False Reality: John Pilger is an incisive, insightful and fearless journalist, whose every word is an arrow in the heart of the evil manipulators who rule our lives and restrict our liberties.

Fact: Pilger is a superannuated old bore, whose best work is now twenty years in the past. He is kept alive by the burning, but mistaken self-image that he is still relevant, when he is little more than a whinging relic from the Cold War.

Sad as it is - and I have many of his earlier works on my bookshelf to remind me that he was once an effective writer and feared iconoclast - he should now spare us his grumpy-old-man routine, and put himself out to pasture.

We can then go and visit him in the corner of the pub, where he will no doubt continue to hold forth to anyone who will listen, for many, many years to come.

Pericles,
No argument against what Pilger wrote? Just a personal attack on the writer! Which one should be in the corner at the pub?

I don't really think that you should use the nom–de–guerre "Pericles". He was a better lad than you.

Pericles :
I think you just enjoy attracting attention to yourself .
Do you carry a hand mirror around in your pocket - to snatch a gratifying peep at yourself from time to time ?

Guilty as charged. It was a cheap shot, Foyle.

>>No argument against what Pilger wrote? Just a personal attack on the writer! Which one should be in the corner at the pub?<<

Motivated, mostly, by disappointment.

I had, for many years, great admiration for Pilger's journalistic talents, and his courage. I recall reading "The Last Day" in one sitting. It was to me, back then (cliché warning) life-changing. The sound of scales falling from eyes was deafening.

On my shelves are dog-eared copies of Aftermath, Heroes, A Secret Country and Distant Voices.

I also have a copy of Hidden Agendas, this last being my point of departure. It appeared to me that he had shifted gear, substantially, from reporting, to polemic.

The voice became shrill, rather than authoritative. The evidence he presented became increasingly speculative and circumstantial. The conclusions drawn started to appear flimsier, angrier and less reliable.

Little that I have read since has changed that view.

As it happens, I have little argument with Pilger's position in this piece on the topic of Iraq. The whole saga is a tragedy, and he nails the lies accurately and succinctly.

But to use that as a jumping-off point into a relatively vacuous commentary on UK politics, cheapened those observations to the point of irrelevance.

Such a waste.

There is little point in discussing most of Pilger's story. Its not clear how he knows that air strikes are continuing, but let it pass. The point I would take issue with his is the statistic of one million Iraqi deaths as a direct result of the US-led invasion. Bwwwwhahahahahahaha! The figure is inherently implausible - actually its impossible - and if Pilger himself was not a propogandist he would have selected sources that gave less than a tenth of that figure.
He is quite right to say that the John Hopkins study on which he relies is peer reviewed. The problem is that it just shows the nonsense that can appear in peer reviewed literature. For the John Hopkins study has been thoroughly and deservedly derided. The paper I looked at said 600,000 deaths over a three year period, from memory. A closer look at the figures show that it was extrapolated from just 60 deaths. Further it claimed that the bulk of the deaths were from gun shot wounds. What? (Around 40 per cent of coalition soldiers killed in Iraq were killed by bombs of what sort or another.) To put that figure into perspective total British ande Empire causalities in the Great War were around 800,000 give or take, and that included several full on infantry battles stretching over several months. Artillery fire was the main cause of death.
If Pilger wants his propoganda to be taken seriously he should quote figures that cannot be instantly dismissed.
the other question that arises from this is what on earth did the John Hopkins team think they were doing?

Thankfully, this is a short article. I read Pilger on the odd occasion, as I like to keep watch on enemies of our society.

I first noticed him when he called for a war memorial at Patonga, for aborigines killed in the battle of Patonga, a battle which never occurred.

I wonder if he based his efforts to warp and distort public opinion on his reading of Bernays, or devised his own parallel method.

“Fact: There is no victory of any sort.”

“Fact: As a direct consequence of the Anglo-American led invasion, a million Iraqis have died”

What an insult to one’s intelligence.

