The Forbidden Truths of the Bush-Blair War John Pilger, The Independent We now glimpse the forbidden truths of the invasion of Iraq. A man cuddles the body of his in-fant daughter; her blood drenches them. A woman in black pursues a tank, her arms outstretched; all seven in her family are dead. An American Marine murders a woman because she happens to be standing next to a man in a uniform. “I’m sorry,’’ he says, “but the chick got in the way.’’ Covering this in a shroud of respectability has not been easy for George Bush and Tony Blair. Millions now know too much; the crime is all too evident. Tam Dalyell, Father of the House of Commons, a Labour MP for 41 years, says the prime minister is a war criminal and should be sent to The Hague. He is serious, because the prima facie case against Blair and Bush is beyond doubt. In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal rejected German arguments of the “necessity’’ for pre-emptive attacks against its neighbors. “To initiate a war of aggression,’’ said the tribunal’s judgment, “is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.’’ To this, the Palestinian writer Ghada Karmi adds, “a deep and unconscious racism that imbues every aspect of Western policy toward Iraq.” It is this racism, she says, that has cynically elevated Saddam Hussein from “a petty local chieftain, albeit a brutal and ruthless one in the mold of many before him, (to a figure) demoniZed beyond reason”. To Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill, the Iraqis, like all Arabs, were “******s’’, against whom poison gas could be used. They were un-people; and they still are. The killing of some 80 villagers near Baghdad last Thursday, of children in markets, of the “chicks who get in the way’’ would be in industrial quantities now were it not for the voices of the millions who filled London and other capitals, and the young people who walked out of their schools; they have saved countless lives. Just as the American invasion of Vietnam was fueled by racism, in which “gooks’’ could be murdered with impunity, so the current atrocity in Iraq is from the same mold. Should you doubt that, turn the news around and examine the double standard. Imagine there are Iraqi tanks in Britain and Iraqi troops laying siege to Birmingham. Absurd? Well, it would not happen here. But the British military is doing that to Basra, a city bigger than Birmingham, firing shoulder-held missiles and dropping cluster bombs on its population, 40 percent of whom are children. Moreover, “our boys” are denying water to the stricken people of Basra as well as to Umm Qasr, which they have controlled for a week. It is no wonder Blair is furious with the Al-Jazeera channel, which has exposed this, and the lie that the people of Basra were rising up on cue for their liberation. Since Sept. 11, 2001, “our’’ propaganda and its unspoken racism has required an imperial distortion of intellect and morality. The Iraqis are not fighting like lions, in defense of their homeland. They are “cowardly’’ and subhuman because they use hit-and-run tactics against a hugely powerful invader — as if they have any choice. This belittling of their bravery and disregard of their humanity, like the disregard of thousands of Afghans recently bombed to death in dusty villages, confronts us with a moral issue as profound as the Western response to that greatest act of terrorism, the wilful atomic bombing of Japan. Have we progressed? In 2003, is it still true that only “our’’ lives are of value? These Anglo-American invasions of weak and largely defenseless nations are meant to demonstrate the kind of world the US is planning to dominate by force, with its procession of worthy and unworthy victims and the establishment of American bases at the gateways of all the main sources of fossil fuels. There is a list now. If Israel has its way, Iran will be next; and Cuba, Libya, Syria and even China had better watch out. North Korea may not be an immediate American target, because its threat of nuclear war has been effective. Ironically, had Iraq kept its nuclear weapons, this invasion probably would not have taken place. That is the lesson for all governments at odds with Bush and Blair: Nuclear-arm yourself quickly. The most forbidden truth is that this demonstrably militarist British government, and the rampant superpower it serves, are the true enemies of our security. In the plethora of opinion polls, the most illuminating was conducted by American Time magazine among a quarter of a million people across Europe. The question was: “Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?’’ Readers were asked to tick off one of three possibilities: Iraq, North Korea and the United States. Eight percent viewed Iraq as the most dangerous; North Korea was chosen by 9 percent. No fewer than 83 percent voted for the United States, of which, in the eyes of most of humanity, Britain is now but a lethal appendage. Only successful propaganda, and corrupt journalism, will prevent us understanding this and other truths. Arab News Features 7 April 2003 http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=24825
This is the worst kind of tripe I have ever read. Frankly, it's disgusting. War criminals? Are you out of your mind? Unprovoked? Hardly. Iraq has been in blatant violation of the 1991 cease fire for years now. The Gulf War's end was (pay attention now) CONDITIONED UPON IRAQ AGREEING TO DISARM AND ASSIST IN WEAPONS INSPECTIONS. They have failed to do so. Therefore we are justified in rendering the cease fire null and void. Saddam Hussein is not the Charlie Brown figure of world leaders. Quit treating him like it.
