29-03-2003 04:11									#1
	Six Days Of Shame Put an end to popups!

quote: Mar 26 2003 By John Pilger TODAY is a day of shame for the British military as it declares the Iraqi city of Basra, with a stricken population of 600,000, a "military target". You will not read or hear those words in the establishment media that claims to speak for Britain. But they are true. With Basra, shame is now our signature, forged by Blair and Bush. Having destroyed its water and power supplies, cut off food supply routes and having failed to crack its human defences, they are now preparing to lay siege to Iraq's second city which is more than 40 per cent children. What an ignominious moment in British history. Here is an impoverished country under attack by a superpower, the United States, which has unimaginable wealth and the world's most destructive weapons, and its "coalition" accomplice, Britain, which boasts one of the world's best "professional" armies. Believing their own propaganda, the military brass has been stunned by the Iraqi resistance. They have tried to belittle the militia defending Basra with lurid stories that its fighters are killing each other. The truth is that the Iraqis are fighting like lions to defend not a tyrant but their homeland. It is a truth the overwhelming majority of decent Britons will admire. The historical comparison Tony Blair and his propagandists fear is that of the British defending themselves against invasion. That happened 60 years ago and now "we" are the rapacious invaders. Yesterday, Blair said that 400,000 Iraqi children had died in the past five years from malnutrition and related causes. He said "huge stockpiles of humanitarian aid" and clean water awaited them in Kuwait, if only the Iraqi regime would allow safe passage. In fact, voluminous evidence, including that published by the United Nations Children's Fund, makes clear that the main reason these children have died is an enduring siege, a 12-year embargo driven by America and Britain. As of last July, $5.4billion worth of humanitarian supplies, approved by the UN and paid for by the Iraqi government, were blocked by Washington, with the Blair government's approval. The former assistant secretary general of the UN, Denis Halliday, who was sent to Iraq to set up the "oil for food programme", described the effects of the embargo as "nothing less than genocide". Similar words have been used by his successor, Hans Von Sponeck. Both men resigned in protest, saying the embargo merely reinforced the power of Saddam. Both called Blair a liar. And now Blair's troops are firing their wire-guided missiles to "soften up" Basra. I have walked the city's streets, along a road blown to pieces by a US missile. The casualties were children, of course, because children are everywhere. I held a handkerchief over my face as I stood in a school playground with a teacher and several hundred malnourished youngsters. The dust blew in from the southern battlefields of the 1991 Gulf War, which have never been cleaned up because the US and British governments have denied Iraq the specialist equipment. The dust, Dr Jawad Al-Ali told me, carries "the seeds of our death". In the children's wards of Basra's main hospital, deaths from a range of hitherto unseen cancers are common and specialists have little doubt that up to half the population of southern Iraq will die from cancers linked to the use of a weapon of mass destruction used by the Americans and British - uranium tipped shells and missiles. O NCE again, the Americans are deploying what Professor Doug Rokke, a former US Army physicist, calls "a form of nuclear weapon that contaminates everything and everyone". Today, each round fired by US tanks contains 4,500 grams of solid uranium, whose particles, breathed or ingested, can cause cancer. This, and the use by both the Allies of new kinds of cluster bombs, is being covered up. Once again, the British public is being denied the reality of war. Images of bandaged children in hospital wards are appearing on TV but you do not see the result of a Tornado's cluster bombing. You are not being shown children scalped by shrapnel, with legs reduced to bloody pieces of string. Such images are "not acceptable", because they will disturb viewers - and the authorities do not want that. These "unseen" images are the truth. Iraqi parents have to look at their mutilated children, so why shouldn't those of us, in whose name they were slaughtered, see what they see? Why shouldn't we share their pain? Why shouldn't we see the true nature of this criminal invasion? Other wars were sanitised, allowing them to be repeated. If you have satellite TV, try to find the Al Jazeera channel, which has distinguished itself with its coverage. When the Americans bombed Afghanistan, one of their "smart" bombs destroyed the Al Jazeera office in Kabul. Few believe it was an accident. Rather, it was a testimony to the channel's independent journalism. Remember, it is not those who oppose this war who need to justify themselves, regardless of Blair's calls to "support our troops". There is only one way to support them - bring them home without delay. In 1932, Iraqis threw out their British colonial rulers. In 1958, they got rid of the Hashemite monarchy. Iraqis have shown they can overthrow dictators against the odds. So why have they not been able to throw out Saddam? Because the US and Britain armed him and propped him up while it suited them, making sure that when they tired of him, they would be the only alternative to his rule and the profiteers of his nation's resources. Imperialism has always functioned like that. The "new Iraq", as Blair calls it, will have many models, such as Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua, all of them American conquests and American ruled until Washington allowed a vicious dictatorship to take over. Saddam only came to power after the Americans helped install his Ba'ath Party in 1979. "That was my favourite coup," said the CIA officer in charge. Keep in mind the cynicism behind these truths when you next hear Blair's impassioned insincerity - and when you glimpse, if you can, the "unacceptable" images of children killed and mangled in your name, and in the cause of what the Prime Minister calls "our simple patriotism". It's the kind of patriotism, wrote Tolstoy, "that is nothing else but a means of obtaining for the rulers their ambitions and covetous desires, and for the ruled the abdication of human dignity, reason and conscience."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnew...ll&siteid=50143

