed regime of warlords rules with terror, and many more people have died under US bombs than were killed on September 11. We have a right to know the real news from these countries, just as we have a right to know about the secret deals struck in our name; and we have a right to debate the criminality of the invasion of one year ago.

The judges who tried the German leadership at Nuremberg in 1946 laid the basis for more than half a century of international law. They described the unprovoked, illegal invasion of a sovereign country as ?the supreme international war crime?.

One year ago, the British military command almost refused to send British troops to Iraq ? fearing prosecution in the new International Criminal Court. The same fear is in Australia. Why did the defence department in Canberra almost certainly plant a story in the Sunday papers recently, in which RAAF pilots spoke openly about how they had refused to bomb certain targets in Iraq for fear of hitting civilians?

I shall make an educated guess as to why. Because Australia and Britain ? unlike the United States ? are signatories to the rules of the International Criminal Court; and in Canberra they, too, fear being prosecuted as war criminals. That is not an outlandish prospect. International justice, once unleashed, can have a power of its own.

We simply cannot afford to acquiesce in the warmongering corruption of the deputy sheriffs in Canberra. We cannot afford to place our lives in the hands of men like Alexander Downer, who was described by an assistant secretary general of the United Nations, Denis Halliday, as one of the most wilfully stupid men in high office he had met.

Brian Deegan, the father of one of the Bali bombing victims, Josh Deegan, is so disgusted with Downer that he is considering standing against him at the next federal election. We should give Brian Deegan every support. We should also give Terry Hicks, the heroic father of David Hicks, every support in his lone campaign for justice for his son, David, still held without charge in the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay.

What Howard and Downer fear is isolation. The so-called coalition of the willing is falling apart. Spain is recalling its troops from Iraq. Even little Honduras is recalling its troops from Iraq. Holland is about to pull out its token contingent. The message is clear: Australia must get out of Iraq while it can.

The only hope for a peaceful world is the neutralisation of the rampant superpower ? by the international community. We must tell Washington we shall not tolerate its aggression any more. Can we achieve that? Yes, in time we can. A world resistance is already under way. Who is this resistance? The answer is: People like you. Millions of people like you: in Spain, Brazil, Italy, Uruguay, South Africa, Britain, France.

Yes, there are perhaps greater challenges in Australia, and it may take longer here. But a start has been made; and we have no choice. Remember the words of Mahatma Gandhi: ?First, they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.?
 
"Well, of course, the killing of innocent people can't be condoned under any circumstances."

Oh, and what's with the 'beloved' stuff?
 
somehow i think that the claims of iraq being a "silent hiroshima" because of uranium tipped shells is just a bit of an exaggeration. ya know, quite a big bit of an exaggeration. sure, the danger should not go unrecognized, but saying that people have become fatally sick or committed suicide because of something like this is too far out of line.

and id also like (a) proof of these uranium tipped shells and missles being used =and= (b) supporting info on how much radiation spent shells and warheads emit. iv'e never once heard any of my army friends mention using these types of weaponry.
 
Excellent piece, Gaard. Thanks.

I'm not the least bit familiar with Ozzie politics, but I assume Howard is in a bit of a dust up over this Iraq invasion.

-Robert
 
Well, just as expected, some love to have it both ways. For example, in the "nice" op/ed piece quoted above, Pilger must be "right".

However, in this op/ed piece dated Nov, 2001, Pilger must be "wrong":

The twin towers attacks provided Bush's Washington with both a trigger and a remarkable coincidence. Pakistan's former foreign minister Niaz Naik has revealed that he was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, was then travelling in central Asia, already gathering support for an anti-Afghanistan war "coalition". For Washington, the real problem with the Taliban was not human rights; these were irrelevant.
Meanwhile, back on the farm. . . . .
 
By the way, Pilger also contends that Carter and Co. helped create Al-Qaeda:

?According to the official view of history?, Zbigniew Brzezinski, US President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, admitted in an interview in 1998: ?CIA aid to the mujaheddin began during 1980, that is, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan... But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise.?

At Brzezinski's urging, in July 1979, Carter authorised $500 million to help set up what was basically a terrorist organisation. The goal was to lure Moscow, then deeply troubled by the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in the Soviet central Asian republics, into the ?trap? of Afghanistan, a source of the contagion.
 
