Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Welcome to Orwell’s world

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 08:45 AM
Original message
Welcome to Orwell’s world
Edited on Tue Jan-05-10 08:46 AM by defendandprotect
Welcome to Orwell’s world
John Pilger

Published 30 December 2009

Obama's lies over the Afghanistan war remind us of the lessons of Nineteen Eighty-Four

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell described a superstate, Oceania, whose language of war inverted lies that "passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past'."

Barack Obama is the leader of a contemporary Oceania. In two speeches at the close of the decade, the Nobel Peace Prize-winner affirmed that peace was no longer peace, but rather a permanent war that "extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan" to "disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies". He called this "global security" and invited our gratitude. To the people of Afghanistan, which the US has invaded and occupied, he said wittily: "We have no interest in occupying your country."

In Oceania, truth and lies are indivisible. According to Obama, the American attack on Afghanistan in 2001 was authorised by the United Nations Security Council. There was no UN authority. He said that "the world" supported the invasion in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks. In truth, all but three of 37 countries surveyed by Gallup expressed overwhelming opposition. He said that America invaded Afghanistan "only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden". In 2001, the Taliban tried three times to hand over Bin Laden for trial, Pakistan's military regime reported, and they were ignored.

“Hearts and minds"
Even Obama's mystification of the 9/11 attacks as justification for his war is false. More than two months before the twin towers were attacked, the former Pakistani diplomat Niaz Naik was told by the Bush administration that a US military assault would take place by mid-October. The Taliban regime in Kabul, which the Clinton administration had secretly supported, was no longer regarded as "stable" enough to ensure US control over oil and gas pipelines to the Caspian Sea. It had to go.


Obama's most audacious lie is that Afghanistan today is a "safe haven" for al-Qaeda's attacks on the west. His own national security adviser, James Jones, said in October that there were "fewer than 100" al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. According to US intelligence, 90 per cent of the Taliban are hardly Taliban at all, but "a tribal localised insurgency see themselves as opposing the US because it is an occupying power". The war is a fraud. Only the terminally gormless remain true to the Obama brand of "world peace".

Beneath the surface, however, there is serious purpose. Under the disturbing General Stanley McChrystal, who gained distinction for his assassination squads in Iraq, the occupation of Afghanistan is a model for those "disorderly regions" of the world still beyond Oceania's reach. This is known as Coin (counter- insurgency), and draws together the military, aid organisations, psychologists, anthropologists, the media and public relations hirelings. Covered in jargon about winning hearts and minds, it aims to incite civil war: Tajiks and Uzbeks against Pashtuns.

The Americans did this in Iraq and destroyed a multi-ethnic society. They built walls between communities which had once intermarried, ethnically cleansing the Sunnis and driving millions out of the country. Embedded media reported this as "peace"; American academics bought by Washington and "security experts" briefed by the Pentagon appeared on the BBC to spread the good news. As in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the opposite was true.

Something similar is planned for Afghanistan. People are to be forced into "target areas" controlled by warlords, bankrolled by the CIA and the opium trade. That these warlords are barbaric is irrelevant. "We can live with that," a Clinton-era diplomat once said of the return of oppressive sharia law in a "stable", Taliban-run Afghanistan. Favoured western relief agencies, engineers and agricultural specialists will attend to the "humanitarian crisis" and so "secure" the subjugated tribal lands.

That is the theory. It worked after a fashion in Yugoslavia, where ethnic-sectarian partition wiped out a once-peaceful society, but it failed in Vietnam, where the CIA's "Strategic Hamlet Program" was designed to corral and divide the southern population and so defeat the Vietcong - the Americans' catch-all term for the resistance, similar to "Taliban".

Behind much of this are the Israelis, who have long advised the Americans in both the Iraq and the Afghanistan adventures. Ethnic cleansing, wall-building, checkpoints, collective punishment and constant surveillance - these are claimed as Israeli innovations that have succeeded in stealing most of Palestine from its native people. And yet, for all their suffering, the Palestinians have not been divided irrevocably and they endure as a nation against all odds.

Imperial cemeteries
The most telling forerunners of the Obama Plan, which the Nobel Peace Prize-winner and his general and his PR men prefer we forget, are those that failed in Afghanistan itself. The British in the 19th century and the Soviets in the 20th century attempted to conquer that wild country by ethnic cleansing and were seen off, though after terrible bloodshed. Imperial cemeteries are their memorials. People power, sometimes baffling, often heroic, remains the seed beneath the snow, and invaders fear it.

