15 July 2007
Dear Robert Tait,
In Thursday's article 'Iran's Jews reject cash offer to move to Israel' you state: "Mr Ahmadinejad had earlier said that Israel should be "wiped off the map"."
Why do you choose to perpetuate this discredited lie? Discredited by your own colleague, Jonathan Steele in your own newspaper, The Guardian. Discredited by Prof. Juan Cole at the University of Michigan.
In short, this type of loose use of dubious translations by US corporate news agencies only serve, as your colleague Jonathan Steele stated, "to strengthen western hawks". Is that your intention? Are you in favour of a war of agression on Iran? Or was it pure laziness? Could you please provide some kind of explanation? At very least, why was no balancing statement from the Iranian authorities sought? If the subject had been the UK, the US or Israel I can guarantee you that there would have been some sort of balancing statement.
I attach the relevant links for your perusal, as you really need to do your homework before making these kinds of irresponsible statements. I am also copying this letter to the Guardian Reader's Editor, Jonathan Steele and Prof. Juan Cole.
Ordinary citizens are beginning to get a little fed up with the constant media demonisation of Iran and its leaders so reminiscent of Operation Mass Appeal.
Yours Sincerely
Links:
Lost in translation: Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks.
Juan Cole: "As most of my readers know, Ahmadinejad did not use that phrase in Persian. He quoted an old saying of Ayatollah Khomeini calling for 'this occupation regime over Jerusalem" to "vanish from the page of time.' Calling for a regime to vanish is not the same as calling for people to be killed. Ahmadinejad has not to my knowledge called for anyone to be killed."
Bill Scher: The Importance of Cole v. Hitchens
"Wiped Off The Map" - The Rumor of the Century
Caught Red-Handed: Media Backtracks on Iran's 'Threat'
Iranian denials:
Ahmadinejad misunderstood, says Iran
Iran denies wanting to "wipe Israel off the map"
Iran: 'We Won't Use Force'
Iranian FM: It isn't possible to remove a country from the map
"if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or we they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is. I have to correct, and I did so." Iran's representative to the IAEA, Ali Ashgar Soltanieh CNN, 02 April 2006
Reply from Tait dated 15 July 2007:
In fact the original translation was provided by AFP, which is a French organisation, not a corporate American news agency. Your email implies orattributes motivations on my part which are beneath contempt and which Iwill not dignify with a response.
However, in short I will saying the following: the commmonly accepted translation no more or less implies the mass killing of people than the words spoken in Farsi; Mr Ahmadinejad is not an evil man but if he is"demonised", it is not by the media, but by his own voracious appetite forintemperate statements; this is a sterile and meaningless debate on semantics perpetuated by people with too much time on their hands.
Mr Ahmadinejad's exact words in Farsi: "As the Imam (Khomeini) said, theZionist occupier should be erased from the pages of history.";This has been commonly translated as saying Israel should be wiped off themap. No suprise there. It's a distinction without a difference. You can argue that this can be achieved either through a political process or annihilation and that the president meant the former. But that is a different issue. (However, this argument is weakened by some of his other statements: Example, "the Zionist regime is a rotten tree that could bedestroyed in a single storm").
Moreover, attributing the words to Khomeini is being misrepresented to suggest that Mr Ahmadinejad personally disagreed with it - which is clearly not the case. Rather, he was endorsing them.
My wife is Iranian. She assures me there is no difference in sense or spirit between the literal Farsi words and the commonly-stated English translation. She - along with other Iranians I have talked to - is adamant that the translation is acceptable, accurate and fair. As evidence,President Ahmadinejad has never quibbled with it. Indeed he is proud of it.
In future stories straying onto this area, I am serously considering using the original form of words, followed by the commonly-used translation in order to pre-empt complaints such as yours, which I believe are spurious and as much loaded with value judgements and political motivations that you are so content to attribute to others. The aim here, I think, is to trigger some sort of diversionary debate suggesting Mr Ahmadinejad has been systematically misrepresented by the western media. He hasn't - at least not by the Guardian. He believes passionately that Israel should cease to exist, by whatever means, and that the holocaust did not happen. He has stated these positions unambiguously on numerous occasions and in many different forums. I make no comment on the moral or intellectual merits of these convictions. I simply state, with the confidence borne of having been based in Iran for the past two-and-a-half years, that this is what he believes.
Robert Tait
Further reply from Robert Tait dated 16 July 2007:
Maybe you should have read this before you got on your high horse. And don't go looking for a mis-translation. I have the government-provided transcript.
Ahmadinejad speech inflames tension By Angus McDowall in Tehran Published: 15 April 2006
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a new attack on Israel yesterday, calling it "a rotten, dried tree" that could be knocked over by"a single storm".
The inflammatory remarks, similar to those which provoked a barrage of international condemnation in October, are likely to increase tensions after Iran's announcement on Tuesday that it had enriched uranium indefiance of UN Security Council demands.
"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading towards annihilation," MrAhmadinejad told a Tehran conference on the Palestinian intifada, attended by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well asrepresentatives from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah."The existence of the Zionist regime is tantamount to an imposition of an unending and unrestrained threat so that none of the nations and Islamic countries of the region and beyond can feel secure from its threat," headded.
Earlier in the day Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, head of the clerical watchdog,Guardian Council, had told a Friday prayer meeting in Tehran that the US was "a decaying power" which Iran should not fear. Sermons are often usedby leading regime figures as a platform for public statements, often accompanied by calls of "death to America".
Ayatollah Jannati was responding to increased pressure from Washington on the country's nuclear programme. On Thursday, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran would face "consequences" for defying a Security Council demand that it halt all enrichment activity.
"One thing the Security Council has, and the International Atomic Energy Agency does not have, is the ability to compel, through Chapter Seven resolutions, member states of the UN to obey the will of the international system," she said. Under Chapter Seven the UN can impose sanctions or even military action.
A flying visit to Tehran on Thursday by the IAEA director general Mohammed El Baradei failed to secure a breakthrough in the stand-off, but the Egyptian said he was still hopeful and that both sides were committed to maintaining dialogue. Mr ElBaradei is due to report to the IAEA by the endo f April.
Next week Security Council members will discuss Iran at a meeting in Moscow. Russia was aggrieved by Iran's unexpected breakthrough on uranium enrichment because it undermined its own attempts at a compromise proposal. But it is still uncertain if Moscow will support sanctions.
China, which has also been cool on the use of sanctions against Iran, yesterday said it would send a delegation to Tehran to discuss the nuclear programme and stressed the importance of dialogue in defusing the crisis.
"We hope all parties will adopt a cool-headed approach," said the Vice Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi. "Dialogue is better than confrontation."
UPDATE 04 AUGUST 2007:
My reply to Tait, dated 17 July 2007, which he has not yet answered (as at 04 August 2007) :
Dear Robert Tait,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to me. Although you are unlikely to believe me, I do apreciate it as I realise that you must be very busy.
You state that "the original translation was provided by AFP, which is a French organisation, not a corporate American news agency". .
I accept I should have said "Western corporate news agencies" instead of "US corporate news agencies" - a relatively minor point however.
But how then do you explain the NYT claims that they translated the speech themselves? They state specifically that it was their own Nazila Fathi who had translated the article:
"Published: October 30, 2005
This is a translation, by Nazila Fathi in The New York Times Tehran bureau, of the October 26 speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to an Islamic Student Associations conference on "The World Without Zionism." The conference was held in Tehran, at the Interior Ministry. The text of the speech was posted online, in Persian, by the Iranian Student News Agency ( http://www.isnagency.com/). Bracketed explanatory material is from Ms. Fathi."