The U.S. did in fact create al Quaeda (Afghan Mujahadeen) to stop the spread of communism. The U.S. also essentially created Saddam in order to counter Iran. You deny that? Better read up. While these ideas seemed great at the time, they have come back to haunt us.
 
Originally posted by: arsbanned
The U.S. did in fact create al Quaeda (Afghan Mujahadeen) to stop the spread of communism. The U.S. also essentially created Saddam in order to counter Iran. You deny that? Better read up. While these ideas seemed great at the time, they have come back to haunt us.
Not denying that the U.S. created either Saddam or Al-Qaeda. I'm merely pointing out that employment of Pilger's opinion is a more a matter of convenience.
 
Originally posted by: Genesys
somehow i think that the claims of iraq being a "silent hiroshima" because of uranium tipped shells is just a bit of an exaggeration. ya know, quite a big bit of an exaggeration. sure, the danger should not go unrecognized, but saying that people have become fatally sick or committed suicide because of something like this is too far out of line.

and id also like (a) proof of these uranium tipped shells and missles being used =and= (b) supporting info on how much radiation spent shells and warheads emit. iv'e never once heard any of my army friends mention using these types of weaponry.

they are standard, i thought they were being phased out though. its because it holds the tip straight in the air.
 
Originally posted by: burnedout
By the way, Pilger also contends that Carter and Co. helped create Al-Qaeda:

?According to the official view of history?, Zbigniew Brzezinski, US President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, admitted in an interview in 1998: ?CIA aid to the mujaheddin began during 1980, that is, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan... But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise.?

At Brzezinski's urging, in July 1979, Carter authorised $500 million to help set up what was basically a terrorist organisation. The goal was to lure Moscow, then deeply troubled by the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in the Soviet central Asian republics, into the ?trap? of Afghanistan, a source of the contagion.

Pilger contends nothing. He is merely pointing out fact. Let's take a look at Brzezinski's own words:

Zbigniew Brzezinski:
How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen
Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.


 
Originally posted by: zillafurby
Originally posted by: Genesys
somehow i think that the claims of iraq being a "silent hiroshima" because of uranium tipped shells is just a bit of an exaggeration. ya know, quite a big bit of an exaggeration. sure, the danger should not go unrecognized, but saying that people have become fatally sick or committed suicide because of something like this is too far out of line.

and id also like (a) proof of these uranium tipped shells and missles being used =and= (b) supporting info on how much radiation spent shells and warheads emit. iv'e never once heard any of my army friends mention using these types of weaponry.

they are standard, i thought they were being phased out though. its because it holds the tip straight in the air.


eh? it is because it is heavier than lead, and catchs fire on impact. if is usually called depleted uranium or just DU, as it is basicly nucular waste, but it is still radioactive, and poisionius as well. as for info, look it up, there is information on it all over the place.
 
Let us be clear on the facts of what happened one year ago on March 20. The United States, aided by Britain and Australia, attacked a sovereign country, unprovoked, and in breach of the most basic principles of international law.

wow this guy is a nut case, and thats just the first sentence
 
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: zillafurby
Originally posted by: Genesys
somehow i think that the claims of iraq being a "silent hiroshima" because of uranium tipped shells is just a bit of an exaggeration. ya know, quite a big bit of an exaggeration. sure, the danger should not go unrecognized, but saying that people have become fatally sick or committed suicide because of something like this is too far out of line.

and id also like (a) proof of these uranium tipped shells and missles being used =and= (b) supporting info on how much radiation spent shells and warheads emit. iv'e never once heard any of my army friends mention using these types of weaponry.

they are standard, i thought they were being phased out though. its because it holds the tip straight in the air.


eh? it is because it is heavier than lead, and catchs fire on impact. if is usually called depleted uranium or just DU, as it is basicly nucular waste, but it is still radioactive, and poisionius as well. as for info, look it up, there is information on it all over the place.


its because it brings the centre of mass of the shell further forward and the bigger the distance between the centre of mass and the centre of drag the straighter the object will fly, and the easier it is for gravity to "pivot" the shell round and down onto the target, rather than the shell "planeing" in the air and overshooting the target. of course lead would be almost as good. but america knows she isnt going to use these things locally so who cares about the poison?
 