Understandable, since it is only the most blatant, factless, nonsense which wins the lefty controlled media awards, and sells his wares. Pilger is no doubt very well off as a result of the nonsense he has loosed into the media.

He should now realise that enough is enough, or more than enough, in the case of his product, if this article is a fair sample.

How ironic it is for Pilger to describe Bernays as "an elitist liberal who believed that 'engineering public consent' was for the greater good" because this is a perfect description of Pilger himself. An elitist left-wing propagandist of the first order.

Fact; Pericles is totally inconsistant in his appraisal of Pilger.In his last post you praised him.You copped out in our last argument Pericles because the truth got too hot for you.Just because Pilger takes the Zionists to task does not make him or myself a bigot.

Pilger increasingly speaks the truth which too often cuts to the quick of those who don't want to hear it.

I am disgusted that the media has consistently pushed lies. The blatant nature of the re-writing of known history was stunning. What is more disappointing however is that the majority of Australians have accepted the media line without question.
Pericles: Why is the best figure of over 1 million dead so inconceivable? They bombed a major modern city! They destroyed power (no refrigeration, no fresh food or medicine), they destroyed water supplies. Compared to the military's figures it is laughable, but the military didn't do any research! Those countries that did all reported millions rather than tens of thousands.
Why are folks so resistant to evidence based facts (distrust I guess), yet so willing to take on the spiel that is known to be generated for "public relations" reasons. More importantly, why do we let the bankers off the hook? Liberals hate "dole bludgers", yet think nothing of taxpayer bailouts for companies that rake in billions and pay executives obscene "salaries".
I hope John is right and that the Europeans will demand the truth be admitted to. I also hope the US citizens will wake up some day...but that might be asking too much. Ignorance as a way of life seems pretty set-in there. I worry it is gaining ground fast here too.

Not me, guv.

>>Pericles: Why is the best figure of over 1 million dead so inconceivable?<<

You are looking for Curmudgeon.

>>The point I would take issue with his is the statistic of one million Iraqi deaths as a direct result of the US-led invasion. Bwwwwhahahahahahaha! The figure is inherently implausible - actually its impossible<<

My take is that we have been told so many lies about Iraq, over such a long period - right back to the invasion of Kuwait, in fact - that I am prepared to believe any figure that is larger than the "official" ones.

As I said:

"As it happens, I have little argument with Pilger's position in this piece on the topic of Iraq. The whole saga is a tragedy, and he nails the lies accurately and succinctly"

Whether he is himself in possession of the truth is of course a horse of an entirely different colour.

And where did this come from, Arjay?

>>You copped out in our last argument Pericles because the truth got too hot for you.Just because Pilger takes the Zionists to task does not make him or myself a bigot.<<

Where did I mention bigotry?

Where did I mention you, come to that?

Ozandy

My sentiments exactly.
The entire Iraqi debacle, starting from the aftermath of the first Gulf War is a modern tragedy.
The effects of the on the population wouldn't have been too difficult to fathom after a decade of sanctions. What condition were they expected to be in even before the 2003 invasion?
Noam Chomsky in "Hegemony or Survival" pointed out that two respected U.N. diplomats who were the chief U.N. humanitarian coordinators, Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, resigned in protest in what Halliday described as the "genocidal" character of the U.K.-U.S, sanctions.
It is entirely within the bounds of probability that many deaths in Iraq since the first Gulf War, although not directly attributed to military operations, are linked to the overarching tactics employed by the Coalition.

Let's hope Pilger keeps chipping away in whatever capacity he sees fit.

Ozandy - why are people prepared to believe the most outrageous nonsense simply because it reinforces their beliefs? The actual figure for Iraqis killed as a direct result of the US-led invasion is something like 60,000 - which should be enough for anyone. Why should anyone want to boost the figure by 15 times or so, particularly as the resulting one million figure is simply ridiculous? It shows how uninterested commentators like Pilger are in balanced judgement. I gave examples of just why it the figure is ridiculous in the original post but I'll give another. In World War II, the RAF deliberately targeted civilian populations in Germany, flattened vast urban centres and caused major fire storms. Death toll? Top estimate is about 800,000. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan? The total death toll is something like one quarter of Pilger's figure - in itself an exageration of the original John Hopkins estimate.
If you want more examples I can give them.