Also, both the BBC and Reuters claim that they translated the speech themselves. In fact, I emailed Reuters to ask them where they had got the translation and Paul Holmes, Editor, Political & General News, wrote back to me saying:
"Reuters has experienced, bilingual staff in our Tehran newsroom and we translated the quote ourselves from the IRNA dispatch in Farsi. We do not rely on IRNA dispatches in English since they arrive with a delay and are frequently shorter than the original Farsi dispatch. The IRNA English service also often paraphrases quotes. " (Paul Holmes, e-mail to David Sketchley 14 June 2006 - I will gladly forward you a copy if you wish).
The original Reuters report entitled "Iran president wants Israel "wiped off the map", was filed by Parisa Hafezi at 22:07 on 26 October 2005.
The BBC is on record as saying that the BBC Monitoring Service translated the speech themselves: "The comment was picked up and translated from the Farsi by the BBC's Monitoring Service."
You state "this is a sterile and meaningless debate on semantics perpetuated by people with too much time on their hands". The exact oposite is true as your colleague Jonathan Steele wrote in his Guardian piece (question: does Mr Steele have too much time on his hands? And Prof. Cole?):
"Does this quibbling over phrases matter? Yes, of course. Within days of the Ahmadinejad speech the then Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, was calling for Iran to be expelled from the United Nations. Other foreign leaders have quoted the map phrase. The United States is piling pressure on its allies to be tough with Iran.
Let me give the last word to Juan Cole, with whom I began. "I am entirely aware that Ahmadinejad is hostile to Israel. The question is whether his intentions and capabilities would lead to a military attack, and whether therefore pre-emptive warfare is prescribed. I am saying no, and the boring philology is part of the reason for the no."
You yourself have admitted to other readers: "I think the core of the problem here is the use to which the "off the map" phrase is being put by the right-wing in the US and Israel. For them it has become a sort of negative totem underpinning a specific political agenda. As such, it is becoming a problem for reporters on the ground like me." (E-mail to Tim Holmes).
By your own admission, you are aware that the right-wing in the US and Israel are using this mistranslation as a casus belli for at best regime change, at worst another war of aggression in Iran, plainly interfering in a sovereign state's internal affairs, yet you call this a sterile, meaningless debate. It is exactly this use which I think needs to be challenged, and which irresponsible use of the phrase only strengthens. It has already led to calls for Iran's expulsion from the UN, and on June 20, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on the UN to charge Ahmadinejad with the crime of inciting genocide "because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel". It is also being used to support a unilateral attack on Iran.
You state "Mr Ahmadinejad's exact words in Farsi: "As the Imam (Khomeini) said, the Zionist occupier should be erased from the pages of history.";" Exact words? Nonsense. Could you kindly point out where the word "Zionist" appears in the original? Where is your translation of the word "rezhim-e" as in "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
[Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).]
You state: "attributing the words to Khomeini is being misrepresented to suggest that Mr Ahmadinejad personally disagreed with it - which is clearly not the case. Rather, he was endorsing them" This is again nonsense and a straw man. No one, as far as I am aware, has ever suggested this apart from yourself. People have stated that Ahmadinejad was quoting Khomeini merely to put the sentence into context. And it is this taking the phrase out of context which is one of the main problems.
Arash Norouzi explains the context which you ignore:
"While the false "wiped off the map" extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the "map" comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a "world without Zionism". One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.
In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.
Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:
(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch
(2) The Soviet Union
(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein
In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling that individual regime's demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise". This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war."
Consequently there are no implications of mass killing at all. The crucial point is not the wipe away argument, but what is to be wiped away, the "regime". An example: Does the US recognise the " regime" in Cuba? No. Would it like the "regime" in Cuba to cease to exist? Of course. Does this mean the US wants to see Cuba " wiped off the map"? Of course not, although there is no doubt it would like to see Castro and his "regime" " wiped off the map"!
Both your colleague Jonathan Steele and Prof Cole have stated:
"The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favour Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out."
"Calling for a regime to vanish is not the same as calling for people to be killed. Ahmadinejad has not to my knowledge called for anyone to be killed. If Ahmadinejad is a genocidal maniac who just wants to kill Jews, then why are there 20,000 Jews in Iran with a member of parliament in Tehran? Couldn't he start at home if that was what he is really about? "
I believe that in fact you know this as you wrote back in December: "Mr Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and has said its inhabitants should go to Europe or Alaska", even though you state to me "He believes passionately that Israel should cease to exist, by whatever means"
You are not being consistent. Why should he suggest the inhabitants move to Europe if he wanted to annihilate them?
Prof Juan Cole sums it all up thus: "He is hostile to Israel. He'd like to see regime change (apparently via a referendum on the shape of the government ruling over geographical Palestine, in which all "original" residents of any religion would get a vote). Calling for a referendum on the dissolution of a government is not calling for genocide. Ahmadinejad also says he has no objection to a Jewish state in and of itself, he just thinks it should be located in, say, German territory set apart for the purpose, rather than displacing Palestinians from their homes. He may be saying unrealistic things; he is not advocating killing Jews qua Jews, or genocide...(Ahmadinejad) compares his call for an end to the Zionist regime ruling over Jerusalem to the Western call for the dissolution of the old Soviet Union. Was Ronald Reagan inciting to genocide when he called for an end of the Soviet regime?"
Finally, you state "The aim here, I think, is to trigger some sort of diversionary debate suggesting Mr Ahmadinejad has been systematically misrepresented by the western media."
Yet the historical record shows that misrepresenting our 'enemies' leaders is just one part of a process designed to 'prepare public opinion' for war. Another part is falsifying a WMD crisis. Please watch the video linked to here:
And an irresponsible media which repeats this spin without challenge or scrutiny contributes to the misrepresentation and thus to the war.
You quoted an article in your second e-mail to me "Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a new attack on Israel yesterday, calling it "a rotten, dried tree" that could be knocked over by "a single storm".
Again, taken alone, out of context you can make any statement sound threatening, thus misrepresenting the essence of what was being said. However taken in context we see that, in fact, it is quite the opposite (take note of the last sentence):
""Peace and harmonious relations can only be based on towhid, human dignity and justice. Oppressions and aggressions are not compatible with human dignity and justice.
The Zionist regime is a clear example of oppression and its fundamental nature represents actual and permanent threat. The very purpose behind the establishment of this regime was to put in place a permanent threat in the region. Therefore, the continued existence of this regime is premised on the persistence of this threat. It will have no existence without threat and aggression and it is not inherently capable to survive in an atmosphere of peace and tranquility. Even if it manages to remain in one square meter of the Palestinian land, it will continue to be a threat to the region.
"Take a good look at the bullying powers of the world. When it comes to supporting the Zionist regime, they recognize no red line and boundaries for justice, human rights and human dignity. The usurper Zionist regime is the meeting point of the injustices and brutalities of the corrupt bullying powers.
"Only a government chosen by the people can resolve the problem of Palestine and the people of the region. The right to govern belongs to all people of Palestine and they must decide the governing model of their choice and elect their own officials.
