May 1, 2006
'There’s lies, damn lies and statistics’
Their
[Medialens, John Pilger et al] behaviour is far worse than most of our
right-wing or pro-war critics, who, on the whole, have behaved rather
more honourably.
Some
people have pointed out that the tactics they are using are very
similar to the tactics that have been very well honed by the far right
in America. Bombarding with hostile emails, a character assassination –
these techniques have been honed to perfection since the McCarthy times
in the 50s. – John Sloboda, Iraq Body Count
The IBC’s John Sloboda inexcusable slur on Medialens and others such as John Pilger in the BBC interview (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4950254.stm)
follows a well-established line by the so-called liberal intelligentsia
who, whilst claiming to be progressive, are actually having the
opposite effect; to reduce the debate to an argument over numbers
rather than principle, an issue the IBC studiously avoids discussing.
Instead, the IBC resorts to its own character assassination, straight
out of the Cold War! Methinks the lady doth protest just too much.
Thus Sloboda, who claims to be anti-war and progressive had this to say about the current slaughter taking place in Iraq:
He
[Sloboda] says IBC’s figures have been used and cited by mainstream
news organizations, British politicians in Parliament and even Tony
Blair. "More recently, our data – rather than us being branded as some
kind of anti-war, pro-Islam, communist exaggerators – has entered the
mainstream," he says. "Our figures are now taken by most responsible media as the best data there is, in fact the only data there is on civilian casualties in Iraq. [my emph. WB]"
www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2004/072904/news2.html
Responsible
media? I can only take this to mean the corporate and state-run media
which, having given IBC the stamp of approval makes it (the IBC) the
acceptable face of slaughter.
Worse
still, is the fact that Sloboda’s claim that his numbers have entered
the mainstream belies the fundamental principle of the illegality of
the war itself, something IBC never, ever mentions. Instead, it has
everyone getting worked up over body counts. Does it really matter if
it’s 30,000 or even 300,000 deaths due to the invasion and occupation?
Add
to this IBC’s ad hominem attacks and unfounded slurs on progressive
commentators and we find that the IBC, whether by accident or design
has become a weapon of the warmongers.
And
Sloboda reveals much more about his real opinions regarding the illegal
occupation once he steps outside of his obsession with numbers when in
an interview conducted by CNN, he had this to say
HOLMES: And who’s doing the killing, John?
SLOBODA:
Well, currently, the vast majority of killing is being done by
anti-occupation insurgents, criminals and unknown agents. We just don’t
know who a lot of them are.
That
is a complete reversal from the situation in the beginning of the
conflict, when, of course, in the first six-week phase of the war, the
vast majority of deaths were caused by U.S. bombs and aerial raids.
transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/19/ywt.01.html
Sloboda,
who claims to be such a stickler for the 'objective truth’ contradicts
himself in the first paragraph when he talks of the vast majority of
the killing being done anti-occupation forces and then goes on to tell
us that in fact he doesn’t actually know who is responsible for the
killing.
It
could well be-and there is evidence to support the view-that the
'sectarian killings’ are part of a destabilisation campaign being
mounted by the occupation forces. So how can Sloboda claim that
'insurgents’ are responsible for the "vast majority of killing"? (See
for example, 'Seen through a Syrian lens, 'unknown Americans’ are
provoking civil war in Iraq’, Robert Fisk, 28 April 2006. news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article360624.ece
Further
investigation of Sloboda’s 'anti-war’ credentials reveal an even more
sinister side to Sloboda’s position on the USUK occupation. The
organization which underwrites the IBC, the Oxford Research Group, of
which Sloboda is one of the authors, recently produced a document
entitled 'IRAQI LIBERATION? TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED STRATEGY’ which contained the following:
Facilities
within Iraq should be kept in an appropriate condition for these
guarantees to be capable of implementation. This provides a possible
alternative role for the four bases presently being constructed by the
US near major oilfields. A legitimate mandate for these bases could be
constructed between the Iraqi government and the UN, potentially even
involving the EU, NATO or the Arab League, with a concept of 'host
nation support’ under which international financial support could be
provided to complete and maintain these bases. A system of Iraqi
civilian monitoring of them might even be possible.
Exclusive
US use of these bases will prove destabilising to Iraqi politics and US
interests. A 'lilypad’ model is now more appropriate, even if it throws
some of the burden of hosting US forces in the region back on the Gulf
Arab states or shipboard. A continuing US presence in the Kurdish
region might also provide some security guarantees to Turkey, though
Kurds would do well to consider carefully the effect any such presence
might have on internal stability and relations with neighbours.
Thus
Sloboda and the ORG subscribes totally to the US strategic view, the
so-called 'lily pad’ model, a Rumsfeld-inspired idea. So what is the
'lily pad’ model?
"The
policy has involved not just resorting to military action, or the
threat of action, but constructing an arc of new facilities in such
places as Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Qatar and Djibouti that the Pentagon
calls 'lily pads.’ They are seen not merely as a means of defending the
host countries – the traditional Cold War role of such installations –
but as jumping-off points for future 'preventive wars’ and military
missions." – See 'Twenty-first century gunboat diplomacy’ by Tom
Engelhardt, The Nation, 30/03/04. (See also 'Coup d’Etat in Washington
and – The Dollar Paper Tiger , Fiery Dragon in Asia and the Pacific’ by
Andre Gunder Frank, globalresearch.ca/articles/FRA406A.html
"…
the idea of creating offshore platforms that could serve as forward
bases… Dubbed "lily pads," these floating bases would function as a
sort of cross between a land base and an aircraft carrier." – Scripps
Howard News Service April 29, 2003
And,
would you believe it, Sloboda has somehow wormed his way onto the
Advisory Committee of the BRussel’s Tribunal by passing himself off as
against the occupation, when the reality is that far from being opposed
to the occupation, in reality he is advocating a more sophisticated
'forward base’ position, the 'lily pad’ option.
And this guy has the nerve to say
In
fact the main target of Media Lens are the supposed liberal,
left-leaning press, as they have a particular agenda with these media
outlets who they see as wolves in sheep’s clothing. That they are
pretending to be independent, pretending to have some sort of liberal,
left-wing concern – that they are wittingly or unwittingly supporting
the prevailing Washington/Whitehall consensus.
By
"liberal, left-leaning", no doubt Sloboda is referring to the
Independent and the Guardian, what he calls "responsible journalism".
One has to ask the question, who is really the wolf in sheep’s
clothing, the left or the IBC?
See the original Medialens piece which sparked this debate.
|