Read this.

[glasnost]

www.truth-out.org/david-camerons-gift-war-and-racism-them-and-us

Depressing.

Very. But eye-opening.

Poorly researched cut and paste job.

I notice it completely omits Blair's actions from 2004 onwards. The level of the previous administrations rapprochement with Libya was quite astonishing. That administration was also responsible for arms sales in the region - Cameron is being criticised completely gratuitously for doing precisely what his predecessors did.

meditrina are you paid by cameron's lot to instantly rebuf anything critical of the shiny faced toff? What the hell's Blair got to do with it? We know he effected rehabilitation of Gaddafi etc etc. As Cameron would've done had he been PM at the time. Is irrelevant in context of this article. Your poorly thought out, knee jerking defence of all things government is irksome and suspect. Ta dah.

Just to test my theory I'm going to post more articles from this excellent, informative website and see whether you discredit them forthwith.

Why do you make wild assumptions about a poster's employment (even that I have one!) because do not agree with you that this is a good article?

I wanted to balance the OP - in which the link specified the Cameron aspect of the article. If what he has done is "war and racism", then it is fair to point out that others have played a far greater role.

Or are only sycophants "permitted" on your threads?

Oh not sycophants but neither people who make knee jerk comparisons between current gov and Blair in a bid to discredit the main points of the article. It's a non argument and quite poor, sorry. Just coz Blair was a canniving, duplicitous, mendacious slug doesn't give Cameron carte blanche to be EVEN WORSE and hypocritical to boot. Would rather a post on points in hand not references to a previous PM.

Sorry though to cast aspersions on your employment. I'm sure you wouldn't stoop to such a tawdry job!

It's the way the link refers to Cameron that smacks of astroturfing.

Also, your assertion that the Conservatives would have done the same in 2004 is a bit off - that was the time when they were advising "sup with a long spoon" and stating that the wider rapprochement was inadvisable (though terrorism/WMD bits were welcomed).

I don't think the surprising extent Blair's role in Libya is particularly widely known - handwringing over the past doesn't get you much, but neither does ignoring it. Especially in the first months of a new administration when the inherited situation does remain relevant (yes, I'm sick of hearing it like a mantra, but that doesn't change the basic relevance),

BTW, Cameron hasn't done anything icw arms sales that is different from his predecessors. So singling him out is biassed. It is possible to dislike bias without condoning the issue.

And I still think the entire article is a poorly researched cut and paste job.

The tories may have advised against rehabilitating the colonel but they would, wouldn't they? They weren't in power at the time.

Pilger's no fan of Blair's. He's written just as scathingly of him. Of course you can dislike bias and not condone the issue but confront the issue - don't seek to diminish it by harping on about the equally immoral previous PM. We know about the realpoliticking at the heart of all power but it needs to be highlighted as wrong whoever perpetuates it.

Back to article then.

Rebels killed by NATO bombs in 3 separate incidents so far and not even an apology. Friendly fire or summat else?

More oil motivated regime change causing death n destruction given short shrift in the press.

For me, the article was undermined fatally by the insertion of the irrelevant bit about facebook and the campaign to get rid of the page about the 3rd intifada. I signed a request to remove that page - because it explicitly called for the murder of Jews - a racist incitement to violence in anyone's book.

I'm afraid that immediately made me question the bias of the author and doubt the veracity of the other claims. Sorry.

Shame that the Zionist are so blase about their murder of the Palestinians, not that two wrongs make a right but it does make a balance

Does 'it make a balance'? How? What does that mean? Show me a facebook page openly calling for the murder of Palestinians and your comment will appear more relevant and less trite.

B&B

Screw Facebook.

The Zionists are far to cunning to call openly for the murder of Palestinians far better to build illegal settlements and then turn a blind eye to settlers killing the previous occupants when they kick back or maybe just see the consequences of operation "cast lead"

No they dont call for it they just do it.

You only need to see the different level of deaths between the Zionists and Palestinians to see who does the most killing.

If Israel would revert to it's 1967 borders the conflict would be over tomorrow but they prefer to continue to illegally annexe land

That's a much bigger argument and one I won't choose to go into here; i would however draw your attention to the fact that a large number of the Palestinian deaths are committed by one lot of Palestinians against another, for reasons best known to themselves.

Anyway, that's another thread.

My point stands - the article quoted in the OP displays a bias which calls is other claims into question.

nfortunately. I do like a good Western conspiracy theory as much as the best of them.

"That's a much bigger argument and one I won't choose to go into here; i would however draw your attention to the fact that a large number of the Palestinian deaths are committed by one lot of Palestinians against another, for reasons best known to themselves"

For you to accuse the great John Pilger of bias and than make such a mind bogglingly biased comment based on bias is, well, biased. And have searched the piece and can't find what you're referring to. You wanto discredit the entire piece based on what exactly?

Just think if you'd made your above wrong headed comment substituting Palestinians with Jews? Antisemitism posters would've screamed!!! Whereas systematically abusing, bullying and killing arabs is acceptable.

Do lots of Jews kill other Jews? Where?

Are you seriously denying that there have been deaths caused by the battles between the opposing Palestinian factions?

You need to reread the article if you missed the facebook ref - it's very clear, and as I said, discredits the rest of the article by implication.

Maybe the rest of it is true - but the inclusion of that level of bias in one area I know something about makes me strongly suspect the whole lot is made up. or at best extremely slanted.

By the way, 'the great John Pilger' is only as great as his writing reveals him to be - I don't do hero worship per se. Maybe he is great, but mislead on this point? i have no idea. His theoretical greatness is no excuse for shoddy journalism.

Ah - just googled your 'greaty' John Pilger. Or 'Australian-born John Pilger, a columnist for the UK Daily Mirror with a 25-year record of anti-Israel activism' as he is otherwise known.

So yes, my accusation of bias appears to tally with the generally accepted view.

And no, I read your OP with an open mind, havingno knowledge of John Pilger's previous writing. Just his bias sticks out half a mile, I'm afraid.

As does yours.

If you hadto google John Pilger then well....nuff said.

One man's anti Israel activist is another's anti Zionist imperialist genocidal totalitarian activist. Your bias doesn't stick out bread. Just your lack of analytical thought.

As I said, John Pilger's writing stands or falls based on its content not on his reputation, whether admired or despised. You are hardly in a position to criticise another's lack of analysis when you blatantly had failed to even read the article you posted through to the end!

If you have any other proof to back up the assertions in the OP, then it might provide some interesting food for thought. But until you can convince me that someone who thinks objecting to facebook pages that recommend genocide is wrong, is somehow in all other ways an unbiased and rational source of information, you're definitely not onto a winner.

Sorry.

'Sall irrelevant to this article though. Strange to have got your knickers in a twist over a journalist you hadn't even heard of. He's not given a mainstream voice anymore anyway and with people like you on the patrol never will.

Intifada means uprising yes? Same as in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia etc. Where oppression reigns intifada is legit.

You just don't get the same class of MNetter anymore do you?

Are you policing politics and SWOOPING on in willy nilly. Where DO you find the time? Let's let Pilger have the last word yes?

You clearly don't get the same class of MNetter, do you?

Not sure what you mean by 'policing' - do you mean 'posting'? Or do you mean 'picking people up on any old crap they spout off about'?

If either of those is your definition, then yes, clearly I am 'the police'.

Well you've no sense of justice OR perspective so you'd make an excellent copper.

Why thank you. Never really fancied it. You would make a lousy researcher as you don't bother to read articles you post through to the end. You'd also make a lousy escapologist as your ability to see outside the box is quite phenomenal.

You'd make a great bigot, however. Shame there's no money in it.