PILGER: HIDDEN AGENDA BEHIND WAR ON TERROR
someo...@doesnt_like_spam.ca
---
The Mirror, probably the only left-leaning daily tabloid in the
English speaking world, made considerable waves in Britain by posting
the following on it's front page Monday. Pilger is a senior foreign
correspondent of considerable repute.
>The Mirror, UK
>
>Monday 29 October 2001 04:49pm
>
>PILGER: HIDDEN AGENDA BEHIND WAR ON TERROR
>By John Pilger, Former Mirror chief foreign correspondent
>
>The war against terrorism is a fraud. After three weeks' bombing, not a
>single terrorist implicated in the attacks on America has been caught or
>killed in Afghanistan.
>
>Instead, one of the poorest, most stricken nations has been terrorised by
>the most powerful - to the point where American pilots have run out of
>dubious "military" targets and are now destroying mud houses, a hospital,
>Red Cross warehouses, lorries carrying refugees.
>
>Unlike the relentless pictures from New York, we are seeing almost nothing
>of this. Tony Blair has yet to tell us what the violent death of children -
>seven in one family - has to do with Osama bin Laden.
>
>And why are cluster bombs being used? The British public should know about
>these bombs, which the RAF also uses. They spray hundreds of bomblets that
>have only one purpose; to kill and maim people. Those that do not explode
>lie on the ground like landmines, waiting for people to step on them.
>
>If ever a weapon was designed specifically for acts of terrorism, this is
>it. I have seen the victims of American cluster weapons in other countries,
>such as the Laotian toddler who picked one up and had her right leg and
face
>blown off. Be assured this is now happening in Afghanistan, in your name.
>
>None of those directly involved in the September 11 atrocity was Afghani.
>Most were Saudis, who apparently did their planning and training in Germany
>and the United States.
>
>The camps which the Taliban allowed bin Laden to use were emptied weeks
ago.
>Moreover, the Taliban itself is a creation of the Americans and the
British.
>In the 1980s, the tribal army that produced them was funded by the CIA and
>trained by the SAS to fight the Russians.
>
>The hypocrisy does not stop there. When the Taliban took Kabul in 1996,
>Washington said nothing. Why? Because Taliban leaders were soon on their
way
>to Houston, Texas, to be entertained by executives of the oil company,
>Unocal.
>
>With secret US government approval, the company offered them a generous cut
>of the profits of the oil and gas pumped through a pipeline that the
>Americans wanted to build from Soviet central Asia through Afghanistan.
>
>A US diplomat said: "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis
did."
>He explained that Afghanistan would become an American oil colony, there
>would be huge profits for the West, no democracy and the legal persecution
>of women. "We can live with that," he said.
>
>Although the deal fell through, it remains an urgent priority of the
>administration of George W. Bush, which is steeped in the oil industry.
>Bush's concealed agenda is to exploit the oil and gas reserves in the
>Caspian basin, the greatest source of untapped fossil fuel on earth and
>enough, according to one estimate, to meet America's voracious energy needs
>for a generation. Only if the pipeline runs through Afghanistan can the
>Americans hope to control it.
>
>So, not surprisingly, US Secretary of State Colin Powell is now referring
to
>"moderate" Taliban, who will join an American-sponsored "loose federation"
>to run Afghanistan. The "war on terrorism" is a cover for this: a means of
>achieving American strategic aims that lie behind the flag-waving facade of
>great power.
>
>The Royal Marines, who will do the real dirty work, will be little more
than
>mercenaries for Washington's imperial ambitions, not to mention the
>extraordinary pretensions of Blair himself. Having made Britain a target
for
>terrorism with his bellicose "shoulder to shoulder" with Bush nonsense, he
>is now prepared to send troops to a battlefield where the goals are so
>uncertain that even the Chief of the Defence Staff says the conflict "could
>last 50 years".
>
>The irresponsibility of this is breathtaking; the pressure on Pakistan
alone
>could ignite an unprecedented crisis across the Indian sub-continent.
Having
>reported many wars, I am always struck by the absurdity of effete
>politicians eager to wave farewell to young soldiers, but who themselves
>would not say boo to a Taliban goose.