Why shouldn't we share their pain? Why shouldn't we see the true nature of this criminal invasion? Other wars were sanitised, allowing them to be repeated.

If you have satellite TV, try to find the Al Jazeera channel, which has distinguished itself with its coverage. When the Americans bombed Afghanistan, one of their "smart" bombs destroyed the Al Jazeera office in Kabul. Few believe it was an accident. Rather, it was a testimony to the channel's independent journalism.

	29-03-2003 04:19									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm sure the media constantly refers to the fact that Basra is now a military target.

	29-03-2003 04:29									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

What hapened to Liberate Iraqis action?

Picture edited by ming...

If you post a picture of dead bodies again... you are toast.

Last edited by Ming on 29-03-2003 at 05:06

	29-03-2003 04:33									#4
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Blah.....

Pure sentimentalist drivel.

I must say thoguh that british information bout Basra as been less then truthful. They said soon after the beginning they had Basra, then they don't. We had the reported uprising a few days back but no we can;t get any actual details on it.

	29-03-2003 04:35									#5
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Blah..... Pure sentimentalist drivel. I must say thoguh that british information bout Basra as been less then truthful. They said soon after the beginning they had Basra, then they don't. We had the reported uprising a few days back but no we can't get any actual details on it.

couldn't say it better myself.

	29-03-2003 04:38									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by GePap Blah..... Pure sentimentalist drivel. I must say thoguh that british information bout Basra as been less then truthful. They said soon after the beginning they had Basra, then they don't. We had the reported uprising a few days back but no we can;t get any actual details on it.

Well I'm glad you care about the children...I hope for your sake no one ever tries to liberate your country.

	29-03-2003 04:42									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

a bit more of sentimental drivel

this baby must be paying the price of freedom... right?

as well as

quote: At least 50 civilians die during an air raid on a suburban market, Iraqi officials say, as battles continue to rage throughout the country.

	29-03-2003 04:43									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Well I'm glad you care about the children...I hope for your sake no one ever tries to liberate your country.

That reply is wrong on a few levels.

	29-03-2003 04:50									#9
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Only a few, Azazel?

A few civilians die, and suddenly this isn't to liberate Iraq? Such stunningly bad logic.

	29-03-2003 04:54									#10
	Suffering from ads?

like, more than in one sense, Imran.

Using a hyperbole to demonstrate a point:

were allied bombings of targets in France during WWII wrong? and they did kill LOTS os innocent civilians.

	29-03-2003 04:54									#11
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous Well I'm glad you care about the children...I hope for your sake no one ever tries to liberate your country.

If you haven't noticed my flag, someone did, the US in fact, in 1989, and I am sure if I wanted I could come up with the pics to prove it, and that operation killed more civilians than have died in iraqs as of yet.

So, dont go there.

	29-03-2003 04:55									#12
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Let's hope NK won't liberate us

j/k

	29-03-2003 04:57									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

To go back from the sentimetal ... about the integrity of our own (i)morral politics and news agencies