Apologies for the misquote Pericles.
Curmudgon: repeating a figure does not justify it. Where did the 60,000 figure come from? I suspect it is the absolute minimum number the military could release without get laughed at.
The 60,000 is the US figure without methodology explained.
The Million + figure is from independent research, published along with methodology and raw data.
They didn't bomb just one city using WW2 explosives, they dropped more tonnage than WW2, using much more powerful bombs, on more populous cities, over an extended time. Also WW2 was justified because actual invasion was involved. In this war only the US (and thanks to Howard, us) are aggressors.
Forget cute comparisons and look at the research on the ground.
You are right that 60,000 deaths "should be enough for anyone", but the US persists to this day to kill innocent civilians in foreign countries. They are not "fighting terrorism", they are committing it!
Do you still think it was about "WMD"s or "regime change"? Even Wall St knows it was all about oil!

Ozandy - no, none of that excuses you of supporting rank nonsense. The 60,000 figure comes from some web site that counts actual deaths.. its a rough figure because I'm going from memory (it might be closer to 80,000 by the end). The name of the web site is actually given in the resarch Pilger cites which you should look at it - its online - and in the reaction to it. The paper he cites caused a storm of reaction because the death toll it calculated was so ridiculous - even for the detractors of the US campaign. No one but a handful such as Pilger agreed with it - peer reviewed or not. Cute comparison! No, the comparison was just and quite accurate.. the US coalition most certainly did not mass bomb civilian areas. The RAF was forced into mass bombing precisely because it did not have modern weaponry and was attacking at night. It aimed for high civilian casualties! And it still didn't get the John Hopkins-Pilger death toll.
In any case the paper Pilger refers to says everyone died from gunshot wounds, not bombs at all - look it up - which makes the claim even more incredible.
People make these claims, and are supported by others, without any real idea what they mean in reality or even the problems involved in disposing of, say, 100,000 bodies, simply because it suits their political leanings.
Actually I shouldn't even react to this nonsense, but it is difficult to leave it unchallenged whne it is so obviously wrong.

I don't agree with Pilger's socialism but he does speak the truth about the wars and injustice perpetrated on this planet.

The US Federal Reserve and all the other Global Reserve Banks have for centuries financed and fostered wars for profit.Nothing has changed.

When does he do that, Arjay?

Certainly not in this article.

This buffoon won the Sydney Peace prize, which in itself demonstrates that he is a serious menace.

His relentless support, for disgraceful fabrication, has been amply demonstrated.

If he has any faculty to identify the truth, he uses it only to ensure that he says the opposite.

Despite the fact that communist regimes have murdered millions, this subversive always aligns himself with the communist side, and uses such characterisations as “murderous thugs” for the U.S. and the West.

In a post 9/11 article, on the Iraq War, he starts,” The irresponsibility of this conflict is breathtaking. It is not about terrorism. As Blair and Bush stoop to the level of the criminal…..”

Leo Lane pull your head in.Go to http://ae911tuth.org/ If you can disprove the scientific facts there,then you can make yourself a lot of money. Put your brain in gear before engaging the key board.

Pilger speaks the truth.

Arjay, you had the website address wrong. Perhaps it was a freudian slip, that you could not bring yourself to write the word “truth” in relation to the laughable nonsense on that site.

I would believe that Pilger would source his fabrications from that type of misinformation.

The lie which drew Pilger to my attention was in relation to the non existent “Battle of Patonga” where he said the Dhurag warriors fought the white settlers, in the 1790s.

The tribe was the Dharug, not the Dhurag, and there were no white settlers on the sand spit, that is Patonga, until about 1920, when it was subdivided for holiday homes .

“Pilger speaks the truth”

You are a real comedian, Arjay.