>
>In the days of gunboats, our imperial leaders covered their violence in the
>"morality" of their actions. Blair is no different. Like them, his
selective
>moralising omits the most basic truth. Nothing justified the killing of
>innocent people in America on September 11, and nothing justifies the
>killing of innocent people anywhere else.
>
>By killing innocents in Afghanistan, Blair and Bush stoop to the level of
>the criminal outrage in New York. Once you cluster bomb, "mistakes" and
>"blunders" are a pretence. Murder is murder, regardless of whether you
crash
>a plane into a building or order and collude with it from the Oval Office
>and Downing Street.
>
>If Blair was really opposed to all forms of terrorism, he would get Britain
>out of the arms trade. On the day of the twin towers attack, an "arms
fair",
>selling weapons of terror (like cluster bombs and missiles) to assorted
>tyrants and human rights abusers, opened in London's Docklands with the
full
>backing of the Blair government.
>
>Britain's biggest arms customer is the medieval Saudi regime, which beheads
>heretics and spawned the religious fanaticism of the Taliban.
>
>If he really wanted to demonstrate "the moral fibre of Britain", Blair
would
>do everything in his power to lift the threat of violence in those parts of
>the world where there is great and justifiable grievance and anger.
>
>He would do more than make gestures; he would demand that Israel ends its
>illegal occupation of Palestine and withdraw to its borders prior to the
>1967 war, as ordered by the Security Council, of which Britain is a
>permanent member.
>
>He would call for an end to the genocidal blockade which the UN - in
>reality, America and Britain - has imposed on the suffering people of Iraq
>for more than a decade, causing the deaths of half a million children under
>the age of five.
>
>That's more deaths of infants every month than the number killed in the
>World Trade Center.
>
>There are signs that Washington is about to extend its current "war" to
>Iraq; yet unknown to most of us, almost every day RAF and American aircraft
>already bomb Iraq. There are no headlines. There is nothing on the TV news.
>This terror is the longest-running Anglo-American bombing campaign since
>World War Two.
>
>The Wall Street Journal reported that the US and Britain faced a "dilemma"
>in Iraq, because "few targets remain". "We're down to the last outhouse,"
>said a US official. That was two years ago, and they're still bombing. The
>cost to the British taxpayer? £800 million so far.
>
>According to an internal UN report, covering a five-month period, 41 per
>cent of the casualties are civilians. In northern Iraq, I met a woman whose
>husband and four children were among the deaths listed in the report. He
was
>a shepherd, who was tending his sheep with his elderly father and his
>children when two planes attacked them, each making a sweep. It was an open
>valley; there were no military targets nearby.
>
>"I want to see the pilot who did this," said the widow at the graveside of
>her entire family. For them, there was no service in St Paul's Cathedral
>with the Queen in attendance; no rock concert with Paul McCartney.
>
>The tragedy of the Iraqis, and the Palestinians, and the Afghanis is a
truth
>that is the very opposite of their caricatures in much of the Western
media.
>
>Far from being the terrorists of the world, the overwhelming majority of
the
>Islamic peoples of the Middle East and south Asia have been its victims -
>victims largely of the West's exploitation of precious natural resources in
>or near their countries.
>
>There is no war on terrorism. If there was, the Royal Marines and the SAS
>would be storming the beaches of Florida, where more CIA-funded terrorists,
>ex-Latin American dictators and torturers, are given refuge than anywhere
on
>earth.
>
>There is, however, a continuing war of the powerful against the powerless,
>with new excuses, new hidden agendas, new lies. Before another child dies
>violently, or quietly from starvation, before new fanatics are created in
>both the east and the west, it is time for the people of Britain to make
>their voices heard and to stop this fraudulent war - and to demand the kind
>of bold, imaginative non-violent initiatives that require real political
>courage.
>
>The other day, the parents of Greg Rodriguez, a young man who died in the
>World Trade Center, said this: "We read enough of the news to sense that
our
>government is heading in the direction of violent revenge, with the
prospect
>of sons, daughters, parents, friends in distant lands dying, suffering, and
>nursing further grievances against us.
Harry
Vieques Island bombing range.
</sarcasm>
<someone_who@doesnt_like_spam.ca> wrote in message
news:tu2t73t...@corp.supernews.com...