Originally posted by: zillafurby
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: zillafurby
Originally posted by: Genesys
somehow i think that the claims of iraq being a "silent hiroshima" because of uranium tipped shells is just a bit of an exaggeration. ya know, quite a big bit of an exaggeration. sure, the danger should not go unrecognized, but saying that people have become fatally sick or committed suicide because of something like this is too far out of line.

and id also like (a) proof of these uranium tipped shells and missles being used =and= (b) supporting info on how much radiation spent shells and warheads emit. iv'e never once heard any of my army friends mention using these types of weaponry.

they are standard, i thought they were being phased out though. its because it holds the tip straight in the air.


eh? it is because it is heavier than lead, and catchs fire on impact. if is usually called depleted uranium or just DU, as it is basicly nucular waste, but it is still radioactive, and poisionius as well. as for info, look it up, there is information on it all over the place.


its because it brings the centre of mass of the shell further forward and the bigger the distance between the centre of mass and the centre of drag the straighter the object will fly, and the easier it is for gravity to "pivot" the shell round and down onto the target, rather than the shell "planeing" in the air and overshooting the target. of course lead would be almost as good. but america knows she isnt going to use these things locally so who cares about the poison?

Another big reason is that the DU has high hardness and can hence penetrate armor better. It's used with the A-10's 30mm gun and the M-2 Bradley's 25mm gun. The radiation emitted by DU is minimal, but the problem comes from soil and water contamination by it. It's a heavy metal just like lead and mercury and hence causes problems in a similar manner.

Zephyr
 
Let us be clear on the facts of what happened one year ago on March 20. The United States, aided by Britain and Australia, attacked a sovereign country, unprovoked, and in breach of the most basic principles of international law.
Sorry, but I stopped right there. That is so false it's not even funny. I would go into details, but this has been discussed so many time that I don't feel like bringing it up once again. Anyone who makes false claims like that is clearly highly biased and thus the rest of the article is not worth reading.
 
Originally posted by: GrGr

Pilger contends nothing. He is merely pointing out fact. Let's take a look at Brzezinski's own words:
Thanks GrGr. Contrary to my SOP, I won't argue with you this time so don't get excited. But this is not my point.

FYI, Dr. Robert Gates, former CIA director and currently president of TAMU, alludes to pre-invasion U.S. involvment in his book "From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War." Declassified Soviet documents corroborate Brzezinski's remarks that were made in the French journal. Finally, during a CNN interview conducted on 6/13/97, Brzezinski also stated that "we weren't passive" in Afghanistan six months before the '79 Soviet invasion.

And no, given current events, this is nothing for us to take pride in.
 
What about the real news from Afghanistan. The situation of women is, in many parts of that country, worse than under the Taliban. A US-installed regime of warlords rules with terror, and many more people have died under US bombs than were killed on September 11. We have a right to know the real news from these countries, just as we have a right to know about the secret deals struck in our name; and we have a right to debate the criminality of the invasion of one year ago.
Meanwhile, beauty firms are bringing jobs to Afghan women.

The horror:

About 25 students have been chosen for an eight-month beautician course by Debbie Rodriguez and Patricia O'Connor, who were dismayed by the beauty regimen of local women ? and wanted to help widows and uneducated young women who have no other means of earning a living.

The million-dollar program, funded by major cosmetic companies, including Revlon, L'Oreal and Clairol, proved so popular last year that it has been continued. This year, 400 women applied.
 
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: GrGr

Pilger contends nothing. He is merely pointing out fact. Let's take a look at Brzezinski's own words:
Thanks GrGr. Contrary to my SOP, I won't argue with you this time so don't get excited. But this is not my point.

FYI, Dr. Robert Gates, former CIA director and currently president of TAMU, alludes to pre-invasion U.S. involvment in his book "From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War." Declassified Soviet documents corroborate Brzezinski's remarks that were made in the French journal. Finally, during a CNN interview conducted on 6/13/97, Brzezinski also stated that "we weren't passive" in Afghanistan six months before the '79 Soviet invasion.

And no, given current events, this is nothing for us to take pride in.

Interesting that Nobel Peace Laureate President Carter was involved in this matter that claimed the lifes of almost 2 million people and ruined the lifes of many millions more. Is there any modern US President the US can take pride in? Is there any US President without the blood of innocents on his hands? Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr. aren't they all massmurderers? Johnson and Nixon in Vietnam. Carter and Reagan in Afghanistan. Bush, Clinton and Bush Jr. in Iraq.

 
Back
Top