“It was curious," wrote Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four, "to think that the sky was the same for everybody, in Eurasia or Eastasia as well as here. And the people under the sky were also very much the same - everywhere, all over the world . . . people ignorant of one another's existence, held apart by walls of hatred and lies, and yet almost exactly the same - people who . . . were storing up in their hearts and bellies and muscles the power that would one day overturn the world."

http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/01/afghanistan-war-pilger-obama



If only the prediction in the last paragraph would one day be true ... !!

PS: Italics and bolding added by poster --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. OMG that's chilling. GREAT post - and read.
-edit-

Even Obama's mystification of the 9/11 attacks as justification for his war is false. More than two months before the twin towers were attacked, the former Pakistani diplomat Niaz Naik was told by the Bush administration that a US military assault would take place by mid-October. The Taliban regime in Kabul, which the Clinton administration had secretly supported, was no longer regarded as "stable" enough to ensure US control over oil and gas pipelines to the Caspian Sea. It had to go.

Obama's most audacious lie is that Afghanistan today is a "safe haven" for al-Qaeda's attacks on the west. His own national security adviser, James Jones, said in October that there were "fewer than 100" al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. According to US intelligence, 90 per cent of the Taliban are hardly Taliban at all, but "a tribal localised insurgency see themselves as opposing the US because it is an occupying power". The war is a fraud. Only the terminally gormless remain true to the Obama brand of "world peace".

-edit-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. Great post!
The Cheerleaders who really buy into the myth that Obama somehow deserved his Nobel Peace Prize all seem to accept that these wars are somehow necessary and just simply because we are already there and he is in charge. :(

Obama wouldn't fight an unnecessary or unjust war, so these must be necessary and just.

He wouldn't escalate and expand wars, because he's working constantly towards peace. He said so. So those supposed troop escalations and attacks into other nations must really be something other than what they appear.

The idea that he will be asking for a supplemental budget this month to pay for these wars, after attacking republicans over these supplemental budgets during his campaign, well, we know he would never need to do that anyway because he's ending the wars, right?

If it seems that Obama is really a warmonger, well, it must be reality that is wrong. It is easier to ignore reality than to face uncomfortable truths. People love to live inside their comfortable illusions and easy answers, even if those easy answers are mostly wrong. :(




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. You're summed it up quite well . . . sad but true . ..
Didn't know about upcoming supplemental budgte!

!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #2
16. +1,000,000. "If it seems that Obama is really a warmonger, well, it must be reality that is wrong."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
dem mba Donating Member (732 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
4. uh-huh
:eyes:

So Obama is Orwellian now? Guess the Tea-Party Hitler comparisons weren't too far off the mark then.

As to the substance of the article, the author loses me when he says Clinton secretly "supported" the Taliban. This is a dubious claim, made only by right wing sources. The Clinton Administration was certainly against the Taliban publicly.

The author makes many large leaps in logic throughout the article and throws in a bit of Israel-bashing and Palestine-stroking seemingly out of nowhere towards the end. Sharia law is only to be considered as acceptable in the sense that its acceptable in Saudi Arabia, a country I believe we have no plans to invade or "Westernize".

This author is all over the place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
6. While there are certainly things in the OP that are correct, there are also huge falsehoods
"Behind much of this are the Israelis, who have long advised the Americans in both the Iraq and the Afghanistan adventures. Ethnic cleansing, wall-building, checkpoints, collective punishment and constant surveillance - these are claimed as Israeli innovations that have succeeded in stealing most of Palestine from its native people. And yet, for all their suffering, the Palestinians have not been divided irrevocably and they endure as a nation against all odds."

Ethnic cleansing, collective punishment and the rest are hardly Israeli "innovations". These things have been with us since biblical times. Also, one could easily argue that the Palestinians have been somewhat divided between Fatah and Hamas.

"People are to be forced into "target areas" controlled by warlords"

People in Afghanistan have been under the sway of "warlords" for centuries.

"a Clinton-era diplomat once said of the return of oppressive sharia law in a "stable", Taliban-run Afghanistan."

Afghanistan was never fully run by the Taliban. There were regional warlords that were not Taliban and held large swaths of the country during the period Kabul and other areas were run by the Taliban.

"It worked after a fashion in Yugoslavia, where ethnic-sectarian partition wiped out a once-peaceful society,"

The ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia was not caused by western powers.