Mujahid
>The following was emailed to me. Very interesting...
Not terribly accurate in the premise either.
>---
>
>The Mirror, probably the only left-leaning daily tabloid in the
>English speaking world, made considerable waves in Britain by posting
>the following on it's front page Monday. Pilger is a senior foreign
>correspondent of considerable repute.
>
>>The Mirror, UK
>>
>>Monday 29 October 2001 04:49pm
>>
>>PILGER: HIDDEN AGENDA BEHIND WAR ON TERROR
>>By John Pilger, Former Mirror chief foreign correspondent
>>
>>The war against terrorism is a fraud. After three weeks' bombing, not a
>>single terrorist implicated in the attacks on America has been caught or
>>killed in Afghanistan.
Actually, while the Taliban claims that ONLY civilians are being
killed there IS confirmation that Abu Baseer al-Masri has been killed
and a companion injured rather early on.
>>
>>Instead, one of the poorest, most stricken nations has been terrorised by
>>the most powerful - to the point where American pilots have run out of
>>dubious "military" targets and are now destroying mud houses, a hospital,
>>Red Cross warehouses, lorries carrying refugees.
American pilots dont choose target, duh. "lorries cannyring
refugees"? I must have missed that one. Nevertheless, targets are
different from hits.
>>
>>Unlike the relentless pictures from New York, we are seeing almost nothing
>>of this. Tony Blair has yet to tell us what the violent death of children -
>>seven in one family - has to do with Osama bin Laden.
London has several Arab speaking papers and news services.
>>
>>And why are cluster bombs being used? The British public should know about
>>these bombs, which the RAF also uses. They spray hundreds of bomblets that
>>have only one purpose; to kill and maim people. Those that do not explode
>>lie on the ground like landmines, waiting for people to step on them.
Actually, cluster bombs are used for many many purposes and are not
terribly ineffective as quasi landmines because unlike landmines you
can see them lying on the ground.. It is a denial of use weapon:
spread across an airstrip or road it prevents it use
>>
>>If ever a weapon was designed specifically for acts of terrorism, this is
>>it. I have seen the victims of American cluster weapons in other countries,
>>such as the Laotian toddler who picked one up and had her right leg and
>face
>>blown off. Be assured this is now happening in Afghanistan, in your name.
Cluster bombs are not landmines. Faulty premise.
>>
>>None of those directly involved in the September 11 atrocity was Afghani.
>>Most were Saudis, who apparently did their planning and training in Germany
>>and the United States.
>>
>>The camps which the Taliban allowed bin Laden to use were emptied weeks
>ago.
>>Moreover, the Taliban itself is a creation of the Americans and the
>British.
>>In the 1980s, the tribal army that produced them was funded by the CIA and
>>trained by the SAS to fight the Russians.
Old myth. The Americans and Brits left Afghanistan YEARS before the
Taliban emerged as a political faction. The US support was for the
mujahideen, many MORE of whom work with the United Front (Northern
Alliance) now than the Taliban.
>>
>>The hypocrisy does not stop there. When the Taliban took Kabul in 1996,
>>Washington said nothing. Why? Because Taliban leaders were soon on their
>way
>>to Houston, Texas, to be entertained by executives of the oil company,
>>Unocal.
No, because it was thought at the time that at least the Taliban might
restore order and prevent Afgjhanistan from becoming a terrorist
stronghold. Anything more would require recognition of the Taliban as
the legal government, which only 3 countries ever did.
>>
>>With secret US government approval, the company offered them a generous cut
>>of the profits of the oil and gas pumped through a pipeline that the
>>Americans wanted to build from Soviet central Asia through Afghanistan.
Actually, it is the Pakistanis who are in favor the pipeline.
>>
>>A US diplomat said: "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis
>did."
>>He explained that Afghanistan would become an American oil colony, there
>>would be huge profits for the West, no democracy and the legal persecution
>>of women. "We can live with that," he said.
Given the errors heretofore, I an dubious of an unnammed source.
Sounds like the Albright quote from 60 mins though when she was
talkign about Iraq.
>>
>>Although the deal fell through, it remains an urgent priority of the
>>administration of George W. Bush, which is steeped in the oil industry.