Congratulations...the bio paragraph speaks volumes as to his lack of objectivity and his bias. Good job debunking your own source.
Ref, are you mafreaking blind? What was the point of them destroying their Al Samoud II if this was about them not disarming? What the hell gives you the right to say they weren't cooperating?
**** happens in war. Don't blame the troops. If they were indiscriminately firing at unarmed people then there would be a problem. Blame the nutless Iraqis using civilians as a shield when you want to lay the blame for civilian casualties. What did that one philosopher say? Something along the lines of "Life is nastry, brutish, and short."
Nothing I guess...just the truth. Saddam has spent EVERY DAY since signing the pact breaking it obfuscating the realities. Not only that, but he fully intended to become a global threat. Don't tell me there was no way he would have, because on September 10, 2001 you would have told me that there was no way 4 jetliners could be simultaneously hijacked and 2 flown into the WTC, 1 flown into the Pentagon and another dragged down in a field. Bottom line is that you have no idea what will happen in the future if certain problems remain unchecked...don't be so presumptuous to think you do.
I didn't read the article. Just scanned it, so I won't comment on that now. But this quote above is silly. One has nothing to do with the other. Stop saying otherwise. Or, like Andy Rooney said, stop talking to us like we're children. Bush (and his supporters) should stick to the case against Saddam (which is either enough or it isn't) and stop trying to push this bogus link to 9/11. One has nothing to do with the other. The way you phrase that above basically translates to: since 9/11 happened anything can happen, ergo Saddam fully intended to become a global threat -- that since one unthinkable thing happened all unthinkable things will happen. Saddam is a b*stard and a killer but he has never threatened us when we weren't attacking him, nor has he expressed a desire to attack us, nor has he exhibited any capability of attacking us. To suggest otherwise -- to suggest it is not only possible but is highly probable -- with no other grounds than, well, we didn't think 9/11 would happen either, is silly. Stick to the merits (at the very least stick to the liberation of the Iraqi people, even though world opinion and the entire history of US foreign policy says that's not our business -- at least there's something there to argue on a moral basis and it's not just made up like this 9/11 stuff) and you'd all have a lot more crediblity with me and a lot of other people who oppose this war at this time. This bogus linkage is a strategy which plays upon the emotions and darkest fears of the American people saying that since 9/11 happened we must never question American policies, regardless of danger to civil liberties here at home or danger of US imperialism abroad.
Why do people say things that simply string their ignorance out for everyone to see? Saddam has been saying for 12 years that the "Mother of all battles" is not over, that one day he would finish it by striking at America, praising those who fight in the ongoing war, etc. Until recently )) he made references to the ongoing war - public references - on at least a monthly basis (that is only counting speeches that made their way back to our media). The claim you made in the above statement is just patently false. Either you know it is false, or you have not been paying attention. Which is it? He has also continually and repeatedly threatened his neighbors; do I have to remind you what happened last time he overran a neighbor? The Iraqis continually violate the no-fly zones. They have been in breach of a cease-fire agreement for over 12 years. They are still in possession of banned weapons. They are known terrorism sponsors. Don't sit here and tell me that there's no threat there - there are only two ways you could possibly think that: 1) you're a completely ignorant dumbass, or 2) you're in total denial. Which is it? And as far as the "bogus linkage" goes, what are you basing that on? You appear to have proof that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Glynch also claimed to have such proof, but it was not forthcoming. Is there some body of evidence that I missed absolving Saddam of this? Because there *is* evidence linking him to Al Qaeda (Salman Pak, Ansar al-Islam, defectors' testimony)... I will ask you the same thing I asked glynch before he ran away: How do you *know* that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11?
Sometimes I really regret not using the ignore function. You really are an incredible ass. 1. Show me a quote from Saddam issuing a threat to the US when he was not under threat of attack by us. 2. It IS bogus linkage. Bush promised evidence of a 9/11 link. He's the one who was not forthcoming. Nevertheless, he said it so many times that about half of Americans polled now believe ti to be true. There has never been an credible reason to believe this. Are you seriously saying that unless we can't present proof Saddam WASN'T involved in 9/11 we should assume he WAS involved? I don't know if glynch promised you definitive proof but I sincerely doubt it. (I also sincerely doubt he "ran away," you incredible dork.) That would be impossible to prove. Why don't you show some proof Tony Blair wasn't involved in 9/11? And when you don't, should I assume he was? Bush promised evidence of a link (back when he was promising evidence of a viable nuclear program). It never happened. He stopped promising that evidence but continued to cite 9/11 as a big part of the reason we were going to war. At the very best, that was and continues to be disingenuous. And you continue to be an idiot for defending it. 3. Yes I do remember the last time he overran a neighbor. Do you remember April Glaspie? Whatever happened to her?
