"It is even more disgusting to see those Arabs/Muslims ignoring all the facts and many no doubt driven by personal ambitions have adopted the line that US intervention in Iraq was for humanitarian reasons. Those people are either in the new Iraqi government or in distant lands. They should try and convince the relatives of the victims of the recent war if they are really convinced of their claims."
by Yamin Zakaria (Saturday July 17 2004)
Blair said "I accept full personal responsibility ... for any errors that were made." So, will he resurrect the dead Iraqis, restore the infrastructure, pay war reparations and return all the money that has gone ‘missing’ from the oil revenues? It is laughable to suggest that the resignation or sacking of some of the technocrats will be an adequate answer for the crimes. The internal flaws of intelligence are simply irrelevant to the Arab/Islamic world. When a nation commits crimes against other nations it is simply liable.
All these self-investigations and blaming the technocrats for providing poor intelligence is simply a charade to restore some form of credibility. The real accounting should be done by the victims in Iraq but the world is not governed by just principles except that of “might is right”. It is not just Saddam but Blair and Bush should also be on trial for war crimes and genocide. Which is unthinkable just like it would have been unthinkable for the white slave traders to face prosecution for torturing and kidnapping their black subjects from Africa.
No one has yet asked why the intelligence department in the US and in the UK simultaneously made the same error at the same time by providing faulty information? Sane people usually have a motive, so what was theirs? If it was a monumental coincidence and they both erred but errors are the exception not the norm. Hence, errors may have been confined to the odd report but not a general failure as the investigation by Lord Butler showed.
The fig leaf of National Security is used to prevent answers to such questions from emerging. This is a most convenient pretext to hide the real motives. Furthermore, it is an insult to ones intelligence to imply that the decision to launch the war was based on the basis of the intelligence provided. On the contrary it was used to support the premeditated crime against Iraq! As countless number of reports from numerous places including the damming evidence from Richard Clarke, one of Bush’s security advisor clearly showed that the decision to attack Iraq was already decided by Washington.
Action is always preceded by a motivation. The motivation is the final product of the normal thought process synchronised with the basic human desires. The only exceptional case is if the individual is a mentally deranged person lacking the basic mental capacity.
The motive behind the action is always disputed by the criminal who tries to conceal or distort it. Once caught red-handed it becomes difficult to provide a plausible explanation for the crimes and it only becomes embarrassing, assuming the individuals has any sense of honour or integrity.
So, the only recourse left for the criminals is to minimise the liability by claiming that they had committed an error on the basis of being mislead by others and making false assumptions. Which is exactly how the Blair and the Bush regime are being projected as their respective intelligence services are blamed for providing poor intelligence data.
Note, even if all the intelligence were true, the threat was merely assessed on the basis of Iraq’s possession of the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). There was clearly no visible indication that Iraq was preparing to mount an attack against anyone. Iraq’s neighbours who were previously its victim certainly did not believe a war was warranted! Furthermore, the threats have to be assessed in the context of examining the balance of military power. Like Goliath and David, the US clearly exceeds Iraq’s military capability by many folds in quantitative and qualitative terms. Collin Powell in fact boasted that Iraq lacked capability even in conventional weapons prior to 9/11 in support of the US-led containment policy towards Iraq from 1991.
In addition, let us not forget what the UN inspectors found just prior to the war. M. ElBaradi clearly certified that Iraq was not developing any Nuclear weapons. In the words of Scott Ritter, the former UN inspector, “qualitative certification” was more or less completed as there were no visible signs of any active WMDs production taking place. These weapons cannot be hidden so easily; Nuclear weapons for example are clearly detectable from satellite pictures due to the radiation and needs a large infrastructure to develop it. Ironically, the figures clearly show that it is the Iraqis who have paid a price from the radiation emitted by the use of Depleted Uranium based weapons. A material used in the production of Nuclear weapons.
However, the quantitative analysis could not be technically certified as every nut and bolt could not be accounted for, particularly pertaining to Biological and Chemical weapons materials supplied in the 1980s. Which had passed its shelf-life anyway and most experts doubted it could be used for producing weapons, hence this technical ‘failure’ in quantitative terms could not be construed as a genuine threat: if peace was the real aim!