Again, while there are some truths in the OP, the piece is actually quite sloppy and reckless with the facts. Many of the implications drawn are simply not true. Writing such an error ridden piece does more harm than good when confronting these issues IMHO.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. because he makes a practice of this kind of rhetorical manipulation
I have little but contempt for Pilger's take on matters. You can be against the wars without resorting to lying your ass off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. American and Israeli weapons production are so closely intertwined . . .
Edited on Tue Jan-05-10 11:07 PM by defendandprotect
that you can barely distinguish between them --

Certainly Sharon would not have renewed his warmongering without the support -- and a wink --

from Bush, or vice versa. We are financing Israel's warmongering with our tax dollars.

To say that Israel has been using these tactics does not imply that they invented them --

Wasn't Israel involved with TORTURE long before we came to know that our military/CIA was torturing

prisoners?

As the United Nations has regularly pointed out . . . Israel is engaged in a full scale war vs

Palestine. It's a one sided war -- one side an army fully weaponized -- the other not.

Palestine "endures" . . . ???? !!!


Again, while there are some truths in the OP, the piece is actually quite sloppy and reckless with the facts. Many of the implications drawn are simply not true. Writing such an error ridden piece does more harm than good when confronting these issues IMHO.

We will all usually take exception to conclusions/info that we don't agree with --

However, the author of this article is a highly respected journalist --


John Pilger, renowned investigative journalist and documentary film-maker, is one of only two to have twice won British journalism's top award; his documentaries have won academy awards in both the UK and the US. In a New Statesman survey of the 50 heroes of our time, Pilger came fourth behind Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela. "John Pilger," wrote Harold Pinter, "unearths, with steely attention facts, the filthy truth. I salute him."


and still no one has to agree with him, of course --




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
7. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
8. quite something to see Pilger railing against "1984" style speech as
Edited on Tue Jan-05-10 10:01 AM by cali
he engages in it himself. For example, when Obama was speaking of the nations that supported the original Afghanistan action, he was referring to the governments of those nations, not polling of their citizens.

on edit: unrecced for Pilger's sleazy dishonesty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
10. BS. Orwell's world was about the mechanics of INTERNAL repression,
Edited on Tue Jan-05-10 10:09 AM by denem
not imperialism, nor even lies about imperialist war.

Smith knows nothing about the world outside Airstrip One. The only information we get is from Goldstein's book, which Obrien a member the Inner Party helped write.

We don't know if Big Brother ever existed. Smith doesn't even know if there is a war.

Comparison of outside events to the internal 1984 nightmare where nothing is true, nothing is permitted and starvation is a political tool, is just plain wrong.

If there is a society like 1984, it's North Korea.

Propaganda has existed as long as war itself. Orwell was onto something quite different- How two completely contradictory ideas can be orthodox ideology : Eg. Freedom is slavery.

A Bit like : Hugo is good, Mugabe is bad, and an alliance between them is quite understandable and an encouraging sign of the collapse of US imperialism.

That's Double Think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Indeed. I would suggest anyone who uses the term "Orwellian"
...must actually have read Orwell. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. That's the rub: Pilger must have read 1984,
Edited on Tue Jan-05-10 11:04 AM by denem
but writes for an audience that has not. Silly stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jamastiene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
11. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
double plus good article. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
el_bryanto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
12. Obama is Big Brother. That didn't take long.
Is Obama better or worse than Hitler?

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. the boogeymanization of Obama is in full flower
and by and large these are the folks that are constantly repeating the Obot/fan club stuff. As far as I can see, there's far more demonizing of Obama here than idolization. And virtually any piece- no matter how scurrilous, that demonizes Obama, is assured a place on the greatest.

Isn't it sweet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightgaunt Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
17. The Taliban were supported by Democrats and Republicans
Whether under Clinton or GWB they did. Remember when Sec. of State Powell gave them $43 million for cutting their poppy crop by 90%? It is also true that Clinton refused to take bin Laden when the offer was made in 1996.

Like Clinton, Obama was the pseudo-liberal, the "not" candidate to get what the obvious Republicans couldn't easily get through. Fool us once, fool us again, desperate people do desperate things. Third parties have no equal standing so they will never win in our rigged system. Those are the facts. Do you feel free now? Or is the leash just long enough to fool you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. bullshit.
and what you've presented is almost entirely opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightgaunt Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Yours is entirely opinion and as worthless in zero content
How about a bit more data? Which part am I wrong? Point it out and tell me what Clinton did when he was offered bin Laden up to three times but declined, by the Afghanis! You've got nothing. The rest of mine is analysis--what do you have? Please enlighten me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonspotter Donating Member (751 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
20. A great, great post!
And a video on lying to follow up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVuh4AiZ-VY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC