John From Pol POt to ISIS your puerile ink never dries. If there were an award for unmitigated crap you would win it!

One notes you are and were strangely silent when Putin invaded his small satellite neighbor Georgia, or when he invaded Afghanistan, or when his minions took over the Crimea, by force, and strangely silent when a passenger jet was shot from Ukraian skies with a Russian buk missile!

Pol Pot needed no excuse, he was just a vicious cold blooded killer who thankfully rots in hell where those monsters eventually go, as their deserved reward!

And ISIS, is even more brutal and bloodthirsty and would be so if there were no U.S.A. Blair or Bush to blame!

These folk you try to defend/excuse attack unarmed defenceless women, children and cripples in wheelchairs! Your sort of warrior hero obviously!

All they need to do more of the same is sh!t stirrers like you fomenting rabid extremism with an walkley award for B.S. shoveled by the shipload!

Others might be firing the kalashnikovs, but sure as the sun rises in the east you are loading these weapons of death!

fortunately only intellectually challenged morons will ever be swayed by this crap!
Rhrosty.

Pilger packs the Pol Pot Putinesque pox perfectly.

"From Pol Pot to ISIS: the blood never dried."

Yes, indeed, Bilger is right for once: Utopias and dictatorships eventually have to resort to brutal violence to enforce their crazy ideals, and almost always, given time, turn inwards and resort to butchering their own supporters.

Russia for instance: the Bolsheviks lasted, what ? a few weeks before they were attacking some of the most passionate Communists, e.g. the Kronstadt soldiers and sailors, then other groups, before they scapegoated all the usual suspects. Then the Gulags, whose inmates tore off the flesh of prehistoric animals uncovered in the summer and ate the meat raw. Then there was Stalin, after whom I was named, but in my defence, I was young and foolish at the time.

Mao launched purges long before he even came to power, and certainly soon afterwards as well. The forced 'Utopianisation' of the communes, the great leap forward, etc., led to the deaths of many millions. Then came the Cultural Revolution.

Then there was Pol Pot and his butchering of all the educated people - I remember the courageous reports of Malcolm Caldwell before the Khmer Rouge murdered him around New Year's Day 1979.

And then, in Ethiopia, something similar under Mengistu. And the Stasi in East Germany. And the Securitate in Rumania.

Yes, Bilger, you are spot-on: dictatorships inevitably lead to brutality on unimaginable scales. They are ALWAYS trumped by imperfect, unruly democracy.

Keep apologising for them, Bilger.

And he's now apologising for ISIS. He should be up there with the Grand Mufti. What heroes.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Well said John Pilger. As readers can see,you have the Zionist trolls foaming at the mouth.

Onya Joe

You've placed all of Arjay's heroes in their proper historical perspective.

AND A CORRECTION:

Pilger pilfered Pol Pot's pox.

Great article, John.

However I am always disappointed that you don't apply your own analysis to your own opinions in domestic policy.

We have loads of people in here, yourself included, who implicitly assume that rights are whatever the State says they are. And you can't see the contradiction?

Dear John,

Please ignore our usual resident posers posting purile poppycock in response to a Pilger article.

Yes they do seem to have infested the place of late but at best they are at the top of the bell curve for intelligence and the chances of getting a serious rebuttal to any of your arguments is pretty remote.

Most of what you have put is logical and factual however many of those who have posted here would call themselves Australian they have the Stars and Stripes firmly tattooed over their hearts. The capacity to think independently is screamed down by the desperate need to sustain a world view that America can do no wrong.

My criticism is one that I have leveled on past occasions, you articulate the issue but give no solution, no path forward. If your argument is that the world should have intervened in Cambodia sooner what in form should it have done so? The same with ISIS. It takes a fool not to recognise what the Rumsfeld 'Invasion on the Cheap' has produced. But given that what needs to be done now to halt the killing? It is not something you tend to articulate and I think your articles are poorer for it.

Hi Steele,

You're missing the point: Stick-Up-The-Arse political commentary like Bilger's never has anywhere to go, only whinges and accusations, much like your own actually: whatever works to shove it up whoever your current Prime Enemy is, usually the stupid Yanks.

That's all so easily done: if the Yanks are the Prime Enemy, then whoever is THEIR enemy is now your friend - you take the the path of complete opportunists, or useful idiots. Of course, Bilger has been compiling a vast Guide for Opportunists and Useful Idiots for many decades now, you may have dipped into it.