So, the intention of disarming Iraq of WMDs from the onset was disingenuous thus many around the world voiced their opposition. All the mass media bias and the constant spin doctoring could not mask what many individuals saw by applying basic common sense. As they say to conceal the truth one needs to produce heaps of lies! Thus there was the 45-minute threat, the Niger connection and the plagiarised dossier that was sexed-up. Blair’s chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, asked for a redraft of it because it did "nothing to demonstrate a threat, let alone an imminent threat from Saddam".
The economic sanctions that killed half a million innocent Iraqi children according to the reports compiled by the UN agencies was a price worth paying according to the former US Secretary Madeline Albright. Even though Saddam was an unelected dictator but his innocent subjects en masse could be punished for his crimes. Perhaps the doctrine of the original sin, where the humanity continues to pay a price for the sin committed by Adam has influenced such twisted morality! A recent TV documentary (Paying The Price) by John Pillger showed that British and American planes were having pot shots at Iraqis using the self-styled no-fly zone. A vivid example was that of a desolate farm bombed killing families and even the heard of sheep grazing did not escape their wrath!
Therefore, by greater reasoning, a democratic nation should be punished for the wrong doings of its elected leader. Their civilians innocent or guilty could also be targeted or simply be ignored as collateral damages since democratic nations like the US and UK have behaved in this manner. Lets not forget those Iraqis in leadership now apparently provided a good deal of the intelligence and encouragement to the US for attacking Iraq. Yet, they are now suitable to turn the country into a democracy instead of facing the firing squad for their treachery.
Actions of a similar nature can have different motives. A clear example is the Western mass media constantly ranting about the alleged atrocities committed by Saddam, another after thought after the WMD failure. Note the strange appearance of such reports after fifteen years. In any case, true or false, the US motive for stating such thing is not for the love of the Iraqi people but to silence the war critics. Its culture, history and now driven by Capitalist forces does not exactly support its claim of compassion as being a cause for waging this war, particularly bearing in mind its track record of dealing with the non Anglo-Saxon world. The Japanese provided a good testing grounds for the new Atomic bombs, Vietnam for the chemical weapons, Iraq for the new generation of smart weapons and the list! is a very long one.
The numerous pictures, videos, independent reports from the likes of Amnesty International and eye-witness accounts clearly showed the perverted brutality of the US soldiers towards the Iraqi civilian population. Thus, it is not the love of the Iraqi people but the Iraqi oil that has led the US and other vulture like nations to aid her in this imperial conquest to gain a slice of the war booty.
It is even more disgusting to see those Arabs/Muslims ignoring all the facts and many no doubt driven by personal ambitions have adopted the line that US intervention in Iraq was for humanitarian reasons. Those people are either in the new Iraqi government or in distant lands. They should try and convince the relatives of the victims of the recent war if they are really convinced of their claims.
One can also predict the motives from the principles that one holds. The US soldiers have been brought up in a diet of imperialist racist culture, porn, violence and now fuelled by the mass media, which portrays anything Arab/Muslim with disdain. How is that these same people can show any thing other than what was exhibited in Fallujah, Najaf and Abu-Ghraib? M. Moore’s documentary “Fahrenheit 911” showed new footage of US soldiers abusing dead Iraqi corpses and going into battle hyped up by their favourite Music CD encouraging the burning and killing of their intended victims. Actions reflect ones character, values and principles, which exposes their inner motivations no matter how hard one tries to conceal it.
The writer is a Graduate in Chemistry from London University and Technical Director. He contributed this article to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from the United Kingdom.
Shots to the Heart of Iraq Innocent civilians, including people who are considered vital to building democracy, are increasingly being killed by U.S. troops. By Richard C. Paddock Times Staff Writer
July 25, 2005
BAGHDAD — Three men in an unmarked sedan pulled up near the headquarters of the national police major crimes unit. The two passengers, wearing traditional Arab dishdasha gowns, stepped from the car.
At the same moment, a U.S. military convoy emerged from an underpass. Apparently believing the men were staging an ambush, the Americans fired, killing one passenger and wounding the other. The sedan's driver was hit in the head by two bullet fragments.
The soldiers drove on without stopping.
This kind of shooting is far from rare in Baghdad, but the driver of the car was no ordinary casualty. He was Iraqi police Brig. Gen. Majeed Farraji, chief of the major crimes unit. His passengers were unarmed hitchhikers whom he was dropping off on his way to work.
"The reason they shot us is just because the Americans are reckless," the general said from his hospital bed hours after the July 6 shooting, his head wrapped in a white bandage. "Nobody punishes them or blames them."