>>Bush's concealed agenda is to exploit the oil and gas reserves in the
>>Caspian basin, the greatest source of untapped fossil fuel on earth and
>>enough, according to one estimate, to meet America's voracious energy needs
>>for a generation. Only if the pipeline runs through Afghanistan can the
>>Americans hope to control it.
Many of the -stans to the north are in favor of it because it would
allow a financial source for them. I fail how anyone anywhere would
ever hope to "control" anything in Afghanistan.
>>
>>So, not surprisingly, US Secretary of State Colin Powell is now referring
>to
>>"moderate" Taliban, who will join an American-sponsored "loose federation"
>>to run Afghanistan. The "war on terrorism" is a cover for this: a means of
>>achieving American strategic aims that lie behind the flag-waving facade of
>>great power.
Powell is trying to play to the aspirations of the less strident
perhaps to cause a rift, so what. That is what he is paid to do.
>>
>>The Royal Marines, who will do the real dirty work, will be little more
>than
>>mercenaries for Washington's imperial ambitions, not to mention the
>>extraordinary pretensions of Blair himself. Having made Britain a target
>for
>>terrorism with his bellicose "shoulder to shoulder" with Bush nonsense, he
>>is now prepared to send troops to a battlefield where the goals are so
>>uncertain that even the Chief of the Defence Staff says the conflict "could
>>last 50 years".
The goals are quite certain, what a dolt.
>>
>>The irresponsibility of this is breathtaking; the pressure on Pakistan
>alone
>>could ignite an unprecedented crisis across the Indian sub-continent.
>Having
>>reported many wars, I am always struck by the absurdity of effete
>>politicians eager to wave farewell to young soldiers, but who themselves
>>would not say boo to a Taliban goose.
Pilger apparently is not familiar with the resume of Mr Powell.
>>
>>In the days of gunboats, our imperial leaders covered their violence in the
>>"morality" of their actions. Blair is no different. Like them, his
>selective
>>moralising omits the most basic truth. Nothing justified the killing of
>>innocent people in America on September 11, and nothing justifies the
>>killing of innocent people anywhere else.
>>
>>By killing innocents in Afghanistan, Blair and Bush stoop to the level of
>>the criminal outrage in New York. Once you cluster bomb, "mistakes" and
>>"blunders" are a pretence. Murder is murder, regardless of whether you
>crash
>>a plane into a building or order and collude with it from the Oval Office
>>and Downing Street.
>>
>>If Blair was really opposed to all forms of terrorism, he would get Britain
>>out of the arms trade. On the day of the twin towers attack, an "arms
>fair",
>>selling weapons of terror (like cluster bombs and missiles) to assorted
>>tyrants and human rights abusers, opened in London's Docklands with the
>full
>>backing of the Blair government.
>>
>>Britain's biggest arms customer is the medieval Saudi regime, which beheads
>>heretics and spawned the religious fanaticism of the Taliban.
Spawned? How?
<snip of geopolitical claptrap the foundations of which are dubious at
best>
Accruacy: D-
Inflammatory Style: A
Historical Grasp of the region: D-
D.Teale
Damn fine article, (although he shouldn't have mentioned Israel seeing as it
is pandora's box of intellectual argumentation), it could have been an even
more effective article if he would have mentioned that soon after Bush's
presidency began the plans for an Afghan invasion were on.
D.Teale
"Harry" <hm...@NS.excite.com> wrote in message
news:Q9hE7.9014$PU2.287...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Maybe they're just using Afghanistan to compensate for the loss of
> Vieques Island bombing range.
>
> </sarcasm>
I almost laughed.
ogkamm
tits and lottery tickets. Pilger is not a journalist at all, let alone a 'senior
foreign correspondent of repute': BBC journalists will confirm that he has never
heard a shot fired in anger, but is an anti-semitic ignoramus.
How about quoting the National Enquirer nexy time?
ogkamm
tits and lottery tickets. Pilger is not a journalist at all, let alone a 'senior
foreign correspondent of repute': BBC journalists will confirm that he has never
heard a shot fired in anger, but is an anti-semitic ignoramus.