"For this purpose, there must be an opportunity for all genuine Palestinians; be they Muslims, Christians, or Jews, residing in Palestine or in Diaspora, to participate in a referendum to decide the political system of their choice and elect their leaders.
"In other words, the only rational way which is compatible with the generally recognized international norms is holding of a referendum for all genuine Palestinians. " The supporters of the Zionist regime prefer to remain silent in face of this reasonable proposition. But I tell them that regardless of what they desire, the Zionist regime is falling apart .
"The young tree of resistance in Palestine is blooming and blooms of faith and desire for freedom are flowering. "The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with a storm .
Today even the inhabitants of the occupied Palestine, especially the African and Asian settlers are living in ain, poverty and discontent. "I tell the governments supporting the Zionist regime to open the doors to the prisons in the occupied Palestine and allow the refugees and displaced Palestinians to return to their homeland and summon the usurpers of the Palestinian lands.
"If you still consider yourself indebted to them, then find a proper place for them in your own territories, if not call upon them to return to their countries of origin to live like their forefathers."
My only concern is that another illegal war is on the cards, I am doing what little I can to prevent it.
Yours Sincerely
15 July 2007
17 June 2007
The Palestinian Contras - The US war on Middle Eastern democracy
Anyone reading the majority of international press reports on what is happening in Palestine could be forgiven for thinking Hamas had instigated a coup d'état against the Al-Fatah government of Abbas.
However, in the middle of so much spin and counterspin, Israeli and US propaganda, its important to take a step back and look with a clear head at exactly what has happened over the last few months.
Peter Beaumont writes in today's Observer:
"After years of being hectored to hold elections and adopt democratic norms, a year and a half ago Palestinians duly elected Hamas with 44 per cent of the vote, ahead of Fatah on 41 per cent...It was a good election, as former US President Jimmy Carter observed at the time, a free, fair and accurate expression of the desires of a Palestinian people sick of the uselessness, corruption and gangsterism of Fatah. The problem was that it didn't quite reflect the wishes of Washington and the international community...there was no attempt at engagement, in the way that Fatah, whose militants have perpetrated scores of attacks, has been engaged with for years."
So what did Abbas, Washington and the international community do?
They conspired with Israel and the intelligence services of several Arab states to overthrow and weaken Hamas, while imposing a collective punishment on the Palestinian people for having the nerve to vote the 'wrong' way. They funnelled "weapons and tens of millions of dollars to unaccountable militias, particularly the "Preventive Security Force" headed by Gaza 'warlord' Mohammad Dahlan, a close ally of Israel and the United States and the Abbas-affiliated "Presidential Guard."
Ali Abunimah, @ The Electronic Intifada, :
"US Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams -- who helped divert money to the Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s and who was convicted of lying to Congress in the Iran-Contra scandal -- has spearheaded the effort to set up these Palestinian Contras. (This background has been extensively detailed in a number of articles published by The Electronic Intifada in recent months). Abrams is also notorious for helping to cover up massacres and atrocities committed against civilians in El Salvador by US-backed militias and death squads."
These anti-democratic actions have been severely criticised by the UN's Middle East envoy, Álvaro de Soto, a Peruvian diplomat who worked for the UN for 25 years in El Salvador, Cyprus and Western Sahara:
"At the time, and indeed until the Mecca Agreement a year later, the US clearly pushed for a confrontation between Fatah and Hamas - so much so that, a week before Mecca, the US envoy declared twice in an envoys meeting in Washington how much "I like this violence" referring to the near-civil war that was erupting in Gaza in which civilians were being regularly killed and injured, because "it means that other Palestinians are resisting Hamas"."
He went further stating that the international boycott of the Palestinians, introduced after Hamas won elections last year, was "at best extremely short-sighted" and had "devastating consequences" for the Palestinian people.
He also confirmed that it was because of pressure from the United States that Abbas refused Hamas' initial invitation to form a "national unity government." De Soto details that Abbas advisers actively aided and abetted the Israeli-US-European Union aid cutoff and siege of the Palestinians under occupation, which led to massively increased poverty for millions of people. These advisors engaged with the United States in a "plot" to "bring about the untimely demise of the [Palestinian Authority] government led by Hamas," de Soto wrote.
This fact has been recognised by even the conservative UK Daily Telegraph "After the Islamists were elected last year, the world sought to isolate their government and strengthen the Fatah party losers." Anti-democratic.
Peter Beaumont asks some pertinent questions:
"Now, after the months of financial embargo of the Hamas-led government by the US and Europe, after the funding and propping up of Fatah's President Mahmoud Abbas, after the slow, crushing squeeze on Palestinian society that encouraged its social disintegration, what have we got? Virtual civil war in Gaza, the polarisation of Palestinian society, a government dissolved by decree, and a new Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, appointed with the explicit blessing of the US.
Let us remind ourselves of the democratic credentials of Fayyad, an intelligent and impressive economist, generally regarded as untouched by corruption. In any other circumstances he might be ideal. But in last year's elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council - the election Hamas won - Fayyad's list secured just 2.4 per cent of votes. Not exactly a popular guy to lead a society in collapse. That is not his only problem. Analysts of the Palestinian political scene don't rate Fayyad's lack of democratic credentials simply on his feeble showing in the elections.
They'll tell you he is largely unknown to most Palestinians; that he has no party machinery to support him; and that his running mate Hanan Ashrawi is unpopular with many Palestinians.
The reality is that the only people who are really behind Salam Fayyad are the European and US diplomats who have long sung his praises behind the scenes to any journalist prepared to listen. So yesterday President Bush and the other members of the Quartet got what they wanted. Abbas trooped dutifully in to see the US consul-general in Jerusalem with Mohammed Dahlan, the man widely credited with beginning the cycle of violence in Gaza, in tow. And when they emerged, the boycott of US monies to the Palestinian government had been lifted.
It is hard not to be cynical. Palestinian society was squeezed until it hurt - punished as a whole for voting for the wrong party. And when the inevitable explosion occurred last week, Abbas finally fired Hamas, as the US has been encouraging him to do amid his months of dithering.
So which was the real coup? Hamas's bloody attack on the violent gangsters allied to Fatah who have terrorised Gaza for a year? Or Abbas's unconstitutional moves yesterday with America's backing?"
Israeli-US propaganda, led by their corrupt puppet Abbas, has moved quickly and is trying to describe what is happening as a Hamas-led coup d'état which is being encourgaed by Iran and Syria.
"Sources in Ramallah said Saturday night that a plan being put together in Abbas' offices calls for continuing the steadfast struggle against what he calls Hamas' "military coup" in the Gaza Strip."
One of their most vociferous conduits for propaganda, the Sunday Telegraph, states today that:
"The exiled head of Palestinian intelligence in Gaza has told The Sunday Telegraph that the takeover by Hamas last week was carried out under orders from Iran, in preparation for a wider conflict this summer. Colonel Bahaa Balusha, the Fatah-loyal intelligence co-ordinator who fled in fear of his life, said his troops were out-gunned by Hamas forces carrying sophisticated artillery supplied to them by Islamist forces looking for a toe-hold on the borders of Israel.
"The situation in Gaza is very difficult. It is an ugly military coup done in an unorganised terrorist manner," he said, adding that international pressure had led to a three-way axis between Iran, Syria and Hamas. "They must instigate some kind of war in Gaza, and they prepared for this war, in terms of training, in Iran and Syria and Lebanon. They want to create a party against Israel, a party with Iran. Col Balusha, who has escaped several assassination attempts including one in which his three children were slaughtered on their way to school, said he warned Mr Abbas months ago that the armed wing of Hamas was working on "an Iranian agenda". This involved a wider conflict in the region, he said."
