Lets do something about this!
Act where it matters.
Even Fisk's reporing is not the full story.
 http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2001/msg00505.html

This is not 20,000 or a simple number.
This is genoicide.

I have seen even higher estimates.
I have seen very reasonable suggestions that the Iraqbodycount.net has not got access to most rural areas where the killings took place.

Please read read the following article.
As the matter is urgent I suggest we ignore copyrights and blame responsibility on me.

If the article mysut be deleted please sum it up first.

Also it would be a good idea to run a main stry on IMC-UK on the killing of Iraqis during the war, after the war and the past 12 years.

We simply cannot allow this to be forgotten.
If Pilger is really suing the man needs publicity too.


----------------------------------------
New Statesman (London) | www.newstatesman.co.uk
Monday, September 15, 2003

John Pilger wants to put Blair in the dock

While we are allowed to read internal e-mails in Whitehall, we can't
see the traffic between Blair and Bush that would reveal the biggest
lie of all. By John Pilger

For the past few weeks, I have been watching videotapes of the attack
on Iraq, most of them not shown in this country. The tapes concentrate
on the epic suffering of ordinary Iraqis. There are photographs, too,
that were never published here. They show streets and hospitals
running with blood, as American and British forces smashed their way
into Iraq with weapons designed to incinerate and dismember human
beings.

It is difficult viewing, but necessary if one is to understand fully
the words of the Nuremberg judges in 1946 when they laid down the
principles of modern international law: "To initiate a war of
aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme
international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it
contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Guiding me through this visual evidence of a great crime is the diary
of a young law graduate, Jo Wilding, who was in Baghdad with a group
of international human rights observers. She and the others stayed
with Iraqi families as the missiles, bunker busters and cluster bombs
exploded around them. Where possible, they hurried to the scene of
civilian casualties and followed the victims to hospitals and
mortuaries, interviewing eyewitnesses and doctors. Their work received
scant media coverage.

Jo has described to me, in detail, attacks on civilian targets that
were - she is in no doubt - deliberate. In any case, the sheer
ferocity of the assault on elusive Iraqi defenders could not fail to
kill and injure large numbers of civilians. According to a recent
study, up to 10,000 civilians were killed.

"One of the stunning things about the quick coalition victory," John
Bolton, George Bush's under-secretary of state for international
security, told me in Washington recently, "was how little damage was
done to Iraqi infrastructure, and how low Iraqi casualties were."

I said, "Well, it's high if it's 10,000 civilians."

He replied, "Well, I think it's quite low if you look at the size of
the military operation."

Quite low at 10,000. And multiply that many times when the figure
includes the killing of mostly teenage conscripts who, as a Marine
colonel said, "sure as hell didn't know what hit them". Keep
multiplying when the wounded are added: such as 1,000 children maimed,
according to Unicef, by the delayed blast of cluster bomblets.

What does it take for journalists with a public voice and
responsibility to acknowledge the truth of such a crime? Are those who
stand in front of cameras in Downing Street and on the White House
lawn, incessantly obfuscating the obvious (a technique they call
objectivity), that conditioned? The resistance to the illegal
Anglo-American occupation of Iraq is now propagated as part of Bush's
"war on terror". The deaths of Americans, Britons and UN people are
news; Iraqis flit across the screen: otherwise, they do not exist.

For Blair's ministers, the cover-up, like almost everything,
originates in Washington. Read the armed forces minister Adam Ingram's
replies to the tireless questioning by Llewellyn Smith MP and his
message is almost identical to Bolton's. The "regrettable" loss of
life is really not too bad, considering "a military operation of
[this] size". As to numbers of people killed, "we have no way of
establishing with any certainty . . ." Whoever Adam Ingram is,
remember the name, for he embodies the mundane, routine, amoral
apologist for state murder.

Of course, if the great crime in Iraq was represented not by the
poignant moment of a dead squaddie's flag-draped coffin returning, but
by the unrelenting horror I have watched on unseen videotape, the
cover would crack. And the illusion presented by the Hutton inquiry
would be revealed. As it is, Hutton is the magician Blair's best trick
so far, for an inquiry into the death of one man ensures that real
public investigation into why Blair took Britain into war will not
happen. It ensures that while we are allowed to read internal e-mails
in Whitehall, we are denied scrutiny of the traffic between Blair and
Bush, which almost certainly would expose the biggest lie of all, and
reveal that the decision to invade was taken long before Washington
dreamt up the charade of weapons of mass destruction. That would sink
Blair.

Instead, we have glimpses of truth. On 17 September 2001, six days
after the attacks in America, Bush signed a document, marked Top
Secret, in which he directed the Pentagon to begin planning "military
options" for an invasion of Iraq. In July last year, Condoleezza Rice,
Bush's national security adviser, told another Bush official: "That
decision has been made. Don't waste your breath" (Washington Post, 12
January 2003; New Yorker, 31 March 2003). On 2 July last, Air Marshal
Sir John Walker, the former chief of defence intelligence and deputy
chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, wrote a confidential memo
to MPs to alert them that the "commitment to war" was made a year ago.
"Thereafter," he wrote, "the whole process of reason, other reason,
yet other reason, humanitarian, morality, regime change, terrorism,
finally imminent WMD attack . . . was merely covering fire."

The unfettered disclosure of this would present an uncontrollable
crisis to the clique that runs Britain: the secret service, the civil
service, Downing Street, the favoured City and the courted media. Few
spooks and mandarins have much time for the strange, Messianic Blair,
but they will strive to protect him in order to protect themselves and
to ensure that their version of Lord Curzon's "great game" (ie,
imperialism), continues unopposed.

It is a game exemplified by the arms fair that opened in London on 9
September, hosted by a government and an arms industry that are
together the world's second-biggest merchant of death, selling to the
usual tyrants and state killers. Their ruthlessness was expressed when
the same fair last convened in 2001, and 11 September happened. Public
events, such as the TUC conference, were abandoned out of respect for
the victims in New York and Washington. The arms fair was told to keep
going.

"The kaleidoscope has been shaken," Blair said in the wake of 11
September. "The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again.
Before they do, let us re-order this world around us." Whoever wrote
that inanity might have left Downing Street now; but Blair tells us
constantly that he believes what he says, and perhaps he does. Several
of the defendants at Nuremberg offered the same plea, and so have
other state murderers at The Hague. Like them, Blair should have his
day in court.