And SUTA politics is the First Lesson: whatever works, shove it up there, no matter who is doing it to your Prime Enemy.

Yes, we have a long and very uncertain struggle in front of us. I know what side Bilger will be on, at least for the time being, until Putin tells him to switch.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

I don't think I'm missing the point at all.

Just look through the earlier posts. Can you point at even one that attempted to counter Pilger's argument or facts? I can't.

Each time you lot come out with the same old playbook and it really does get a bit tiring that reflects your political mindset but does not address anything within the article.

Why don't you at least have a crack this time?

SteeleRedux

There are all manner of "facts" - which in your case are assembled according to your anti-Western prejudices.

Do you really think your stale left outlook is up to the discussion?

You appear to ignore that China and Russia (Putin) are now more rightwing than US Republicans.

Pete

Pilger has provided the truth, it is obvious some either don't want to know the truth or they fear it, admitting this truth would not satisfy their cosy lives which ignore the crimes against humanity which are, "so-called" made in our names.

Rhrosty - I think you need to stop watching the Main Stream Media, there is irrefutable proof the U.S. In collusion with NATO backing orchestrated the coup in Ukraine, look up one Victoria Nuland, do the research and you will find the truth. As to the rest of your assertions, sorry but they are just plain wrong, fact checking is not too difficult in the digital age.

Is there a solution? I'm not confident, unfortunately as others have alluded to, Pilger provides no advice.

Perhaps the US and all of their vassals, which unfortunately includes Australia, should do a 180 in terms of foreign policy, I.e. Get out of the Middle East, or at least treat these sovereign nations as actors which can be negotiated with rather than broken in the typical US hegemonic style.

Unfortunately the ME has lots of cheap oil, for how long no one knows, but as long as it is cheap, the west will continue to play cowboy and stamp its feet up and down and demand it is theirs for the taking.

Currently the only nation States legally permitted to fight within Syria are Syria and Russia, at the formal invitation of Syria. Australia's involvement is illegal as is everyone else stirring the pot with nothing other than illegitimate claims for "regime change" as if we all have the right to do that!

Rational heads will, unfortunately, not prevail. Imagine if ISIS decided to blow up the refinery at Ras Tanura, world economic activity would be gone in weeks, and who would we have to blame, why ourselves of course, but the the likes of Rhrosty and others posting here would not want to believe that, now would they?

This is the best summary of global banking/political power plays I've seen to date. Michael Rivero http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltYhHSTeIUo

The facts are that central bankers control the planet because they create from nothing as debt,most of the money for our Govts, individuals and businesses to interact.

James Rickards in 'The Death of Money' says every debt based monetary system comes to a point of collapse after 40 yrs because we now need exponentially more debt money today to pay for the debt of yesterday. They have already created more money since 2008 than was created from 1913 to 2008.The money printing has only just begun.

Peter Coates please take note. You live in fairy land.

Dear Plantagenet,

You asked;

“Do you really think your stale left outlook is up to the discussion?”

Sure, why not give it a go.

Hey Pilger, the USA tried to warn the Cambodians that the communists were bad news. The lotus eating Cambodians, said to the "the nicest people in the world", did not heed the warning. Most of them cheered Pol Pot's forces when he finally marched into Cambodia's capitol. They soon discovered that the Americans were right all along.

History has shown, over and over again, that when people become fat and contented they become overly tolerant, think that everybody thinks just like they do, and they lie down and go to sleep with smiles on their faces. And they usually wake up with some bastards foot on their necks.

The Euros became too fat and lazy. They thought that "all you need was love." They wanted to show everybody how much they loved them by inviting everybody on the planet to come onto their territory. What they did was to import people who's ideology demands total obedience to way of life completely alien to Europeans. Idiots like yourself allowed them to cross the European moat and set up shop within the European keep. It was stupidity of the highest order. And now the Euros are paying for their stupidity.

Rather incredibly, people like yourself are still defending this policy of social self suicide.

LEGO; Pol Pot was financed and supported by the USA. He killed a million Cambodians and 2-3 million died of disease and starvation. The Gulf of Tonkin incident the USA now admits was contrived. No Vietnamese ship attacked them. This was the excuse to send in troops and escalate the war. The USA dropped more bombs on Vietnam than the entire WW2.Agent Orange and other chemicals devastated Vietnam.