However, as the Guardian shows, there are other more realistic interpretations:
"The killing that would end with more than 100 dead and as many injured, started last Sunday like any other broken ceasefire in Gaza with accusations on both sides. It would end with an offer from Hamas to continue working with Abbas as usual. Which leaves what occurred last week as more like an episode from the Godfather films than a coup (albeit one by an elected government) - a violent settling of scores."
The Quartet and Israel have also moved quickly to back their puppet Abbas in his unconstitutional and undemocratic takeover of the Palestinian government, while Olmert has admitted that he will "work vigorously to take advantage" of the situation.
We also see that now the corrupt Israeli puppets along with the coward Dahlan have fled Gaza, we can expect to see more war crimes being committed by the Israelis:
"ISRAEL’s new defence minister Ehud Barak is planning an attack on Gaza within weeks to crush the Hamas militants who have seized power there. According to senior Israeli military sources, the plan calls for 20,000 troops to destroy much of Hamas’s military capability in days.
The raid would be triggered by Hamas rocket attacks against Israel or a resumption of suicide bombings...A source close to Barak said that Israel could not tolerate an aggressive “Hamastan” on its border and an attack seemed unavoidable. “The question is not if but how and when,” he said. "
How many innocent civilians will be massacred?
However, in the middle of so much spin and counterspin, Israeli and US propaganda, its important to take a step back and look with a clear head at exactly what has happened over the last few months.
Peter Beaumont writes in today's Observer:
"After years of being hectored to hold elections and adopt democratic norms, a year and a half ago Palestinians duly elected Hamas with 44 per cent of the vote, ahead of Fatah on 41 per cent...It was a good election, as former US President Jimmy Carter observed at the time, a free, fair and accurate expression of the desires of a Palestinian people sick of the uselessness, corruption and gangsterism of Fatah. The problem was that it didn't quite reflect the wishes of Washington and the international community...there was no attempt at engagement, in the way that Fatah, whose militants have perpetrated scores of attacks, has been engaged with for years."
So what did Abbas, Washington and the international community do?
They conspired with Israel and the intelligence services of several Arab states to overthrow and weaken Hamas, while imposing a collective punishment on the Palestinian people for having the nerve to vote the 'wrong' way. They funnelled "weapons and tens of millions of dollars to unaccountable militias, particularly the "Preventive Security Force" headed by Gaza 'warlord' Mohammad Dahlan, a close ally of Israel and the United States and the Abbas-affiliated "Presidential Guard."
Ali Abunimah, @ The Electronic Intifada, :
"US Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams -- who helped divert money to the Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s and who was convicted of lying to Congress in the Iran-Contra scandal -- has spearheaded the effort to set up these Palestinian Contras. (This background has been extensively detailed in a number of articles published by The Electronic Intifada in recent months). Abrams is also notorious for helping to cover up massacres and atrocities committed against civilians in El Salvador by US-backed militias and death squads."
These anti-democratic actions have been severely criticised by the UN's Middle East envoy, Álvaro de Soto, a Peruvian diplomat who worked for the UN for 25 years in El Salvador, Cyprus and Western Sahara:
"At the time, and indeed until the Mecca Agreement a year later, the US clearly pushed for a confrontation between Fatah and Hamas - so much so that, a week before Mecca, the US envoy declared twice in an envoys meeting in Washington how much "I like this violence" referring to the near-civil war that was erupting in Gaza in which civilians were being regularly killed and injured, because "it means that other Palestinians are resisting Hamas"."
He went further stating that the international boycott of the Palestinians, introduced after Hamas won elections last year, was "at best extremely short-sighted" and had "devastating consequences" for the Palestinian people.
He also confirmed that it was because of pressure from the United States that Abbas refused Hamas' initial invitation to form a "national unity government." De Soto details that Abbas advisers actively aided and abetted the Israeli-US-European Union aid cutoff and siege of the Palestinians under occupation, which led to massively increased poverty for millions of people. These advisors engaged with the United States in a "plot" to "bring about the untimely demise of the [Palestinian Authority] government led by Hamas," de Soto wrote.
This fact has been recognised by even the conservative UK Daily Telegraph "After the Islamists were elected last year, the world sought to isolate their government and strengthen the Fatah party losers." Anti-democratic.
Peter Beaumont asks some pertinent questions:
"Now, after the months of financial embargo of the Hamas-led government by the US and Europe, after the funding and propping up of Fatah's President Mahmoud Abbas, after the slow, crushing squeeze on Palestinian society that encouraged its social disintegration, what have we got? Virtual civil war in Gaza, the polarisation of Palestinian society, a government dissolved by decree, and a new Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, appointed with the explicit blessing of the US.
Let us remind ourselves of the democratic credentials of Fayyad, an intelligent and impressive economist, generally regarded as untouched by corruption. In any other circumstances he might be ideal. But in last year's elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council - the election Hamas won - Fayyad's list secured just 2.4 per cent of votes. Not exactly a popular guy to lead a society in collapse. That is not his only problem. Analysts of the Palestinian political scene don't rate Fayyad's lack of democratic credentials simply on his feeble showing in the elections.
They'll tell you he is largely unknown to most Palestinians; that he has no party machinery to support him; and that his running mate Hanan Ashrawi is unpopular with many Palestinians.
The reality is that the only people who are really behind Salam Fayyad are the European and US diplomats who have long sung his praises behind the scenes to any journalist prepared to listen. So yesterday President Bush and the other members of the Quartet got what they wanted. Abbas trooped dutifully in to see the US consul-general in Jerusalem with Mohammed Dahlan, the man widely credited with beginning the cycle of violence in Gaza, in tow. And when they emerged, the boycott of US monies to the Palestinian government had been lifted.
It is hard not to be cynical. Palestinian society was squeezed until it hurt - punished as a whole for voting for the wrong party. And when the inevitable explosion occurred last week, Abbas finally fired Hamas, as the US has been encouraging him to do amid his months of dithering.
So which was the real coup? Hamas's bloody attack on the violent gangsters allied to Fatah who have terrorised Gaza for a year? Or Abbas's unconstitutional moves yesterday with America's backing?"
Israeli-US propaganda, led by their corrupt puppet Abbas, has moved quickly and is trying to describe what is happening as a Hamas-led coup d'état which is being encourgaed by Iran and Syria.
"Sources in Ramallah said Saturday night that a plan being put together in Abbas' offices calls for continuing the steadfast struggle against what he calls Hamas' "military coup" in the Gaza Strip."
One of their most vociferous conduits for propaganda, the Sunday Telegraph, states today that:
"The exiled head of Palestinian intelligence in Gaza has told The Sunday Telegraph that the takeover by Hamas last week was carried out under orders from Iran, in preparation for a wider conflict this summer. Colonel Bahaa Balusha, the Fatah-loyal intelligence co-ordinator who fled in fear of his life, said his troops were out-gunned by Hamas forces carrying sophisticated artillery supplied to them by Islamist forces looking for a toe-hold on the borders of Israel.