How about quoting the National Enquirer nexy time?
ogkamm
tits and lottery tickets. Pilger is not a journalist at all, let alone a 'senior
foreign correspondent of repute': BBC journalists will confirm that he has never
heard a shot fired in anger, but is an anti-semitic ignoramus.
How about quoting the National Enquirer nexy time?
someo...@doesnt_like_spam.ca
ogkamm <ogk...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3BE1E8FF...@netscapeonline.co.uk...
> Oh dear. The Mirror is NOT a newspaper: it is a comic that exists on a
diet of
> tits and lottery tickets. Pilger is not a journalist at all, let alone a
'senior
> foreign correspondent of repute': BBC journalists will confirm that he has
never
> heard a shot fired in anger, but is an anti-semitic ignoramus.
>
> How about quoting the National Enquirer nexy time?
ABOUT PILGER
FORMER Mirror man John Pilger is an award-winning journalist and film-maker,
best known for revealing to the world the genocide in Cambodia.
Pilger has covered conflict worldwide, reporting from across the Middle
East, Asia and Africa and often questioning the West's involvement.
A dispatch from Cambodia in September 1979 - where Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge
regime left 1.7million people executed or dead from starvation - produced a
memorable Daily Mirror shock edition.
He worked for the paper between 1963 and 1986 as a reporter, sub-editor,
feature writer and chief foreign correspondent.
Pilger has also filmed more than 50 hard-hitting documentaries, most of
which highlight the injustices of recent wars.
His latest investigation, titled The New Rulers of the World and addressing
the problem of globalisation, was released in July to great acclaim.
Australian Pilger, who has a son and daughter, began his career in Sydney
before joining Reuters in London.
He worked for Granada's World in Action, BBC TV and radio.
Pilger has received more than 40 awards, including Journalist of the Year in
1967 and 1979, International Reporter of the Year in 1970 and Campaigning
Journalist of 1979.
He was a winner two years running of the UN Media Peace Prize and in 1991
collected an Emmy for his documentary making.
Modboy
recieve 2 UN Media Peace Prizes, a Reporters San Frontiers award, and
numerous other prizes for journalistic achievement, as well as to have his
work published by The Guardian, The Independent, New Statesman, The New York
Times and The Los Angeles Times, amongst others. *sigh*... honestly...
"ogkamm" <ogk...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3BE1E912...@netscapeonline.co.uk...
John
>>>Monday 29 October 2001 04:49pm
>>>
>>>PILGER: HIDDEN AGENDA BEHIND WAR ON TERROR
>>>By John Pilger, Former Mirror chief foreign correspondent
>>>
>>>The war against terrorism is a fraud. After three weeks' bombing, not a
>>>single terrorist implicated in the attacks on America has been caught or
>>>killed in Afghanistan.
>
>Actually, while the Taliban claims that ONLY civilians are being
>killed there IS confirmation that Abu Baseer al-Masri has been killed
>and a companion injured rather early on.
But this is a very poor hit ratio! One dead Taliban leader, and one
injured companion. And about 2000 civilians dead (if you believe the
Taliban reports). And even these two are not implicated in the Sept
11 attacks.
>>>Instead, one of the poorest, most stricken nations has been terrorised by
>>>the most powerful - to the point where American pilots have run out of
>>>dubious "military" targets and are now destroying mud houses, a hospital,
>>>Red Cross warehouses, lorries carrying refugees.
>
>American pilots dont choose target, duh. "lorries cannyring
>refugees"? I must have missed that one. Nevertheless, targets are
>different from hits.
From their height all a pilot can see is 'lorry', or 'mud building'.
The contents / specifics are not easy to determine. So a pilot
targets the lorry, suspecting it is a military vehicle. It turns out
to be carrying refugees. "Collateral damage".
If you are to wage war, you must be competent enough to select
appropriate targets. And you must be competent enough to acurately
hit those targets. The US has spent decades bragging about the
accuracy of their high-tech weapons, and yet there are many instances
of innapropriate targets being hit.
>>>Unlike the relentless pictures from New York, we are seeing almost nothing
>>>of this. Tony Blair has yet to tell us what the violent death of children -
>>>seven in one family - has to do with Osama bin Laden.
>
>London has several Arab speaking papers and news services.