The false flag attacks continue as the central bankers try to usher in their New World Order. The IMF wants a world currency called SDRs to enslave us even more.

Sure he was, Arjay. And Elvis is alive and well and living in Nacogdoches.

Thank you once again for proving that left wing loonies exist in some sort of parallel universe.

Thanks Arjay, you're always good for a laugh after a long day. "Pol Pot was financed and supported by the USA."

Please explain :)

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

While the evidence for the US supporting Pol Pot in any meaningful way before the Killing Fields is certainly questionable, afterward the backing they gave him and his party was extraordinary. They worked hard for the Khymer Rouge to retain their seat at the UN as the representatives of what was left of the Cambodian people, they repeatedly stymied attempts to bring their crimes or Pol Pot himself to justice and were more than happy for China and Thailand to support him.

Back when Australia did not kow tow to the US like we do now, I'm proud to say the likes of Bill Hayden and other Australians tried to force the issue of justice in the face of US indifference and outright hostility.

In 1989 the US Secretary of State was still instisting that the Kymer Rouge be part of a future government and it took a few more years again for it finally to consider investigating the genocide.

So yes the US did support Pol Pot and his murderers for a very long time.

This excerpt from Ben Kiernan will tell you more.

http://www.historyplace.com/pointsofview/kiernan.htm

Hi Steele,

Okay, you mean AFTER they were overthrown by the Vietnamese - that's when the US began to back the Khmer Rouge. Could there be some connection between the Yanks losing the War in 1975, and their supporting anybody and their dog against the Vietnamese, simply out of spite ?

In the light of recent developments in the South China Sea, perhaps it's not drawing too long a bow to suggest that the Chinese were prepared to support the Khmer Rouge no matter what atrocities they committed against their own people - if it meant that China could keep a toehold in the region of the South China Sea.

But the main obstacle to all that was Vietnam: its invasion of Pol Pot's Kampuchea buggered up their plans, so they had to invade Vietnam 'to reach it a lesson', as I recall: instead, the Chinese themselves got a boot up the freckle - after all, the Vietnamese had just finished fighting a 45-year War against the French, the Japanese, the French again, then the Americans and Thais and Koreans, so they were pretty tough little buggers.

And today, Vietnam is probably their most bitter enemy over the South China Sea debacle. We'll see.

Joe

Dear Mr Steelie.

I am certain that the article you have posted is a load of crap. The reasons why I think that are this.

The USA is a largely white protestant culture very similar to our own. Our people, (the anglosphere) do not support murderous dictators unless we think that the people who may replace them are worse. To say that the USA supported a bunch of super left wing Arjay and Steelredux clones in their insane attempts to slaughter most of the Cambodian people, so that they could turn Cambodia into an agrarian Communist country, is too ridiculous for words. Only somebody with you and your friends mindsets could even contemplate it.

Secondly, we have seen with Climate Change and the idiotic concept of the "Stolen Generations" how lefties like yourself simply invent total lies and then demand that your opponents refute your of your invented allegations. You and your kind rely upon the general ignorance of the public in areas such as climate research and Australian government policy towards helping aboriginal people, to get some mileage out of your claims. The article you presented was a perfect example of this. I am very sure of myself with every aspect of the Vietnam war, but what happened on the diplomatic side of things after the Vietnamese thankfully cleaned out the Khmer Rouge, I simply do not know.

If the yanks (and apparently, according to your article, Australia) supported the Khmer Rouge diplomatically after the Vietnamese kicked them out, then they must have had good reason to do so.

To suggest otherwise, is to suggest that the governments of the USA and Australia wants to see the world run by psychopathic nut jobs, and no matter how stupid I think our governments can be (look at Muslim immigration), I simply do not believe it.

Dear LEGO,

You wrote;

"Our people, (the anglosphere) do not support murderous dictators unless we think that the people who may replace them are worse."

Very droll sir.

Pathetic reply, Steelie.

Another left wing lightweight.

Dear LEGO,

Lightweight? My goodness dear fellow, this from a bloke who declared an entire article was a load of crap not because you had tried to refute any of it but because you have your head so far up good old Uncle Sam that you are completely blinded by the glorious light you think you see emanating from that particular orifice.