What, you want me to go through 12 f*ing years worth of media clips to find you a ******* quote - just because you weren't paying attention all that time? Right... I'm guessing that you've never listened to any of his speeches? Obviously not. Again, where is yopur proof? I want to see your proof, not your friggen opinion. I don't put too much stock in those. No, he did not. The administration has been careful to avoid putting forth a direct link because so far there has been no irrefutable evidence showing that there was a 9/11 link. There *is* an Iraq-Al Qaeda link, and the administration has presented evidence of that. I'm guessing you're in the "I don't believe it" crowd? That would be exactly *zero* times. ZERO. Is that what I said? Have I ever said that? No, and no. I am saying that you do not *know* that there was no link, just as I do not *know* for sure that there was. To discount it as even a possibility tells me that you're either a A) complete dumbass, B) in total denial, or C being disingenuous. You do *not* know for certain either way. Is Tony Blair *hosting* any Al-Qaeda related groups in his country? Is he training them in the use of chemical weapons? Does he have a 707 fuselage outside of London that he uses to train people on how to take passenger planes hostage via hand-to-hand combat? Are people defecting from the UK saying that Tony Blair had a hand in 9/11? Please. You're comparing Tony Blair to Saddam Hussein. Do I need to point out how unbelievably stupid the comparison is? No, he did not. He promised evidence of a link between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda, and it was given. Ansar al Islam, remember? Oh, that's right, "I don't believe it..." He cited the logic of 9/11 and the battles that have followed as a reason. "We will not wait for terrorists to hit us first". Why, oh why, is that so hard for you morons to understand? You might want to wait until anthrax gets loose at a football game, or a subway gets flooded with sarin, but I don't. Bush, thank God, doesn't want to either. You continue to be an idiot for questioning it. If it were up to you and your logic, the Taliban would still be in power. What, you think that campaign was/is about revenge? It's about preventing more attacks, just as the war in Iraq is. Oh, this is where you say "But I support the war in Afghanistan..." and start stumbling over your own logic... I do believe she lost her job. Is this where you come in with the "The Gulf War was partially our fault, because we sent the wrong message..." bullsh*t? Sure. It wasn't in any way 100% Saddam's fault. Hell, we practically told him to do it... If it makes you feel any better, you're on my short list of people I consider putting there every day I'm here. You are certainly in the top 5 of "Dimwitted ultraliberals who would sell the country's security for a peanut" category. So, right back at ya.
Please don't either of you (<b>treeman</b> and <b>BatmanJones</b> submit to the temptation of the Ignore List. It is a tool of the devil and your exchanges are much too fun and interesting to read to have to go without them.
