Universal justice is not a dream

The invasion of Iraq, now in its second year, was “organised with lies”, says the new Spanish prime minister. Does anyone doubt this any more? And yet these proven lies are still dominant in Australia. Day after day, their perpetrators seek to obfuscate and justify an unprovoked, illegal attack that killed up to 55,000 people, including at least 10,000 civilians: that every month causes the death and injury of 1,000 children from exploding cluster bombs: that has so saturated Iraqi towns and cities with uranium that American and British soldiers are warned not to go where Iraqi children play, for fear of contamination.

Set that carnage against the Madrid atrocity. Terrible though that act of terrorism was, it was small compared with the terrorism of the American-led “coalition”. Yes, terrorism. How strange it reads when it describes the actions of “our” governments. So saturated are we in the west in the devilry of third world tyrants (most of them the products of Western imperialism) that we have lost all sense of the enormous crime committed in our name.

This is not rhetoric. In 1946, the judges who tried the German leadership at Nuremberg called the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country “the supreme international war

— source johnpilger.com | john pilger | 22 Mar 2004

Nullius in verba


Another Hutton whitewash?

In the wake of the Hutton fiasco, one truth remains unassailed: Tony Blair ordered an unprovoked invasion of another country on a totally false pretext, and that lies and deceptions manufactured in London and Washington caused the deaths of up to 55,000 Iraqis, including 9,600 civilians.

Consider for a moment those who have paid the price for Blair’s and Bush’s actions, who are rarely mentioned in the current media coverage. Deaths and injury of young children from unexploded British and American cluster bombs are put at 1,000 a month. The effect of uranium weapons used by Anglo-American forces – a weapon of mass destruction – is such that readings taken from Iraqi tanks destroyed by the British are so high that a British Army survey team wore white, full-body radiationsuits, face masks and gloves. Iraqi children play on and around these tanks. British troops, says the Ministry of Defence, “will have access to biological monitoring”.

Iraqis have no such access and no expert medical help; and thousands are now suffering from a related catalogue of miscarriages and hair loss, horrific eye, skin and

— source johnpilger.com | john pilger | 5 Feb 2004

Nullius in verba


NSA used Iraq war to develop surveillance capability

The US National Security Agency (NSA) used the Iraq war to develop its global surveillance infrastructure, newly released documents have revealed. The 69 documents, called WARgrams, have been published online shortly after being released in response to a freedom of information request. The WARgrams are newsletter-style communications between former NSA director Michael Hayden and agency employees between 2003 and 2004.

— source computerweekly.com | 07 Sep 2016

Nullius in verba


Blair’s bombs

In all the coverage of the bombing of London, a truth has struggled to be heard. With honourable exceptions, it has been said guardedly, apologetically. Occasionally, a member of the public has broken the silence, as an east Londoner did when he walked in front of a CNN camera crew and reporter in mid-platitude. “Iraq!” he said. “We invaded Iraq and what did we expect? Go on, say it.”

Alex Salmond tried to say it on Today on Radio 4. He was told he was speaking “in poor taste . . . before the bodies are even buried”. George Galloway was lectured on Newsnight (BBC2) that he was being “crass”. The inimitable Ken Livingstone contradicted his previous statement, which was that the invasion of Iraq would come home to London. With the exception of Galloway, not one so-called anti-war MP spoke out in clear, unequivocal English. The warmongers were allowed to fix the boundaries of public debate; one of the more idiotic, in the Guardian, called Blair “the world’s leading statesman”.

And yet, like the man who interrupted CNN, people understand and know why, just as the majority of Britons oppose the war and believe Blair is a liar. This frightens the political elite. At a large media party I attended, many of the important guests uttered “Iraq” and “Blair” as a kind of catharsis for that which they dared not say professionally and publicly.

The bombs of 7 July were Blair’s bombs.

Blair brought home to this country his and George W Bush’s illegal, unprovoked and

— source johnpilger.com | john pilger | 25 Jul 2005

Nullius in verba


Blame Basra on the British

Here are questions that are not being asked. Were explosives and a remote-control detonator found in the car of the two SAS men “rescued” from prison in Basra on 19 September? If true, what were they planning to do with them? Why did the British army put out an unbelievable version of the circumstances that led up to armoured vehicles smashing down the wall of a prison?

According to the head of Basra’s governing council, which has co-operated with the British, five civilians were killed by British soldiers. A judge says nine. How much is an Iraqi life worth? Is there to be no honest accounting in Britain for this sinister event? Do we simply accept the customary arrogance of the Defence Secretary, John Reid? “Iraqi law is very clear,” he said. “British personnel are immune from Iraqi legal process.” He omitted to say that this fake immunity was invented by Iraq’s occupiers.

Watching “embedded” journalists in Iraq and London attempting to protect the British line was like watching a satire of the whole atrocity in Iraq. First, there was feigned shock that the Iraqi regime’s “writ” did not run outside its American fortifications in Baghdad and that the “British-trained” police in Basra might be “infiltrated”. Jeremy Paxman wanted to know how two British soldiers – in fact, highly suspicious foreigners dressed as Arabs and carrying a small armoury – could possibly

— source johnpilger.com | john pilger | 3 Oct 2005

Nullius in verba


If you want to know the truth about Iraq, join the millions who have given up on the silences of the mainstream media

The great scandal of Iraq has accelerated this. In the United States, several senior broadcasters have confessed that had they challenged and exposed the lies told about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, instead of amplifying and justifying them, the invasion might not have happened.

Such honesty has yet to cross the Atlantic. Since it was founded in 1922, the BBC has served to protect every British establishment during war and civil unrest. “We” never traduce and never commit great crimes. So the omission of shocking events in Iraq – the destruction of cities, the slaughter of innocent people and the farce of a puppet government – is routinely applied.

A study by the Cardiff School of Journalism found that 90 per cent of the BBC’s references to Saddam Hussein’s WMDs suggested he possessed them and that “spin from the British and US governments was successful in framing the coverage”. The same “spin” has ensured, until now, that the use of banned weapons by the Americans and British in Iraq has been suppressed as news.

An admission by the US State Department on 10 November that its forces had used white phosphorus in Fallujah followed “rumours on the internet”, according to the BBC’s Newsnight.

There were no rumours. There was first-class investigative work that ought to shame well-paid journalists. Mark Kraft of (http://
insomnia.livejournal.com) found the evidence in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine

— source johnpilger.com | john pilger | 28 Nov 2005

Nullius in verba


The real threat we face in Britain is Blair

If the alleged plot to attack airliners flying from London is true – remember the lies that led to the invasion of Iraq, and to the raid on a “terrorist cell” in east London – then one person ultimately is to blame, as he was on 7 July last year. They were Blair’s bombs then; who doesn’t believe that 52 Londoners would be alive today had the Prime Minister refused to join Bush in his piratical attack on Iraq? A parliamentary committee has said as much, as have MI5, the Foreign Office, Chatham House and the polls.

A senior Metropolitan Police officer, Paul Stephenson, claims the Heathrow plot “was intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale”. The most reliable independent surveys put civilian deaths in Iraq, as a result of the invasion by Bush and Blair, above 100,000. The difference between the Heathrow scare and Iraq is that mass murder on an unimaginable scale has actually happened in Iraq.

By any measure of international law, from Nuremberg to the Geneva accords, Blair is a major prima facie war criminal. The charges against him grow. The latest is his collusion with the Israeli state in its deliberate, criminal attacks on civilians. While Lebanese children were being buried beneath Israeli bombs, he refused to condemn their killers or even to call on them to desist. That a ceasefire was negotiated owed nothing to him, except its disgraceful delay. Not only is it clear that Blair knew about Israel’s plans but he alluded approvingly to the ultimate goal: an attack on Iran. Read his neurotic speech in Los Angeles, in which he described an “arc of extremism”, stretching from

— source johnpilger.com | 17 Aug 2006

Nullius in verba


Now let’s charge Saddam’s accomplices

Let’s start with George Bush senior, Saddam’s sponsor, and let’s not forget those journalists who echoed Bush junior’s and Blair’s lies that justified the invasion of Iraq.

In a show trial whose theatrical climax was clearly timed to promote George W Bush in the American midterm elections, Saddam Hussein was convicted and sentenced to hang. Drivel about “end of an era” and “a new start for Iraq” was promoted by the usual false moral accountants, who uttered not a word about bringing the tyrant’s accomplices to justice. Why are these accomplices not being charged with aiding and abetting crimes against humanity? Why isn’t George Bush Snr being charged?

In 1992, a congressional inquiry found that Bush as president had ordered a cover-up to conceal his secret support for Saddam and the illegal arms shipments being sent to Iraq via third countries. Missile technology was shipped to South Africa and Chile, then “on sold” to Iraq, while US Commerce Department records were falsified. Congressman Henry Gonzalez, chairman of the House of Representatives Banking Committee, said: “[We found that] Bush and his advisers financed, equipped and succoured the monster…”

Why isn’t Douglas Hurd being charged? In 1981, as Britain’s Foreign Office minister, Hurd travelled to Baghdad to sell Saddam a British Aerospace missile system and to “celebrate” the anniversary of

— source johnpilger.com | john pilger | 9 Nov 2006

Nullius in verba