Come on mate, grow some balls. How about picking just one fact from the article that you think is most disputable and we will see how it stands up to the light of day.

Sound reasonable? To most it would but of course not to you. You are unlikely to take the challenge because facts are inconvenient to your myopic world view.

But then again who knows you might surprise me.

Hi Steele,

On that article of Ben Kiernan's: http://www.historyplace.com/pointsofview/kiernan.htm

perhaps it's just coincidental that the US support for the Khmer rouge occurred throughout the presidencies of Reagan and GW Bush. It's a lesson to all of us that opportunism is never in short supply, and that if our stances are worth anything at all, they have to be based on some defensible set of principles.

But in the real, incredibly complex world of 2015, it gets murkier; one of those principles would be that we oppose 100 % the most worst enemy of humanity, in this case ISIS. Assad, for example, is perhaps a second most worst enemy of humanity, so, ghastly as it is, Assad has to be supported against ISIS, for now. To the extent that Russia also opposes ISIS, in its support for Assad, Russia must be supported. (I can hardly believe I'm typing this). Similarly, Iran.

But we should always keep our powder dry in the event that ISIS is (temporarily) defeated: what then ? Once ISIS is wiped out for the time being, what then will the Saudis and Turkey make of the Sunni-Shi'ite dispute, with Shi'ite dominance from Iran to the Mediterranean ? Maybe that's why Obama is treading so carefully, NOT to resolve the issue in Syria ? Or am I just being paranoid ?

Joe

It is really sad that the likes of LEGO and Loudmouth are signing their own death warrants in terms of honesty and true freedom for far less than 30 pieces of silver.

I don't know if Jesus ever existed but this is a good quote. "Forgive them lord for they know not what they are doing." Vladimir Putin echoed similar sentiments recently. The West is totally corrupt and bereft of any moral compass. War and deception are our tools of self actualisation. The West have totally lost the plot.

Hi Arjay,

Sometimes I don't know whether or not to defer to a far better satirist.

Okay, let's assume you're serious. You would agree that there is quite a multitude of evil forces in Syria, ISIS, Assad, al Qa'ida, the Nusra Front, etc., etc. ? So are you suggesting, quite reasonably in other circumstances, that we oppose all of them, all at once, always ? Strange: I thought that was the US position until, well, until about now.

So ...... what would you propose should be done ? Please don't say 'Nothing, we should all keep out of it', because that really hasn't worked up to date, and it does allow others, such as Russia and Iran, to orchestrate the whole show. And, in the light of what happened in Libya, that does seem to be the strategy that the Americans have followed, a sort of default position of doing nothing much.

I've got news for you, Arjay: it hasn't worked.

So like it or not, nose-pegs and all, the West is forced to support the less worst war-criminal in this mess, i.e. Assad, in order to focus everybody's attention on ISIS, the worst worst war-criminal. Assad's turn can wait.

If possible, fight one enemy at a time. Perhaps first eliminate some of the really bad ones who are more easily disposed of, like the al-Nusra Front, but the main focus should be on ISIS. I'm sorry if that upsets some of the left but that's how it seems to me.

Surely, from your point of view, that should especially be the task, given that ISIS may have been set up by the US ?

Joe

Due to Germany's and other Eurpean countries' wrongheaded invitation for 100,000s of "Syrian" refuges to crowd into Europe Australia agreed to take 12,000.

A big debate is going on that most into Australia should be the most oppressed minority Christians, Yazidis, Zoroastrians and Jews from Syria. Other liberal wets (like PM Turnbull) say Muslims should form a large proportion.

Australian government assurances that all Muslim refugees will be security checked [ http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/paris-attacks-stringent-checks-on-would-be-refugees/story-fni0cx12-1227610082698 ] before entry are rubbish.

Its the young Muslim refugee sons under 10 who form the greatest security threat once they grow up in Australia. By the time they are 16 they are easy meat for IS recruitment - mainly stabbing or shooting policemen in Australia...

I would think that the likes of Dr Paul Craig Roberts, http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-paris-terrorist-attacks-and-the-official-story-the-matrix-extends-its-reach/5489014 and John Pilger have far more honesty an integrity than all the Zionist fascists on this planet.

Anyone who believes the lies of MSM and their Govt is a fool.