"The situation in Gaza is very difficult. It is an ugly military coup done in an unorganised terrorist manner," he said, adding that international pressure had led to a three-way axis between Iran, Syria and Hamas. "They must instigate some kind of war in Gaza, and they prepared for this war, in terms of training, in Iran and Syria and Lebanon. They want to create a party against Israel, a party with Iran. Col Balusha, who has escaped several assassination attempts including one in which his three children were slaughtered on their way to school, said he warned Mr Abbas months ago that the armed wing of Hamas was working on "an Iranian agenda". This involved a wider conflict in the region, he said."
However, as the Guardian shows, there are other more realistic interpretations:
"The killing that would end with more than 100 dead and as many injured, started last Sunday like any other broken ceasefire in Gaza with accusations on both sides. It would end with an offer from Hamas to continue working with Abbas as usual. Which leaves what occurred last week as more like an episode from the Godfather films than a coup (albeit one by an elected government) - a violent settling of scores."
The Quartet and Israel have also moved quickly to back their puppet Abbas in his unconstitutional and undemocratic takeover of the Palestinian government, while Olmert has admitted that he will "work vigorously to take advantage" of the situation.
We also see that now the corrupt Israeli puppets along with the coward Dahlan have fled Gaza, we can expect to see more war crimes being committed by the Israelis:
"ISRAEL’s new defence minister Ehud Barak is planning an attack on Gaza within weeks to crush the Hamas militants who have seized power there. According to senior Israeli military sources, the plan calls for 20,000 troops to destroy much of Hamas’s military capability in days.
The raid would be triggered by Hamas rocket attacks against Israel or a resumption of suicide bombings...A source close to Barak said that Israel could not tolerate an aggressive “Hamastan” on its border and an attack seemed unavoidable. “The question is not if but how and when,” he said. "
How many innocent civilians will be massacred?
19 May 2007
The Art of Selling War
Directed by Josh Rushing, a veteran Marine Corps media spokesman, "SPIN: The Art of Selling War" is an investigative documentary that looks at the standard justification for going to war by the American administrations of past and present.
30 April 2007
12 April 2007
The Truth About Syria By Liz Cheney.
Cheney states: "On Dec. 12, 2005, the United Nations issued a report concluding that it was unlikely that Hariris assassination could have been carried out without Syrias knowledge" and "These murders are intended to terrorize Syrias opponents into silence."
Firstly, she prefers to ignore the fact that the lead investigator of the UN report was in fact seriously compromised and had to resign after it was fond that his two main witnesses had been bribed and blackmailed.
Secondly, she also prefers to ignore the 'other' 'cui bono' factor in the Hariri killing. Her statement that "These murders are intended to terrorize Syrias opponents into silence" could also be interpreted as who would gain if the blame was placed at Syrias door? Answer: the US and Israel. And we all know of the history of covert meddling in the affairs of other sovereign countries by the CIA and Mossad...their use of false flag terrorism to achieve their aims.
Thirdly, she completely ignores her own father's funding of 'al Qaeda-Tied Groups' in Lebanon!
Finally her parting comment "Conducting diplomacy with the regime in Damascus while they kill Lebanese democrats is not only irresponsible, it is shameful" is a cold excercise in supreme cynicism, considering Mr Bush's continuing diplomacy with Colombia while that country's intelligence service collaborated with paramilitary death squads to liquidate union activists - also democrats.
Firstly, she prefers to ignore the fact that the lead investigator of the UN report was in fact seriously compromised and had to resign after it was fond that his two main witnesses had been bribed and blackmailed.
Secondly, she also prefers to ignore the 'other' 'cui bono' factor in the Hariri killing. Her statement that "These murders are intended to terrorize Syrias opponents into silence" could also be interpreted as who would gain if the blame was placed at Syrias door? Answer: the US and Israel. And we all know of the history of covert meddling in the affairs of other sovereign countries by the CIA and Mossad...their use of false flag terrorism to achieve their aims.
Thirdly, she completely ignores her own father's funding of 'al Qaeda-Tied Groups' in Lebanon!
Finally her parting comment "Conducting diplomacy with the regime in Damascus while they kill Lebanese democrats is not only irresponsible, it is shameful" is a cold excercise in supreme cynicism, considering Mr Bush's continuing diplomacy with Colombia while that country's intelligence service collaborated with paramilitary death squads to liquidate union activists - also democrats.
Offical Complaint to the BBC
The coverage afforded by the BBC of Tony Blair's claims that roadside bombs in Iraq may have been provided by Iran is a conscious propaganda effort, in particular after the deaths of 4 British soldiers in Basra.
You are willing to give a proven liar unwarranted credibility, while ignoring the facts that contradict his 'views'. This is called bias.
1. Tony Blair has presented no proof, none at all.
2. No Iranians have been caught smuggling arms into Iraq.
3. The chief analyst of a private securty consulting firm presented evidence in Jane's Intelligence Review that Iraqi Shiites have manufactured both the components for "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) and the complete EFPs.
4. A US military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC recently stated: "There's no evidence that these are supplied by Iran. A lot of this is just technology that is leaked into an informal network. What works in one country gets known elsewhere."
5. Reuters reported just yesterday that according to the US military spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Scott Bleichwehl, troops "discovered a factory that produced “explosively formed penetrators” (EFPs)" in Diwaniya.
6. According to the Independent, we are now asked to believe that, while before the war Tony Blair claimed that Iraqis were technically advanced enough to produce long-range missiles and to be close to producing a nuclear device, now the Iraqis are too backward to produce an effective roadside bomb and must seek Iranian help.
7.In the same Reuters report "a Western explosives expert in Iraq said it appeared from photographs of the crater that the blast had been caused by a commercial landmine buried in the road, not by an EFP"
8. The Sunni insurgency in Iraq is deeply hostile to Iran.
With all the facts pointing in the opposite direction to Tony Blair's 'views', it does seem, at the very least surprising, that the BBC is willing to continue this charade and provide media cover for this individual's propagandistic lies and affording him overwhelming bias.
E-mailed 08 April 2007
Awaiting reply.
In spite of this complaint the BBC insists on reporting US propaganda:
Last Updated: Wednesday, 11 April 2007, 18:50 GMT 19:50 UK
US says Iran arming Sunni groups
BBC News
You are willing to give a proven liar unwarranted credibility, while ignoring the facts that contradict his 'views'. This is called bias.
1. Tony Blair has presented no proof, none at all.
2. No Iranians have been caught smuggling arms into Iraq.
3. The chief analyst of a private securty consulting firm presented evidence in Jane's Intelligence Review that Iraqi Shiites have manufactured both the components for "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) and the complete EFPs.
4. A US military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC recently stated: "There's no evidence that these are supplied by Iran. A lot of this is just technology that is leaked into an informal network. What works in one country gets known elsewhere."
5. Reuters reported just yesterday that according to the US military spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Scott Bleichwehl, troops "discovered a factory that produced “explosively formed penetrators” (EFPs)" in Diwaniya.
6. According to the Independent, we are now asked to believe that, while before the war Tony Blair claimed that Iraqis were technically advanced enough to produce long-range missiles and to be close to producing a nuclear device, now the Iraqis are too backward to produce an effective roadside bomb and must seek Iranian help.
7.In the same Reuters report "a Western explosives expert in Iraq said it appeared from photographs of the crater that the blast had been caused by a commercial landmine buried in the road, not by an EFP"
8. The Sunni insurgency in Iraq is deeply hostile to Iran.
With all the facts pointing in the opposite direction to Tony Blair's 'views', it does seem, at the very least surprising, that the BBC is willing to continue this charade and provide media cover for this individual's propagandistic lies and affording him overwhelming bias.
