In an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, "journalist" John Pilger claims that, what he calls "the resistance" in Iraq is "incredibly important" and that the world now "depends" on it to win.
This comes on top of recent press statements by Pilger in which he claimed "We cannot afford to be choosy" about the continuing loss of life in Iraq.
This comes on top of recent press statements by Pilger in which he claimed "We cannot afford to be choosy" about the continuing loss of life in Iraq.
Old pals
Interviewer: John Pilger, do you still maintain that the world depends on what you call "the Iraqi resistance" to inflict a military defeat on the coalition forces?
JOHN PILGER: Well, certainly, historically, we've always depended on resistances to get rid of occupiers, to get rid of invaders.
......
Interviewer: Well, you can put it that way and you're making your case but what I'm saying is how can anyone back a resistance which resorts to the killing of innocent people?
How can anyone suggest the world, in fact, depends on such a resistance which resorts to the killing of innocent people, as you say, mostly Iraqis?
JOHN PILGER: A lot of people depended on a resistance movement to get rid of invaders, virtually since the beginning of history.
(see interview here)
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1063309.htm
Pilger's radio commentary comes after a recent interview with a left-wing Australian news-sheet 'Green Left Weekly'
Interviewer: "Do you think the anti-war movement should be supporting Iraq's anti-occupation resistance?
Pilger: "Yes, I do. We cannot afford to be choosy. While we abhor and condemn the continuing loss of innocent life in Iraq, we have no choice now but to support the resistance, for if the resistance fails, the “Bush gang” will attack another country. If they succeed, a grievous blow will be suffered by the Bush gang. ..."
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/568/568p10b.htm
see also;
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/03/64235_comment.php#64257
JOHN PILGER: Well, certainly, historically, we've always depended on resistances to get rid of occupiers, to get rid of invaders.
......
Interviewer: Well, you can put it that way and you're making your case but what I'm saying is how can anyone back a resistance which resorts to the killing of innocent people?
How can anyone suggest the world, in fact, depends on such a resistance which resorts to the killing of innocent people, as you say, mostly Iraqis?
JOHN PILGER: A lot of people depended on a resistance movement to get rid of invaders, virtually since the beginning of history.
(see interview here)
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1063309.htm Pilger's radio commentary comes after a recent interview with a left-wing Australian news-sheet 'Green Left Weekly'
Interviewer: "Do you think the anti-war movement should be supporting Iraq's anti-occupation resistance?
Pilger: "Yes, I do. We cannot afford to be choosy. While we abhor and condemn the continuing loss of innocent life in Iraq, we have no choice now but to support the resistance, for if the resistance fails, the “Bush gang” will attack another country. If they succeed, a grievous blow will be suffered by the Bush gang. ..."
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/568/568p10b.htm see also;
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/03/64235_comment.php#64257
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
Pilger
12.03.2004 08:43
Stuart
groups
12.03.2004 11:05
It makes no sense at all for a resistance movement to provoke civil war, as is the in vogue motive at the moment. The last thing a resistance movement would want is to be divided and ruled (a classic colonial tactic by the way, see Britain in India and Shell Oil in the Niger Delta; 'Where Vultures Feast' by Okonta and Douglas). Journalists who actually talk to Iraqis (eg Robert Fisk) are saying there is no animosity between sunni and shia, and that whether or not the 'al-qaeda letter' calling for civil war was genuine the talk of civil war seems solely the preserve of the coalition and western commentators, not the Iraqi people who blatantly don't want another round of pointless Iraqi bloodletting.
The Iraqi people are perfectly within their rights to resist the occupation by targetting the occupiers and their allies (eg. CPA 'police' and possibly 'collaborators'), but not by killing civilians. Only fully signed up members to the 'war on terror' can do that (al qaeda included). Western hawks seem to have adopted the view that war is a one-sided exercise and ANY resistance is illegal and unjustifyable, which is an, er *interesting* line of argument.
And Solo troll, consider this;
Terrorist attacks justify the 'war on terror' (not its abject failiure of course).
No more terrorist attacks means the 'war on terror' is being won, so it shouldn't stop yet!
Applying this simplistic rationale, the 'war on terror' is logically undefeatible, and indefinate. Perpetual war for perpetual peace. Great.
Tom
THIS IS OLD NEWS
12.03.2004 11:10
watcher