Criminally insane Senator Lindsey Graham wants war with Russia.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC7Fz0d9H8M

'I don't know if Jesus ever existed but this is a good quote.' says it all Arjay. How ignorant does one want to remain.

Dear Loudmouth,

You wrote;

“Could there be some connection between the Yanks losing the War in 1975, and their supporting anybody and their dog against the Vietnamese, simply out of spite ?”

A given one would have thought but it is interesting how quickly after discovering that the US did indeed support and fund Pol Pot you seem to be offering mitigation. Nothing can excuse that support especially after the extent of the Killing Fields became common knowledge, but it continued for a decade.

You wrote;

“Assad, for example, is perhaps a second most worst enemy of humanity, so, ghastly as it is, Assad has to be supported against ISIS, for now.”

Why is he the second worst? He has killed at least 5 times (probably closer to 10) the number of humans than ISIS. Many with chemical weapons, napalm, barrel and cluster bombs. He has tortured to death in his notorious prisons literally thousands upon thousands of Syrians. I consider him a greater evil than ISIS, why don't you? Pretty simple really, because he doesn't directly threaten you.

So when you write;

“It's a lesson to all of us that opportunism is never in short supply, and that if our stances are worth anything at all, they have to be based on some defensible set of principles.”

you might want to take the lesson to heart.

You might find this little take on Turkey's motives interesting;

http://atimes.com/2015/11/and-heres-the-top-ten-terrorist-list-escobar/

Hi Steele,

I'm certainly not 'mitigating' anything the US has done, simply trying to get through that opportunists come in all shades, that both 'Left' and Right often display a total lack of principle in their dirty anything-will-do 'politics', which I term SUTA politics. I was trying to highlight the obscenity of Reagan and Bush shielding what were supposed to be extremely progressive ra-ra communists, in their spiteful opposition to anything that the Vietnamese were doing.

Both the Yanks and the Chinese knew what the Khmer Rouge had been doing, and from memory of the time, the KR were sending troops into Vietnam from 1977 or so, into what was called the Parrot's Beak just above the Mekong and forty-odd miles from Saigon, which was the eventual trigger for the Vietnamese invasion.

I supported the Vietnamese then for that, and still do, but I'm very critical some of their policies, their treatment of political prisoners and ex-ARVN soldiers, and their obtuseness over the Paracels (recognise the obvious rights of the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia, for example). So much for 'mitigating' the opportunists.

As for Assad and Syria, can you understand that, yes, as soon as ISIS is defeated, Assad's clock will be ticking ? That the situation is so complex and many-sided that it would be idiotic to take on all the bad guys at once ? Assad's time will come, don't worry.

Joe

I am very happy that you just don't get it Steelie.

I don't have to refute your crazy conspiracy theories. I can just let them stand and allow others to judge you for the loony you are. Please, please, Steelie. I want you, Arjay. David F, David G, and Susieoncrack to keep it up. You and your comrades are the best arguments we have.

Some things you have not tried yet.

Princess Diana was killed by MI6.

9/11 was the work of the Joos.

The CIA shot down that Russian airliner.

Although, Arjay has already beaten you to the punch by claiming that ISIS was created by the USA. Too slow, Steelie. You are going to have to be quicker off the mark submitting your delusions to OLO. Arjay has a deeper psychosis than you, and he is the present champion.

Well done, Arjay. You get this weeks coveted eggbeater award.

Dear LEGO,

Lol.

Sorry mate it must be difficult when you need interpreting but I'm happy to help you out this time.

Your quote – what you really mean.

“I don't have to refute your crazy conspiracy theories.” - 'I have nothing to refute the arguments you have put to me.'

“I can just let them stand and allow others to judge you” - 'I also have zero arguments of my own but have to resort to platitudes and pontifications'.

“You and your comrades are the best arguments we have.” - 'I am unlikely to have any arguments to put in the future either'.

“Some things you have not tried yet.” - 'The best I can do is offer some quirky stuff in an admittedly rather weak attempt to taint yours with the same brush.'

well young chap, do let me know if you need assistance in the future.

For the edification of the doubters. Here are 42 Govt false flag events officially accepted as fact. False flags are crimes initiated by our Govts to bring about their political objectives.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/42falseflags.php#axzz3sC7MdFa0