E-mailed 08 April 2007
Awaiting reply.
In spite of this complaint the BBC insists on reporting US propaganda:
Last Updated: Wednesday, 11 April 2007, 18:50 GMT 19:50 UK
US says Iran arming Sunni groups
BBC News
29 March 2007
Garton Ash - Government propagandist
Mr. Garton Ash appears to be Mr Blair's chief propagandist, Blair's very own Lord Haw Haw. In his latest demagogic missive he attempts to pressure Europe to help the British out of another fine mess they've gotten themselves into..
Why on earth should Europe help Britain, a criminal nation that launched an illegal and immoral war of aggression on Iraq and is seeking to do the same to Iran along with its American master?
The stench of the crime and corruption coming from Downing Street is insupportable. What is simply amazing is some people's (eg. Garton Ash) ability to believe pathological liars and war criminals like Blair, even when their lies have been proved in public. Either they are gullible and shouldn't be in the positions they are, or they are part of the propaganda effort in which case they are equally as criminal as our 'dear leader'.
Paul Reynolds has it exactly right on the BBC: "Britain and Iran are engaged in a propaganda battle over the 15 captured British sailors and marines" and both Paul Reynolds himself, the Guardian and Mr Garton Ash are at the forefront of British efforts.
Propaganda wars are played out in the media and we already know the servile attitude of the Guardian and the BBC towards this government. With the continued demonisation of Iran and its leaders over the last 12 months, this incident is exactly what the criminal warmongers in the UK were looking for.
In the famous Downing Street memos we have already seen how the Blair government found it "necessary to create the conditions" to make the illegal action of regime change 'legal' in Iraq. They failed by the way, it was a war of agression the "supreme war crime". (Originally published on Monday, March 10, 2003 by the Guardian/UK)
We also know that Bush and Blair discussed three possible ways of provoking a confrontation with Iraq, remember the memo revealed by the New York Times (subscription required) and reported by the BBC: "The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours...If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
We also know that they intended to mould public opinion or as Downing Street put it, according to the leaked memo in The Times: "Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action...An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence...the Islamic World and the wider international community" For information campaign read propaganda in the press, exactly what we are seeing now.
Britain is now no better than Stalinist Russia, with regard to certain media in so far as taking the government line. Note how the BBC and Guardian always take as gospel truth whatever they are told by this government. I mean look closely at the wording of certain statements, and look at the wording on all the maps published in the press, who would think that the maritime boundaries in the Shatt-al-Arab are under dispute?
As Craig Murray says: "The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too" and "the line the British government had produced has been drawn by the British government. They failed to say that and are trying to pass it off as an international boundary. So I really don't see why I should not call it fake. It is fake."
And its not the only fake. Once again the ""evidence" provided by the British government just does not stand up to scrutiny.
They show a photo of a GPS in a helicopter above a ship. NO time or date is shown, so this photo could have been taken at any time.
However, according to the BBC the photo was taken 2 days after the incident and the boat had moved since the incident, Paul Reynolds again: "The British coordinates were given as 29 50.36 North and 048 43.08 East. (Note: the reading on the photo at the top, taken from a helicopter over the ship still at anchor two days afterwards, is slightly different as the ship's captain said the anchor had dragged since the incident)."
So in fact there is no proof that the coordinates given by the MOD are correct. None. There is also no proof the ship in the photo is the same ship that was searched by the Britsh prior to their arrest. Then we have the hullabaloo about supposed mistreatment, possibe torture, etc.
Complete propagandistic bullshit. Once again no proof at all. And what if what the British female said was actually the truth? But when they are eventually released they will be made to sign the Official Secrets Act (if they haven't already done so) and told to shut up.
Why on earth should Europe help Britain, a criminal nation that launched an illegal and immoral war of aggression on Iraq and is seeking to do the same to Iran along with its American master?
The stench of the crime and corruption coming from Downing Street is insupportable. What is simply amazing is some people's (eg. Garton Ash) ability to believe pathological liars and war criminals like Blair, even when their lies have been proved in public. Either they are gullible and shouldn't be in the positions they are, or they are part of the propaganda effort in which case they are equally as criminal as our 'dear leader'.
Paul Reynolds has it exactly right on the BBC: "Britain and Iran are engaged in a propaganda battle over the 15 captured British sailors and marines" and both Paul Reynolds himself, the Guardian and Mr Garton Ash are at the forefront of British efforts.
Propaganda wars are played out in the media and we already know the servile attitude of the Guardian and the BBC towards this government. With the continued demonisation of Iran and its leaders over the last 12 months, this incident is exactly what the criminal warmongers in the UK were looking for.
In the famous Downing Street memos we have already seen how the Blair government found it "necessary to create the conditions" to make the illegal action of regime change 'legal' in Iraq. They failed by the way, it was a war of agression the "supreme war crime". (Originally published on Monday, March 10, 2003 by the Guardian/UK)
We also know that Bush and Blair discussed three possible ways of provoking a confrontation with Iraq, remember the memo revealed by the New York Times (subscription required) and reported by the BBC: "The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours...If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
We also know that they intended to mould public opinion or as Downing Street put it, according to the leaked memo in The Times: "Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action...An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence...the Islamic World and the wider international community" For information campaign read propaganda in the press, exactly what we are seeing now.
Britain is now no better than Stalinist Russia, with regard to certain media in so far as taking the government line. Note how the BBC and Guardian always take as gospel truth whatever they are told by this government. I mean look closely at the wording of certain statements, and look at the wording on all the maps published in the press, who would think that the maritime boundaries in the Shatt-al-Arab are under dispute?
As Craig Murray says: "The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too" and "the line the British government had produced has been drawn by the British government. They failed to say that and are trying to pass it off as an international boundary. So I really don't see why I should not call it fake. It is fake."
And its not the only fake. Once again the ""evidence" provided by the British government just does not stand up to scrutiny.
They show a photo of a GPS in a helicopter above a ship. NO time or date is shown, so this photo could have been taken at any time.
However, according to the BBC the photo was taken 2 days after the incident and the boat had moved since the incident, Paul Reynolds again: "The British coordinates were given as 29 50.36 North and 048 43.08 East. (Note: the reading on the photo at the top, taken from a helicopter over the ship still at anchor two days afterwards, is slightly different as the ship's captain said the anchor had dragged since the incident)."
So in fact there is no proof that the coordinates given by the MOD are correct. None. There is also no proof the ship in the photo is the same ship that was searched by the Britsh prior to their arrest. Then we have the hullabaloo about supposed mistreatment, possibe torture, etc.
Complete propagandistic bullshit. Once again no proof at all. And what if what the British female said was actually the truth? But when they are eventually released they will be made to sign the Official Secrets Act (if they haven't already done so) and told to shut up.
05 March 2007
Remember those "Austrian" sniper rifles?
On the 13 February 2007, in a story in the Daily Telegraph, Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent claimed that "Austrian sniper rifles that were exported to Iran have been discovered in the hands of Iraqi terrorists, The Daily Telegraph has learned."
Harding then went on to assert that "within 45 days of the first HS50 Steyr Mannlicher rifles arriving in Iran, an American officer in an armoured vehicle was shot dead by an Iraqi insurgent using the weapon" and that the "find is the latest in a series of discoveries that indicate that Teheran is providing support to Iraq's Shia insurgents."