What, you want me to go through 12 f*ing years worth of media clips to find you a ******* quote - just because you weren't paying attention all that time? Right... I don't read every single speech, no. I have heard him say on several occasions that if he was attacked he would fight back with all means available. I have not heard any credible source saying he's threatened to attack without provocation. And I'm pretty damn sure if he had it would have been all over the news and all over those UN meetings. It wasn't. No, he did not. The administration has been careful to avoid putting forth a direct link because so far there has been no irrefutable evidence showing that there was a 9/11 link. There *is* an Iraq-Al Qaeda link, and the administration has presented evidence of that. I'm guessing you're in the "I don't believe it" crowd? First of all, I never said he wasn't involved. I said there has been no evidence of a link. The CIA has repeatedly agreed with that. Pretty radical, anti-American company I'm keeping there. I have said before, were there evidence of a link I would support an attack on Iraq as would most of the rest of the world, as they and I did with the Taliban. That would be exactly *zero* times. ZERO. That's bull****. He said they would present evidence of a link early on, both of a connection to 9/11 and a viable nuclear program. And he said that when the world had seen the evidence they would back the war. They never saw it, so many of them are not backing it. Is that what I said? Have I ever said that? No, and no. I am saying that you do not *know* that there was no link, just as I do not *know* for sure that there was. To discount it as even a possibility tells me that you're either a A) complete dumbass, B) in total denial, or C being disingenuous. You do *not* know for certain either way. Of course I don't know -- THAT'S WHY I OPPOSE THE WAR. If you're supporting the war on grounds that YOU don't know you are definitely (A) a complete dumbass. No, he did not. He promised evidence of a link between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda, and it was given. Ansar al Islam, remember? Oh, that's right, "I don't believe it..." Neither did the CIA. He cited the logic of 9/11 and the battles that have followed as a reason. "We will not wait for terrorists to hit us first". Why, oh why, is that so hard for you morons to understand? Any moron can understand it. They made it a simple enough argument that even the moron that repeats it over and over understands it. Even you understand it. So yes, of course I understand it. But you tell me if I've got it exactly right. The way I hear it is because of 9/11 we should attack anyone who might have WMD, who we can't prove wasn't behind 9/11 and who threatens us back when we threaten them. Or in other words, 9/11 gave us license to launch an unprovoked strike against anyone who might ever be a danger to us. Except North Korea who HAS nukes and has threatened to turn California into a sea of fire. But that's a "diplomatic" issue. It is the cynical nature, the playing to post-9/11 fears of all Americans that so pisses me off here. It's exactly like the first Gulf War -- we're given a laundry list of reasons to go to war, presumably because no one reason is good enough by itself. When it turns out some of the reasons aren't true (baby incubator story concocted by US PR firm, impending nuke program), there are still plenty left over. And who cares if the reasons are true or not when half the country believes they are because they believe their president. You might want to wait until anthrax gets loose at a football game, or a subway gets flooded with sarin, but I don't. Bush, thank God, doesn't want to either. Yeah, that's why I oppose the war. I'm for an anthrax attack on the US. Whatever, bozo. You continue to be an idiot for questioning it. If it were up to you and your logic, the Taliban would still be in power. What, you think that campaign was/is about revenge? It's about preventing more attacks, just as the war in Iraq is. Oh, this is where you say "But I support the war in Afghanistan..." and start stumbling over your own logic... How in the hell do I stumble over my logic to say that I support an action against people who are known to have perpetrated 9/11 and not against people who are not known to do so? And how does that logic support the Taliban? You're really melting down here. I do believe she lost her job. Is this where you come in with the "The Gulf War was partially our fault, because we sent the wrong message..." bullsh*t? Sure. It wasn't in any way 100% Saddam's fault. Hell, we practically told him to do it... The allegation is that Glaspie told him we would not oppose him invading Kuwait, shortly before we told him we would attack him for doing it. If that is true, then certainly we're partly culpable for it. It has never been meaningfully refuted and she has been mysteriously silent ever since. Ross Perot asked Bush I to release the Glaspie papers during the 92 campaign and he refused. And go ahead and roll your eyes all you want, loser. I know it makes you feel smart and superior and I know how important that is to you. I don't say the Gulf War was our "fault" -- I say it was cynical. And I say that we may have contributed to the Kuwait invasion by sending word we wouldn't oppose it. James Baker once said we were going to war for three reasons: "jobs, jobs, jobs." Explain that one away to yourself. If it makes you feel any better, you're on my short list of people I consider putting there every day I'm here. You are certainly in the top 5 of "Dimwitted ultraliberals who would sell the country's security for a peanut" category. This is getting especially boring. That's right. I love terrorists and I hate America because I disagree with Bush's war on Iraq. I feel sorry for the people who have to interact with you in the real world. You really are a prick.
Isn't this basically what you expected MacBeth to do to prove that he had been called unpatriotic or a Sadaam Lover? So what is it treeman? Is it the defender or the prosecuter that is supposed to do all the work? Or is just not treeman?
I agree. This is pure garbage. I am amused by the 'racism' angle. The Arabs/Muslims are acting far more racist. We appear to be widely hated because we are 'infidels'. We should not be in Saudi Arabia because we are infidels. We should not attack another Arab/Muslim country, even if the leader has murdered more Arabs and Muslims than anyone else, because we are not Arab or Muslim (I guess, not totally Arab or Muslim). Some one kindly tell me why this hossibly racist country (apparently), risks the lives of its own soldiers to save Muslims in the Bosnia? No one 'on the other side' ever even addresses that, because it does not fit into their view at all. And as for the pictures of the horrible side of war...show the world pictures from the last 30 years of the murderous regime. This war is fought with journalists on the front lines because we want the world to see what is happening. Yet you still have idiots like this one who cannot 'see' crap.