quote: MEDIA ADVISORY: U.S. Media Applaud Bombing of Iraqi TV March 27, 2003 When Iraqi TV offices in Baghdad were hit by a U.S missile strike on March 25, the targeting of media was strongly criticized by press and human rights groups. The general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, Aidan White, suggested that "there should be a clear international investigation into whether or not this bombing violates the Geneva Conventions." White told Reuters (3/26/03), "Once again, we see military and political commanders from the democratic world targeting a television network simply because they don't like the message it gives out." The Geneva Conventions forbid the targeting of civilian installations-- whether state-owned or not-- unless they are being used for military purposes. Amnesty International warned (3/26/03) that the attack may have been a "war crime" and emphasized that bombing a television station "simply because it is being used for the purposes of propaganda" is illegal under international humanitarian law. "The onus," said Amnesty, is on "coalition forces" to prove "the military use of the TV station and, if that is indeed the case, to show that the attack took into account the risk to civilian lives." Likewise, Human Rights Watch affirmed (3/26/03) that it would be illegal to target Iraqi TV based on its propaganda value. "Although stopping enemy propaganda may serve to demoralize the Iraqi population and to undermine the government's political support," said HRW, "neither purpose offers the 'concrete and direct' military advantage necessary under international law to make civilian broadcast facilities a legitimate military target." Some U.S. journalists, however, have not shown much concern about the targeting of Iraqi journalists. Prior to the bombing, some even seemed anxious to know why the broadcast facilities hadn't been attacked yet. Fox News Channel's John Gibson wondered (3/24/03): "Should we take Iraqi TV off the air? Should we put one down the stove pipe there?" Fox's Bill O'Reilly (3/24/03) agreed: "I think they should have taken out the television, the Iraqi television.... Why haven't they taken out the Iraqi television towers?" MSNBC correspondent David Shuster offered: "A lot of questions about why state-run television is allowed to continue broadcasting. After all, the coalition forces know where those broadcast towers are located." On CNBC, Forrest Sawyer offered tactical alternatives to bombing (3/24/03): "There are operatives in there. You could go in with sabotage, take out the building, you could take out the tower." On NBC Nightly News (3/24/03), Andrea Mitchell noted that "to the surprise of many, the U.S. has not taken out Iraq's TV headquarters." Mitchell's report cautioned that "U.S. officials say the television headquarters is in a civilian area. Bombing it would further infuriate the Arab world, and the U.S. would need the TV station to get out its message once coalition forces reach Baghdad. Still, allowing Iraqi TV to stay on the air gives Saddam a strong tool to help keep his regime intact." She did not offer the Geneva Conventions as a reason to avoid bombing a media outlet. After the facility was struck, some reporters expressed satisfaction. CNN's Aaron Brown (3/25/03) recalled that "a lot of people wondered why Iraqi TV had been allowed to stay on the air, why the coalition allowed Iraqi TV to stay on the air as long as it did." CNN correspondent Nic Robertson seemed to defend the attack, saying that bombing the TV station "will take away a very important tool from the Iraqi leadership-- that of showing their face, getting their message out to the Iraqi people, and really telling them that they are still in control." It's worth noting that CNN, like other U.S. news outlets, provides all these functions for the U.S. government. New York Times reporter Michael Gordon appeared on CNN (3/25/03) to endorse the attack: "And personally, I think the television, based on what I've seen of Iraqi television, with Saddam Hussein presenting propaganda to his people and showing off the Apache helicopter and claiming a farmer shot it down and trying to persuade his own public that he was really in charge, when we're trying to send the exact opposite message, I think, was an appropriate target." According to the New York Times (3/26/03), Fox's Gibson seemed to go so far as to take credit for the bombing of Iraqi TV, suggesting that Fox's "criticism about allowing Saddam Hussein to talk to his citizens and lie to them has had an effect." Fox reporter Major Garrett declared (3/25/03), "It has been a persistent question here, why [Iraqi TV] remains on the air." Given such attitudes, perhaps it's not surprising that discussions of the legality of attacking Iraqi TV have been rare in U.S. mainstream media. Yet when the White House accused Iraq of violating the Geneva Conventions by airing footage of American POWs, media were eager to engage the subject of international law. It's a shame U.S. media haven't held the U.S. government to the same standards.

	29-03-2003 04:58									#14
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: If you haven't noticed my flag, someone did, the US in fact, in 1989, and I am sure if I wanted I could come up with the pics to prove it, and that operation killed more civilians than have died in iraqs as of yet. So, dont go there.

I was quite stunned, actually, by the insensitivity of such a statement.

	29-03-2003 05:00									#15
	Got spare money?

This is perhaps one of the worst threads I've ever seen on Apolyton.

Not only is it full of misinformation, gorey pictures, and general trolls, but it's spammy too.

	29-03-2003 05:01									#16
	Put an end to popups!

What is that spam you're talking about?

	29-03-2003 05:02									#17
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Asher This is perhaps one of the worst threads I've ever seen on Apolyton. Not only is it full of misinformation, gorey pictures, and general trolls, but it's spammy too.

And you know the truth

please enlighten us?

	29-03-2003 05:05									#18
	Tired of ads?

I thought MtG had made it perfectly clear that we weren't going to put up with people posting pictures of dead bodies...

There are already enough Iraq threads... And we don't need a thread that is designed to start a flame war.

If you want to discuss the issues in a civil manner... fine.

But if you want to rant and rave, take it somewhere else...

	29-03-2003 05:11									#19
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Funny how the "objective" al Jazeera has never been too concerned with Hussein's actions, either in ruthlessly crushing any perceived dissent, or in somehow, despite sanctions, finding billions of dollars to construct "presidental palaces" and to rebuild and rearm the core of his military.

Gee, how does an impoverished nation manage to find money to send to families of suicide bombers in other countries? Let alone to form, pay, and equip yet another security force, the Saddam fedayin?