You are correct. Plus there is quite good coverage of the footage
from withing Afghanistan on several of the TV news channels.
>>>And why are cluster bombs being used? The British public should know about
>>>these bombs, which the RAF also uses. They spray hundreds of bomblets that
>>>have only one purpose; to kill and maim people. Those that do not explode
>>>lie on the ground like landmines, waiting for people to step on them.
>
>Actually, cluster bombs are used for many many purposes and are not
>terribly ineffective as quasi landmines because unlike landmines you
>can see them lying on the ground.. It is a denial of use weapon:
>spread across an airstrip or road it prevents it use
Cluster bombs are not intended as land-mines, but they do tend to
cause similar injuries in post-war situations. For example, one
civilian per week is currently injured in Kosovo from cluster bombs
which have remained burried.
>>>None of those directly involved in the September 11 atrocity was Afghani.
>>>Most were Saudis, who apparently did their planning and training in Germany
>>>and the United States.
>>>
>>>The camps which the Taliban allowed bin Laden to use were emptied weeks
>>ago.
>>>Moreover, the Taliban itself is a creation of the Americans and the
>>British.
>>>In the 1980s, the tribal army that produced them was funded by the CIA and
>>>trained by the SAS to fight the Russians.
>
>Old myth. The Americans and Brits left Afghanistan YEARS before the
>Taliban emerged as a political faction. The US support was for the
>mujahideen, many MORE of whom work with the United Front (Northern
>Alliance) now than the Taliban.
This is true. The US trained and supplied the Afghan factions for war
against the Soviets. It also built training camps.
But the US cut support once the Soviets withdraw in the mid 80's. A
civil war errupted in Afghanistan, and the factions split into two
main groups. The Taliban come to power in the southern area of
Afghanistan, while the Northern Alliance formed in the remainder. It
was not until the mid 90's when the Taliban really seized power.
But the reality is that many of the weapons still in use were supplied
by the US (or left by the Soviets).
>>>
>>>The hypocrisy does not stop there. When the Taliban took Kabul in 1996,
>>>Washington said nothing. Why? Because Taliban leaders were soon on their
>>way
>>>to Houston, Texas, to be entertained by executives of the oil company,
>>>Unocal.
>
>No, because it was thought at the time that at least the Taliban might
>restore order and prevent Afgjhanistan from becoming a terrorist
>stronghold. Anything more would require recognition of the Taliban as
>the legal government, which only 3 countries ever did.
I believe that there is a combination of these two. For a while the
Taliban were welcomed by many Afghanis, as it was the first
oppurtunity for decades to have a peaceful country. The US also
welcomed the Taliban as representatives of Afghanistan, as they needed
*someone* to negotiate and trade with.
Unfortunately the Taliban become more extreme as their power spread.
>>>The Royal Marines, who will do the real dirty work, will be little more
>>than
>>>mercenaries for Washington's imperial ambitions, not to mention the
>>>extraordinary pretensions of Blair himself. Having made Britain a target
>>for
>>>terrorism with his bellicose "shoulder to shoulder" with Bush nonsense, he
>>>is now prepared to send troops to a battlefield where the goals are so
>>>uncertain that even the Chief of the Defence Staff says the conflict "could
>>>last 50 years".
>
>The goals are quite certain, what a dolt.
Actually there is a lot of dissent from senior polticians in various
countries as to what the goals are. But generally these three seem to
be agree upon:-
1. Capture or kill bin Laden.
2. Destroy the Al'Qaeda network.
3. Destabilise the Taliban, and restore a democratic government.
Obviously the first goal is the main motivation for the war, following
the Sept 11 attacks. The second goal is the focus of an international
intelligence effort, as the network is relatively independent of its
bin Ladin origins.
The third goal is the most poltically difficult. It has a kind of
'Vietnam' feel to it. And noone seems sure how the Taliban can be
removed from power. Noone is even sure if the Northern Alliance would
be a better choice - they have a similar history to the Taliban of
torturing and killing those that oppose their power.
>>>The irresponsibility of this is breathtaking; the pressure on Pakistan
>>alone
>>>could ignite an unprecedented crisis across the Indian sub-continent.