Angered by the growing number of unarmed civilians killed by American troops in recent weeks, the Iraqi government criticized the shootings and called on U.S. troops to exercise greater care.
U.S. officials have repeatedly declined requests to disclose the number of civilians killed in such incidents. Police in Baghdad say they have received reports that U.S. forces killed 33 unarmed civilians and injured 45 in the capital between May 1 and July 12 — an average of nearly one fatality every two days. This does not include incidents that occurred elsewhere in the country or were not reported to the police.
The continued shooting of civilians is fueling a growing dislike of the United States and undermining efforts to convince the public that American soldiers are here to help. The victims have included doctors, journalists, a professor — the kind of people the U.S. is counting on to help build an open and democratic society.
"Of course the shootings will increase support for the opposition," said Farraji, 49, who was named a police general with U.S. approval. "The hatred of the Americans has increased. I myself hate them."
Among the biggest threats U.S. forces face are suicide attacks. Soldiers are exposed as they stand watch at checkpoints or ride on patrol in the turrets of their Humvees. The willingness of the assailants to die makes the attacks difficult to guard against. By their nature, the bombings erode the troops' trust of the public; every civilian becomes suspect.
U.S. military officials say the troops must protect themselves by shooting the driver of any suspicious vehicle before it reaches them.
Heavily armed private security contractors, who number in the tens of thousands, also are authorized by the U.S. government to use deadly force to protect themselves.
One contractor who works for the U.S. government and saw a colleague killed in a suicide bombing said it was better to shoot an innocent person than to risk being killed.
"I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by six," said the contractor, who insisted that he not be identified by name because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
The U.S. military says it investigates all shootings by American personnel that result in death. But U.S. Brig. Gen. Don Alston, spokesman for the multinational force in Iraq, said he was unaware of any soldier disciplined for shooting a civilian at a checkpoint or in traffic. Findings are seldom made public.
A senior U.S. military official in Baghdad, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said "making no new enemies" was one of the military's priorities. At the same time, he said, "it's still a combat zone. There are going to be times when what the soldier needs to do and what the civilian feels he should be able to do come into conflict."
On June 27, the day he turned 49, Salah Jmor arrived in Baghdad to visit his family.
His father, Abdul-Rihman Jmor, is the chief of a Kurdish clan that numbers more than 20,000. Salah had left Iraq 25 years ago for Switzerland, where he earned a doctorate in international relations and eventually became a Swiss citizen.
For a decade, he represented Iraqi Kurds at the United Nations Office at Geneva. In 1988, he helped call the world's attention to Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons on Kurds in the northern Iraqi town of Halabja and the massacre of at least 100,000 Kurds in what is known as the Anfal campaign.
After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Salah Jmor was offered a post in the new Iraqi government. But he turned it down, preferring to remain in Geneva, where he was an associate professor at the Center for International and Comparative Programs of Kent State University of Ohio.
The morning after he arrived in Baghdad, he decided to go with his younger brother, architect Abdul-Jabbar Jmor, to his office. Abdul-Jabbar, 38, drove his Opel hatchback down the eight-lane Mohammed Qasim highway through central Baghdad. It was 9:30 a.m. and many vehicles were on the road.
The Opel hatchback is a model favored by insurgents.
The brothers were in the fast lane as a U.S. military convoy of three Humvees was entering the highway from the Gailani onramp. Neither of them saw the soldiers, Abdul-Jabbar said.
Abruptly, Salah slumped over into his brother's lap. Abdul-Jabbar asked what was wrong and then saw blood pouring from Salah's head. There was a single bullet hole in the windshield.
He saw the convoy moving ahead as he pulled over to the side of the road. He said he had seen no signal to slow down and heard no warning shot.
The soldiers turned around and came back a few minutes later. One said he was sorry, Abdul-Jabbar said. Together they waited more than an hour for an ambulance to arrive.
"I asked them, 'Why didn't you shoot me? I am the driver,' " Abdul-Jabbar recalled. "But they didn't answer me."
Abdul-Jabbar said he and his family had supported the U.S. troops when they first invaded Iraq, but no longer.
"This kind of incident makes people hate the Americans more and more," he said. "They don't care about the lives of the people. Each day they make new enemies."