Harding's argument goes that "The discovery of the sniper rifles will further encourage those in Washington who want to see Iran's uranium-enriching facilities destroyed before a nuclear weapon is produced."
Harding also claimed that "Over the last six months American forces have found small caches of the £10,000 rifles but in the last 24 hours a raid in Baghdad brought the total to more than 100, US defence sources reported." However, the previous day, there were no rifles on display when US forces presented "evidence" that weapons from Iran are being used in Iraq.
The story was picked up by the International Herald Tribune in its story also dated 13 February 2007 "Report: Austrian rifles supplied to Iran have found their way to Iraqi insurgents".
The IHT report differed somewhat from the Telegraph report in that it sought comments from the Austrian company concerned, Steyr Mannlicher GmbH : "Franz Holzschuh, Steyr's CEO, said the company had not officially been contacted by anyone to verify the serial numbers on the rifles. He said there was a possibility the weapons were reproductions and that there were "thousands" of these in circulation."
This, presumably prompted the Telegraph to follow up the story the following day: "We are not responsible for rifles, says Austria" Last Updated: 2:27am GMT 14/02/2007
"Franz Holzschuh, Steyr's chief executive, said the company had not been contacted by anyone officially to verify the serial numbers on the rifles. He said it was possibile that the weapons were copies."
Having heard nothing since then, I e-mailed the company on 28 February 2007:
"Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. Februar 2007 13:41
An: Office Betreff: Rifles in Iraq?
Dear Sir,
I read with interest the news release by your company on your website ( http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/index.php?id=248&L=1 ) in which you state "The serial numbers of the guns found in Iraq have so far not been forwarded to the producer for identification. In order to find out whether the weapons have been produced by STEYR MANNLICHER the production/serial numbers need to be checked. Only then will it be possible to clarify whether these are products originated in Austria."
I am a Blogger ( http://dailysketcher.blogspot.com/ ) and am writing a follow-up to this story. I would just like to ask your company if you have now received the serial numbers of the guns found in Iraq, and if so were they in fact produced by your company?
Thank you for taking the time to read and answer this mail.
Yours Sincerely,"
This morning, 05 March 2007 I received this response:
"
From: Reply
To: The Daily Sketch
Date: 05-mar-2007 11:46
Subject: Rifles in Iraq?
Sent by: steyr-mannlicher.com
Dear Sir,
thank you very much for your email.
At this time we does not have received any serial numbers of the
mentioned rifles.
Thank you very much in advance for your follow up story.
Best Regards,
STEYR MANNLICHER GmbH & Co KG"
Over 2 weeks later and the US have not sent the serial numbers. Does anyone else find this odd?
Harding then went on to assert that "within 45 days of the first HS50 Steyr Mannlicher rifles arriving in Iran, an American officer in an armoured vehicle was shot dead by an Iraqi insurgent using the weapon" and that the "find is the latest in a series of discoveries that indicate that Teheran is providing support to Iraq's Shia insurgents."
Harding's argument goes that "The discovery of the sniper rifles will further encourage those in Washington who want to see Iran's uranium-enriching facilities destroyed before a nuclear weapon is produced."
Harding also claimed that "Over the last six months American forces have found small caches of the £10,000 rifles but in the last 24 hours a raid in Baghdad brought the total to more than 100, US defence sources reported." However, the previous day, there were no rifles on display when US forces presented "evidence" that weapons from Iran are being used in Iraq.
The story was picked up by the International Herald Tribune in its story also dated 13 February 2007 "Report: Austrian rifles supplied to Iran have found their way to Iraqi insurgents".
The IHT report differed somewhat from the Telegraph report in that it sought comments from the Austrian company concerned, Steyr Mannlicher GmbH : "Franz Holzschuh, Steyr's CEO, said the company had not officially been contacted by anyone to verify the serial numbers on the rifles. He said there was a possibility the weapons were reproductions and that there were "thousands" of these in circulation."
This, presumably prompted the Telegraph to follow up the story the following day: "We are not responsible for rifles, says Austria" Last Updated: 2:27am GMT 14/02/2007
"Franz Holzschuh, Steyr's chief executive, said the company had not been contacted by anyone officially to verify the serial numbers on the rifles. He said it was possibile that the weapons were copies."
Having heard nothing since then, I e-mailed the company on 28 February 2007:
"Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. Februar 2007 13:41
An: Office Betreff: Rifles in Iraq?
Dear Sir,
I read with interest the news release by your company on your website ( http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/index.php?id=248&L=1 ) in which you state "The serial numbers of the guns found in Iraq have so far not been forwarded to the producer for identification. In order to find out whether the weapons have been produced by STEYR MANNLICHER the production/serial numbers need to be checked. Only then will it be possible to clarify whether these are products originated in Austria."
I am a Blogger ( http://dailysketcher.blogspot.com/ ) and am writing a follow-up to this story. I would just like to ask your company if you have now received the serial numbers of the guns found in Iraq, and if so were they in fact produced by your company?
Thank you for taking the time to read and answer this mail.
Yours Sincerely,"
This morning, 05 March 2007 I received this response:
"
From: Reply
To: The Daily Sketch
Date: 05-mar-2007 11:46
Subject: Rifles in Iraq?
Sent by: steyr-mannlicher.com
Dear Sir,
thank you very much for your email.
At this time we does not have received any serial numbers of the
mentioned rifles.
Thank you very much in advance for your follow up story.
Best Regards,
STEYR MANNLICHER GmbH & Co KG"
Over 2 weeks later and the US have not sent the serial numbers. Does anyone else find this odd?
01 March 2007
Letter to Nature re: Death toll in Iraq: survey team takes on its critics
The latest edition to Nature has an article by Jim Giles "Death toll in Iraq: survey team takes on its critics" (1 free view then subscription required).
Here is my e-mail to the Editor:
Dear Philip Campbell,
I have just read the article authored by Jim Giles in the latest edition of Nature. In it, he gives substantial space to the views of "researchers" such as "Madelyn Hicks, a psychiatrist at King's College London" and "Michael Spagat, an expert in conflict studies at Royal Holloway, University of London", who have both "published criticisms of the study's methodology". The first regarding "whether the interviews could have been done in the time stated", the latter regarding "main-street bias".
I am writing to you to ask if your publication made any checks as to why these two researchers should be so interested in challenging the Lancet figures? So interested in fact that Spagat has dedicated a whole section of the Royal Holloway Dept of Economics web page entirely to this issue and even published a research paper ("Bias in epidemiological studies of conflict mortality") on the subject. Is this purely scholarly interest? I believe not and my own research has lead me to this conclusion.
Prof. Michael Spagat (along with the co-author of his Bias 'paper - Prof. Neil Johnson) is an "academic visitor" to CERAC. Madelyn Hicks is a "research associate" for CERAC.
CERAC is the "Conflict Analysis Resource Centre, a private research organization specialized in data-intensive studies of conflict and criminal violence. Based in Bogotá, Colombia, CERAC was established in December 2004 by an international and multidisciplinary group of researchers."
CERAC is according to Spagat himself "the brainchild of my infinitely energetic and entreprenuerial PhD student, Jorge Restrepo" and Spagat further describes CERAC as "a think tank that we have set up in Bogota specializing in the analysis of conflict and violence".