>>Having
>>>reported many wars, I am always struck by the absurdity of effete
>>>politicians eager to wave farewell to young soldiers, but who themselves
>>>would not say boo to a Taliban goose.
>
>Pilger apparently is not familiar with the resume of Mr Powell.
I believe the comment was directed at Tony Blair.
Powell was also one of the main dissenters to military action soon
after the September 11 attacks. He has a strong military background,
and was very aware of the difficulties (both political and military)
of declaring war agains the Taliban.
>>>Britain's biggest arms customer is the medieval Saudi regime, which beheads
>>>heretics and spawned the religious fanaticism of the Taliban.
>
>Spawned? How?
Most of the funding for OBL is from Saudi oil sales. Most of the
members of Al'Qaeda are Saudi nationals. Saudi openly encourages
Islamic fundamentalism.
Jez
> Oh dear. The Mirror is NOT a newspaper: it is a comic that exists on a
diet of
> tits and lottery tickets. Pilger is not a journalist at all, let alone a
'senior
> foreign correspondent of repute': BBC journalists will confirm that he has
never
> heard a shot fired in anger, but is an anti-semitic ignoramus.
>
> How about quoting the National Enquirer nexy time?
>
before posting the same message 3 times ?
Ho hum
Jez
ragazzino
Not "of repute" ???
Not even a journalist at all ???
Small selection from Pilger's profile:
Accredited war correspondent Vietnam, Cambodia, Egypt, India, Bangladesh, Biafra
1967 Reporter of the Year
1967 Journalist of the Year
1970 International Reporter of the Year
1974 News Reporter of the Year
1977 Campaigning Journalist of the Year
1979 Journalist of the Year
1979-80 UN Media Peace Prize, Australia
1980-81 UN Media Peace Prize, Gold Medal, Australia
1979 TV Times Readers' Award
1990 The George Foster Peabody Award, USA
1990 Reporters San Frontiers Award, France
Cheers
ogkamm wrote:
--
For e-mail reply change "fox" to "box"
"Love your country, but never trust its government. "
Robert A. Heinlein.
ragazzino
You've ommited: BBC Radio, BBC Television, BBC World Service.
Cheers
Modboy wrote:
--
ragazzino
> Oh dear. The Mirror is NOT a newspaper: it is a comic that exists on a diet of
> tits and lottery tickets. Pilger is not a journalist at all, let alone a 'senior
> foreign correspondent of repute': BBC journalists will confirm that he has never
> heard a shot fired in anger, but is an anti-semitic ignoramus.
Ever heard of "professional antagonism"???
Ever heard of "professional envy"???
Because i have. In the BBC.
> How about quoting the National Enquirer nexy time?
How about you going back to reading Reader's Digest and the like?
Cheers
USA Forever!
<someone_who@doesnt_like_spam.ca> wrote in message
news:tu4kovs...@corp.supernews.com...
> ABOUT PILGER
>
>
John Pilger is a arab loving socialist, who has made a name for himself
supporting left wing regimes all over the world and, as far as I and many
more are concerned, is jsut a mouthpiece for the left wing chattering
classes.
Razii
>Oh dear. The Mirror is NOT a newspaper: it is a comic that exists on a diet of
>tits and lottery tickets. Pilger is not a journalist at all, let alone a 'senior
>foreign correspondent of repute': BBC journalists will confirm that he has never
>heard a shot fired in anger, but is an anti-semitic ignoramus.
Anyone who says anything negative about Israel is "anti-semitic" to this
right-wing fanatical Zionist: ogkamm.
Rob Findlay
Ok creamy pants, i love Arabs and I'm a libertarian-communist what do
you think of me?
>
>
--
Peace & Solidarity
--
Rob Findlay (I.U. 560) IWW rfindlay(@)iww.org
--
http://slagnet.dhs.org http://utah.indymedia.org
http://iww.org http://anarchosyndicalism.org
http://beehivecollective.8m.com
--
"War is a racket. Our stake in that racket has never
been greater in all our peacetime history. It may seem
odd for me, a military man, to adopt such a comparison.
Truthfulness compels me to. I spent 33 years and four
months in active service as a member of our country's
most agile military force - the Marine Corps...