Switzerland has requested an explanation of Jmor's killing. In Washington, the State Department said the United States had sent its condolences to the Swiss government and Jmor's family and that the Pentagon had begun an investigation. In Baghdad, Abdul-Jabbar said the family had met with the Swiss ambassador but had received no expression of condolences from the U.S. government. No U.S. investigator has contacted the family, he added.
There is a strong tradition of revenge in Iraq's tribal culture. The killing of such a prominent clan member could have triggered a bloodbath that would claim 200 lives, said the patriarch, Abdul-Rihman. But the Jmors, a well-educated family of doctors and engineers, say they want the judicial process to hold Salah's killer accountable.
"People say if they kill my brother, I have to kill one of them," Abdul-Jabbar said. "But I believe in justice. I can't just go kill them. The United States says it is the leader of justice in the world. Let us see that."
In Iraq, the U.S. military has redefined the rules of the road.
Military checkpoints — elaborate affairs with mazes of concrete barriers, razor wire and snipers' nests — have been set up at intersections all over Baghdad. Signs are posted in English and Arabic saying "Deadly Force Authorized." Cars that approach too quickly risk being fired upon by troops who shoot to kill.
At times, troops set up temporary checkpoints during raids or other military operations. These can be even more dangerous for civilians because they can appear on city streets without warning.
Military convoys, usually made up of three Humvees, patrol the streets. In each vehicle, a gunner stands with his upper body partially exposed and ready to operate a machine gun mounted on the roof. For troops, it is among the most hazardous places to be in Iraq.
The military expects all vehicles to stay at least 100 yards from a convoy. When cars come too close, troops signal them to move back, sometimes by waving a little stop sign and sometimes by holding up a clenched fist.
Some Iraqis say the fist can be easy to miss. It also can be confusing for motorists in Iraq, where the normal signal for stop is an upraised open hand, as it is in the United States.
On the highway, traffic normally bunches up well behind the American Hummers. But keeping the required distance from a convoy can be difficult when the military vehicles unexpectedly change course or merge onto a highway.
The U.S. rules of engagement call for "escalation of force" when a vehicle comes too close. Soldiers are trained to give hand and arm signals first, then fire warning shots and ultimately shoot to kill, the senior U.S. official said.
"Nothing in the rules of engagement takes away the right of self-defense for him and his buddies if the soldier feels threatened," he said. More than 1,770 U.S. troops have died in the Iraq theater since the March 2003 invasion.
Despite the rising number of civilian deaths, the official said escalation-of-force incidents had fallen by half in the past four months. He declined to provide specific figures.
According to one European diplomat, the American military's emphasis on protecting its troops has made U.S. soldiers more likely to kill and injure civilians than are other members of the coalition, such as the British, who are stationed in southern Iraq.
"The U.S. has force protection as their No. 1 priority," said the diplomat, who asked not to be identified because his remarks did not have his government's prior approval.
"The British have it as a priority, but not by any stretch the absolute priority. I think that makes the U.S. soldiers more jumpy."
Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of the transitional National Assembly, said he personally knew three people, including Salah Jmor, who had been shot and killed by U.S. troops during traffic incidents. Of the other two, one was an athlete, the other a doctor who had been called to her hospital to handle an emergency.
"I understand American soldiers are nervous. It's very dangerous," said Othman, who was a member of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council that helped run Iraq after the invasion. "But the killings are undermining support for the U.S. government. It has helped people who call themselves the opposition. It has helped terrorism."
A recent case highlighted by the Iraqi government in its criticism of the U.S. was the June 24 killing of Yasser Salihee, 30, an Iraqi special correspondent for Knight-Ridder newspapers. Salihee, a physician, had taken a rare day off and planned to take his wife and daughter swimming. He went to get gasoline and was returning home at midmorning. By then, U.S. troops were conducting a military operation in his neighborhood. It appears he did not see them until it was too late.
The route he chose was not blocked off and there was no sign warning motorists to halt, witnesses say. As he neared the scene of the military operation, a U.S. Army sniper fired at his car. One bullet hit a tire. The other hit Salihee in the forehead. That bullet also severed fingers on his right hand, indicating he was holding up at least one of his hands at the time he was killed. U.S. officials are investigating the shooting.
Salihee's widow, Raghad al Wazzan, said she accepted the American soldiers' presence when they first arrived in Iraq because "they came and liberated us." She sometimes helped them at the hospital where she works as a doctor. But not anymore.
"Now, after they killed my husband, I hate them," she said. "I want to blow them all up."
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