CERAC has compiled its own Integrated Data Set for Iraq, the CERAC Integrated Iraq Dataset (CIID). According to Spagat et al "The CIID builds on the event description from three datasets that monitor violence in Iraq: Iraq Body Count (IBC), iCasualties and ITERATE." Prof. Mike Spagat is one of the co-authors (along with the aforementioned Prof. Neil Johnson) of the research paper called "Universal patterns underlying ongoing wars and terrorism" which uses the CIID. The Dept. of Economics at the Royal Holloway, University of London, also uses IBC in its country specific datasets.
To summarise, both Hicks and Spagat have connections to CERAC, both CERAC and Spagat's Dept. of Economics base their research on figures provided by Iraq Body Count. This leads me to believe that there is a conflict of interest here.
Iraq Body Count has been in the forefront of attacks on the Lancet study. On 16 October 2006 Iraq Body Count issued a Press Release: "Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates" by Hamit Dardagan, John Sloboda, and Josh Dougherty. In it IBC state "In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data."
On 21 October 2006, an international group of eminent epidemiologists and other Public Health researchers published a letter in the Melbourne Age in which they stated that "the study was undertaken by respected researchers assisted by one of the world's foremost biostatisticians. Its methodology is sound and its conclusions should be taken seriously."
On 23 October 2006, John Sloboda, IBC's director, sent an e-mail to many (if not all) the signatories of that letter, pointing to IBC's own attack and the further attack in Science which used the arguments put forward by Spagat, Johnson, Hicks - the CERAC group, and challenging the signatories "how, in particular, you would defend the study against these criticisms which we, and many others, believe cast serious doubt on the author's claims that the study's results can validly be extrapolated to provide a meaningful estimate for the whole of Iraq."
Why has IBC been at the forefront of attacks on the Lancet Study? One doesn't need to be a scientist to understand this. If the Lancet figures are correct, then IBC figures are quite simply a gross undercount, not surprising given the chaotic conditions in Iraq and IBC's own methodology, which relies on 'reported deaths'. Indeed, IBC states on its own web page (click on the Quick-FAQ link on the Home page) "Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war."
And the CERAC group, Hicks, Spagat, et al? They have spent a lot of time and energy producing research papers for their specific Universities and for CERAC, using IBC data. If IBC figures are wrong, and the Lancet figures are correct, then the conclusions reached in these research papers and indeed any other that used the IBC figures, could be seriously compromised.
Consequently, IBC, Spagat and Hicks all have a vested interest in seeing that the Lancet report is discredited. On 03 November 2006, I e-mailed Dr. Hicks with the same informaton and asked for her comments. I am still waiting for a reply.
Curiously, the overwhelming opinion of scientists in the field of bio-statistics support the Lancet study, yet politicians such as Bush, Blair, Howard rubbished it the day it came out, and the further criticisms have come from 'interested' quarters. The attacks on the Lancet study appear to be political, not scientific, and I would be interested to hear your comments on this matter.
Yours Sincerely,
Here is my e-mail to the Editor:
Dear Philip Campbell,
I have just read the article authored by Jim Giles in the latest edition of Nature. In it, he gives substantial space to the views of "researchers" such as "Madelyn Hicks, a psychiatrist at King's College London" and "Michael Spagat, an expert in conflict studies at Royal Holloway, University of London", who have both "published criticisms of the study's methodology". The first regarding "whether the interviews could have been done in the time stated", the latter regarding "main-street bias".
I am writing to you to ask if your publication made any checks as to why these two researchers should be so interested in challenging the Lancet figures? So interested in fact that Spagat has dedicated a whole section of the Royal Holloway Dept of Economics web page entirely to this issue and even published a research paper ("Bias in epidemiological studies of conflict mortality") on the subject. Is this purely scholarly interest? I believe not and my own research has lead me to this conclusion.
Prof. Michael Spagat (along with the co-author of his Bias 'paper - Prof. Neil Johnson) is an "academic visitor" to CERAC. Madelyn Hicks is a "research associate" for CERAC.
CERAC is the "Conflict Analysis Resource Centre, a private research organization specialized in data-intensive studies of conflict and criminal violence. Based in Bogotá, Colombia, CERAC was established in December 2004 by an international and multidisciplinary group of researchers."
CERAC is according to Spagat himself "the brainchild of my infinitely energetic and entreprenuerial PhD student, Jorge Restrepo" and Spagat further describes CERAC as "a think tank that we have set up in Bogota specializing in the analysis of conflict and violence".
CERAC has compiled its own Integrated Data Set for Iraq, the CERAC Integrated Iraq Dataset (CIID). According to Spagat et al "The CIID builds on the event description from three datasets that monitor violence in Iraq: Iraq Body Count (IBC), iCasualties and ITERATE." Prof. Mike Spagat is one of the co-authors (along with the aforementioned Prof. Neil Johnson) of the research paper called "Universal patterns underlying ongoing wars and terrorism" which uses the CIID. The Dept. of Economics at the Royal Holloway, University of London, also uses IBC in its country specific datasets.
To summarise, both Hicks and Spagat have connections to CERAC, both CERAC and Spagat's Dept. of Economics base their research on figures provided by Iraq Body Count. This leads me to believe that there is a conflict of interest here.
Iraq Body Count has been in the forefront of attacks on the Lancet study. On 16 October 2006 Iraq Body Count issued a Press Release: "Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates" by Hamit Dardagan, John Sloboda, and Josh Dougherty. In it IBC state "In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data."
On 21 October 2006, an international group of eminent epidemiologists and other Public Health researchers published a letter in the Melbourne Age in which they stated that "the study was undertaken by respected researchers assisted by one of the world's foremost biostatisticians. Its methodology is sound and its conclusions should be taken seriously."
On 23 October 2006, John Sloboda, IBC's director, sent an e-mail to many (if not all) the signatories of that letter, pointing to IBC's own attack and the further attack in Science which used the arguments put forward by Spagat, Johnson, Hicks - the CERAC group, and challenging the signatories "how, in particular, you would defend the study against these criticisms which we, and many others, believe cast serious doubt on the author's claims that the study's results can validly be extrapolated to provide a meaningful estimate for the whole of Iraq."
Why has IBC been at the forefront of attacks on the Lancet Study? One doesn't need to be a scientist to understand this. If the Lancet figures are correct, then IBC figures are quite simply a gross undercount, not surprising given the chaotic conditions in Iraq and IBC's own methodology, which relies on 'reported deaths'. Indeed, IBC states on its own web page (click on the Quick-FAQ link on the Home page) "Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war."
And the CERAC group, Hicks, Spagat, et al? They have spent a lot of time and energy producing research papers for their specific Universities and for CERAC, using IBC data. If IBC figures are wrong, and the Lancet figures are correct, then the conclusions reached in these research papers and indeed any other that used the IBC figures, could be seriously compromised.
Consequently, IBC, Spagat and Hicks all have a vested interest in seeing that the Lancet report is discredited. On 03 November 2006, I e-mailed Dr. Hicks with the same informaton and asked for her comments. I am still waiting for a reply.
Curiously, the overwhelming opinion of scientists in the field of bio-statistics support the Lancet study, yet politicians such as Bush, Blair, Howard rubbished it the day it came out, and the further criticisms have come from 'interested' quarters. The attacks on the Lancet study appear to be political, not scientific, and I would be interested to hear your comments on this matter.
Yours Sincerely,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)