"I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for
American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and
Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to
collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a
dozen Central American republics for the benefit of
Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped
purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of
Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican
Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped
make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903...
"Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone
a few hints. The best he could do was operate his racket
in three city districts. We Marines operated on three
continents."
Marine Corps Major General Smedley D. Butler.
Twice wounded in action and twenty times decorated,
Smedley Butler was also one of the few Americans
to be twice awarded the Congressional
Medal of Honour
djinn
wrote:
>
>ogkamm <ogk...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3BE1E8FF...@netscapeonline.co.uk...
>> Oh dear. The Mirror is NOT a newspaper: it is a comic that exists on a
>diet of
>> tits and lottery tickets. Pilger is not a journalist at all, let alone a
>'senior
>> foreign correspondent of repute': BBC journalists will confirm that he has
>never
>> heard a shot fired in anger, but is an anti-semitic ignoramus.
>>
>> How about quoting the National Enquirer nexy time?
>
>
>ABOUT PILGER
>
>
>FORMER Mirror man John Pilger is an award-winning journalist and film-maker,
>best known for revealing to the world the genocide in Cambodia.
>
>Pilger has covered conflict worldwide, reporting from across the Middle
>East, Asia and Africa and often questioning the West's involvement.
>
>A dispatch from Cambodia in September 1979 - where Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge
>regime left 1.7million people executed or dead from starvation - produced a
>memorable Daily Mirror shock edition.
>
If he waited until 1979 to reveal it then it wasn't news. Most
people had know about it since it began in '75. Hope he's more timely
in his other reporting. Doesn't say a hell of a lot for the Daily
Mirror either.
<snip rest of bio>
>
>
>
55.14: He created man from dry clay like earthen vessels,
55.15: And He created the djinn of a flame of fire.
D.Teale
<snip>
> Yeah, and you almost trimmed the post too...
<snip>
> Martin
Sorry bout that.
Frank Church
they have to say!! Pilger is one of the great voices on the left.
Ogkamm is a right winger in disquise. Bah.
James Teo
>If he waited until 1979 to reveal it then it wasn't news. Most
>people had know about it since it began in '75. Hope he's more timely
>in his other reporting. Doesn't say a hell of a lot for the Daily
>Mirror either.
Considering he was one of the first Western journalists into Cambodia
after the regime, i would say he did pretty good no?
Sure as hell beats the rest of those reporters who sit behind their
desks at Fleet Street or wherever.
djinn
wrote:
here's the quote I was responding to:
>FORMER Mirror man John Pilger is an award-winning journalist and film-maker,
>best known for revealing to the world the genocide in Cambodia.
He most certainly did not. The first stories about it appeared in
newspapers in 1975. So he was 4 years late with the story.
Better late than never I suppose.
James Teo
>tits and lottery tickets. Pilger is not a journalist at all, let alone a 'senior
>foreign correspondent of repute': BBC journalists will confirm that he has never
>heard a shot fired in anger, but is an anti-semitic ignoramus.
And that's blatantly a lie. I've been to an exhibition of his work at
the Barbican, and there is no doubt that he was actually present at
the Tet Offensive (he took many of the photos!). Also, there was a
massacre of an East Timorese political gathering where he was present.
Also, he was one of the reporters on the scene at Robert Kennedy's
assasination.
Pretty impressive no? I kindly await you to tell me which "BBC
journalist" accuses him of that since there is no one in the BBC who
can stand up to his record.
Unlike you or me, Pilger has actually seen the moments that defined
the last half-century.
ogkamm
unlike BBC correspondents. He is moreover breathtakingly ignorant of politics. You
try talking as I have to those who genuinely report for objective media sources.
James Teo
you as I've seen factual evidence with my own eyes that he was present
in actual battles in warzones. As you may understand, I am obliged to
believe my own eyes rather than the rants of someone on Usenet who has
spoken to unnamed "British correspondents".
>From: ogkamm <ogk...@netscapeonline.co.uk>
>To: James Teo <ja...@teoth.fsnet.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: PILGER: HIDDEN AGENDA BEHIND WAR ON TERROR
>Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 05:21:02 +0000
>
>No, he hasn't, he's never present when shots are fired but stays in
his >hotel room,unlike BBC correspondents. He is moreover